Karen Vecchio

[Immigration to Atlantic Canada, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is with the combined efforts of every level of government and the welcoming nature of all Canadians that we continue to be a nation known for our warm reception of newcomers, providing the foundation for seamless integration into our society. We recognize that by promoting continued immigration, we stand to benefit both economically and culturally.

Canada has been built upon the skills, the hard work, and the fresh perspectives of newcomers from around the world, and Canada's future success as a nation will also depend on incorporating the expertise and diversity that new Canadians offer. It is evident that these benefits are not being equally distributed across the nation, with some provinces receiving significantly fewer immigrants than others. Atlantic Canada is an example of this. The Atlantic provinces have had a much lower rate of immigration than the rest of the country, and the negative repercussions of this are very obvious. It is clear that steps must be taken to reverse the population decline in the region.

We support this motion, in that the immigration committee can help work towards finding methods of bringing long-term immigration to the Atlantic provinces. I hope that the committee will include suggestions for robust consultations with the provinces, as we know that this was something lacking when the Liberals announced the immigration levels plan earlier this year.

We are hearing that the provinces would like more say into the immigration policies for their province. One of the best ways to do so is through the provincial nomination program. A part of the solution may include re-evaluating the restrictive cap that the government has placed on the provincial nominee program so that provinces can encourage immigration specific to the needs of the province. Economic growth in the Atlantic provinces will be dependent upon increasing stable long-term immigration. This is why we hope that initiatives like the PNP are increased, as opposed to an increase in the temporary foreign worker program, which would not enable long-term growth. In order to be beneficial to the region, sustainable options should be explored.

Under the current Liberal government, so far we have seen cuts to economic immigration and no increases in the provincial nomination program. We are concerned with the interest that has been expressed by the current government in revamping the temporary foreign worker program, as research has shown that it may result in decreased wages and lower working conditions, particularly in the fish processing industry. Although this may provide short-term relief to the Atlantic seafood processors, it would allow the region to maintain low market wages, further contributing to the unemployment of the residents of the Atlantic provinces. We recognize the hard work of the people of the east coast and the way that the current economic downturn has affected them. We wish to see current obstacles eliminated and the revival of the struggling regional economy.

There are many reasons why the government should abandon the focus on short-term foreign contracts in exchange for long-term population growth. It is the Atlantic provinces of this nation that are in the greatest need of a stable increase in population. We believe there are tangible ways to achieve this goal in a sustainable manner. Nova Scotia is a prime example of a province that would clearly benefit from an increase in immigration, a fact that provincial leaders acknowledge and advocate for. Their population is both declining numerically and rapidly aging, and an influx of newcomers is necessary to reverse this negative trend.

In 2014, Ray Ivany published a comprehensive report detailing the steps necessary to assist in Nova Scotia's economic growth. This commission provided a strong case for increasing immigration to the province, stating that Nova Scotia must stabilize its population base and increase the number of working-age people if it wishes to sustain current levels of economic well-being. It recommended that the most effective way to do so would be by increasing immigration to the province by 7,000 people per year. However, this goal will be nearly impossible to reach until the Liberal government stops cutting economic immigration and starts consulting with the provinces.

Nova Scotia is advocating for an increased quota in its provincial nominee program, with needs for immigrants above and beyond the current federal cap. Julie Towers, the chief executive officer of the province's office of immigration, recently spoke on this point at the committee on public accounts in Halifax. Ms. Towers highlighted Nova Scotia's success in the provincial nomination program, taking an average of one month to process an application compared to the approximately six months under the federal express entry system. However, Towers admitted that the province was clearly limited by the federal cap.

When the Minister of Immigration was approached regarding this issue last spring, he responded with increasing the provincial cap by a mere 300 nominees, ambiguously but non-completely vowing to look at the quotas for the next three years, while heavily pushing the government's significantly less effective express entry plan.

In his speech to the Halifax Chamber of Commerce on March 15, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship stated, “I...understand your message. You'd have to be an idiot not to understand.” While this sentiment may be true, it would seem that the government is content with understanding, but is significantly less interested in action.

Nova Scotia is looking for a federal government that will support it in its time of need, a government that will not only acknowledge its concern, but actively address it.

It is clear that long-term and sustainable immigration will have a positive impact on the Atlantic provinces. These are the types of initiatives that need to be taken in Atlantic Canada, engagement that will truly make a difference in the cultural and economic outlook of Atlantic communities.

If the intent of the federal government is to use this proposed study to find ways to make it easier for immigrants to settle in the communities in question, then it will most certainly be positive. If the study brings awareness to the fact that the provincial nominee program is severely underutilized in provinces such as Nova Scotia, then we are confident that it is well worth the time spent investigating. Our hope is that the government would recognize the initiatives that have already seen success in bringing immigrants to the region, taking advantage of the advice of knowledgeable stakeholders such as Julie Towers, who has nothing but praise for the results of the provincial nominee program.

Programs such as these provide provinces and territories with the opportunity to nominate individuals who want to live in the region. This is precisely the type of program that a province such Nova Scotia needs, bringing individuals into the communities who have already expressed interest in making it their place of residence. This also allows for the Atlantic provinces to nominate candidates with the relevant skills and education to fill their workforce deficit.

Programs such as these both allow for the eastern provinces to welcome new community members and grow their stagnating economy at the same time. This is particularly relevant due to the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island are all among the provinces participating in the provincial nominating program, with each respective province running its own program to find talented individuals that fit their specific workforce needs.

Initiatives like the provincial nominee program do not only benefit the provinces, they also benefit the individual. An immigrant who has specifically chosen the region as a desired place of residence will be much more content with the decision, and due to the selection process, will have a better chance of using his or her specific skill set effectively within the community. This, as a byproduct, improves the nation as a whole, boosting both the economy and public morale.

It is time for the government to recognize that in moments of economic difficulty, as the Atlantic provinces are experiencing, sunny ways will not always do the job and that hard work is necessary not just empty promises and ambiguous talking points.

If this study moves beyond hypothesizing and results in action, relieving the red tape restricting the east from welcoming the immigrants it needs, then the motion has our support.

[Government Expenditures, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line. The Prime Minister signed off on these expenses and wrote his best friends six-figure cheques. Yesterday, Gerry and Katie were willing to take the fall for their best friend, the Prime Minister. How can Canadians trust this Prime Minister's judgment when their hard-earned money always seems to end up in personalized cash payouts?

[Government Expenditures, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are asking why the Prime Minister's friends received over $200,000 in payouts for so-called moving expenses. The reason is the Prime Minister approved it. He could have limited their taxpayer abuse if he wanted to, but he chose not to. When will this Prime Minister stop giving taxpayer money to his Liberal friends?

[St. Thomas Fundraiser, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, 16-year-old Haley Angus from St. Thomas has been diagnosed with ITP, a rare blood disorder that destroys her blood platelets, which should clot her blood. A normal count reads between 150 and 400. Haley's platelet count is under 10.

Treatments are very costly and are currently not covered. Haley's soccer team from St. Thomas, the St. Thomas Scorpions, had the idea of hosting a small fundraiser that became much more than they ever expected. This group of awesome 16-year-old girls created “Dream It, Believe It, Achieve It”, and they did just that for their friend.

The event called “6K for Number 6” started as a small Facebook invitation but turned into a huge event. More than 400 people packed a small community park to run the 6K for Haley. They raised over $22,000 that day, which is enough to cover five months of treatment for her. More than that, they raised needed awareness of ITP.

Haley's friends and community are right behind her. Congratulations to the St. Thomas Scorpions for being such amazing friends.

[Government Expenditures, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to try this again.

It should not be too surprising that the Prime Minister's best friends learned how to stick taxpayers with the bill. After all, Gerry Butts and Katie Telford learned directly from the Wynne/McGuinty Liberals.

In the race to spend and misuse taxpayer money, the Prime Minister is clearly now in the lead. When will the Prime Minister explain how he justified giving his best friend Gerry $126,000?

[Government Expenditures, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, is that why we had to go to The Globe and Mail to actually find out these answers? Canadians want to know why Liberals gave $1.1 million to Liberal friends. The justice minister doled out $114,000, and the foreign affairs minister forked out another $146,000. Worse still, the Prime Minister gave his millionaire friends $200,000 to move from Toronto to Ottawa. When will the Liberals tell us exactly how they justify spending this money?

[Government Expenditures, September 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing Liberals use the words “open” and “transparent” in the responses to the million dollar move, which is ironic, given the lack of details provided to Canadians.

If the Liberal House leader is so transparent, can she tell us exactly who she gave this $70,000 to and what the money was supposedly for?

[Government Expenditures, September 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, $1.1 million was handed to Liberal staffers moving to Ottawa for six-figure jobs. The Liberal House leader herself provided over $70,000 to just one staffer.

The rules say that it is at the minister's discretion. Does the minister think that forking out a million dollars to Liberal political staff is the best use of Canadian taxpayers' money?

[Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to stand here today at the beginning of a new session to speak on such important legislation, Bill S-201, an act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination. I thank the member opposite from Don Valley West for sponsoring this Senate bill that allows us to have active debate on this issue.

I was first made aware of this piece of legislation from a visit by Ovarian Cancer Canada in May. The regional director from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, along with ovarian cancer survivor, Lauren Richards, came to my office to discuss their types of cancers, their concerns, and what we as members of Parliament and government can do to help the thousands of victims of this terrible disease.

Through our discussion, I was advised that ovarian cancer is the most fatal cancer for women in Canada and that 2,800 women would be diagnosed this year, with an additional 1,750 dying from this disease. Unfortunately, because of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, the diagnosis can be very confusing and disease go undetected. Lauren advised me that many physicians diagnose this disease as a bladder infection. Meanwhile the disease continues to spread. Because of this, the mortality rate is such that more than half of the women die within five years. The words for this are “just brutal”.

My own office assistant, Kim, was diagnosed in 2000. Luckily she is with us today, as it was detected very early and she has not just become one of those statistics. Kim is now tested annually, as doctors know of her medical history, but the question is what can we do to help people like Kim and Lauren, women who have this disease and who, in over 50% of cases, will die in five years? The answer is genetic testing. Genetic testing would not only provide an individual with a sigh of relief to find out whether or not they are a carrier of a mutated gene, but it would also allow individuals to get the appropriate care and treatment to deal with the diseases.

In 2015, former justice minister MacKay tabled similar legislation prior to the fall election. This legislation was especially supported by the Jewish community, which has a disproportionately higher number of genetic markers. I was made aware of this during my meeting with officials of Ovarian Cancer Canada, who advised me that their own colleague would not have this testing done, due to insurance concerns.

When preparing for speeches, many of us in the House read a lot of news articles and studies to do with the issue in question. One case from California in particular came to my attention. A young boy was transferred out of his school because of the results of his genetic testing. He had tested positive for genetic markers for cystic fibrosis but did not have the condition. This is a clear case of discrimination.

I believe that when we look at this issue we need to decide if it is about the quality of life and the betterment of our health decisions or the ability to discriminate. Currently we are the only G8 country that does not have legislation to protect our citizens from genetic discrimination. Similar legislation in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, to name a few, already includes safeguards for their citizens.

I understand the concerns of insurance companies that have spoken out against this legislation, but in countries like the U.K. they have come up with solutions and proposals. Studies that have looked at the impact on the insurance companies, who are concerned about people over-insuring themselves to secure a large payout for their family when they pass on, have found that over-insurance is not truly an issue, as over 97% of those companies' policies fall below those considered limits. I recognize that the regulation of insurance companies is a provincial responsibility, but I believe that as a federal government we can set the tone for human rights across Canada.

During my preparation for this speech, I read the different proposals forwarded to other governments by insurance companies. Rather than saying that this is a provincial regulation, we can work collaboratively to make sure that we are protecting Canadians.

It is not just for diseases like ovarian cancer and breast cancer, but for people who have parents with Huntington's disease, heart disease, and many other diseases, for which this genetic testing would be very helpful. There are so many uses for this type of screening to help people make their choices about their health care needs. Personally, I have a mother who had a triple bypass, and whose mother and family members had a number of heart disease issues, including my aunt, uncle, and great uncles.

Just a couple of years ago, my sister, a very active and fit 48-year-old woman at the time, was diagnosed with a heart condition and now has a defibrillator implant. For me personally, this does cause concern. Do I have the same issue or will I find out that I do like my sister did when she passed out in her family's hallway? Will my daughters and sons have this condition? Does my husband carry the gene for prostate cancer like his grandfather?

As the leader of the Senate Liberal caucus said in January 2016, scientists here in Canada are unlocking keys to our DNA and the results are revolutionizing medicine. As he indicated, just because individuals have the markers, it does not mean they will develop the condition, but just knowing can change so many things for them, such as lifestyle, diet, exercise regime, and particular medications or perhaps surgery as necessary.

An extremely popular example of this is Angelina Jolie. When she discovered she had a genetic disposition for breast cancer, she dealt with it by having a double breast mastectomy. As a mother caring for many children, she had the hardships somewhat relieved for her. This is an example of providing peace of mind not only for her but also for her children.

As I indicated earlier, I had the opportunity to speak to an ovarian cancer survivor who luckily had been diagnosed early. However, we must keep in mind that misdiagnoses can occur and do, especially with these types of cancers. The ability to save a life is crucial.

With respect to discrimination, there have been situations in Canada where people have lost their jobs following positive test results for specific diseases. People have lost out on promotions and have come under scrutiny on the job due to their potential conditions, and it is not just with respect to employment insurance. Due to positive results, families have not had the opportunity to adopt children. Instead of having the opportunity to raise a family, individuals go without, and they may not even have the condition but have just tested positive for it.

It just does not make sense for us as parliamentarians to not support such an important piece of legislation. We need to set the bar and we need to set that now. We need to do what is best for Canadians, and supporting this legislation is just that. I urge all members to take an important stand and support Bill S-201, an act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination. I urge members to look at the health of people and to allow provincial regulators to find solutions to assist Canadians who have tested positive for gene markers. I urge Canadian researchers and our medical professionals to work together to encourage testing, especially in cases where there may be something that could be detected, which would allow Canadians to make their own personalized health care plans.

I would truly like to thank Ovarian Cancer Canada for coming to my office and informing me of what we can do and how we can be part of the solution that would make a difference for all Canadians, now and in the future.

[Government Expenditures, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the level of Liberal entitlement when it comes to spending other people's money. Liberal staff received more than $1.1 million in payouts to relocate to Ottawa. These cash payouts included more than $100,000 to a single Liberal staff member. This should be no surprise, given that the Liberal whip took $70,000 to move down the street.

With unemployment rising and families struggling to make ends meet, why did the Liberals think it was somehow okay to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money on these outrageous staff expenditures?