Rodger Cuzner

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I see nothing here pre-empting the government. I prefaced my comments to the parliamentary secretary with regard to the fiscal situation the federal Liberal government found itself in through the mid-1990s. It was a financial disaster and tough cuts had to be made.

Canadians were told that once we made the cuts we should be able to balance the books, pay down some debt, and reinvest in some social programs that were important to Canadians. That strategy taken in the mid-1990s is paying off. We saw it just recently with $13 billion of surplus handed to the government, the best set of books that have been handed from an outgoing government to an incoming government. However, that money, instead of being reinvested in Canadians, in our veterans and social programs, was placed on the debt.

I am all for debt retirement, for attacking the debt and the burden that the debt places on our books, but that should not pre-empt us from investing in Canadians. The motion today talks about reinvesting in the veterans who have served the country. I do not think that pre-empts the government from stepping up and doing what it promised in the last election, immediately extending the VIP to all veterans and veterans' widows.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as theparliamentary secretary said, cuts were made in 1995 in a number of different veterans programs and not just exclusively to veterans but on a broad range.

I will give a short history lesson. They were made for financial responsibility. We had to right this financial house. The country was off the rails with spending. There was $48 billion more each year being spent than was brought into the federal coffers. Cuts were made in health care, defence and transportation. Every aspect of what we were doing as a federal government were cut and Canadians sacrificed. Yes, Canadian veterans also sacrificed.

However, what the member will understand was that the men who fought and died for this country would have been embarrassed with the way that the country was being run, on a credit card. They know that tough decisions had to be made and tough decisions were made in 1995, but once that financial house was righted, once the ship was righted, then investments were made back into health care. The money was put back into the VIP. We went back to the original 1981 date and money was put back into the budget. We continued to make those investments in those types of programs.

Tough decisions were made. I think our veterans would understand and would applaud a government for taking a tough and principled stand, and making those reinvestments when the time was proper.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and join in this very important debate. It is a very timely debate as we quickly approach Veterans' Week here in Canada.

I am going to take a bit of a risk at first and share a quote with the House, not a Canadian quote but a quote from a past U.S. president. The reason I use it is more for the fact that it frames the debate we are having today. It was George Washington who said that a nation will be measured by how in fact that nation shows honour and respect for its war veterans. I think that is what today's debate is about. It is about respect for those who have served the country, those who have answered the call. We enter into that debate today.

As well, I want to recognize my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore and the work that he has done with veterans over a number of years and certainly throughout his time here in the House. I listened with great interest to his presentation to the House earlier when he presented the motion and I fully recognize the emotion expressed during his remarks.

My colleague from Sydney—Victoria is another member of this House who stands on a very similar piece of real estate, whose parents also came from Holland in very similar circumstances, so I know that story very well. As Canadians, many of us understand the sacrifice and understand what a tremendous country we live in, but for those who were impacted, who started their lives here and were provided with opportunity in this great country as a result of Canadian Forces sacrificing so much on foreign soil, it even goes deeper into the understanding of those who have actually lived with it and whose parents have been the benefactors of those actions.

I think the House is united on one thing and that is respect for all veterans and all those who served our country. Last year here in this House, the former minister of defence, in his comments prior to Remembrance Day services, was very poignant in reflecting on the passing of Ernest “Smokey” Smith, Canada's last Victoria Cross recipient. It was very emotional and it was a very important and significant benchmark for veterans in this country. What was identified there certainly came home to me. In my hometown of Glace Bay, we had a Victoria Cross recipient as well, John Bernard Croak. Our Legion in Glace Bay carries the name of John Bernard Croak .

In his comments to the chamber, the former minister spoke about the common thread of “service and heroism” shared by each and every member who steps forward to represent their country and to serve in the Canadian Forces. They share that common thread, and I think each of us here in this chamber can identify those veterans in our communities who, as young people, probably went through the same emotions as Smokey Smith and John Bernard Croak and other heroes. As for what motivated them to answer that call, I think that thread runs through each and every community and every municipality in this country.

The great Canadian tradition of service and heroism continues to be emulated by many young soldiers, the young men and women who continue to serve in our armed forces. There is an inordinate number of people from eastern Canada and the Atlantic provinces who answer that call. We have a disproportionate number of Atlantic Canadians who enlist in the Canadian Forces. I think it goes well beyond economic need. I think it is a true sense of duty, a true sense of wanting to serve this great nation. Certainly Canadians from the Atlantic provinces respond very willingly.

If any member were to read any management book or any coaching book, it would be recognized that what is a prime motivator is neither fame nor fortune. It is not money. It is respect. This is what Bill C-221 is about. That is what today's motion is about. It is about respect. It is about respect for our veterans who have served this great nation.

The NDP motion itself is so broad and far-reaching that we could have a day of debate on each aspect of the motion. A number of these aspects are very complex and impact on other issues. The pension issues are very involved and complex.

However, I was buoyed by my conversations with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore in that the intent of the motion today is to make sure that these issues are brought forward and put in front of the government for further study, and to make sure that if recommendations are made, they are acted on. It is important that the issues do not die, do not slip onto the back burner. The issues raised in the motion are important to our veterans and to Canadians. Through this motion and the debate in the House today, these issues will be brought forward.

I want to look at each aspect of the motion. I will jump the queue and look at the second point first because it is an issue that is close and personal to me in light of the fact that a champion of the veterans independence program is a constituent of mine. Many members of the House know Joyce Carter's name. I have spoken of Joyce's work and her commitment to the extension of VIP benefits to many Canadians.

As the member said, what we want to see when our veterans retire and get on in years is that they are able to live their lives in comfort and dignity. That really is the essence of the veterans independence program. It allows for some aspects of home care and maintenance, some transportation needs, nutritional services and health support services. Those are the aspects of the VIP that are essential to our veterans.

During the last election campaign, the current Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, went on record to say--and it was part of the Conservative campaign platform--that the veterans independence program would be extended to all veterans of all wars, to Korean veterans, and their spouses, and that there would be a full and immediate extension to cover all these veterans. I want to quote that letter to make sure that it is on the record.

Here is what the Prime Minister said in a piece of correspondence that went to Joyce Carter, this lady from St. Peters in my constituency:

--a Conservative government would immediately--

Let me repeat those words so that all members know:

--a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the veteran died....

That is in writing. That letter was received by Joyce Carter from the member's office. This is something that we had in testimony the other day from veterans from the Korean war. They are advocating this. The Canadian Legion is advocating this. Certainly this is something that we would hope the government will move on. We hope the government will honour its commitment to those veterans. The government extended the promise and put forward the promise and we would hope that the government will do this and do it immediately.

The second aspect would be to amend section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act so that the second spouses of Canadian Forces members and veterans have access to pension rights upon the death of Canadian Forces members or veterans.

This is typically referred to as the “gold diggers clause”. Certainly, it is one that has been discussed on a number of occasions. In past governments, concerns were raised about it. However, I think we are being somewhat hypocritical if we do not support this provision in the motion because MPs or other civil servants are not treated the same as the veterans in this particular situation. We have to weigh that into our decision and ensure that we discuss this important aspect.

An important other aspect to this particular issue, as well, is that it does not affect a whole lot of people. According to DND records, there are only about 141 retirees who have made the choice to remarry and reduce their own monthly pensions so that their spouses can get survivor allowances. So, it is not a great deal of money to the treasury, but it seems to be a great injustice.

I know some throw around the Anna Nicole Smith aspect and ask about what happens if a 92-year-old veteran marries an 18-year-old and we have to pay. All the more power to him if a 92-year-old veteran can marry an 18-year-old; he has something going for him. However, I do not think we can dismiss this aspect of the motion by citing those types of examples. This motion will allow it to come back to committee, so that this can be discussed and we can hang realistic numbers off it and then make the decision from there.

As things change in the military and as the demands on our military change, over the last number of years especially, we are seeing a greater responsibility and a different type of forces. However, in this particular case, when we are looking at the change warranted through this motion, I want to bring to the attention of members a court case that is being waged by Reg Warkentin and his lawyer David Baker. They are arguing that the provision contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, this was being pursued under the court challenges program. We know that the court challenges program was just cut and taken away in the last round of cuts made by this government, so probably this court challenge will die, which is truly unfortunate. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of this motion. Hopefully, each member, when they come to vote on this motion, will entertain this somewhat of an injustice.

I want to go on record with regard to the fifth portion of the motion which deals with the elimination of the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled Canadian Forces members and the clawback. We would need a roomful of actuaries and pension specialists. We can try to boil it down into some simplistic terms, but I do not think it is that simplistic.

We have been understanding for a number of years now that there is an integration between the two programs, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the CPP, and in fact there is not a clawback.

Hopefully, this will come out over the course of the debate today to indicate to me why that is not so. I recognize that there is a difference. It appears in some cases that the benefit of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act combined with the CPP benefit is slightly less than the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act benefit for the veteran after he became eligible for CPP. Hopefully, that will come out in the debate today.

There are aspects of this motion that make a great deal of sense. I know that we are united in the House in our support for veterans, and what we should be doing and what we can be doing. I know the parliamentary secretary has long been a hard-working and passionate advocate for veterans issues.

Hopefully, in supporting the motion this will further enable a committee and the government to take greater strides, and provide greater support for our veterans and certainly give them the respect and support that they so greatly warrant.

[Veterans Affairs, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is still no compensation for 150,000 victims of agent orange. Veterans continue to express concern that the minister's department will only award disability pensions to those exposed to agent orange during seven days between 1966 and 1967.

Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs commit today that he will deliver on the Prime Minister's election promise for a full and fair compensation package, that is, disability pensions for all veterans and civilians impacted by almost 30 years of chemical spraying in Gagetown?

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to put words in the mouth of the Minister of Fisheries. He is quite capable of answering for himself. I am sure there are many questions surrounding custodial management that will be posed to him as things go forward on that particular file.

I do not want to sound like an infomercial for the fisheries and oceans committee, but if people were to talk to members on that committee they would say that a great number of people have made a contribution to the committee over the years. We will be in transit soon. The committee is heading to Gander and parts north next week, as a matter of fact, to speak to seal harvesters. We are travelling to Yarmouth and other parts of Nova Scotia to talk about the whole issue of boat stabilization, something that is very important to the fishery and to the professional harvesters who ply their trade and raise their families on the fruits of the sea.

So yes, I think we have made a number of great contributions to many issues, but this one should be an easy one. This should be a no-brainer. We should be able to get this one done. It has been discussed. It has already been supported. It has been established. Whether this was an oversight or whatever the rationale is, the fact is that it should take effect immediately as we go forward with the study on the overall national fees for marine services.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker. This case has been made in the House before. It is unfortunate that it has not been acted upon, but when it did come forward we were very much aware of it. A friendly amendment was put forward by one of our colleagues on the committee. As I referenced earlier, it is a very collegial committee and I believe we work toward the greater good in most cases.

We understand fully that there is an initiative going forward. The future approach to marine services fees is going forward, but this is something that was dealt with already. It should have been enacted in 1997. It was established in 1997. As we go forward with the future fees and what we do with the rest of the national template, that is one thing, but let us get this off the books today. Let us support the motion and make sure that the exemption is started today, immediately.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate today, although I feel like I am interrupting the glorious embrace that is taking place between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his parliamentary secretary.

This specific issue has been dealt with and debated in the past. When it was laid down in 1997 we thought it had been dealt with and had disappeared for a while, but when it was not enacted, it appeared before us again. That is the purpose of the motion brought forward today by my colleague in the NDP. That is why we stand in debate.

It is great to see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the House today. He appeared before committee just two weeks ago. I thought we had a frank and fulsome debate on a number of different issues in questioning the minister. It was interesting. Whether he has changed his eyewear over the last number of months, I do not know, but he seems to be seeing things a little bit differently now that he has assumed the reins of that department. Maybe he has a somewhat greater insight now or a different perspective on a number of issues within the department, in seeing that it is a ship that takes a great deal of energy and effort to turn around.

Being a long-serving member of that committee, he knows that there is one thing he can count on and that is the support of the committee in bringing forward strong recommendations. For the most part, I have had the great pleasure to work on that committee since coming to this House almost six years ago. What I have always enjoyed about that committee is that there is a great degree of support, of collegiality and of working in cooperation with all parties to come out with a greater public good, with recommendations on whatever the issue might be that will better enhance the day to day lives of those who harvest the sea or those who work in the sea. There have been a great number of those recommendations over the last number of years.

I think of the MCTS report that we put forward. I look at the work that has been done on small craft harbours and the recommendations that have come forward from the committee. I look at unanimous reports that have come forward through the committee. We are currently working on a strong, all party recommendation in support of the seal hunt, in support of Canadians who draw their livelihood from the seal harvest, and we will stand together shoulder to shoulder and make those recommendations. Hopefully the minister will exercise his wisdom and leadership and respond to those particular recommendations that come forward from the committee.

I have just had the opportunity to speak with the minister on one issue that we have seen a great deal of progress on and which was brought forward in my own back yard. It was the issue of munitions, at sea munitions and the post-war dumping of those munitions. There was a strong recommendation from the fisheries and oceans committee. It has been acted on. The last number of years have shown great progress on that issue.

When this particular issue came forward, it was one during that had not been discussed during my tenure at the fisheries and oceans committee. Certainly, though, when we looked a little deeper, we asked why in the heck it was not moved on. Why has action not been taken on this since it was first discussed and passed in 1997?

We had brief discussions in a past committee meeting. As well, I have been very thankful for the work that was done by my colleague from Nunavut, my colleague from Yukon and, as was mentioned in the House earlier, Senator Willie Adams, who has been a strong advocate of this issue. They have been able to inform our caucus, and certainly a broader swath than that, of the impact of the issue on communities in the north. I want to thank them today.

What I see is that this is another opportunity for the committee to do something good for the people of Canada, but more particularly the people north of 60, because these are the people on whom its impacts are greatest. Let us look at the cost of living in northern communities. I think all members of the House are very much aware of the cost of living in northern communities. These fees do have an impact on those who buy the goods, who buy the groceries and the Ski-Doos, as was indicated earlier, or any services. These fees do have an impact, because they deal with pretty much the sole source of resupply for those north of 60. They have a tremendous impact.

As the parliamentary secretary alluded to, the costs of navigational aids and the placement of navigational aids have come down tremendously over the last number of years. If we think back to years ago, our coastlines were dotted with manned lighthouses and there was a tremendous cost to the national treasury in trying to support them. Investments have been made in technology and we have come a long way. With the evolution of navigational aids, the costs of navigation in the country now have come down considerably.

When we are still charging what was being charged back in the mid-1990s and probably prior to that, and with navigational aids costs coming down, maybe that alone is enough of a basis or a rationale to identify that this is the time to make sure we go forward on this.

Already a couple of members have spoken on this topic today. They talked about the impact on the average Canadian who is living north of 60. Whether or not this particular fee is stifling or suffocating to development in the north, we obviously see it as at least a burden. It is not a huge cost to the treasury, but I believe there is a benefit that can be yielded for so many people in the north. We certainly hope that the government sees the merit in this and can support it.

Speaking from our party's perspective, we certainly do not see this as a magic formula. There is so much more that has to be invested in the north and there are so many other issues that impact on the north, but we see this as one small thing that we believe should be acted on. The fee exemption was established in 1997 but never acted on and we think that now is the time. For the benefit of all those living north of 60, this party will be supporting the motion.

[Fisheries, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks tensions have been growing between the Chapel Island First Nations Band and the Richmond Country Inshore Fishermen's Association in my riding.

Disputed information on the extent of the fishery being conducted by the band and whether any illegal activity is taking place has caused concern in these communities. However, comments, such as those made by the Prime Minister recently in the Calgary Herald, have only served to further divide these two communities.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans distance himself from the Prime Minister's inflammatory comments and work with both communities to ensure a lawful and orderly fishery is held in this region?

[October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the answer that war widows wanted and that is not the answer that war widows deserve.

This week, in the veterans affairs committee, Mr. Jack Fost, the Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion, while giving testimony on the development of an ombudsman office for matters of Veterans Affairs, felt that this was such a pertinent and relevant issue that he wanted to articulate the legion's position on this. In his opening remarks he called for the extension of the benefits to all pre-1981 veterans and war widows.

My plea again is for the Prime Minister to call upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs to extend the benefits to all war veterans and war widows.

[October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House on June 9 and I directed a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to whether or not the minister was going to honour a promise that was made by the Prime Minister . I did this on behalf of a constituent of mine, Joyce Carter from St. Peters, Cape Breton Island. Joyce is a war bride. She is the widow of a second world war veteran. She has long been a champion for many issues regarding veterans and veterans' widows.

The issue she wanted me to bring forward was a letter that she had received from the member for Calgary Southwest, who at that time was the leader of the official opposition. The letter was written just prior to the 2006 election.

I should quote from the letter directly because we know that that former leader of the official opposition is now the Prime Minister . He said, “A Conservative government would immediately”, and I will repeat that for the members in the chamber and the people at home who want to make sure that this is concise. He said that a Conservative government “would immediately extend veterans independence program services to the widows of all second world war and Korean war veterans, regardless of when the veteran died”.

Members in this House are very much aware of the veterans independence program. They understand that the services, such as the home care services and grounds maintenance services, are very much appreciated and important services so that the veterans who did so much for us are able to stay in their homes and live in some degree of dignity.

That is the reason I posed the question to the minister on June 9 as to when he would honour that promise made by the Prime Minister and immediately extend the benefits to all war widows.

I was very surprised myself with the response from the minister at the time because really he was taken aback. I believe he was not aware of the promise at all. I believe his subsequent comments in the media indicate that. Under testimony when he appeared before the veterans affairs committee, it seemed that it was the first time he had heard of it.

As a matter of fact, when pressed with regard to immediately extending the benefits, the minister said, “Maybe we can do it in a piecemeal fashion, if you will”. Certainly a piecemeal fashion would not be anything like immediately, as promised by the Prime Minister .

When will the veterans affairs minister honour the promise made by the Prime Minister and extend VIP coverage to all war veterans and all veterans' widows, as was promised?