House of Commons Hansard #228 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.

Topics

Alleged Actions of Member for Spadina—Fort YorkPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I will leave it in the member's hands.

Alleged Actions of Member for Spadina—Fort YorkPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, although we accept the parliamentary secretary's apology, I want to emphasize that he should be apologizing not for the way the member for Richmond Centre feels, but for the way he, the parliamentary secretary, acted. That is a very important distinction.

As the Speaker has said, the custom of the House is to accept apologies and deal with it afterwards. I think it is worth pointing out that when it is a parliamentary secretary who represents a minister of the crown, it is absolutely appropriate that the opposition feel comfortable doing their jobs of questioning and holding the government to account without being accosted by someone who is representing cabinet.

I hope this will provide an opportunity for members of the other side to reflect on that kind of action and to recognize that no one party in this House has a monopoly on righteousness and appropriate behaviour. With that, I will not question the member's intentions and will accept the apology. Just know that when we hear words to the effect, “apologize if I offended someone”, that is certainly not the way we hope people would go about this type of thing in the future.

Alleged Actions of Member for Spadina—Fort YorkPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I just want to remind the hon. member that as a practice, the member has apologized, and the practice is to accept the apology.

I will leave it in the hon. member's hands to treat it the way he will.

Alleged Actions of Member for Spadina—Fort YorkPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any member should bring attention to the presence or absence of any other member in the House. Whether the member for Richmond Centre is here or not does not affect the sincerity, appropriateness, or timeliness of the apology. All members are deemed to be here. That is my understanding.

Alleged Actions of Member for Spadina—Fort YorkPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

That is a technical point and it makes sense. I will accept that. Thank you.

Alleged Actions of Member for Spadina—Fort YorkPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, to be explicitly clear, I am not in any way contesting that she felt intimidated. I take the allegation very seriously.

I do not agree with the description of the events, and I have the right to disagree as to what happened. However, that is not the issue. It is not a question of how I interpreted the events. Anything I did, everything I did, that left her feeling that way deserves an apology, and I explicitly and without reservation offer that apology. It is her feelings that matter, not my interpretation and not my perception of the events.

If she felt intimidated, if anyone in this place feels intimidated by exchanges inside or outside the House, that is wrong. I take full responsibility for that, unequivocally. The issue as to what exactly happened is not the point of order that was raised; rather, it is the sentiment that she raised around feeling intimidated.

No member of this House should ever feel intimidated. We all have to take responsibility for heckling, for side remarks, for casual remarks made on the bus. It is not appropriate for anyone to ever feel that. That is why I am apologizing, and I will make every attempt to deliver it directly to the individual in question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, close to eight million Canadians do not have drug coverage, because Canada is one of the few industrialized nations that offers universal health care without offering medicare.

Without medication, there can be no treatment. Health care without drugs is inconceivable. Of course, the NDP supports the motion even though it may seem redundant. In fact, a report of the Standing Committee on Health released on September 25, 2017, showed that a universal pharmacare program is the best tool for reducing the cost of medications in Canada and therefore increasing their accessibility.

Other studies and reports, such as that of the parliamentary budget officer, came to the same conclusion as the Standing Committee on Health. The parliamentary budget officer's report on the federal cost of a national pharmacare program, which was released on September 28, reveals that a national pharmacare program would actually save Canadians $4.2 billion a year.

Professor Marc-André Gagnon, an expert in public policy at Carleton University here in Ottawa, estimates that the government could cut its spending by half. There would be savings of more than $1 billion from the elimination of administrative costs associated with private insurers. Do members know that 100 or so generic drugs in Canada cost 54% more than in the United Kingdom, France, or the United States? Why is it so expensive to get care in Canada? I will tell you why.

The cost of newly approved medications is set by a federal body, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. This board examines the price of medications in other countries and uses the median price to set the Canadian price. However, the countries used for comparison purposes are those with the highest prices in the world, so we end up with unnecessarily high prices. According to a report issued by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, total drug expenditures in Canada grew by 185% in 2015. Although Canadians are spending more money on treatment than people in other countries, only a very low percentage of that money goes to fund health research.

The percentage of revenue from the sale of drugs that goes to research is three times higher in other countries than in Canada. This money is therefore not even being put back into research and finding ways to improve health. Nevertheless, the pharmaceutical industry leaders promised to increase spending on research and development in exchange for the patent reform of the 1980s. They pressured the government for new rights to patents and a longer period of protection, and they got it. However, in return, those same industry leaders did not to keep their promises. This tells us one important thing. The artificially inflated prescription drug prices have not led to increased investments in research and development.

The government needs to increase funding for health research in Canada and act on the recommendations of the Naylor report. An expert committee, led by David Naylor, published a report on April 10, 2017, recommending that the federal government invest $1.3 billion in research and reform how research activities are overseen. In countries that have a universal pharmacare program, the price of both patented and generic drugs is negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies. Buying drugs in such large quantities gives these countries a lot of bargaining power. Depending on the plan, they negotiate the bulk price, establish budgets, hold competitive bidding processes for companies, consider bundling several drugs, and so on.

Most drug expenditures in Canada come from thousands of private plans wherein people have absolutely no power to negotiate lower prices for drugs. Workers and employers are the ones who pay for the drugs, not the insurance companies. A universal pharmacare program would give the federal, provincial, and territorial governments more power to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies, which means that it would also cut costs. Drug reimbursements would increase and the process would be simplified.

Private plans cover millions of people in different ways. This has consequences because, in 2015, more than one in five Canadian households were not taking their prescribed drugs because they cost too much. All doctors are aware of the health problems that arise when patients do not take their medications because they are too expensive. For example, a one-year supply of a cholesterol-lowering drug costs less than $15 in New Zealand and more than $140 in Canada. That is not acceptable.

With a public, universal pharmacare program, prescription drug prices would drop. With a public, universal pharmacare program, the process would be simplified because there would no longer be so many private players proposing countless plans and sometimes preventing the consumer from making an informed choice. A universal pharmacare program would create a list of insured drugs based on patient health. A single list based on sound evidence would help ensure that drugs are used properly, while taking into account their therapeutic value for patients.

It is estimated that 80% of new drugs offer no added therapeutic benefit compared to less expensive drugs already on the market. This statistic is backed by a brief that was submitted to the Standing Committee on Health. Universal pharmacare would have many benefits for the provinces and territories. Take Quebec for example. If we had an entirely publicly funded universal pharmacare program, the Quebec government alone would save an estimated $1 billion a year. Currently, Quebec residents are required to join their employer's private plan or their spouse's employer's plan. The problem is that, for some types of employees, the cost of these private pharmacare programs represents a significant proportion of their salary.

On top of the potential savings to Quebec, a universal pharmacare program would relieve employers of a huge cost, enabling them to be more competitive and offer higher salaries and added benefits. A new agreement that came into effect on October 1, 2017, between the Government of Quebec and generic drug companies will result in $1.5 billion in savings over five years. That is the first step to reducing the price of drugs in Quebec. However, implementing a universal pharmacare program would allow Quebec and the other provinces and territories to save even more and offer additional benefits.

Access to essential drugs is a human right recognized by the World Health Organization. That is why we absolutely must find a way to lower the cost of prescription drugs so that all Canadians can get the treatment they need without going bankrupt. A universal system would be fairer for Canadians. It would provide free drugs to the least fortunate. In Ontario, barely 40% of employer-sponsored insurance plans provide 100% coverage for drugs. A universal pharmacare program would eliminate discrimination related to access to medication. In some provinces and territories, only people on social assistance, seniors, and people with certain illnesses are covered by the public system. In other provinces and territories, coverage is based on income.

According to the Canadian Labour Congress, coverage under Quebec's private prescription drug plans depends on a certain number of factors that have nothing to do with medical needs, such as a person's age, income, employment status, place of work, and even where they get their medication. A national pharmacare program would reduce inequality in terms of access to drugs. Comprehensive, evidence-based, national pharmacare standards would ensure that all Canadians have equal access to prescription drug coverage.

In closing, an Angus Reid poll showed that over 90% of Canadians support the creation of a universal pharmacare program. Canadians want it, and the government would save billions of dollars, so what is the government waiting for?

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Eva Nassif Liberal Vimy, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak to motion No. 132 and support the exceptional work my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre, has done on this important issue.

This motion highlights an issue that could have monumental consequences: the future of advancements in the field of public health, and the future of Canada's health care system. I fully support this cause, because it is dear to my own heart. I believe that federally funded research has real benefits that warrant consideration, and I am certain that an in-depth study by the Standing Committee on Health would support that conclusion.

Before moving to Canada to complete my translation degree, I worked as a registered nurse in Lebanon during the civil war. I witnessed some horrific scenes. I cared for many patients who not only suffered the usual ailments we get here in the West, but also had to live under constant threat of violence. I saw everything from debilitating infections to the unimaginable suffering experienced by victims of physical and psychological violence.

Precise surgical procedures, effective treatment of viral and bacterial infections, and our understanding of mutations: all of these were made possible through medical research, which enables us to understand the complexity of the human body and the pathogens that cause disease.

In Canada, we are extremely privileged to have access to a universal health care system that gives Canadians access to health care anytime, anywhere in the country thanks to a joint funding system involving several levels of government. This system is not perfect, but it is the envy of many countries around the world. We must continue to have these conversations if we want to improve our social services. We are constantly evolving in terms of how we envision services and how we make them available to the public, especially in health care. That is of utmost importance.

I believe Bernie Sanders recently visited Toronto to study our health care system, talk about the situation in the United States, and draw inspiration from the Canadian model. Some critics may go so far as to say that our system has led to unexpected budgetary complications because it is unsustainable. That is what makes research so important. We can revolutionize how health care services are delivered and the cost of delivering them.

I support this motion because I believe it will highlight the need for government to support health research. When federal governments invest in health research, we get real results. The discoveries have profound implications for our health, safety, and quality of life. Vaccines, the laser, the MRI, touch screens, networks, and the Internet are all examples of innovations that benefited from federal investments.

It has been proven that government assistance and investments have a positive effect. The development of new technologies, such as those I just mentioned, can affect our daily lives and promote innovation in our society. All of those inventions are used in hospitals and have helped to revolutionize the health care system.

In addition to benefiting the health care system, government investments also help to create new jobs. I am thinking of senior researchers and their teams, lab technicians, equipment manufacturers, and all those who support them in one way or another.

Jobs are also created indirectly through the new technologies, new companies, and new industries that offer new products or services as a result of these extraordinary discoveries. All of these things help to encourage and support the Canadian industry.

We have global leaders in medical research right here in Canada. Research is essential in many industries.

As many speakers to this motion have said before me, we can reduce the costs associated with the production and delivery of drugs. We can reduce the cost of providing services through enhanced and more targeted treatments. This would result in the most efficient delivery of health care services, which is good news for our patients. Of course, let us not forget that the most important aspect of health research is the results. The Canadian public benefits from innovation in medical procedures, our advancements in pharmaceuticals and vaccinations, and our understanding of diseases. We build the foundation for a healthier and more informed population. The health and well-being of all citizens is central to poverty eradication and is a laudable goal that we should never give up, no matter how skeptical we may be.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on comments made by the hon. member for Calgary Shepard during the last session of this debate. He raised the point of rare diseases, and that is an extremely important component for this debate today. He made reference to Alport syndrome, which, up until that point, I had never heard of, even having worked in the medical profession for many years. We have a duty to our citizens and to the people of the world to create a better life and to relieve human suffering. If left to the market, so to speak, or up to chance while we wait for the private sector, some of these serious ailments may not be addressed either adequately or at all. This is not meant to be a criticism of any of our medical institutions or leaders in medical research here or around the world; it is simply an observation that there is a great number of individuals who are left with little to no hope because there is virtually no information on their relatively scarce conditions, leaving little incentive for researchers to pick them up. We need to fill this gap. We need to understand that it is as important to find a cure for, say, Alport syndrome as it is for cancer or HIV. We need not qualify or quantify suffering. This is an arduous task as there are thousands of rare diseases but we have to start somewhere.

It has been mentioned a few times already by other speakers on this subject, but I would be remiss if I did not address the progress made toward the eradication of infectious diseases around the world already. Smallpox is the first and only human disease to be eradicated through human intervention. Rinderpest, a disease that affected cattle, was declared eradicated as of October 14, 2010. This was the first and only disease that affects livestock that was eradicated by human undertakings. Current interventions aim to eradicate polio, malaria, measles, and rubella and the list goes on. Medical research and human intervention are the only way forward. No one else is going to do this for us. We have a common goal and federally funded research can play a positive role.

Before I finish, I would like to make reference to a particular event I had the privilege of attending that was showcasing medical research here on the Hill, only about a month or so ago. There, I learned a great deal about CRISPR genome editing, something used in both health and agriculture, if I understand correctly. In relation to health, one of the areas where it is being utilized is in the fight against HIV. Using CRISPR, scientists were able to eliminate HIV in live animals because HIV DNA can be excised from the genomes of living animals to eliminate further infection. What marvellous genius this idea is. This is what we are working for and striving for, to support the empowerment of our brilliant innovators and scientists who will change the landscape of medicine and public health.

I want to thank everyone who spoke before me in favour of the motion, and above all, I want to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for bringing this to our attention here in the House.

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Motion No. 132 regarding federally funded health research. The intention of this motion is to recognize the importance of health research. This is a motion of which I am proud to speak in favour.

This motion ultimately seeks to better health research in our country and to ensure that there is stable health research to keep Canadians up to global standards. When it comes to drugs, Canadians demonstrate strong support for health research. According to several polls conducted by Research Canada, Canadians overwhelmingly care about health research and understand the role that this research plays in improving health and, through innovation, finding cures for the future.

I want to take the next few minutes to highlight what this motion means for Canadians. First, Motion No. 132 instructs the health committee to study ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research. Second, the motion has a goal of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines both in Canada and globally. This motion would ensure that Canadians have access to innovative and state-of-the-art medicine.

The motion seeks to reach the goals of this study within the deadline of one year after it is adopted. While I am in favour of this motion, I want to highlight that the health committee has been studying national pharmacare for over a year, and the study is still ongoing. That is why I, along with my Conservative colleagues, would recommend amending this motion to remove the timeline. Further, because there is currently a study in the works on national pharmacare, it seems that this would overlap with the work already being conducted at the health committee. In order to give the study adequate time, I do not believe a one-year timeline is sufficient. From coast to coast to coast, every member would agree that we want what is best for Canadians. We want to ensure that Canadians have the best of the best when it comes to health care. That is why investing in health research is so important.

Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. We want the elderly to be able to afford their medicine. Health research is vital and leads to the better well-being of Canadians. I am a strong advocate for science and knowledge-based research that makes life better for all Canadians. I remain focused on the health and safety of constituents and understand how difficult it is for those who live with disabilities and illnesses. That is why the previous Conservative government was looking into bulk purchasing in 2014. The purpose of this was to ensure that drugs were less expensive for those who rely on them. We know that drug prices fall mostly under provincial jurisdiction. However, it is essential that federal and global health research be conducted. Canadians deserve this.

Fostering partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors, as well as with provinces and territories, will result in an even stronger health sector. Ensuring that we work with the provinces to integrate all partners into the development and implementation of a planned agenda for health research, as well as maximizing the impact of health research dollars, will mean our research and knowledge is the best it can be for all Canadians.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is Canada's federally funded agency for health research. According to Research Canada's third public opinion poll, 84% of people say health and medical research makes an important contribution to the Canadian economy, recognizing that the economy is the most important issue facing Canadians today.

Further, it noted that even in a recession, a large majority of Canadians would pay out of pocket to improve health and research capacity, and 89% of Canadians believe that Canada should be a global leader in this area. This is an issue people care about.

Budget 2016 invests in high-quality scientific research via $95 million per year in additional funding to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Budget 2017 invests $140.3 million over five years starting in 2017-18, with $18.2 million per year ongoing for Health Canada, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. This is all done with the goal of lowering drug prices. Canada is envied around the world when it comes to health research, but I know we can do better. We can always find new ways for knowledge to be translated more quickly to prevent disease, diagnose it more rapidly, and treat it more effectively.

Again, I am in favour of this motion. However, there is one recommendation I would like to make, and that would be amending the motion to remove the one-year timeline. The reason I suggest this amendment is twofold. First, this motion would lead to a study that would likely be studied at the same time as national pharmacare. National pharmacare does not currently have a timeline it must reach, therefore it would not be fair to set a one-year timeline to this motion. Second, there are a number of issues in the health portfolio that require immediate attention, such as the opioid crisis.

According to the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network, in Ontario in 2015, 734 people died of an opioid-related cause, averaging approximately two people every day. This number totals far more than the 481 people who died in motor vehicle accidents in 2014. Over 80% of all opioid-related deaths in 2015 were accidental. Almost 60% of the accidental deaths occurred among youth and younger adults aged 15 to 44 years. Fentanyl use increased by 548% between 2006 and 2015 and is now the opioid most commonly involved in opioid-related deaths. It is obvious that the opioid crisis is a pressing issue that needs immediate attention.

It is for that reason I believe setting a one-year timeline to this motion will not work. As it reads, the timeline would not allow for a full year of study of this issue, the reason being that there are other studies currently in the queue and issues that can and will arise that require immediate attention. I recommend the timeline be removed. This motion is well intended, and aims at studying ways to lower drug costs. This will benefit vulnerable Canadians who need them.

Ultimately, I support this motion. The nature of health research requires a long-term and sustainable funding commitment. It is important work that needs to be done for Canadians, and I thank my colleagues for presenting this motion. The work done by health researchers improves the financial and human burden that illness creates. Canadians deserve the best, and that starts with their health. That is why I am pleased to support Motion No. 132. I appreciate the member for Kitchener Centre bringing this forward.

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all members of this House from all parties who spoke to Motion No. 132.

As I said initially, the purpose of Motion No. 132 is to improve outcomes and to increase the public benefit from federally funded health research.

While I am proud of the work I have done on this motion, there are many others who have been working on improving Canada's health research regime for much longer than I have, and I know they stand ready to assist the health committee and the government as we move forward to improve health research here in Canada.

I would like to thank the following people and apologize to anyone I may miss: Jack Nickerson from Doctors Without Borders; Rachel Kiddell-Monroe and Chloe Hogg from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines; Dr. Michael Clarke from the University of Western Ontario; Richard Elliott from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; Alison Krentel from the Bruyère Research Institute; Deb McFarland from Emory University; Angela Quinlan, Marilyn Coolen, and Marguerite Keeley from the Grandmothers Advocacy Network; HealthCareCAN, the Health Charities Coalition of Canada; and all of those working in health research here at home and around the world who have spoken to my team about health research and global health initiatives over the last year. It has been an honour to work side by side with them to ensure that people everywhere are supported by medicines and medical innovation.

Some of the brightest minds of this generation are working tirelessly to eradicate disease, find better treatments, and advocate for policies that will lead to better health outcomes for all. These researchers and advocates deserve to be lauded, and the least that we can do as policy-makers in this House is to ensure that they have the research tools they need to succeed.

As we speak, health researchers here in Canada are working to tackle antimicrobial resistance, playing a leadership role in a global effort to contain the threat posed by a generation of drug-resistant microbes. Canadian researchers are researching infection, healthy pregnancy, cardiovascular health, diabetes, respiratory health, cancer, tuberculosis, and obesity. They are also working on the latest preventative, diagnostic, and treatment approaches to neurodegenerative diseases causing dementia. Quite simply, they are working on the treatments and cures that will make our families and communities healthier. Taxpayers, researchers, and patients alike deserve to know that there is an efficient and effective system to ensure that the benefits of federally funded research reach those who need them the most.

In the words of Andrew Petter, president of Simon Fraser University, “Innovation isn't a magic bullet, it requires a work plan”. Motion No. 132 offers this House and our government the opportunity to step back and examine Canada's work plan. As we invest in science, strengthen health systems, and set priorities for a generation of researchers, I hope that all members of this House will come together to commit to ensuring that policy-makers have a firm grasp on Canada's research priorities and that Canada has the best research framework possible.

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

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

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

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

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those opposed will please say nay.

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Federally Funded Health ResearchPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 8, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Softwood LumberAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been up in the House numerous times, pushing for the government to secure a fair deal on softwood lumber, urging it to protect the good-paying forestry jobs that tens of thousands of Canadians rely upon. We have debated this issue in this place several times, and I have repeatedly urged the government to take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber exports.

It is imperative that Canada secure a fair deal with the United States, a deal that respects our regional differences and protects high-quality Canadian forestry jobs.

However, two years later, the Canadian government continues to fail in its ability to get a deal. Today the U.S. department of commerce has announced its final decision, with massive unfair anti-dumping and counterveiling duties reaching as high as 27%. These tariffs and our government's inability to secure a trade deal have led, and will continue to lead, to devastating job losses and damage to this vital Canadian industry.

A report released by the Conference Board of Canada at the end of May, 2017 stated that U.S. softwood lumber duties would result in the loss of 2,200 jobs and a $700 million reduction in Canadian exports over the next two years. Softwood lumber is a vibrant part of Canada's forestry sector. For many rural communities, it is the backbone of their economies. According to Canada's labour force survey, in 2015, the forest industry accounted for 300,000 direct and indirect jobs.

The Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute first began back in 1982. For 35 years, the American industry has argued that Canadian producers benefit from subsidization, a claim that has been defeated time and again in trade tribunals. Over the years, there have been several managed trade agreements, but upon their expiration, Canadian exports have seen more duties applied, and Canada has spent approximately $100 million on legal fees to defend our position.

The 2006 agreement was renewed in 2012 and expired last October, again, after the Liberal government failed to negotiate a new agreement. It seemed to be spending more time denying its own responsibilities and blaming the previous Conservative government than it did ensuring that workers in the forestry sector had the job security they so desperately needed. Like the huge hit lumber companies took in 2006, due to these tariffs, our industry is again reeling, and it is the forestry workers who will suffer the most.

After years of being unable to negotiate a fair deal, Canadians are left feeling unsure and, quite frankly, abandoned by their government. There seems to still be no path forward. After the last agreement expired, the government waited two months before introducing a compensation package, which the NDP welcomed. However, I must point out, it contained nothing to improve El benefits for workers who lost their jobs because of this dispute. The $867 million support package was a good short-term measure for industry and forestry companies, however, Canadian forestry workers need long-term solutions.

Canadians deserve answers from the government, not more empty promises, hallow words, and talk about “a good deal, not just any deal”. We quite frankly cannot be sitting here two years from now with still no deal in place. We need a deal to protect these workers and the communities they represent and for which they provide an economic benefit.

How long will these middle-class Canadians have to wait for the government to fight for them?

Softwood LumberAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that our government is seized of this issue. We understand the impact that this is having on the individuals, the communities, and the provinces that will be impacted by the end of this deal, which unfortunately has resulted in some of the actions of our trading partner. We are committed to getting a deal, but that does not mean a quick deal. It means the right deal and we will continue to fight and defend Canada's interests.

On the issue of responding, the member opposite raised the issue of our responses that relate to EI in her question during question period, and raised it tangentially in her address tonight. I am thankful to address this issue.

This government is sensitive to the ongoing situation. The EI program is designed to respond to economic changes, such as the ones we are experiencing. Flexibility is built into the program to allow us to respond to deteriorating situations in sectors in particular economies, as they emerge on a region-by-region basis. When a region's unemployment rate rises, the entrance requirement is reduced, and the duration of benefits increases, as it has in many of these communities.

EI is there for unemployed Canadians when they need help the most. Our government is backing that process, and making sure that Service Canada and a whole-of-government approach is at work, working directly with individuals, communities, mayors, and provincial governments to make sure that we provide the appropriate support, training, and transition supports for the interim as we move toward a full-time job.

Last year, we also made a number of other changes to improve the EI program so that it is more accessible generally across the country, particularly in areas that are facing distress. For example, we reduced the two-week waiting period to one week. This measure eases the financial pressure on families waiting for benefits to arrive, and workers who are expecting their benefits to be delivered quickly, even though they have been unemployed through no fault of their own.

We also implemented a new, more flexible, “working while on claim” pilot project. Some of these industries get short-term contracts and people return to work in the interim for short periods of time. We do not interrupt their benefits and their eligibility for benefits. Thus, we have created more flexibility to accommodate their situations, to make sure that affected areas are given the most sympathetic and understanding approach to how benefits are modelled, and model them after the experiences that they are directly involved in and engaged with now.

On June 1, the government also announced $867 million extra to invest and support forestry industry workers and their communities that had been affected by the U.S. measures that had targeted our softwood lumber industry. This includes close to $90 million to mitigate layoffs, to support workforce adjustment to help affected workers transition to new opportunities in the short term, to sustain their presence in those communities, and to re-engage with the industry in the long term.

We will be temporarily extending the maximum duration of work-sharing agreements from 38 to 76 weeks. This is again in order to help those communities sustain a critical mass of workers in the industry with flexibility, so that they can continue to receive benefits and share work, if possible, to retain other benefits with skilled workers in that sector.

The work-sharing program is designed to help employers and employees when there is a temporary reduction in the level of business activity. It supplements the income of EI-eligible workers who agree to work reduced hours temporarily.

We have also taken additional steps, including providing $50 million over two years to affected provinces through amendments to labour market development agreements. This will help displaced workers in the forestry sector with the training and employment supports that they need to transition to new jobs temporarily, sustain the workforce in the communities, sustain communities, and ensure those impacted have the presence of the Canadian government and programs there to sustain the practice and the industry. This will also sustain the quality of life and the social fabric of the communities that have been impacted.

Service Canada is now implementing this national action plan for softwood lumber to respond to the needs of workers affected by this labour dispute. The government is committed to getting a good deal and a strong deal. What we hope is that the deal delivers the certainty and stability that the previous deals had to softwood lumber. It is a critical part of communities across this country, a critical part of our country, and workers should not feel abandoned because this government—

Softwood LumberAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Essex.

Softwood LumberAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we are here on the exact same day that these duties have been made permanent by the U.S. At the time that the government introduced this package of programs and money, it was viewed to be a temporary fix.

There will not be enough money, or these programs will not extend long enough, to sustain the job losses that will be seen in these communities. There needs to be a new package going forward to address the very serious issues that are now going to be faced on a permanent basis.

I understand that the government will, of course, pursue this legally. It has cost us a great deal of money to do so in the past, will cost us a great deal once again, and will take a great deal of time. In the meantime, Canadian families, forestry workers, and communities are left wondering what the government will now bring forward.

I wonder if the member opposite can now speak to where we go from today and what packages will—

Softwood LumberAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Softwood LumberAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, the issues that the member opposite has raised are perhaps best dealt with by the trade minister or the ministers engaged in negotiations with the United States.

The issue that I was brought to the House on related to a question the member asked earlier in question period regarding EI benefits and our approach to making sure workers are supported. The member has asked if this government is committed to getting a good deal. The answer is yes. Is the government going to continue to negotiate? Absolutely.

With respect to the characterization of the changes as being permanent and lasting forever, I cannot even count the number of times we have encountered this situation, where a deal expires, punishing duties are imposed, trade organizations knock down those measures as being unnecessarily punitive and ill-founded. We move back towards a civil and appropriate conversation with our American trading partners to make sure that workers on both sides of the border are supported, the industry is supported on both sides of the market, and trade is managed in a responsible way. Those remain the goals of this government. Those remain the goals of the individuals of our government seized with that.

If the member would like to discuss more EI situations as they develop, we would be happy to—