House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was self-employed.

Topics

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 9, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am rising this evening to speak about employment insurance. I had asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question about a bill introduced and voted on in the House. Under the bill, seasonal workers are not eligible for the additional 20 weeks of employment insurance benefits.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism had mentioned, some time before, that six additional weeks would be paid to those who deserved it. I had included these remarks in my question.

People need employment insurance. People are not working because of the Conservative government's inaction on economic recovery and infrastructure. They continue to lose their jobs.

The unemployment rate has continually risen throughout the country. Our seasonal workers live in resource-rich areas and work in the forestry, agriculture, construction or tourism industries. All these sectors have experienced serious difficulties for years and things are not like they used to be.

According to the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, these people do not deserve employment insurance. Such comments are unacceptable. She seems to think that they have not worked all their lives. In many cases, they have worked for the same company for 5, 10, 15, 20, or even 30 years. They only thing keeping them from working 12 months a year is the fact that we live in a country where these companies are more active in some seasons and less so in others.

Seasonal workers are people working in forestry, tourism, fisheries, agriculture and construction, as well as students who start working after completing their studies and mothers who go back to work after raising their children. Some women go back to work when their children start school. However, if a mother unfortunately loses her job after having worked for just a few years—say one, two or three years—she would not be eligible for the 20 extra weeks of employment insurance.

If workers in the forestry, fishing, tourism, construction and agriculture sectors lose their jobs because they cannot work 12 months of the year because of the weather, the Conservative members and ministers believe that they do not deserve employment insurance benefits.

This is a clear demonstration that the Conservatives have no knowledge of or sensitivity towards the needs of Canadian workers. They will say they have invested a lot of money and added more weeks. However, those additional weeks have not been granted to those who need them most. All workers deserve those weeks, not just an exclusive group, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism seemed to say. We should be helping everyone in times of crisis. This is about the well-being of families and their survival.

7:05 p.m.

Souris—Moose Mountain Saskatchewan

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the hon. member by asking what he would do about those who have paid premiums for a long time, those who have not collected benefits for many years of work who find themselves without work and are unable find a job. The bill was directed specifically to them.

It does not say that others might not want to have been on the system. We have a certain set of dollars for the particular group we have targeted, those who are hurt most by the unfortunate economic conditions. What would he say to those people? Approximately 190,000 would be benefited by the bill. What would he say to them about the fact that he and his party voted against that bill? If they had their way, those benefits would have been taken away from 190,000 potential recipients.

Even if the member wanted to benefit another group or a different group of people, why would he and his party vote against the bill, other than the fact that at the time they were of the view that they wanted to trigger an election that no one wanted. Therefore, the interest at which those members were looking at that time was self-interest and not the interest of the people who were intended to be benefited from the bill.

The member is right. We have taken many actions to help hundreds of thousands of Canadians through our changes and improvements to the employment insurance program. Indeed, we added five extra weeks of EI benefits to all Canadians on EI. More than 365,000 Canadians have received additional weeks of benefits, thanks to the extra five weeks which were included in our economic action plan.

Therefore, we were not excluding anyone when we did that. All Canadians were affected quickly by the sudden onset of the economic troubles and the large number of layoffs that happened last fall and winter. We took action and provided the five extra weeks of benefits to all who needed them.

However, we did even more than that. We froze the premiums for 2010. We are delivering on our commitment to improve the governance and management of the EI account by establishing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

We have taken action that is helping businesses and workers immensely in a way that is protecting jobs and helping companies. We are doing this through improved and more accessible work-sharing agreements. That was very well received, preserving jobs that otherwise would not be there. More than 167,000 Canadians were protected by work-sharing agreements, which are in place with almost 6,000 employers across Canada. It is a win situation for the employers and for the employees, and it was very well received.

These jobs are being protected. The workers are being retained by their companies. Their skills are staying up to date. This is a big help to businesses across Canada.

Our government also focused on helping Canadians get back to work so they could provide for their families. That is why we made unprecedented investments in skills training. The career transition assistance program is a new initiative that will help an estimated 40,000 long-tenured workers who need additional support for retraining to find a new job. We have extended the duration of EI regular benefits for eligible workers for up to two years if they are in longer term training. We are allowing earlier access to EI for eligible workers by investing in their training by using all or part of their severance package.

These steps have been taken because we know that those who are unemployed need some extra assistance in not only upgrading themselves, but also finding other jobs. Where possible, we try to preserve their jobs.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the parliamentary secretary was that the Conservative government is excluding many workers. It does not make any sense.

I am anxious to hear what the government will have to say to the workers at the J.D. Irving sawmill, who have again been laid off indefinitely.

I am anxious to see what it will tell the employees of Maple Lodge, the slaughterhouse in Saint-François-de-Madawaska, who have lost their jobs. With the current economic situation, these workers have already used too many benefits weeks over the past five years. Consequently, they will not even qualify for the additional 20 weeks under the criteria set out in the bill, even though some of them have been working, often at the same place, the same plant, for 20, 25 or 30 years. That is the reality. If these are not long tenured workers, I wonder who that refers to.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary should come and see for himself. He would realize that people do need help. Casting some workers aside, pitting workers against one another, will not do people any good and help those in greatest need right now.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of pitting one group against the other. I just went through the numbers: 165,000 jobs preserved; five weeks of extra benefits for 365,000 Canadians; 40,000 additional long-tenured workers helped; and 190,000 who would benefit from the extension of five to twenty weeks for which the member voted against providing benefits.

I have asked the question. The member failed to address it. Why? Even if he wanted some additional benefits for someone else, why would he oppose benefits to 190,000 when he could have supported that? What was the purpose of that? What was the reasoning behind that? There was no good, valid reason for the party to oppose an extended five to twenty weeks to 190,000 additional people except self-interest. He has not answered the question. I think he should.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, in preparing, responding to and recovering from the H1N1 pandemic, Parliament's focus must be the health and welfare of Canadians. Specifically, our goals must be to reduce the rate of hospitalizations, illness and death, as well as to reduce economic and social impacts. Therefore, our discussions must remain on the winding down of the second wave, as well as preparing for a possible third wave.

Having said this, we are here to address a question regarding the timing and roll-out of the vaccine, which will be, by nature, a postmortem analysis.

The government had two major roles in responding to the pandemic: the distribution of the vaccine to the provinces and territories; and a comprehensive communications plan.

My focus here is the vaccine, its ordering, its production, the timing of its delivery and what delays in shipment meant to the front line workers for planning vaccine clinics and for worried Canadians, particularly pregnant moms, who wanted to know whether to wait for the unadjuvanted vaccine.

First, we must examine the contract with GSK. The first rule in pandemic planning is back-up, back-up, back-up. The fact that vaccine was later ordered from Australia suggests there was perhaps wiggle-room to negotiate with GSK and to ensure a second supplier should there be slowdowns.

Because WHO recommended finishing the seasonal vaccine prior to producing the H1N1 vaccine, production of the pandemic vaccine could not begin until the warehouse was cleared. The government could have made a full gesture and decided to follow the evidence and switch to the pandemic vaccine right away.

Second, we must examine the order date. We were told in committee the order date was August 6. The government's own answer to my written question on the order paper was actually August 19, or two weeks later.

Why were health committee members given incorrect information? Why did the government not order the British vaccine for those with serious egg allergies. Instead, those with mild allergy were told to have the vaccine with the allergists, who were not initially supplied with it. Those with severe allergy were told not to take it. Where was the protection for those who suffered from the eight most common food allergies?

Third, why was unadjuvanted vaccine not ordered on the 19th? WHO recommended the unadjuvanted vaccine in July for pregnant women. Had the government forgot that pregnant women fared poorly during pandemics and needed protection? I do not think so, as I brought up this point at the very first meeting with the officials. I reminded the officials how pregnant women fared in 1918, 1957 and 1968. Why, then, did the government make pregnant women an afterthought and at last ordered vaccine in September?

Fourth, why did the government gamble on the date of the pandemic? Other countries predicted an earlier start date and began vaccinating in late September and early October, an important time of year, as children had returned to school where viruses spread easily. More important, scientists warned that the H1N1 hit young people the hardest for months, prior to the government's ordering of vaccine?

Why did the government wait to protect our most vulnerable, unlike the Americans, who began protecting their children three weeks earlier? What was the government's contingency plan to protect Canadians during the possible time period with no vaccine? More important, how many Canadians were not only vaccinated, but actually protected before the second wave peaked, meaning 10 to 14 days had elapsed post-vaccine?

7:15 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to elaborate on the response offered on October 5 by my colleague, the Minister of Health, to the hon. member's question concerning the rollout of the H1N1 vaccine in Canada relative to our neighbours in the south.

Canada's vaccine rollout, the largest mass immunization effort that has ever been attempted in this country, has proven to be remarkably successful. It is very unfortunate that the member was not in committee today, because many of her new direct questions were answered in committee by officials and they were very positive responses for the government. She will be happy to know that.

Earlier this week, Canada's chief public health officer confirmed that by the end of this week some 21 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine will have been distributed across this country. More to the point, by the end of next week, assuming that all goes as planned, we will have delivered enough vaccine to provincial and territorial health officials to immunize roughly 75% of Canadians, the target that we set this summer when we announced our immunization targets.

The Government of Canada has always maintained that its overarching priority was to ensure that we get a safe and effective H1N1 vaccine into the arms of Canadians in a timely way. We made it clear that we are not competing with other countries to see who would get there first and that we would not cut corners where safety was concerned. We promised that nobody would be left behind and that by Christmas, every single Canadian who needed or wanted to be immunized would be able to access the vaccine.

I am confident the member opposite will agree with me that we have met all of these commitments and that Canadians have reason to be proud of the successful partnership between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories to respond to the H1N1 outbreak.

When members reflect back to just a few short months ago, when the World Health Organization confirmed the emergence of a novel strain of influenza virus that might be a precursor to a global influenza pandemic, I am sure they would agree that Canada has accomplished a great deal.

For sure, there have been a few bumps along the road. That can only be expected when complex and sensitive policy decisions need to be made against a backdrop of constantly evolving science and knowledge about a new virus that the world has never previously seen and whose characteristics and attack rates are unknown and about a vaccine to protect against that virus that needs to be developed from scratch, safety tested, mass produced and delivered to tens of millions of people.

At the end of the day, the bottom line remains: Canada was up to the challenge. We delivered on our commitments. We made the right decisions and we met our duty to Canadians. That is what Canadians care about. Based on reports from the provinces and territories, we can safely say that roughly one-third of Canadians have already been vaccinated. Since our H1N1 vaccine rollout began at the end of October, we delivered enough vaccine for every Canadian identified as part of a target group. Last week, every province opened their vaccine clinics to all Canadians.

I have some great facts to bring forward for the member so she will know how well Canada has done and how well this Conservative government has delivered for Canadians.

Just six weeks into the H1N1 vaccine rollout, we have already distributed over 20 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine across every region of Canada. Rural and remote regions of the country have not been left behind. People residing in these communities, many of them aboriginal and Inuit people, were among the primary target groups for vaccination. At this stage, on a per capita basis, we have more vaccine distributed and more people immunized than almost any other country in the world.

We never accepted the notion that we were competing with other jurisdictions to be first out of the gate. We did what we committed to do.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, what contingency plans were put in place should there have been a delay in vaccine production, as is possible with 1950s egg-based technology? What newer production methods will the government explore going forward?

Canadians want a safe vaccine delivered quickly to as many arms as possible. Hospitals and health care workers want a reliable vaccine, namely, ordered doses delivered. Some have stated that they had done their job planning over the last few years and were ready to respond. Some also stated that they felt let down by the federal government which did not deliver a steady supply of vaccine.

These are important questions that require answers. This is not about politics, but rather, about putting the health of Canadians first. A post-pandemic audit would allow the government to learn what went right and what went wrong so that we will all be better prepared next time.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by noting that, thanks to years of planning, Canada was ready to respond.

First, we made the right investments in public health capacity, science and pandemic preparedness. Second, we have been fortunate to have negotiated a long-term agreement with a domestic vaccine supplier to meet all of our vaccine needs in the event of a pandemic. Third, we have been fortunate to have such an excellent collaboration in Canada across all levels of government. We have been fortunate to have the decisive leadership necessary to manage this outbreak without panic and in a deliberate, evidence informed manner.

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to wish you, your family and the member opposite a very merry Christmas.

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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 7:25 p.m.)