Rick Dykstra

[Anaphylaxis, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of motions and being here at this time on a Friday is the opportunity for us to discuss and move forward not legislation, but concepts and ideas that need to be turned into either government legislation or concepts. I find it interesting that the member for Vancouver would actually use this time to accuse the government of not taking action when the individual who actually moved this motion is a member of the government and is on this side of the House.

So much for trying to work together, because I do not think that this issue crosses any type of partisan lines whatsoever. It is an issue that all Canadians are interested in, particularly the more than two million Canadians who are impacted by anaphylaxis.

I am pleased to be able to take this opportunity and speak today about Motion No. 230, tabled by our colleague, the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook. This motion states that anaphylaxis is a serious concern for an increasing number of Canadians, and calls for the government to take appropriate measures to ensure these Canadians are able to maintain a high quality of life.

When allergens come into contact with the skin, are inhaled into the lungs, or are swallowed or injected, a person can develop allergic symptoms almost immediately. These symptoms can develop quickly. Within minutes, a mild allergic reaction can potentially progress to a severe one. Anaphylaxis is the most serious type of allergic reaction.

Mild allergic symptoms may include itchy skin or watery eyes. However, the most dangerous of symptoms can include trouble breathing, a drop in blood pressure causing dizziness, light-headedness, feeling faint or weak, or losing consciousness. In the most severe cases, these symptoms can be life-threatening.

There are a number of research studies which suggest that the number of people who live with allergies is increasing, and that many of those living with the most severe allergies are our youth and our children. However, the impact of allergies, especially anaphylaxis, on Canadian individuals and on Canadian society as a whole, remains largely unknown.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians living with allergies. There has been significant scientific progress made in this area, but there is still a great deal more to learn about allergens, anaphylaxis, and allergies. This is why the government has invested in a broad range of research studies that are not only helping us to better understand the prevalence and impacts of food allergies in Canada, but are also serving to inform policies and regulations which will help to minimize health risks caused by severe allergic reactions.

The Government of Canada is supporting research in the area of anaphylaxis and food allergies through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Since its inception in 2000, CIHR has funded a number of projects to better understand the fundamental causes of different allergies, such as food allergies, which in turn can cause anaphylaxis. These investments are also contributing to developing new treatments, therapeutics, and guidelines for better prevention and treatment.

For example, the CIHR is funding the allergy, genes, and environment network centre of excellence, which brings together more than 170 researchers and 200 partners from the industry, the public service, and academia. The network aims at catalyzing and supporting the work necessary to reduce the burden of allergy, asthma, and anaphylaxis. We are investing more than $60 million in this work between our coming to government in 2006 and the year 2019.

Health Canada is also supporting a variety of research projects in the field of food allergies. These projects are of critical importance to help fill the knowledge gaps and to support policy development.

Between the years 2007 and 2009, a study surveying Canadians to assess the prevalence of common food allergies and attitudes towards food labelling and risk was undertaken and was the first nationwide Canadian examination of the prevalence of common food allergies. It was carried out under the leadership of some of Canada's top academics and supported by the allergy, genes, and environment network, funded through the federal networks of centres of excellence program, which I just mentioned.

The allergy, genes, and environment network, also called AllerGen NCE Inc., worked in partnership on this study with Health Canada, McMaster Institute of Environment and Health, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal Children's Hospital, Anaphylaxis Canada and the Allergy/Asthma Information Association.

This important research provided a better estimate of the prevalence of people with common food allergies in Canada, which as I mentioned earlier is approximately 2.5 million Canadians. The study also found that over 15 million Canadians, or 50.6%, reported being directly or indirectly affected by food allergies. Over six million Canadians reported having someone in their household who is allergic to food.

Further, this study has provided a better understanding of the attitudes and behaviours of those living with these medical conditions, including the attitudes of the general public towards food allergies and the effectiveness of food labelling that alerts consumers to the presence of allergens in products. The findings of this study have been key to informing the government's position on food allergen labelling and the development of the new food allergen labelling regulations which were brought into force last year. The information gathered from the study is of great value to the government and stakeholders in the development of policy, health, and educational resources. It is needed to support prevention, and to help with the diagnosis and management of food allergies in Canada.

As a follow-up to this study, the Government of Canada supported a survey of the prevalence of food allergies in all Canadian environments. This comprehensive study, which took place between 2009 and 2011, included the development of a full picture of the health, social, and economic impacts of food allergies in our country.

It examined the prevalence of food allergies in vulnerable populations across Canada, including among people of lower socio-economic status, new Canadians, and first nations and Inuit populations. The study also explored the role of contributing factors, such as environmental influences as they related to the potential cause of food allergies.

Building upon the findings of these two studies, the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry, or C-CARE, is a study currently under way. It will develop a registry of anaphylaxis cases throughout our country. Preliminary work, as part of this registry, revealed that among young children visiting emergency departments, the rate of anaphylaxis diagnosed is comparable to that found in studies conducted in the U.S. and that food is the main trigger. The objective of the study is to contribute to reducing the incidence of anaphylaxis which will help minimize the burdens of anaphylaxis, including associated health care costs.

I would like to commend the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook for his efforts to bring this important issue forward. I recommend that my colleagues from all parties support Motion No. 230.

Our government acknowledges that anaphylaxis is a serious health concern to Canadians living with allergies. The government has put in place a range of measures necessary to help Canadians who live with allergies maintain a high quality of life.

Motion No. 230 reflects the concerns of Canadians affected by life-threatening allergies. Supporting this motion reaffirms our commitment to protecting the health and safety of Canadians with serious allergies. In conclusion, whether it be the community of Niagara West—Glanbrook, the city of St. Catharines, or anywhere in our country, we have those who are impacted by this issue. We need to take action in terms of moving this forward.

I want to commend my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook who has been persistent with this motion. He had it up in the last Parliament. He had it up again here today. We are seeing this motion move forward. Moving forward means concrete action, and that is what the member's intention has always been.

I would also like to thank a good friend of mine, a fellow by the name of Chris George whose son is threatened by anaphylaxis. In fact he pulled me into this. At first I was not sure how far-reaching or how significant this issue was in our country. He convinced me by showing the impact it has across the country and in each one of our communities.

I say to him, his son, and his family, this is our step forward in terms of making sure that regardless of how difficult it is, we are taking action. We will continue to act on behalf of those who are impacted by anaphylaxis.

[Victory Walk, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, from May 14 to 23, former NHL all-star Theo Fleury will be walking from Toronto to Parliament Hill in Ottawa as part of the Victor Walk. The goal of the Victor Walk is to ask for greater victim support for children who have been sexually abused and for tougher penalties for those offenders.

This is a very difficult topic to talk about, so we must commend the courage of former victims like Theo Fleury who have become advocates to prevent the sexual abuse of children.

Our government and our Minister of Justice have worked with advocates like Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy in the past and we have made necessary changes to the Criminal Code to better protect our Canadian children.

I ask members of the House to support Victor Walks in their community and to listen to Mr. Fleury and his thousands of supports when he arrives at noon on May 23.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know that when I have a chance to speak in the House, some of the folks on the other side like to debate directly with me. They need to understand that they need to go through you, and I respect your interventions in that regard.

One of the difficulties we face in this country is our geography. People need to understand that one part of the country may have a stronger need for a particular type of workforce and that other parts of the country may be able to supply that particular workforce. I say to the member opposite that the way to solve this problem is to have Canadians fill these jobs.

If the member is suggesting to me—through you, Mr. Speaker—that there is a way to partner New Brunswick and Alberta together to deliver on these jobs, to deliver New Brunswick folks who would love to work in that industry and allow them to do so for a period of time in Alberta, then I welcome the member's ability to say that this is the way to put Canadians to work.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Winnipeg North is a critic at the citizenship and immigration committee. We see each other every Tuesday and Thursday morning, sometimes even more than that. I know that he may not appreciate that. On occasion there are times when I appreciate his interventions, and there are many other times when I do not. At the same time, perhaps it is better to respond with a question for the member.

The question is this: do we want a strong Canadian economy? Do we want a strong economy and low unemployment in the member's very riding of Winnipeg North? When he asks for expedited temporary foreign worker applications, when he asks for those decisions that have been denied to be reversed, is he standing up for the program, is he standing up for his constituents and does he actually believe the program is very necessary in this country to build a stronger economy?

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Perhaps the member across the way could quote to me the two pages where we talk about the temporary foreign worker program in the budget. If he has read the budget, I am sure he can stand up in opposition and tell me on which two pages we refer to it.

The foreign workers program is going to ensure Canadians have first crack at available jobs and ensure employers are doing more to recruit and train Canadians for jobs. In short, changes are being made to ensure the temporary worker program is being used only as it is intended: to fill clear and acute labour shortages on a temporary basis across our country.

I cannot understand how the Liberals, and as the member who spoke earlier indicated, can put forward a motion like this, yet at the same time vote against the very changes that will actually improve the program.

The government is conducting a thorough review of it and the economic action plan outlines some of the changes that would be made, for example, working with employers to ensure that temporary foreign workers would be relied upon only when Canadians genuinely could not fill these jobs. Economic action plan 2013 requires employers to increase their recruitment efforts to hire Canadians before they will be eligible to even apply for temporary foreign workers. The government will also help employers who legitimately need to make use of the program to formulate plans to transition to a Canadian workforce over time. There is not a company in the country that does not want to hire Canadians. Companies want to hire Canadians, but Canadians are just not there to fill those jobs. This is in addition to other improvements that were announced in previous budgets, which, coincidentally, the opposition also voted against.

We are introducing robust monitoring and compliance measures to ensure that employers are living up to their commitments with respect to wages, working conditions and investments in training for Canadians. The measures will allow for inspections of employers, including site visits, to verify their compliance with program requirements.

In addition to the economic action plan commitments, there will be more changes coming to the temporary foreign worker program, as we continue to consult with workers, employers, unions, migrant rights workers and Canadians across the country.

The opposition's hypocrisy on this issue is not just found in its shameful voting record. It can also be found in the fact that while it stands here today to debate the motion, several of the members of Parliament in the opposition from both parties have written to us asking us to expedite temporary foreign worker visas. Those members come from every region across the country, even some locations with high unemployment rates. Opposition members have also asked that we reverse negative decisions from the department, even when the department finds that Canadians should be able to do the work, or to give expedited processing to temporary foreign workers. The opposition members still come to the government, to the minister and to me to ask, verbally and in writing, if we can assist in reversing a decision that would bring a temporary foreign worker to their very riding.

I cannot stress enough that the government is focused on ensuring, whenever possible, that Canadians are getting first crack at any available jobs and that employers are given the tools they need to match Canadians up with labour market needs in their respective industries. We are also making investments in skills training to help unemployed and underemployed Canadians get back into the workforce.

If the Liberal Party and the NDP actually cared about the issue and were serious about the motion that they presented and that we are debating today, they would not be voting against new investments in job training. They would not be voting against the major reforms to the temporary foreign worker program that would ensure Canadians would get access to jobs first.

It is clear. We have laid out a strategy. We have been working on the temporary foreign worker program since we became the government. We have gone across the country. I have been in every province to discuss and listen to and hear from workers and those involved in the industry, from small to large businesses, from agriculture to manufacturing to technology. Indeed, there are times when Canadians are not able to fill the positions, but these businesses, whether they are small or large, require assistance to bridge that gap. That is exactly what the temporary foreign worker program is.

For the most part, it is not a pathway to citizenship or permanent residency. It is simply an economic tool that has enabled companies across the country to fulfill their mandate in terms of jobs and production and to keep them aggressive on the international front and within their own communities.

I will end by reading from page 84 of the budget:

The Government will take action to reform Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program to ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate regarding the temporary foreign worker program. However, I would argue that this debate would benefit from less rhetoric and more facts.

The fact is that our Conservative government remains focused on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Canadians have seen concrete results thanks to the actions that we have taken. Our job growth remains the best among all G7 countries. We created over 900,000 net new jobs. Over 90% of these jobs are full-time and close to 80% of them are in the private sector. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have said that Canada is at the head of the pack for economic growth in the years ahead.

The Liberals and the NDP can keep putting motions like this forward, which completely ignore the facts and completely ignore the actions our government has taken, but Canadians see and they know better.

Our government is committed to helping even more Canadians secure employment, which is why we have made significant investments in skills training. For example, in economic action plan 2013 we introduced the new Canada job grant, which was praised by a wide variety of organizations and stakeholders from across the country. Matching the needs of employers with the training Canadians are getting is key to our future economic growth. The Canada job grant will transform the way Canadians receive training.

For the first time, the Canada job grant will take skills training choices out of the hands of government and put them where they belong: in the hands of employers and Canadians who want to work. Job seekers will train at community colleges, career colleges, polytechnic institutes, union training halls, among others. The Canada job grant will benefit hundreds of thousands of Canadians from one side of the country to the other.

Our government is also investing to expand and extend the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year in recognition of the important role that small businesses play as job creators in the Canadian economy.

I will acknowledge that the opposition parties talk a good game, but we know that actions speak louder than words. Both the Liberals and NDP have voted against every one of the policies we put in place to help Canadians across the country get work. The fact that they are ignoring Canadians and experts by voting against the Canada job grant speaks louder than any of the MP rhetoric we are hearing today.

By opposing economic action plan 2013, the opposition is ignoring the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters that said our plan “is very good news for companies creating jobs in Canada”.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated that the budget is “a significant step forward in the federal government’s attack on Canada’s skills challenge”.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said, “it will spur growth and job creation while laying the foundation for a more competitive economy”.

The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association said, “CRFA welcomes action to bring more accountability to skills training programs and to help employers recruit and train Canadians that are under-represented in the labour force”.

That is just a small sample of highly regarded organizations that agree that economic action plan 2013 will help grow the economy, create jobs and improve skills training to get more Canadians into the labour force. Unfortunately, if it were up to the opposition, none of these investments, ideas or concepts would actually move forward.

If the Liberals and NDP had even sat down to read to the budget before deciding to vote against it, they would have noticed that it also included several improvements to the temporary foreign worker program.

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have listened. We listened to Canadians and those across the country who know this system extremely well, Canadians who have heard what the arguments are on both sides of the table.

The member should listen to people in the country and in her constituency who do not think those who take advantage of our system deserve additional health care, not only the fact that they do not deserve it in the first place because they are not true refugees but who receive it over and above, including eyeglasses, dental and prescription drugs. That is an unfair system.

Canadians told this government it was an unfair system. They asked us to change the system. We did. We set in place a program. I am not sure why the member is referring to queue jumpers, which has little or nothing to do with this subject.

The fact is we have a system in place that is fair to those who deserve it and those who take advantage of it are no longer able to.

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River is quite aware of the interim federal health fund. If not, I am happy to speak to the changes made by a prior government, the reasons those changes were made and the purpose of the interim federal health plan that still exists for those who come to this country seeking asylum.

The interim health fund actually began in 1957 to prepare those coming to this country, from an immigration perspective, to ensure that there was some form of health care for them as they transitioned and began their lives here in Canada. In the early seventies, the program was expanded when we began to take on our responsibility as a country for those in this world who were seeking asylum. They were fleeing their countries of origin because they may have been facing persecution or at the very least were in danger and were looking for an alternative place to call home. Canada was one of those countries that stepped up to the plate.

To this day, Canada resettles one in every 10 refugees in this world. When we think about that in terms of our size, in terms of the advancement we have made to assist these individuals and families who come to our country truly seeking refuge and who deserve to be designated refugees, we are more than doing our part.

Our doors have always been open. They continue to be open to immigrants and to genuine refugees, but Canadians have no tolerance for those who abuse the system and our generosity. The member lumps all those together in this file as if they are one group of individuals or families. That is simple not the case. We need to distinguish between refugees, asylum claimants and failed asylum claimants.

We have a system in which true refugees still receive interim federal health. They still receive assistance. It is on par with that of Canadians who do not have any type of additional assistance for health care, such as, for example, my mother, who is in her early seventies. She does not receive extended benefits. She does not have an extended pension. All those who fall under this category as refugees are at the very least able to receive the same services my mother enjoys. I do not know that all Canadians would actually see that as wrong. I think they would see that as fair. I certainly see that as fair.

When we look at those who have taken advantage of this system, those bogus asylum seekers who came to this country for no reason other than to take advantage of our social services and health care, they chose to go back to their countries of origin the day before they had the opportunity to stand in front of the Immigration and Refugee Board. They took somewhere up to a thousand days, in some cases.

We think Canada is a place for those who seek refuge and deserve it. They will receive interim federal health. I think my colleague understands that those individuals who are not truly refugees should not be taking advantage of the system.

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, further to that, the foreign skilled application process, which brings skilled workers to this country and took years to complete, is now down to a year or less.

The parent and grandparent reunification program in this country has been reduced by over 25%, not because anyone on the other side of the House has supported this but because this government is taking action when it comes to immigration.

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, about a half hour ago our Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism announced that the backlog that was left on this government by the previous Liberal government has been reduced by 40%.

The program that—