House of Commons Hansard #249 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was anaphylaxis.

Topics

AnaphylaxisPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

AnaphylaxisPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

AnaphylaxisPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

AnaphylaxisPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

AnaphylaxisPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those opposed will please say nay.

AnaphylaxisPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

AnaphylaxisPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

AnaphylaxisPrivate Members' Business

7:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 22, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Veterans AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time this evening to discuss the plight of veterans who are trying to get care for their very specific needs. Finding access to long-term care beds is difficult for all Canadians, but finding those beds in facilities that have the expertise to deal with the specific needs of veterans is even more difficult.

It is important to note that the government is shutting and phasing out long-term care facilities for veterans and offloading the responsibility to the provinces. I want to remind the minister that the responsibility for veterans is federal, and that should include their care as they age or after they are injured in the line of duty. At a time in life when they are fragile and vulnerable, the government is refusing to live up to its responsibility to them.

The member opposite will tell us that we have provincial health care, that we do not need to have separate veterans' hospitals. This is a shameful cop-out.

The men and women who put their lives on the line deserve respect and dignity. Veterans' hospitals have the expertise to deal with the very specific issues that veterans face, while other facilities do not have that capacity. Space is available in hospitals with this particular expertise, but veterans are being turned away.

I have had veterans approach me and tell me that they need a long-term care bed. There are empty beds at Parkwood Hospital, in London, Ontario, a veterans' hospital in my riding, but people cannot get in because of the technicality about the mandate of such hospitals. Doctors have said very clearly in the case of a 33-year veteran that his spinal deterioration was most likely because of his service, yet their opinion was dismissed and the veteran in question was denied a bed.

There was nothing available in a nursing home, so after much cajoling, Colonel Russell did receive a community bed. However, he has to pay for it. He has to pay for it because the government does not recognize his service. It is as if he had never served his country. That concerns me very much, and it should concern this Parliament.

I asked two questions in the House regarding Parkwood Hospital and the case of Colonel Neil Russell.

Neil was without a bed in a long-term care facility, and he quite simply had nowhere to go. After months and months, after going to the media and after many letters to the minister responsible, Neil was finally promised a bed. Then he was told that he had misunderstood and had to split the cost of the bed with the province.

It is a relief, in some ways, that he now has a place to stay, but it makes very little sense to me that he had to fight so hard to get it.

This situation is part of a larger picture, a picture of how low a priority veterans are for the current government and how out of touch it is.

First, according to the Royal Canadian Legion, there are 150 homeless veterans in Ontario. It is a disgrace.

Second, the costs of a funeral and burial services have not been met adequately by the government. Some years ago, the assets cut-off to provide monetary help through the Last Post Fund was $24,000. That was reduced by the Liberals. Now it is just over $12,000. That means that 67% of veterans receive no help. This is simply not the way that we, as a country, should be treating our veterans.

I want to say that we on the opposition side will oppose the treatment that veterans receive from this ungrateful government.

Veterans AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Privacy Act prevents me from speaking publicly about the personal information of an individual Canadian. However, her question gives me an opportunity to explain what our government is doing to help thousands and thousands of veterans who need long-term care.

Our government is proud to support Canada's veterans. They have served our country with honour and courage, and have made great sacrifices, themselves and their families. In doing so, they have also earned our nation's care and support when they need it and for as long as they need it. That is exactly what our government is focused on doing.

The pledge of support goes to the heart of the mandate this government has for supporting our veterans. Canada's provision of service and benefits makes us the envy of veterans around the world. Long-term care is one such example. Our government is helping to fund long-term care for more than 8,700 veterans residing in about 1,750 nursing homes and other similar facilities across the country. We are proud of this, because this is a real and meaningful way to help so many Canadian men and women who need and deserve it.

However, one size does not fit all. That is why we have a variety of options when it comes to caring for elderly veterans. Many veterans prefer to stay in their own home for as long as possible, and that is why we have developed the internationally acclaimed veterans independence program. The VIP provides veterans with things like home care, grounds maintenance and services, as well as home visits. This is the kind of thing veterans can count on from our government.

When institutional care becomes the only answer, we continue to accommodate veterans' individual wishes. A growing number of veterans prefer community beds in long-term care facilities close to their homes. That should not be surprising, that they want to be close to home. What is particularly important, however, is that these community beds are open to all eligible veterans, whether they served in the Second World War, the Korean War or more recently for the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are here to care for all veterans, and that is especially true for those who require long-term care because of an injury in their service to our country. Canadian veterans have earned it, and they deserve it.

Veterans AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is more lip service. The proof is in real action. In the case of the government, there is no action. I should not have to remind the member opposite that these men and women who are veterans and who served in our armed forces put their lives on the line for us. I should not have to remind the member that to support our troops means that we have to support veterans too.

When will the government stop with the platitudes and start looking at the issues that our veterans face every day?

It is the least the government can do, and it is the morally right thing to do. Care for our veterans is part of the contract, the covenant that we undertake with people who enlist and protect our country. We asked them to serve. Now it is our turn to serve them.

Veterans AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. Our government will continue increased funding and support for veterans. Our strong record includes long-term care for veterans. In fact, our government supports more than 8,700 veterans living in approximately 1,750 nursing homes and other similar facilities across the country.

These are veterans of all types of service. As I mentioned before, they served in the Second World War and the Korean War, and there are our more recent veterans from the Canadian Forces. If they require long-term care because they have been injured in their service for Canada, we will be there to support them. It is that simple.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, on February 13, I asked the minister a question in the House, and the answer was reported by the media that day. In fact, thanks to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, we learned that the Conservatives' employment insurance reform was not based on any impact studies.

Naturally, I said that there were many people, including 56,836 in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, with unstable employment status and that workers everywhere were adversely affected by the reform.

At the time, the minister's candid response shocked me. She said that analyses of the worker shortage and the employers' need for temporary foreign workers had been done. We now see the consequences of those analyses. The government may have done studies of situations where they determined the employers' need to locate workers and bring them on site. However, they did not analyze workers' needs.

We must not forget that the driving force in our society, for a company, is the worker, not the company's needs. When we talk about the economy, we also talk about what the company needs. However, we have to match the company's needs to the worker's needs. The worker has to be taken into consideration on a regular basis.

Quebec's Minister Maltais, who is still minister, is like our Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development's counterpart. She is responsible for some status of women issues, but she is also responsible for the transfer of worker training and employment insurance matters. At the time, she tried to come to Ottawa. She did not make it because of a snowstorm.

She tried to meet with the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a second time. However, if members remember, there was a second snowstorm. It was a problem at the time because the Minister of Human Resources had asked at the last minute to hold the meeting in the Outaouais. The entire Quebec delegation had to come to the Outaouais in the middle of a storm, and they did not have time to speak to the minister. The meeting lasted just a few minutes and they had to return because there was a vote. Therefore, they were prevented from discussing the situation.

Since then—and there were a number of articles along these lines in the newspapers—it was made clear that an impact study had not been done. It was proven. However, the minister did not change her tune.

This does not make sense to us. The study should have been done before the reform was implemented. Now, we are seeing the consequences, and we know that the Atlantic provinces oppose this reform, as does Quebec. It turns out that five of the country's 10 provinces are against this reform.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure everyone that the changes we have introduced simply clarify claimant responsibilities, and those responsibilities have been a part of the employment insurance program for decades. They are not new.

As I have said many times, the basic requirements for seasonal workers who claim EI have not changed. Seasonal claimants, like all EI claimants, have always been required to look for work while receiving EI. They have always been required to look for suitable employment during the off-season. These changes are not about restricting access to EI benefits for seasonal claimants or anyone else. The updated regulations simply clarify their responsibilities and obligations by better defining what is a reasonable job search and what is suitable employment.

EI was never meant to be an income supplement for those who choose not to work during the off-season.

We know that finding work is more difficult in some communities than others, and that is why local labour market conditions are taken into account and into consideration when assessing a claimant's job search efforts. Nevertheless, there are skills and labour shortages in many parts of Canada, even in rural areas and areas of high unemployment. We believe that seasonal workers can fill some of those shortages. Our goal is to get unemployed Canadians back into the workforce quicker, and we are making that possible by providing better labour market information, including daily job alerts. How can that actually be a bad thing?

The truth is we are helping connect Canadians with available jobs and that is good for our communities and good for the economy.

As the Prime Minister, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and I myself have said many times in this House, if Canadians are unable to find a job in their local community, EI will continue to be there for them as it always has been.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that they were first going to implement the reform and then assess the impact. That does not make any sense. The ministers have also said the same thing in the media. They have said that they are going to implement the reform, get it going and then see what happens.

Yesterday, clergy in the Atlantic region spoke out against this reform. Families, parents, fathers and mothers are knocking on their doors to get work. They welcome these people. They see that they do not have enough food or enough money to pay their rent and that they live too far from urban centres to follow the famous rule about accumulating a sufficient number of qualifying hours or to find a job, which the minister told them to do. Canadians are the ones who are suffering the consequences of this reform that should never have been implemented.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers do not need to worry about the changes to employment insurance.

No one who has made a reasonable effort to look for a job will be cut off from benefits. No one will be forced to move away from their community or to commute great distances to accept a job. No one will be forced to take a job that will leave them financially worse off than being on employment insurance. No one who takes a job in the off-season will be prevented from returning to their seasonal job once the season resumes.

If Canadians are unable to find work, EI will continue to be there for them as it always has been.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:59 p.m.)