2010-10-29

Government Orders
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):  moved that Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House for third reading of Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. 
I know, from discussions with my colleagues, that we all recognize the need to modernize product safety legislation in this country. 
The Hazardous Products Act is 40-year-old legislation that was developed at a time when consumer product marketplaces were very different. At the time, a greater number of products were produced domestically. Today, many of the products available for sale to Canadians are imported, supply chains are complex and innovation drives rapid product change and development.
Our current legislation requires us to develop regulations and prohibitions as a basis for ensuring product safety. Because of this, Health Canada has remained focused on particular products or product classes that are reviewed through a targeted sampling and testing program. New regulations continue to be developed to address risks as they emerge. 
The regulatory process is a lengthy one. It leaves us with few tools to quickly address serious product safety issues as they emerge. My department has not had the tools to act quickly to prevent product-related incidents. In Canada, we have a post-market consumer product safety regime, which means that we do not certify new products coming into the market. A post-market regime makes sense for consumer products and helps ensure a free flow of goods but it demands a modern legislative framework. 
Where we have regulations in place, products must meet the requirements they describe, but there are thousands of products that are not regulated. We do not have the mandatory incident reporting in Canada. There is currently no obligation for industry to report product-related problems. We have no authority at this time to require testing or that test results be provided to ensure compliance with our legislation. When we do identify a serious risk with a product, we do not have the powers of mandatory recall.
While it is true that we have a very co-operative industry in Canada, an industry that strives to be compliant, the fact that we cannot rely on mandatory powers of recall frequently requires us to undertake lengthy negotiations for volunteer recall, even if the severity of the situation demands swift action.
My colleagues in this chamber know that this legislation is close to my heart. I have travelled throughout Canada to discuss product safety with parents and stakeholders. I have travelled internationally to promote our work on product safety with foreign jurisdictions. I am a member of a government that recognizes the need to increase funding for product safety and put our money where our mouth is with the food and consumer product safety action plan.
Through the food and consumer safety action plan, we are doubling the number of inspectors throughout Canada. We are increasing our funding for outreach to ensure that industry understands its obligations and that consumers have the information they need to make good product choices. 
We are also building an efficient system to support the requirements in this legislation for mandatory reporting of serious product-related incidents and we are increasing our work in the development of standards. Standards will be an important tool in the future for ensuring product safety and for helping industry to address risk. 
These tools are putting us on a strong footing for a system built on active prevention, targeted oversight and rapid response. They will support the hard work that has already been done by Health Canada in the areas of product safety and bring us up to date, not only with what is required in the modern global marketplace, but also with the product safety regimes of our major trading partners. This legislation is an important part of that plan.
What would this legislation help to achieve? The proposed act focuses on three areas: active prevention, targeted oversight, and rapid response.
I will first speak to the active prevention. The proposed consumer products safety act would introduce a general prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement or sale of consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. The new legislation would allow Health Canada to address consumer products in Canada that pose an unreasonable danger to the health or safety of the public. 
When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, we discussed the emerging problem of cadmium in children's jewellery and examples of how the general prohibitions might be used right now if they were in place. Health Canada has worked hard to address product safety in Canada. The work that has been done to help ensure that children's products are safe is one of the best examples of this.
As many of my colleagues in the House know, Health Canada currently has some of the strictest limits in the world on the use of lead in children's products. It is a toxic if ingested. My department regularly enforces these lead limits, and officials are also on alert for the presence of other heavy metals in children's products. That is how we discovered the presence of cadmium in children's jewellery.
 Cadmium is also toxic. Because it is cheap material, it is being used to make children's jewellery. If we could be certain that these items were only going to be worn by young people there might not be a problem. However, as many of us know from our own children, it can be a challenge to keep items out of their mouth. When swallowed, cadmium can cause a range of ill health effects. 
Because there are currently no regulated limits on the use of cadmium in children's jewellery, the department has exercised the limits of its authority under the Hazardous Products Act by releasing advisories to alert parents about these items and by asking the industry for a voluntary ban on its use.
 It is worthwhile to consider how we might be managing this emerging problem with cadmium if the Canada consumer product safety act were in place. The knowledge that under certain circumstances cadmium causes an unreasonable danger would provide us with the basis to use the general prohibition that is included in this legislation. Our inspectors could be working right now to remove unsafe cadmium-filled children's jewellery from stores. The department would not necessarily have to wait up to two years for the development of regulations in order to have the ability to act. We could be issuing recalls for these products if we found that industry was not willing to act swiftly on a voluntary basis. The general prohibition is an important provision for helping to prevent consumer product incidents before they occur.
In terms of active prevention, another important provision in this legislation is the updated fines. Compliance and enforcement would be strengthened through maximum fines of up to $5 million for some of the worst offences or more for offences committed knowingly or recklessly.
The current fines under the Hazardous Products Act could easily be perceived as simply a cost of doing business. The new maximum fines are a step up from the current maximum penalty of $1 million. They will be an important deterrent and they will bring us into step with other major trading partners.
What about targeted oversight? Targeted oversight is especially important in the context of products where the risk may not yet be fully understood or that pose the greatest potential hazard to the public. 
The proposed act would give the minister of health the authority to order a manufacturer or importer to conduct safety tests and to submit results to the ministry in order to verify compliance with the act. It would also require suppliers to notify Health Canada of defects and of serious product-related incidents. These would include near miss incidents where injury has been averted.
Let us consider cribs. At the moment, as many colleagues know, my officials are consulting on whether we should ban traditional drop-side cribs in this country. We have developed this proposal and we are talking to Canadians about it because we know from mandatory reporting in the United States that these cribs can cause safety risks.
Our colleagues in the United States have been very generous with information they gather through their mandatory reporting. They have worked co-operatively with us on recalls and they assisted us in determining whether problematic products have been sold in Canada. We work with them on a daily basis.
We look forward to having access to our own incident data generated as a result of the provisions for mandatory reporting. This is a provision that will be critical for us as we transition to product safety programs built on the strategic intelligence it generates. 
The proposed legislation also includes measures to allow for a rapid response to problems once they are identified. We must not forget that we always hope to avoid problems and prevent injuries related to consumer products, and that is why we are investing in active prevention and targeted oversight. However, we have a post-market regime for consumer products in Canada and we have almost as many entry points for products into this country as we have products. They are coming to Canada from around the world.
Under the proposed new act, Health Canada would be able to move quickly and decisively when a problem occurs. This would be done through the ability to order recalls of unsafe consumer products and by requiring suppliers to maintain accurate records to enable quick tracking of products.
 Health Canada will work closely with industry to ensure this legislation is understood and properly implemented. Workshops and other information-sharing opportunities will be used to promote awareness of the new provisions and requirements.
Through Bill C-36, our government is demonstrating its commitment to consumer product safety. We are demonstrating our desire to meet Canadians' expectations by proposing action Canadians want and need.
The bill before us today reflects a cumulative wisdom of both Houses of Parliament and extensive long-term consultation on the part of Health Canada. When it came before this House previously as Bill C-6, the standing committee heard from government witnesses and from 33 other witnesses representing over 24 organizations. In total, five separate sessions were devoted to review and discuss former Bill C-6, two of which were extended. In those sessions, all voices were heard and all opinions were closely considered. The results of the committee's hard work was an amended bill that reflected the underlying policy intent of the bill, as well as other key aspects of concern to some witnesses.
Our government's amendments included delivering on a commitment to make it crystal clear that natural health products would not be regulated by this act. The opposition amendments address two key areas: consultation and information-sharing. When the government reintroduced the bill, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, in June of this year, it retained those amendments.
In its previous form as Bill C-6, Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, it was subject to considerable scrutiny in other places. Our colleagues were concerned that perhaps the legislation provided too broad a scope for inspector powers. Before we reintroduced this legislation last June, we worked hard to analyze those concerns. 
Of the six changes incorporated into Bill C-36 before its reintroduction in June, three spoke to concerns about the perceived scope of inspector powers and four spoke to concerns raised by opposition senators. We removed the words “and they are not liable for doing so” from the provisions that allow inspectors to pass over private property. We defined storage so that it would be clear that it would not apply to goods stored by individuals for personal use.
In Bill C-36, the minister is now made expressly accountable for the authority for recalls and other orders. And, in responding to concerns about the review of orders, the bill now sets out a 30-day review period.
The government also adjusted the legislation to improve the wording in the bill, “provisions for an advisory body”, in order to clarify what is meant by public advice. Last, the government added the prohibition on BPA and baby bottles.
We heard from colleagues in the upper chamber that these changes largely address their concerns, but after the legislation was introduced in June, they remained concerned that some of the technical amendments they had made to the bill, when it was before them as Bill C-6, had not been incorporated into Bill C-36.
We want this legislation to pass, and so we have again worked hard to address these concerns. That is why the government introduced four amendments at clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36.
Some colleagues have asked that the requirements of the Privacy Act be made explicit in this legislation. We have done this with the amendment to clause 15. 
We have also incorporated a series of technical amendments to address and distinguish the two Houses of Parliament. Some of these amendments address the unique nature of each place and the fact that their committees are structured differently. We have amended clause 38 to address those concerns. 
We have also amended clause 39 to ensure that a timely rationale is provided in cases where certain regulations are made without being laid before Parliament. 
We have amended clause 60 to address the concerns raised in the other place that clause 60 lacked clarity about the role of the minister in reviewing a notice of violation. This change required a further technical amendment to subclause 56(1).
Given these changes and the committee's previous close scrutiny of this legislation, I am pleased to see the bill reported back to this House with only a small number of amendments.
It is my sincere hope that this House will pass Bill C-36, and that it will reflect the efforts many people have made to address all the concerns. As I stand at third reading today, I feel optimistic that we will soon have dramatically improved consumer product safety in this country. 
As I speak today, I remain hopeful that this House, in its wisdom, will pass this legislation. I am hopeful that this legislation will rapidly become law. It is my wish that this bill be afforded a smooth passage.
I would like to address one last issue pertaining to this legislation. It is critically important to make the distinction, as this legislation does, between administrative proceedings and proceedings in the criminal courts. Under the administrative monetary penalty system, a person or supplier that has been found to be out of compliance with the act or regulations could be issued an order to take an appropriate corrective measure. If that person or supplier does not take the appropriate action, he or she may be subject to a notice of violation. If a notice is issued, the person or supplier will be subject to the monetary penalties under the administrative monetary penalty system.
This system encourages compliance and addresses non-compliance with orders for recall and other corrective measures. These measures can be an effective tool for gaining cooperation from regulated industry. Violations can result in an administrative process that is more responsive and less expensive than prosecution in the criminal courts. A criminal record would not result from a violation.
I will be watching the progress of this bill closely. I will continue to meet with parents and stakeholders to talk about the importance of having a consumer product safety regime. I set high standards on officials to develop effective, efficient, reliable systems to support the new provisions in the bill.
As I wrap up my remarks, I would like to pause to consider the hard work that has gone into this legislation and into getting it to this point in the legislative process. The parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Oshawa, has worked tirelessly to support the goal of passing the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. To him I extend my thanks.
I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Health for their hard work on this bill. Every member of the Standing Committee on Health voiced support for this legislation, and demonstrated this support by making the bill a priority and focusing on its swift passage.
I therefore want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their support, collaborative approach, and shared concern for the safety of consumer products in Canada. I also want to thank all the Canadians and stakeholders I have met who share my desire for new product safety legislation and the many benefits it will bring. I look forward to their ongoing support for bringing this bill through the full legislative process to full implementation.
To conclude, I want to stress that Canada's current consumer product legislation is 40 years old. We have fallen behind other jurisdictions. An update is overdue and the bill before us today benefits from a wide diversity of experts' views.
Canadians can be assured that the government—
The Speaker: Order, please. I am reluctant to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted for her remarks has expired.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.
Mr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I could start by teasing the minister and saying that the two previous incarnations of this bill never made it through, one because the Prime Minister decided to trigger an election, and the other because he decided to prorogue the House. But I will not do that, because we are finally at the point of getting this bill past third reading in the House, once again.
I would like to come back to clause 37, which deals with regulations. This is an important clause that gives rather extensive discretionary powers to the minister.
How will the minister use these discretionary powers, and does she plan on determining whether or not a product is dangerous? What criteria will she set for recalling one item rather than another? How will she decide not to recall a product for some reason? I would like the minister herself to provide more clarification on these points.
[Interjection]
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, on the first point the member raised, there was plenty of opportunity to pass this legislation in December, before prorogation.
On the question related to the section that he identified, as I stated in committee, the decision to carry out mandatory recalls of a product would have to be evidence-based. It would have to be based on reported incidents. Through this legislation, with mandatory reporting, we would be able to respond quickly and investigate whether a product is safe or not in the market. 
So, recalls would have to be evidence-based. They would have to be based on investigations by inspectors and on consultation with the industry. When a mandatory recall is decided upon, a recommendation would be made to the minister, at which time the minister would use the legislative provision covering mandatory recalls, which we do not currently have.
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, seeing that this bill was of such huge priority, why did the government prorogue Parliament last December after the minister had said that without this bill people would die, and why did the minister fail to reintroduce the bill until June of this year?
[Interjection]
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at modernizing a 40-year-old piece of legislation, which is now before the House for the third time. 
As I stated before, there was plenty of opportunity for the Liberal senators to pass this legislation before prorogation last year. The amendments opposed in the Senate at that stage, in my view, compromised the intent of the legislation. When we re-introduced the legislation in June, we were able to address some of their other concerns as well.
As the member knows very well, we have been dealing with a global economic downturn, and we have been focusing on trying to address it. It is equally important to respond to the global economic situation. 
We introduced legislation in June. I am asking the member for her support in passing this legislation, so that we can have consumer product legislation that would protect the health and safety of Canadians.
On a final note, in response to her shot with regard to injuries, injuries have occurred. There were incidents in Canada where children died in an unsafe crib. There has been an incident where a child lost a finger. These are real incidents that have occurred in Canada. That is why it is so important to update our 40-year-old legislation so that Canada will be at the same level as other trading countries such as the United States.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the bill is obviously important to parents and people who are concerned about the quality of products on the shelves.
I wonder if the minister could comment again, emphasizing how this bill will benefit families and empower government to deal with products on the shelves that are deemed unsafe.
[Interjection]
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have right now is 40 years old.
 We are not able to get a good sense of what products in Canada have caused harm, because we do not have mandatory reporting of incidents by industry or by consumers.
This legislation would allow us to create a mechanism for receiving information to monitor what is occurring in our own jurisdiction. This mechanism would give us the information necessary to investigate possible incidents to determine whether a product is safe or not.
If it is determined that a product is unsafe, we would work with industry to remove that unsafe product from the market. As it is right now, industry lacks a mechanism for co-operating with us and we do not have the mandatory provisions required to remove unsafe products from the market.
 Cadmium is an example that we recently dealt with. At present, all we can do is tell Canadians that cadmium is in the market. I think as parents and consumers we often make the assumption that the products on our shelves are safe. For me as a parent, it was really an eye-opener to find out that this is not always the case.
This legislation would modernize us. It would give us the ability to respond quickly, remove products from the market, and monitor incidents in Canada. I believe it is also in industry's interest to ensure that their products are safe. They will be able to do safety testing and will be allowed to share that information with us to determine what products are safe.
Once this bill is adopted, our legislation is going to be much improved.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, members in this House, over the summer and even before, received a lot of communication about this bill. I think there is a lot of misinformation out there.
I would like to ask the minister if she could answer the question about whether or not natural health products are regulated under this new Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
There is also misinformation about the ability to issue warrants. I would like to ask the minister if it is true that for the first time in Canadian history the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act would allow warrants to be issued to search private homes without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
[Interjection]
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, because of concerns that were raised by the natural health products community, there is now a clause explaining that this legislation does not apply to natural health products.
The previous legislation raised some concerns about going into people's homes for personal storage. We have clarified that in this legislation: storage of personal items is not subject to this legislation. To be perfectly clear, we cannot go into a home without a warrant. People need to understand that the law still applies. It has to be based on evidence and in working with individuals to deal with unsafe products.
I want to reassure members that all the issues raised in the previous bills have been clarified in this legislation.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am here today in support of C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.
It is an honour for me to speak on behalf of my party, since the government has finally listened to the questions raised by the stakeholders and by parliamentarians and has created a bill that will protect Canadian consumers without causing harm to Canadian companies.
The point I want to focus on today is that, by taking a quick look at the evolution of Bill C-36, Bill C-6 and others, we can see that in some cases the government said one thing and did another. I wanted to point out some of the flaws we encountered in the development of this bill. The Minister of Health was publicly outraged at the end of last year, and assumed that this bill, then called C-6, would held up by the Senate. I completely disagree with that claim, since I think that many of the suggestions made by the Senate to amend Bill C-6 were incorporated into Bill C-36. That seems a bit odd to me.
As Liberals, we recognize the value of the Senate, which acts as a chamber of sober second thought. We appreciate the Senate's analysis of this bill.
I too recognize that the senators' due diligence identified some problems with the legislation that we in the House of Commons had missed. Again, I believe it is important for the government to recognize that indeed in this second, Bill C-36, they have incorporated virtually all of the problems that were identified in the Senate and that we will perceive. 
It is very rare that one is provided, as a member of Parliament, exactly the discourse, the content that one wants to be able to deliver, and it is on that basis that I am pleased to read to the House today the letter sent to the hon. minister on October 6, 2010, by our leader in the Senate, Senator Jim Cowan:
 Dear Minister [of Health]: 
 I am writing concerning several comments that you made on Thursday, September 30, during an interview with Evan Solomon on the CBC Newsworld program, Power &amp; Politics. 
 That interview concerned the cross-border recall of more than 10 million Fisher-Price toys. Mr. Solomon asked why your Government has not moved faster with legislation to protect Canadians. You replied: 
 “As it is right now, we don't have the right tools to do massive recalls of this nature, which is what we've been saying for the last year, two years, that we need the tools to respond.... This has been an issue for us in terms of recalls of cribs even last year. That was held up at the Senate. And so in this -- in this sitting I am working with the House Leader to move this legislation forward.” 
 I was surprised to hear you blame the Senate for your Government's slow action to protect Canadians, and especially Canadian children, from dangerous consumer products. 
 In fact, Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, was not “held up” at the Senate. It was studied in each of the House of Commons and the Senate for almost exactly the same amount of time: six months. It was amended and received third reading in the Senate on December 15, 2009. There has been ample time between December 15 and today for those amendments to have been dealt with and the legislation brought into force. However, on December 30, 2009, [the] Prime Minister...chose to prorogue Parliament, killing the bill. 
 Bill C-6 was highly controversial legislation. As you are well aware, a number of Canadians were deeply concerned about certain provisions contained in the bill as passed by the House of Commons. They considered that the bill went too far, for example in granting relatively low-level government officials the power to enter any private home where a consumer product is “stored”...in order to “verify compliance” with the Act or regulations--which could include verifying compliance with labelling requirements. There was concern that the bill allowed inspectors to enter or pass over private property without any liability for damage they negligently caused. 
 These provisions seem particularly strange in view of your Government's recent position on the supposedly intrusive nature of the mandatory long-form census. I suspect most Canadians would consider an inspector demanding the right to enter their home more intrusive than completing a census form. 
 The Senate did its constitutionally mandated job. We closely scrutinized the provisions of the bill, listened to the views of those experts and other interested Canadians who took the time to come before our Committee to testify about the bill, and considered various amendments to address the concerns and improve the bill. In the end, the Senate voted to pass the bill with several amendments. 
 The amendments were serious, honest efforts to make the bill the best it could be for Canadians. Under our parliamentary system, the bill was returned to the House of Commons with a message about our amendments. We fully expected the House to consider our amendments on their merits, and then accept or reject them, in whole or in part. 
 It was well within the Government's power to recall the House of Commons for this--in the past, these kinds of messages have even been addressed in one day. The bill could have been passed by both Houses and brought into force well before Christmas. 
 The imminent holiday season was an issue you yourself had raised. When the bill was still before the Senate, you told Canadians in a press conference-- 
This is a letter I am reading. It is not you, Mr. Speaker.
 --that the bill was needed before Christmas if Canadian children were to be protected against potentially dangerous toys. You said, “Canadian mothers and parents should be worried. They should be worried that this legislation is not there to protect them.” Yet your Government did not recall the House of Commons to consider the Senate’s amendments before Christmas. As a result, nothing further happened, and Canadians remained without the added protections of the bill. 
 As we all know, [the Prime Minister] chose to prorogue Parliament on December 30, 2009, causing this bill--along with many others--to die on the Order Paper. Evidently the Prime Minister did not see the need to protect Canadian children as the priority issue that you had expressed in your press conferences. 
 I was then completely surprised when you failed to move promptly upon Parliament’s return to reintroduce any bill to address this serious issue. Indeed, you waited until June 9, 2010 even to table new Bill C-36 in Parliament--and that is where this matter has sat, at first reading. To date, you have not even brought the bill forward for debate. 
This is, again, a letter dated October 6.
 As a result of these actions by your Government, it has now been almost ten months since the Senate passed Bill C-6, and the bill remains at first reading in the House of Commons. Let us be clear and honest: your Government’s inaction has delayed the bill longer than the study in either the House of Commons or the Senate. Yet you continue to tell Canadians that it is the Senate that held up this legislation. 
 Such false assertions are surely beneath the dignity of your high office. 
That would be the Minister of Health.
The letter goes on:
 Once again your Government has sought to avoid responsibility for its actions--in this case, the serious failure to position the Government to be able to protect Canadians from threats to the safety of Canadian children. 
 In the interview with Evan Solomon, you even tried to avoid responsibility for your department’s failure to adequately inform Canadians about the recalled toys. Mr. Solomon told you of the problems he encountered when trying to find the necessary information on the Health Canada website. He contrasted the United States Government’s website, which listed the recall as breaking news in a banner headline. He asked you why, when you know about recalls of consumer products like the children’s toys, your Government does not get the information right out to consumers. You replied: 
 “We have an outdated legislation. We have difficulty getting the information to investigate when incidents do happen. But, you know, we're hoping with the passing of this legislation that we'll be able to make--implement the new legislation to make the necessary improvements to protect the health and safety of Canadians.” 
 In fact, the poor quality of information alerts on the Health Canada website relating to this recall had nothing to do with Bill C-36. Indeed, when my office checked the website on Monday, several days after the Solomon interview, the website had been changed. The recall notice was now prominently displayed on a banner headline, on the home page, with ready access provided to more information. Legislatively, nothing had changed since your interview; the outdated legislation proved no constraint on more effective use of the Internet. Why, then, did you tell Canadians that the fault lay with the outdated legislation (whose timely amendment had been “held up” by the Senate)? 
 I should perhaps not be surprised. In a press conference on December 3, 2009, you said that under the amendments that had been passed by the Senate Committee that studied the bill, “a child, a baby has to die before we can do a recall”. Minister, this too was a false statement. No amendment passed by the Senate Committee required any Canadian – baby or adult – to die before there could be a recall. I suspect that this was little more than fear-mongering, designed solely to pressure the Senate. Yet you were prepared to strike fear in the hearts of Canadians with a false allegation of this magnitude. As a Parliamentarian and as a parent, I must tell you that I was shocked by what I consider to be a flagrantly inappropriate use of your office. 
 As Minister of Health, you have a heavy burden of responsibility. Canadians have entrusted you with powers and duties to safeguard their health and safety. Partisan politics and gamesmanship have no place when speaking to Canadians about potential threats to their infants and children. 
 I noted with interest that your new bill, Bill C-36, in fact incorporates several of the changes that were the subject of Senate amendments in December. I was happy to see that despite your voracious attacks on our amendments, upon reflection you agreed that the concerns we raised indeed had merit, and changed your bill accordingly. 
 However, I was surprised that your new bill did not incorporate any of the so-called “technical” amendments to the bill that were passed by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. These amendments corrected a number of errors that Committee members found in the bill. 
 For example, the bill contained a number of provisions that required the Minister to table documents in both the House of Commons and the Senate. This is a technical impossibility, as no Minister is simultaneously a member of both Houses. The Senate Committee corrected this mistake. To my surprise, your new bill, Bill C-36, contains the same error. I assume that amendments will be required once again to correct this mistake which unfortunately will no doubt further delay the legislation. 
 Canadians need a new Consumer Product Safety Act. This legislation has been in preparation for a number years, beginning under the Liberal government. This should not be a partisan issue, but rather, a matter of parliamentarians of all political parties and both Houses working together constructively to ensure the best law for Canadians. This is the best of our Canadian parliamentary tradition. We in the Senate sought to do our part, working to improve your proposed legislation for the benefit of all Canadians. Evidently you agreed with some of the flaws we discovered, and your latest bill incorporates changes to address them. 
 I look forward to your correcting the record, and finally accepting responsibility, as a senior Cabinet Minister in the [Conservative] Government, for your actions. The real reason Canadians still have outdated legislation on consumer product safety is not because your government's bill was “held up” by the Senate. Rather, it is because your Government has failed to place the necessary priority on this bill. 
 I hope that with the recent massive recall of children's toys, your Government will realize the importance of this issue and bring C-36 forward for second reading debate and scrutiny. If amendments are proposed, whether in the House of Commons or the Senate, I hope you will now consider them seriously and on their merits. The best interests of Canadian children is the goal we all share. The health and safety of Canadian children is surely too important to use as a pawn in a political chess game. 
Since the minister has received this letter, we now have this urgent debate to bring this forward.
 I thank Senator Cowan for his extraordinarily important letter, which I have now read into record of the House of Commons. As the critic for democratic renewal, the Conservative government's ongoing reluctance and contempt for any proper consultation on any bill and its continued track record of a so-called consultation being an information session with one-way information going out to people who can take it or leave it has again delayed much needed legislation.
We need the government to understand that consultation can prevent all of these problems and that means not writing people off as contempt for special interest groups. Civil society has huge expertise in these matters and it would be very much more efficacious to go and talk to those people before the Conservatives present such shoddy legislation.
The other embarrassing piece of information is that, although the government said this bill was a useful part of its product safety strategy, it took the government six months to reinstate the bill after prorogation. Once again, it appears that the process the government described does not make sense. The other thing that seems strange to me is the fact that this bill would make an unprecedented change to the state's powers over citizens.
This bill would authorize searches of private property with no prior evidence of criminal wrongdoing and includes the power to seize property without a court ruling. This measure could only come from a government that ignored virtually all stakeholder recommendations and repeatedly opposed the long form census, claiming that it wanted to protect individual privacy. 
The government's refusal to use the long form census is all the more embarrassing given some of the provisions in this bill. Liberals believe that the existing legislation to protect Canadians from dangerous imported goods is no longer appropriate. I am pleased to note that the Minister of Health finally has the power to unilaterally recall products that pose a risk to Canadians' health and safety.
Yet again, it is so sad that the government continues to campaign instead of govern. This week it has come to our attention that yet another huge hole in the protection of Canadians has been left totally not dealt with by the government.
That being said, all Liberals believe that we must ask the Conservative government to do extraordinary things and close the loopholes in the system. This week, our thoughts are with Olivia Pratten and her mother, Shirley, who are fighting to end sperm donor anonymity and prevent the destruction of records. 
Since 2004, Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, an organization whose mandate is to apply regulations that do not even exist, has been in control.
Section 2 of the act has principles that are hugely important in terms of the health and well-being of children born as a result of AHR technologies, ensuring that the women who are significantly affected by these technologies have free and informed consent. 
It is absolutely unacceptable that the government continues to leave these huge holes in the protection of the health and safety of Canadians and their children, particularly women. It is inexcusable that the government has wasted huge amounts of money on the reproductive technology agency in Vancouver, which has no law, no regulations to enforce, and that women are left completely unprotected because the government refuses to govern. It refuses to deal with the tough issues and hides behind a Supreme Court appeal for one tiny part of the law, one tiny part of the protection of Canadian women and their children. It has refused to act.
The federal government's excuse in response to the Province of Quebec and the Supreme Court is ridiculous. It cited only a tiny part of the regulations. In fact, the government did not review the bill within three years, as required. The Conservative government must acknowledge that, even though an issue may be controversial, that is no excuse for failing to act.
Today, we will finally get work on consumer protection with the all party agreement on Bill C-36. However, we now call upon the government to act on so many other issues, where it wraps itself in a constitutional cocoon, pretends that the health and safety of Canadians is not its issue and sits and does nothing, while Canadians, particularly women and children, are left without protection.
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I am reflecting upon the 13 long years of the Liberal government, when it cut moneys to the health care programs to the provinces.
The member referred to our current health minister. Let me just clarify the record. This government has done extraordinarily positive things for the health of the country. I reflect upon the hepatitis C compensation. The previous Liberal government, in which the member was a minister, denied hepatitis C victims compensation for years. Our government, within six months of forming office, found the moneys and moved forward. That demonstrates how this government is compassionate and caring and does things in a timely manner.
The member opposite has raised a lot of issues that are really of a partisan nature. What we should focus on is moving forward with this legislation to ensure the safety of Canadians.
The health minister mentioned that it had been 40 years since this legislation was adopted. Our government has been in office for 5 years. We had 13 long years of a Liberal government, and she was a member of that government. If the legislation is so essential, why does she not vote for it now and reflect upon why, during 13 long years, the Liberal government did nothing on this issue?
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the day I was sworn in as minister of state for public health, we immediately went to work with the minister of justice, the member for Mount Royal, and the minister of health. We began the negotiations on the amendment from the member for Mount Royal on the hepatitis C compensation. 
The Conservative government had the good fortune to sign what had been negotiated by the Liberal government. All the work had been done, and the Conservatives should be very grateful that we handed it over to them.
 The same can be said for the credit the minister takes for the 6% rise in transfer payments every year. That was negotiated by Paul Martin, as the prime minister, in 2004. That is now signed by all the provinces and territories. Therefore, every day in the House the minister rises to take credit for what was done by a previous Liberal government. 
The Prime Minister has said that nothing was done on home care. In that 2004 accord, there was an agreement on home care, which, again, was put in place by the Liberal government. The Conservative government has chosen to abdicate from the terms of that 2004 accord. 
From health human resources to home care to not even appointing a federal co-chair for the national pharmaceutical strategy, the Conservative government has completely abdicated all roles on health and health care. In spite of being the fifth biggest provider of health care, aboriginals, military, veterans, corrections, the RCMP and members of the public service have some of the worst health care in the country, yet the government refuses to act on any of them. 
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very calm approach to this subject. I totally agree with her—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I am sorry, but I am going to ask that the hon. member not proceed. I think it is time we moved on to statements by members, but there will be five and one-half minutes remaining for questions and comments when we resume debate. If we go on now, I can tell that we will go well past 11 o'clock. Tempting as it is to hear the hon. member at the moment, we will put this off until later this day.
We will now proceed with statements by members. The hon. member for Macleod will lead off in this today.

Statements By Members
Infrastructure ProjectsMr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share information about some of this government's investments in the riding of Macleod.
 Through the economic action plan, numerous projects were funded, which benefit communities both now and into the future. 
The community of Turner Valley received funding for a much needed inter-municipal library. The town of Okotoks received funding for a very important bridge, which opens up a key transportation and truck route, facilitating economic growth.
Fiscal stimulus was provided to improve access and availability for recreational activities, including 27 kilometeres of multi-use trails in the Crowsnest Pass. Pincher Creek received funding for a multi-purpose solar project, which will reduce the carbon footprint by 78 tonnes.
These projects represent valuable investments made by this government, which will help grow the economy, create jobs and benefit the residents of the Macleod riding.
ImmigrationHon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since 2006 the refusal rate for temporary resident visa applicants wishing to come to Canada as members of the visitor class has been too high.
Every single week I hear from constituents whose close relatives and friends are denied entry to our country for important events such as weddings and funerals, even when they had previously been welcomed to Canada numerous times under the previous government.
Therefore, many of my constituents are advocating for a visa bond system, so that immigration officers could give applicants or sponsors the chance to provide a financial guarantee in borderline visitor visa cases. This would help many applicants visit Canada to share in important milestones with family and friends. My constituents would like the government to implement this bond system as soon as possible.
The government claims to champion family values, yet in too many of these cases, no compassion or concern is shown.
Region of LanaudièreMr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that a book titled Contes, légendes et récits de Lanaudière will be launched tomorrow in La Visitation-de-l'Île-Dupas. This is a significant event because this book brings together, for the first time, documents showing how men and women over the centuries have viewed the region and how these reflections have shaped the region's birth and growth.
The public is invited to an evening that will include a unique multimedia show in which the characters from these tales, legends and stories of the Lanaudière region will meet the audience and celebrate their pride in being part of this region. 
Congratulations to the organizing committee, which includes Réjean Olivier, Réal Chevrette, Cajetan Larochelle and Gérard Héroux. We thank them for helping share this legacy that reveals what Lanaudière was and is.
John RodriguezMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John Rodriguez, one of the most colourful political figures this House and northern Ontario have ever seen.
John served as MP for Nickel Belt from 1971 to 1980 and from 1984 to 1993 and as mayor of Greater Sudbury from 2006 to 2010. John also held various occupations, but most notably those of teacher and principal.
An immigrant from Guyana, John made Canada his home in 1956, embracing all that Canada has to offer and embodying what our dynamic, multicultural society is all about.
Watching John interact with youth is truly inspiring. His capacity to communicate, motivate and spur their imagination is legendary. 
John is an inspiration to me as well. His dedication to public service and to his beloved community of communities, that is, Greater Sudbury, has garnered him respect from all levels of government and all political parties.
On behalf of the NDP, I extend a heartfelt thanks for all John has done and continues to do. I know that my friend's work is not yet done.
Veterans AffairsMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in Belleville I was honoured to preside over the unveiling of the new poppy coin in honour of our veterans.
However, do hon. members know the story of the old veteran on the $10 bill? If one looks at the back right-hand side of the Canadian $10 bill, one will see an old veteran standing at attention near the Ottawa war memorial. 
That he managed to survive to 90 years of age is rather remarkable. When he fought in the second world war he faced the German blitzkrieg. He was hit by shrapnel while treating a wounded comrade. En route to hospital his ambulance came under fire from a tank. When he was evacuated from Dunkirk two of his sister ships were sunk. 
When he recovered, he was sent to allied campaigns in North Africa and Italy. En route his ship was chased by the battleship Bismarck. In North Africa he served against the Desert Fox, Rommel. 
One day out of the blue he received a call from a government official, asking him to go downtown for a photo op. He was not told what the photo was for or why they chose him. “He had no idea he would be on the bill”, his daughter said.
In honour of all veterans, the name of this veteran on the $10 bill is Robert Metcalfe. So now hon. members and all veterans know the rest of the story.
Ferry ServicesHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to urge the Government of Canada to provide funding to the ferry service between Wood Islands and Caribou with a multi-year contract, for a minimum of five years, providing funding including inflation costs, to ensure the same level of service is maintained.
The Wood Islands to Caribou ferry is a vital service to the tourism, farming, fishing and business interests in the Cardigan riding, Pictou County, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island in general. Providing funding for a service any less than what has been provided at the present time spells a slow death.
 I only have to remind the House of the railroad on Prince Edward Island. Make the ferry service so inconvenient that people cannot use it, and it will go the way of the railroad.
I ask the government to stop studying the issue and make a positive decision that will affect the travellers in eastern Prince Edward Island and Pictou County, Nova Scotia.
Veterans AffairsMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on October 13, I had the privilege of attending the 10th annual Honouring Our Local Veterans celebration in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
The Billy Bishop museum and Branch 6 of the Royal Canadian Legion host this great event every year. It is a chance to recognize the veterans from Bruce and Grey counties who have served Canada in times of both war and peace.
Since 2001, the Billy Bishop museum has honoured more than 70 local veterans. This year we added 10 more veterans to that remarkable list of men and women.
Attending an event like this is very humbling. It reminds me of what our veterans have sacrificed for Canada. It reminds me of their bravery and love for our great country. It also reminds me that Remembrance Day is not the only day Canadians can show their appreciation for veterans.
When it comes to our veterans, we should always remember, reflect and respect.
On November 11, I encourage all Canadians to take some time out of their day, attend a Remembrance Day ceremony in their community and pay tribute to our great men and women in uniform.
Longueuil's Environmental Information CentreMr. Jean Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Centre d’information sur l’Environnement de Longueuil, or CIEL, was founded in 1995 and so is celebrating its 15th anniversary.
CIEL's mission is to promote a healthy and sound ecological environment in Longueuil and it is well-known for its numerous public awareness projects. A variety of lobbying tactics have been used to promote sustainable development activity in many areas. Particularly noteworthy were the implementation and management of recycling in the schools, the adoption of a pesticide bylaw by the City of Longueuil and the conservation of the Midland or striped chorus frog in Vieux-Longueuil's ponds.
On behalf of the community in Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Centre d’information sur l’Environnement de Longueuil and its president, Geneviève Audet. Her dedicated team makes it possible for the people of Longueuil to dream of growing up in a cleaner and greener environment. Long live the CIEL.
Aerospace IndustryMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning in Thompson, the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification took part in the grand opening of EnviroTREC, a new state-of-the-art cold weather testing facility for jet engines.
A new joint venture between Rolls-Royce and Pratt &amp; Whitney, EnviroTREC will be a centre for cold weather certification for engines from around the world. The facility will also conduct research in areas ranging from noise and emissions reduction to alternative fuels and lubricants.
The centre will not only help improve the safety of air travel around the world but will also create high-quality jobs and educational opportunities.
This is just another example of how our Conservative government is delivering for northern Manitobans. While the opposition plays games with our aerospace industry, we are helping that industry create even more jobs. This is the kind of leadership northern Manitobans deserve.
Italian Catholic Mission of AnnunziataHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise here today to congratulate the Italian Catholic Mission of Annunziata on the opening of its new church in Lachine.
Since 1963, the church operating out of a former fire station has offered programs to local residents of all ethnicities. These programs include a daycare centre, French language courses, information sessions for new immigrants and sports and cultural activities for youth.
[Member spoke in Italian and provided the following translation:]
I am pleased to congratulate the Annunziata Catholic Italian Mission on this historic occasion.
I thank the Italian community of Lachine for all of its solidarity.
I also wish to extend my best wishes to fathers Joseph Fugolo and William Penn and all members of the parish for many years to come at this new location.
[English]
The EconomyMrs. Tilly O'Neill-Gordon (Miramichi, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the difference between our Conservative government and the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition is stark.
While we are focused on the economy and jobs, the coalition is focused on reckless new spending and tax hikes. We have seen more than 420,000 jobs created since July 2009. The IMF and the OECD project Canada will lead the G7 in growth over 2010-11.
Yesterday, the IMF praised “...Canada's standing as the strongest position in the G7”.
Today, Statistics Canada reported Canada's economy grew again in August for the 11th time in the last 12 months. Clearly, we are getting the job done.
On the other hand, the coalition's reckless spending and tax hikes would put Canada in a permanent deficit and destroy Canada's economic advantage. Indeed, according to experts, its tax hikes would kill almost 400,000 jobs.
Tax hikes on families and killing Canadian jobs is the coalition plan, and it is the wrong plan.
Diabetes AwarenessMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, November is Diabetes Awareness Month and November 14 is World Diabetes Day.
We must take this opportunity to remind ourselves that the financial pressure faced by those living with diabetes is tremendous and that the costs are a huge burden on both household budgets and our national economy.
The Canadian Diabetes Association suggests that the federal government undertake four specific policies that would alleviate these substantial costs: expand the disability tax credit to include Canadians living with diabetes; increase federal funding to support diabetes programs and services; increase funding for diabetes-related research; and increase the charitable tax credit.
These small changes would make a big difference in the lives of people living with diabetes. I hope the government will join me and my New Democrat colleagues in commemorating national Diabetes Awareness Month and World Diabetes Day and will implement these simple, effective and worthwhile initiatives.
Canada's Economic Action PlanMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the report released recently by the Auditor General, she confirmed that we have accomplished our goal and that our government acted quickly and effectively by developing and implementing our economic action plan.
In order to better protect Canadian families and workers from the effects of the worst global recession in generations, the Conservative government implemented the economic action plan. Investing money and getting shovels in the ground as quickly and efficiently as possible was crucial in order to create jobs and stimulate economic growth as soon as possible.
We welcome this positive report on our government's performance. We must bear in mind, however, that the economic recovery remains fragile. That is why we will continue to focus on creating jobs and helping families, as we continue to deliver on Canada's economic action plan.
Sexual Violence Against Women in Armed ConflictLuc Malo: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we are marking the 10th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which calls for an end to sexual violence against women in armed conflict and for a decision-making role for women in peace processes. 
Despite efforts by the international community, 10 years later, women are still victims of sexual violence in armed conflict. Rape is a destructive weapon of war that ruins the lives of thousands of women. Unfortunately, those responsible for rape often are not brought to justice.
It is important to promote and support the active, meaningful participation of women at all levels of decision-making. The Canadian government must support NGOs and encourage them to promote women's rights, as resolution 1325 calls for.
In closing, I would like to commend the courage of the Congolese women, headed by Olive Lembe Kabila, the President's wife, who demonstrated on October 17 in eastern Congo to denounce the sexual violence committed against them.
Unison Health and Community ServicesMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in York South—Weston, York Community Services, now called Unison Health and Community Services, has been serving citizens for decades and once again has expanded its outreach to our most vulnerable residents.
A brand new satellite community health centre and hub of agencies will be offering health counselling and employment and community programs for youth, young families, seniors, unemployed and newcomers to Canada.
The hub will also include a community kitchen and rooms available to local organizations, residents associations and self-help groups. It will also provide doctors, nurse practitioners, health promoters and social workers offering a full range of health care.
The hub is looking forward to working closely with community residents to address the pressing needs in the Mount Dennis, Weston and Trethewey neighbourhoods. 
 I know that members of the House will join with me in saluting Unison, with the support of all three levels of government, for providing community-based and holistic services to our community.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, out of respect for Canadian taxpayers, our government is committed to spending tax dollars wisely. After years of Liberal corruption, scandal and waste, Canadians elected us to do better, and better we have done.
We told Canadians we would rid Ottawa of the culture of scandal and entitlement and replace it with the Conservative culture of accountability. Our first act in office was passing the most comprehensive anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history, the Federal Accountability Act.
Sadly, we were reminded just yesterday about the legacy of Liberal scandal, as the public accounts showed that Public Works recovered just over $233,000 last year from the dark days of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Unfortunately, millions in outstanding money is owed to Canadian taxpayers from the Liberal Party coffers and remains unpaid. 
My constituents of Okanagan--Shuswap are asking when the Liberals will return the full amount owing.

Oral Questions
Office of the Prime MinisterHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are finding it tough just to make ends meet. The only Canadian who is showing no interest in restraint is the Prime Minister. The budget of his personal office has ballooned to $10 million a year. That is a 30% increase in the last two years.
When will those borrow and spend Conservatives show some respect for taxpayers and stop this Conservative gravy train?
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and our entire government believe we have an important responsibility to communicate with Canadians. This requires some fair and reasonable resources, and that is one of the reasons we have seen an increase in spending in this regard.
Also, last year was an extraordinary year for Canada. The Prime Minister made visits to Afghanistan to support our troops and made important trade visits to China and India to create jobs for Canadians right here in Canada.
National DefenceScott Brison:  Too bad he could not get a seat on the Security Council, Mr. Speaker.
The fact is defence procurement expert Alan Williams says that Canadian taxpayers will spend at least 20% more for the F-35, wasting over $3 billion, because the Conservatives refused to have an open competition.
Why will the Prime Minister not listen to Alan Williams? Why will he not listen to the Auditor General? Why will he not listen to today's National Post, which said, “press pause on the largest military purchase in Canadian history”?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberals would know a lot about pressing pause on military procurements. In fact, they have the worst record in the country's history on military procurement going back to 1993 when the Liberal Party spent $1 billion to cancel the EH-101 maritime helicopters. Canadians will recall that with the stroke of a pen a Liberal prime minister said “zero helicopters”. Seventeen years later we still have zero maritime helicopters. 
Let the member opposite explain that to the pilots who have to fly 40-year-old Sea Kings.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party was opposed to those purchases. 
Furthermore, by having an open competition we will show respect for the military and will show respect for the taxpayer at the same time.
An ordinary Canadian would not walk into a car dealership and give the salesman a blank cheque. Ordinary Canadians would not buy a car without checking out the competition first. So why would their government spend $16 billion, their tax dollars, without checking out the competition first?
Why will those borrow and spend Conservatives not show some respect for the Canadian taxpayer?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, let us again set the record straight. There was in fact a competition begun in 1997 when the Liberal Party was in office. It was the Liberal Party that began the purchase and the process for the F-35. We have now exercised the option.
What I am finding very curious is that by once again ripping a page from Liberal playbooks past of cancelling and caving in military projects, what we are seeing now are members opposite, none from Montreal I might add, getting up and putting in jeopardy an important contract for the military that will cost thousands of jobs to the Canadian aerospace industry and billions of dollars to our economy.
Mrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, expert Alan Williams said that in order to maximize the number of jobs in Canada, there should have been a request for proposal. He said there needed to be a request for proposal if we wanted regional economic spinoffs.
Request for proposal: more jobs; Conservative plan: fewer jobs and planes that cost up to 20% more. Why is the government refusing to seek economic spinoffs and guaranteed jobs for Canadian taxpayers?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for Canadian aerospace companies to bid on $12 billion will create thousands of jobs in this country.
With respect to the competition, yes there could be another competition, but let us listen to what the current assistant deputy minister for materiel at the Department of National Defence said. Dan Ross said, “Let's state the obvious”--and I know the obvious goes over the heads of the Liberals here--“you must have more than one viable supplier to have a competition, and there is only one fifth-generation fighter available”.
That is what Dan Ross said. I will take his word over that of the member opposite.
Lise Zarac: Mr. Speaker, that just does not make sense. It is the largest military purchase in the history of Canada, and yet they want to go ahead without a competitive bidding process and guaranteed economic spinoffs. They should wake up.
Another example of waste is the explosion in the Prime Minister's spending. Why have the Prime Minister's communications expenditures ballooned when he never meets with citizens or journalists? Does it cost that much to muzzle journalists?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The Prime Minister and the government have an important responsibility to communicate with Canadians. The Prime Minister takes that responsibility incredibly seriously and obviously there are fair and reasonable costs associated with that. 
The Prime Minister also has an important responsibility to get off Parliament Hill and travel the country and listen to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is something he does and it is something that is tremendously important. He does a lot of listening and he is able to communicate the important projects contained in the economic action plan. That is good news for Canada.
Government PrioritiesMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while hundreds of thousands of people were losing their jobs or facing economic insecurity, the number of staff in the Prime Minister's Office rose by 30% in two years. This bureaucratic spending explosion contrasts with the lack of assistance provided to the unemployed and the regions that are victims of the economic crisis.
Given that the Conservatives have asked Canadians to tighten their belts, is this not further evidence of the bad decisions made by the Conservatives?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. I would have thought that the opposition would congratulate us for our economic growth. In fact, the opposition had a good opportunity to tell us that Canada is continuing to prove that we are on the right track with our economic action plan. The opposition chose not to mention that we created 420,000 new jobs in the last 11 months. That is a performance worth mentioning.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, rather than conjuring up political fantasies, the minister should take a look at Conservative waste. There are other examples of the government's misplaced priorities. The spending explosion in the Prime Minister's office is due primarily to the increase in communications expenses. In other words, rather than helping the people and the regions of Quebec that are having problems, they prefer to invest in propaganda and information control. 
Is that not further proof that, for the Prime Minister, the government must put the interests of the Conservative Party first, rather than meeting the needs of citizens? 
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister takes communicating with Canadians very seriously. In today's media-saturated world, there are more media organizations to accommodate and air time to fill. In addition, 2009 and 2010 were exceptional years. No matter, the Bloc Québécois always opposes any action taken by this government to foster the economic recovery of our country and continually refuses to vote with—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois rise every day to defend the interests of Quebeckers. Although the Conservatives say they do not have enough money to improve the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors or to help workers in the forestry industry, they managed to find the money to increase the budget for the Prime Minister's Office.
How can the government preach fiscal restraint when the Prime Minister gets to have an open bar?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, this year has been exceptional. The Prime Minister committed to meeting with his colleagues at the G8, which he chaired. He travelled to China. There was also the G20. The government has taken some specific action, which is now producing results. The latest statistics on our gross domestic product prove this. Some 420,000 jobs have been created in the last 11 months. Now those are real results.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, those jobs have definitely not been in the forestry sector.
With the government about to make budget cuts to eliminate the record $56 billion deficit, now would be a good time for it to sort out its priorities. In addition to sparing the Prime Minister's Office, the government continues to protect the wealthy and big oil companies by maintaining their tax breaks and undue subsidies.
Before asking people to tighten their belts any further, is it not time the Prime Minister and the wealthy did their part?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the statistics, the facts and the numbers all show that Canada has outperformed the rest of the G7. Of course the Bloc Québécois does not want to point this out, because it does not support our government. At every opportunity, it always votes against budgets that will help stimulate Canada's economy.
Harmonized Sales TaxMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, time after time, Conservative B.C. MPs stand and talk about how great the HST is and then they deny that they had anything to do with it. They say that it was a provincial decision, but Gordon Campbell now says that it was pressure from the federal government that convinced him to impose the HST with no consultation and no warning.
Who should British Columbians believe? Will the Conservatives finally admit that they were the ones imposing the HST in B.C.?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I respect greatly my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan but to hear the NDP decry taxes is just a little too rich. 
It was this government, as our first order of priority, that brought in a budget that cut the GST from 7% to 6% and then to 5%, and the NDP said no. It wanted to keep the GST high. Shame on that party.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, for over a year, the people of B.C. have been telling the government in every way that they do not want this tax and yet the Conservatives still deny the HST is a problem and they have been misleading their constituents. Now they will not commit to call the byelection in Prince George--Peace River as soon as possible. 
The people of Prince George have no MP but there is no sign that the government will move to call that byelection. Is the government so scared of the HST backlash that it will let this seat remain empty?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the seat in question has only been empty for three or four days. In fact, the government is not legally able to call a byelection at this time.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say that it was the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. Liberals say that it was the federal Conservatives. The reality is that the HST was a group effort of Conservatives, B.C. Liberals and federal Liberals. They formed the grand let's-impose-the-HST-on-B.C. coalition. 
Folks in Burnaby and the rest of B.C. know the HST is a bad idea. Why will the Conservatives not take responsibility for their own actions and do something about it?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it was this government that took responsibility for cutting taxes. Just five short years ago, we brought forward a plan to cut taxes, the centrepiece of which was a cut in the GST. 
These tax-cutting measures have led average Canadian families to have more than $3,000 more in their pockets. That may not be a lot of money for members of the NDP, but for Canadian families that is an important part of the family budget that is there to conserve their families. 
Every time we wanted to cut taxes, the member for Burnaby stood and voted no. He wanted to keep that $3,000 in the government's coffers and not in the hands of B.C. families.
Employment InsuranceMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, across Canada, 2.7 million Canadians provide care for sick and aging family members. That will increase significantly by 2017 as our population ages. Many of these family caregivers use their own savings and miss time at work to provide this care. 
How is it that the government can find $6 billion for unaffordable corporate tax cuts but cannot find a fraction of that to implement the Liberal family care plan?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has been trying to help families in many ways, especially those who are dealing with long-term illnesses. That is why our government introduced an expansion of the EI program to allow the self-employed access to special benefits, including compassionate care benefits that all other employed people in Canada have, so that these people would have the time, supported by our government, to take care of their loved ones.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, the programs that exist today no longer reflect the realities facing Canadian families and, as our population ages, pressure will increase even more. 
Groups, like the Canadian Nurses Association, the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons and the Alzheimer Society, support our plan to invest $1 billion annually in our Liberal family care plan.
 When will the government take action on this important and growing challenge?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the question is when would the Liberals actually take action on it because this is the fifth time they have provided this proposal. If they had acted on it during any of the four previous times, they would not need to propose it now.
Their sincerity is lacking here. We, on the other hand, have taken action to help families look after their loved ones. We are delivering for Canadians.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there are millions of hard-working Canadians who care for sick or aging loved ones at home. They do great work but their family budgets are stretched. Canadians across Canada have welcomed the Liberal family care tax benefit to help them make ends meet.
The Conservatives, however, say that helping caregivers with a tax break would be “reckless”. Instead, it will borrow billions of dollars to cut taxes for big companies. Why are they making such a bad choice for Canadian families?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we are making good choices for Canadian families. Members need only look at what we have done for families. We introduced the universal child care benefit, creating more spaces. We created the registered disability savings plan to help families look after people with long-term disabilities, which is a real form of home care. We also introduced special benefits under EI, including compassionate care leave for the self-employed.
We are delivering for Canadians. The Liberals are just making empty promises once again, and for the fifth time.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, governing is about economic choices. The Conservatives are borrowing billions to build prisons to house perpetrators of unreported crime. They are borrowing billions to buy stealth jets without running a competition or even trying to get the best price. However, if a single mother needs time off work to care for her dying father, the Conservatives say that she should use her vacation time, because Canada's Conservative government does not care enough to help.
Why do the Conservatives always make the wrong choice for Canadian families?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. The facts are that when people need to take care of an ailing or dying family member, they do have access to compassionate care leave, supported by EI.
We ensured that family members and even non-family members would be eligible for those benefits. We also introduced those same benefits and made them available to the self-employed.
We are taking care of Canadians families, unlike the Liberals who are offering nothing but cheap promises that they do not intend to keep.
National DefenceMr. Luc Desnoyers (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it plans on spending over $470 billion over 20 years on military procurement. However, we still have not heard about its defence policies, and it still has not shared its foreign policy with the public.
Would it not make sense for the government to first set some defence and foreign affairs objectives and then invest in equipment? Unless the government's policy is nothing more than an extension of Washington's military policy.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member has been because the Canada first defence strategy was released two years ago. It is a detailed plan that sets out a great deal of detailed work that will be done with respect to the four pillars of defence policy: personnel, equipment, our infrastructure investments and our readiness. It does include investing in the procurement of new equipment for the military.
 I look forward to the hon. member's continued support for those military procurements.
Luc Desnoyers: Mr. Speaker, the government jumped into the purchase of F-35s without even ensuring that there would be economic spinoffs for Quebec's aerospace industry. When the time comes to defend the auto industry, which is concentrated in Ontario, the government is right there. But when the time comes to stand up for Quebec and its aerospace industry, the government is nowhere to be seen.
Why does the government refuse to require a minimum level of economic spinoffs for the Quebec aerospace industry?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind that we will be taking delivery of those jets somewhere in the 2016 or 2017 timeframe, at the peak production of these aircraft, we have already incurred almost $1 billion in investment in the Canadian aerospace industry without having taken delivery of a single jet. It is looking very good with $12 billion of opportunity for the Canadian aerospace industry, much of that located in the province of Quebec.
 This is perhaps the greatest opportunity that the Canadian aerospace industry has ever experienced. That is why we have the unqualified support of aerospace industry representatives right across the country, including Mr. Claude Lajeunesse.
JusticeMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has called his legislation, Bill C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act.
This is untrue for two reasons. First, this measure only applies to those sentenced to less than two years. In addition, the law clearly states that violent and dangerous offenders cannot benefit from this measure. 
Mr. Daniel Petit (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government believes that people who commit serious and violent crimes should serve their sentences in prison and not in the comfort of their homes. Our bill would clearly tell the courts that house arrest is no longer an option for dangerous and violent criminals.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, since sentences of less than two years are served in provincial prisons, including those in Quebec, and since house arrest only applies to sentences of less than two years, it means that if we pass this law, there will be more prisoners in provincial prisons, which are already overflowing, but not one additional person in federal prisons.
Does the minister have any idea how much this will cost Quebec and the provinces? Does he have an estimate of this cost? If so, can he share it with us?
Daniel Petit: Mr. Speaker, in 2006, our government introduced a bill to put an end to conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes. However, the opposition, including the member who has just asked me this question, kept it from progressing on a number of occasions, finally gutting it. That is the reality.
International Co-operationMs. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives still will not explain why they cut funding for KAIROS, an organization that undertakes overseas development on behalf of 11 churches and religious organizations representing over 20 million Canadians.
The Minister of International Cooperation's department says, “KAIROS continues to meet all the requirements for CIDA funding and continues to do great work helping millions of impoverished people around the world”.
At the last minute, however, the minister herself decided that none of that was important and cancelled the funding. 
Canadians deserve an explanation. What is it?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the position of the government has not changed on this matter. Our government has been very clear. We have an aid effectiveness strategy and we are acting on it. We are delivering real results for people in developing countries.
All projects funded by CIDA are assessed against our effectiveness standards. After due diligence, it was determined that the KAIROS proposal did not meet the Government of Canada's priorities. 
Our priorities are: more food, more education and more help. In other words, our priority is to make a real difference.
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, there is still no explanation. 
The Conservatives have turned their guns on an organization that the government, as well as Canadians, have supported for 35 years. The Conservatives have abandoned the over five million people in developing countries who KAIROS helps and they have done it despite the fact that CIDA said that KAIROS should qualify for funding. The minister will not even tell us why. 
I am giving the minister one last chance to please explain why she denied funding to KAIROS in full knowledge that its good work was aligned with the priorities of and recommendation by CIDA.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member has given me a last chance, so I will repeat that our government's position has not changed on this matter.
All projects funded by CIDA are assessed against our effectiveness standards. After due diligence, it was determined that the KAIROS proposal did not meet the Government of Canada's priorities. 
I will repeat this again. Our priorities are: more food, more education and more help. In other words, our priority is to make a real difference.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what that shows is that the Conservative government does not care about CIDA's international development mission. If partisan interests are served, they provide funding. If not, they make cuts, as they did with maternal health. And if they are criticized, the cuts are made even more quickly, as was the case with women's groups. 
Where is the order from the Prime Minister to intimidate NGOs and impose his Republican ideology on them?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I will summarize what our government has done with our international aid.
Under our watch, Canada is the first G8 country to double our aid to Africa. The opposition ignores the fact that, under our watch, Canada is doubling its international assistance to a record $5 billion. We led the world in addressing the MDG goals 4 and 5. Under our watch, we became world leaders in the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
Rights & DemocracyMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, it was the same story at Rights &amp; Democracy except that in that case, they caused the death of its president, according to his wife. They maintain that it is an arm's-length organization, but they did everything to destabilize it. Why, if not for ideological and purely partisan reasons?
Why are they doing everything in their power to sink this organization, which is the pride of Canadian diplomacy? Why?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I heard some statements in this House that do not warrant an answer to these questions. It is regrettable that my honourable colleague decided to sink so low as to mention the death of Mr. Beauregard. 
ImmigrationMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week we introduced tough legislation that would prevent human smugglers from abusing our immigration system. Canadians want to know what the Liberal Party's position is on human smuggling. Yesterday the Liberal spokesman said that he would, “take the time to speak with experts and our caucus”.
Canadians want to know this. Will the Liberals support tough rules on human smuggling, or will they let human smugglers continue treating Canada as their doormat?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for the support he has given to Bill C-49. No Canadian thinks that human smuggling is acceptable. It is a serious offence that puts human lives in danger. It takes advantage of our very generous immigration system. 
We want to know why the Liberal Party is dancing around this important subject instead of giving Canadians an answer. Will the Liberals stand and support this tough but fair bill and, at the very least, get it past second reading to committee?
HealthMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, according to a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, drugs account for the second-largest share of health care expenditures. That is why the provinces recently reached an agreement to join forces in order to achieve economies of scale.
The provinces, territories and first nations are all calling for a pan-Canadian strategy for prescription drugs. What is the government waiting for to introduce such a strategy?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government is a large spender on pharmaceutical benefits, providing approximately $600 million last year to cover pharmaceutical products and medical supplies. This funding is a positive investment for a diverse population. As well, we have continued to honour our 2004 health accord, which provides $41.3 billion in additional funding to the provinces and territories. 
Our government agreed to a shared agenda with the provinces and territories to improve our collective management of pharmaceuticals, recognizing our complementary roles in this sector.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, we all know the challenges and I thank the minister for pointing out what they are legislated to do. However, we cannot trust the Conservatives or the Liberals when it comes to medicare.
 The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca wants to privatize health care and his leader said that he supported two-tiered health care. Meanwhile, the member for Beauce wants the government out of health care altogether. That is not what Canadians want. Canadians want real leadership on health care in Canada.
 When will the government wake up and work with the NDP, a trusted voice on medicare, to re-vision the future of health care in Canada?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government supports the Canada Health Act and the principles of the Canada Health Act. We will continue to work with the provinces and territories to improve health care delivery. We have also made significant other investments in the last few years related to information, telehealth as an example. We have made investments in research and in pandemic plans such as H1N1.
 Our government's approach is to work with the provinces and territories which deliver health care.
Veterans AffairsGuy André: Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it will fully refund the GST on Remembrance Day poppies in order to help veterans. The Bloc commends this initiative. However, at 1¢ per poppy, this is a mainly symbolic measure.
Veterans are calling for more than just symbolic measures. They would like the government to amend the veterans charter to restore the lifetime monthly pension for injured soldiers as compensation. When will this government take action? 
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that over the past few weeks we have made a lot of changes to support our veterans, in particular our modern-day veterans. Changes will follow the implementation of the new charter. 
We have added $2 billion to provide these services and to ensure that our veterans, particularly those who return injured, do not need to be concerned about their financial future. It is in that context that we have made tangible improvements: currently, someone who is seriously injured receives a minimum of $58,000.
Guy André: Mr. Speaker, those are not the desired changes. For weeks we have been calling for changes to the veterans compensation system. The minister tells us they are coming. It is the minister's Marshall plan. We hear a lot about it, but it never comes.
Can the minister at least commit to changing the charter to restore the lifetime monthly pension, as veterans are calling for? 
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making reference to lump sum payments. For example, when someone has extremely serious injuries, he or she can receive up to $276,000. Our veterans have asked for greater flexibility on this, and we are getting ready to make changes in the near future to offer options, so that the injured person can make the best choice in consultation with members of his or her family.
PovertyMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the human resources committee has completed its study on poverty in Canada. It will soon release its report after hearing from hundreds of witnesses across the country and experts around the world.
As poverty increased during the Conservative recession, the government has been missing in action on this file. Most provinces and territories now have anti-poverty strategies and they want the feds at the table. The United Nations even told Canada the same thing last year in the periodic review.
The government does not seem to care. The government chooses planes and prisons over people in poverty. Why is the government turning its back on people in need?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we do appreciate the work that was done by the committee on the poverty study. Unfortunately, it did not take the time to recognize many successful initiatives that our government has taken over the last few years to help relieve the poverty situation in Canada.
 In fact, the poverty rate for seniors is a small fraction of what it was under the previous Liberal government. We made that happen by increasing the exemption for GIS from $500 to $3,500. We have introduced pension splitting. We have done a number of things to help Canadians be better off.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, the fact is poverty rates in Canada are rising.
Last December, the Senate issued a report entitled, “In From the Margins”, a big study led by Liberal Senator Eggleton and Conservative Senator Segal. The government's response to that was to post an inadequate list of programs, which the minister just recited again and which have not made a difference.
Fighting poverty is good economics. It is good for Canada. It involves working with provinces, municipal leaders, schools, churches and community groups.
Why will the government not show some leadership, or at least show up in the fight against poverty?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, our government has done a lot to help those in need in Canada. For example, the average family in Canada now has over $3,000 more in its pocket thanks to our move against poverty. We have also cut taxes right across the board for all Canadians, such as the GST which has gone from 7% to 6% to 5%. We have lowered corporate taxes, so job creation is there.
 The best way to fight poverty is to give people the skills they need for the jobs that we create, and we have created over 400,000 of those lately.
Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 2006 the government fired two public servants. When asked about it, it ran for cover and misled the media. We were told “there is nothing to see here”. Now we learn the government is paying out over $2 million for the wrongful dismissal of Mr. Rotor and Mr. Tipple.
If there was nothing wrong, why the need for the payout? Why were these public servants set up? Who will be held accountable?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government has had a very productive relationship with the public service. Our public service does an outstanding job for Canadians. That was best seen with the release of the Auditor General's report, in which she talked about the great work done at Infrastructure Canada and in other departments on the delivery of Canada's economic action plan.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, she also had a lot to say about conflict of interest.
Both Mr. Tipple and Mr. Rotor blew the whistle about the apparent conflict of interest between Minister Fortier and the bidders for an over $1 billion contract. The minister directed millions of dollars of business to two Conservative friends. He was called on it. He fired these public servants as a result of it.
The evidence is piling up. When will the government conduct a forensic audit on this file?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General regularly reviews the books of the Government of Canada. She has an important responsibility to do just that. We have confidence that she has and will continue to carry out her responsibilities in an appropriate fashion.
The EconomyMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians appreciate that the economic action plan is helping protect our economy and making it the strongest in the G7. They also know that the last thing Canada's economy can afford is a Liberal-led coalition's high tax policies on job creators.
Only yesterday the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, representing 192,000 businesses employing millions of Canadians, said that the Liberal plan was, “Very damaging...it threatens the investment needed to carry an economic recovery”.
Could the parliamentary secretary please explain how our government is keeping Canada's economy on track?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, Canada continues with its economic growth. That shows once again that we are right on track. We have seen over 420,000 net new jobs since July 2009. Both the IMF and the OECD say that we have the strongest economic growth and will have through 2010-11.
Just today it was announced that Canada's GDP had increased again in August, for the 11th month out of the past 12. 
InfrastructureHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the numbers are out. The Prime Minister's office budget has ballooned by 30% to $10 million per year.
Residents in the Ingonish, Cape Breton area have been waiting for a new federal building, at a cost of $10 million. The building would house the RCMP, DFO and Parks Canada. Year in and year out the government has said no, resulting in increased costs and delay.
Why can the Prime Minister find $10 million for his own office when he cannot find $10 million for Ingonish?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister has a very important responsibility to communicate with Canadians, to get off Parliament Hill and to travel the country and do a lot of listening.
Those Canadian voices that were heard led to Canada's economic action plan, a plan that has been incredibly successful in helping create some 400,000 net new jobs.
We are constantly reviewing the demands across the country. We will certainly respond in short order.
Seal ProductsMr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the European embargo on seal products has been in effect since Thursday, when a European court reinstated it. This means that Quebec hunters are losing their primary export market. Some hunters make as much as 35% of their income from the sale of seal products. 
Will the government recognize that it must fight harder to have this embargo lifted as soon as possible?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we, too, are very disappointed by the actions of the European Union, particularly this recent decision by the European General Court. The fact remains that the Canadian seal hunt is carried out in a humane and sustainable way. 
Our government is firmly committed to defending the legitimate interests and livelihoods of Canadians and sealers in coastal communities. We are moving ahead with the WTO challenge.
G8 and G20 SummitsMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the G20 summit saw one of the most disturbing violations of civil liberties in Canadian history. The rights of citizens to assemble and express their opinions were trampled. The rights to counsel and to be free from illegal search and seizure were ignored.
Eleven hundred citizens were arrested, 900 of them with so little basis that charges were dropped immediately after the summit. Yet the government has been utterly silent on this mass violation of constitutional rights.
Given the approach of Remembrance Day, which marks the sacrifice of veterans who gave their lives so that we could have democratic freedom, why does the government refuse to defend the very rights for which they paid such a dear price?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as you know, Canada did host the G8 and G20 summits this summer and we had over 20,000 security personnel to protect Canadians, visitors and over 3,000 members of the press assembled. We are very proud of the work accomplished by our security partners in keeping Canadians and others safe.
Public SafetyMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Imam Zijad Delic, whose organization, the Canadian Islamic Congress, is known for spewing hate, is now being defended and promoted by Liberals. The Liberal leader's spokesperson, the member for Don Valley West, defends the Canadian Islamic Congress' comment as being “about tolerance and understanding”.
Will the Minister of Public Safety comment on the Liberal support for an organization whose spokesperson has said that anyone in Israel over the age of 18 was a justifiable target of Palestinian attacks?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hard-working member for Northumberland—Quinte West for all of his work.
As soon as the Minister of Public Safety learned about this event, he asked the RCMP to explain their involvement and asked them to immediately cease any participation. He has been clear. Canada's national police force must have no involvement in any event organized by those who promote extremism and hatred.
Why is the Liberal leader allowing the Liberal member to condone the actions of those who promote extremism and hate?
TelecommunicationsMark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, this week in Timmins, the CRTC is holding hearings on the expansion of the Internet in rural Canada. What do we find out? We are way behind other countries such as Finland, the U.S.A. and Australia in getting rural Canadians connected.
The Liberal Party has been committed to bringing high-speed Internet to all rural Canadians.
The Prime Minister spends millions of dollars tracking 9,000 government signs by GPS but cannot find the money to help families and businesses in rural Canada get connected to the Internet. Why?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is unaware, but the fact is that we had in our budget and we have been spending $200 million for rural broadband connectivity across this country, including in northern Ontario.
 Of course, I cannot think of Timmins without noting that the member of Parliament for Timmins voted in favour of the long gun registry and many members of his own caucus over there did the same thing. That did not go over too well in Timmins, I can tell members that much.
We are here for rural Canadians on broadband and we are here for rural Canadians when it comes to the long gun registry.
Public ServiceMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the public sector integrity commissioner, whose work was investigated by the Auditor General, resigned before the end of her term. Groups fighting for more accountability are calling for a review of the 170 allegations of wrongdoing by public servants and the 58 complaints of reprisals, all of which were dismissed, often without thorough investigation by the former commissioner.
Will the government use the opportunity provided by the commissioner's hasty departure to ensure that the next commissioner reviews all of these cases?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we intend to work with opposition parties to appoint a new integrity commissioner as quickly as possible. Of course, we need to make sure we get the best possible person for the job. 
Some individuals have brought forward concerns that will need to be addressed by the new commissioner. It would be completely inappropriate to interfere in the mandate of an independent agent of Parliament.
TaxationClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, winter is almost here and Canadian families are worried about the cost of staying warm. The eco-energy home retrofit program helped families save money and our environment too, but the government cancelled it with little notice and even less rationale. Now the HST forced on Canadians will raise the cost of home heating this winter.
This is Canada. Home heating is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Will the government help Canadian families and take the 5% federal tax off home heating fuel?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our home energy retrofit program has been incredibly successful across Canada. Over 300,000 people are still eligible in accessing this program. But the real concern is that on each of these eco-energy initiatives that we have taken, the NDP has opposed every single one of them. So today when we hear that our GDP has gone up another 0.3%, it is not due to the NDP. When we hear that there are 400,000 jobs that have been created across this country, it is not due to the NDP. It is due to the good actions of this government.

Routine Proceedings
Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes ActLeona Aglukkaq:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders).
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsJudy Foote: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of MS patients throughout the country. There are 75,000 such MS patients in the country and over 1,100 in Newfoundland and Labrador.
These patients are asking for the federal government and all provinces to look at providing the liberation treatment that is now being offered in other countries of the world. For them to travel to these other countries costs an exorbitant amount of money, money that these patients just do not have. Of course, it is also a hardship on them just to travel, with some of them in very difficult circumstances and some of them in wheelchairs. 
One such patient is Perry Goodyear of Grand Bank in my riding. Perry in fact just returned from New York where he had the liberation treatment. He is doing so much better than before he went, which again is an indication that these patients, if they want the liberation treatment, should have access to it and not have to depend on others to provide the funding for them to travel to other parts of the world.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in support of Bill C-544.
The petitioners call upon the House of Parliament to assemble to bring forward and adopt into legislation Bill C-544, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my petition calls on the Canadian government to negotiate with the United States government to reduce the United States and Canadian passport fees. The number of American tourists visiting Canada is at its lowest level since 1972. It has fallen by five million visits in the last seven years alone, from 16 million in 2002 to only 11 million in 2009. Passport fees for an American family of four can be as high as more than $500 U.S. While 50% of Canadians have passports, only 25% of Americans do.
At the recent Midwest Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments, attended by myself and over 500 elected representatives from 11 border states and three provinces, the following resolution was passed unanimously, which reads:
 RESOLVED, that [the Conference] calls on President Barack Obama and [the Canadian Prime Minister] to immediately examine a reduced fee for passports to facilitate cross-border tourism; and be it further 
 RESOLVED, that [the Conference] encourage the governments to examine the idea of a limited-time two-for-one passport renewal or new application; 
To be a fair process, passport fees must be reduced on both sides of the border. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to work with the American government to examine a mutual reduction in passport fees to facilitate tourism, and finally, promote a limited-time, two-for-one passport renewal or new application fee on a mutual basis with the United States.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed. 
The Speaker: Before statements by members, the hon. member for St. Paul's had for the floor for questions and comments consequent upon her speech. There are six minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments. 
I therefore call for questions and comments and recognize the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I will resume the question that I began just before question period.
I agree 100% with a statement that was made by the previous speaker. She said that partisan politics deserve no place when we are discussing the safety of Canadians. I want to applaud her for acknowledging that fact.
If she really believes that, why would she have used 99% of her speaking time to engage in partisan politics? In fact, roughly 98% of her time was spent reading a letter that was written by someone else who was pointing out some previous actions. Why would she not instead have used her time to point out some of the positive elements of the bill: a general prohibition against the manufacture, importation or advertisement for sale of consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human safety; orders for corrective measures or recall; mandatory reporting of incidents, all of these positive attributes of the bill? She failed to inform Canadians about those actions. 
Why would she not have used her time to let Canadians know about what this government is doing to improve the safety of Canadians?
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the role of the official opposition is to comment on not only what we do but how we do it. 
The minister went into tremendous detail about what the bill would offer Canadians. We are concerned about the lack of timeliness in terms of what the government had at its disposal and in terms of being able to get this bill done much more quickly. Ten months later, from the time it had passed, we were still waiting for the bill.
For the minister to be heckling throughout the whole of my speech was totally inappropriate. It behooves the minister to take this much more seriously in that she knows the allegations in the letter from Senator Cowan are absolutely true. He is still waiting for a result from her. It is inappropriate for the minister to blame the other House for the government's inability to get this important piece of legislation through both Houses and implemented for the safety of Canadians.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and it is unfortunate that Canadians had to hear such a partisan rant. It displays the Liberal Party's confusion when it comes to talking about health care.
We are in the House of Commons. The member spent her entire time talking about the Senate. Now that she is the Liberal Senate spokesperson, I wonder if she could let us know if the Liberal Senate will be supporting this bill. There is some confusion. The last time, all of us saw Liberals stand up in this House unanimously and support it. The whole House sent the bill to the Senate, yet when it arrived there the Liberal Party voted against it. This time around, I listened to the member's speech but I have to wonder whether there was any indication in it about the Liberal position. 
History repeats itself. The bill went through the House and went to committee where it was passed unanimously. All opposition parties worked together on this important bill. Nowhere in the member's speech did she say whether the Liberal Party would support it or vote against it. Is this just another indication of the Liberal Party's confusion on health care? We have heard positions by the official critic, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. We just do not know. 
This is an important issue for Canadians. Canadians do not want this to become a partisan rant. They do not want it to be divisive. We are talking about consumer product safety, but the member brought up other bills.
We just want clarification. We do not want partisanship. Could she be clear? Does she support the bill or not? Do the Liberals support this important piece of legislation?
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite and the minister have failed to acknowledge is that the problems pointed out by the Liberal senators on the previous Bill C-6 have been adopted in the renewed legislation, Bill C-36. If it had not been for the Liberal senators there would still be these gaps of not understanding that products in people's homes would still be at risk, even if they were stored for personal use.
On the idea of permission to get into people's houses, there is no question that Bill C-36 is better than Bill C-6 only because of the scrutiny of the other chamber.
The minister can wave her hands all she wants, but she has to acknowledge that she accepted the changes that were proposed by the Liberal senators. 
In speaking with Liberal colleagues in the Senate, we have applauded them for their due diligence and the fact that the government is taking most of their recommendations with respect to the Privacy Act as well. It would behoove the government to thank the other chamber for its due diligence in making the bill better than it was before. This is the best of Parliament. We can protect Canadians and the companies that are producing these goods even better because of the good work of the other chamber.
Luc Malo: Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. We were debating it at second reading not even a month ago. My colleagues in committee really worked together to properly study this bill and to agree on amendments that would clarify certain aspects related to the protection of personal information. Clarifying these aspects is absolutely necessary, since the public expects the government, institutions and the legislation to ensure that their personal information is protected.
I cannot help but smile though. We went through the whole process two times already, the first time with Bill C-52 and the second time with Bill C-6. I have to wonder whether, now that we are so close to the goal, the Prime Minister will call an election or prorogue Parliament. That is what he did the last two times.
The members opposite find that funny. I think that the Minister of Health will talk to the Prime Minister to ensure that nothing like that happens and that Bill C-36 will make it through. The minister keeps saying, as we have been doing, that the current act is 40 years old and that it is time to update it. The Auditor General produced a report four years ago that revealed several problems and also highlighted the risks related to consumer products. We cannot wait any longer to move forward with this bill.
Canada is not the only country to be tightening up its legislation. I want to talk about what happened south of the border, in the United States. On August 14, 2008, the then president, George W. Bush, signed the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. This act set new, modern standards and strengthened the legislation on toy safety. Thus, the American agency responsible for overseeing the safety of consumer products was given measures that enabled it to have better control over toys. This legislation assigned more responsibilities, expanded authority and granted related powers to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the CPSC.
Since 2009, the agency has gradually been requiring that manufacturers and importers certify that their products meet the new standards, requiring that companies have their products tested by an independent third party and imposing harsher sanctions for non-compliance with product safety requirements. The law also proposed an increase in the agency's budget every year until 2015, as well as an increase in staff of at least 500 employees by 2013 in order to effectively enforce the new safety standards.
On September 10, 2009, the chair of the CPSC, Inez Tenenbaum, testified before the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, saying that she intends to make her agency a world leader in consumer protection.
With that statement in mind, I hope that it is also the government's intention, following the passage of this new bill, to see to it that we, too, are leaders in terms of consumer protection by ensuring that our consumers are buying safe products.
Throughout my speech, I will refer to elements that have been included in the American legislation to ensure that there is no shortage of money or inspectors to enforce this law. That is what we also need to see on this side of the border to ensure that we can do the important work of strengthening the current law, which dates back 40 years.
Now I would like to read the bill summary because it serves to explain the scope of this new legislation, which I hope will be passed quickly.
 This enactment modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health or safety. In addition, it establishes certain measures that will make it easier to identify whether a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety and, if so, to more effectively prevent or address the danger. It also creates application and enforcement mechanisms. This enactment also makes consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act. 
That is the scope of the bill.
At second reading, I made several statements and asked a number of other questions that must be answered by meeting with officials and talking to the minister so we can be sure this bill really meets the needs and expectations we expressed when we supported Bill C-52 in principle a few years ago.
Speaking of what led to Bill C-36, there was Bill C-6, and before that, Bill C-52. The same bill has come up under three different numbers. I would invite those watching to reread my speech at second reading because I reviewed all of this to explain why the Conservative government took so long to bring this bill forward.
As I said earlier, the committee members worked well together. At this point, I would like to thank my colleague from Repentigny, who worked with me to ensure the Bloc Québécois' presence in committee and who asked excellent questions. Among the answers to the questions the committee had are some questions from the member for Repentigny and the answers provided by officials who appeared before the committee.
When we discussed Bill C-6, a number of people wrote to us to express their concerns about whether Bill C-36 was constitutionally acceptable. I will read the answer provided by Diane Labelle, general counsel, legal services unit, Health Canada, during her appearance before the committee:
 As you are well aware, the Minister of Justice is tasked with reviewing each bill in order to ensure that it properly reflects the government's obligations pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That review was done by the minister and the Department of Justice. Moreover, a bill is also examined to see whether it is well founded, i.e., whether Parliament does indeed have the power to adopt such a bill. In fact, we can confirm that we have conducted such a review and that the bill falls within Parliament's authority regarding criminal matters and properly reflects the government's charter obligations. 
 Another concern that some of our constituents had a number of questions about was the fact that Bill C-36 could apply to natural health products. They did not want the bill to regulate natural health products any differently. That is clear in subclause 4(3) of the bill, which I referred to in my speech at second reading. I would like to quote it again:
 For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to natural health products as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Natural Health Products Regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act. 
I thought that was relatively clear in the bill, but I asked the government officials about this anyway. I will now quote myself, which is unusual, but I will in this case:
 Could there be a way around this provision so that the bill applies to natural health products? 
I was referring to Bill C-36. This is the reply from Athana Mentzelopoulos, the director general of consumer product safety directorate at Health Canada:
 No, there is no way. There is a way, but it would have to come back before Parliament to be amended so that the scope of the legislation would be changed—for example, to remove the provision in subclause 4(3). So yes, there is a way, but certainly it would be the purview of parliamentarians to do so. 
In response, I asked another question.
 But the version we have before us, i.e., Bill C-36, in no way affects natural health products. Is that correct? 
In response, Diane Labelle added the following explanation, addressing the chair of the Standing Committee on Health:
 ...evidently, neither the Governor in Council nor the minister could amend the wording of the legislation. Parliament alone has that authority. Therefore, the wording of the legislation cannot be amended as regards natural health products. 
What we can deduce from this is that if Parliament wanted the bill to apply to natural health products, a new bill would have to be introduced in Parliament to amend subclause 4(3), as Ms. Mentzelopoulos indicated.
Another question we raised a number of times during consideration of Bill C-6 and Bill C-36 is whether the number of inspectors is sufficient. As I was saying earlier, the U.S. has truly taken responsibility and considerably increased the number of inspectors. They want to ensure that their legislation has enough teeth to be properly enforced. To the Bloc Québécois, it is clear that we cannot leave it up to industry alone to ensure that the products it puts on the market are safe within the meaning of the law. In committee, we asked whether the number of inspectors was sufficient, and this is what Athana Mentzelopoulos said:
 Essentially, there was a recognition that we needed more resources amongst our cadre of inspectors. We have done the analysis to ascertain, for example, where we have.... We want to go where the work is, essentially. 
 In my own travels recently, as the new DG, I visited with the regions. We do not necessarily have a uniform number of inspectors associated with each region. In British Columbia there is a lot of volume with imports, and we need to make sure we are resourced appropriately. It is the same in Ontario; a considerable extent of industry is found in Ontario. Obviously we would have—and this is the case—more resources in Ontario than we might find in areas where, for example, there is less industry, less import activity. In Quebec as well we have obviously larger numbers; it correlates to going where the work is and making sure that we are addressing the need. 
Robert Ianiro, Director of the Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Health Canada, provided the following information in response to our question.
 I think part of the answer also is that we've been focusing a lot around solely increasing our capacity of inspectors, which is clearly very important. We are doubling that capacity. By the fifth year of the action plan, 2012-13, in fact we will have overall doubled the entire complement in consumer product safety. We actually will have increased by about 125 employees. 
 I think it's important to recognize that we also are hiring more analysts to do testing and verification at our laboratory. With the introduction of the general prohibition, there's going to be a lot more research, hazard evaluations, hazard assessments, risk assessments. We're bringing in mandatory incident reporting. We need to have people sitting behind computers triaging the data, analyzing the data. These are all individuals beyond and in addition to the inspectors. 
 So it's a fairly broad complement of new employees. Inspectors are obviously very critical. We have those who would be devoted to risk assessment, those devoted to standards development. I think also a very critical piece, given the post-market regime of consumer product safety in Canada and worldwide, is the critical importance of outreach. There are also resources and new staff devoted to outreach. That includes outreach to industry in terms of understanding their obligations, as well as outreach to consumers, since we all have a role to play. As regulator, obviously, as government we have a role to play. Consumers have a role to play. Obviously manufacturers and industry have a role to play. 
 So it's much, much broader than just inspectors. 
Based on Mr. Ianiro's comments, it is clear that we will stay on top of this issue. We will make sure that it is not government funding that determines the number of employees responsible for inspections and for proper implementation of the bill, but vice versa. And once we know what is needed on the ground in order to do the work correctly, we need to ensure that the division carrying out the organization and implementation of inspections has enough staff.
As I said earlier, the entire burden cannot be put on the industry. It is obviously in the industry's interest to not have any products recalled or any nasty incidents reported, but the government has the primary responsibility to ensure that this legislation is adopted by Parliament—and quickly, I hope—so that it can be correctly enforced. 
I will not have time to talk about two other questions that we had asked about the government's interpretation of the preamble, notably concerning the precautionary principle.
In any case, I would invite citizens who wish to enquire about these answers to do so by visiting the parliamentary website and consulting the transcripts of the committee debates concerning Bill C-36.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a long time in the works. 
Members have spoken about the old legislation being around for 40 years. As usual, we seem to be behind the United States in this kind of development.
The hon. member would be aware that the government was opposed to a comprehensive system for labelling consumer products containing hazardous materials. It seems to me that this is something we should certainly have. For example, there are a lot of hazardous materials and products out there, unsafe electrical cords and so on that the public should know about. The government said that this would be too expensive and cumbersome to try to implement. There was no consensus to develop an alternative. 
The question is whether the hon. member agrees that labelling, which the government did not deal with, is an important point. Another area that was left out is counterfeit products, which is a huge developing area. Still another is cigarettes. The cancer society has made presentations, but cigarettes were left out.
The question, then, is whether the hon. member thinks the bill is as good as it should be, given that the government left out what I think are three important product areas.
[Interjection]
Luc Malo: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
It is true that when we were studying Bill C-6, some witnesses appeared before us to discuss that particular aspect. During the health committee's work last spring, we spent only one meeting examining the whole issue of nanotechnology, its growing use and the repercussions this new technology can have on human health. This is definitely something that needs to be examined further in committee. I did not get the impression that any parliamentarians, from any of the parties, were against the idea of examining these matters further.
Of course, when we were studying Bill C-6, some people expressed certain concerns that were not addressed in the bill, but at that stage, it was important to update the 40-year-old legislation. So this bill updates the legislation. The committee and this Parliament will have every opportunity, I have no doubt, to make other improvements through other means. For instance, the member mentioned counterfeit products. There is also the question of labelling, in order to ensure that when consumers purchase a product, they know exactly what is in it. I think all parliamentarians agree on that issue.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina pointed out in her comments on the bill that the European Union, California, and Vermont were three jurisdictions that mandated labelling telling consumers which products are hazardous. We were wondering why those jurisdictions would have that feature and we would not have dealt with it.
I was also happy to hear something on the issue of natural health products. I can recall being approached as an MLA two or three years ago on this issue. People were concerned that natural health products were going to be included. Of course, it is good to know they are not being included.
The other area I want to ask the hon. member about is enforcement. Maybe the hon. member, who is on the committee, has a better idea what the eventual regulations will be.
Does the hon. member have confidence that the government is committed to resourcing this area properly and making tough regulations? Would the government be willing to enforce the act and its regulations stringently?
[Interjection]
Luc Malo: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague once again for his question. I made reference to that when I spoke about how a sufficient number of inspectors would have to be hired, not based on the allocated budget, but based on needs.
When I asked that question much more directly in committee, I was told that new budgets had been developed and allocated to ensure that all of the measures in this bill would have the strength and power required to be enforced and to be binding. It would be shameful and unfortunate if this bill—on which there is a broad consensus in this House—were passed and we were not able to actually reap the benefits, simply because the Treasury Board did not give the department the resources it needed to carry out the new requirements of this bill.
Unfortunately, at this stage, I cannot say that all my concerns have disappeared or abated. The government has entered a phase of cutbacks, and it is doing everything it can to try to make the poor and the unemployed pay for the deficit. However, the answers that the officials gave me lead me to believe that the government is willing to ensure that the bill meets Parliament's expectations.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the member's response. Just two days ago, October 27, there was an article in the Globe and Mail  regarding Lieutenant-General Leslie's mandate to trim about 5% of the Canadian Forces' $19 billion budget immediately. The article refers to immediate cuts affecting reservists and other areas, possibly including base closings. The government is clearly in a cost-cutting mode right now. I wonder if that is going to extend to other areas of the government, including initiatives such as this.
[Interjection]
Luc Malo: Mr. Speaker, the example given by my colleague is directly related to my own concerns. I unfortunately cannot answer that question for the government.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill, because it means that it is one step closer to becoming law.
The NDP has advocated for consumer protection for years. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, my former colleague, the former member for Winnipeg North, has been on this file for years, advocating for stronger consumer protection. I know that our leader has raised it with the Prime Minister, and in the 40th Parliament, this session, the member for Sudbury has been a strong advocate for changes to consumer protection laws that would actually result in protection for consumers.
As we have heard a few times in this House, the previous legislation is 40 years old. It is time for a change. It is time to catch up and modernize. All parties are in agreement that this legislation is desperately needed.
However, that does not necessarily ensure that product safety is going to be ensured in Canada. This legislation is going to need to be enforced in order for it be effective. As the member for Elmwood—Transcona has said, there are serious questions about whether or not enforcement is actually going to happen and whether or not sufficient resources are going to be put into this bill.
This is a good bill. I am proud to support it. Our party is proud to support it. I am proud that it is going to the other place and may soon get royal assent. We are hopeful that it will be soon. However, we need to stop and think critically about whether this bill is just a shell being carried into effect for show, or whether it will actually provide protection for consumers.
There are a number of reasons to think that the government might abdicate its responsibility on this bill, should it be passed through the other place. The reason is this: despite the fact that the legislation is their own, and despite their repeated statements that this legislation is important to them, the Conservatives have dragged their feet. There is no other way of putting this. They have dragged their feet in introducing this legislation to the session. Previously, they prorogued Parliament and killed similar legislation, not once but twice. There was significant delay in getting this to first and second reading.
Now we are rushing it through. I think that is fair. We know what is in this bill. It has been to committee before. We have debated it before. However, it has taken a long time for us to get to this point.
Even though we are at third reading now, we have to ask why has this process has taken so long. Why has the government not acted quickly on this legislation, when there have been many opportunities to do so? I think it demonstrates a level of unwillingness to emphasize the safety of Canadians. It is disconcerting that so much time and energy, resources and effort, were put into trying to eliminate the gun registry, while product safety was put on the back burner.
The member for Portage—Lisgar is driving around in a minivan saying “End the registry”. In fact, that minivan was idling outside of Confederation Building the other day, so clearly they do not care about the environment either. There is no minivan saying “protect consumers”. There are no flyers going into other ridings, no radio or TV ads saying that we should protect consumers. All we get is foot-dragging.
Over the last month, we have received alarming reports about Health Canada's failure to warn parents about the risks of cadmium in children's jewellery. Health Canada testing showed unacceptable cadmium levels much earlier than we had previously known. Some of the products that they tested had cadmium levels of 93%, and yet the government delayed letting Canadians know about this. This is children's jewellery, and we all know what children do with small objects. It goes right in the mouth.
Health Canada has actually stated that cadmium is more toxic than lead. Testing that revealed unacceptable cadmium levels occurred in the 2009-10 testing cycle. But that was not the first time it was discovered. The previous testing cycle also revealed unacceptable cadmium levels. Health Canada advisories until now have not mentioned any of these test results. It is hard to imagine. These tests were on children's jewellery.
Our children were at danger of ingesting cadmium from these products because of the government's lack of transparency on testing and a lack of public education on cadmium's dangers. This is just plain wrong. It is irresponsible. I cannot understand why the government would not have mentioned these test results, especially when there was a 93% level in some products containing cadmium. The risks were inherently clear.
How can we trust the government to be the guardians of public safety under this new regime that Bill C-36 offers, when it failed to warn the public that its own tests were revealing cadmium in children's products?
The bill is good, but it is going to require significant resources in order to be effective. It is going to require an adequate number of inspectors and a team that is able to respond effectively to product safety concerns. They will have to respond in such a way that every Canadian will be kept safe from dangerous products.
It goes without saying that the government has done poorly on similar files, like food inspection. We should be questioning the Conservatives' willingness to fund product safety protections adequately. So it is a step forward, but without teeth. Without the systems in place to carry out the intended functions, it is going to be a colossal failure.
We will see the government trumpet the bill's passage and send a message to Canadians that their products are safe, but this message needs to be backed up with funding. It needs to be backed up with resources. Otherwise, we will be giving Canadians a false sense of security.
I stand here representing the voices of consumers from coast to coast to coast. I thank the government for finally bringing in this legislation, and I ask that they commit the resources to enforce it. Otherwise, the bill will be meaningless. I desperately hope that two, five, or ten years from now we are not lamenting a failure to act and saying “I told you so”.
I was reading the newspaper today and there was a quote by James Orbinski. It was not about this bill. It was about the access to medicines regime, Bill C-393. It was brought forward by my former colleague, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, but is now being handled by my colleague from Windsor West. Bill C-393, if passed, would facilitate selling developing countries generic drugs still under patent. It would fix the 2005 regime that was created by the Martin government. The bill should be supported by all members who believe in justice and fairness.
James Orbinski is the co-founder of Dignitas and a world-renowned health activist. In referring to Bill C393, he inadvertently said something related to Bill C-36: “Right now CAMR is a rhetorical success and a practical failure. Bill C-393 is an effort to make CAMR a practical success”. I read that and thought of Bill C-36. We must not let it become a rhetorical success but a practical failure. We need to ensure that there are resources in place.
I talked about justice and fairness. The bill should also raise levels of justice and fairness for low-income Canadians. It goes without saying that dangerous products touch the lives of socio-economically disadvantaged Canadians proportionately more than the rest of society. Cheap products rely on cheaper manufacturing processes, and these products are wreaking havoc on the lives of people who cannot afford better choices. These people are poorly positioned to deal with health consequences or with wages lost due to taking time off from work to care for themselves or their loved ones.
 I believe strongly that product safety should not just be the prerogative of the rich. This issue goes to the heart of the equality principles held by Canadians, and product safety legislation should play a central role in moving toward economic justice in our country.
I would like to touch on an issue that I do not think has been raised in the House very often. Sometimes when I am out in the community I am approached by people who say that they have problems with Bill C-36. They see some constitutional issues they would like to see addressed; they are worried about the constitutionality of this legislation. 
Recently, the member for Sudbury raised this constitutionality issue with lawyers who appeared at committee, asking whether we had to worry about this. According to the lawyers, there were no constitutional problems with this bill, nothing really to worry about. 
The last time around, when this bill was called Bill C-6, it made it through the House and was then sent to the other place. When senators considered the bill at committee, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre made a presentation on this specific issue. It is not only important for members of the House to understand some of the constitutional issues that were raised, but also some thorough analysis would show, that we really do not need to worry about.
For background, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre is a non-profit organization that was established in 1976. Its mandate is to enable the representation of ordinary and vulnerable consumers when decisions are made concerning the important products and services they obtain. Of course, they are a natural organization to turn to when we consider product safety, whether it is legislation, regulation or action.
PIAC made a formal written presentation to the senate committee and I will read from the memorandum it submitted. I reads:
 It is particularly disheartening to find the oppositional posture to this Bill presented as a matter of protection of the civil rights of business and property owners engaged in the sale and distribution of the consumer products that are the subject matter of this bill. Such individuals are amply protected by the provisions in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and possible civil remedies for government behaviour that exceeds the ambit of its protective statutory mandate. Monetary loss, embarrassment and hurt feelings are regrettable, but nonetheless compensable in the event of improper government conduct. 
 On the other hand, harm caused to public health and citizen livelihood may only be imperfectly remedied. What will be the explanation given to a parent grieving the loss or permanent injury of a child caused by the use of a product irresponsibly brought to market, when the reason is the lack of, or delay in application, of proper enforcement tools by the responsible authority caused by these amendments? There is no guarantee that even an inadequate remedy of compensation may be available in the event of a breach of health and safety requirements that is of such widespread effect that it is ultimately financially ruinous of the supplier. 
 The rights of defendants in circumstances where criminal and/or quasi-criminal related behaviour may be involved are important, particularly in relation to the consequences that may be visited upon a defendant. But it is decidedly inappropriate to expose innocent Canadian consumers to potentially negligent market behaviour because of the fear that government inspectors may lack either the appropriate motive or skills of enforcement. It is a grievous misallocation of the Senate's legislative superintendence to cater to the misplaced fears of a few over the real health and safety concerns of the many potentially at risk. PIAC urges the Senate to reject the amendments of the committee and adopt Bill C-6 without change. 
 Michael Janigan, the executive director of PIAC, has his name at the bottom of the memo. That is a good positioning of the two sides that we have to balance here. We need to look out for the consumer protection of Canadians. We need to ensure that people can rely on the fact that their products are safe. It is absolutely imperative. I think he did a great job of showing the balance that has to be struck between the two and where, ultimately, how justice would bring us to the one side.
It is a great summary of the constitutional arguments and I really do support the perspective of PIAC. Thanks should be extended to PIAC for getting involved in this issue and contributing to the discussion in the other place.
 I am strongly supportive of Bill C-36. It is an excellent framework. We need to move forward after 40 years of old legislation that is not modern. Ultimately, we cannot make this a rhetorical success but a practical failure. We need to ensure that the government puts adequate resources behind this bill to ensure it is a success for all Canadians.

Routine Proceedings
Fisheries and OceansJohn Baird: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am tabling, in both official languages, the interim report of the commission of inquiry into the decline of the sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, entitled, “Fraser River Sockeye Salmon: Past Declines. Future Sustainability?”.

Government Orders
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, be read the third time and passed. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Pursuant to order made Thursday, October 28, Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, is deemed read a third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Interjection]
Harold Albrecht: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would request that we see the clock at 1:30.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
World Autism Awareness Day ActHarold Albrecht:  moved that Bill S-211, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Madam Speaker, this government recognizes that autism spectrum disorders, referred to as autism or ASD, represent a serious health and social issue affecting many Canadian families and individuals from all walks of life. That is why the Minister of Health last year declared that April 2 would be known as World Autism Awareness Day across Canada.
I remember so clearly when I joined the Waterloo County School Board in 1978 when one of our superintendents mentioned the word autism. To be honest, I had not even heard the word before that time. I remember how our officials grappled to address the needs of the children and their families who were suffering with autism. Since that time, it is obvious that we have come a long way in addressing this issue but that we have a long way to go.
Today, this government is pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate this important commitment by expressing our support for Bill S-211, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day. 
Bill S-211 was recently amended to clarify certain information presented in the preamble. These amendments preserve the intent of the bill while simultaneously promoting the importance of disseminating clear, consistent and accurate information about autism, an objective to which this government is committed.
The impacts of autism are wide-ranging for individuals and families affected by the condition. ASD can present lifelong challenges. For researchers, ASD is particularly complex as it affects each individual differently. A great deal of valuable research has already been done to uncover the causes of ASD, as well as the most effective treatments and long-term implications of this disorder. However, further research is required in order to gain a more solid understanding of this complicated condition. 
This is why the federal government is committed to supporting an enhanced autism evidence base and has devoted substantial resources in this regard. For example, over the last several years our government has invested over $35 million for autism-related research projects through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 
In addition, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Department of Health have contributed to improving autism evidence and awareness. On that note, I would like to share with the House today some recent activities in the area of autism research which have been supported by the health portfolio.
Between 2007-08 and 2008-09, Health Canada invested $125,000 for CAIRN, which stands for Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network, a group of researchers, clinicians, parents and policy-makers dedicated to ASD research as a way to find better treatment and diagnostic techniques.
A key aspect of CAIRN's work is its website, which disseminates up-to-date information on autism in a format and language that is useful to those who need it most: individuals and families affected by autism. I am pleased to tell the House that federal funding supported the update and translation of this trusted website, making this valuable resource available in both official languages.
This government also supported CAIRN to host the 2009 CAIRN conference, which provided an important forum for researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and those affected by ASD to come together to share new research, different points of view, challenges and stories with a view to raising awareness about autism. It was also at this conference that the preliminary and exciting findings of the Pathways in ASD study were shared.
The Pathways in ASD study is a one of kind collaborative research study that focuses on understanding how children with ASD grow and develop over time. The Canadian Institutes for Health Research is one of the funders of this exciting initiative, led by researchers from McMaster University who are working to understand the different developmental pathways that children with ASD follow and to identify predictors of good outcomes that can be used to develop new intervention programs.
To date, approximately 440 children from five different locations across Canada have been enrolled in this study, making it the largest of its kind in the world. It is significant to note that Canada has the largest of its kind of study related to autism research.
The study will examine a number of factors, including social competence, communication skills, behaviour and the ability to function independently that influence areas of development related to the child, the family and the community as a whole.
The results of this study will be a valuable resource in ensuring the best outcomes for children with ASD, both through the development of new programs and interventions, and by furthering our understanding of their needs and their strengths.
I understand that this project has been designed to fill important evidence gaps on developmental pathways of children with ASD. The Pathways in ASD project will also provide important evidence-based information for policy-makers and researchers alike.
CIHR is also supporting a $1.4 million strategic training grant in autism research, led by Dr. Eric Fombonne from McGill University, which will contribute to training the upcoming generation of autism researchers and will aim to uncover the mysteries of autism.
Building on the strategic training program in autism research that trained over 40 Ph.D. and post-doctoral students conducting autism research in various disciplines, from molecular genetics to outcome intervention studies, this latest project will expand the program.
The strategic training grant will address the pressing needs of Canadians affected by autism, as well as their families and service providers, by building research capacity in this area.
 In addition, CIHR is investing in autism research at the University of Alberta, where researchers are examining the early development of autism by following infants at increased risk of the disorder because they are siblings of children who already have autism. The ultimate goal is earlier identification and treatment. Research such as this is building our understanding of ASD and our capacity to treat ASD.
Furthermore, along with Genome Canada, CIHR provides support to the autism genome project. This initiative will help to increase our understanding of the genetics of ASD which could, in the long term, lead to earlier diagnoses.
While research is an important aspect of the work being done to better understand ASD, another pillar of knowledge is in the area of surveillance.
In order to better understand the progression rates of autism in Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada is establishing a national surveillance program for autism. This program will join the agency's other health surveillance activities for chronic diseases, injury, infectious diseases, and perinatal health.
In the autism surveillance program, the agency will work with health professionals, researchers, and voluntary organizations to analyze and report the trends and patterns of occurrence of autism in Canada. The resulting information will be provided to governments, health professionals, and affected families.
It is important to remember that all stakeholders in ASD want the same thing, better treatments and earlier diagnosis for those affected by ASD, so that ultimately they can all enjoy a better outcome.
To this end, our government is working with partners and stakeholders to promote autism awareness and is investing in activities which support a stronger evidence base. The more we share, the more we gain. By translating discoveries and knowledge into new, effective, evidence-based therapies, we can provide true hope for Canadians living with autism and their families.
I want to point out some of the partners that are working together to give evidence of how this sharing is working. They include the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network, Pathways in ASD, Canadian Institutes for Health Research, McMaster University, McGill University, University of Alberta, and Genome Canada, among others.
As we continue to invest in better knowledge of this condition, the Government of Canada remains committed to ensuring that this knowledge is passed on to Canadians because enhanced awareness promotes understanding, acceptance, collaboration, and progress. Research and awareness go hand in hand. In declaring April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day and supporting Bill S-211, this government has further contributed to this important objective.
I urge all members of the House to give their enthusiastic support to this bill, which gives one more glimmer of hope to those families dealing with the challenges of autism.
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on a very well-crafted and delivered speech. I think that all members of this House will join in supporting this laudable piece of legislation.
The member spent a lot of time talking about the government's support for research and increasing the knowledge base around autism, which I think is a very laudable goal and I congratulate the government for that. However, there is a deep deficit in this country in terms of actual support on the ground for families with autism, particularly for families with young children, as they seek to get support particularly with new forms of therapy. We know that therapy for autistic children is particularly critical in the first five years of the child's life.
Would the government be prepared to put some money toward assisting families in obtaining the therapeutic support that they need to help children with autism?
[Interjection]
Harold Albrecht: Madam Speaker, every member in the House probably has a family member or a close friend who has dealt with or is dealing with the challenges of autism. 
While this government is supportive of many of the activities in research and ongoing awareness issues, primarily the issue of giving the support to people with this challenge falls into the hands of the provincial governments. There are a variety of programs across the spectrum among various provincial governments.
We would urge the provincial governments to continue to do what they can to have the kind of support on the ground that these families will need.
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak in support of Bill S-211, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day.
There are many of us who have been affected by autism, either through families or friends. Many of my constituents in Don Valley East have approached me to help them with this problem.
Autism can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Many times families of children of autism notice that their child's personality is different from other babies the same age. They hit milestones later and increasingly showed little awareness of the outside world. Their words became fewer, or they would bang or chew on their toes rather than playing with their toys.
Families could not understand why their child had so many tantrums and why tantrums were so common, or when a child flapped his or her arms wildly or shoved a nearby adult who ventured too near. Birthday parties or grocery shopping could be distorted by outbursts of anger and frustration and they were compounded when other people did not understand or judged the parenting of these families.
Eventually parents received the crushing diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. This diagnostic was made worse because there was a lack of understanding by the people around them.
Most parents are concerned whether their child will be an engineer, or lawyer, or teacher, or doctor or whether their child will marry and go forward in life. Parents with autistic children face the very real question of whether their children would lead independent lives or not and who would look after them when they were no longer around.
Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, is a neurological condition that causes a range of development disability. Some people can function well, while others are locked in a world of their own.
Today ASD occurs in one in 165 children. This represents a 150% increase in the last six years, with no explanation for the dramatic increase. Worldwide, more children are affected by autism than AIDS, diabetes, pediatric cancer. In Canada a total of 48,000 children and 144,000 adults have some form of ASD.
Someone who shows a number of the following characteristics and behaviours would likely be diagnosed with ASD: first, shows no interest in other people; second, does not know how to play with or talk to people; and third, develops language and speech skills slowly or not at all, or initiates and maintains conversations with difficulties, repeats ritualistic actions such as rocking, spinning, or staring. 
Someone with a mild case could go undiagnosed for years and might only be detected when the person goes through a crisis. This would then bring them in contact with professionals, who may or may not be able to recognize this disorder.
There is no known cause for autism, but research is focused on differences in brain function, environmental factors, genetics, immune responses and viral infection.
There are those who believe that autism is caused by vaccination and this has led them to endanger the lives of their children and countless others by refusing to allow proven vaccines to be given to their children. This unproven theory of a cause and effect of vaccination and ASD has no basis in science. Parents should not be scared into making irrational choices, but should weigh all the options in regard to the treatment necessary for their child.
No single test will confirm that someone has ASD. Some people with mild forms of autism may never need treatment as they may function well and even excel. However, those with severe forms of disorder cannot function and may benefit from active therapy.
There are several ways people with autism are treated. There is the applied behavioural analysis and intense behavioural intervention. These are both designed to actively engage children with behavioural communication, learning and socialization problems. However, therapy can be extremely expensive, as it may involved a one-on-one teaching for up to 40 hours per week, with a cost ranging from $30,000 to $80,000 a year.
When I heard my hon. colleague say that the government was committed, I hope it will do the right thing and instead of wasting money on corporate tax cuts or jets, it will focus on what is necessary for kids. These kids and their parents need the money. It is very important that we have our priorities right.
Other therapy may include counselling, development of motor and language skills, diet and medication and physiotherapy. It takes hard work, patience and sheer determination to help navigate the system and allow a child to emerge from the bonds of autism. The physical and psychological strain on a family can be overwhelming and the isolation profound.
I would like to first thank the sponsor of the bill, Senator Munson, as well as many colleagues who have been supportive in advancing this cause, MPs from Etobicoke North, Sackville—Eastern Shore, Sudbury, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont and Verchères—Les Patriotes for their important work.
I also want to thank Senators Eggleton and Keon who were the chair and deputy chair of the standing senate committee, which provided an extensive report on funding for autism entitled “Pay Now or Pay Later”.
Bill S-211 calls for Canada to join with member states of the United Nations to focus the world's attention on autism each April 2. World Autism Awareness Day shines a bright light on autism as a growing global health crisis and is one of only three disease-specific United Nations' days, reflecting the deep concern that the UN has.
Bill S-211 will not change the reality for families affected by autism. They struggle to make a future for their autistic child who is stuck, who needs better care and who needs better one-on-one intervention. These parents have to fight a battle every day to get treatments and make sacrifices to pay for those treatments.
I hope the government will put its money where its mouth is. Let us ensure that the government puts money for families, for care, because that is a very important aspect. As we can see, autism has increased 150% and there is no known reason. It is important that we, collectively, ensure that this problem is curtailed and that the parents whose child is autistic have the necessary resources.
The bill would increase the opportunities of Canadians to learn about autism and recognize that in their communities there are families living with ASD. Last year the United Nations hosted a rock concert by Rudely Interrupted, whose members have various disabilities, including ASD.
It is important that we fund research into the causes, prevention, treatments and cure of autism and raise public awareness about families. In 2006, the American combating autism act authorized nearly $1 billion in expenditure over five years to help families. One in three, or approximately ten million, Canadians will be affected by a neurological or psychiatric disease disorder. 
This past year Yoko Ono unveiled Promise. Let us keep our promise and help those children.
Luc Malo: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-211, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, as I did on November 23, 2009, when we debated Bill S-210 at second reading. In fact, this is a carbon copy of the same bill. Today, I will be reminding the House of our party's position.
First of all, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. However, we believe that some elements of the preamble contravene the constitutional rights of Quebec and the provinces. Although health care is an important issue for all Canadians, we must never lose sight of the fact that it is an area of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces, as established by the Constitution. I would also like to reiterate that the federal government entered into an agreement with Quebec in 2004 which recognized Quebec's responsibility for this sector.
The special agreement with Quebec, which the federal government pompously referred to as an asymmetric agreement, recognized that health care is within the jurisdiction of the Quebec government and that Quebec is not accountable to Ottawa but to Quebeckers. Consequently, it is natural for Quebec to make decisions about its priorities, which may differ from those of Canada, in order to meet the needs of our nation.
The bill being debated today would designate April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day. This initiative follows the decision by the UN which, in 2008, proclaimed April 2 to be World Autism Day in order to encourage families affected by this illness to seek the services to which they are entitled. Quebec has an autism day in April and Canada has one in October.
We are not concerned today with whether or not Bill S-211 is a good measure or not, because we must do all that is required to support those suffering from autism and their families. My reservations concern some of the elements that indicate the legislator's intent to subtly insinuate itself into a jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces. 
First, we propose to delete lines 13 to 16 of the preamble, which state, “Whereas Canadian families affected by autism spectrum disorders have unequal access to services across the country”. That would respect Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction over health care.
That is also why I think it is inappropriate to read, “Whereas Canada has no national strategy to address autism spectrum disorders”.
Since we consider national health strategies, or Canada-wide strategies, to be encroachments on an area of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces, we want this paragraph to be withdrawn.
As we have seen in other areas, a Canada-wide strategy could thwart the efforts made by Quebec in this regard by trying to standardize the practices involved. If the government decides to go ahead and impose a plan from coast to coast to coast, Quebec and the provinces will have to have the right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached.
Except for these reservations, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S-211. Since autism spectrum disorders affect more and more children around the world, it is important for families to have access to a growing number of services. The origin of and treatments for this disease are still not fully understood, making research into improving life for those with autism spectrum disorders even more necessary.
A World Autism Awareness Day is needed, not only to raise awareness about this complex syndrome, but also to encourage the public to contribute to improving the quality of life of thousands of families. It should be noted that Quebec has had an action plan for people with autism since 2003.
Around that time, the Government of Quebec published a report entitled “Un geste porteur d'avenir--Des services aux personnes présentant un trouble envahissant du développement, à leurs familles et à leurs proches” about services for people with pervasive developmental disorders, or PDDs, and their families.
Quebec decided to focus on the importance of offering more quality services and facilitating access to those services by creating organizations to provide services to people with pervasive developmental disorders in each region of Quebec. There are now 16 regional associations working to help these people and their families.
I would like to list these organizations, which are committed to helping people who really need help: Autisme Québec, Autisme Mauricie, Autisme et TED Centre-du-Québec, Société de l'autisme et des TED de l'Estrie, Action autisme et TED Haute-Côte-Nord Manicouagan, Association Nord-côtière de l'autisme et des troubles envahissants du développement, Société de l'Autisme--Région Lanaudière, Trait d'Union Outaouais, Société de l'autisme des Laurentides, Société de l'autisme et des autres troubles envahissants du développement de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Association régionale Autisme et TED Montérégie, Nouvel Essor--Volet autisme-TED pour la région de Chaudière-Appalaches, Association de l'autisme et des autres TED de l'Est-du-Québec, Société de l'autisme--Région Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Société de l'autisme et des TED de Laval, and Autisme et troubles envahissants du développement de Montréal.
At this point, I would like to describe the condition in more technical detail. Autism spectrum disorders and pervasive developmental disorders affect about 60 children in 10,000. In 1980, that figure was 10 in 10,000. The incidence among boys is four times higher than that among girls. According to the international community, the rapid increase in pervasive developmental disorders is now considered a growing global crisis.
Although the number of autism cases is skyrocketing around the world, there are still many questions about the extent to which higher rates of diagnosis are related to changes in the way people with the condition are identified and categorized.
According to the Fédération québécoise de l'autisme et des autres troubles envahissants du développement, PDD comprises five disorders: autism, childhood disintegrative disorder, Asperger syndrome, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, which includes atypical autism, and Rett syndrome. PDDs usually manifest in early childhood as communication, socialization and learning disorders and dysfunction involving the five senses due to neurological and chemical problems. Each case must be treated individually on the basis of personalized clinical assessments. There is no miracle cure, although some have experienced significant improvement using a variety of educational and psychological methods.
It appears that research on this subject must continue before we can fully understand the causes of autism, which is known for its complex nature. We must give researchers in this area an environment conducive to its study.
The Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to substantially increase research budgets and to transfer this money to Quebec and the provinces so they can better support university research chairs, for example. Whether it is basic or clinical health research, it falls under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction.
In closing, I would like to come back to a point I raised earlier, namely that in Quebec, April is Autism Month. With a theme such as “The many faces of autism”, it is an ideal time to raise awareness and inform the public. It is also an opportunity to break the taboos that continue to prevent those who are affected from integrating into society. Quebec singer Nicola Ciccone is a spokesperson. Many awareness activities are organized throughout Quebec for the occasion, from art exhibits to speeches by adults with autism.
On April 24, 2010, in a party-like atmosphere, the march for autism was held in 11 regions and drew 3,000 people, which is twice as many as the previous year. The sixth annual march will be held next April 30 and marches will be organized throughout Quebec. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the staff and volunteers who work to make this event a success, who are raising funds to help young people with autism attend a special day camp in summer 2011.
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure as a member of Parliament, a Canadian citizen and a father to stand and speak and offer the full support of the New Democratic Party for Bill S-211. I also would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga for bringing this bill forward from the Senate. 
It is also a pleasure to speak to a bill that has the uniform support of all members of the House and, I dare say, of all parties of the House as we all join together in trying to shed some light and increase support for Canadian citizens and in fact anyone in the world who is touched by autism spectrum disorder.
I am particularly pleased about this because one of the first bills I introduced in the House when I was elected in 2008 was Bill C-327, An Act respecting a Canadian Autism Day. At that time I said I was proud to introduce legislation that would recognize the work of those involved in every aspect of this subject and as well to recognize those who are affected by autism in any manner, whether as a person who has the disorder or as a family member or friend of someone who does.
My bill would recognize, as this one does, the challenges faced by friends and families of people with this condition and in particular parents who raise an autistic child and all the special people who work with and advocate for them. It is only right and long overdue to mark and appreciate these challenges. At that time my bill sought to make April 23 world autism day and to make that a Canadian autism day. I am pleased to say this concept is being pushed forward as well and I join with all the members of the House who have done so much work on this.
The creation of a national or international autism day brings light and attention to those who fall on the autism spectrum and to those who tirelessly support a family member or friend. It reminds us that we require so much more in terms of funding for research, support and coverage under the Canada Health Act, which is long overdue.
We have heard a lot of very excellent descriptions of the technicalities of this disorder, so I will be brief on this, but of course autism spectrum disorder refers to the vast continuum of severity and developmental impairment of unknown origin. It is estimated that one in every 165 children is born with a type of ASD. There are approximately 200,000 Canadians estimated to be living with an ASD. I say ASD because, as my colleague from the Bloc just pointed out, there are different types of autism spectrum disorder ranging from autism to Asperger syndrome to pervasive developmental disorder of unknown origin.
The most common autism spectrum disorder is found in young boys. In fact it is four times more common in boys than in girls, and autism is not related to race, ethnicity, family income, lifestyle or parenting. There is no standard type or “typical” person with an autism spectrum disorder.
This disorder is marked by some very specific signs and, of course, people fall within a wide spectrum with this disorder, from people who are profoundly affected all the way to extremely high functioning individuals. ASD is marked by difficulty with social skills. Some people with ASD show no interest in other people whatsoever. Others might be interested but not know how to talk to, play with, or relate to others. Initiating and maintaining a conversation is usually difficult for people with ASDs. It is marked by problems with communication. Speech and language skills may begin to develop, may begin late and then be lost, may develop more slowly or in fact may never develop.
Without appropriate intensive early intervention, about 40% of children with ASDs do not talk at all. People with ASDs are often unable to interpret nonverbal communication such as social distance cues or the use of gestures and facial cues that most of us take for granted. There can be repeated behaviours and restricted interests. People with ASDs may have repeated ritualistic actions such as spinning, repeated rocking, staring, finger flapping and sometimes hitting themselves.
They may also have very restricted interests, talking about or focusing obsessively on only one thing, idea or activity. Their habits may seem odd to others. Small changes in the environment or in a daily routine that most people can manage might trigger acute distress.
There is an unusual response to sensations in many cases. People with ASD may have both auditory and visual processing problems. Although sensory problems vary in autism, this can occur from mild to severe levels with over and under sensitivities of all types.
Last, it is important to note that people with ASD often have very unique abilities. Some have an accurate and detailed memory for information and facts, high visual recall and a superb ability to manipulate data for useful purposes. They may be able to concentrate for long periods of time on particular tasks and be far more attentive to details than most of us.
 We have heard a lot about the scientific and technical aspect, but I want to talk about the human aspect.
Outside my door in Vancouver Kingsway, I have noticed over the past several months a grandfather who walks by every day, pulling a wagon with a young girl in it. The young girl appears to be about five or six years old. I went out the other day and I brought a little Canadian flag to give to her. When I approached her, she turned away and was absolutely unable to interact with me at all. It quickly became apparent to me that this young girl obviously had ASD. I was so touched by the fact that her grandfather, every day without fail, would take her out into the community. It made me realize how much ASD is in our communities.
My youngest daughter, Cerys Davies, suffers from a global developmental delay. It is not autism. She has many friends because we have had to become part of a community of parents who have children with differences of all types, ranging from Down's Syndrome to autism to physical and mental challenges of all types.
We must remember that we cannot just focus on autism. We have to focus on all developmental disorders that affect children, including those that are of unknown origin and even those that defy diagnosis. Hundreds of thousands of children in Canada are going to school every day without support, whether from a health care point of view or an educational point of view or social support point of view. We have to broaden this to include all of those children.
I want to also point out that world-class research is being done in my riding on autism. Dr. Anthony Bailey had the very first endowed chair in the world researching autism. He is based out of Children's Hospital, where he does world-class research, particularly genetics in the autism field. There is absolute excitement and endless possibilities for what we could do for people with autism because of this kind of research. I commend Dr. Bailey for that.
I want to quote from an email I received this morning from Lenore Clemens, who lives in my riding. She said:
 Thank you, we need so many more resources, especially for those who have not received a definitive diagnosis BUT still all have the same general problem. No definitive diagnosis that fits a funding box, no supports for families or those with disabilities even with the same need for resources &amp; therapeutic interventions. Doctors often admit even when they, themselves, can't make a definite diagnosis therapies &amp; supports are needed but not available. Another huge issue is government, like the BC Liberals, is removing eligibility for supports from legislation...This is especially parents and schools. And a reminder to the House: tax credits don't work for the poor. 
Another person wrote and said:
 —what's happening in the Community Living sector in BC. They're moving developmentally disabled people out of group homes (shutting those down) into “home shares” with people they find on Craigslist. CLBC has to cut $22 million this fiscal year. 
The bottom line is we need to have therapy and support for everybody with autism and all development disorders from childhood right through to adulthood.
This shows that it is not enough to declare a world autism day, as laudable and important as that is. We need to vastly increase the funding for not only research, which I give credit to the government for doing, but also to ensure we have supports for families and children at an early age. It is well known that early intervention for children with autism, as with every developmental disorder, is key to helping those children obtain the best possible results. We need to ensure there is support in schools, support from doctors and social supports in our communities to get these people the help they deserve.
Mr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their thoughtful discussion on Bill S-211. 
I am pleased to have the chance today to speak to the bill. Autism is an issue that impacts so many families and individuals from all walks of life, both in Canada and around the world. 
As we know, Bill S-211 was recently amended to improve the accuracy of the bill while preserving its intent to promote autism awareness. The government is pleased to support Bill S-211, particularly as it serves to underscore our commitment to promoting autism knowledge and awareness. 
In practice, activities to promote autism awareness can take many forms and the ultimate outcome of these activities may vary as well. There is much that we do not know about autism, and to this end it is important to raise awareness of this condition so that it can be further understood and studied. 
Autism can be difficult to diagnose. Early interventions are considered key. In this context, by educating Canadians about autism we can contribute to earlier detection and, ideally, to better outcomes. 
Canadians impacted by autism are important members of our society with their own unique strengths. By promoting awareness of autism we can foster greater acceptance and understanding of these special individuals and provide them with the support they need to flourish.
These are, of course, only a few of the many reasons why it is important to foster awareness of autism. Actions to support autism awareness are continuous and take place each and every day through the efforts of governments, parliamentarians, stakeholder organizations, health care providers, researchers and Canadian citizens. 
In supporting autism awareness it is important that we have some knowledge of the condition. 
Autism is a spectrum disorder with symptoms ranging from mild to severe. Autism symptoms may include impaired communication, difficulty getting involved in interactive games and low levels of interest in socializing.
That is not a complete list, but it does provide some good examples. Signs of autism can now be detected at 12 to 18 months of age, with most children being diagnosed before the age of 3. Autism is an extremely complex disorder that affects people for their whole lives.
Autism affects Canadians from all walks of life, as well as their families, friends and caregivers. There is no such thing as a typical person with autism. Each individual has very different needs, attitudes and abilities. 
With respect to possible causes, genetic factors are emerging as the likeliest cause of autism, and researchers have shown how changes in certain genes contribute to the development of autism.
Results suggest that autism genes may behave differently depending on the child's sex and that autism is four times more common among men.
Researchers are also spending more time investigating whether environmental factors can trigger autism.
In terms of prevalence, Canadian and international studies do show that autism spectrum disorders are more prevalent than previously believed. However, this should be considered in the context of improved diagnostic techniques, better reporting and a broader definition of autism.
With respect to adults with autism, it is recognized that there is a need to offer supports across a lifespan. Moreover, adults with autism can suffer from co-morbid conditions, which furthers the need for support.
What is clear is that there are many issues surrounding autism and that more information is needed to better understand these issues. It is this government's perspective that knowledge and awareness truly go hand in hand. I am sure that many members would agree that having easy access to information and knowing we can trust that information can make a huge difference in the lives of those affected by autism. This is why the federal government has been working with its partners and stakeholders to enhance the autism evidence base. I would like to take a few moments to touch upon some of this important work.
One important aspect of autism knowledge is surveillance. It is widely recognized that there is a shortage of evidence about the prevalence, causes and best treatments for autism. This is why it is important that we keep watch over this condition. 
Health surveillance is an ongoing process of data collection, expert analysis and interpretation, and furthermore, communicating the results or the resulting information that is gathered. Surveillance findings play an important role in supporting research, evidence-based health policies, programs and practices. This is why the Public Health Agency of Canada is starting a surveillance program that will help us to better understand the prevalence of autism in Canada.
In addition to surveillance, this government has placed an emphasis on the need for high-quality and rigorous research to find answers to many questions surrounding autism. This is why, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, the Government of Canada has spent or committed approximately $39.5 million for autism-related research.
In addition to health portfolio investments in research and surveillance, Health Canada has placed emphasis on the dissemination of autism knowledge. For example, Health Canada has invested in the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network, which translates new research findings into terminology that is helpful for those who need it most, the individuals and the families who are affected by autism.
In conclusion, it is clear that the efforts to enhance autism knowledge and awareness can, will, and have touched the lives of many Canadians. This government is confident that its investments, in tandem with activity at the community, provincial and territorial levels, are culminating in tangible results by those affected by autism.
By supporting Bill S-211, this government is pleased to continue to have the chance to reinforce its commitment to improving autism knowledge and awareness.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and speak to Bill S-211 and follow the excellent presentations on the part of the other members who have spoken today, as well the members who have spoken at previous times the bill was debated.
As mentioned, the bill was sponsored by Senator Munson. He has on several occasions sponsored the bill. Of course, with elections and prorogation of the House, we are still not quite there yet.
As an MLA for a number of years in Manitoba, I received dozens of inquiries from parents over the years, people who were very frustrated at the lack of programming available to them in the province, and within the province itself. This came after a time of probably 40 years of recognition that improvements had to be made in dealing with different disabilities and diseases. 
People would call our office and talk about how it was such a financial burden on the family, where they would have to take extra jobs, or as a matter of fact, even quit jobs to be able to spend time with their children. Then they would have to sit on big waiting lists to take advantage of programs. That was in the city of Winnipeg, where we had a decent program. Can one imagine the problems if one lived in a rural area where the programs are not available at all?
We have to look at this and take a national approach. I guess that is one of the downsides of health care being a provincial responsibility. What we have is a patchwork quilt of programs across the country. 
It is widely known that Alberta has a very good series of programs, but that should be available right across the country. It is incumbent upon the national government to work with the provinces and stakeholders to come up with a national approach.
I am reminded that the United States is much further along than we are in that area.
I look at the preamble of Bill S-211 to get a perspective on what is anticipated here. It is an act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, but the preamble points out that autism spectrum disorders affect a significant number of families in Canada. I have heard the statistics and the numbers are quite alarming. 
The preamble continues: 
 Whereas Canada has a health care system and social safety net to prevent illness and serve citizens; 
 Whereas Canadian families affected by autism spectrum disorders have unequal access to services across the country; 
 I think that is a crucial statement in itself.
For example, my wife worked for six years in Winnipeg with Versatech Industries. It is a very well-known organization in Winnipeg that employs people with different abilities. It provides a very important source of help and certainly some financial help to people. 
However, I am not certain that this type of program is available across the country. As a matter of fact, I am not aware that it is available in any part of the country other than Winnipeg.
We really do have to pull everyone together here and not simply look at this in terms of each province on its own basically trying to solve the problem. That is not going to work.
Worldwide, the number of diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders is growing as well. 
Many speakers have mentioned that there is a greater awareness of the importance for early diagnosis, which is a big help in terms of getting treatment for people with autism. Also, early intervention in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders can have promising results in helping people engage with and contribute to society. A number of years ago I think people were simply not aware of the problem and tended to ignore it. The recognition that we have to be proactive is coming to the forefront in this country.
It has been pointed out that there is no known cause or cure for autism spectrum disorders and 192 United Nations representatives agree that the World Autism Awareness Day could draw the attention of people across the globe to this neurological disorder that is affecting an increasing number of families. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly designated April 2, from 2008 on, as Autism Awareness Day. 
Canada is a signatory, as members know, to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which maintains that children with disabilities should enjoy a full and decent life in conditions that ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate their active participation in the community, while also enjoying all active human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children. That is contributing to the demand by parents in society in general that these children need to be helped now and not somehow put off for future attention. Canada is a member of the United Nations and supports the vital work of that organization. 
 April 2 will be known as World Autism Awareness Day. I believe the federal minister announced last year that April 2 would be World Autism Awareness Day.
In terms of autism itself, ASD is a neurological disorder that causes developmental disability. The term “spectrum” refers to a continuum of severity or development impairment. People with ASD develop differently from others in the areas of motor , language, cognitive and social skills. Autism causes difficulties with verbal and non-verbal communication, difficulties with social interaction and understanding and unusual patterns of behaviour, activities and interests. 
Approximately 200,000 Canadians are living with an autism spectrum disorder. This figure does not account for the numerous family members and caregivers whose lives are profoundly affected by autism. It is estimated that 1 in every 165 Canadian children born today has ASD. 
One of the Liberal members mentioned that there is a feeling on the part of some people that vaccinations may play a part in this. Another member mentioned genetics, which I think is probably a more reasonable assessment than the former. 
Disabilities caused by ASD may be very mild in one person and quite severe in another. As a matter of fact, it has been pointed out that autism is four times more common in boys than in girls.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member will have one minute when this debate resumes.
It being 2 o'clock, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business is now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 2 p.m.)