Rob Oliphant

[Petitions, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present 10 petitions from Canadians.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to make changes to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. These changes will help to protect the rights of all Canadian employees and to ensure that employees receiving pensions or long-term disability benefits laid off by a company undergoing bankruptcy proceedings will obtain preferred creditor status over other unsecured creditors.

[Petitions, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a number of petitions.

The first petition calls for the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare. This petition, signed by a number of Ontario residents, acknowledges that animals often feel pain and suffer. It also acknowledges the significant role animals play in our lives. This effort would help prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering.

[Canadian Northwest Passage, November 25th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as a proud Canadian and as a former proud northerner, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 387 moved by the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings. I read with interest the speech that he gave to introduce the motion on October 5 as well as the speeches of other members in the House. I hope that I can add to the debate. I want to stress that I am not sure that there is all-party agreement for the motion at this time.

Let me state from the outset that the issue of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, at least a portion of the Arctic region that is undeniably Canadian territory, is not in question in this debate. All parties in the House recognize Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic. However, what we do with this sovereignty and what that sovereignty means are not universal in the House. While we may all recognize Canada's sovereignty, we apparently do not all equally recognize the responsibility that comes with that sovereignty. That responsibility means taking seriously the concerns, aspirations, dignity and responsibilities of the people of the north.

The motion, even in its proposed amended version, does not fully do this. It does not fully take into consideration the outcry of the people closest to the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage. Many of them have been deeply offended not only by the proposed renaming of the passage, but by the government's lack of consultation with the Inuit people on this issue and others.

This lack of consultation, this cultural insensitivity boldly reminds us that the Conservative government's northern strategy is seriously flawed and is certainly not a northern vision. It is a strategy based on southern principles and southern methods with little regard to the reality of the Canadian north as we know it. We repeatedly hear that the government has placed the Arctic on its list of priorities, having developed a so-called strategy designed to protect the environment, to promote economic and social development, to exercise sovereignty and to improve and devolve governance.

These are noble goals and I would like to heartily applaud them, but the government's true understanding of the north is sadly revealed in the remarks of the member for Prince Edward—Hastings when he introduced the motion. While he waxed eloquent about sovereignty issues, and I will say it was an admirable speech worthy of a PMO speech writer, he mentioned the people of Canada's north but once.

One can read his remarks over and over again, but will find no mention of Inuit organizations, their cultural aspirations, or their right to self-determination. Not once is there mention of the duly elected government of Nunavut, or for that matter, the Northwest Territories or Yukon which also have an interest in this issue. Not once is there mention of the right and responsibility of the Inuit to chart their own course and map their own destiny, even literally, using the names that they have used from generation to generation.

Ten years ago we celebrated the establishment of Nunavut as the third Canadian northern territory. I was living in Yukon at the time. I was deeply touched by the wisdom and the hope that were equally bound up in the decision to create a territory in which the majority of Inuit people would become masters of their own destiny. It was a proud day for all Canadians when we turned to the Inuit people and all the residents of the eastern Arctic to take responsibility for the land we now know as Nunavut. In case some hon. members do not know, Nunavut means “the land”, but frankly, that also includes the waters and the waterways of the territory.

While I lived in Yukon for six years and have travelled many times to the western Arctic, my first visit to Nunavut was just a few weeks ago. Landing on Baffin Island was a never-to-be-forgotten moment for me. The quality of light and the quality and beauty of the land is surpassed only by the quality of the welcome I received and the beauty of the people, but we cannot romanticize that. The problems of Canada's newest territory are real and daunting. The recent report card on the territory highlighted a number of significant social problems, cultural challenges and serious environmental concerns. The first way to help Nunavut in its ambitious agenda is to respect its residents' ability to govern themselves and to be a full partner in Confederation.

If the goal of the government is to truly improve and devolve governance to the people of the north, then surely that means consulting with them and respecting them in the naming of their significant places, and not as a parenthesis, not as an add-on, but as an integral part of what we do.

The government is well aware of the people of the north when it wants to promote a sovereignty agenda abroad. It regularly publicizes a Canadian human presence in the north as a way to appear to be sovereign. The government has no difficulty whatsoever in using people for sovereignty. What it is failing to do is use sovereignty for people.

National Inuit leader Mary Simon recently commented, “Ultimately, sovereignty begins at home. Sovereignty is apparent and implemented with healthy communities, not just military hardware. It involves establishing constructive partnerships with Inuit. Canada's position cannot be detached from full appreciation and respect for the rights, interests, and priorities of Inuit”.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier makes the point that Inuit who are connected to the values, principles, traditions and wisdom of their traditional culture are best equipped to meet the challenges faced in and by the north and this important insight should be reflected in our public policies and programs toward the Arctic. That includes giving them the power and the respect to name places that are significant and important to them.

More consultation, more respect, more dignity needs to be afforded to the Inuit people before we hastily make decisions about naming important places in their past, in their present and in their future. It is not good enough to give them a second name. It is not good enough to consider them after the fact. It is not good enough to have ignored their desires, wisdom, hopes and aspirations.

Inuit are not a second thought in this chamber. Inuit are one of the first peoples of this country. Canada is bigger than that and Canada is better than that.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 19th, 2009]

With regard to Canadians diagnosed with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): (a) given that the Statistics Canada Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) showed a more than 60% increase in Canadians diagnosed with ME/CFS between 2001 and 2005, (i) what, if any, funding has been allocated to research this illness in the last four years, (ii) how does the government propose to encourage Canadian research into ME/CFS so that the level of research into this complex, multi-system illness is commensurate with its extent and impact, (iii) what is the government doing to develop strategies and programs to meet the needs of Canadians with ME/CFS; (b) how is the government ensuring that health professionals are aware of the following documents, (i) the Canadian Consensus Document for ME/CFS (ME/CFS: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical Practitioners) developed by an expert panel selected by Health Canada, so that this illness can be diagnosed consistently and accurately, (ii) the Canadian Consensus Document for Fibromyalgia (Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical Practitioners), also developed by an expert panel, so that these illnesses can be appropriately and differentially diagnosed; (c) when will the government perform the following tasks in relation to the Consensus Document for ME/CFS posted on the Public Health Agency of Canada’s website, (i) improve the location of the document on the website in order to facilitate location of this document, (ii) post the French version of this document; (d) why is the Fibromyalgia Consensus Document not posted as a guideline on the Public Health Agency of Canada’s website; (e) what steps is the government taking to ensure that health professionals, patients, and the public have access to science-based, authoritative and timely information on ME/CFS; (f) how soon will the government post other information related to ME/CFS on government websites; (g) what is the government doing to ensure access to ME/CFS knowledgeable physicians and appropriate health care on a timely basis and how is the government working with the provinces, territories, professional organizations, educational institutions and other stakeholders to meet these needs; (h) how is the government working with stakeholders to deal with other needs of Canadians with ME/CFS shown by the 2005 CCHS including, (i) reducing the levels of unmet home care needs, (ii) reducing the levels of food insecurity, (iii) increasing the sense of community belonging experienced by Canadians with this condition; (i) how will the surveillance report on ME/CFS, prepared from analysis of data collected from the 2005 CCHS, be used to improve the situation for Canadians with ME/CFS; and (j) how will the government monitor the extent and impact of ME/CFS and these other conditions on an annual basis given that questions regarding ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities were dropped from the CCHS after 2005?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 17th, 2009]

Concerning the Akwesasne Mohawk border dispute: (a) what discussions, if any, were held about alternatives for a solution to the Akwesasne border dispute; (b) what negotiations, if any, were held with the United States about relocating the Canadian border post to American soil, similar to the current agreement to allow U.S. Customs to operate inside some major Canadian airports; (c) what is the anticipated cost of relocating the border post to its new location; (d) what is the assessed cost to cross-border trade during the closure of the Cornwall Island border crossing; and (e) what is the assessed cost to tourism during the closure of the Cornwall Island border crossing?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 17th, 2009]

With regard to the government’s Economic Action Plan, for each announcement in the electoral district of Don Valley West: (a) what was (i) the date of announcement, (ii) the amount of stimulus spending announced, (iii) the department which announced it; and (b) was there a public event associated with the announcement and, if so, what was the cost of that event and which elected officials, if any, were invited to appear?

[Veterans Affairs, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Veterans Ombudsman said that this charter would create a great deal of confusion and discontent, particularly among those suffering from operational stress injury. More and more people are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

What is the minister doing to ensure that modern care is being provided to armed forces personnel suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder?

[Veterans Affairs, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the New Veterans Charter was adopted unanimously in 2005. It renewed this country's commitment to Canadian Forces members, veterans, and their families.

The government has had four years to implement the charter, yet last week the Royal Canadian Legion said:

It is...becoming evident that critically...wounded veterans may not be provided adequate financial security under the New Veterans Charter.

If the problem is not the charter, when is the government going to implement it and why is it failing at it?

[Veterans' Week, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and deeply humbled to rise on behalf of the entire Liberal caucus in joining with colleagues in all parties this afternoon to honour the service and the sacrifice of Canadian veterans and, particularly, to remember more than 100,000 members of the Canadian armed forces who have given their very lives in the pursuit of peace, freedom and democracy at home and abroad.

I am even more deeply humbled to be surrounded by them this afternoon in the very presence of those representatives of the armed services and the veterans above me in the gallery. Even though I cannot see them right now, I appreciate their presence and ask for their grace and patience as I try to pay tribute.

Over the next week, in villages and cities, in places of worship, places of honour, in public squares and at the bedsides in veterans' care facilities, Canadians will pause to reflect and remember. And on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, we will still ourselves for two minutes to bring to mind and to heart the passion, the courage and the hopes of those who died in service to our nation.

This week we will bear boldly the flame of gratitude and remembrance.

We are a nation proud of being forward-thinking, a forward-looking nation, an optimistic people committed to building a better country and a better world. This week, however, as we do each year around this time, we shall take a moment to stop and contemplate our past to recall the throes of war, and to remember with sad hearts the loved ones who are departed and the families torn apart. We will also reaffirm our commitment to their efforts in shaping a world of peace and equity.

As we do that, we will feel humility. We will feel gratitude. We will feel pride.

It is my hope that this week we will recall in our souls the tireless pursuit of a world free from tyranny and terror that has been the call to action and the call to arms of members of the Canadian Forces for generations.

It is my hope this week that we will reclaim in our hearts the spirit of this nation, its care for the most vulnerable, its commitment to civil and human rights, its protection of minorities and its commitment to democracy and freedom, those things that have shaped every one of our wartime efforts.

Most of all, it is my hope this week that we will remember, at the core of our being, the spirit of those soldiers, peacemakers and peacekeepers who lost or risked their lives in the trenches and fields of the first world war, on the bloodstained beaches and in the fields of the second world war, over the mountains, through the swamps and across the rice paddies of the Korean War, and now in the city streets and the vast deserts of Afghanistan, even as we speak today.

To remember the wars of the 20th century is not an easy task for two reasons.

Quite simply, the experiences of war are painful to convey and difficult to share. It grates against the grain of our culture to call to mind the tragedies of war and the magnitude of death. The numbers stagger. Canada sent 620,000 soldiers to fight in World War I, 66,000 were killed. Over one million Canadians fought in World War II, 45,000 did not return. It is hard to come to terms with over 100,000 lives cut short, over 100,000 stories left unfinished, over 100,000 families truncated, over 100,000 dreams trampled upon.

There is a natural human response to want to shield ourselves from the reality of this sacrifice. But even if we are willing, our capacity is dangerously threatened.

With each Remembrance Day, the veterans who gather around memorials to lay wreaths and share their stories with family and friends grow a little older and fewer. Those who saw combat are now having a hard time feeding the flame of remembrance alone.

For Canada's younger generations, the World War II and Korean War veterans' memories are ancient history. With each year that goes by, our nation is remembering less vividly the conflicts that have marked the previous century.

But remember we must. To bear the flame of remembrance is simply not enough. We must continue to feed the flame of remembrance as well.

We feed the flame of remembrance by our yearly naming of those who have given their lives, keeping our promise to those who have died in our service. We take time and make space to ensure that they are remembered as men and women, as flesh and blood, not mere statistics in corporate memory. From Harry B. Little, who died at the age of 26 on August 14, 1914, to Sapper Steven Marshall from Calgary, Alberta, who, at 24, was killed in Afghanistan on October 30 of this year. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

We feed the flame of remembrance also by telling and retelling stories of the human side of war, keeping our promise to those who have served faithfully. We support the Memory Project of the Historica-Dominion Institute, connecting veterans and students online and in classrooms across the country by the sharing of personal stories with youth.

So far, these veterans have managed to touch more than 300,000 young people with their stories of courage and passion.

We feed the flame of remembrance by caring for our veterans and their spouses with dignity, compassion and economic security.

We honour the new Veterans Charter, an alliance between this country and those who served in the armed forces.

We thank the Royal Canadian Legion and ANAVETS units across the country that not only keep this memory alive, but provide social, cultural and individual support for Canadian veterans.

Finally, we feed the flame of remembrance by honouring those who wear the uniform today, ensuring that we equip them appropriately, keep them safe and preserve their health.

These brave women and men put their lives on the line every day for a better world.

Our solemn responsibility is to protect them and when they come home, to ensure their physical, emotional, spiritual and mental health. Sometime next week, we will remove the poppies from their place of honour over our hearts, but let us never remove our commitment to feeding the flame of remembrance. Let us keep the faith. Let us keep hope.

[Teaching Excellence, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Ava Gomes, an early childhood educator in the Blue Wave Child Care Centre in Don Valley West. Ms. Gomes is a recipient of the Prime Minister's award for teaching excellence and excellence in early childhood education.

Ava goes beyond her regular duties to provide one-on-one attention to children. She participates with them in their extra activities, sends home creative projects and motivates her students through skits, props and music.

A parent of one of her students said it best:

Every day Ava builds [my daughter's] confidence, fosters her independence, makes her feel special. Like Ava, her classroom is warm and inviting.... Every morning [my daughter] wakes up excited and inspired to learn.

This award recognizes not only Ms. Gomes but also the importance of early childhood education. Liberals recognize this point very well. That is why any future Liberal government will be committed to a national child care program.

I congratulate Ava on this tremendous achievement and for inspiring students at the most critical moment of their lives.