Debates of May 18th, 2016

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am a little bit disappointed because I sat very patiently listening to many members of the opposition talk about what they felt and expressed what they felt had taken place. I believe that the government members have held themselves quite well while listening to the emotions that were coming from across the way. I do not think it is much to ask that the opposition members return that same sort of respect.

The point I was getting at, and which I believe does need to be emphasized, is that we are wanting as much as possible to see the matter brought to the attention of the procedure and House affairs committee. I do believe that the committee is in a position to deal with it.

Questions of privilege have been brought to the House in the past. The most recent one I was involved in dealt with members not being able to access the House. It was related to security issues where members felt their access to the House was being impeded. Through the experience I had in sitting on the procedure and House affairs committee, I witnessed publicly and while the committee was in camera a high sense of goodwill and understanding, and ultimately the procedure and House affairs committee was able to provide a report.

Even if you reflect on your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it would have the very same effect. I would therefore suggest that the House would be best served if we allowed it to go to the procedure and House affairs committee. For that reason, I move:

That this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like a third of the members of my caucus I have been here for just under seven months. However, I sat in the Quebec National Assembly for seven years and was a parliamentary press gallery reporter for seven years. I have been interested in politics for nearly 40 years.

Never before have I witnessed what we saw earlier. It is totally unacceptable and unworthy of any member, especially the Prime Minister of all Canadians. It is unacceptable.

Let us review what happened. I was physically here and I saw the whole incident unfold less than 10 feet away from me. In legal terms, I was an eyewitness.

The Prime Minister rose from his seat, made his way through a group of members and knocked into a few of them. Then he forcibly grabbed the official opposition whip by the arm and elbowed an NDP member in the chest on his way back to his seat.

That is unacceptable in and of itself, but the worst was yet to come. Unhappy about the situation, the Prime Minister, looking like a frustrated boxer ready to take out another opponent, rose to cross the floor again and went to see the NDP members, walked up the steps, and lashed out at another colleague.

What happened in the House was totally unacceptable. It is unworthy of any parliamentarian, especially the one who represents all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons this matter needs to go before the procedure and House affairs committee is that I believe we will get a better reflection of what has actually taken place.

I would emphasize that I have witnessed incidents on other occasions. A couple of years ago when I stood on the other side, I was speaking and another member approached me in a fashion that one might view as unparliamentary. We have to understand and appreciate that during the heat of debate, sometimes things happen that we all wish had not. However, I believe that we should not allow any form of exaggeration to take place. It is important that we stick to the reality of the events. We need to reflect on other incidents that have taken place. The best way to do that is at the procedures and House affairs committee. That is why—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very shaken by the events of today. I have spent most of my adult life fighting against violence against women, and fighting against violence in general. I saw the Prime Minister, someone in this honoured House that we all fought to sit in, stride across the aisle toward us with such purpose. As he entered the small circle of us who were standing there, he swore. He said, “Get the [bleep] out of the way.” He pushed his way into the circle we were standing in. He grabbed the opposition House leader and dragged him out, and in so doing elbowed my colleague quite viciously. She was physically hurt. I do not want any member of this House to stand and say that she was not, as no member of this House can judge what she felt.

Also, what we are talking about here is a choice. The Prime Minister stood up and made a choice to walk across that aisle and walk toward those members. In doing so, he chose that.

We are talking about intent versus impact. When we talk about violence, we talk about the impact. The impact is that my colleague's parliamentary privilege was violated and she had to leave this House and missed a vote, not to mention the physical impact that she endured.

We all have to ask ourselves if this was our mother, our wife, our sister, our daughter, would we be having this conversation in this House? All of us have a duty to not accept violence. When we walk through those doors we wear that duty and burden more heavily. Today, we should take this very seriously and say that we do not accept violence in this House.

Will the member opposite stand and say that we will not accept violence in this House, regardless of the intent, when it has an impact on another member that is not acceptable?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to violence, it is worth noting two very quick points.

The first point is that we need to recognize how important it is that all members be allowed to vote, and there were other issues surrounding what had taken place. I also happened to be there and I would like to share those stories at PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee. There is a lot more that needs to be told. It is not just a reflection of the Prime Minister of Canada.

The second point is with respect to behaviour. I have seen some very angry faces in the past of those who have tried to intimidate members in different ways. Therefore, I would be very careful about throwing stones in glass houses.

I suggest that we need to get this issue before PROC.

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

Employment Insurance

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have spent my life serving the community. I have worked in community organizations and in a shelter for battered women.

This evening, I am here to talk about employment insurance. However, when I became an MP, I never thought I would hear the same excuses here in the House that I heard from abusive husbands in the shelter where I worked with battered women. Abusive husbands said they did not do it on purpose, they did not mean to hurt their wives. I am sorry. There is no excuse.

It is a privilege to be in the House and to represent our fellow citizens. I want all of the women watching today, particularly those who have been victims of violence, to know that we are here for them too.

Now I am going to talk about what I was supposed to talk about. On February 26, I rose to ask for answers about two concerns. When workers lose their jobs, they face tough times, and I hope to get some answers to my questions tonight.

Workers need the five additional weeks for seasonal workers to be restored. We also need answers about how the employment insurance fund is managed.

After 20 years of Conservative and Liberal reforms, the EI system is in a pitiful state and cannot provide families with the support they need. The major reform that is affecting Quebeckers and Canadians the most pertains to seasonal employment.

I am very proud to represent the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the agri-food capital. Any time we talk about agriculture, of course we are talking about seasonal jobs. The various EI reforms have been particularly hard on the workers in my region.

It is still true that workers must accept work that is 100 km away from their homes and pays 70% of what they earned previously. Employers in this region are losing employees because they are being forced to accept other jobs.

My husband is the coordinator for Mouvement action chômage in Saint-Hyacinthe. That is actually where we met. These days, it is the employers who are appealing to that advocacy group, which works on behalf of workers with or without a job.

We are at the point where employers are reaching out to advocacy groups to talk about the impact of the EI reforms. We are at the point where these employers are denouncing the EI reforms and asking for assistance from workers' advocacy groups in order to help their workers. This reform makes no sense, and I hope I will get some answers here this evening.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member.

Obviously, having been the critic over the last four years, many of the concerns that she has raised since coming to the House were issues I have been fighting for in my past role.

That is why I am so pleased that, as one of the priorities that has been identified by the government, and indeed by the current minister responsible for the employment insurance program, the announcement in the budget was for $2.5 billion in additional benefits for the employment insurance program.

The member should know that the people she represents will all benefit from some of the changes that we have made to the employment insurance program. When we look at going from a two-week waiting period to a one-week waiting period, that is going to benefit 90% of the people who receive EI benefits.

We can look at changes to working while on claim. I come from a very similar riding where seasonal work is pretty much the foundation of the regional GDP. When we look at what took place under the previous federal government, we saw that changes to working while on claim really drove the economy underground. It hurt many workers. Many workers would not take work because there was a clawback of 50% if they worked at a low-wage job.

The minister took immediate action on that, and has made it so that a worker can now either apply for the rules that applied before the 2011 changes or the current rules. If a worker is able to work three, four or five days, the new program is enhanced and is a benefit to those workers who are able to gain that much work.

In many instances, they are only able to get one day's work. The old system was much better there. The changes the minister has now made allow a worker to make that decision, to make that choice, back and forth.

There is another thing of which I am really proud. I am sure my colleague gets the same calls of concern. We have seen changes over the last number of years to wait times for EI benefits. When I was first elected back in 2000, a typical turnaround time was two to three weeks. We have seen those wait times go to five, six, seven, and even eight weeks, which is not uncommon now.

The minister, through her mandate letter, under the direction of the Prime Minister, has ordered a review of service standards. We are very much looking forward to that. All the past government did was continue to reduce the standards.

At one time, 90% of the calls were being returned and picked up in three minutes at call centres. They were not able to do that, so it was dropped to 80% as the new standard. Then it went to 80% in 10 minutes. The government kept dropping the standards and they were only hitting that 45% of the time. It kept dropping the standards.

We are committed as a government to fixing that. We are committed to ensure those Canadians who deserve those benefits get the benefits they need. That is what we are committed to and we will deliver on that.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I took up the cause of employment insurance when I decided to become a member of the board of directors of Saint-Hyacinthe's Mouvement action chômage in 1996. I found the Liberals' employment insurance reform completely appalling.

The problem is that fewer than four out of 10 workers have access to employment insurance. What am I supposed to say to the six out of 10 workers who are not getting anything and who spent their whole lives paying into EI? What am I supposed to tell those families? When a worker does not have any income, the whole family does not have any income. Those who happen to be entitled to EI benefits wait for weeks to get their first cheque, but six out of 10 workers will not even get one. That does not make any sense.

We need to do something. Workers do not chose to become unemployed. They do not choose not to work. That is not true. What people want is to support their families. It does not make any sense to tell workers that we are going to take the time to look into this. No. We need to do something and we need to do it now.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, in the supplementary question, my colleague jogged my memory with regard to access. One thing we promised in the platform throughout the campaign was to increase access. The minister has already moved to ensure that access is according to the NERE principle, new entrants and re-entrants, and the hours have been dropped from 920 down to regional qualification. We know that young Canadians, especially, who are entering the workforce for the first time, or those who were displaced from the workforce and are re-entering, are going to benefit from these changes.

As well, as the member said, regarding the weeks that people have to wait, the review will certainly address those issues and I am looking forward to getting started on that.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to redress a question that I previously asked of the Minister of National Defence about a comment that he had made. He stated, in reference to the Canadian Armed Forces' mission in Afghanistan, that we do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past. I asked him whether he thought the entire mission in Afghanistan was a mistake.

Essentially, the Canadian Armed Forces did an outstanding job in the 10 years they were in theatre in Afghanistan, a mission that started under the Chrétien-Martin Liberal government, and continued and ended under the Conservative government. We know that in that process, 158 Canadians paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country and to the people of Afghanistan by ridding them of the evil that they had been subjected to by the Taliban.

There were some great accomplishments. Over four million children were able to go to school who had not been previously, and most of them were girls. The rights of women and girls increased after the Taliban were removed. The opportunities for education, hospital care, and medicines dramatically improved after the Taliban were removed from power. That is because of Canada and its allies being on the ground, carrying the fight to an organization that was brutal in its approach to its own people and a regime that supported a safe haven for the training of terrorists, particularly al Qaeda and the many crimes that they committed around the world, not just on 9/11.

The amazing thing is that Afghanistan has a vibrant democracy today, with successful presidential and legislative elections taking place. Maclean's magazine published the results of an Afghan opinion poll, which asked the following question. This is key. It asked if Afghans preferred the current government or the Taliban regime and 91% said that they supported the new government, fully 85% said living conditions had improved since the Taliban were removed, and 77% believed that the country was headed in the right direction.

That would not have been possible if not for the efforts of the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. They helped settle refugees. What they were able to do was amazing. I do not see this as being a mistake. I see this as being a success for the Canadian Armed Forces, a success for Canada, and the recipients of that success are the citizens of Afghanistan.

I would again say that I was disappointed with the minister's comments when he made that speech back in February. We have to remember that the regime in Afghanistan was awful. It was totalitarian. It was male chauvinist in nature. Women and girls were treated like commodities, and ultimately, we did the right thing in ending that safe haven for the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations.

Therefore, I thank every one of the 40,000 Canadians who served in Afghanistan.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, let me pick up where the hon. member left off. We all agree that our military is outstanding and did do an outstanding job. There is probably no person in the House who has more experience in Afghanistan than this minister. He did three tours of duty in Afghanistan and saw it up front and personally.

In fact, on Monday night, my hon. friend's colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said:

As a veteran, I am getting to know the minister, and I also recognize his human qualities and experience. He is a man who wants to do things well. He is a good man. In another time, I would have gone to war with him. He will understand what I mean. However, now we are politicians.

Unfortunately, that is kind of the point. My colleague wishes to make a point that the minister was not making. The only way which I can get the point across is to quote from an article in the Ottawa Citizen. The article asks whether the minister is wary of ripple effects from anti-terrorism policies. The article is in the context of a major foreign policy conference organized by a Canada 2020 think tank. The minister drew heavily on his experience in Afghanistan, saying Canada and its allies had done a poor job grasping the ramifications of their actions in various conflicts.

“Should we be patting ourselves on the back?”, he said. “From a security perspective around the world, I think we can say things have not gotten much better. Things have gotten worse”.

The article went on to say the minister said the government was taking its time deciding the future of Canada's mission because it wanted to understand the “ripple” that will result from its contribution. He said a failure to consider all the implications meant some development efforts in Afghanistan undermined what Canada and its allies were trying to do.

He said, “I want to make sure we get this right. That's why we're making sure we take a bit of time to get this right and create this ripple that's going to lead to some positive outcomes”.

The article stated:

A lack of understanding, or situational awareness, had undermined allied efforts in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. On Afghanistan, in particular, he said early efforts by some countries had helped create corruption, which fuelled the insurgency. A failure to clamp down on the corruption made matters worse. People have left, patted themselves on the back, didn't even realize the great work that they thought they did had actually created a negative ripple.

The minister speaks with a credibility and authority that no one else in the House can speak to.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not questioning the minister's character. I, too, like the minister. He is a gentleman, a lawyer, and as a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the service that he has provided Canada.

What I am questioning are the words he used to describe the Afghanistan mission as “mistakes of the past”.

I want to draw light to what General Tom Lawson, the former chief of the defence staff, said when he was in Afghanistan to close our mission there. He said, “As our flag comes down today, we look back on our mission with pride, knowing that through our efforts we have helped Afghans to gain the hope of a brighter and more secure future”.

Lieutenant General Stuart Beare, the former commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command, said, “At the end of the day, the question is: have we made and have we seen real progress in Afghanistan?...The answer...is absolutely and undeniably yes”.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, we can all look back on the Afghanistan mission with pride. Our people were exemplary and the sacrifices we like to believe were not in vain. But, did we do it perfectly? Of course not, and that is exactly what the minister is concerned about.

In another article, the Minister of National Defence said, “A surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan could have been unnecessary if action had been taken at the first 'clues of corruption'”.

The minister recounted what a ground forces commander in Iraq once told him to illustrate why the West must avoid repeating mistakes of the past. He said, “Today, we are dealing with the son of al-Qaeda. If we don't get the next piece right, and the next piece is not the military piece, it's that political piece, we will be dealing with the grandson of al-Qaeda”.

That is exactly ISIS. It is the son of al-Qaeda and the minister is very concerned that--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Health

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I just want to say that, when I was first elected, I got an identification card, as every member does, and on that card it outlines the privileges of every member and it says that every member elected to this House has the right to the full run of the parliamentary precinct, impeded by no one.

What I saw here tonight, when I saw the Prime Minister come over and physically put his hands on the Conservative whip and move him along, was an absolute breach of that privilege. I will tell members that was intentional. The Prime Minister intentionally put his hands on another member and moved him along. In the process, he bumped the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I just want to say that is unacceptable.

Madam Speaker, every year that Canadians must wait for progress on community-based care is a lost opportunity for progress in the kind of innovation that is so critical for our health care system. As hospitals overcrowd and our population ages, the time to build momentum toward a better home care service is now.

In 1984, Tommy Douglas, Canada's father of medicare, said:

Let’s not forget that the ultimate goal of Medicare must be to keep people well rather than just patching them up when they get sick. That means clinics. That means making the hospitals available for active treatment cases only, getting chronic patients out into nursing homes, carrying on home nursing programs that are much more effective....

We can't stand still. We can either go backward or we can go forward. The choice we make today will decide the future of Medicare in Canada.

Indeed, the same holds true today. The choices we make, or fail to make, will decide the future of our medicare system.

It is time to envision and actuate the next essential phase for health care in Canada; that is, transitioning from an acute care model to one that includes greatly expanded community care, including home care.

In recent weeks, I have had the opportunity of meeting with a variety of health care providers from across Canada. Through these conversations, I see a clear, shared consensus emerging for a patient-centred, sustainable, community-care health care system across our country.

Recall the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Community care provides the great opportunity not only to deliver better care to Canadians but also to save our system a great deal of money.

We know that a patient in hospital costs $1,000 per day; we know that extended care homes cost an average of $130 per day; and we know that home care costs an average of $55 per day. While the fiscal argument here is plain, more importantly, we also know that Canadians will enjoy better health when they can stay at home and receive care in their community.

Imagine if we created a new system where $55 a day were dedicated to each Canadian patient in need of home care services. Imagine if those $55 funded rotating visits by health care professionals: on Monday, a visit from a nurse to help with medications; on Tuesday, a visit by a personal care attendant to help feed and bathe the patient; on Wednesday, a visit from the local paramedic to take blood pressure and assess health; on Thursday, a visit by a speech pathologist and audiologist to preserve speech and assess hearing; on Friday, a visit by a physiotherapist to help with mobility, and so on.

Imagine creating a health care system where prevention and care were brought into the home of each and every patient demonstrating need.

With visionary leadership and the appropriate funding, we can improve the delivery of care for all Canadians, save money, and ensure better patient outcomes.

Will the government do so?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to stand in the House today to discuss the Government of Canada's commitment to support improved access to home care services across the country. We know that the majority of Canadians want to stay independent for as long as possible and receive the care they need in their homes and in their communities.

That is why our government has committed to working with our provinces and territories to support them in their efforts to make home care more available for Canadians across the country. Our goal for Canada's health care system has been and continues to be improving its efficiency and delivery, all while maintaining its universality particularly for our seniors.

Recognizing Canada's aging population, as well as growing rates of chronic disease, we must pursue a shift of our health care systems from a predominant focus on providing institutional care toward a greater emphasis on providing care both in the home and in our communities. After all, Canada's publicly funded universal health care system has not only been a source of pride for Canadians, but also a source of security for the middle class and those who are working hard every day to join it.

While health care falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, our government is committed to working with the provinces and territories to ensure equitable access to health services for all Canadians. This includes collaborating to develop a new health accord that will support the delivery of more and better home care services.

In October, Canadians elected us on a platform that would, among many other things, work to strengthen our publicly funded universal health care system and ensure that it adapted to new challenges. As part of this goal, we will follow up on our campaign promise to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that Canadians have more access to high quality in-home caregivers, financial supports for family care, and, when necessary, palliative care.

We know that health care across Canada is changing at a rapid pace, and our government remains committed to keeping up with the diverse needs of an aging population and advancements in health technology. We will be an essential partner in improving not only outcomes, but also quality of care for all Canadians.

Though our government is only six months old, we have taken a significant first step in advancing the health accord, as a federal, provincial, and territorial health ministers meeting was held this past January. There, health ministers agreed, among other priorities, to work on improving home care to better meet the needs of patients closer to home, including those who needed palliative care. Already, federal, provincial, and territorial officials have started preliminary discussions related to areas of potential change to support the delivery of improved home care services.

Given the importance of advancing work on the health accord and our shared health priorities, health ministers will meet again later this year to take stock of progress and decide on next steps.

Budget 2016 reaffirms our government's commitment to working in partnership with provinces and territories to negotiate a new multi-year health accord. This commitment has been applauded and welcomed by major health care stakeholders across Canada, including the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association.

Moreover, budget 2016 also works to strengthen the middle class by providing immediate investments to support progress on health accord priorities in the form of assistance for innovations within our health care system. This would include $50 million for Canada Health Infoway to support short-term digital health activities in e-prescribing and telehomecare. This would also include $39 million to the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement to support its ongoing efforts to identify and introduce innovations in the health care system.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, since the NDP first broke ground on providing universal hospital insurance in the 1940s, medicare has come a long way. From hospital insurance, we moved to full medical insurance for all necessary treatment. We built a system that at least in principle provided health care based on need and not on ability to pay.

However, I am still concerned that we have stalled in delivering the next generation of comprehensive health care coverage for Canadians. In my meetings with groups like the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association, Speech-Language and Audiology Canada, and other health groups, I was reminded that many health services critical to Canadians' well-being remained outside of universal health coverage and must be paid out of pocket.

We cannot separate mental health from physical health. We cannot separate oral or hearing health from physical health. I believe it is time for a national leadership to extend public health insurance into new domains of care to strengthen health delivery for all Canadians. Does the government share this belief?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest and advocacy on health care.

Universal health care is indeed a core Canadian value, and I would like to reiterate the government's commitment to support the delivery of more and better home care services for all Canadians.

As previously noted, while health care falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, our government is committed to working collaboratively with our provinces and territories to develop a new health accord that will ensure more access to high-quality in-home caregivers, financial support for family care, and when necessary, palliative care.

Budget 2016 further highlights the importance of this commitment and provides immediate investments to support pan-Canadian progress on health accord priorities.

While discussions are ongoing, we are working continuously toward the development of a new long-term agreement, including a $3-billion investment in home care. We look forward to announcing details once the agreement has been finalized.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 7:32 p.m.)