2014-05-16

Government Orders
Veterans Hiring ActHon. Shelly Glover:  moved that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to our government's proposed measure that would help veterans move to the front of the line when it comes to hiring qualified Canadians for federal service jobs. These changes demonstrate our steadfast commitment to support those who have served and continue to serve our great nation. Since elected in 2006, we have ensured that our men and women in uniform, past and present, receive the support and recognition they deserve for their service and their sacrifice.
The issue we are debating today builds on our ongoing efforts to be there for those who have always been there for Canada. It is clear that support for our veterans is a priority for this government. That is why we have invested almost $5 billion in new funding to enhance veterans' benefits, programs, and services.
Our most recent economic action plan goes even further on our record of achievement by committing an addition $108.2 million over the next three years to ensure modern-day veterans of modest means have access to a dignified funeral and burial. To ensure our veterans have quick and easy access to the benefits and services they need, our 2014 budget also allocates $2.1 million to enhance our ability to serve veterans online.
As well, we committed to commemorate our brave men and women who served in Canada's mission in Afghanistan, which we proudly delivered with a National Day of Honour on May 9. In doing so, Canadians came together to recognize the historic significance of this military engagement and the enormous personal sacrifices made by thousands of Canadian Armed Forces personnel, dedicated public servants, and civilians.
These changes are necessary to ensure our veterans have the support they need as they transition to civilian life. Beginning a new, meaningful career plays an important role in that successful transition. Our government understands that, which is why we have introduced these measures that give priority hiring and new employment opportunities in the federal public service to Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans. We understand that one of the ways we can meet our shared responsibility is by providing veterans with meaningful new careers and employment opportunities when their military service is over. This initiative builds on our commitment to provide the tools and assistance Canada's men and women in uniform, past and present, need and deserve.
For this, I commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs, just as I commend him for his dedication to ensuring the new veterans charter adequately supports veterans and their families. The minister's call for a comprehensive review of the new veterans charter is sending a clear message to Canada's veterans and their families that we are committed to doing everything we can for them.
By asking the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to cast the widest net possible in its review of the new veterans charter, the minister is leaving no stone unturned to ensure those who serve our country have the care and support they need when they need it.
Equally important, the minister asked that this same parliamentary committee to recommend how we, as a government, can best state our commitment to veterans and future veterans, and I want to thank him for doing so. Quite frankly, these measures go to the very heart of our government's efforts on behalf of veterans, still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and their families. 
On the one hand, we are delivering real action by making sure our programming continues to evolve with the diverse and complex needs of Canada's veterans and their families.
At the same time, we recognize the importance of demonstrating our nation's great pride and profound gratitude in the most meaningful of ways.
The legislation before us would accomplish many of the same things. It would deliver real action and send a clear message. Simply put, we would give qualified veterans and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces greater access to new and rewarding opportunities in the federal public service. This is the right thing to do. It is the honourable thing to do and it reflects the importance our government has placed on being there for those who have always been there for our country.
Our record demonstrates that we have not only talked the talk, we have walked it, too. In fact, since being elected in 2006, we have invested almost $5 billion in new funding to enhance veterans' benefits, programs, and services. Through this new funding, we have been able to implement the new veterans charter as a more modern and comprehensive way to care for and support those who are injured in the line of duty.
Through the new veterans charter, we are now providing full physical and psychosocial rehabilitation services for injured and ill veterans. We are offering vocational rehabilitation and career transition services for those who want to continue to work and serve after their military service ends. We are delivering economic security through immediate and long-term financial benefits and, of course, we are providing the health care benefits and one-on-one case management services that are often vital to an injured veteran's successful transition to civilian life.
What does this mean in practical terms? Through our programs, benefits, and services, we are able to provide world-class medical care for seriously injured veterans. We can provide up to $75,800 in training assistance for eligible veterans to start a new career and we can provide a minimum pre-tax income of $42,426 a year for eligible veterans who are unable to become suitably and gainfully employed, as well as for those in Veterans Affairs Canada's rehabilitation program. 
In addition, we will help eligible veterans with shovelling snow from their laneways or cutting their grass. We can help them with their housekeeping. We can have health care professionals and case managers visit them in the comfort of their own homes as required. We can assist them with the cost of travelling to their medical appointments.
We do all of these things because we are determined to help injured and ill veterans make the best recoveries possible, as quickly as possible. The measures proposed in the veterans hiring act would build even further on this by giving medically released veterans more opportunities to start new careers in the federal public service. 
We would provide those who are released from the Canadian Armed Forces because of a service-related injury or illness with the highest level of consideration for jobs, above all other groups, in recognition of their sacrifices for Canada. As well, the duration of priority access for all medically released veterans would be extended from two years to five years. These measures also recognize the sacrifices of our serving military personnel and our honourably released veterans by allowing them the opportunity to compete for public service jobs, as they have at least three years of military service. This initiative would also allow them to continue to compete for these jobs for a full five years after they are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.
To ensure our veterans have access to the meaningful jobs they need, we would also establish a hiring preference for veterans, in the event they are as qualified as other applicants. This new measure would last for up to five years from the day veterans are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.
We are doing all of this because we believe veterans and serving members deserve such consideration, and because we believe Canada would be better for it. Without these changes, we would run the risk of continuing to lose the valuable contribution of highly qualified individuals when their military career ends. Veterans have the skills, training, and experience that can greatly benefit our public service. This initiative would allow our highly qualified veterans to continue their service to Canada in a civilian capacity by enhancing and enriching the federal workforce. 
Canada's veterans have done so much to build our strong, free, and prosperous nation. It is incumbent upon this government to make sure they also share in the wealth and security they have created. These measures are another way to recognize that our veterans have served Canada with courage and distinction, and how they have been willing to sacrifice everything for a better tomorrow.
Finally, to ensure our veterans have the support they need to successfully transition to civilian life, we are committed to enhancing employment opportunities for veterans in the federal public service. I am pleased that the veterans hiring act would do just that. It would create new opportunities for veterans in the public service by making changes to the Public Service Employment Act.
Our first measure would move eligible veterans to the front of the line when it comes to hiring qualified candidates for the federal public service to help grant greater access to federal public service job opportunities for Canada's veterans who are medically released for service-related reasons. These changes would ensure that these veterans receive a statutory priority period for up to five years. It would provide these veterans with the highest level of consideration for public service jobs above all other groups in recognition of their tremendous service to our country. 
With this change, we would recognize that, while these men and women have suffered injuries that prevent them from continuing to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, they still have much more that they can contribute towards our country. Additionally, we would guarantee that all medically released veterans would have their existing priority entitlement period extended from two years to five years. Simply put, these changes would offer new employment and career opportunities to qualified veterans who were injured while they were serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces. 
It is also important to note that these opportunities would be extended to Canada's cadet organization, administration, and training services, and rangers.
 These measures would be retroactive to April 1, 2012. This means that if a veteran previously had priority status under the regulation and that status expired during the past two years, we would reinstate it for a full five years. In fact, we would extend it for an additional full five years for any veteran who still has priority entitlement. 
Furthermore, eligible veterans who are still recovering from their injuries or illnesses would have up to five years to be certified as fit to work. This would give them up to 10 years to find a job in the federal public service, which would greatly assist and ensure that our veterans have a successful transition to civilian life.
However, we have not stopped there. It is our duty to assist our other honourably released veterans in finding meaningful employment as well. That is why this piece of legislation also creates new employment opportunities for still-serving members. 
Through the measures we are proposing, our government would permit still-serving military personnel who have at least three years of service to compete for internally advertised positions in the public service. We would also allow them to continue to compete for these internal postings for a full five years after their release from the Canadian Armed Forces. 
To make certain that veterans gained access to the opportunities they need, this legislation would establish a hiring preference for veterans over other eligible applicants for the externally advertised hiring process. Simply put, if the veteran was equally qualified over other eligible applicants, the veteran would take priority and be offered the job. 
Our government recognizes that the skills, training, and experience Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans gain through three years of service would be an asset to the federal public service. In turn, if given the opportunity, veterans would greatly enrich and enhance the federal public service. By serving Canada, our veterans and still-serving members have demonstrated a real commitment to Canada. These measures are a great way for us to recognize this dedication and devotion toward our great nation. 
A five-year eligibility period would greatly assist in ensuring that our veterans achieve success after their time in uniform is complete. Further, it would give our brave men and women the time to upgrade their education and skills before returning to the workforce. 
Canada's veterans have served our great country with courage and distinction, and they have sacrificed far more than we can ever know or imagine. We have a duty as a government to do the same for them. It is our responsibility to ensure that the programs, benefits, and services they need are there for them when and where they need them. The measures proposed in the veterans hiring act are another way we can do that. It is another way we can signal our willingness to do whatever it takes to help them in their transition to civilian life. It is another way we can thank them on behalf of a truly grateful nation. 
Creating job opportunities within the federal public service for our veterans is an important step in helping them transition to civilian life.This is the right and honourable thing to do, which is why I am disappointed that the NDP and the unions do not support these measures. The president of the Union of National Defence Employees went as far as to say that injured veterans should go to the back of the line, behind civilian employees. It is shameful that unions do not want to recognize the sacrifices of our veterans.
I hope all members of the House will seize this opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of those remarkable men and women and support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-27. I do not share his rosy outlook, however.
He says that the government is working hard to improve the lives of veterans; however, more could be done. Bill C-27 is a step in the right direction, but it is still a half measure.
Can my colleague tell me if the government has done a study to determine how many veterans will find work in the public service thanks to this bill? In this era of cutbacks, there will not be a lot of public service jobs available in the next few years. There is also the fact that public servants often need a university degree. Injured veterans often do not have a degree.
I have a second question for my colleague. Veterans who have been recognized as having a non-service-related injury can appeal to VRAB, which may recognize their injury three or four years later. Does the member agree that the five-year entitlement period should start after the board decides to recognize their injuries?
[Interjection]
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking my hon. colleague for his work on the veterans file. As part of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, he, along with other members, has been working hard to conduct a comprehensive review of the new veterans charter. I want to thank him for his contribution in that regard as well.
I am sure not just members of this House but all Canadians would agree that the skills veterans bring forward from their experience in the military, what they have accomplished, and the kind of discipline they have would be a tremendous contribution to our country. These are individuals who have sacrificed tremendously when it comes to their personal lives and families. The least we can do as a government, as Canadians, is give them the opportunity to transition and have opportunities to serve Canada in other ways, such as being part of the Canadian workforce when it comes to the federal government.
We are thankful for them and we stand behind them. I would encourage the opposition members to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the forces, I can truly appreciate why the government is making this gesture through legislation. The number of personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP at any given time is incredible. It is tens of thousands of people. 
 Has the government done any background work in terms of what it anticipates will be the take-up of public service jobs by individuals leaving the forces or the RCMP? Does the government have any sense of the actual number that would be applicable here?
Second, to what degree does the government feel it has an obligation to encourage private sector involvement in terms of recruiting military personnel who are retiring? A good example would be the Commissionaires and the fantastic work they do getting former military and RCMP personnel engaged in the private sector.
[Interjection]
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to predict the number of veterans who would be affected or impacted by this piece of legislation. 
Of course, a veteran would have to be qualified and meet the requirements of a job posting. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That is very clear in this piece of legislation. All we are proposing is that in the event that there is a civilian who qualifies at the same level as a veteran, the veteran should get priority. 
In terms of consultation, of course we have consulted. We are always consulting. We are always looking for ways to make benefits and services for our veterans better. We will continue to do that. We are always consulting. That is part of the reason we have invested almost $5 billion in additional funding since coming into office in 2006.
 This government has a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans, and we will continue to do that.
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I am going to share a story as I ask the hon. member a question.
As many know, I am the granddaughter of three World War II veterans, including my grandmother, whose own father was in World War I. He was a Cree male, with three brothers who fought valiantly. My grandmother, when she went to World War II, was trained in a number of areas, including transcription services.
Unfortunately my grandfather, who had been in Dieppe, et cetera, survived the war but died at a very young age, and my grandmother was left to raise her children. She went into the workforce and tried to find a job so that she could support her children, and she had a very difficult time.
My grandmother's transcription abilities and the other abilities she got while serving in the Canadian Armed Services would have served this place very well. I only wish that this kind of bill was possible during that time.
 I would ask my hon. colleague to describe the types of positions that might become available to our armed forces members. 
I want to thank him very sincerely on behalf of me and my family, which is very much entrenched in military family situations, for putting this bill forward. It certainly will help our veterans go a long way after serving so valiantly. As we all know, some of them make the ultimate sacrifice, which cannot be repaid, but for those who are injured, this is a way to thank them.
[Interjection]
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for her question and for her contribution and hard work on behalf of Canadians.
Let me give an example of how Canadian Armed Forces members who are medically released or discharged can benefit. Veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces who are medically released due to service-related injury or illness will be given top-level priority consideration for job openings in the public service. They will be given statutory priority access in the federal public service, internal and external.
These veterans have made a tremendous contribution, and we can never repay them and their families for the kinds of sacrifices they have made. The least we can do is give them opportunities such as these. I would encourage the opposition to support this piece of legislation.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill, and we clearly support the idea behind it. We just do not think that it goes far enough.
To begin, I am wondering about the retroactive date of April 1, 2012. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary how they came up with that date.
My second question for the parliamentary secretary regarding this bill is about the fact that he said that the government, to use his words, left “no stone unturned”, meaning that it considered every aspect that directly or indirectly affects veterans, particularly those with injuries.
The government said that the new veterans charter would evolve and that it would solve various problems. When I spoke to veterans about Bill C-568, I heard one thing over and over again. Injured veterans, who used to receive a disability pension for life, now receive a lump sum payment that works out to far less money than they received before the new charter was implemented. What can he tell me about the fact that this bill does not address that situation?
[Interjection]
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for sharing the NDP's perspective and for its support for this piece of legislation. It is definitely music to my ears. I am very thankful for that support.
In terms of retroactivity, the period of five years would start April 1, 2012, for anyone who had been honourably discharged. We would not only implement this moving forward but would also go back.
In terms of the new veterans charter, the minister actually asked the veterans affairs committee to launch a comprehensive review of the new veterans charter, which is currently under way. We are drafting a report. I would encourage the hon. member to wait just a few more days until that report is tabled. We will address many of those concerns.
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, the Veterans Hiring Act. 
This bill corrects the problems with Bill C-11, which was introduced earlier this year or late last year. We had a first day of debate, but there were problems that the government corrected. In fact, it withdrew Bill C-11 and returned with a new version, Bill C-27.
Unfortunately, the government did not adequately consult groups of veterans about this bill. All too often, the government fails to consult. For example, with respect to the first nations education bill, very few aboriginal people were consulted even though the government has an obligation to do so. There was not enough consultation with respect to Bill C-11. Thus, the government came back with Bill C-27.
Despite what I would call a lack of professionalism on the part of the government, I am obviously pleased to rise and say that we will be supporting Bill C-27, introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because all measures to improve veterans' quality of life are important. In order to improve the career transition of our injured veterans, we will obviously support any measure such as this one.
However, as I said when asking the parliamentary secretary  a question, I feel that, in some respects, this is a half measure to address the problems with the transition to civilian jobs, which too often is difficult for veterans.
Consequently, if we consider all the problems pointed out, mainly in the ombudsman's reports, it is very little. The government often tends to go for window dressing. However, upon closer inspection, the proposals are all too often half measures, which do not enhance our veterans' quality of life.
I am thinking of the changes made concerning career transition, but I will get back to that. They said there would be bigger budgets, but if we look at the details, at what was budgeted, this will help only a handful of veterans finish university. If we look at the changes announced to the funeral and burial program for veterans of modest means, the government really boosted funding for that. Not long ago, it was paying just over $3,000 to cover funeral costs for the neediest veterans, and now that amount has been increased substantially. 
However, if we look at the eligibility criteria, those have not changed. For the very neediest veterans, those living below the poverty line and some others, it would be good to expand the eligibility criteria to really help more veterans. There are a lot of these half measures. On the surface, they can say they are helping veterans, but in reality, they are not helping a lot of people. That might be the case with this bill too.
After it came to power in 2006, the Conservative government passed the new veterans charter. Actually, it was passed that same year or a little before. They called the new charter a living document and said it would improve veterans' lives, especially for modern-day veterans. They knew that younger and younger veterans were coming home from Afghanistan wounded, so they had to do away with the old pension system and put more emphasis on incentives to participate in career transition programs. It was supposed to be a living document. It was kind of rushed through the process. They said they would adapt it over time as problems came up. Since then, however, only one small cosmetic change has been made, and that was in 2011. They improved the charter, but only a little. 
It turns out that there are all kinds of problems with the new veterans charter. It is very disappointing that the government has turned its attention to this problem just once in nearly eight years. That is not very much. As the parliamentary secretary said, there is a review of the new veterans charter going on right now. 
We will prepare a comprehensive report. I hope that the government will respond favourably to most, if not all of the recommendations because this new charter has a lot of problems. The government has to stop twiddling its thumbs when it comes to improving the new veterans charter. It has to come up with appropriate, concrete and comprehensive measures because there are far too many problems.
The new veterans charter is described as a living document. I would say that it is on life support and in desperate need of oxygen because it is weak and, as I was saying, full of problems.
The new charter was passed in 2006, and we expected it to be amended as problems arose. As we can see, the government has dropped the ball on improving the new charter. 
Our troops suffered heavy losses during the mission in Afghanistan. To date, 158 deaths and more than 2,000 injured soldiers have been reported. This number could go up given that it sometimes takes years for the initial symptoms of PTSD to appear.
According to a recent study, 14% of our soldiers returned from Afghanistan injured, but it is thought that this number is actually much higher.
It is in this context that Parliament passed the new veterans charter, calling it a living document. However, it must be improved as soon as possible after we table our report, which we intend to do in a matter of days. The government must respond favourably to it by adopting appropriate measures.
That is what brings us to debating Bill C-27, which essentially seeks to give priority for public service jobs to serving and former members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service.
If, during the hiring process, the veteran demonstrates the essential qualifications required, the Public Service Commission will have to appoint that person in absolute priority, ahead of employees who are considered surplus or on leave. These veterans will henceforth be in the highest category of hiring priority. That priority will be valid for a period of five years. Previously it was valid for two years. To be clear, it is five years after the soldier is released for medical reasons that are attributable to service.
A second measure in this bill would give members of the Canadian Forces who have accumulated more than three years of service the right to participate in an internal public service appointment process. Section 35.11 states that veterans who have been honourably released may, during a period of five years after their date of release, participate in this process, but they would not have priority.
Furthermore, subsection 39(1) of the Public Service Employment Act gives preference to World War II and Korean War veterans, among others, ahead of all Canadian citizens. A veteran is defined as someone who served at least three years in the Canadian Forces and was honourably discharged.
We will obviously see a resurgence of veterans who have preference in the appointment process over Canadian citizens. This preference will be valid for a period of five years. However, survivors of a veteran and former members of the Canadian Forces who served at least three years will not have access to that preference.
This is a noble gesture on the part of the government. However, like the measures it has taken previously, such as the Last Post Fund and the reimbursements for training and post-secondary education, these are half measures that will have little impact on the quality of life of most veterans.
There will be few jobs available in the public service in the short and medium term, since the public service is currently restructuring and undergoing budget cuts. The public service is being cut, and it will be a long time before a new crop of public servants is hired. For that reason alone, I do not think that this bill will help a lot of veterans.
With regard to priority access for medically released members of the Canadian Armed Forces, what will happen to veterans who are not released for medical reasons and who appeal the decision to VRAB? It can take three or four years before the board determines whether the injury is in fact related to the member's service. Is the government prepared to extend that five-year period? It can easily take three or four years after the member is released for VRAB to render a favourable decision, so the period of five years set out in the bill is a problem. This sort of thing happens fairly frequently. The five-year period must be extended so that veterans are not penalized by an initial unfavourable decision. If the department's decision is overturned by VRAB, the veteran must get an entitlement period of five years. 
The Veterans Ombudsman made some comments in this regard on his blog. He said:
 However, under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual’s file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release. 
Like the ombudsman, we are worried about this legislative uncertainty. Would it not be better to use the recognition of the link between the injury and the service to determine the accessibility and length of the priority entitlement? This could be done two ways: either the reason for release is designated "service-related medical release" or the link between the injury and the service is recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada or VRAB. Either way, the system remains consistent, some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their entitlement priority.
This bill also creates categories of veterans, and we are against that approach. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans, rather than many categories. We believe that all veterans, regardless of which war they served in, whether it be a past war or a modern war, deserve the same status. They are all soldiers who served our country. We are against creating categories of veterans.
Veterans of the RCMP are not included in the bill and remain in the regulatory category. I think that a member of the RCMP who suffered a trauma and wanted to get out of the policing environment to start a new career could have benefited from priority hiring under this bill. Including veterans of the RCMP would have been a way of thanking them for their service and sacrifices. Only members of the Canadian Forces released for service-related medical reasons will have this priority entitlement. Unfortunately, others will not.
In addition, the bill amends the definition of veteran and specifies that the surviving spouse of a veteran is not eligible for the same hiring preference within the public service. The surviving spouse of a traditional veteran used to take priority over Canadian citizens. Why did the minister specifically make spouses of Canadian Armed Forces veterans ineligible? That is one question we have. The government likes to break veterans into distinct categories, which I have no choice but to oppose.
In this era of budget cuts, when massive numbers of public servants are losing their jobs, this bill may help veterans only in the long term. In the short term, I do not see how this could make for a better career transition for veterans who are given hiring preference within the public service. In this case, when there are massive layoffs, it will not help them.
This bill is a response to the government's lack of leadership on the issue of career transition.
It reacted by introducing this bill, but it did so during a time of budget cuts. I think the government needs to work harder to improve our veterans' lives and their transition to civilian life. They really need help. They need more than half measures.
From 2006 to 2011, about 2,000 veterans took advantage of this hiring priority. Of those, 1,024 veterans got jobs in the public service, and of those, 739 got jobs with National Defence. That is about three-quarters or 75% of all veterans who found work in the public service. In other words, they do not have access to many jobs outside of National Defence.
The situation at Veterans Affairs Canada is even more disastrous. During the five-year period between 2006 and 2011, only 24 veterans were hired at Veterans Affairs Canada. That is just 2% of all the jobs, which is very little considering that Veterans Affairs is probably one of the departments that could really benefit from hiring veterans because they have the experience and they know about the programs the department offers. It would seem to be an ideal match. I think that the minister and the department are not doing enough to recruit veterans within their own department.
The statistics for veterans finding work in the public service show that, other than National Defence and maybe Public Works and Government Services Canada, there are very few departments—almost none, in fact—that hire veterans. There has to be a shift in mentality in the public service and the departments so they recognize the skills that veterans have and make more room for them. There has to be a shift in mentality. This bill will not shift anyone's mentality, but it will help give priority to veterans in the public service. There has to be a shift in mentality so the departments do a better job of recognizing our veterans' skills.
According to the ombudsman, about 4,500 veterans sign up for rehabilitation services and vocational assistance. On average, 220 veterans get their names on the list for priority hiring, and 146 veterans, on average, get jobs in the public service that way. That is not a lot of people. Even with this bill, the numbers are likely to go down in the short term and possibly even in the medium term if departments do not end up hiring a lot of people in the medium term. That is not a lot. This bill is unlikely to have a significant impact on the majority of veterans; it will affect just a few of them. 
These numbers also show that veterans previously did not have the skills or university training to obtain many of the jobs in the public service. As I was saying, this perhaps reflects lack of interest or lack of qualifications. This is something that needs to be addressed during the career transition. We must provide university training to veterans who are willing and able. This would go a long way in helping them find a new job in the public service.
In fact, veterans are required to accept a job in a field that does not necessarily interest them, but for which they have certain skills. The ombudsman also indicated that veterans are not given enough opportunities to start a new career. Veterans do not necessarily feel like continuing on with the same type of work they did when they were in the Canadian Forces. We must give them the ability to choose something other than what they know. This would also help veterans immensely during their career transition. 
In closing, we will support this bill, but the government will certainly have to allay our concerns in committee. It will also have to make the necessary changes with regard to the entitlement period for veterans who dispute the reason they were released from the forces and win their case before VRAB, to ensure that they are not penalized.
We look forward to studying this bill in committee.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, does my colleague find it odd that among all the listed categories, there seems to be no room for people who are injured during training? Sometimes soldiers get injured on the base, during training or manoeuvres, and not during armed combat abroad.
Does the member not find it odd that injuries sustained in armed conflict seem to be all that matter and not injuries sustained in soldiers' daily work?
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question.
That could be a problem in some cases. Veterans must train to stay in shape. However, when they are injured during training, their injuries are often not recognized as being service related. In, many cases, they should be because it is every soldier's duty to remain physically fit. They have to be able to carry out their duties properly when they are deployed.
They are obliged to be physically fit, but there is nothing in this bill to help them if they are injured during training, which has happened. This situation is recognized far too infrequently. These injuries should be recognized as service related.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant will have eight minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

Statements by Members
Ohtli AwardMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am certain that all members of this place have those special people who give tirelessly to help build better communities in all of our home ridings.
 I am proud to recognize Mr. Diego Alcaraz for his many years of service promoting Mexican culture, songs, and traditions to children and citizens alike in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Earlier this month, the government of Mexico also recognized and honoured Diego in presenting him with the Ohtli Award, the highest honour bestowed by the government of Mexico for services to Mexicans living abroad.
Over the years, I have come to know Diego and his wife Olive. I have to confess that I have been inspired by his commitment and I am a proud member of the Canada-Mexico parliamentary friendship group.
I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing Diego Alcaraz for his passion and dedication in enriching cultural diversity for many citizens in Okanagan—Coquihalla, as well as our great country.
Neighbourhood CelebrationsMs. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am tired of talking about crown corporations like Canada Post, CBC and VIA Rail, which are not doing well because the Conservatives have abandoned them.
I would like to talk about things that are going well. So, let us talk about the neighbourhood parties that will be held in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and in Dorval.
I would like to thank every town and district that is organizing a neighbourhood party or festival, which I will gladly attend. Thank you Lachine for inviting Kaïn to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, and thank you Dorval for one of the best Canada Day celebrations in Quebec. Thank you NDG and Paul Cargnello for NDG Arts Week, and thank you Montreal West for Tuesdays in the park. I would like to thank our community organizations that are the lifeblood of our neighbourhoods and give them their unique flavour.
I would like to wish all my fellow citizens a good summer. Come and celebrate with me the whole summer long. Together, we will build our neighbourhoods and our country.
National Day of HonourMr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last Friday was the National Day of Honour to celebrate the end of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. Over the last 12 years, the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces fought and served this country in Afghanistan to defeat terrorism and promote security and development so Afghans could build a viable, stable, and secure country.
Thanks to our servicemen and women, Afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorism directed against the international community. Moreover, more than 7.7 million Afghan children, 39% of whom are girls, are enrolled in formal and community-based schools. In contrast, less than one million boys, and only boys, were enrolled in formal schools in 2001.
I want to thank all Canadians who served in Afghanistan for the peace and stability they helped bring to the world, and for the great advancement they brought to the lives of Afghanistan's citizens. The achievements of our mission have been great, and something of which every Canadian should be proud.
Kensington VipersHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Kensington Vipers, who recently won their fifth straight Island Junior Hockey League playoff championship and their ninth in the last 11 years, making the Vipers one of the winningest teams in Island history. The Kensington Vipers have also gone on to win two of the last three Don Johnson memorial Atlantic junior B championships. 
Such an achievement is only possible through teamwork on and off the ice. I want to recognize all of the Vipers players, coaches, trainers, and management for their hard work and dedication that contributed to their past and present successes. I recognize as well the financial support of sponsor Moase Plumbing &amp; Heating.
 It is sporting teams like the Vipers and all those involved in the day-to-day running of these teams that are so important in contributing to the identity and sense of pride for small communities across Canada. 
Congratulations, Kensington Vipers.
Divorce ActMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill, Bill C-560, is about a child's best interests, about a child's right to two primary parents and equalizing that access. The current system is focused on parents' rights, not children's rights. Published decisions in our current adversarial system show a cookie cutter approach of making one parent a primary parent, and marginalizing the other to someone the children get to visit from time to time.
The legislation still on the books is three decades old. Social science research has conclusively revealed the need for children of divorce to have the significant involvement of both parents. Bill C-560 would provide that, while retaining sufficient judicial discretion for custom parenting plans.
A full response to questions raised about the bill is found in a myths and facts document already sent to all MPs and senators. I urge my colleagues to actually read that document.
The vast majority of the public, over 75%, support equal shared parenting. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-560 at second reading to get it to committee, to hear witnesses and leading researchers, and to make adjustments as necessary. 
Our children deserve nothing less. Let us do it for the sake of the children, for the best interests of the children.
International Day Against Homophobia and TransphobiaMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize tomorrow, May 17, as the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia.
On this day we must stand together to speak out against hatred and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and gender-variant people. There is still an urgent need to combat homophobia and transphobia here at home and around the world.
In Canada, transgender and gender-varied Canadians are still without equal rights and protections, as Bill C-279 remains stuck in the Senate after passing the House of Commons, for a second time, more than a year ago.
We have also seen a disturbing trend of countries making homosexuality illegal or subject to harsh penalties. LGBTQ people in countries including Uganda, Cameroon, Nigeria, Russia, and Jamaica are facing lengthy prison sentences, violence, and even death because of whom they love.
Today I call upon all members of Parliament to take concrete action to work towards eliminating homophobia and transphobia. 
I call upon the government to stand up for Canadian values of equality and respect. 
I call upon the Senate to awaken from its slumber on human rights and pass Bill C-279 now, in order to ensure equal rights of trans Canadians.
Election in IndiaHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Narender Modi and the BJP on their electoral success.
These elections clearly illustrate that Mr. Modi's message of economic revival resonated with the Indian electorate. Under the leadership of Mr. Modi, India is poised to reach greater heights.
It is our hope that the reforms implemented by Mr. Modi in Gujurat can be replicated throughout India. Our government is committed to supporting and working with Mr. Modi as he embarks upon his reforms, which would not only benefit Indians but also Canadians.
Once again, I congratulate Mr. Modi and the BJP.
I would also like to congratulate the Election Commission of India for organizing an open and transparent election.
Amar Arts of LifeParm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an amazing non-profit organization called Amar Arts of Life, which has been doing amazing work in the GTA and throughout our great nation.
In terms of helping raise awareness to donate organs and tissue, recently Amar Arts of Life had a campaign at Nagar Kirtan, in Toronto, where hundreds of hard-working volunteers signed up over 1,200 organ donors. They have expanded not only to the GTA but also other parts of the country.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the hard-working volunteers. I would like to thank the president and founder Amarjit Rai, who has made a tremendous commitment when it comes to issues such as organ and tissue donations and helping to create awareness throughout the country.
International Museum DayMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to let all members of the House know that Sunday, May 18, is International Museum Day. As the heritage critic of the official opposition, I have the pleasure of promoting this day. Here in Canada the vitality of our museums shows that we have a wealth of culture to share, a past to celebrate and stories to tell. We can be proud of that.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite my colleagues in the House, and anyone who can, to come to Montreal on May 25 to celebrate the fabulous Montréal Museums Day, when thirty some of Montreal's cultural institutions are open free to the public for a full day. There will even be free shuttle buses provided by the Société de transport de Montréal. Everyone should take advantage of this opportunity.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the institutions in Longueuil in which I take personal pride: the museum and crypt at the co-cathedral of Saint-Antoine-de-Padoue and Canada's one and only women's museum, the Musée de la Femme, which is located close to my riding office on Saint-Charles Street in Longueuil.
Let us celebrate our museums, our history and our identity.
Whitchurch-StouffvilleMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge my hometown of Whitchurch-Stouffville for being one of three Canadian cities to be chosen for the Benjamin Moore Main Street Matters revitalization program.
The Benjamin Moore program was created to help revitalize downtown areas by redesigning and painting the exteriors of local businesses to enhance the small-town charm of these historic main streets. The program emphasizes the importance of maintaining these stores, as they represent the heart of main street and the communities that surround them.
In the spring of 2013, towns around North America cast votes online for which main streets would be chosen to be revitalized. Out of 20 North American cities chosen, our little hometown of Whitchurch-Stouffville was one that was victorious.
On May 13, Benjamin Moore kicked off the facelift, with the first brush stroke on the Stouffville Florist.
 I congratulate my hometown, and I look forward, as do all the residents of Whitchurch-Stouffville, to this very exciting revitalization.
Gatineau Soup KitchenMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was sad to hear that a fixture in my riding, the Soupière de l'amitié de Gatineau, would be closing down.
Everyone in the Outaouais region was shocked by this news. Everyone in Gatineau is familiar with the Soupière de l'amitié for one simple reason. This organization's employees and volunteers have been taking care of the people of Gatineau for nearly 30 years.
They take care of the less fortunate by serving hot meals every day for only $1 and by running an emergency food bank. They take care of our children by serving nearly 150,000 free, healthy breakfasts in 35 area schools. They take care of people who are marginalized by providing an environment where friendship thrives and prejudice does not exist. 
Today is a day to celebrate their dedication, but we must also honour them. For me, honouring the legacy of the Soupière de l'amitié de Gatineau means refusing to trivialize the issue of poverty. On behalf of the residents of the Outaouais region, I want to say a huge thank you to the big family at the Soupière de l'amitié de Gatineau.
Maternal, Newborn, and Child HealthMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our government's unwavering support of children in the developing world. Child protection is an integral part of our government's foreign and development policies.
 The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has commenced a study on a motion that I introduced to study the many challenges facing youth in developing countries and how best to protect them.
The first witnesses to appear before the committee recognized Canada's leadership role in this regard and commended our government for establishing the child protection unit. 
Later this month, our government will continue to seek ways to protect children and youth by holding a summit on maternal, newborn, and child health. The theme, “Saving Every Woman, Every Child: Within Arm's Reach”, will provide the opportunity to galvanize consensus on where to focus efforts to maximize results for those in need. 
All Canadians can be proud of our government's record in this important area.
International Day Against Homophobia and TransphobiaMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this International Day Against Homophobia, we renew our commitment to safeguarding the political, economic, legal, and social rights of all individuals, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.
Although several nations have recently made great strides in the recognition and protection of LGBTQ rights, many who identify as LGBTQ continue to face considerable discrimination and abuse. Shockingly, it is still a crime to be gay in India, Russia, Uganda, and seven other countries, and it is a crime to publish LGBTQ material in many more.
We are fortunate that here in Canada we have laws against hate crimes, and that gays, lesbians, and transgendered people are free to marry. Happily, we are seeing many states in America following Canada's example.
The persistent denial of the right to full self-expression and a life free from fear and violence to LGBTQ individuals is inexcusable. Today we stand in solidarity with them and dare to envision a world that is safe for all and accepting of all humanity.
VeteransMr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was proud on May 9 to attend the National Day of Honour here in Ottawa. It was a remarkable time to pay our respects and our honour to our veterans and their families.
Today the hiring veterans act is being debated in the House of Commons. Our government believes that injured veterans should move to the front of the line for public service jobs if they are qualified. 
However, veterans might be surprised to learn who is opposing the hiring veterans act: the public sector unions. They believe that a veteran who has been injured in the service of Canada should be left to the back of the line. Our government will not let that happen. 
I call on all members in this place to drop their talking points. Let us all stand up for our veterans.
Leader of the New Democratic PartyMr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, instead of being focused on creating jobs or running the country, the Prime Minister and his Conservatives are working with the third party Liberals to turn committee into a kangaroo court. 
Well, the committee for unconservative activities did its best. However, the Leader of the Opposition turned the tables on this unprecedented attack. He answered every question put to him with a smile.
However, in an ironic twist, the Conservative would-be prosecutor, the member for Kitchener Centre, was actually the one caught breaking the rules and inappropriately using parliamentary resources during the election. Conservative and Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The Leader of the Opposition proved once again that good humour and the truth can overcome even the most unfair Conservative and Liberal smear campaigns. The NDP has shown itself to be the strongest, most united official opposition that these Conservatives have ever faced.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Not only was the member for Outremont unable to clearly explain why party employees were involved in partisan activities while on the public payroll, but he went even further and insulted my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.
During his less-than-convincing testimony, he offered up vague statements and contradictory explanations. However, the rules of the House of Commons are clear: no employee on the public payroll is allowed to work in party offices.
The Leader of the Opposition's behaviour is unacceptable. Will he admit that he broke the rules of the House and mislead the Board of Internal Economy? Will he apologize to my colleague for his disparaging and unparliamentary comments?

Oral Questions
Aboriginal AffairsNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the RCMP is releasing its long-awaited report on murdered and missing indigenous women. The findings are staggering: 1,186 police-recorded cases.
 Conservative policies and programs are not working, so will they finally listen to the families and to Canadians across the country and call for a national public inquiry?
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the RCMP for the report. One missing person is too many.
We expect the RCMP to investigate every single missing persons case, including any that were discovered while compiling the report.
The report was quite informative about some of the root causes of violence against indigenous women. The RCMP's findings were clear. According to the data, 62% of the homicides of aboriginal women were committed by a family member who had previously abused the victim, 40% of aboriginal women were killed as the result of an argument, and nearly 90% of the homicides were solved, which is a resolution rate the same as in the non-aboriginal population.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP report is clear: there are more and more victims every year.
Last year Kelly Nicole Goforth, Heather Ballantyne, Cassandra Joan Desjarlais, Miranda McKinney, Jodi Roberts, Tricia Boisvert, Rocelyn Gabriel and Loretta Saunders disappeared or were murdered.
The Conservatives claim that they are taking action, but they have been unable to determine why these women have disappeared or been murdered.
When will there be a public inquiry to help us understand but primarily prevent these crimes?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the report did indicate one of the most significant causes of violence against aboriginal women, and that is domestic violence.
The government has taken substantial steps to address that. Now is the time to take action, not to continue to study the issue. For example, in economic action plan 2013, the government committed new funding for the family violence prevention program, which supports shelters for women, children, and families living on reserves.
EmploymentNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the government has finally been forced to admit that the temporary foreign worker program was a real mess.
Canadian workers were pushed aside to make room for cheap labour; foreign workers were parachuted into regions with high unemployment; and labour market assessment tools are inadequate.
When will the Conservatives fix the problems that they exacerbated, and will they strengthen access to citizenship instead of promoting the misuse of temporary foreign workers?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the temporary foreign worker program is to provide employers with employees during acute labour shortages in regions and sectors where there are no Canadians available for the job.
We recognize there have been some complaints about this program. We have taken strong steps to deal with any employer who abuses this program. We are going to continue to bring in further regulations and changes so that the workers and the employers know that they have a system that always provides the opportunity for Canadians to get the job first.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, “some” complaints?
The reality is that Conservative changes have made this program worse and more open to abuse. That is the record of the government.
Too many Canadians are seeing their jobs taken away and too many temporary foreign workers are facing mistreatment and abuse. These issues are national and they are program-wide. The minister's failure to fix the program earlier has left it wide open to these abuses. Canadians know that they just cannot trust Conservatives.
Why will the minister not agree to an independent review of his gross mismanagement of this program?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy is again upon us.
Canadians know who they can trust: they can trust the Conservative government to make the necessary changes so that every Canadian will always get first crack at any available job before a temporary foreign worker is brought in.
Let us compare that to the NDP, whose members stand in the House and complaint that we are bringing in foreign workers to take Canadians' jobs but who continually write letters to the minister asking for temporary foreign workers in their own ridings.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the fact is quite clear that this program is in crisis because of Conservative mismanagement.
We have heard stories of temporary foreign workers whose wages are heavily docked or withheld altogether, like indentured servants in the 19th century. We have heard stories of temporary foreign workers facing egregious working conditions and even threatened with deportation.
This minister has shown gross incompetence. Will the minister agree to a complete audit? Will he work to include a formal path to citizenship for those brought in under this program?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, not only do they want to bring temporary foreign workers into the country, they also want to try to make these temporary foreign workers permanent citizens of the country. 
We are going to ensure that Canadian workers have the first shot at all available jobs, but we have also taken strong steps to ensure that the temporary foreign workers who do come to fill the jobs when no Canadian is available are protected. We are making sure that any employers who try to abuse this system have strong penalties against them. We have legislation before the House right now that will actually have financial penalties for any employer who abuses the system.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Conservatives said that paying temporary foreign workers up to 15% less than Canadians would help our economy. Last year, they said paying temporary foreign workers the same amount as Canadians would help our economy. Today, they are saying that requiring employers to pay higher wages to temporary foreign workers will help our economy.
When will the minister stop improvising and making decisions blindly ?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we have taken steps to make sure that the temporary foreign worker program treats both the Canadian workers who are applying for jobs and temporary foreign workers who take jobs when no Canadian is available fairly in terms of wages. We have made changes to make sure everyone is paid a proper wage at the prevailing wage rate. 
Further changes are coming. We are going to make sure we tighten the system up so that all Canadians will know that their jobs will be protected, and temporary foreign workers will only be filling those jobs if no Canadian is available.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, everyone from Don Drummond to the Auditor General to thousands of public servants agree that the government is not collecting the necessary information to determine the real needs of the labour market. Without reliable data, the government is simply making up policy on the fly. Then, when the Conservatives' bad policy inevitably leads to bad outcomes, they have another knee-jerk policy reaction. 
There is no dispute that Conservatives prefer ideology over data, but would they not agree that it is time to give evidence-based policy-making a try?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we have said that there is no general labour shortage across Canada. What we are facing are sectoral and also regional shortages of labour in specific sectors in specific industries. 
We are taking strong steps to make sure that we increase the ability of the government to have proper labour market information so we can make public policy based on true facts and true data.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, will we have true facts and true data from the party that killed the long form census?
Liberals have been calling for temporary foreign worker reforms for over a year. In fact, our leader has put forward five specific changes needed to fix the program.
Let me ask a really simple question. Will the minister commit now to disclosing the use of the temporary foreign workers program by region and by occupation?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, let me add a sixth thing the Liberal leader has asked for. When pressed in his own riding to bring temporary foreign workers in, he was one of the first ones to write a letter to the minister asking for a temporary foreign worker chef to be moved into one of his favourite restaurants. 
That is how the Liberals treat temporary foreign workers. They stand in the House and make complaints, but they always ask the Minister of Employment and Social Development for temporary foreign workers when it comes to their own ridings.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in June 2012, the Conservatives cut health care funding for refugees. They claimed it was to prevent abuses of the immigration system. Except that children were the first victims of this despicable act.
According to a study in the Public Library of Science Journal, six months after the Conservatives' cuts, hospital admission rates of children from refugee families doubled. Without government assistance, the parents are waiting until the last minute to take their children to a doctor.
Will the Conservatives reverse these cuts and restore health care services for refugees?
Mr. Chungsen Leung (Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear about who will get interim federal health care and who will not. Refugees will continue to benefit. Failed, fraudulent, and bogus claimants will not be entitled to our interim health program, just as 10 million visitors to Canada every year do not qualify for our health care. Besides, health is a provincial responsibility. If the Ontario Liberals want their doctors to treat failed claimants, taxpayers and ultimately voters will have to hold them to account for that decision.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' decision to make cuts to health care for refugees is appalling.
Without assistance from the government and without insurance, refugees wait until the very last minute before seeking care. This means that when they do see a doctor they are sicker, weaker and represent a higher risk of contamination. Once again, it is the least fortunate who are paying the price for the Conservatives' lack of compassion.
Why is the government trying to save a few pennies at the expense of refugee children?
Chungsen Leung: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that if there is an acute need, if there is a traumatic need for health care, they will get it. However, we are not here to provide health care for people who do not deserve it, people who are not permanent residents or legitimate refugees.
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been telling us in the House is that he is proud of the Conservative record on refugee health, even though admissions to hospital of refugee children have doubled since the Conservatives denied them health care coverage. They are telling us they do not care about these refugee children because to them they are simply visitors. Well, to us they are kids in need of care.
What is the minister's plan? Will he simply wait for the admission rate to double again? Will he continue to blame the provinces? Will he continue to treat these refugee kids as visitors?
Chungsen Leung: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, if there are emergency needs for these kids, they will be looked after. However, in cases of failed refugee claimants, in cases of bogus refugees and fraudulent claims, they will not be entitled to our health care system.
Government AppointmentsMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the Minister of Justice. His buddy and former staff writer Kevin MacAdam was given a plum patronage position at ACOA to the tune of $130,000 a year, but he never showed up for work for three full years. Did he get fired? No, they tried to promote him to director of general operations for ACOA.
Let me get this straight. Is their criterion for patronage promotion hiring people who never actually show up for work? If that is the case, then who is next, the leader of the Liberal Party?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. The independent investigation by the Public Service Commission did not find any evidence of any wrongdoing or influence on the part of ministers or political staff. That is the answer to his question.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, does the man not read judges' reports? This is what the judge said. He said of this case that there “could not have been a softer landing for a former political staffer”. He found that senior ACOA officials bent the rules to protect the friend of the minister. 
The translation is that while hard-working Canadians and senior citizens are being told the cupboard is bare, Conservatives are stuffing the trough with their Tory friends. Will they do the right thing, clean up this mess, and actually fire him?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty straightforward case, and appropriate action will be taken. ACOA has taken action in response to the Public Service Commission's recommendations. Quite frankly, it is my understanding that the Public Service Commission will review the judicial decision and advise the agency of the next step. 
In the meantime, maybe the hon. member would like to explain the NDP's Montreal office and if the NDP is going to come clean and pay Canadians the money they should pay them.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there again I think the member was not listening yesterday, because the leader of the NDP explained it. 
Under the Conservatives, ACOA boils down to two things: patronage and poor management. The Federal Court confirmed that ACOA broke the rules by hiring Kevin MacAdam, a defeated Conservative candidate and former employee of the Minister of Justice.
The Conservatives are still giving jobs to friends of the party. What is worse is that Mr. MacAdam has been drawing a salary for three years when he has not even shown up for work.
Do the Conservatives see nothing wrong with that?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member forgot to say is that his leader played dodge ball yesterday on television and avoided the questions instead of answering them. 
Quite frankly, we are answering the questions, and it is very clear that we have a group over there that wants to tell the Public Service Commission its job. At ACOA, we are willing to listen to the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, and we will. 
Fisheries and OceansYvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, who will be the judge?
Since they are unable to answer the question, we will ask them a different one.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is stalling when it comes to dredging a channel in the Acadian peninsula, and Inkerman lobster fishers are paying the price. What is more, yesterday, fishers had to return to the wharf in only two feet of water and their boats were damaged.
Will the minister commit to immediately having the channel in Inkerman dredged so that lobster fishers can safely begin their fishing season, or is she waiting for more people to lose their lives, like what happened in Tabusintac? 
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can get more details from my colleague and reply in more detail a bit later, but dredging of course is something that we do on a regular basis. We do it whenever it is a priority need. Sometimes due to weather and other conditions we cannot do it right away. I think that was the case in this situation.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for several days, we have been asking the Conservatives about the reasons behind the disappearances and murders of aboriginal women. Unfortunately, they have no idea.
According the RCMP report, aboriginal women make up 4% of the overall Canadian female population yet account for 11% of homicide victims. The Conservative crime bill is not going to solve this tragic problem.
Will the Minister of Justice finally face the fact that a public inquiry is needed?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that the member read the report in detail. If she does, she will find that the report addressed the issue of violence against indigenous women and suggested that 62% of the homicides were the result of domestic violence.
She will also know that in economic action plan 2013, the government committed new funding for the family violence prevention program, which supports shelters for women, children, and families living on reserve. Regrettably, she and her party voted against that.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, everyone except the government agrees there is a crisis, but the minister and his colleagues would rather cite budgets and spout rhetoric than actually acknowledge that what they are doing is simply not working.
We are talking about 1,186 police-recorded cases of missing and murdered indigenous women across Canada. Will the government finally agree to a national public inquiry?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, it appears the member has not yet read the report. I understand that. It has just been released. I think she will take some time over the weekend to read it. What she will find is that 90% of the murders have been solved. It is the same resolution rate as in the non-aboriginal population, and 62% of those murders were domestic violence.
From our perspective, now is not the time for further study; it is a time for action, and we have done many things. For example, in our recent budget there is renewed funding for the aboriginal justice strategy. We are reducing victimization and crime overall in aboriginal communities through our strategies. We are also funding community projects specifically geared toward reducing violence against aboriginal women.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, on this matter, today's RCMP report is shocking. The numbers were shocking enough when the Native Women's Association of Canada identified 600 cases in 2009 of missing and murdered indigenous women. Today's RCMP report doubles that number to 1,181 missing and murdered aboriginal women. The government continues to go on with excuses as if it is doing something.
This is an ongoing national crisis. The action the minister talks about is nothing but a diversion. When will the government call a public inquiry?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the RCMP report that the number is high. It is shocking. It is a tragedy. Something needs to be done about it and it needs to be done right now. That is why we are taking action to reduce violence against women on reserves.
The RCMP report is very clear that 62% of these homicides were the result of domestic violence. That is why our government is taking action now to try to reduce domestic violence on reserves. That member should support our government in taking that action.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is to add to the limited action the government is taking now by calling a public inquiry. 
The government should look at the numbers of people who are calling. The voices are from the United Nations, the premiers, indigenous leaders, all opposition parties, civil society groups like the Council of Churches, and the victims' families. The government and the Prime Minister are on the wrong side of history. They should add to what they are doing by calling a public inquiry into this very serious issue.
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, the member fails to point out that people he cited did not read the RCMP report. They are doing that now, and they will find out that 90% of the homicides have been solved. It is the same resolution rate as in the non-aboriginal population.
One of the most significant causes of violence against aboriginal women is domestic violence. Our government is taking action now. The RCMP report is clear. There is not really a need for more study, but there is a need for action. Our government is taking action and the hon. member should support it.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, a national public inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls is key to creating an effective plan and putting an end to this epidemic of violence.
The families and communities that have been devastated by this ongoing tragedy deserve answers and deserve to know how things are going to change.
Will the government immediately launch a national public inquiry?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, as that member will learn when she reads the RCMP report, it has actually come to some conclusions about the reasons for violence against indigenous women, and that is domestic violence.
Ninety per cent of the cases have been solved. We know what the problem was. We are taking action now to address that problem, and these members should support us in doing that.
Foreign AffairsChristine Moore: Mr. Speaker, according to government sources, Canada's sanctions against Russia are being influenced by trade interests.
While our allies are putting more pressure on Russia, Canada has yet to impose sanctions on important targets such as Igor Sechin and Sergey Chemezov, two industrial tycoons who are close friends of Putin's. These two businessmen signed major trade deals with Canada, despite their ties to the Russian president.
Will the Conservatives commit to cutting all ties with Sechin and Chemezov and strengthen economic sanctions?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the strongest sanction regimes in the world. This has been coordinated with our allies to target key individuals and entities to isolate Russia politically and economically. 
Our sanctions are designed to punish the Putin regime and bring economic pressure on Russia for its illegal occupation of Ukraine. 
Canada will further take action if Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity continue to be tested.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that answer is not good enough. I warned the minister last week about the problems with Canada's sanctions.
Conservatives said, “We will not shape our foreign policy to commercial interests”, but now they are saying, “We will also look out for Canada's broader interests.” They cannot have it both ways. 
The government's rhetoric is very tough, so why will Conservatives not implement strong and coordinated sanctions against Russia? Why will it not put Putin's buddies on the list?
Deepak Obhrai: Let me repeat what I just said, Mr. Speaker. Canada has one of the strongest sanction regimes in the world, which has been coordinated with our allies to target key individuals and entities to isolate Russia politically and economically.
Let me tell the hon. member, our sanctions are designed to punish the Putin regime and bring economic pressure on Russia for its illegal occupation of Ukraine. If need be, we will take further action to send a strong message to Russia in protection of Ukraine.
Public Works and Government ServicesPaul Dewar: Why will the Conservatives not put Putin's buddies on the list, Mr. Speaker? They still have not answered that question. 
Moving on to another subject, one year after the tragic collapse of the garment factory in Bangladesh, the Canadian government still does not have a policy to ensure clothes bought by the Government of Canada are not made by children or in factories with poor health and safety standards.
Manitoba and Ontario already have responsible procurement strategies. Oversight and transparency is required. Will the Conservatives introduce a responsible manufacturing policy when it comes to government procurement?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government tries to ensure that tragedies like that do not happen again, especially on our watch. 
That is why between the RCMP and DND, over 90% of the apparel that they source is Canadian made. We want to protect jobs. We want to protect people. We want to make sure that our forces get the equipment and the apparel that they need in a safe and responsible way.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
The National Research Council of Canada bought $100,000 worth of clothing, and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada bought $75,000 worth of t-shirts for its employees.
The Conservatives have no way of knowing if that clothing was made in factories that exploit workers. Sixteen federal departments have no idea where their clothing is manufactured.
When will the government lead by example and adopt a socially responsible clothing procurement policy?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, more than 80% of the clothing purchased by the government is bought for the RCMP and the Canadian Forces, and 90% of that clothing is manufactured here in Canada.
We want to protect the integrity of the procurement system and protect people from abuse, but we also need to provide the Canadian Forces with clothing at a responsible price.
Foreign AffairsKyle Seeback: Mr. Speaker, as the general election in India concludes, early reports indicate that these elections enjoyed unprecedented voter turnout. These elections highlight the maturity and strength of India's democracy and I can say we rejoice with the people of India as they embark on a new direction under the leadership of Mr. Modi. During his time as the chief minister of Gujarat, Mr. Modi made it one of India's best-performing states economically. 
Can the parliamentary secretary please comment on the recent elections held in India?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the member for Brampton West works very hard for his constituents.
I would like to congratulate the people of India on their recent elections, as well as express my thanks to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for his role in strengthening the relations between our two countries. These elections serve as an example to the world of democracy in action. 
Our government congratulates Mr. Modi on his win. We look forward to working with Mr. Modi to strengthen the social and economic partnership that exists between Canada and India.
Champlain BridgeMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that the Champlain Bridge could be transferred to the Government of Quebec. I can understand why he would want to get rid of that hot potato, but Quebeckers would much rather he finally show some openness and transparency, especially about the renovation and replacement timeline and the issue of tolls, which could really disrupt traffic patterns throughout the greater Montreal region.
When will the government stop operating unilaterally and show some respect for the people of the south shore on the Champlain Bridge issue?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, our government's position is already well known. The new bridge will be a toll bridge. The user-pay principle is fair because the federal government will be paying for a significant portion of the cost of the new St. Lawrence bridge. 
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, did he really say the “new St. Lawrence bridge”? There must be some mistake. The Prime Minister said that the federal government's involvement in an intraprovincial bridge is “not normal”. Those are his words, and I completely agree with him.
What is really not normal is a bridge owner behaving as though Montreal were his own personal village and not giving a damn about local elected officials who are asking for a solution that takes Montreal's reality into account. Renovating the existing bridge, building a new bridge and their absurd plan to impose a toll on a vital artery without taking the other bridges into account will have serious consequences for greater Montreal and the whole province.
Will the minister ever show some flexibility and prove that he is listening to people?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we are working to deliver the new bridge as quickly as possible before 2018. Federal bridges in Montreal are a unique exception because they are neither international nor interprovincial. If the NDP team in Montreal did less party work and more political work, it would be very well informed.
Rail TransportationMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week, for the third time in three years, a train derailed in my riding, an urban riding.
However, it took three days before the information was made public. It is clear that self-regulation is not working. Will the minister take action and force these companies to be more transparent?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, there is a robust regulatory regime in this country, and our government has taken a number of significant actions to ensure rail safety in this country. We have completed more than 30,000 inspections in the last year. We invested more than $100 million in our rail safety system, and we have important agreements on information-sharing with municipalities on the testing and classification of dangerous goods. I could go on and on, but all of these measures the member should be supporting.
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, he can go on and on, but the reality is that rail companies are not being transparent about these accidents. It took almost three days before information was made public about this most recent derailment. What is more, when the emergency crews arrived on the scene, they were turned away, even though one of the cars contained dangerous materials. This is unacceptable. The people of Jeanne-Le Ber deserve answers.
 It is obvious that self-regulation does not work. When are the Conservatives going to take some responsibility and put the brakes on these runaway rail companies?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, again, quite to the contrary, the government has taken a number of very significant actions to ensure that the transportation of dangerous goods and rail safety in this country are ensured, actions that are consistent with recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board. For example, we are phasing out the DOT-111 tanker cars, something the official critic of the opposition says is the best thing that can be done.
 That member should be supporting these important things, such as information-sharing with municipalities and between the FCM and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. I could go on and on, but those are measures that should be—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The hon. member for Etobicoke North.
Foreign AffairsMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the UN warned last week that if the conflict in South Sudan continues, half of the country's 12 million people would either be starving, internally displaced, refugees abroad, or dead by the year's end.
The international community urgently needs to donate at least another $500 million if South Sudan's devastating slide into famine and humanitarian crisis is to be stopped. Will Canada attend the May 19-20 donor-pledging conference in Norway, and will it increase its support?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in South Sudan. We are deeply concerned by the reports of ethnically targeted violence. Canada calls for the perpetrators of these crimes to be identified and brought to justice.
The government is providing lifesaving food, water, sanitation, medical assistance, emergency shelter, and protection for those in need. As in other situations, we will continue to monitor that situation.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the fighting in the Central African Republic has become more brutal, left thousands of people dead, displaced hundreds of thousands, and left 2.2 million people needing humanitarian aid. The children of CAR are witnessing terrible violence: maiming, killing. The number of children being treated for severe malnutrition in the capital has tripled since January.
Will the government provide peacekeeping support in line with our capabilities if asked?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the other night when we had our debate here, in which the member participated, we expressed our deep concern about the situation in the Central African Republic and the situation there.
Canada has been contributing, and we will continue to contribute, to the United Nations for peacekeeping forces for the Central African Republic. I understand that the next batch of UN forces will be arriving in September, and as always, Canada has been contributing our share to United Nations peacekeeping.
InfrastructureMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the port of Trois-Rivières is essential to the region's economic development. The port authority wants to move forward with Phase II of the On Course for 2020 project. The federal government is expected to invest in this project to the tune of $11 million.
Can the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs tell us where things stand with this request? When will the port authorities get an answer?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what I find passing strange is that members of the NDP stand up in this place and inquire about and advocate for projects under a funding program that they vote against. What I can say is that this particular project has been submitted. We will assess it very closely, and what I am encouraged about is that municipalities in Quebec and across this country understand that they have a strong partner in the federal government to meet their infrastructure priority needs.
HomelessnessMs. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in addition to cutting the HPS budget, the Conservatives have decided to cut funding for preventing and fighting homelessness.
As a result, the Centre d'hébergement d'urgence de Terrebonne, the HUTTE, in my riding, saw its funding reduced by $70,000, a decrease of nearly 20%. This will have serious consequences for health and crime prevention.
How does the government hope to deal with the homelessness problem in Canada by cutting assistance for communities?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we have championed a model to deal with homelessness called Housing First, and under Housing First, we have helped some 2,000 homeless Canadians with mental illnesses find stable housing. We are doing the job when it comes to housing.
The NDP claims to support affordable housing, but it votes against the home renovation tax credit. It voted against the first-time home buyers' tax credit. It voted against disability related home renovation construction and moving tax credits available for the medical expense tax credit.
Why does it not put its money where its mouth is and stand up to support housing across Canada?
TelecommunicationsJohn Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Competition Bureau provided a submission to the CRTC that has confirmed what our government has been saying, that Canadians want more choice, lower prices, and better service in the wireless sector. Competition lowers prices and keeps business from becoming complacent.
The Competition Bureau estimates that a fourth national wireless carrier could benefit consumers and add a billion dollars a year to our economy. Can the parliamentary secretary inform the House of what our government is doing to promote more competition in the wireless sector?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as members know, our wireless policies are designed to benefit Canadian consumers. I am pleased to report that as a result of the 700 MHz spectrum auction recently, Canadian consumers will benefit from a fourth carrier in every region of this country. 
In addition, Canadians will know that the costs associated with wireless have gone down by some 20% while at the same time, employment in this sector has increased by some 25%.
We will continue to put the focus on Canadian consumers. We will continue to put the focus on putting money back in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and improving employment opportunities across sectors.
JusticeHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court hears its last case of the term next week, going an entire session without a full complement of judges from Quebec. Will the justice minister inform the House when he will name a new judge and by what transparent process? Will he commit to appearing with the justice before a parliamentary committee prior to any appointment?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Our government is moving very quickly to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court and will be doing so very soon.
National DefenceMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are pleased with the decision by the National Defence ombudsman to finally launch an inquiry into the accidental explosion of a grenade on CFB Valcartier in 1974.
This tragic incident cost the lives of six cadets. The survivors and the victims' families have been waiting 40 years for the government to shed light on this incident.
Can the government formally commit to providing the ombudsman with its full co-operation during this inquiry?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me first express my sincere condolences to the victims and their families affected by this horrific accident. Although this occurred many years ago, Canadians have not forgotten. 
As the member said, the ombudsman of national defence will be investigating this matter, and we all look forward to his report.
Human RightsMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I have read with concern and horror the recent reports of a young Christian woman who was sentenced to death in Sudan for converting to Christianity. I understand from news reports that the woman is eight months pregnant.
My constituents are concerned about this barbaric act of tyranny toward basic human rights and religious freedoms. Can the parliamentary secretary please update the House as to Canada's position?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, our government finds this announcement both shocking and appalling. Canada has called for Sudan to respect the religious freedom of this woman and of all the Sudanese people. Our expectation is for Sudan to respect its obligations under internationally accepted principles of human rights. 
It does serve as an important reminder of the need for the Prime Minister to host a summit in Toronto designed to focus efforts on saving the lives of mothers and children in the developing world.
The EnvironmentMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, we must price carbon, and a carbon fee and dividend almost does it all. It prices carbon fairly and scientifically. It uses only free market forces to reduce CO2. It costs virtually nothing to administer, it benefits lower-income Canadians, and no money goes to government. 
The Citizens Climate Lobby strongly supports carbon fee and dividend. Will the Minister of Finance consider carbon fee and dividend?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government places priority on the environment, while keeping the economy strong. In fact, we are the first government to achieve an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over a number of years, while still growing the economy. 
I am proud to be part of a government that is getting results for Canadians.
Air TransportationMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.):  Mr. Speaker, on May 13, Jacques Roy, director of the Academic Department of Logistics and Operations Management at HEC Montréal said that the Aéroports de Montréal, ADM, should be placed under the purview of a federal control agency.
He maintains that: 
 Ottawa did not properly negotiate its contract...in 1992. Since...it was a free for all with projects carried out without any studies or transparency...Who is monitoring ADM's investment decisions? Its charges for airport improvement fees? 
There is a real problem with governance. Will the Minister of Transport at least undertake to have ADM subject to review by the Auditor General?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, the Aéroports de Montréal operates at arm's length from the federal government and is responsible for its own operational day-to-day decisions. 
With respect to the latter part of the member's question, I will take that matter under advisement, bring it to the minister and report back.
The EnvironmentBruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important book of 2014 is called Waking the Frog by venture capitalist Tom Rand. Rand has climate solutions on how we can build an economy that will reduce CO2 and create jobs and wealth.
I ask the Ministers of The Environment, Natural Resources and Finance if they are willing to consider Rand's template for a renewed and sustainable 21st century Canadian economy.
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we made an exciting announcement. 
Canadians across the country have applauded the announcement we made in New Brunswick on the national conservation plan, which promotes our government's strong legacy of conservation work. It includes new investments for our ecologically sensitive lands, conserves marine and coastal areas, and helps connect Canadians to nature in urban areas. 
This was a commitment we made in the 2013 Speech from the Throne. I am proud to be part of a government that keeps its promises and listens to Canadians.
PrivilegeMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I regard it as a great diminution of MP abilities to have my integrity falsely attacked.
The member for Scarborough Southwest has falsely asserted in the House that I broke House of Commons rules in 2011. In fact, I proactively approached the House of Commons to pay for my cellphone use. The House of Commons specifically authorized me to purchase my cellphone use. On discovering that an MP ad ran after the 2011 vote of non-confidence, I immediately repaid the cost of it.
That is not breaking the rules; that is being scrupulously ethical, down to the very last penny, and complying with the rules.
 I ask the Speaker to order that member to withdraw his false statement.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, The Hill Times article came out after the meeting yesterday. I am going to quote from that article. It stated that the Conservative member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has raised a question of privilege. As is customary in these cases, members from other parties who may wish to provide a comment on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member have the opportunity to give a brief comment on the question.
 Customarily, we take these matters into hand and render a decision at a later time, depending on the nature of the question that was raised.
I am giving the floor to the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his additional comments.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, as you have ruled on a number of occasions, when we have had serious differences of opinion with the government's often flamboyant misuse of facts, the reality is you have judged in the past that the Conservative government has had the right to throw whatever facts they want out. Often they are unable to back them up.
In the case of The Hill Times article, the member for Kitchener Centre:
 ....had to repay the Commons for $326 worth of telephone and printing services he used for his own election campaign that year, Elections Canada records show. 
That is what the article indicates, and nothing that the member for Scarborough Southwest has said contradicts those facts. There may be a difference of opinion, but the reality is the Elections Canada records are pretty clear. The member for Kitchener Centre is protesting just a bit too much.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to rise on this point, but the nature of the response from the opposition House leader is so below what we expect for the conduct of members of Parliament in dealing with each other in the House that I must respond.
I understand the members could have made an error by relying on a media report. However, now the facts have been laid on the table by the member, before the House, that have make it clear that he was not, in the words of the opposition House leader, “required to repay”, but rather he took the initiative to repay, not at the request of House administration but on his own initiative, to ensure the rules were scrupulously followed.
That having been put in front of us now, and our being aware of the facts, and as hon. members of course accepting what we say, the appropriate response is not to continue. This is not a matter of debate on political rhetoric. This is a question of the member's conduct in the use of resources of the House.
The response of the opposition House leader is shocking to me. I am getting a little emotional because it is upsetting.
The appropriate response at this point is in fact to apologize, to accept what has been laid on the table by the member for Kitchener Centre rather than persist, having been acquainted with the facts and ignoring them.
For that reason, I would ask that it go beyond a simple request for an apology, and rather that we have the appropriate motion placed, after a prima facie finding of contempt, that the member's privileges have indeed been impugned inappropriately.
[Interjection]
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out very briefly that nowhere in the article that my colleague opposite quoted does it say that I broke the rules. In fact, it describes me as complying with the rules. Therefore, I think it is unwise for him to rely on that article in support of his comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I appreciate the interventions by the opposition House leader, the government House leader, and the original intervention by the member for Kitchener Centre. We will certainly take a look at what was iterated in the House, as we customarily do, and get back to the House if necessary.
On the face of it, it appears to be a dispute as to the facts of the issue, but we will be happy to take a closer look at what has been said and see if, indeed, there was any breach of the hon. member's privileges.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 19 petitions.
House CommitteesLois Brown: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled “Responding to the Conflict in Syria”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Navigable Waters Protection ActMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-599, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region).
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for her support.
The Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region is amazing. It is one of the best areas to take part in wildlife- and nature-related activities. The people of the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region alone spend 1.4 million days a year participating in fishing, hunting, wildlife and outdoors activities, and contribute $41 million in economic activity. Quebec generates $2.8 billion in economic activity. More than 11 million days a year are spent on sport fishing in Quebec. These sectors deserve ongoing and permanent support.
However, the Conservative government is going in the complete opposite direction. The Conservatives have weakened the legislative framework that protects our lakes and rivers. Instead of systematically protecting them, the new legislative framework protects only 62 rivers and 97 lakes in the entire country.
Before the Conservatives took an axe to it, the Navigable Waters Protection Act protected not only our lakes and rivers, but also the sport fishing and outdoor activity sectors. We need a long-term vision to protect the environment and the associated industries.
I am introducing this bill in the hopes of restoring this protection, so that the House can show its support for fishing, hunting and outdoors enthusiasts and restore access to our Canadian heritage.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I apologize for mispronouncing the name of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
PetitionsYvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 300 people from my riding. They are calling on the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced services and to explore other options to update Canada Post's business plan. 
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners ask that the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selected pregnancy termination, in that in Canada ultrasounds are being used to tell the sex of an unborn child so expecting parents can choose to terminate or abort the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl.
 The petitioners call on Parliament to condemn this worst form of deadly discrimination against females.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, petitioners from British Columbia indicate that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They want to see that changed so we have new mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They want the Criminal Code to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to impose vehicular manslaughter. They have some other good suggestions in their proposal as well.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, even though the Experimental Lakes Area has been transferred away from federal jurisdiction, I continue to receive petitions asking the government to support the staff and the programs at the Experimental Lakes Area due to the critical and important nature of the ecosystem of whole lake research done at that facility.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. 
The first calls on the government to stop the discrimination based on sexual preference when it comes to blood and organ donation.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the House to support Bill C-486, which I had the honour of supporting. It calls on all members of the House to support this bill, which will put an end to conflict minerals.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is very important and comes directly from the people of my riding. They are protesting the changes to Canada Post that will put an end to home delivery. They are extremely concerned and are calling on Canada Post to examine other options, rather than making drastic cuts to delivery services.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by British Columbians who live in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge.
The petitioners believe, as I do, that preventing the birth of baby girls through sex-selective abortions is an affront to the dignity and equality of women and girls.
 They call upon the House of Commons to condemn discrimination against girls through sex-selective abortion and do all it can to prevent these abortions from being carried out in Canada.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, today, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who are calling on the government to cover the cost of repairing and restoring the shoreline and retaining walls of the Grenville Canal, which are no longer safe.
This issue affects the safety of those living along the river, children and the general public, particularly since the federal government has owned and managed the canal for 161 years. It is responsible for historic sites and for the Ottawa River waterway where the canal is located. We are once again calling on the government to pay these costs.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Laurent Chartrand and the Comité de la protection du patrimoine de Grenville for collecting thousands of signatures and for the hard work they continue to do to ensure that the government assumes its responsibilities.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from residents of Vancouver Quadra who are very concerned about the so-called fair elections act. They are against the voting restrictions that will disenfranchise Canadians. They are against the appointment of a commissioner of elections that reduces the commissioner's independence, against the fact that the commissioner of elections is not provided with the powers necessary to properly investigate electoral infractions, against the fact that the fair elections act forbids Elections Canada from launching ad campaigns to increase voter turnout, and, last, against the fact that the act was written without proper consultation with election experts or the Canadian public at large. 
Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present, all agriculture-related, it seems.
The first petition calls for a moratorium on GM alfalfa. The petitioners call on the government to recognize that GM alfalfa is a crop that is not wanted, not specifically just by organic groups but by many conventional farmers across the country.
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, the second petition talks about pollinators, bees, and the fact that bee colonies are suffering irreparable harm, not only across our country but across the world. The petitioners are calling on the government to do expanded research into the nature of the disruption to bee colonies and their deaths, whether that be from a particular pesticide or herbicide, or some sort of colony collapse. They call for fundamental research to find out what exactly is going on. 
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, the third petition speaks to Bill C-18 and farmers' right to save seeds. The petitioners point out that the inherent right to save seeds must be protected, as it has been for all time. Farmers are asking for that to continue in the future. Petitioners are asking the government to make sure that this right is protected under Bill C-18 as we move forward.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 429 and 446. 
Joyce Murray:  With regard to Canadian Defence Advisor, Canadian Defence Attaché and Canadian Defence Liaison hospitality events requiring ministerial approval from January 1, 2012 to the present: for each event, (a) what was the total departmental incremental cost; (b) what was the cost for each line item in the Summary of Event Cost on the Event/Hospitality Request Form; (c) what was the total number of participants; (d) what was the guest list; (e) what was the location; (f) what was the stated activity; (g) what were the declared reasons for higher level approval; (h) what was the maximum cost per person approved; (i) what was the number of guests listed; (j) what were the types of hospitality expenses requested; (k) what were the estimated costs for each type of hospitality expense listed; (l) what was the date; and (m) what was the title, purpose and description? 
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), at this time the incremental costs of Canadian defence advisor, Canadian defence attaché, and Canadian defence liaison hospitality events requiring ministerial approval since January 1, 2012, are estimated to be approximately $685,000. 
With regard to subsequent questions (b) through (m), Canadian Armed Forces data about hospitality events is not centrally tracked. The research required to generate a response involves gathering information from different sources for hundreds of events. It was not possible to complete this research within the time allotted.
Mr. Scott Andrews: With regard to the Department of International Trade's Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and the subsequent creation of a Federal-Provincial fund of $400 million to support industry enhancements in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL): (a) what are the terms, in draft or complete, of any agreement between the government and the government of NL pertaining to this fund, including but not limited to, management provisions, project parameters, annual funding levels and potential project approval process; (b) how will this funding be used to play a key role in assuring the success of seafood harvesters and processors in NL; (c) what details of this agreement was completed on or before October 29, 2013; and (d) who were the negotiating representatives participating from the government and the government of NL pertaining to this funding arrangement?
Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC): Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, is concerned, with regard to the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement and the subsequent creation of a federal-provincial fund of $400 million to support industry enhancements in Newfoundland and Labrador, with regard to (a), details of the federal-provincial fund are still being determined. The Government of Canada will be negotiating the approach to management provisions, project parameters, annual funding levels, and potential project approval process with the provincial government, in consultation with industry stakeholders. 
With regard to (b), details of how the funding will be used are still being determined. 
With regard to (c), this information is not available in ACOA’s departmental files. 
With retard to (d), this information is not available in ACOA’s departmental files. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 427, 430, 431, 432, 442, 454, 456 and 468 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:  With regard to Economic Action Plan 2012's promise of proactive enrolment in Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS): (a) what is the definition of (i) proactive enrolment, (ii) automatic enrolment; (b) what exact steps will Canadians have to take to receive each GIS and OAS once (i) automatic enrolment is fully implemented, (ii) any proactive enrolment is fully implemented; (c) for each benefit, will proactive enrolment be completed by 2015 and, if not, what is the timeline; (d) is the GIS included in the (i) automatic enrolment initiative, (ii) any proactive enrolment imitative; (e) what are the phases of (i) the automatic enrolment initiative, with a detailed description of each phase, (ii) any proactive enrolment initiatives, with a detailed description of each phase; (f) is information publically available about (i) the automatic enrolment initiative, (ii) any proactive enrolment initiatives; (g) for each benefit, will individuals be notified if they are not eligible for (i) automatic enrolment, (ii) proactive enrolment; (h) for each benefit, what is the eligibility criteria for automatic or proactive enrolment; and (i) for each benefit, as of March 31, 2014, how many individuals have been (i) automatically enrolled, (ii) proactively enrolled?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:  With regard to government spending in the constituency of Sudbury: since 2011-2012 up to and including the current fiscal year, what is the total amount of funding allocated by the government within the constituency, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Glenn Thibeault:  With regard to government-created mobile applications for each fiscal year since 2008-2009 up to and including the current fiscal year: for each application, broken down by department and individual project, (a) what is the total number of downloads; and (b) what is the total number of active users?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:  With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Justin Trudeau:  With regard to the Building Canada Fund 2007-2014: (a) what was the final application deadline in each province and territory for the (i) Major Infrastructure Component, (ii) Communities Component; (b) what project applications were not approved due to (i) lack of funding, (ii) failure to meet the eligibility criteria, (iii) all other reasons; (c) what was the last project to receive approval in each province and territory; (d) when did the last project receive approval in each province and territory; (e) what projects as of March 31, 2013 have contribution agreements in place to receive funding in future years; (f) how much funding is allocated to each of those projects; and (g) in what year or years is each project expected to receive its funding?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:  With regard to the Extractives Cooperation for Enhanced Economic Development (EXCEED) Program under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD): (a) which officials from DFATD and other departments, including the Privy Council Office, will be responsible for administering this program; (b) what was the entire process, including consultation, leading to the establishment of the program and what were the related dates; (c) did an external audit and evaluation committee assess the creation of this program; (d) what are (i) the reasons for establishing this program, (ii) the objectives, (iii) the mandate, (iv) the operations of this program; (e) how many employees will be assigned to manage and administer this program and what are their responsibilities; (f) are projects required to focus exclusively on African countries; (g) why was Latin America not included in this program; (h) what is the process for submitting project proposals; (i) will there be a tendering process; (j) when will the next request for proposals be issued; (k) how many project proposals has the program received since it was established; (l) what are the selection criteria and what is the complete project selection process; (m) who is eligible for funding under the program; (n) can private-sector companies receive funding under this program; (o) will a webpage be created on the DFATD website; (p) how much does this initiative cost; (q) what type of funding does this program award; (r) can the public or businesses contribute to the program now or in the future; (s) why was an initial budget of $25 million allocated; (t) will the budget be increased or decreased; (u) why was this program not announced in Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2014; (v) what indicators and measurement tools will be used to assess the effectiveness of projects funded by the program; (w) what specific measures have been taken and what internal audit and evaluation strategies have been developed for this program to ensure compliance with the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, particularly in relation to (i) poverty reduction, (ii) consistency with Canadian values, (iii) Canada’s foreign policy, (iv) the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (v) sustainable development, (vi) promoting democracy, (vii) promoting international human rights standards; (x) what is the relationship between the Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development and the African Minerals Development Centre, and will they receive program funding; (y) how will the program fit within the departmental structure of DFATD, and what will be the reporting relationship among program officials; (z) with regard to the project “African Legal Support Facility”, which is receiving $10 million over 5 years under the EXCEED Program, (i) what was the date of the call for proposals for this project, (ii) was this a public call for proposals, (iii) on the basis of what criteria was this project selected, (iv) who are the project partners, (v) what is the performance measurement strategy for this project, including objectives, anticipated results, performance indicators, and internal audit and evaluation strategies, (vi) do the internal audit and evaluation strategies include an analysis of the reports prepared for the African Development Bank, (vii) what is the project’s mandate; and (aa) with regard to the project referred to in (z), what specific measures have been taken and what internal audit and evaluation strategies have been developed for this project to ensure compliance with the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, particularly in relation to (i) poverty reduction, (ii) consistency with Canadian values, (iii) Canada’s foreign policy, (iv) the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (v) sustainable development, (vi) promoting democracy, (vii) promoting international human rights standards? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Ralph Goodale:  With regard to duty remission on ships, boats and other vessels imported into Canada since January 1, 2006: (a) what requests for duty remission have been received (i) on what date, (ii) from who, (iii) from what address; and (b) which requests were granted and, for each, (i) what is the value of the request, (ii) what was the value of the remission granted, (iii) what was the vessel's length, class, port of registry, and registration number, (iv) when was the decision rendered, (v) who authorized the duty remission? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Gerry Byrne:  With regard to the financing and operation of the Confederation Bridge: (a) what are the amounts of toll revenues reported to the government as required by the Bridge Operating Agreement between the government and Strait Crossing Development Incorporated (SCDI), broken down by year and/or report from 1997 to the most current report; (b) has the government ever audited or evaluated SDCI’s records or remittances, as provided for in the Bridge Operating Agreement; (c) if the answer to (b) is yes, what were the key findings of the audits and what are the document identification references to these audits or evaluations; (d) if the answer to (b) is no, why has the government not audited SCDI’s records to date; (e) what has the government paid to SCDI or Strait Crossing Finance Inc. (SCFI) annually to retire the bonds issued by SCFI for the financing of the Confederation Bridge; (f) what are the government’s forecasted annual payments to SCDI or SCFI for the purposes of retiring the bonds for the remainder of its 35-year agreement with SCDI or SCFI; and (g) what are the amounts of any payments made owing to the government's guarantee to SCDI of a minimum of $13.9 million (1996 dollars) per year in toll revenue?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Veterans Hiring Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The last time the House considered this motion, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant had eight minutes left for questions and comments. 
The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. He pointed out that there are flaws in the bill we are studying.
I would like to come back to one point in particular: the RCMP. The RCMP is not included in this bill. I would like him to elaborate on that.
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his excellent question.
There are some flaws in this bill. Veterans of the RCMP were mistakenly or deliberately excluded from this bill. It would have been a good idea to include them. Creating categories of veterans goes against what they are asking for. The government should not be creating more categories of veterans because they have all served our country and deserve to be properly recognized. The ombudsman agrees with that. A veteran of the Second World War or the Korean War should not be entitled to benefits that other veterans are not entitled to. 
There are a number of categories of veterans in the bill, which makes no sense. This bill is not on the right track; it is creating more categories.
In answer to my colleague's question, I would say that the RCMP is the largest police force in Canada. If a police officer is wounded in the line of duty, he might want to transition to another career, but he does not really have a choice other than to stay with the RCMP, which takes pretty good care of its members. It would be a good idea to give injured RCMP members the opportunity to transition to a new career. Many of them are highly skilled and have the qualifications they need to begin a career with the public service. There could be all kinds of great opportunities for them, but they were left out of this bill.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and thank him for it.
Since he is the NDP veterans affairs critic, I would like to ask him a question that people asked me when I visited several Canadian legions. The question is about the problem with the new veterans charter. In 2006, it was touted as a living charter. However, in practice, it has not been changed to take into account the new problems it is causing.
One of the problems that many people talked to me about is the fact that the disability pensions that were available before April 1, 2006, have been replaced by a disability award. People wounded at a young age, who would once have collected a disability pension for 50 years or more—which adds up to several million dollars—are now getting only a single award worth just tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars after their military service. 
I would like my colleague to comment on this injustice. 
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his excellent question.
He is shedding light on some of the problems with the new veterans charter. The main problem with what is now being called the old charter, which was actually the veterans pension system, was that there were no incentives for career transition. Veterans could have access to certain benefits and certain pensions without having to make any effort to go back to work.
In 2006, Canada took part in armed conflict in Afghanistan. We knew that veterans of Afghanistan would be young veterans who might not be able to continue serving in the Canadian Forces. However, they could return to civilian work since they were not totally disabled.
The new veterans charter was implemented in a rush between two minority governments. The government said the charter would be a living document. As I was saying earlier, if it is a living document, then it needs some oxygen. It has not been used very much and it has not evolved. We are looking at everything that has to do with lump sum payments, one-time payments, and we are at the report stage of our study. In fact, some veterans raised the problem of the lump sum or one-time payments. We are going to propose a number of changes to the minister in the hope that he will listen and respond favourably to our suggestions in committee. He has to listen because only one very minor improvement was made in 2011. This document needs major improvement. We hope the minister will improve it soon, once our report is tabled.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his answers, which are very enlightening. It is obvious that he has given a great deal of thought to this matter.
Some elements of the bill before us were presented recently as Bill C-11. However, that bill was only debated for one day before it died on the order paper. It disappeared. Now it is being revived in part in the bill before us.
Could my colleague tell us what he thinks of the fact that Bill C-11 was abandoned and is being revived as Bill C-23? Is the government failing to take things seriously by introducing bills and then abandoning them almost immediately? Are we to take this bill seriously or not?
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his very positive remarks. They are much appreciated.
As my colleague mentioned, this government is starting to routinely introduce ill-considered bills that are quite flawed. They realize it afterwards, drop them and then introduce another version. 
That is what happened with this bill. The former Bill C-11 became Bill C-27, because the first one was also flawed. Some elements have been forgotten. That shows that the government does not consult enough, takes a silo approach and has its own vision.
As a result of this tunnel vision, the government introduces bills that are often unpopular and ill-conceived. This is a serious bill that includes some of the elements that were missing from the first version. However, it still does not go far enough. There are still some flaws, but it is better than its predecessor.
The government has become fixated on introducing bad bills, abandoning them and coming up with others. That is irresponsible.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to be part of this debate on Bill C-27, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act with the intention of enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces. I am going to speak just a little bit about this bill, and then I would like to bring forward some points concerning former members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the kinds of things that the government really could be doing to assist our veterans.
First, helping veterans find jobs is very helpful to their recovery and well-being on release from the military. Placing injured veterans at the head of the hiring line and increasing the access of veterans of the Canadian Forces to jobs in the civil service and in government is a positive thing. 
Is it a meaningful promise made by a government that has already cut 20,000 jobs in the federal sector and is on track to reach 30,000 and has put a freeze on hiring in the federal government? That is the question. Is this a meaningful bill, and is it the best way of accomplishing the purpose of assisting veterans who have left the military for medical reasons to transition into civilian life and find employment?
I have heard from many members of the armed forces who are in the process of transitioning to civilian life that it is a difficult process. People who have dedicated themselves to the Canadian Armed Forces and a career in the military have a sense of the family atmosphere in the military. It is their network. It is their family. It is the kind of work that they wanted to do in their career and it is what they are trained to do. When the unfortunate eventuality comes that someone needs to transition out for medical reasons, it is foreign territory in a way, for these men and women previously in uniform. Therefore, finding meaningful employment is a very important project.
Canada Company, for example, is a non-profit that was created by several people who were concerned that there was not enough support for people leaving the armed forces. It is a charitable, non-partisan organization and it serves to build a bridge between business and community leaders and the Canadian military. Its goal is to ensure that members who are transitioning from the Canadian Armed Forces themselves receive the widest possible support, care, and recognition. Its target is having employers recognize the strengths and leadership that are inherent in the members of the Canadian Armed Forces due to their dedication and training, the work that they have done in the Canadian Armed Forces and how well that can translate into meaningful positions for careers in the private sector.
I would like to congratulate Canada Company for the work it is doing, its directors are doing, and its members are doing right across the country.
One concern that we have about this bill is that it appears to not at all acknowledge that many injured Canadian Forces members wish to stay in the forces and the employment of the Canadian Armed Forces. They may well be eminently suited to undertake a number of kinds of work that are different from the work they had been doing. Perhaps they are jobs that do not require being deployed overseas. Perhaps they do not require the same physical capabilities that they had before their injury. Perhaps they do not require the kinds of complex work that they were doing before their injury, whether it is physical or mental.
Although there are other jobs in the Canadian Armed Forces that they could certainly do, because of the universality of service provisions in the Canadian Armed Forces, unless these members are fully capable of being deployed and doing the most difficult work possible, they are not eligible to stay in the Canadian Armed Forces. That would do far more to satisfy the concerns of these injured members or people with medical conditions than to force them to leave the Canadian Armed Forces and transition into meaningful civilian life. It is heart-wrenching when we hear of veterans who are on the street because they have not been successful with a challenge, and there are too many of them who are in that predicament. Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan are still coming forward about being discharged from the military against their will and before qualifying for their pension, despite repeated Conservative promises that service members injured in the line of duty can serve as long as they want in the Canadian Forces, should they have meaningful work to do in the Forces.
Bill C-27 would add to a previous bill, Bill C-11, which had provisions that related to internal postings in the public sector, providing priority over all others for external postings to these Canadian Forces members and former members of the Canadian Forces who had served at least three years in the Canadian Forces and were honourably released. A concern about this bill has been expressed by the Veterans Ombudsman, and that is that this bill seeks to create separate classes of veterans for priority hiring. The Veterans Ombudsman notes that all Canadian Armed Forces members should be treated the same way because there is an inherent service relationship for every Canadian Armed Forces member who is medically released because the individual can no longer serve in uniform. I will also point out that losing one's career as the result of a medical condition is unique to service in the military. There would be two classes of veterans for priority hiring. Members who were released for medical reasons not related to their service would have a lower priority for jobs compared to those who were released for medical reasons that were related to their service.
 An unfortunate set of complications would be created by this bill because, since the reason for the medical release would become important to the former armed forces member, a lot of bureaucracy would be created. For example, which department would do the adjudication and determine if the medical release was related to service or not? What documentation would be used in the adjudication process? What benefit of the doubt would be given in terms of this presentation? How long would the process take? How much visibility would the member have in the process? Would there be an appeal process? If the decision were made that the medical release was not service-related, would it affect the decision-making for other benefit programs such as the disability award?
The concern here is that in creating two classes of Canadian Armed Forces members released for medical reasons, this bill would create quite a lot of bureaucracy. I have concerns that this might lead to a longer timeframe and a lot of extra work for the members to actually access these jobs. At this point, we do not know if there would be any jobs, but certainly at one point one would expect that this would be something positive in terms of accessing employment. Bureaucracy has been a continuing problem in Veterans Affairs and in the Canadian Armed Forces that frustrates the serving members who have been injured.
When I was at the Alberta-Northwest Territories Command Legion, I heard that the Legion was at times using its poppy fund to pay the rent for service members who were leaving the military who had been physically or mentally injured. The bureaucracy in being released from the armed forces was so onerous and time consuming that the very benefits they were entitled to upon their release were not available for months afterwards and they were having problems paying their rent. How can we let that happen? How can we force an armed forces member to have to grovel to get money from non-profits to pay their rent simply because of the bureaucracy in National Defence? 
 I am concerned that this would add another layer of bureaucracy.
Another concern that has been raised about this program is that the government's announcements are not fairly representing the kind of funding that is available, and I will quote from an article in the National Post by Barbara Kay, entitled, “Ottawa fails veterans with cynical displays of show over substance”. This is unfortunate in a country where it is our moral obligation to be as clear and positive in our support as possible, but what we have is a lot of spin. 
According to Ms. Kay:
 Recently the government proudly announced two new initiatives. The first pledges to give priority to veterans seeking civil service jobs... 
The article goes on to express some of the concerns I have already mentioned in terms of the lack of available civil service jobs and the hiring freezes. However, she then points out that:
 The other initiative increases funding for vocational rehabilitation programs to $75,800 per veteran. But the fine print belies this seeming generosity. The money is allocated at $2 million over five years, spread over 1,300 veterans. 
Although it sounds like a lot of money, it actually only comes to $1,500 per veteran, and not $75,800. It is misleading and undermines the government's credibility when it does that kind of thing and puts out information that is simply not true or that is misleading. 
I will also draw members' attention to a previous time when the government did this. It was supposedly a $2billion fund that was announced in 2011 as a claimed commitment to enhance the new veterans charter, but on closer inspection, it turned out that $2 billion was actually $40 million annually over 50 years. This is the only government I have ever heard of that would make a promise 50 years into the future and then talk about it today as if it is money in its budget.
It is unfortunate to have this kind of a lack of credibility and trust on the part of the current Conservative government. However, that is the situation we are in because of its repeated failures, its failure to deliver for ill and injured soldiers, its failure to deliver for veterans, and its failure to deliver for Canadians.
I want to talk a bit about ill and injured soldiers, because Canadians have really let down the men and women in uniform through their government's failure to address properly the kinds of support that are needed by ill and injured soldiers. There have been so many times during my term as a defence critic when I have become aware of yet another way in which the soldiers are being let down.
The health professional personnel needs for the Canadian Armed Forces were identified in 2003, as our country was entering the war in Afghanistan. In 2003, these postings were identified as a need, and until very recently, well over 10% and more like 15% of those positions were never filled. 
That meant there were bases across the country that did not have access to a psychiatrist. In fact, as recently as a few months ago, one-half of our Canadian bases had no psychiatrist available on the base. This is in a situation in which there are literally hundreds of Canadian Armed Forces members who have served in Afghanistan, sometimes repeatedly, who have been injured and are possibly suffering from PTSD, but are not even able to see a psychiatrist at their base.
I have had a number of other concerns with support for our soldiers. These are the very soldiers who, in many cases, are transitioning out, and this bill is intended to support them. However, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these armed forces members and veterans are not receiving the kind of respect that we Canadians promised to accord them as long as 100 years ago, when Prime Minister Borden made the promise in the First World War that veterans and returning soldiers would receive the respect and care that they deserved for the sacrifices they have made.
This is a government that has actually gone to court and sent its lawyers to make representations in court that the contract does not exist. It is shameful in the first place that veterans and injured soldiers have to go to court to get their due. In the Manuge lawsuits, some $800 million that had been clawed back from veterans was reinstated by the courts. In the Equitas lawsuits, armed forces members and veterans are still fighting to get proper compensation for their injuries. The government's contention is that they have no more claim on the public purse than any other person in Canada, as though they were individuals on social assistance and have no more claim than that for their compensation.
In fact, the compensation under the new veterans charter is less than workers compensation would pay for the same injuries. That is a disrespect for the veterans, and it adds to the disrespect that has been shown by the minister when veterans have come to Ottawa to present their case and present their concerns about pensions. 
In the case of armed forces members and veterans who were the most severely disabled, those pensions dropped almost in half, to below a living wage, when they turned 65. When the veterans came forward to talk about their concerns, the minister was very disrespectful. He kept them waiting for over an hour. When he finally showed up for a few minutes before their press conference, he was rude to the veterans and stomped off. 
This has been symbolic to the veteran community of the disrespect and contempt in which they are held. I think that is a sad comment on the government, and it is sad for people right across the country. 
There have been many other examples of that disrespect, such as closing veterans offices to save a few million dollars while spending $30 million to promote the War of 1812. The government's priorities are to burnish up its brand as a warrior government, but not to actually treat the real warriors with the kind of support and respect that they deserve.
In terms of the bill, we Liberals will be supporting it because it does advance the opportunity of some veterans to find work through priority hiring in the civil service, but it is thin gruel, I have to say, in terms of what it actually does to address the concerns of our armed forces members who have become ill or injured in the course of duty and service, and it does nothing to address the key concerns that veterans have been bringing forward and want resolved by the government. 
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know that at heart the hon. member cares about veterans, as every member of the House does, but I am troubled again. We appeared together on a political panel show, and it was clear that she does not understand the role of the Legion for veterans. She actually mocked me for suggesting the Legion plays an important role through its veterans service officers, and today she talked about the poppy fund being used for buildings and rents and things like that, when the poppy fund actually goes toward helping veterans and has done so since 1925 when, by act of Parliament, the Legion was empowered to be the eyes and ears for the government in the communities of the nation.
I would ask the hon. member if she could explain to the House where the funds from the poppy fund go to help veterans, and how we, as a government, can support the Legion in its veterans activities.
[Interjection]
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from veterans' representatives themselves at the Legion that it stretches the very good work they do in supporting veterans. That work is appreciated on all sides of the House, but it is difficult for them to implement their full programming when the bureaucracy in the Department of National Defence is causing veterans to be unable to pay their rents as a result of how long they have to wait for the benefits they are entitled to. I do not think that is what the Legion was intended to do, and certainly the members who were speaking to me do not think that is what the Legion was intended to do.
I would like to ask the member for Durham whether he thinks the Legion's purpose is to pick up the ball when there is a thicket of red tape in the Department of National Defence that undermines the ability of released soldiers to pay their household bills because they are waiting months and months for their benefits.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, it is really ironic to hear the member for Vancouver Quadra, who is the Liberal critic for national defence, talking to us about bureaucracy and this government failing our veterans, soldiers, and men and women in uniform. It is really ironic. I know she was not there at the time, but it is that very party that in 1994 made the cuts in the federal national defence budget that led to the closure of the Royal Military College Saint Jean in my riding. 
It is really ironic to hear her criticize the government, because—
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: We brought it back.
[Interjection]
Tarik Brahmi: That is true. It was actually the Conservative government that brought it back, although not entirely, because—
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: There's still work to do.
[Interjection]
Tarik Brahmi: There is still work to do. We are still waiting for the university part. In 2015, I hope that we will be in government and be able to bring back that university part.
I would like to ask the member for Vancouver Quadra how she can reconcile those two contradictory statements she made in her speech.
[Interjection]
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, just for a clarification of history for the member, in the decade following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, there was a shrinkage of funding for the military under both Prime Minister Mulroney and Prime Minister Chrétien. By 2000, those funds were being built back, and they were built back for a decade, between 2000 and 2010. 
However, since 2010, there have been a series of hiring freezes, budget lapses, and budget cuts that, according to senior defence analyst Dave Perry, account for a $30 billion shortfall at this point between what the government promised in its defence strategy and what people were counting on for military equipment. Between that marker and what has actually been put forward, there is a $30 billion gap under the Conservative government.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's comments, particularly with respect to the rent problem. I have Canadians Forces Base Uplands in my riding, and I have heard from many families who are struggling under the weight of the rental problems that continue to go on and on.
However, I want to raise another important point. The government is taking a tepid but important step toward helping our veterans find meaningful employment. However, overseen by the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is regional minister for the national capital region, we have seen 30,000 to 50,000 jobs slashed—so many jobs slashed, in fact, that the outgoing Parliamentary Budget Officer was never given the information and was never able to expose for Canadians and veterans where all those cuts were taking place and what front-line services were being affected.
We are trying to reconcile that over here. On the one hand, the government says it wants to do something meaningful for our veterans, but on the other hand, surreptitiously and in the dark, it is slashing thousands of jobs. Just today another 100 to 300 jobs are being lost at Canada Post. It is an interesting question.
Finally, can the hon. member help us understand how it is possible that the government is going to take these very small steps involving very small funds when it spends $42 million a year on obscene economic action plan advertising in the middle of hockey playoffs?
[Interjection]
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, what I would say about this particular bill is that while it purports to do something positive in terms of employment, it is in fact what I would describe an empty purse, and the member was clear about why that is. With the cuts to civil service, there is not much on offer here. 
However, what it really does, from my perspective, is reinforce the concern that the current government has essentially contempt and disrespect for veterans. Where was the consultation with veterans that resulted in the conclusion that what they really wanted was to move up a couple of levels in the priority list for civil service jobs? Where was that their top priority?
What I have been hearing is that their top priority is to address the failures in the new veterans charter, which the government has supposedly been studying. What they have been asking for is pensions that would give them a life above the poverty level and for veterans offices where they can go and talk to a human being.
When the veterans came here to meet us in Parliament, one of them said, “I tried the human resources line. I waited for an hour on the line, and when somebody finally answered, they said, 'Oh, no. Sorry. I can't help you with that.'”. 
That is the kind of service that the current government wants our veterans to have. Clearly it has not been listening.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, my riding is extremely large.
I would like to echo the comments of my colleague with regard to the lack of consistency in the Liberal Party member's questions.
Canadians remember the time of the Chrétien government as very dark days because of the budget cuts the Liberals made to the Canadian Forces. In particular, the funeral and burial program was drastically reduced.
Does my colleague think that the government is justified in making cuts to funeral assistance for veterans? If so, how can she justify the comments she made today given the draconian cuts that were made by the Chrétien government?
[Interjection]
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question.
I would like to point out to him that Jean Chrétien's government is not in power right now. We have had a Conservative government for over eight years now.
Is the Conservative government not at all responsible for the situation of veterans and soldiers today? Why do the NDP not recognize the challenges and issues caused by this government's faults and failures?
This government spent four of its eight years in office making budget cuts in a secret, non-transparent way. That is why there is so much chaos in the armed forces and in veterans offices.
John Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I am delighted to share my time today with the member for Durham.
I am pleased to rise today in support of our government's efforts to help Canada's veterans find meaningful employment after their service is complete. I join in support of Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act.
We have been working hard to provide Canada's veterans and their families with the support they need. Our proposed measures to improve access to federal service jobs for veterans are a perfect example of this. They would provide Canada's deserving veterans significantly increased access to jobs in the federal public service, rewarding and meaningful jobs that would allow them to continue to lead and serve our great country.
The bill before us builds on a previous commitment made by our government, as well as new ones outlined in economic action plan 2014, to help move veterans to the front of the line for federal public service jobs.
First and foremost, eligible veterans whose military service was cut short by a career-ending injury or illness suffered in the line of duty would be given statutory priority consideration for job openings in the public service. This change would give these veterans the highest level of consideration for jobs in the federal public service, a well-deserved advantage that would recognize their sacrifices for Canada. This single measure clearly demonstrates that our government understands that while men and women with disabilities may no longer be able to continue serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, they are still very capable of making great contributions in the service of our country. That is the same principle behind our proposal to increase the existing priority entitlement for all medically released veterans from two to five years.
However, we propose to take this even further. The initiative we have proposed today would also allow a great number of veterans and still-serving military personnel who have at least three years of service to participate in the hiring process for advertised positions in the federal public service. This would give our honourably released veterans and still-serving military personnel access to the public service employment opportunities they need to thrive following their service. Under this legislation, eligibility for these opportunities would continue for a full five years after release, giving our veterans the opportunity to upgrade any training or education they deem necessary.
As much as these changes would provide Canada's veterans with access to public service jobs, it is important that a measure be put in place to ensure that they are seriously considered for the opportunities for which they apply. That is why this bill would give our personnel and veterans priority for externally advertised jobs if they have three years of military service.
I am proud to support all of these amendments. They are truly the right thing to do. These new measures, coupled with our significant investments and initiatives, would provide our veterans with much of the support they need. I am proud that our government has listened to the needs of our military personnel who have served with such valour and courage. Let me assure the House that we are not only listening, we are taking concrete, substantive action to ensure that these brave men and women are provided the opportunities they so richly deserve. 
Our government has already invested almost $4.7 billion in new funding to improve the benefits and services we provide to veterans and their families. We have also established the veterans bill of rights, something our veterans have been asking for since the 1960s. 
To ensure the fair treatment of veterans, their representatives, and their families, we created the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. Since 2007, we have also doubled VAC's national network of operational stress injury clinics from five to ten, which has addressed the growing number of veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions.
Further, since forming government, we have implemented many important mental health programs and initiatives. They include the following: developing access to a national network of more than 4,800 community mental health professionals so veterans can get the help they need wherever they live; establishing the VAC assistance service, a 24-hour toll-free line that provides veterans and their families with short-term professional counselling and referral services, including support for mental and emotionally health concerns; and investing in a peer support program for injured and ill veterans and still-serving members, and expanding it to the support of their families. 
In 2008 we enhanced the critically acclaimed veterans independence program so that thousands of veterans, widows, and caregivers could also receive the housekeeping and grounds maintenance services they needed to remain in their own homes.
In 2009 we restored and expanded benefits for approximately 3,600 allied veterans and 1,000 families who have made Canada their home. That same year, we worked with the Department of National Defence to open our first integrated personnel support centres on Canadian Armed Forces bases and wings. Today there are 24 such centres across the country as well as seven satellite offices so that more than 100 VAC employees are now working alongside their counterparts at National Defence to provide coordinated services for releasing military men and women.
In 2010 we announced that we were significantly enhancing the new veterans charter. Changes we implemented in October 2011 better ensure that our most seriously injured veterans and their families are receiving the financial support they require.
To serve veterans and their families better, faster, and in modern and convenient ways, we launched the cutting red tape for veterans initiative. Through this initiative, we have first, simplified our policies and programs for veterans; second, streamlined business processes at veterans affairs; and third, introduced new technologies.
To better ensure that Canada's veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel make a successful transition to civilian life, we developed our veterans transition action plan, and we are supporting initiatives from the new Veteran Transition Advisory Council that are helping to raise awareness of the skill sets veterans have to offer the private sector.
Our government continues to work ambitiously to ensure that Canada's men and women in uniform transition out of military life with the utmost success. That is why we have been a proud supporter and financial partner in the new helmets to hard hats Canada program, a program that is providing veterans with opportunities for employment and apprenticeship in the construction industry. That is also why we are working with corporate Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces in partnership with employers across the country to assist veterans in transitioning to civilian careers.
Our government will continue to ensure that our veterans succeed after their service. That is why we have brought forward these measures that build on all the investments and initiatives our government has made in support of our veterans.
They establish our unprecedented level of commitment to hiring veterans in the federal public service and deliver meaningful new opportunities for Canada's veterans and military personnel.
This legislation is a giant leap forward, not just for these remarkable men and women but for our country. Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans are admired for their leadership and teamwork and for having executed their duties faithfully and effectively to serve our nation at home and abroad. They have taken up the cause to defend our rights and freedoms and preserve our way of life. They have the skills, training, and experience that make them strong candidates for federal public service jobs.
 Our government is committed to ensuring that when veterans leave military service, they have the support they need to transition with the utmost success. That is why I urge all members in this House to give their full support to the changes I have outlined here today.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my colleague some questions about the speech he just gave, I would like to point out that the NDP is going to support Bill C-27, even though we think that it does not go far enough, unfortunately.
I have a question regarding a rather specific detail. I do not know whether my colleague opposite will be able to answer it. I saw in the bill that surviving spouses of former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who served in the Second World War and the Korean War will be given priority access to public service jobs but that the same is not true for surviving spouses of former members who served at least three years. They are not given that priority access.
I would like to know why this restriction was included in the bill. I must say that, on this side of the House, the NDP disagrees with this provision. We think that the surviving spouses of veterans who gave their lives for their country deserve this preferential treatment regardless of where their spouses served.
[Interjection]
John Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the bill has been geared not only to veterans but to their families to ensure that our families are cared for. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a statement the Minister of Veterans Affairs made not long ago. He said:
 The Public Service Alliance of Canada has zero credibility on Veterans’ issues. This is the group that opposes giving priority hiring for federal government jobs to injured Veterans. Veterans stood up for Canada through thick and thin, while PSAC stands for Veterans only when it suits their political goals. 
We as the government, in presenting the bill, want to provide an environment where our veterans will be cared for, where their families will have the ability to meet their needs, pay their bills, and live a fruitful and fulfilling life after their years of service. I believe the bill would do just that.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I actually saw what our government was doing for veterans and what we continue to do for veterans. I have family who are veterans and served in Afghanistan. I am proud of that fact. If I had better eyes, I likely would have been a veteran myself, as I wished. I would be a former member of the air force.
What I find unfortunate about some of the discussions around veterans issues is that even though we work together at committee for veterans and work behind the scenes, what is problematic is that they becomes political pawns. Veterans become the pawns of the political opposition. It is unfortunate, because we should all be working towards veterans' needs and working toward a good end for veterans.
What does the member think of veterans being used as political pawns?
[Interjection]
John Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in the House on another issue, I was here last Friday, May 9, for the National Day of Honour. As a Canadian, I could not have been more proud to witness the veterans who have served in Afghanistan, their families, and the families of those who were unfortunately lost in that conflict being recognized, honoured, and respected. The recognition on the National Day of Honour was by all Canadians. In Ottawa we witnessed the tens of thousands of people who came to honour our veterans, which spoke poignantly to the fact that we as Canadians do honour our veterans. Obviously we want to recognize their contribution to keeping our country free and safe. They have done that for us.
When this issue enters the House, it should be maintained at a high level of respect and honour. I would hope that all members in the House, regardless of party, are able to maintain that balance in ensuring that whatever we discuss relative to the service and the commitment of our veterans, we maintain that high level of standards that recognizes and honours their commitment to our great country.
Points of OrderPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order regarding the usage of Standing Order 56.1. As you know, Mr. Speaker, on March 27, under Standing Order 56.1, the government passed a motion ordering the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study allegations of inappropriate use of House of Commons resources, allegations that were found, after less than two hours of questions yesterday at the committee, to be baseless, as it turns out. 
I believe that the motion in question was incorrectly accepted by the Chair in the heat of the moment as being in order. I will be asking that the Chair spell out the limits of Standing Order 56.1 for the sake of clarity in the future. The reason this is so important is to prevent the abuse of an extraordinarily powerful tool for the government, which it must be said already has a disproportionate number of procedural levers at its disposal.
To oppose such a tactic, 25 members must rise to prevent the motions from being imposed without notice or debate.
The number of 25 MPs may seem reasonable at first glance. However, when you consider that the third, fourth and fifth parties sometimes have 20, 15 or 10 members—or, as we saw this morning, 4 or 5 members—in the House, and that small political parties have just two, three or four members, if we leave Standing Order 56.1 as it is, the government can instruct the committees to do whatever it wants. We know that that could cause a lot of problems for the future in the House.
It is becoming ever more clear that following the next election, if the Conservative Party continues the way it is going, it may have difficulty getting the 25 members in the House in the next Parliament that would allow it to stop this procedural strategy.
Regardless of the specifics, I believe it is crucial to underline that this rule was always meant to be used for the more mundane daily routine business of the House and not as a way to circumvent the democratic process, which is meant to be followed by substantive matters. While the rules surrounding the use of Standing Order 56.1 have often been the subject of difficult rulings from the Chair, I believe the motion of March 27 should have been deemed to be out of order.
I will ask the Chair to clarify, with the obvious benefit of hindsight, whether or not this motion was admissible, and will also seek your guidance as to what should be done in the future when members of this place are faced with a similar situation. As the Chair knows, as part of the study the committee was ordered to conduct by the motion of March 27, the hon. Leader of the Opposition appeared as a witness before PROC yesterday for nearly two hours, until the chair basically said that all the questions had been answered and called a premature end to the committee.
 As I am sure the Chair is also aware, the opposition leader clearly explained to the members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal members on PROC, that the NDP satellite offices were set up in consultation with and approval from the House of Commons and that the NDP was proud to be working outside of the Ottawa bubble to reach out to Canadians in the communities where they work and live. 
My issue is not with the fact that PROC considered the matter of these satellite offices, which I actually believe provided the official opposition and the leader of the official opposition a wonderful opportunity to clarify the facts of the matter, not to mention it also provided a wonderful sneak preview of what it might look like to have a prime minister who actually would be willing to, and capable of, answering tough questions. 
It is not the political issue I am talking about; my issue is procedural and concerns the use of Standing Order 56.1 on matters for which it was never intended.
 Let me read what Standing Order 56.1 (1) says specifically, for your review, Mr. Speaker. It states:
 (a) In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House. 
 (b) For the purposes of this Standing Order, "routine motion" shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. 
When Standing Order 56.1 was created, the members tried to set some limits, as set out above. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left unsaid in Standing Order 56.1, which explains how the kind of motion that could be acceptable under this Standing Order has been the subject of a point of order on a number of occasions.
Nevertheless, what is written in Standing Order 56.1 is very clear. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the only part of that Standing Order that has to do with committees. It clearly states that only motions to establish the powers of its committees are in order. This means that this Standing Order could be used to authorize committees to travel, for example, which has been done in the past.
However, Standing Order 56.1 makes it clear that giving an instruction to a committee does not fall within the limits of this Standing Order. Therefore, the Minister of Labour's motion must be ruled out of order by the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, on page 672, of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by O'Brien and Bosc, which you know backward and forward, we can read the following, “...its use...to give a direction to a standing committee of the House has been deemed contrary to the Standing Orders”.
Indeed, there has been only one other time when Standing Order 56.1 was used in this matter, and the Speaker at the time ruled the motion to be out of order. 
On May 31, 2007, the government House leader moved the following motion under Standing Order 56.1:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development convenes a meeting, it shall not be adjourned or suspended until it completes the committee stage of Bill C-44, except pursuant to a motion by a parliamentary secretary and, provided the bill is adopted by the committee, agrees to report the bill to the House within two sitting days following the completion of the committee stage. 
With less than 25 members having risen to oppose the motion, it was adopted. However, the member for Wascana, realizing the mistake of the Chair, then rose on a point of order asking that the Chair deem the motion to be inadmissible. The Chair immediately ruled the motion to be out of order and said:
 I think that use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of the committee, of any committee, is a new development in the House and one that I find out of order. 
He added to his ruling, on June 5, 2007:
 A key element in my ruling today is the fundamental precept that standing committees are masters of their own procedure. Indeed, so entrenched is that precept that only in a select few Standing Orders does the House make provision for intervening directly into the conduct of standing committee affairs. 
He added at that time:
 ...the only reference to committees in the Standing Order is one allowing motions for “the establishing of the powers of its committees”, suggesting that the rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them powers they do not already possess.[...] The only examples dealing with standing committees or standing committee activity the Chair has been able to find have to do with granting standing committees the power to travel. [...] the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that regard falls squarely within the parameters of the rule. 
Outside of these very specific and very clear cases, Speakers of the House have occasionally had to rule on the use of Standing Order 56.1.
In 1991, in response to concerns raised when Standing Order 56.1 was adopted, Speaker Fraser provided the following clarification:
 ...this "over-ride" provision can operate, as the Chair understands it, only with respect to a certain very limited range of motions offered at a specific time in our daily agenda by a minister of the Crown.... 
On September 18, 2001, Speaker Milliken also pointed out that:
 It should be emphasized that at the time of its adoption it was envisioned that the standing order would be used for only so-called routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1(1)(b). 
I could provide more examples, but I do not want to go on about this any longer because I think that this case is very clear. With respect to committees, Standing Order 56.1 can be used only to give them powers they do not already have, such as the power to travel. The use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct a committee to study a particular subject or to hear certain witnesses is definitely outside the scope of Standing Order 56.1. Consequently, the Chair should have indicated that the motion was not in order.
The motion moved by the Minister of Status of Women on March 27 represents a new use of Standing Order 56.1, one that does not respect practice or rulings of previous Speakers on this order. The government had a normal mechanism for asking a committee for a study. The mechanism that we have for this is to table a motion and, following the normal notice period, call it for debate and a decision from the House. There was nothing preventing the government from proceeding in this way. There were no extraordinary circumstances justifying the use of the extreme measure of Standing Order 56.1 in a way for which it was never intended.
I must say that I worry. I am noticing a trend with the current government, which tends to completely disregard the spirit of the practices and procedures that guide our work here in the House of Commons. Of course, we would all like the procedure and House affairs committee to proactively review and clarify the standing order in question, but, as members know, the committee has been very busy fulfilling the order of the House as part of a kangaroo court routine.
This use of Standing Order 56.1 cannot be allowed to stand without clarification from the Chair. Our party will have 25 members from here to the election, but for the smaller parties in this Parliament that do not have 25 members who can stand, and for the Conservative Party in future Parliaments, which will not have 25 members to stand, the precedent would put all of those MPs at risk of further abuse by majority governments like this one that have lost all reverence for this institution and its foundational importance to our democracy.
In conclusion, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the Chair's decision to allow the government's motion of March 27 to be presented pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, and to also provide any further guidance to the House as to how this provision should and should not be used in the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I see that the hon. government House leader is rising on the same point.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to this point. The issue is what an eligible motion is under Standing Order 56.1.
Standing Order 56.1(1)(b) provides: 
 For the purposes of this Standing Order, "routine motion" shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. 
I will emphasize again that key phrase: that it is for the purpose of “establishing of the powers of its committees”. That is part of its authority. 
Quite clearly, the primary thrust of the motion from the hon. Minister of Labour, the motion that gave rise to the occurrence of the Leader of the Opposition before the committee dealing with the question of the improper use of taxpayers' funds by the NDP, was to give the procedure and House affairs committee an order of reference, or to use the words of the Standing Order, “establishing of the powers of its committees”.
Indeed, the last time that this Standing Order was invoked was to provide a committee with an order of reference. Page 2289 of the Journals, for November 8, 2012, shows that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was mandated for a motion proposed under Standing Order 56.1, to conduct the study required by section 533.1 of the Criminal Code.
As members can see, there was an order of reference given to the committee, exactly the same as happened in this case, on a matter that otherwise needed to be given the authority, including the authority to hear that witness in particular.
Prior to the adoption of Standing Order 56.2, we also saw a number of instances when Standing Order 56.1 was used to authorize committee travel. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 461, informs us that Speaker Milliken: 
 ...also suggested that this rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them with powers they do not already possess, such as the power to travel. 
The latter portion of that quote is important to bear in mind. It echoes the ruling of Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie at page 10124 of the Debates for June 5, 2007. 
It is important to recall that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is exempted from the general and broad sweeping order of reference which Standing Order 108(2) confers upon most of our standing committees. That particular committee's permanent mandate derives largely from Standing Order 108(3)(a). It is buttressed by numerous specific orders of reference which this House adopts.
In that sense, the motion of the hon. Minister of Labour sought to empower the committee, or at the very least to remove any doubts whatsoever that it is indeed empowered to study the matter of the troubling allegations about how the official opposition has been using the resources provided to it by the House of Commons. 
Beyond that particular element of the motion, committees generally have the power to send for persons. Pages 136 and 137 of O’Brien and Bosc remind us, “Committees are not empowered to compel the attendance of the Queen, the Governor General, Members, Senators, officers of another legislature or persons outside of Canada”.
To that end, the latter half of the motion empowered the committee by doing something which it itself could not do. Thus, it was necessary to resort to a motion of this House in order to provide it with those powers, if you will, establishing the powers of committee as it is contemplated in Standing Order 56.1(1)(b), and to provide that order of reference.
Clearly, the motion of the hon. Minister of Labour met the test of establishing the powers for committee, as the Standing Order states, and as Speaker Milliken and Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie have ruled in the past.
I note that there was some reference made to substantive matters. I will note that on the member's reference to the restriction against using this Standing Order on substantive matters, that is somewhat defined by previous decisions, and we do have guidance. 
I would quote Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling at page 5974 of the Debates on May 13, 2005, where he stated:
 It is quite clear that the use of Standing Order 56.1, while allowing the House then to determine things in relation to its affairs that are not substantive matters, that is passing laws, may be done by using this technique. 
Clearly, in that decision, he has equated the passing of laws through the parliamentary process as the substantive matters that are not covered by Standing Order 56.1. That is, the House could not, through Standing Order 56.1, attempt to substitute any element of the statutory process for passing laws, but that is what Speaker Milliken said is meant by substantive matters. 
Clearly what we were talking about, or what the committee was dealing with in this matter, was not the question of a substantive matter in passing a law but was rather a very separate matter about the administration of the House. It was a matter under the authority of the procedure and House affairs committee, normally part of its jurisdiction, specifically the misspending of taxpayers' funds by the NDP for partisan purposes in partisan NDP offices.
Again, that aspect of the ruling of Mr. Milliken related to the interaction between Standing Order 56.1 and the requirement of section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867 for decisions here to be taken by a majority. Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, clearly distinguished between questions of substance and “matters of internal procedure, which the House can decide on its own initiative”. The motion of the hon. Minister of Labour did not relate to the passage of any bill or the creation of any law, and therefore, it should not have been ruled out of order and was properly ruled to be in order and accepted by the Speaker at that time.
Finally, I would conclude by referring to pages 672 and 673 of O'Brien and Bosc, where the authors conclude their treatment of Standing Order 56.1 with the following:
 ...Speakers Parent and Milliken both urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examined the appropriate use of this Standing Order. Having received no feedback from the Committee to the House, the Speaker stated he did not feel it was for the Chair to rule out of order a motion that appeared to be in compliance with the Standing Order, despite any reservations he may have expressed about it. 
Though in the present case the motion more than appears to be in compliance with Standing Order 56.1, it is in compliance, I would submit, and in fact, I think the above example shows that despite an invitation to somehow further restrict the application of it, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the House have declined to do so, leaving all those powers I discussed earlier in this argument in place.
Finally, I would like to make one further point, which actually relates to the earlier point of order as well as to this discussion of the appearance of the NDP leader on the matter of the misuse of parliamentary resources for partisan purposes. That is that the earlier question of privilege raised by the member for Kitchener Centre dealt with the fact that the NDP was suggesting that he had misused parliamentary resources when he had, in fact, as he said here, gone the extra step of asking the House of Commons to ensure that no parliamentary resources were ever misused by him. He asked permission to pay for resources that would have been spent for a partisan purpose, something on his own initiative, to ensure that they were not, and he ensured that those monies were paid back. 
That is a very notable precedent and one the NDP might wish to reflect on in dealing with this point of order. Perhaps that is the way situations like the one they find themselves in right now are properly dealt with. Perhaps they should now go to the administration of the House of Commons and offer to pay back the funds they have spent inappropriately on partisan purposes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the hon. government House leader and the hon. opposition House leader for their interventions on this matter.
I am mindful that it has been nearly two months since the particular motion was considered by the House. Nonetheless, we will take these matters under advisement and consider the comments that have been made by those intervening. 
On the same matter, I see the hon. member for Ottawa South rising on the same point.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, just to put a marker down, the Liberal Party of Canada reserves the right going forward to examine this in greater detail and to come back at a later date to make a submission for the Chair's consideration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): That is duly noted. I thank the hon. member for Ottawa South for reminding the House that there may indeed be another opportunity to weigh in on the matter.
We will take this matter under advisement in the days ahead and get back to the House accordingly.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct the figures I cited in the House today during question period in response to some questions. I said that over 80% of garments bought by the government were bought for the RCMP and public service, and 90% of those garments were made in Canada.
I intended to say that over 90% of garments bought by Public Works were bought for the RCMP and DND, and 98% of those garments were made in Canada.
I hope that will correct these much better numbers in the record in both my French and English response.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The House thanks the hon. minister for her clarification in that respect.
It being 1:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Former Canadian Forces Members Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-568, An Act respecting former Canadian Forces members, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking today in support of this bill, which would provide additional and much-needed support to Canada's veterans.
These men and women risked their lives to serve their country. The pride they feel will last forever, but the psychological and physical scars that many of bear will also last a long time. It is crucial that their government provide them with long-term care.
I am very proud to support Bill C-568 concerning long-term care for veterans. It is the very least we can do to thank them for their sacrifices.
With the end of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, many soldiers came home thinking they could finally put down their weapons and stop fighting. Unfortunately, they now have to fight government officials to get the services and support they deserve.
Veterans who fought in wars that took place before 1953 were given access to the long-term care that was promised to them by the government of the time. They have access to reserved beds, beds in community care facilities and dedicated departmental contract beds.
Veterans who fought in Cyprus, Bosnia, Afghanistan and all the other modern-day veterans are being told by Veterans Affairs Canada that they are not in the right category to benefit from these services. Modern-day veterans have access only to community beds and have no seniority. They have to use the normal selection process.
However, the number of wartime veterans keeps dropping and will drop by half in 2016. What is more, there are empty beds reserved for veterans.
Parkwood Hospital has 37 empty beds, but Vice-President Elaine Gibson says that:
 The legislation prevents us from admitting patients that do not meet the criteria. They need to have served in World War One, Two or the Korean War. If the rules were different, we would be there to serve our veterans. 
Veterans are victims of bureaucracy and the Conservative government's unwillingness to listen or to help veterans.
Not only have the Conservatives not tried to address this problem and give modern-day veterans access to the beds, but they also decided that the few services these veterans were already receiving were too many.
They did not listen to the NDP and follow the example of the United States, Great Britain and Australia by sparing Veterans Affairs from budget cuts. They cut $226 million and 800 positions from Veterans Affairs Canada.
If we compare that to the fact that the current cost of providing long-term care to 8,500 veterans is $284 million, and the average age of those veterans is 87, then we quickly realize that the current generation of veterans have cause for concern.
While the country was shocked to learn of the wave of suicides among veterans, the Conservatives closed eight Veterans Affairs regional offices that were providing help with mental health problems, responding to crises and helping older veterans live independently. 
It is clear that the Conservatives very much like the army, but do not care much about the soldiers.
When a group of veterans who were concerned about the closure of these offices came to Ottawa to meet with the minister, he did not even show up. That is indicative of the government's lack of respect for our veterans.
Let us get back to Bill C-568. If my colleague's bill passes, it will set things right with respect to veterans' health care.
This bill would eliminate the unfair distinction made between pre-1953 and post-1953 veterans. All men and women who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces deserve the same respect and must be entitled to long-term health care funded by the government.
Therefore, it is essential that the Department of Veterans Affairs Act be amended to extend health care benefits, treatment and other benefits to all former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who meet the military occupational classification requirements. What Bill C-568  proposes would remedy one of the main inconsistencies and give modern-day veterans access to reserved beds.
The government must also work with the NDP and veterans' organizations to streamline Veterans Affairs Canada's eligibility criteria. These rules make the process for obtaining veterans' benefits very complicated and sometimes put the benefits out of reach.
The government must reverse its decision to close eight regional Veterans Affairs offices which, as I have already mentioned, provide essential assistance to veterans. It must also abolish the unfair clawback of the pensions of veterans and former RCMP members to comply with the ruling in the Manuge case.
The government must also improve, review and update the new veterans charter, including the lump sum payment to injured members. It must apply the principle of the same standard for all veterans to all federal programs and services.
I firmly believe that the government must expand the veterans independence program to all veterans and RCMP members, their widows and widowers. 
Finally, the government has an obligation to provide better support for veterans suffering from post-traumatic conditions or operational stress injuries and their families.
Let us come back to the bill before us today. In his report on long-term care, the Veterans Ombudsman said:
 The very existence of so many distinct eligibility categories and the associated challenges entailed in establishing a Veteran's eligibility...has been and remains a source of contention for both clients and...employees of Veterans Affairs Canada. 
It is absolutely essential to follow up on the ombudsman's report on veterans' long-term care needs and put an end to these categories, which exclude modern-day veterans. With the rules as they now stand, it is like we are telling them that their sacrifices are not worth as much as those of their parents or grandparents.
Fortunately, Canadians do not see things that way. A total of 83% of Canadians believe it is important to support members of the Canadian Forces after they have completed their service. However, only 34% of Canadians say that they are proud of how our veterans are treated today.
By making cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada, the Conservatives have clearly demonstrated that they are not listening to Canadians.
I would like to close by reiterating that I support the bill. All of our country's veterans served our country with the same courage and distinction, and they all deserve to receive the care and services they need. The NDP believes that they all have the same rights and that they must all have access to long-term care. The amendment proposed in Bill C-568 would ensure that they are given that right by reserving beds for Canadian Forces members who served after 1953.
Branch 185 of the Royal Canadian Legion is located in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. When I went to visit and talk to these people, I was able to see first-hand the difficulties they are experiencing as a result of the lack of services available to them.
Today, I am proud to support the bill on behalf of the veterans in my riding, as well as on behalf of thousands of Canadians and veterans in ridings all across the country.
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to support Bill C-568, introduced by my colleague from Saint-Jean. It is a simple bill, but an important one.
With power comes responsibility. Canada is fortunate to have a military force whose personnel make us proud. Their work within our borders and abroad is one of constant dedication and a continuous source of pride. Canada is recognized as a meaningful contributor to numerous missions abroad, both in peacetime and in times of conflict.
In my riding, I am proud to have a number of Legions whose members remain vigilant in helping our community to commemorate our history. Our history forms a significant part of our collective memory and serves to inform those who have made Canada their home.
Serving as military personnel is a task fraught with many on-the-job risks. Post-traumatic stress disorder is increasingly being recognized as a widespread effect of protracted combat operations. The long-term mental health of Canadian troops is coming to bear as an issue requiring a more in-depth response from the government in much the same way as a loss of a limb or an injury of the flesh.
We here in the House—the government and all members of the House—must take up our responsibilities. When Canadian men and women choose to serve in our Canadian Armed Forces, they do so at the risk of paying the ultimate price. For that reason, they need to know that we are behind them. They need to know that if they are wounded in our service, we are behind them. They need to know that we will provide the care that is needed when it is needed and that we will make sure their particular needs are addressed. It is a part of the social contract, a moral obligation that the state has toward its men and women in military service.
Since the Great War and the Second World War, Canadians have remained active in deployments abroad, most recently in Afghanistan, but surely we remember our contributions to Bosnia, Cyprus, and other missions around the world. Our soldiers go where our leadership tells them, and they bear the scars to prove it—and there are scars. There has been loss of life and limb. There has been injury to body and mind. Their particular roles in these missions are reflected in their particular needs in the health care system when their work is done and they return to Canada, their home. These are Canadian veterans, and we should be treating them as such.
Canada's recent veterans' needs are great. They need a greater priority. They need greater priority access to long-term health care funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The government needs to acknowledge its responsibility.
Those eligible Canadians who served before 1953 have earned their access to long-term medical supervision, contract beds in hospitals for acute care, and nursing services. It is written in the veterans' health care regulations, and so it should be. However, to be a Canadian veteran does not stop as of 1953, so what of those men and women post-1953? 
For those Canadians who served after 1953, the health care picture is not so rosy. They can access community beds, but these are part of the general pool of beds available to all Canadians in need of a particular type of medical care, so there are no priorities made. To be fair, in Quebec we do have a federal long-term care institution, but shortly Veterans Affairs will be transferring it to the province, which means those beds will not be available for modern-day veterans.
Our veterans deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of when they served our country.
The government must support long-term health care for modern-day veterans, as it has for those who served before 1953. This should be an inherent understanding and obligation on the part of any democratic government that sends young men and women into harm's way for the country's ideals.
The Veterans Ombudsman agrees, so much so that he released a report on the matter. It is called “Veterans' Long-Term Care Needs: a Review of the Support Provided by Veterans Affairs Canada through its Long-Term Care Program”. It is pretty clear, as far as titles go. I hope the government has read it, because it sure has not followed it.
The government should improve support of veterans suffering from PTSD. The government should reverse its decision on the closure of eight Veterans Affairs offices, and the government should extend the veterans independence program to all veterans, to their spouses, and to the members of the RCMP.
Veterans and their families should be cared for so that they have one less thing to think about while they are running their missions. They are Canadian citizens, first and foremost. It is not an issue that they should be moved to the head of the line, but rather should be afforded the care and respect they are due.
They are our veterans. Our veterans deserve more than service reductions. They deserve more than budget cuts. They put their lives on the line for Canadians. The least that Canada's government can do is ensure they did it for a reason.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Resuming debate.
Accordingly, I invite the member for Saint-Jean to use his five-minute right of reply.
The hon. member for Saint-Jean.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the arguments that government members made against Bill C-568. I would remind members that one of the objectives of this bill is to give veterans priority access to beds in community facilities, which make up two-thirds of the 9,000 beds currently occupied. 
The Conservatives' main concern is that this will create unnecessary red tape. I do not understand this argument, since the government actually would rather avoid paying a bill that it could pass along to the provinces. This bill would not do away with the categories of veterans for all of the regulations. It would only do so for part III of the Veterans Health Care Regulations, which has to do with long-term health care.
Giving veterans priority access to beds will not create red tape. It will certainly cost some more money, but our veterans deserve to have all of us share the costs of the consequences of the missions we sent them on. 
We are simply asking the federal government to change its model of classes of veterans and implement a system in which those who served before and after 1953 have access to the same quality care. Today we have to make a decision about access to beds for the veterans we are so proud of.
We know that there are already two problems with beds in community facilities: wait lists and staff turnover, which is directly related to the orderlies' wages. With the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital transfer, the orderlies' salaries will decrease by 15% to 34%. How can we avoid staff turnover with these kinds of wage cuts?
We often talk about two categories of modern veterans: those who served before 1953 and those who served after. In fact, there are two subcategories of modern veterans: those who served before and those who served after the new veterans charter took effect on April 1, 2006. 
I would like to talk about how modern veterans are not being given the benefit of the doubt. If a traditional veteran has a service-related injury, there is automatically a presumption that there is a connection between that veteran's service and the need for long-term care. However, modern veterans—even if they received a disability pension before 2006 or a disability award after 2006—have to prove that there is a connection between their service and the need for long-term care. That is impossible, in practical terms.
It is impossible because, at a certain age, it is no longer realistic to be able to make a distinction between the natural consequences of aging and the consequences directly related to military service, even if the needs are legitimately related to the veteran's service. New Zealand veterans were facing the same unfair situation, so the government created a single category for veterans once they turn 75.
The new veterans charter was passed in 2006 with the promise that it would be a living document. During consultations about my bill, I heard veterans complain about some of the new provisions. One of the most striking examples that was brought to my attention was the fact that before the new charter, injured veterans received a disability pension. Now that the new charter has been implemented, they receive a lump sum payment that works out to far less money.
In conclusion, I would like the government and the Conservative members to remember that voting against Bill C-568 will neither address the problem of long-term health care for veterans nor make it go away. 
On the contrary, as the Canadian population in general ages over the coming decades, there will be even more pressure on health care systems, which the provinces are responsible for. The shortage of long-term beds for veterans will get even worse, and that is something we will have to talk about again someday.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 28, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
Just before we adjourn, the long weekend ahead is named for a former sovereign, who established this place in 1859. A few years afterward, it became the nation's capital. I hope all members enjoy a productive and safe week.
It now being 2:08, this House stands adjourned until Monday, May 26, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:08 p.m.)