Judy Foote

[National Strategy for Dementia Act, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in support of Bill C-356, An Act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia.

The Liberals have long called for federal leadership in establishing a pan-Canadian dementia strategy and we believe the federal government must work with the provinces to establish such a strategy.

Families throughout our country are having to deal with loved ones who have dementia and they need our help and our support. They need that national strategy so they can cope, and this private member's bill aims to do that.

According to the Alzheimer Society of Canada, in 2011, 747,000 Canadians were living with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. That means, 14.9% of Canadians 65 and older were living with cognitive impairment. Without intervention, the society projects that figure will increase to 1.4 million Canadians by 2031.

The demographic population of Newfoundland and Labrador is aging at a faster rate than the rest of Canada, which means this increase will hit my home province particularly hard. In 2011, 16% of the population was 65 years or older, a number expected to increase to 20% by 2016. Unfortunately, as the age of the population increases, research has shown that the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia does as well.

The Canadian Medical Association raised this issue in its 2013 paper, “Toward a Dementia Strategy for Canada”. It said:

Given the terrible toll that dementia currently takes on Canadians and their health care, and given the certainty that this toll will grow more severe in coming decades, the CMA believes that it is vital for Canada to develop a focused strategy to address it.

Clearly this is a pressing problem requiring urgent action. Yet, despite pledging in 2013 to find a cure or treatment for Alzheimer's by 2025, we remain one of the only G7 countries without a strategy. Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom all have national strategies to address this growing problem, but Canada does not. This is unacceptable, especially given our aging population.

Alzheimer's disease puts enormous emotional stress on millions of families in Canada. One in five Canadians 45 and older provide some sort of care to seniors living with long-term health problems. In 2011, that amounted to 444 million unpaid hours spent by family caregivers looking after someone with cognitive impairment such as dementia.

From an economic perspective, this amounts to $11 billion in lost income and a loss of 227,760 full-time equivalent employees in the Canadian workforce. The impact to the Canadian economy is matched only by the enormous strain on those family members who provide care for their loved ones.

The emotional stress caregivers face was highlighted in a recent report by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, as well as a report from the World Health Organization, which stated that between 15% and 32% of caregivers would experience depression and up to 75% would develop psychological illnesses as a result of caring for others. These family members are doing what they can, but they need our help.

One of the major reasons patients end up in long-term care is because their caregivers are simply overwhelmed. According to Dr. Roger Butler of Memorial University Faculty of Medicine, “If you’ve got a well-educated, trained caregiver feeling supported in their community they won’t burn out as quickly as if they’re left to their own devices.”

A comprehensive strategy that supports caregivers is essential for the well-being of both the patient and the caregiver. A truly comprehensive pan-Canadian dementia strategy would not only have a positive impact on patients and their families, but delaying onset of Alzheimer's by two years could save our health care system $219 billion over a 30 year period.

Patients with dementia often occupy acute care hospital beds, while waiting for placement at long-term care facilities. This only serves to exacerbate the problem of waiting lists and increased health care costs. Without action, this problem will continue to grow.

During the 2011 federal election, the Liberal Party of Canada laid out a clear, comprehensive dementia strategy, including support for research, families, patients and communities. The plan called for increased funding for research to target new treatments and therapy, and to accelerate our progress in understanding, treating and preventing brain diseases.

It called for increased awareness, education and prevention programs to support families and combat the social stigma of dementia. It also called for stronger support for home and long-term care, as well as protection of income security for families struggling to cope with the cost of caring for a loved one with dementia.

Another key element of that strategy was the introduction of legislation that would prohibit denial of life, mortgage and disability insurance, and rejected employment based on genetic testing that showed risk of future illnesses.

Canada is the only G7 country without legal restrictions on access to genetic test results. This forces many Canadians to make an impossible choice: obtain genetic testing results for illnesses, including Alzheimer's, and face discrimination, or avoid testing and taking steps that could prevent or mitigate illness in the hope of obtaining things like life insurance.

This regulatory void perversely promotes the avoidance of potentially life-saving tests. Action is needed urgently, yet despite pledging action in the 2013 throne speech, the only action the Conservative government has taken is to block efforts on this front in the Senate.

Despite government inaction, individual Canadians are working together to develop treatment and prevention protocols and to improve the lives of patients and their families.

This year, volunteers across Newfoundland and Labrador will be participating in seven “Walks for Alzheimer's” to raise money for support programs and services for those living with dementia in their communities.

Families are also helping other families by participating in province-wide family support groups, accessible by phone and Skype, reducing isolation and providing much-needed support to caregivers in remote communities like those in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's. This is one way of ensuring that families are able to cope. We need to ensure more of that happens.

The things is that it needs to be part of a national strategy so it is not left to those who are caregivers to do things to help those who they and others love who are hit with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.

I take pleasure in raising awareness of the important work being done on dementia treatment and prevention in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Dr. Anne Sclater, professor of medicine at Memorial University, has done incredible work on the development of provincial strategies on healthy aging and Alzheimer's disease, as well as on the prevention of elder abuse.

Elders with dementia have the highest incident of mistreatment and abuse in long term care, and the prevention of this sort of terrible abuse is a topic on which Dr. Roger Butler, associate professor of family medicine at Memorial University of Newfoundland, has worked extensively. He is also currently engaged in a new project using telegerontology as a novel approach to optimize health and safety among people with dementia in Newfoundland and Labrador. For his work as a teacher, family physician and on behalf of the Alzheimer's Society, he was recognized by the College of Family Physicians of Canada as Newfoundland and Labrador's family physician for the year in 2013.

Drs. Sclater and Butler, along with some of their colleagues throughout the country, are making incredible progress on this important and increasingly prevalent issue. Imagine what they could do with more resources and support.

What we need is coordinated support from the top. Federal leadership is needed to develop a truly pan-Canadian dementia strategy to support the important work of these individual researchers.

[Nepal, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Steve and Natalie Wheeler, from my riding, are in Lucknow, Nepal and are trying to leave. Here is what they said:

We have limited communication from the Canadian government on what to do. We try to keep them up to date with what little progress we've made trying to leave.... And what do we get? An email from the gov saying we have updated your file accordingly!!! We have received more support, communication and reassurance from our insurance company.

What can Steve and and Natalie expect and when can all Canadians outside the capital expect some real help?

[Para-Swimming, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Katarina Roxon, an exceptional athlete from Kippens in Random—Burin—St. George's.

Since taking up para-swimming, Katarina has built an impressive resume and continues to set personal bests as she breaks both Canadian and world records. In early March, she set two world and three national records at the East Coast Swimming Championships in Mount Pearl, which she followed up with two gold medals, two silver and one bronze at the Can-Am International Swimming Championships in Toronto. She has gained a spot on the teams that will be representing Canada at the IPC World Swimming Championships being held in Glasgow, Scotland and the Parapan Am Games in Toronto.

Katarina is a disciplined athlete and has her sights set on excelling at those two prestigious events. Given her determination, it is not surprising that she is a world-class swimmer. Katarina gives back to her sport, coaching the Aqua Aces Swim Club in Stephenville and preparing yet another generation of swimmers to reach their potential.

I ask members to join me in congratulating Katarina Roxon on her remarkable achievements in the sport of para-swimming and wishing her continued success.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is listening and everyone in this House, or at least those of us in the opposition, realize that the emergency is the federal election that is coming up in October.

This budget is more about politics than it is about people. The government is ignoring the most vulnerable in our society with this budget. There is no emergency. The former minister of defence said that the government would not use the contingency fund, but guess what? The government used the contingency fund. According to the minister, contingencies are only meant for natural disasters, so I would ask where the natural disaster is, other than the fact that there is ever the possibility that the government could get re-elected.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here is it has become pretty obvious that Canadians are not reacting favourably to the income-splitting scheme. They have heard what has been said in terms of the number of Canadians who would benefit from this and they are realizing that this was not a good measure to put in the budget. As their former finance minister, the late Jim Flaherty, said, this is not a good initiative. In fact, he spoke extensively about that and tried to convince his colleagues that it was not the right thing to do. What happened? Because the Prime Minister had committed to it and had committed to those who deserve it least so they could benefit from this high tax break, of course they went ahead with it, much to the chagrin of most Canadians who are now realizing that they will not benefit from this. They do not like the measure that is contained in this budget.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to my colleague's question is an obvious one. This budget does so little to help the middle class and those who are trying hard to become a part of the middle class that no one in their right mind could possibly support it. If we look at the tax breaks that are in this budget, they are geared to those who need them least.

It is time to listen to what Canadians are saying. That is what we have been doing as Liberals. We have been listening to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, hearing what their priorities are and determining from our perspective, having listened to what they had to say, what it is we need to be doing as a government, and what the Conservative government needs to be doing, instead of ignoring the priorities of Canadians.

It is not about the Conservative government. It is about Canadians. It is about their money, taxpayer dollars, that the government is deciding to use to put in place programs and give tax breaks that are of no value. The income-splitting scheme would benefit 15% of Canadians. How is that a responsible decision?

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the issues and concerns my constituents of Random—Burin—St. George's have raised with me about the measures contained in the budget we are debating today.

Unfortunately, this is a budget that is unfair and does not generate growth, contrary to what the Conservatives would have us believe. Instead, it provides the most for those who need it the least.

Last Tuesday, the Conservative government ended weeks of procrastination and finally presented the federal budget for 2015. To my disappointment, the Minister of Finance presented a plan to help those Canadians who need it least instead of presenting a plan to help the middle class and those working to join it. Instead of giving all Canadians a real and fair chance of success, the Prime Minister is giving a $2.2 billion tax break to Canadians through his income-splitting scheme, a program, by the way, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates will help only 15% of Canadians.

On top of that, the Prime Minister's decision to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 and to double the limit for the tax-free savings account is being paid for by taking $32,000 out of old age security for our elderly, who need it the most.

The Minister of Finance also claims that the budget is balanced, a misleading claim at best. Make no mistake, the budget was not balanced by stimulating the economy and job growth. In fact, the Bank of Canada said last week that the Canadian economy saw zero growth in the first quarter of this year. According to a recent projection by the International Monetary Fund, 139 countries are ahead of Canada for expected growth in 2015, and that projection was made before the recent decline in oil prices.

CIBC has said that job quality is at a 25-year low and is declining. A Statistics Canada survey released earlier this month reported that another 28,000 full-time jobs had disappeared. A recent report in The Globe and Mail stated that Canada is in its longest period of anemic job growth, outside of a recession, since 1976, which is when Statistics Canada started keeping comparable records.

This lackluster job growth is bad news for all Canadians but especially for our youth, who need that very first job. As our young people strive to start careers, it becomes harder for them to do so as the economy stagnates and opportunities disappear.

Recently released employment data for the province I represent, Newfoundland and Labrador, shows that unemployment levels are steadily rising. The general unemployment rate for February 2015 was 12.6%, up nearly a full percentage point from February 2014. For the same period, the unemployment rate for young people aged 15-24 was 16.4%.

Adult children are moving back in with their parents, because many cannot get that first job, and if they are lucky enough to secure work, if jobs are available, they are part-time, making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to survive by their own means. That is the impact such a weak economy is having on parents and their children.

While the government provides tax giveaways to those who need them least, there are people throughout our country who are struggling to make ends meet and are having to tighten their belts to provide for their families. Household debt is at a record high. Two-thirds of middle-class parents are worried about affording post-secondary education for their children.

No, the budget was not balanced through sound economic management. The budget is not actually balanced at all, not to mention that over the last decade, the Conservative government has added $150 billion to the national debt and that unemployment is higher than it was before the recession.

The Conservatives brought the books back into the black by selling off assets like the remaining GMC stocks and by cutting the contingency fund by $2 billion, not exactly a plan for the future. Contingency funds are meant to deal with unforeseen circumstances, emergencies that might arise.

Just this past January, the Minister of National Defence said, “We won't be using a contingency fund. A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances, like natural disasters”.

He apparently forgot to tell the Minister of Finance.

The Conservatives are clearly more focused on looking good before the election than they are on growing the economy and helping Canadians in need. We only need to look at where money is being spent to see where the government's real priorities are and who they appear to have written off. This budget is clearly more about politics than people.

There is no new funding for Marine Atlantic, which faced a $108.1 million cut earlier this year. It is not only a vital part of Newfoundland and Labrador's economy but serves as an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway, connecting the province to the rest of the country. With the Conservative government fixated on cutting expenditures at all costs and demanding what I think is an unreasonable percentage of cost recovery from Marine Atlantic, the crown corporation found it necessary to increase its fares by a total of 11% over the past three years. Less government funding may well result in yet more fare increases.

For those producing goods for sale on the mainland, higher shipping costs using Marine Atlantic make their goods less competitive. For those shipping products to our province, the high cost is added to the cost of the product and is absorbed by the consumer. For those in the tourism industry, high fares are a deterrent to visitors. Fare increases impact everyone.

Yet another example of where the government has fallen short in this budget is that it does not address the immediate needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. Although the mission to Iraq has been expanded, the last few years have seen major cuts to the Canadian Armed Forces' bottom line. Budget 2015 defers all new defence spending to 2017. Is it any wonder this budget is being referred to as budget 2017 and not budget 2015?

Canadians are tired of seeing the Conservative government pay lip service to issues affecting our enlisted men and women. For those who are presently deployed or will be deployed this year and next to an extremely dangerous conflict zone, the fact that funding for upgrades to resources has been pushed out to 2017 has to be worrisome for those directly involved and for their families. Whenever we ask our Armed Forces personnel to put themselves in a situation where in many cases their lives are at risk, the very least we owe them is our full support by providing them with all the resources necessary to keep them as safe as possible. It is irresponsible and disrespectful to offer anything less.

Again, it speaks volumes about the misguided priorities of the government when it is more concerned about presenting the illusion of a balanced budget and saving $2 billion dollars in taxes for those who need the break least than it is in supporting our military.

However, no one should be surprised. Over the past 10 years we have repeatedly seen the callous attitude of the Conservatives toward our enlisted men and women and veterans. We watched as the former Minister of Veterans Affairs ignored the concerns being raised by a spouse of a veteran.

Veterans are forced to repeatedly prove that they are still amputees as a result of service injuries. As Matt Edwards, a veteran from Newfoundland, said, could the government not save money and make lives easier for veterans by streamlining medical approvals? Common sense solutions seem to elude this government.

My Liberal colleagues and I believe that every Canadian deserves a real chance at success and that budgets should be balanced by growing the economy, not by using smoke and mirrors or creative accounting, which we witnessed last week with the Conservative government.

We need to cancel the Prime Minister's unfair income-splitting scheme, from which only 15% of Canadians will benefit. We need to reverse the unthinkable decision that forces seniors to wait two extra years to receive their OAS benefits. It is a particularly cruel decision for those seniors who will have no other source of income at age 65 and will have to rely on the welfare assistance programs in the provinces. Not everyone is able to continue to work past 65, as some Conservatives have said is an option.

Canadians are being served a budget that would benefit those who need help the least. The needs of the most vulnerable in Canada, including seniors, students, and veterans, are being ignored by the Conservative government. It is obvious Canada needs new economic management with measures to protect the most vulnerable and a plan to build the middle class and grow the economy.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa South on two fronts: first, in putting forward this motion today, which is very important to Canadian taxpayers, and second, for his question.

I acknowledge, as we have discussed here today, that we really need to do things differently. What is being proposed is important because we do need to be advertising programs to Canadians. They do need to know what is available and what we are doing. What we do not need to be doing is wasting taxpayer dollars by being partisan and suggesting that only the Conservative government can do this.

This is meant to be fair use of taxpayer dollars. It is not government money. It is taxpayers' money. Having a third party look at how we are going to spend money is a responsible way to go forward. It is responsible to have someone other than one of the parties in the House of Commons, someone other than the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, or any other party, decide what is good use of taxpayer dollars when it comes to advertising.

We need to ensure that what we are advertising is something Canadians need, want and deserve, and that it is not being portrayed as somehow a great initiative by a particular party when in fact it is taxpayer money. We are going to be doing things from a leadership perspective that will offer those programs that Canadians want and have asked for, because we have been listening from coast to coast to coast. What we are not going to do is say—

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the question from my colleague across the way. I want to say that given his comments, it is pretty obvious that he, as a member of the Conservative Party, is actually embarrassed by what is happening with the Conservative government. The amount of money and the numbers I talked about in my speech clearly show that, given the anger that seemed to come out of the member in terms of his remarks, he is embarrassed.

I think the member recognizes that what is happening is wrong, and that this motion is exactly what this House needs. What is being put forward by the Liberal member for Ottawa South is exactly what all parties should be considering and should in fact be supporting unanimously, so that we do not see any more of this partisan advertising, the use of taxpayer dollars to do anything other than promote programs that Canadians need and deserve.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion from my liberal colleague, the member for Ottawa South, on the very serious issue of wasteful partisan advertising.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

All members of this House have an obligation to ensure the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers are spent responsibly, which is why this debate on the use of public funds for partisan ineffective advertising is so very important. At a time when the current Conservative government preaches fiscal restraint and belt-tightening to everyone else, it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on self-promotion. For over nine years, the Conservatives have used taxpayer money to broadcast highly partisan advertising, often containing little to no useful information. Between fiscal years 2006-07 and 2014-15, the Government of Canada spent $758 million on advertising.

According to figures revealed in media reports today, the current Conservative government is planning to spend $13.5 million to promote its pre-election budget in April and May alone; $13.5 million of taxpayer money to promote targeted tax breaks.

It has wasted millions of dollars on advertising during high-profile events when the cost to do so is so much higher, such as the Academy Awards, the Grammys, the Super Bowl, the World Junior Hockey Championships, and the NHL playoffs, while refusing to disclose the costs to Canadians.

The Conservatives have repeatedly used taxpayer money to pay highly partisan advertising during some of the most expensive time slots on television, including the Super Bowl and Stanley Cup finals; a time slot that, by the way, costs over $100,000 for a 30-second ad. This is simply unacceptable and irresponsible. I can only imagine the number of young students who could find jobs with that money.

It is not just Liberals who are concerned about this issue. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, an organization where the Minister of Defence served as CEO and the Conservative member for New Brunswick Southwest served as national director, has called upon the government to end these taxpayer-funded partisan ads.

In a recent release, the organization's federal director said:

If a government can use public dollars to “inform” Canadians by conveniently putting a positive spin on the governing party’s policies at the same time, they probably will. This is not only a waste of precious resources; it’s also an affront to fairness in a democracy. Further, it violates the democratic principle that public dollars shouldn’t be directed towards partisan ends.

The current government has spent millions of dollars on ad campaigns, advertising programs that do not even exist yet.

Earlier this month, I was watching TV and, to my surprise, I saw a government ad advertising proposed tax measures, such as the so-called family tax cut that has not been approved by Parliament. In fine print, I saw the words “subject to parliamentary approval” written across the screen.

Surely the government should be waiting until its program or measure has actually been approved by Parliament before advertising it.

This is not the first time a government ad has advertised a program that did not exist, but I hope we can make it the last, as a result of this responsible motion by the Liberals that we are discussing before this House.

A particularly egregious example of this occurred in 2013 when Advertising Standards Canada forced the government to pull its May 2013 ad campaign, calling it misleading. Advertising Standards Canada sent a letter to an assistant deputy minister at Employment and Social Development, stating that the Government of Canada had breached the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards by airing commercials that ask Canadians to apply for the Canada job grant. At the time, the grant did not exist and no provinces had agreed to the potential program, despite the fact that the original model required provinces to pay for one-third of the grant.

Advertisements have also continued after a program has ended. In yet another example of waste, the government spent $37.4 million promoting the Conservative economic action plan since the program ended. Even when the programs advertised do exist, government public polling about its own advertising campaigns has consistently shown that the ads have little to no effect on Canadians. The vast majority of them report that they did nothing upon seeing a Government of Canada advertisement. According to a government-funded poll on the effectiveness of the 2013 budget ads, only three respondents of the 2,003 surveyed actually visited the action plan website and not a single person called the 1-800-O-Canada number promoted in the ad.

Ads by the Government of Canada aired overseas do not fare any better. A series of ads in the Washington, D.C. area subway stations praising Canada's environmental record and oil industry were found to have little effect, according to research funded by the government itself. Even so, the Conservative government decided to extend this campaign using $22.7 million over two years. I repeat, $22.7 million for ineffective subway advertisements in a foreign capital. Just think what Canadians could do with that money. Just think of the vulnerable Canadians who could use that in programs that this very government has cut, programs that have been so needed by the most vulnerable in our country. The government's research shows these vague, partisan ads are not working, and yet it continues to fund them with taxpayers' own dollars.

At the same time as the Conservative government is spending over a quarter of a billion dollars on ineffective partisan advertising, sometimes for programs that do not yet exist, there are people throughout our country who are struggling to make ends meet and having to tighten their belts to provide for their families. This, too, is blatantly unacceptable. The Conservatives should focus on strengthening the economy and helping to create jobs, not spending taxpayers' money on expensive partisan ad campaigns.

This most recent budget by the Conservative government built an artificial surplus on the backs of Canadians by cutting programs and services that are, indeed, meant to help the most vulnerable in our country. This is part of a larger pattern, unfortunately. In recent years, the government closed nine regional Veterans Affairs offices, which helped veterans who really need our support, who have given so much on behalf of our country, and yet when they need us to be there for them, the government is not there.

It ended funding to low-income co-operative housing units and raised the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. I know people who just cannot work beyond age 65 and if they are not eligible until age 67, they are going to have to turn to programs in their provinces, assisted welfare programs, which pay a lot less than they would get on old age security.

It is not right that throughout our country we are seeing reduced health care funding to the provinces by nearly $36 billion in the name of financial prudence and austerity. The Conservative government spent more than $100,000 in one year to increase the reach of Twitter posts by Veterans Affairs Canada while neglecting veterans themselves. Last year, Veterans Affairs Canada spent $4.3 billion on an ad campaign advertising rehabilitation, financial support, mental health services and career transition services, while closing the very offices that veterans would need to visit or get in touch with to discuss these services. By going forward with all of these services, the Conservatives still neglect veterans because they do not make it possible for them to be able to access the services. The backlash from viewers was noticeable.

The backlash from viewers was noticeable. According to an internal analysis, when asked to describe the main point of the ad, some 150 people who saw the ad said that it was either that veterans were being neglected or it was government self-promotion for not doing enough for veterans. Despite the backlash, the department claimed the campaign was effective.

Liberals would remove the partisanship from taxpayer-funded advertising and ensure that government ads only provide useful information to Canadian taxpayers. The Liberal member for Ottawa South has a bill at second reading that would take the partisanship out of government advertising by saying that the Auditor General must approve the content before it is broadcast.

We have seen that system work in Ontario. During the previous Progressive Conservative government's tenure, taxpayers paid for commercials that featured then-premier Mike Harris. In 2004, the Liberal government in Ontario—