38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 085
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
|
 |
Privilege |
|
|
Comments by hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Canada's International Policy |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.) |
|
|
Status of Women |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
State Immunity Act |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Ways and Means |
|
|
veterans affairs |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Diabetes |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC) |
|
|
Natural Health Products |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canada Grain Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Brain Tumours |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Pope John Paul II |
|
|
Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.) |
|
|
Pope Benedict XVI |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Thérèse Casgrain Awards |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Canadian Guernsey Association |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC) |
|
|
Volunteerism |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs |
|
|
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) |
|
|
Poland |
|
|
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.) |
|
|
China |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Conservative Party |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Prime Minister |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Pope Benedict XVI |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Canada's International Policy Statement |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Democratic Reform |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
International Cooperation |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
International Cooperation |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Works and Government Services |
|
|
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Opposition motion—Sponsorship Program |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 65) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
National Revenue |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
* * *
(1000)
[Translation]
Privilege
Comments by hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup
[Privilege]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Gatineau on Friday, April 15.
During the debate on the Bloc Québécois motion on April 14, 2005, when I was expressing my concern over the fact that sponsorship money may have been used for election campaign purposes, it seemed as though I was directing my comments at the hon. member for Gatineau. That was not my intention.
I withdraw any comments that may have offended her and offer my apologies.
(1005)
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[Translation]
Canada's International Policy
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, Canada's International Policy Statement—A Role of Pride and Influence in the World.
* * *
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table today, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
Committees of the House
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present on behalf of the committee, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled “From a Management Crisis to Becoming Better Crisis Managers: The 2004 Avian Influenza Outbreak in British Columbia”.
I might just add that this outbreak was a first in Canada, a great learning curve, not only for the industry but for all stakeholders, including the CFIA. I believe the exercise that was undertaken in Abbotsford was a worthwhile one, not only serving government but serving the primary producers in this case, and of getting to the bottom of this issue. The recommendations contained in this report speak very well to the kinds of things we heard on our visit there.
* * *
Status of Women
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
I am pleased to advise the House that the committee began a series of consultations with organizations to prioritize the issues that were most important to Canadians. These groups told the committee that many programs and policies over the past decade have had a negative impact on women.
The committee had a broad consultation with government officials and with members of the Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office, and we found that the federal government departments differ significantly in their ability to do gender based analysis.
The committee proposes that it is time to implement a new way of conducting the business of policy making in this House, a new way which gives increased attention to gender differences so that all Canadians benefit equally from legislation, policies and programs.
In its report, the committee outlines a comprehensive approach to ensure that gender based analysis is carried out throughout the federal government. It envisions a multi-partner effort whereby individual departments are involved. Status of Women Canada has a lead role, and the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Finance Canada coordinate and enforce accountability mechanisms.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee has requested a comprehensive report from government on this report.
* * *
(1010)
State Immunity Act
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-367, an act to amend the State Immunity Act and the Criminal Code (terrorist activity).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the victims of terror compensation bill. This would amend the State Immunity Act and it would allow claims in Canada against foreign states which sponsor any of the groups that are listed as terrorist entities. By permitting this, it would allow those who have been hurt, injured or damaged in any way by acts of terrorism or suffered damages to actually pursue and take civil action for compensation.
The bill has been developed cooperatively with the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, an organization that is made up of Canadian terror victims and also community activists.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Committees of the House
Health
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented to the House on Friday, April 15, be concurred in.
This is a very important motion. The committee has discussed this issue and I must give accolades to my hon. colleague for Mississauga South. I salute him for his conviction and determination. For over a decade he has been working on trying to get warning labelling for alcohol. It is not so much because of the warning that we have to salute the hon. member, necessarily, but for his determination in his attempt to bring awareness to this issue.
The member for Mississauga South introduced Bill C-206 and the health committee took a serious look at this piece of legislation. The committee was looking for a more comprehensive program. Because of that, we listened to a number of witnesses from across the board and across the spectrum of industry and health groups and so on to understand what we should be doing with regard to this piece of legislation.
Before I get into the details, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Oshawa.
When the committee took a serious look at this, we had to ask if we should do something with this or not. We concluded that the bill should not go ahead the way it is written. There was no testimony that would necessarily support moving ahead with this bill in a way that would do what the mover of the bill intended, which is bring awareness to individuals who are using and consuming alcohol to the point where they would refrain from using alcohol, which in turn would allow us to eliminate the terrible scourge of fetal alcohol syndrome in the country. The motion was eight to one, which is fairly unanimous.
Why then would we bring this motion to the House and actually pass it at committee? I believe that the newspaper reports on this issue, most of the people who work in the Department of Health and most industry people have the wrong idea of the health committee regarding this issue. It was not that we disagreed with the issue. It was that we wanted to do something significant which would actually accomplish the goal and the intent of the mover. The goal is a notable one and is worthy of consideration.
What the committee decided was to have the House concur with the motion. We had the Department of Health come to committee and report to us and that was the most startling piece of testimony the committee heard. We heard that the Department of Health was not going to report on a comprehensive program at all in order to accelerate the work the department said it has been doing for a considerable number of years with regard to fetal alcohol syndrome. The department said it would not lay a comprehensive plan before the committee or the House or even the minister .
This is not the message we need to send to the Department of Health. It is not the message we need to send to the Minister of Health. What we need to send to the Minister of Health through the power of this House is a message to impress upon him and the department the need for that comprehensive program.
It is in light of this that we bring forward our motion. I will read the motion into the record because members must have all of the wording of the motion to understand exactly what we are saying. The motion is as follows:
|
--that the government present a new strategy for the prevention of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder to the Standing Committee on Health, to be developed by Health Canada and stakeholder groups, by June 2, 2005. |
Many members in the House will say they cannot support this because we are asking the department to come up with something by June 2, but let us look at the testimony that came from the Department of Health to the health committee. The department said it has been working on this for a number of years. The department said the work was pretty well finished.
In fact, the testimony says that the department is much further along on this than it is on many other areas of alcohol use. When we look at the testimony given in committee and at what the department has said it is doing, compared to what it has said it is going to do, we understand very clearly that we must have some action.
(1015)
We do not need more studies. We do not need more consultation. This has been consulted to death. We understand that we have a serious problem. Nine out of 1,000 babies born in this country are born with fetal alcohol syndrome. It is a significant problem. Fetal alcohol syndrome is very serious. It affects hundreds of children born each year. They begin life with a serious strike against them and it is something they have to live with for their entire lives.
We need to do something about it and Health Canada can do something about it, but only if we give officials the pressure that is needed to be able to push them to action. This motion that I am asking the House to concur in will do just that. It will impress upon the Department of Health and the minister the need to actually move to action.
I can already hear the other side suggesting that we cannot ask a department to do something within that short a time period. We certainly can because we know that it has the ability to do it. We know it is a long way along on this issue already. We know that this is just a matter of sitting down and tweaking.
We are not telling the department it has to actually do anything except come up with a plan of what it is going to do to be able to accomplish the goal of the intent of the mover of Bill C-206. That is very easy to accomplish. It is something that needs to be done, because failure to do it means that we will do nothing. Doing nothing on this issue is not appropriate for the legislators of the House, for people who come together to make the laws of this land to protect society, from itself in many cases and from issues in society that are harmful.
This is a motion that I believe everyone in the House should think very seriously about; I was going to say soberly about, but I do not want to use the pun lightly. I do want to impress upon the House how serious a problem this is and how important it is for us to look at it from all angles.
We did hear from the alcohol industry, which asked why we should put all of our attention on labelling. It would cost it a significant amount of dollars and dollars are not going to come out of thin air, said the industry; they can come out of either the consumers who use it or the already existing programs that deal with fetal alcohol syndrome disorder.
We did not think it was appropriate for us to just say “let us put a label on every bottle” and then walk away from it thinking we had done the politically correct thing while not actually accomplishing any good. I do not think that anyone in the House necessarily wants to play politics with an issue this serious. What we really want to do is accomplish the goal, which is to prevent individuals from having fetal alcohol syndrome. We heard testimony about how devastating it is when pregnant women are involved with alcohol. At each stage as the fetus is developing, the alcohol retards and destroys the growth pattern.
The argument was about whether this happens in the early days of pregnancy, the middle or the end, but the reality is that it happens in all of these stages. The testimony was compelling enough that we should impress upon anyone who has the potential of being pregnant to leave alcohol alone, to not become involved with it. It is also important to mention that a woman who is pregnant and has one or two drinks should not become alarmed. What this does say is that we should leave it alone if at all possible so that we do not retard the development of the fetus.
How do we win on these kinds of issues? We win the same way we won on drinking and driving. We have not won completely but we certainly have made a paradigm shift in society. Now if someone drinks at a party and wants to drive, people stop that person before he or she gets into that vehicle, whereas 30 years ago they would help the person into the car. That was a paradigm shift. Peer pressure becomes a powerful thing. We need to use that same pattern when it comes to fetal alcohol syndrome and mothers who are drinking.
(1020)
My time is nearly up but I do want to impress upon the House how important this motion is, because it will be debated here for three hours and we will actually go to a vote in the House. Votes in the House should mean something. When they mean something, the department and the industry should take the nod from what the House is saying. We have a responsibility here and I ask members to consider that as they vote for this motion.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech in support of the intent of the motion, unanimously adopted by committee. There is some wording in the motion which I would like him to clarify.
I know his understanding of it, but the motion could appear unclear to individuals. I agree with the member that the department has done some work and that we want the presentation of that work and the plans for the future to deal with FASD, but I think the speaker would agree that it should not be confused with the comprehensive strategy. A comprehensive strategy on alcohol abuse would include other elements like the operating of machinery, general health concerns, family breakups and all the other problems that can arise from the abuse, misuse or overuse of alcohol.
The motion states:
|
--that the government present a new strategy for the prevention of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder to the Standing Committee on Health, to be developed by Health Canada and stakeholder groups, by June 2, 2005. |
I understood from his speech that the member does not expect there to be a full consultation and the developing in consultation with all the stakeholders of a completely new strategy by June; it would be a continuation of the work the department has been doing.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, I do want to clear this up. The drinking of alcohol causes a number of problems. We have to do something about the comprehensive strategy on drinking and abusing alcohol. It has to be part of this. Drinking and using medication of any kind also has to be part of this.
We could have said to the Department of Health that by June 2 we wanted a comprehensive plan on all those items, but we do not want to lose focus. We want to focus on something for which the department came to committee and said, “We are so far along on this. We have actually been working on this for years”. The department said that it was ready to do something with regard to fetal alcohol syndrome. I am just taking the department's words and applying them here in asking the House to make the department put a comprehensive study and plan, which could or could not include labelling, before the House by June 2.
I am saying that because the departmental officials have said in committee that they actually can accomplish this. Did they say they could do it by June 2? No. They said sometime this summer. We know that nothing really happens in a department in the summertime. We want this done by June 2. It is achievable. There is nothing that actually focuses action more than a timeline and a directive. We can give them the directive. The timeline is in the motion. The Department of Health can accomplish it. Let us get on with making that happen.
(1025)
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of witnesses at committee. In fact, I ended up being one of them. I did not realize at the time I requested it that it is somewhat unprecedented for a member of Parliament to appear as a witness on a bill like this. I did so because it is a very important issue, both in terms of my representation of a region with a lot of wineries that would be impacted by this and as a person who supports the intent behind the motion that we have to deal with things like fetal alcohol syndrome. It is very serious and needs our concern.
However, with all those witnesses who appeared, we heard a tremendous amount of evidence. I used some figures when I made my presentation at committee. As it happened, the departmental officials were there and backed up those figures. What they said is that right now the department spends about $3.3 million a year on education to warn people and make them more aware of fetal alcohol syndrome, the need to abstain from alcohol and a number of other measures that they need to take. They also confirmed that the compliance costs for the department, the enforcement costs if this motion were to pass and the labelling were to come into effect, would be something in the neighbourhood of $27 million over a five year period.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Over five years.
Mr. Jim Gouk: If the hon. member had listened, he would have heard me say that it is over five years. He probably was talking over me and that is why he did not hear me say the very thing he wanted me to say.
Twenty-seven million dollars over five years is a lot more than the $3.3 million the government is spending now. I wonder if the hon. member could tell us if we heard witnesses suggest that this money could be well spent on education as opposed to the enforcement of a labelling program.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has suggested, he did come before the committee, as did many others. He was representing the small breweries and vintners, and had a specific focus on it. He was a little concerned, certainly with the cost and impediments of just putting a label on.
As he suggested in his question, what is that going to do as far as it concerns enforcement and the price of enforcement? We did hear that enforcement was going to be costly. The comprehensive program or strategy that we are looking for may or may not have labelling. It may have some labelling and not all bottles labelled. The argument is made with a bottle of wine, do we put a label on a bottle of wine since most people drink wine from a glass that does not have a label? All of those concerns were talked about.
It is important that we have a comprehensive strategy that actually shifts the paradigm, a paradigm in society, so that we understand the intense problem of individuals who are pregnant and drinking. That is where this motion is going and that is why I ask members to consider it.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure and an honour for me to speak on this topic.
I would like to commend the member for Mississauga South for fighting for this issue for so long. The fight against the negative effects of irresponsible alcohol use, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and drunk driving to name only two, has been inspirational. He deserves much credit for the momentum building toward a comprehensive fetal alcohol syndrome strategy.
It has been estimated that nearly 1% of live births are children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. These statistics are certainly alarming, as many families and women are not getting the warnings or are failing to be properly educated about consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
Consumers of alcohol must choose if they want to drive or operate machinery. They have to choose to consume the alcohol, knowing that it may affect their health. However, a child born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder did not choose to have this disorder and perhaps the parent did not have the opportunity to choose as well. However, children born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder will have to deal with the disorder for the rest of their lives.
What are the effects of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? Health Canada has included some as being: intellectual defects and learning disabilities, hyperactivity, attention and/or memory deficits, inability to manage anger, difficulties with problem solving, pre-natal and post-natal growth deficiencies, early school dropout, alcohol and drug abuse problems themselves later on, problems with securing and maintaining employment, homelessness, trouble with the law and mental health problems. Indeed, the latter are very serious and a public threat.
The Public Health Agency of Canada has further estimated that lifetime extra health care, education and social services, and costs associated with the care of an individual with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder are $1.4 million U.S.
Other studies have suggested that over 25% of those behind bars may have been exposed to alcohol in the womb. I learned so much about this disorder in committee. A statement was respectfully submitted to me by Sheila Burns, the project coordinator of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Durham region. She said:
|
Since the identification of the teratogen Thalidomide, the medical community has been examining the damage caused by alcohol exposure to the developing fetus. Research is now clear that even moderate drinking during pregnancy can cause damage. No culture, no socio-economic group is spared. |
|
Health Canada reports 1:100 Canadians have some level of damage caused from in-utero alcohol exposure. The results: high suicide rates, family breakdowns, criminal behaviour, drug and alcohol addictions, mental illness and homelessness. The implications are staggering and the toll enormous. The disability is life long and cannot be cured. It can be managed, but only at a huge cost to our society. The disability is preventable. |
Durham region has been working hard to coordinate awareness initiatives, promote education and coordinate support services. They have longed for more support and warning labels are a part of that.
We have learned in the health committee that we need a comprehensive approach. We, in the Conservative Party, wholeheartedly share the concern of the member for Mississauga South about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and drunk driving. The party supports the intent of the member's bill, but not the bill itself. Put simply, there is a more comprehensive way and a better plan to address the problem it seeks to solve.
The eighth report of the committee recognizes the ineffectiveness of alcohol labelling, highlights the costs associated with it, and recommends that the House proceed with a comprehensive fetal alcohol spectrum disorder strategy that may or may not include warning labels.
The Standing Committee on Health voted almost unanimously in favour of a more comprehensive strategy. The eighth report contains reasons why the committee recommends that the label only strategy proposed by Bill C-206 be replaced with new comprehensive fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and drunk driving strategies.
All witnesses and committee members agreed that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and drunk driving are serious problems that demand action. We know that these issues cause untold suffering on those who are affected by them.
(1030)
However, very little evidence was put forward to indicate that alcohol warning labels in themselves are effective at preventing either fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or drunk driving. Labelling certainly works for a variety of purposes. It will help improve awareness. However, for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and drunk driving, given the intended targets of messaging, labelling by itself is ineffective.
The implementation of Bill C-206 would have cost the federal government significant dollars to implement and maintain. The diversion of these resources into labelling at the expense of targeted programs would not have been cost effective. The implementation of the bill would have likely raised trade and charter questions, which would have imposed further costs to the government.
Many witnesses called for a comprehensive fetal alcohol spectrum disorder strategy. They did not feel that the first dollars should be committed to just this labelling initiative. There was consistent concern that if the government moved ahead with labelling, it would be able to claim that the problem was addressed and would not feel compelled to do what is really needed. That is why I am so encouraged to see this motion and how it is unfolding today.
The cost of labelling would have crippled many smaller breweries, distillers and wineries. For an economic impact, this was significant and we had to address these concerns.
What surprised me was a leaked cabinet document which indicated that Health Canada is aware of the ineffectiveness of labels in themselves in preventing fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and drunk driving; but in the letter, Health Canada acknowledged that not to support Bill C-206 would look bad politically.
This is no way to craft legislation; this is no way to govern. Laws should not be justified based on how they will be perceived; laws should be based upon sound research and well-proven facts.
The majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee told members that established targeted programs currently in place to address fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and drunk driving have a much better chance of success than warning labels alone.
The Conservative Party of Canada believes that a comprehensive strategy that may or may not include warning labels is the best way to tackle fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We therefore support the motion to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Health.
The Conservative Party of Canada will demand that the alcohol beverage industry play an active role in this new strategy. Although the industry has played a part in previous initiatives, it must do more and will therefore be called upon in taking a leading role in developing the strategy. The committee supported Mr. Merrifield's motion:
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and a motion adopted by the Committee on Thursday, April 7, 2005, your Committee recommends that the government present a new strategy for the prevention of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder to the Standing Committee on Health, to be developed by Health Canada and stakeholder groups, by June 2, 2005. |
This motion will be tabled. The health minister has indicated he is serious about preventing fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and he has told the House of Commons that his department is working toward a comprehensive strategy for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder based on proven and established best practices.
The Conservative Party of Canada hopes that Health Canada will develop, release and implement its strategy as soon as possible. Mr. Merrifield's motion will--
(1035)
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the hon. member to use the name of the riding during his debate.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, the member for Yellowhead's motion will hopefully accelerate this process.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for supporting me. He certainly was a valuable member in the committee.
It was obvious to us as we listened to the witnesses, and as we moved into the debate and listened to all sides of the argument, just how important an issue this is and how important it was for us to send a solid message to the department.
I am wondering if my colleague would comment on his perspective of what he heard in committee with regard to the department. It is important for us to really highlight this because that was the turning point in the committee. When the Department of Health actually presented the issue before the committee, we realized that the department was just going through the motions. It had been playing with this for two years at least, had a committee struck, was doing a significant amount of work, and yet was not going to come forward with any kind of a report.
I wonder if my colleague would comment on what he heard from the Department of Health and how this motion would be seen by them.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, as a new member, one thing I realized in the health committee and became quite frustrated with was I really did not understand how government worked. I saw how bureaucracies put programs in place just for the sake of it without an implementation plan or any plan to put it into effect in any reasonable amount of time.
I learned that this had been studied already and I saw the inaction on fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. As a Canadian, I find that disturbing. It is very important for the government and Health Canada to look at all the issues and protect the health of Canadians. To see the delay, when we knew programs were already in place, some put in by the breweries themselves, was disturbing. British Columbia has put programs in place, and labelling is not part of that, which have helped decrease the significance and severity of this.
To use a word that has been overused lately, the government is dithering on something that is so important, something of which many Canadians do not realize the impact. One in a 100 Canadians are born with this disorder. It was a big surprise to me. Hopefully with this motion we can move it forward a more quickly.
(1040)
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. As he said so well, the current government is procrastinating a great deal when it comes to health for Canadians and Quebeckers.
In that case, does my colleague not think it would be better for the provinces to develop their own fetal alcohol syndrome strategies that would respond to their own problems? Would this not be better than developing a strategy that might never be implemented because it comes from the federal government?
Mr. Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I want a strategy for all the provinces in this country.
[English]
It is very important for the federal government to work with every province to develop a strategy. This problem is not just a provincial issue. It is a problem across the entire country.
We have learned through the committee that different things are happening in different provinces. As a federal government, we can learn from the initiatives that have been taken. In Quebec, for example, Éduc'alcool is moving ahead a little quicker than some other areas in Canada. I mentioned that British Columbia was moving ahead quicker than other areas of Canada.
We have to address this as a Canada-wide program, through consultation with all provinces, so all Canadians can benefit.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the concurrence motion, the effect of which is to ask Health Canada to table with the House a comprehensive strategy to address fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. I very much support it and I will do as much as I can to ensure that other members in the House support the initiative. It is very important and it is time.
Let me talk very briefly about fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy is the leading known cause of mental retardation in Canada. As was indicated earlier, about one out of every 100 live births results in a birth defect. That means, and testimony has said, that up to 5,000 children each year will suffer from alcohol-related birth defects. It is very important that we understand the enormity of this and the attendant costs.
Here are a few of the secondary symptoms associated with FASD. Sixty per cent of these children will drop out of school or be suspended. Sixty per cent will get into trouble with the law. Fifty per cent will go to jail or be put in an institution. Fifty per cent will show inappropriate sexual behaviour. Thirty per cent will become abusers of drugs or alcohol. Eighty per cent will be unable to live independently in adult life. Eighty per cent will have problems with employment,
Binge drinking is the worst kind of risk to an unborn child. Binge drinking is more than four drinks on one occasion. It is not being an alcoholic. Binge drinking is something that probably everyone in their adult lives has encountered. It is like going to a wedding, or an anniversary or a picnic and over that occasion having four drinks.
Back in 1992 when a report was before Parliament, the then health minister and the Department of Health said that they had evidence that one drink alone could negatively affect the heart rate and respiration rate of the fetus. As well, the evidence has shown that days 15 to 22 during pregnancy is the most vulnerable period in fetal development. The health committee spent years studying reproductive technologies. It is well aware that up to day 14, research on embryos is permitted, but past day 14, even the medical profession says that the embryo cannot be touched. It is called the primitive streak. This is when all our basic features and organs get the trigger points where they start and are set for the rest of our lives.
Fetal alcohol syndrome, in its full blown manifestation, involves facial and cranial deformities. It means that during this period, when one's features are established, which is after day 14, very early in pregnancy when nobody knows they are pregnant, is when the damage is done in many cases.
The issue with regard to FASD is that if pregnancy is possible, one should abstain from alcohol. The reason for that is that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. This is the message for women. If they are in their birthing years, if they are sexually active, if they are not using protection, they should abstain from alcohol; 100% abstention, not just a bit. The problem is the message that has gone out in the past is that one should limit or cut back. People have not been informed that even small amounts of consumption at the wrong period of time may have tragic consequences to the unborn child.
Over the last 10 or 11 years of my career as a member of Parliament, no issue has affected me more deeply and involved me more fully than the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.
(1045)
In 1992 the Standing Committee on Health actually prepared a report called, “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Preventable Tragedy”. The issue of whether Health Canada has been doing its job is relevant to what timeframe? Let me explain to the House what happened in 1992.
The subcommittee recommended requiring health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages, just as the U.S. had introduced in 1989. It reported that the alcohol industry was opposed to health warning labels and every other witness was supportive of these labels. The brewers industry position was that awareness was very high, but labels were not effective and the funds would be better spent on targeted programs.
If we look at the transcripts and testimony of what we did in 1996, when the bill before the health committee and again this year, we find that the results and observations are precisely the same. The industry is on one side and the health people are on the other. Everybody is aware that there is risk associated with alcohol consumption and the money would be better spent on something else. The presumption is somehow that labels will operate in a vacuum. That is nonsense. We obviously do something now, but it is not enough because the impact on unborn children still is very high.
In 1992 the non-industry witnesses testified that warning labels should be part of an overall strategy to raise public awareness. We have heard that before. They also based their support on a public's right to know if the use of the product carried certain risks. Experts testified that information on product labels and the nature of the package could enhance the overall product offering and that the product label would play the role of salesmen and for advertising. The label on the product is the thing that is promoting at the point of sale.
Warning labels on the other hand would be a form of de-marketing. All of a sudden they would intrude upon that sacred space where the fun theme of beverage alcohol is being promoted. The product label is part of an extremely delicate balance of a product mix which is based on lifestyle and aspirations. Beverage alcohol advertising is all about that. In 2002, the last year reported, the beverage alcohol industry made a profit of $700 million. It spent $660 million promoting its products. Today Health Canada is spending $3.3 million on fetal alcohol syndrome.
Can we believe that $3.3 million a year has any hope in hell of competing against $660 million a year promoting the use of a product? We need to do better. The concluding statement of the subcommittee was as follows:
|
The design and presentation of a warning label is vitally important to its effectiveness. The Sub-Committee has examined several examples of warning labels on alcohol products from the United States. In all cases, the warnings were generally inconspicuous and difficult to read. It is essential that warning labels adopted for Canadian products not emulate the United States examples, but be carefully designed for maximum visibility and impact. We believe that warning labels, properly designed and printed, are an essential part of a comprehensive strategy for increased public awareness and education about the risks that maternal alcohol consumption poses for the foetus. |
The report from 1992, the year before I became a member of Parliament, has stated the position that the House learned again in 1996 and again this year. Nothing has changed.
Let me deal with the issue of what a label might do. The program, Motherisk, is part of the Hospital for Sick Children. Let me quote from a paper about labelling from January 2004. It says:
|
It is interesting that the strongest opponents of alcohol warning labels are industries manufacturing alcoholic beverages. These industries first denied the existence of FAS... |
In 1996 I was on CTV being interviewed with the head of the brewer's association and he denied the existence of FAS. However, if we look in its report to the committee in 2005, it says that it has been involved in FAS for decades. There is a contradiction there. The article from the Hospital for Sick Children confirms that. It says that the industry first denied the existence of FAS “and later did very little to prevent it”. It says:
| The main reason for the industry to oppose warning labels is their fear of losing revenue. Their claim that they oppose the label because it is not an effective method of FAS prevention contradicts their lack of efforts tofind other effective means. |
It is business.
(1050)
I can remember when we discussed tobacco labelling. Everyone wondered if labels would be effective. What happened with tobacco labelling? Health Canada saw some action once the labels were put on. Once we put in the comprehensive strategy that linked the product to the strategy and the strategy to the product, suddenly the use of tobacco went down, particularly among the targeted groups.
In 2000, Health Canada commissioned Environics to do a study on labelling and fetal alcohol syndrome. It was an excellent report and can be found on Health Canada's website if anybody wants to see it. Environics basically concluded that there were about four or five target groups whose behaviour was out of line with the facts that we knew about fetal alcohol syndrome. Environics laid out a comprehensive strategy on how to communicate with these people.
Every target group involved one common element and that was public health information found in doctors offices, in hospitals and in clinics where people get their health needs dealt with. It makes sense. The rest of the program had to do with targeted television marketing, with magazines, with literature and other areas.
One of the things the report said, however, and it was concurred by experts, was that the beverage alcohol industry should not be part of it, that it has to be divorced from the activities, and that we did not need the beverage alcohol industry money. As a matter of fact, as was confirmed in testimony before committee, brewers spend $2 million a year on their partnerships and responsible use message when they spend over $300 million a year promoting their products. They do not mind doing certain things as long as they do work.
It is important that we understand that labelling and a comprehensive strategy go hand in hand.
Beverage alcohol is not just another beverage. It is not milk, juice or pop. It is a drug, but it does not say that on the product. How can we not have at least that first starting point indicating that it is a consumer product that can harm us if misused. Beverage alcohol is the only consumer product that could harm us if misused but does not warn us of that fact.
The public has a right to know and the industry has a duty and a responsibility to inform. That is why I am supportive of the motion to encourage Health Canada to get this comprehensive strategy in place. The Environics study back in 2000 showed that it already has the foundation for its strategy. We have all of the experience that Health Canada attained through its battle with the tobacco industry on tobacco labelling.
That was successful. It was an integrated strategy of putting the information on the package to caution, to inform and make the consumer aware. All of the other things that were happening, not just within the Government of Canada but also province by province and territory by territory, were complementing and working with this. Synergies were involved. No one item could ever be clearly demonstrated to have been effective because the only way to prove that something is effective is to hold everything else constant while at the same time one thing is being changed and then allow that to be in place for some reasonable period of time then do a study of it. Maybe five years later we will be able to make a determination. It is not possible to hold the world constant while one thing is changed.
It would be premature for members to somehow suggest that labelling does not work. I do not think anybody can prove that anything really works without having control over all the elements that affect behaviour.
I do not believe anybody really expects one item to change somebody's behaviour. However I do think they would expect that one item would at least contribute to information and awareness so that it could be linked to other things that happen.
(1055)
That was 1992, some 13 years ago, and Health Canada is still studying it. It is important to continue to be aware. When Allan Rock was the health minister, he set up the national advisory committee on fetal alcohol syndrome and, because of all the work I had done on this, I was asked how it should be set up. I was sent a model which was the traditional model. Everyone had to be involved and experienced in fetal alcohol syndrome. We needed it to be gender and visible minority balanced and we needed to have someone from each province and territory. This is the precise model that the bureaucracy follows for any committee or advisory group that has ever been set up.
I remember working until about 3 a.m. responding to this suggestion. I said that we did not need people who knew all about fetal alcohol syndrome to preach to each other about how terrible it is. I said that we needed people who knew how to deliver results on programs, to design and develop programs and a comprehensive strategy on how to address this.
How do we reduce the incidence of alcohol related birth defects and all of the other attendant problems associated with misuse of alcohol because there are many more? We needed people who were in business, in marketing, in sociology and psychology. We were talking about trying to influence behaviour. It never did happen. There was a little bit of money given to the advisory committee but the advisory committee died for lack of funding. There was no commitment on behalf of Health Canada of the day.
I am very confident that the Minister of Health today is very committed to dealing with and addressing the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum of disorders.
I quote from the minister's speech February 7. He states:
|
I only truly understood the impact of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder when I became the Attorney General, and I talked to judges and lawyers and advocates. One day the Chief Justice of British Columbia took me aside and said, “I want you to know that at least 30 to 40% - if not 50% - of the people that appear in the criminal courts every day are FAS-affected. |
He went on to say:
|
--I do recognize that dealing with FAS labelling, which is what the Bill is about, isn't the panacea that some people might think it is. |
He recognized that labelling in a vacuum would not get the intended results by itself. He went on to say:
|
But I believe that it is perhaps the first very public, very concrete step in beginning the debate that you've been engaged in for many, many years in the positions that you have. |
|
And it is a debate that really hasn't as high a profile that I would like it to have. It is a debate that hasn't always made the front pages of the newspapers, as has the debate on smoking and cigarettes and tobacco control. |
|
I know that sometimes some people say we are creating too many laws and too many regulations and too many conditions for living our lives, but I think it's important in the context of what's been happening on alcohol abuse that we do this - that we do take a steps to ensure that FAS labelling takes place in Canada. |
I take the minister at his word that he wants to take some concrete steps with regard to addressing fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum of disorders and that he is committed to moving this comprehensive strategy forward.
Since we have had this strategy from Environics in the year 2000, I believe framework discussions have been going on and that intense discussions with the beverage alcohol industry on ingredient labelling and on allergen labelling have been going on for some time. Now is the time to table a comprehensive strategy and let us get on with reducing the percentage of alcohol related birth defects.
(1100)
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Mississauga South for his hard work over many years on this particular file. All the members in the health committee appreciate that it is a hard issue, a very serious concern and that the member has driven this issue, brought it before the House many times in the past and continues today to be a very eloquent advocate of trying to correct a very serious problem.
As part of a comprehensive plan, labelling may have a role but sending messages to young people and a whole range of other issues could be targeted to the people at risk. Was the member encouraged by some testimony we heard about new research being funded by the CIHR? I believe it was Dr. Gideon Koren from Motherisk and the Hospital for Sick Children who brought before the committee new research showing the benefits of antioxidant vitamins in reducing the effects on the fetus of exposure to alcohol.
Studies are going on now with vitamins E and C, antioxidant vitamins that are inexpensive, readily available and part of a comprehensive strategy that may well encourage people, especially women of child bearing age, to make sure they are getting a substantial dose of antioxidant vitamins that cannot possibly do them any harm, can bring in a range of other health benefits and can certainly help protect the fetus from the effects of alcohol.
That research is going on and is not conclusive yet, but I wonder if the member found that encouraging and something that we would want to include as part of a more comprehensive package.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a time when I will ever want to promote the health benefits of drinking alcohol. That is not what we are all about. When we consider that 3,000 to 5,000 children are being born with birth defects every year and it is costing Canada $15 billion each and every year for additional health care, social programs and criminal justice costs, we have to deal with the health problems now.
The member talks about targeting young people. In June 2003 the National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in the United States did a research study, along with the Betty Ford Centre Foundation. What they found was that 19.5% of the purchasers of beverage alcohol were underage youth and 30.5% were adults who were abusing alcohol. When we add it together we find that over half of the beverage alcohol sales in the United States were to underage drinkers and abusers of alcohol.
We have much more work to do. Even with regard to the tobacco strategy, the studies had shown that if people did not start smoking by age 19, chances were they would never smoke. That is why the strategy was aimed at young people, why so many good things have happened in that respect and why substantial progress has been made.
Targeting young people, yes, but we cannot give women mixed messages about consuming alcohol during pregnancy. It is extremely important that we be very clear. Motherisk and the Hospital for Sick Children also came out with research in which they said that the incidence of alcohol consumption during pregnancy is actually 10 times higher than they previously thought through interviews with mothers. The research is clear.
(1105)
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from Mississauga South on many points. Unfortunately, he should be careful when he says that the strategies supported by the industry are not working and this is probably one of the reasons to support them.
Strategies such as Éduc'alcool, Mother Risk, the Student Life Education Company and Taxiguy are working.
However, I want to ask my colleague whether he truly believes that labelling has a real impact. Why did he not consider it important to obtain data on the effects of labelling legislation enacted in 1992 by the Yukon and the Northwest Territories? In both jurisdictions, warning labels are highly visible. In the NWT, these labels are even fluorescent.
I want to know why he did not consider it important to provide us with this data?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to be very clear about what the alcohol beverage industry is doing. It is spending $660 million a year on promoting its products and lifestyles. It spends only about $5 million a year on partnerships and programming. It is insignificant.
I would not even want to assess whether or not what it is doing is effective. Quite frankly, what the industry is spending on it is token just to say that it is doing something.
The member asked about what is happening in Yukon. In Yukon the warnings are put on manually.
Much of the debate about labelling has to do with the experience in the United States. Let me be clear about this. Studies have been done in the United States where they have concluded, even as the health committee did in 1992, that the labelling in the United States is not readable and not noticeable. Any attempt to assess the effectiveness of labelling used in the U.S. as a model is futile.
There have been no studies done. The best example we could do in terms of assessing a strategy, including labelling, would be to look at what has happened with the labelling of tobacco. I was a member of the health committee when this was done. The committee considered different kinds of things. I do not think there is anyone here who would say that it has not been a very strong success.
I understand what the member is saying. I am talking about a comprehensive strategy of which labelling is an important part.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I join all the members in congratulating the member for Mississauga South on his hard work.
I would like to return to the question of the health benefits of alcohol. I remember the testimony at the committee from an expert in the field who indicated there is evidence that there are antioxidant effects or a mild health effect from a very small daily use of alcohol, particularly red wine. I understand that the tannins create an antioxidant effect. The expert went on to say that if a person went over that margin, it would have the reverse effect. It would have a negative effect and would lead to an additional risk of cancer or heart disease.
Is that the impression of the member for Mississauga South? Would he care to comment on that testimony?
(1110)
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, there certainly are those who are opposed to labelling. They are the ones who make the argument about the health benefits. There are people who say that beer has health benefits. There are people who say that wine has health benefits. They should put the evidence on the table. Let us find out.
The Canadian Paediatric Association, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Ontario Public Health Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Canadian police, the Canadian firefighters are the people who are involved in the health and safety of Canadians. They wanted to say to us absolutely nothing more than what is happening out there in terms of the misuse of alcohol consumption requires our immediate and critical attention.
It means that we have to start talking about preventive techniques, not to send mixed messages. If we start talking about maybe a little bit of this might be good, the evidence I heard was that there are some cases where it might be, but there are a lot more cases where the consumption of alcohol even in small amounts for certain people with certain physical conditions may have negative benefits. This is particularly with regard to other illnesses and diseases and, of course, the natural causes of alcohol which is like ether which tends to numb a person's ability to operate machinery and equipment, or to drive.
The consequences of alcohol misuse, even in small amounts, and binge drinking particularly are enormous. The costs are enormous.
It is time that we tabled a comprehensive strategy, as has been proposed by the member. We must seriously consider what we can do in the best health interests of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on a motion introduced by my Conservative Party colleague relating to a report adopted by the Standing Committee on Health.
The entire debate started after the hon. member for Mississauga South introduced a private member's bill. I was listening earlier to the remarks by that member and sponsor of the bill, and I believe that the background needs to be given.
Nevertheless, I want to commend the member for his perseverance here. He has been interested in this issue for many years—a decade—already. There is also a lesson in it for us. In politics, it is essential to have motivations or beliefs. It cannot be said that the member has no convictions.
However, we must also admit that good intentions do not always make the best policies. If we have anything to learn from the history and experience of Bill C-206, introduced by our colleague from Mississauga South, it is that we must always listen to what witnesses have to say.
When this bill was studied in the House at second reading, most opposition health critics came out in favour of it in principle. We were, of course, in favour of warning labels being made mandatory on bottles containing more than 1% alcohol. That alone struck us as a good idea.
The beauty of the parliamentary system does not, however, reside solely in the work of the House, important as it certainly is, but also in committees. A good forty hours were invested in committee in studying this bill more closely. We came to realize that, unfortunately, scientific evidence did not support the solution proposed by the hon. member.
Everyone has acted in good faith on this: the government, the opposition parties, the parliamentary secretary, all have worked very hard. They all wanted to come up with the best possible legislation, keeping two objectives in mind: combating the harmful effects of alcohol and providing the most pertinent possible information.
With the exception of a few organizations such as MADD and the Canadian Medical Association, which were in favour of the principle, after considerable scrutiny, those who had analyzed the bill in depth did not recommend that we pass it in its present form.
I have heard my colleague draw a parallel with the regulations adopted a few years ago when I was on the Standing Committee on Health. I am, in fact, rather proud of being both the youngest member of the committee and the oldest, in years of experience, having been a member since 1999. So I was on the Standing Committee on Health when it reviewed the tobacco regulations. I think there was a considerable difference between those two bills, however. Why? When the government introduced the tobacco regulations, the difference was this:
First of all, the scientific studies. The Canadian Cancer Society alone submitted a pile of scientific studies on the harmful effects of tobacco, and these were provided to all parliamentarians.
Second, there was a fundamental difference in that the cigarette manufacturers are obliged to rotate the messages.
(1115)
The regulations called for a dozen or so different messages a year, staggered at different times, so that no sense of easy familiarity with the medium could develop. If a person is exposed to the same message for months or years on end, it loses its effect. That is the first distinction.
Another distinction that was pointed out to us is that serving alcoholic beverages in a glass is not the same as in a bottle. People are served in glasses in licensed establishments and not in bottles. Consumers are therefore not directly exposed to the message. That is a very important difference.
Third, an organization as large as Éduc'alcool, with its likeable director general, Hubert Sacy, popularized what is probably one of the best known advertising campaigns. If people were asked—especially Quebec residents—what is Éduc'alcool's slogan, 80% to 90% would certainly say, “Moderation is always in good taste”.
Éduc'alcool is a not for profit organization, in this case, a consortium independent of the government. It brings together people representing brewers, the Société des alcools du Québec, universities and researchers, who have managed to implement far more effective educational methods than those proposed in the bill.
It is interesting that in Quebec we have a regulation adopted several years ago that requires alcoholic beverage producers to give a certain percentage of their revenues for awareness campaigns. Under the regulation, which is administered by the Régie des loteries et courses du Québec, they may give those funds directly to an organization that does preventive work or to one that does research, but one way or another, a certain percentage established by regulation must be given to ensure that there is an awareness campaign.
The scientific evidence, the facts and research that were available, did not point in a direction that would make us feel comfortable supporting the action suggested by the member for Mississauga South. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments. We would have felt better if the Quebec model had been used as the basis. We do not want an approach that says we are going to slap on regulatory labels if we are not certain they will be seen and read.
The hon. member for Mississauga South is right to remind us that it is their corporate duty. We cannot allow companies to make profits the way breweries and distilleries do without being good corporate citizens. Most of these companies do have in-house programs that provide safe ride home services, for instance, or information on the negative effects of excessive drinking on society.
Éduc'alcool submitted a research summary. They summarized the research available mostly in the United States and Canada, but also in Europe. They submitted a document outlining the impact of mandatory labelling.
We are not saying this was pointless. It is certainly not as black and white as that. In fact, the hon. member for Laval—who took an interest in this issue in committee—and I would never make such a blanket statement.
(1120)
Consumers are indeed provided with some information, but there is no scientific evidence proving that mandatory labelling changes, in any way, the behaviour of people with drinking problems or a serious addiction to alcohol, people commonly referred to as heavy drinkers. Let us be honest, mandatory labelling has absolutely no effect on them.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research was represented at the committee by Ms. Nadeau, the Vice-Chair and herself a psychologist. She asked us to think about three consequences.
First, the approach of the hon. member for Mississauga South was somewhat lacking in nuance. He intimated that alcohol consumption of itself was reprehensible. In scientific terms, however, an occasional glass of red wine with a meal at the Cage aux Sports or elsewhere in good company, whatever may be your preference— The fact is that a little glass of red wine from time to time savoured in good company as one of life's little pleasures never did anyone any harm.
If we took a little survey here, even among my ascetic neo-Bolshevik friends, rigorous at work and disciplined in bed, I would be very surprised to find a member of the NDP caucus who has not at some time raised a glass of red wine in a toast. I would be very surprised if there were no parliamentarian here who does not consume alcohol in moderation on occasion. I would in fact be very surprised that the hon. member for Mississauga South is abstemious to the point of excluding any sort of alcohol from his life.
The fact is that the message the bill sent lacked subtlety, according to what Éduc'alcool told us. Terrorizing people is not the best way to educate them and neither is the cut and dried approach. A little glass of red wine never did anyone any harm.
Second, my colleague from Laval will speak later and develop this idea further—the warnings proposed by the member for Mississauga South included one on driving under the influence of alcohol, which could indeed be harmful. However, there was a warning that alcohol consumption during pregnancy could harm the baby. This is true.
My colleague from Laval asked about funding for the publication of a brochure that was distributed wherever this information would be useful, with the result that surveys revealed that 90% of women were aware of the hazards of excessive consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.
Éduc'alcool shouldered its responsibilities and worked with the Quebec health and social services department and the Collège des médecins du Québec. I do not know how it works in English Canada, but the LCSCs and Quebec hospitals display posters with this kind of information. However, the intention is not to traumatize or terrify, but rather to gently provide relevant educational information, which is essential for reaching the target audience.
I believe that, at times, the member for Mississauga South had a small tendency to believe that the message had to be stern and categorical, rather like the Lacordaire movement of earlier days, sometimes neglecting the nuances. I think that this was not the best approach.
Once again, we believe that the Quebec model is extremely important; I am talking about the coalition created around Éduc'alcool, with awareness campaigns and obviously some in-house programs by the major national brewers, but above all with Éduc'alcool taking the lead. This organization visits, for example, the university campuses.
(1125)
Éduc'alcool has raised our awareness with anti-binge drinking campaigns. I am addressing the pages in particular. I am asking students to always stay in control. The end of term and exam time can be stressful. People want to party. They wind up on campus, where there may be drinking games. This trend started a number of years ago. Such activities should be avoided. I am warning our friends in particular, the pages, who are so dear to us. They have done an excellent job this session. I ask my colleagues to applaud them for their devotion during the entire session.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Réal Ménard: Éduc'alcool went to university campuses to explain that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It told pregnant women the same thing. The most difficult audience to reach are those who drink and drive, the hardened drinkers who get behind the wheel in the evening. It is true that there is still more work to be done, as we learned from Ms. Nadeau of Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Then there is another consideration, the motion made in committee by the member for Guelph to kill the bill, and let us not mince our words on that. There are terms like infanticide and regicide, but I do not know what the term for killing a bill would be. The member for Guelph moved to have the bill deemed not to have been adopted in committee, so it died. There was another possibility, which the Bloc members could not support, to have the federal government set up a national strategy on fetal alcohol syndrome.
We do, of course, acknowledge that this syndrome is a reality that must be addressed. When I represented the Bloc on the parliamentary committee reviewing the non-medical use of drugs, I recall visiting places—Winnipeg, Manitoba, for one—where FAS was a severe problem.
We believe, however, that it is not the role of the federal government to come up with such a strategy. Where fetal alcohol syndrome is concerned, the health facilities are often involved. We in the Bloc Québécois do not believe that this is the role of the federal government, nor that it is in the best position to set up such a strategy.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time the federal government might be tempted to intervene in the health care field. I remember, when we were studying the new reproductive technologies bill, how I warned the government that this bill was obviously unconstitutional. The Liberal MPs did not want to listen to me.
Now today they are faced with a court challenge. The Liberal government of Jean Charest—a government that does not show a lot of backbone in defending the interests of Quebec—has nevertheless felt obliged to appeal in order to challenge the constitutionality of the new reproductive technologies legislation.
The federal government is periodically tempted to intervene in the health field above and beyond its jurisdictional limits, which are aboriginal health, research, veterans and patents. We cannot, therefore, be in favour of such a strategy.
My congratulations to the hon. member for his enthusiasm and hard work. I would ask him to let the provinces do their job as far as fetal alcohol syndrome is concerned, taking as their model the Éduc'alcool program in Quebec, which has produced convincing results in the struggle to combat problem drinking.
(1130)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his participation in the debate. He has done his job in representing the interests of Quebec. I am here as a member of Parliament trying to represent the interests of all Canadians who are concerned about this issue.
The member put amendments to the bill at committee which basically would create exemptions for small producers. There is more detail to it, but it basically would succumb to the argument that small producers would have a harder problem than the large producers in putting labels on their products.
That is probably mathematically true, but I am not sure whether or not it is a good enough reason when many of the small producers export to the United States and put warning labels on their products. Many of them have customized labels which they change from time to time depending on the season.
I am also concerned about something which the justice officials brought before the health committee, and which Health Canada confirmed. There could be a problem with regard to the charter, and I am not sure whether it would be under the section dealing with freedom of expression, regarding the producers' freedom to put whatever they wanted on their bottles. The argument would be whether or not there was an infringement and whether or not under section 1 of the charter it was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society that the infringement made sense because it affects health, et cetera.
I am a little concerned that the argument is not fully developed and that we are not giving conflicting messages, or we are not giving consideration where maybe it is due and also, whether it might not impair the argument before the courts on a charter challenge. The tobacco industry went before the courts and Health Canada won that case.
I hear the member and I understand. Nobody wants to be draconian in dealing with the problems with the misuse of alcohol, but we certainly want to make absolutely sure that we look for that win-win where everybody can play a role. Would the member please comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words and his questions.
I think that my colleague was present at the committee when the Bloc Québécois proposed a motion to have justice department officials appear. They have not really taken a position, it must be said, in the debate raised by our colleague. Would it be prejudicial to freedom of expression? What we know for sure is that there was a risk. I think that this scenario was even mentioned in a brief to cabinet, which the committee members did not see.
What we know is that the freedom of expression guidelines were determined by the Supreme Court in two decisions: the Sharpe decision on child pornography and the Irwin Toy decision on advertising children's toys. It is acknowledged that freedom of expression basically depends on three things, in particular not being harassed on the basis of one's beliefs.
The government's objective must obviously be considered. For example, if the Supreme Court had been asked to rule on such a question, it might have looked into whether it is in the public interest to ensure that alcohol is consumed responsibly. I think that the Supreme Court might have answered yes to this question.
Then there would have been other questions. First, it would have asked whether the means that the government used were proportional to the objective. Is it proportional to want in a way to limit the space on the label for producers and manufacturers? I think that the Supreme Court might have answered yes to this question. Second, the Supreme Court would have tried to determine the effectiveness of such a measure. I think that this is where the member's bill might have been a bit more vulnerable. In any case, we are in the realm of speculation here because the Supreme Court was not asked to rule on this.
Insofar as microbreweries are concerned, I think that our colleague was also present at the committee when the Association des microbrasseries du Québec came to see us in the person of its utterly charming president, Ms. Urtnowski. It is necessary to know that some microbreweries use very traditional methods. In some cases, labels are put on manually. Microbreweries would obviously have had to acquire technologies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though they do not have the same wherewithal as the national brewers or the same market share.
That is why the Bloc Québécois put forward an amendment to the effect that manufacturers who produce less than 300,000 hectolitres would not be subject to the regulation proposed by the member for Mississauga South.
(1135)
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a comment and to question the hon. member from the Bloc. He is a very able health critic for his party. I have listened with interest to his comments about the labelling issue for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
I think the member is aware that the NDP did support labelling. In fact it was our member for Winnipeg North who introduced a motion several years ago. The motion was approved by the House, but unfortunately the government has been very slow to move on this issue.
I certainly understand and am aware of the concerns as expressed by the members from the Bloc in terms of how this might impact microbreweries. In fact there are microbreweries in my own riding of Vancouver East.
It seems to me that there are two issues here. One is a public health issue in terms of providing a broad dissemination of information about fetal alcohol syndrome and the massive consequences for individual children and families but also for society at large. The idea of some sort of public labelling is a very important measure. People can always find technical reasons why something should not be done. It is a matter of looking at the principle that is involved and then determining how one applies that principle.
I certainly understand the position of the Bloc, but I have to say that the NDP is firmly in support of the idea of labelling as an important public health measure, a public policy measure, that needs to move forward.
The second point I would offer to the member is perhaps he would agree that the issue around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder also relates very much to class and economic issues in our society. It relates to poverty.
In my own riding of Vancouver East if we had much more emphasis on preventive health, on adequate housing and nutrition and income, which is a big issue, we would be able to address these concerns. It would provide a much healthier environment for families and children and we would be able to prevent this kind of syndrome from taking place.
I would ask the member to comment on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I recalled her taking part, as I did, in the deliberations of the committee on alcoholic beverages in Canada. Our colleague tabled a report in this regard. The issue is not whether we want there to be information available on fetal alcohol syndrome, because all parties support this principle. The issue is whether the measures are effective. As legislators, we must ensure a bill will be effective, before it becomes law.
The Bloc voted in favour of labelling tobacco products and the 10 rotating warnings. Although the labelling was appealed right to the Supreme Court because it was considered to take up the commercial space of the tobacco manufacturers, that did not stop us. However, in the case of alcoholic drinks, we had no study on the benefits and the scientific evidence.
I think the Quebec model, with Éduc'alcool, the college of physicians and the health department, was a lot more successful with the target clientele. I think the member for Mississauga South was involved in a moral crusade, which deserves our respect. However, we cannot stop here. As we know in the business, good feelings do not always make good politics. We cannot stop at good feelings. Further analysis is needed.
In terms of effectiveness, unfortunately, we did not have these studies. We had them when the Standing Committee on Health reviewed the matter of regulating tobacco products. The Department of Health had presented studies.
Here again, a minimum standard of rigour requires us to consider the consequences and effectiveness of the bills we pass. In this case, scientific evidence was not on the side of the member for Mississauga South.
(1140)
[English]
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for his dedication, commitment and perseverance in raising the issues around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and about the impact of drinking, for example, underage drinking. It shows a tremendous amount of commitment to a cause. He has been very passionate about it.
The member for Hochelaga suggested that members of the NDP might occasionally resort to tippling. He is absolutely correct. I do enjoy a glass of wine on occasion, and as any responsible drinker, I am sure to use it in a responsible fashion.
In talking about the issue of labelling alcoholic beverages, many people who came before the committee said that this was absolutely not to be seen as a strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise you and the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.
When we were talking about labelling, many people saw labelling as one tool in a tool box. Many people saw labelling as a way to signal the government's intention to develop a full, comprehensive strategy around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Many people saw labelling as that critical first step, a signal that people were committed to ensuring that this issue stayed front and centre on the health agenda.
It was with great disappointment that I saw the bill killed at committee. It was with great disappointment I recognized that this is the third time this matter has come before the House.
Much has been made around the fact that there have not been any substantive studies to point to the fact that labelling would decrease alcohol consumption. The question that should have been put to people was whether labelling would increase awareness around the risks. It troubles me that we would not agree that labelling would increase awareness around the risks. We label many other products. Alcohol is one of the products that can have risks for a population and which does not carry a warning label. Much has also been made around the validity of studies.
It is interesting to me that hot off the press today a headline in the Saint John Telegraph Journal reads, “Few drinks a day may not protect against strokes, heart attacks”.
Much has been made about the benefits of alcohol but the article states:
|
The U.S. government warned Tuesday that a few drinks a day may not protect against strokes and heart attacks after all. |
|
Some studies in recent years have touted the health benefits of moderate drinking. Some have even said that up to four drinks a day can significantly reduce the risk of heart disease in people 40 and older. |
|
But researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysed data from 250,000 Americans who participated in a 2003 telephone survey. They found that the non-drinkers had many more risks for heart disease -- such as being overweight, inactive, high blood pressure and diabetes -- than the moderate drinkers. |
|
Based on those results, the agency could not say that moderate drinking actually was a factor in reducing the risk of heart disease. |
|
The findings were published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine |
|
“We're feeling the pendulum has swung way too far and Americans are getting sort of the wrong idea” on alcohol, said the study's lead author, Dr. Tim Naimi of the CDC's chronic diseases division. “The science around moderate drinking is very murky.” |
|
The CDC has long worried about alcohol abuse in the United States. Studies have shown that drinking excessively - five or more drinks daily - can increase the risk of heart disease. The CDC says nearly one in three Americans drinks too much. |
|
The agency said people should follow dietary guidelines that limit daily consumption to two drinks for men and a single drink for women. |
|
Other groups -- such as the American Heart Association -- say drinking alcohol increases the dangers of alcoholism, high blood pressure, obesity, stroke, breast cancer, suicide and accidents. |
There have been several studies, but it is very interesting that now there is a study which is saying wait a minute, maybe moderate drinking is not so great for us after all.
(1145)
The only reason I have brought forward this study is that throughout the discussion at committee, people consistently said there was no conclusive evidence that labelling would affect drinking behaviour.
The committee heard evidence from a variety of sources. One of the groups that came forward was the Canadian Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. In April 2001 it indicated, “Warning labels must not be considered in isolation, since knowledge alone rarely results in changed behaviour. Warning labels reinforce rather than replace other forms of education. Labelling should be seen as just one part of a broader public health effort to reduce alcohol related harm. That effort should also include ongoing public education, responsive public policy and availability of effective treatment services”.
That was just one of many witnesses who said that labelling in their view was an essential part of a comprehensive strategy.
The position statement of the Australian Drug Foundation in March 2003 stated that labelling provides a counterweight to alcohol marketing which promotes that alcohol is safe. It said that labelling also protects the fundamental right of the consumer to know the risks of the product.This is a critical point which seems to have often escaped the discussion. We are talking about the fundamental right of consumers to know the risks of a product.
The Motherisk program at the Hospital for Sick Children also saw labelling as a critical part of the strategy. It said, “The alcohol industry first denied the existence of FAS and later did very little to prevent it. The main reason that they oppose warning labels is their fear of losing revenue. They claim that they oppose warning labels because they are not an effective method of FAS prevention. That contradicts their lack of effort to find other means. Warning labels are an effective way in changing the culture of drinking, similar to the change in attitude toward smoking, or drinking and driving. In the implementation of the alcohol warning label, nothing can be lost, only gained”.
Another issue which often was not discussed was that people talked about labelling being ineffective. The industry spends a substantial amount of money designing labelling to encourage drinking of their particular product. If labelling is not effective, why would the industry spend so much money labelling bottles?
That issue came up in a study at the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in the U.S. in February 2003. This study was done in the U.S. so I am not suggesting that Canadian industry does the same thing.
The study said, “They saw action as being urgent. The decline in alcohol consumption among minors over the past 20 years appears to have promoted campaigns such as the increase in marketing malternatives and gelatin shots, Zippers, both appealing to children, and the efforts of the liquor industry to mount major advertising campaigns on television”.
We have also seen all kinds of different labelling. Some of the samples we saw at committee really encouraged some behaviour that many of us thought was highly questionable.
A number of people went before the CDC, including three surgeons general. Those three surgeons general called on the alcohol industry to include in its advertising and product labels “clear warnings of the dangers of underage drinking and adult excessive drinking”. They also called for “endowing an independent foundation with no ties to the alcohol industry to work exclusively to curb underage drinking”.
The Betty Ford Foundation said that the findings demonstrated that the alcohol industry had an inherent conflict of interest between public health and industry profit.
I could go on with quotations at length. In 1992 the subcommittee on health in “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Preventable Tragedy” said that government warning labels on containers of beverage alcohol sold in the country had been done since 1989. It was referring to the United States. It said that labelling had been happening in the United States since 1989 and the wheels of industry had not ground to a halt, despite the fact that the industry had to put labels on bottles.
It is ironic that Canadian brewers are shipping alcohol with labels to the United States. If it is good enough for the U.S., it should be good enough for Canada.
(1150)
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[Translation]
Ways and Means
veterans affairs
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions on all sides of the House and you will find that there is consent for the following motion:
|
That Ways and Means motion No. 8, standing in the name of the Minister for Veterans Affairs on the Order Paper, be deemed moved and adopted on division. |
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, because of the translation kicking in late, I heard part of the motion. I am not sure if I fully understood it and wonder if the motion could be reread for the House to understand it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am going to repeat the motion in French:
|
Que la motion numéro 8 des voix et moyens inscrites au Feuilleton d'aujourd'hui au nom de la ministre des Anciens combattants soit réputée mise aux voix et adoptée. |
[English]
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, if I understood right, my colleague added at the end, “moved and adopted on division”, which you omitted.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I think that the words “on division” were included.
[English]
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the House
Health
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by giving my sincere personal thanks to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for helping to inform Canadians about this important issue and for her hard work in committee.
I attended each of the committee meetings and I know she always asked questions to inform herself and challenged positions. I want her colleagues to know that this hon. member did an excellent job on behalf of Canadians concerned about this issue.
The member raised a broad spectrum of issues and concerns. To me the most important point she raised is the argument about the synergies between having a label on a product and a strategy to complement it, and the converse, that the strategy also has to link itself to a product as well.
The member will probably know that in the United States there was an effort made to fix the label in the United States because it was not readable or noticeable. The bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms rejected the move to improve the label in the United States primarily because the beverage alcohol industry said that it was working and doing its job. It was informing people and awareness levels were high.
I wonder if the member would care to comment on that in view of the fact that in the United States the beverage alcohol industry was saying that the label in the U.S. was working, and in Canada the beverage alcohol industry was saying the label was not working.
(1155)
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting point because the member for Mississauga South brought examples of some of the labelling in the United States to the committee and challenged us to find the label. We could not find it. It was placed vertically; the colour was the same as the bottle. It was virtually unreadable. So of course the industry was going to say the labelling was effective because it was effective in its view of not reducing any alcohol consumption.
We really want Canadians to understand the potential for risk. One of the witnesses that came before the committee, Tim Stockwell who was the director and professor for the centre for addictions research of B.C. at the University of Victoria, specifically talked about how we could make labels effective. He talked about the fact that tobacco packages have essays written on them about quite simple health effects of tobacco in huge detail.
However, he also talked about how else we could make those messages effective and this is what we really wanted to see. The message could be rotated and be illustrated with pictures. He went on to talk about the low risk drinking guidelines that were developed in Australia with which he had been involved. A whole series of punchy messages were developed that the alcohol industry actually climbed on board with.
Initially there was a huge resistance; the world was going to end if labels had to be put on bottles. However, eventually the industry came on board and has actively supported a very proactive campaign in Australia. It would be a model that we could look at in Canada for effective labelling.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with all of the work that has been done by our member for Winnipeg North and the member for Mississauga South, I was very concerned, perhaps even shocked, by the committee's decision not to proceed. I wonder if my colleague could make a quick comment on why she thinks the committee decided not to proceed.
Ms. Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new to the House and it was interesting to me to watch how the witnesses at the committee divided. On the one hand, many of the advocates in the health care community and the addictions and substance abuse community, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Motherisk, a whole series of advocacy groups and health professionals talked about the importance of labelling as part of a comprehensive strategy.
On the other side of the coin, industry representatives talked about the fact that labelling would actually impact on their economic benefits and impact on jobs in the community. I would argue that we need to take both of those pieces and come together, so that we are looking at how jobs might be affected, but also taking seriously into consideration the health and welfare of citizens in our country.
(1200)
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing that I was sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.
I would like to thank the member for Yellowhead for bringing forward this motion today, so that we can actually have this debate in the House. Obviously it took place in the health committee, but now it is taking place in the House. I think it provides a good opportunity for all members to express their viewpoint on this very important public health issue.
I would like to recognize the work that is being done by my colleague from Nanaimo--Cowichan, the NDP health critic, and the role that she has played in the committee of basically sticking to the principles. As she said, in responding to a question from my other colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh who asked why the health committee of Parliament decided not to proceed with any further proactive measures to ensure that labelling took place, the witnesses were divided.
There were witnesses who were advocates and who understood the importance and the imperative of this public policy health proposal. Then there were industry representatives. It has become very clear that in the health committee a majority of members, in fact I believe all but the member from the NDP, the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan, voted down a proposal to proceed with the labelling. Instead, the committee adopted this report that is now before us which is to have a further consultation and report through Health Canada with stakeholder groups.
That is fine as far as it goes, but I think it begs the question as to why this issue has been stalled for so long and why so little has been done? I want to draw to the attention of the House that my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, brought a private member's motion before the House several years and it was approved. Her motion to place warnings and advisories on alcohol beverages was approved by the House. Since that time very little progress has been made by the federal government and Health Canada to move on that motion passed by Parliament to have labelling.
I think that is very disconcerting. It is one of these issues where there are a lot of vested interests involved, but it is critical that as members of Parliament representing our constituents and representing the broad public health of the community, that we not lose sight of the importance of requiring a comprehensive strategy of which labelling should be one component.
I represent the riding of Vancouver East. In my community we are dealing with very huge issues of discrimination, poverty, people who are facing unemployment, who are working in part time jobs, people who are living below the poverty line, and who have very poor access to health care in the city. We have seen massive privatization take place in British Columbia under Gordon Campbell who has allowed it to happen. We have seen this government be completely silent on that question and not do anything to enforce the Canada Health Act.
What this produces is an environment where we are basically creating a society where there are people who have access to resources, often private resources, they have good jobs and good incomes, but there are growing numbers of people who are now joining a part of society where the gap between wealth and poverty is growing.
Certainly, in a community like mine in east Vancouver, we can see the visibility of that. We can see the impact of that in the local community in terms of lack of housing, lack of accessible affordable health care, and lack of education.
I raise those issues because to me they are all part of the environment that creates a situation where there are a growing number of families who have very little access to real resources and support by which to make informed decisions about what they do to live in a healthy community.
In fact, we have removed many of those supports over the years, so families become more and more isolated. More and more people live below the poverty line. They struggle to make ends meet every month. They struggle to keep food on the table and feed their kids.
(1205)
It is within that environment in my community and I know in many communities across the country that we need to address these fundamental health issues. We need to look at the determinants of health. We need to look at the things that will help produce healthy communities in terms of housing, resources, income, stable work, family support and child care. These are the basics for healthy and livable neighbourhoods.
I very much see this issue of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder as a part of that debate, because I think we can see this as we experience a society where more and more dysfunction takes place. We have people feeling the stresses of everyday life and trying to keep their families together. We can see that with a lack of support and resources people make decisions, and they may be engaging in practices such as consuming alcohol without the awareness about what the direct consequences are for unborn children and for children as they are growing up.
These are very critical issues and I feel a sense of dismay. I have now been in this House for almost eight years. I do not know how many throne speeches I have heard, but I have heard enough of them, and I think I can safely say that every single Speech from the Throne that I have heard has addressed this issue. It has always supposedly been on the government's agenda to address this issue, particularly within the aboriginal community where we have seen the incidence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder happen at very alarming rates because of the lack of supports.
It is very alarming to look at this place and hear the speeches and the fine words laid out in those speeches when the result is that really nothing takes place. I have to say for the NDP members here that we are very concerned about the direction the government has taken in sort of moving off this agenda, from the big picture of not enforcing the Canada Health Act and allowing privatization to take place to other parts of the picture. The government is being completely passive and non-active on this issue of FASD.
This has tragic consequences in local communities. I think we have to question ourselves. What is the weight and what is the balance we give to different interests who come before us?
I think there are legitimate concerns from the industry about labelling. There are questions that industry has, but surely there are also some broader principles at work here in terms of public policy and health policy. Surely if we can adopt those principles then we should be able to figure out, with all the resources that we have in this place, how to design a system that can mitigate the effects the industry is concerned about while still bringing forward a strong public message about the dangers of alcohol consumption that can result in FASD.
Surely we are able to accomplish that. This is not an insurmountable task. I think what it comes back to is a lack of political will to carry this out. With this government, this lack of political will is something that we are unfortunately all too familiar with. How many times do we have to hear about the commitment to this and that, whether it is child care, health care, housing, education or help for aboriginal people? How many times do we have to hear this rhetoric but see a complete lack of follow-through? We do end up feeling very cynical about what this government's record is all about. I think Canadians feel very cynical about that record.
While we are here today to support this report or the need for a report as far as it goes, let us be very clear that this issue could have already been dealt with if this Liberal government had decided to act even when the member for Winnipeg Centre had her motion approved by this House several years ago.
(1210)
Here we have yet another example of this Liberal government dragging its feet, not following through on its agenda and dropping the ball on a significant public policy issue that has to do with the health and welfare of our children and our families. So yes, we will have this debate here in the House, but it is this government that has dropped the ball on this issue.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment and ask a question of the member. She talked a lot about how it is important for government to realize how the addictions are troublesome and how labelling will help.
In our province, our provincial government owns all the liquor stores. I am wondering if she would agree, then, that probably it should put up big signs to tell people that whatever they buy out of those stores is definitely a detriment to their health.
I want her to comment because in our province we seem to encourage drinking. Our premier wanted to lower the liquor age. He is putting up three brand new beautiful buildings throughout the province. While we are closing schools and hospitals we are going to have three of the nicest looking liquor stores in the nation, I am sure, because the NDP does believe that people should have choice. Now we are down to the same topic as liquor. That is all these stores sell. The government has a monopoly. It controls these liquor stores. Should there be warning signals and warning signs posted on their doors as well?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is from the province of Saskatchewan. I have to say that I think it is far preferable that we have government control of liquor licensing and liquor distribution.
I come from a province where the Liberal government has for years tried to privatize liquor distribution and basically get rid of all the rules. It was only because of a massive public outcry in the community that the government had to back off from its privatization plans. I think the Saskatchewan model, where at least there is a clear accountability back to the government for liquor regulation, licensing and distribution, is a preferable environment to operate in.
In terms of notices or labelling in that province, it is obviously for the people of Saskatchewan to decide how they want to urge their government to follow through on that.
I think that what we are debating here today is the critical role of the federal government in taking up its responsibility. This is part of the problem. We can look at it province by province, but the question before us today is what we should be doing in this federal jurisdiction to ensure that there is a comprehensive strategy, to ensure that we have education, awareness and prevention right across the country.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Vancouver East to comment on this statement because I know that her riding is one of the ridings in Canada with the lowest income per capita. One of the things that came out in 1992 in the standing committee report on fetal alcohol, where Mrs. Betty MacPhee, the manager of Vancouver's Crabtree Corner, was a witness, was that every woman should know that “there is no known safe amount of alcohol” for women who are pregnant.
Subsequently, results of a national survey done for Health Canada by Environics said that part of the major findings of the study was again that there was “confusion about the safety of 'small amounts' of alcohol”. This was many years later so clearly there had not been an improvement in women's knowledge. I wonder if the member for Vancouver East could comment on how labelling would benefit her community in that many people there probably struggle a bit with literacy and just finding out information.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the organization the member refers to is a family child care centre in the downtown east side. This is a place that is overwhelmed by the stresses and the demands that are placed on families in that community.
The member makes a very good point. It seems to me that labelling and providing public information about the devastating effects of consuming alcohol during pregnancy is one measure. It must be part of a comprehensive strategy. As well, information must be delivered in a way that is accessible, noticeable and usable to people. I think labelling is a part of that, but it cannot be the only part of that. We need to have information that is delivered right at the grassroots in terms of community education and awareness campaigns.
Some of these organizations work tremendously hard under very difficult circumstances to get that message out, but if we had a clear strategy from the federal government to assist that I think those organizations would be a lot better off in working that message in the local communities and bringing about the understanding and awareness for women who are pregnant.
(1215)
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we could say a lot of words here. A lot could be said about why the private member's bill did not succeed through committee in its current form. More importantly, though, I think we should talk about why this process did work and how it did work. Perhaps it did not achieve the outcome that we would all have liked, especially the mover, the member for Mississauga South, who has done a lot of arduous work on this. He has done a lot of hard work for a number of years. He is an expert in the matter.
A lot of people in the House supported sending the bill to committee so that it would have full study. I think we have to see that where the system worked for the private member's bill was in bringing an increased level of awareness to the House, to all parties and to Canadians to make sure that people understand the horror of diseases like FASD, fetal alcohol syndrome, the risks in the operation of machinery, the danger to general health with misuse of alcohol and other drugs, and the effects that improper use has on families and on communities generally.
We have had a very good debate on that. Now we have a follow-up to one element of it. We listened to reports. Committees should do that. All parliamentarians from all parties worked very hard at the committee. Perhaps Canadians become disenchanted with parliamentarians when they watch the House and listen to the arguments, name calling, screaming and accusations, but I think those who followed the committee would have seen people working very hard and very seriously, asking good questions of a lot of experts and of people with their protected interests, of course, who came to the committee, were able to testify and were asked questions by all members in a very good manner.
At the end of the day the decision was made that perhaps it was not the time to go alone in a stand-alone fashion on labelling, but that we needed a comprehensive strategy. The committee reported on that and the member for Yellowhead put a motion to the committee, which was supported nearly unanimously if not unanimously, if my memory serves me. It was very well supported that we get a report and get some action from the Department of Health, that the Department of Health appear and talk about its comprehensive strategy on FASD and that we see what it is preparing.
I think that is very good. If we get that element out and get people working together in the right direction, then the member's work is not lost. I believe he worked very hard. We cannot lose it. We cannot have that work go for nothing. No member of Parliament and no Canadian benefits from that. We have to build on the work that has been done to date and look forward to a comprehensive strategy in the future, which may very well include labelling. It has to have the participation of all players. The alcohol industry, I understand and I certainly hope, has been served notice that it has to be a player at the table. It is the product the industry profits from that is a risk to our society in many ways and society has to be informed. The question remains on what is the best way to inform.
We are now talking about one element of it, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, about which the member for Mississauga South has written and with which he is very familiar. He will be encouraged, I hope, by the moves that will be made by government and by other sectors of our society over the coming years. I hope we see a day when we have the complete elimination of FASD; certainly we have to see a reduction and that starts with awareness.
It is our intention to be present at the committee with the future strategic directions of the government's activities on fetal alcohol syndrome, as stated in the motion. The government will support the motion. We will present a document that will highlight the involvement of key partners and stakeholders, as well as the gaps, the challenges and the opportunities in current fetal alcohol spectrum disorder activities. We will speak on how we plan to address these challenges and opportunities.
The health portfolio has been working with other departments and agencies, the provinces and territories and aboriginal groups as well as a host of community based partners on a comprehensive approach to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Its objective is to address the critical gaps and pressures caused by FASD and provide individuals and organizations working with groups that are at risk with the tools and resources they need to reach and educate prospective parents.
(1220)
As profound as the impact may be for affected individuals and their families, the cost of FASD is steep for society. Canadian taxpayers will spend an additional $1.5 million over the lifetime of each affected individual in extra health care, education, welfare, policing and criminal justice costs.
Consider that given the incidents of 9.1 cases of FASD per thousand births, there are an estimated 280,000 people in Canada currently living with this fully preventable disability. We believe that the most effective approach is one which focuses on awareness and on prevention. That is what the experts and academics who have studied this issue tell us works best.
For example, research shows that women are more likely to turn to their health care providers for information on alcohol during pregnancy. This reinforces that it is important to educate the range of health care professionals. Supporting health and allied professionals will enable them to deal more effectively with their people at risk and help reduce the risk factors.
To this, a lot has been accomplished already. Among the many activities completed to date, the department has published a framework for action on FASD. The Public Health Agency of Canada also conducted and published a national survey of health care professionals on their knowledge and attitudes on FASD. It has also supported the development and publication of Canadian diagnostic guidelines to assist teams of health care providers in identifying affected individuals.
In 2000 and again in 2002, Health Canada conducted public opinion surveys to gauge public awareness and general knowledge about FASD and alcohol use during pregnancy. The intelligence gathered through this process helped to shape common messages on FASD. Those were developed by the department in partnership with the provinces and territories. Posters and pamphlets using these messages were prepared and distributed to the public. Health Canada subsequently conducted limited awareness campaigns using these materials.
That is not all. Working in partnership with Thyme Maternity and News Canada, the department had newspaper articles published aimed at increasing public awareness of FASD and the need to avoid alcohol during pregnancy. Of particular importance to organizations working with high risk groups, the Public Health Agency has funded eight projects the country through the national FASD strategic projects fund. Through these projects, tools, resources and training programs are being developed and are used by community-based organizations to prevent FASD and to improve the prospects of people living with this disability.
A lot of work is also being done at regional levels to support local projects that will help reduce the incidents of FASD and improve outcomes for those affected.
This is just the beginning. Work currently underway will create greater knowledge and understanding of the impacts of pre-natal alcohol exposure and support prospective parents and affected individuals and their families. For instance, focus group studies are being conducted among women to gauge their acceptance of the current messages. The information obtained from these studies will help form a healthy pregnancy campaign, which is under development, targeting women of child-bearing age with health messages around pregnancy, including alcohol and FASD.
Another sample is a series of literature reviews being undertaken that focuses on alcohol use by pregnant women and the alcohol consumption rates of women of child-bearing age. Research is also being carried out on FASD training opportunities and public awareness activities across Canada.
Momentum is building all across the country to address many of the challenges Bill C-206 proposes to resolve. National multi-stakeholders meetings were recently held in Ottawa, including one to follow up on the publication of the diagnostic guidelines. A symposium on FASD was held as part of ongoing discussions on Canada's alcohol strategy and a national framework in substance use and abuse.
A survey of allied professionals' knowledge, attitudes and behaviours regarding FAS is currently being planned. The result of this survey will provide baseline information on FASD knowledge among such groups as correctional officers, teachers, social workers, nurses and other front line workers dealing with affected individuals. The public health function that they provide is paramount to FASD harm reduction and prevention.
(1225)
An analysis of disability laws and regulations and the evidence necessary to declare FASD as a disability is also being compiled. The first nations and Inuit health branch of Health Canada is developing culturally appropriate screening and diagnostic tools. There will be a new call for proposals for the national FASD strategic project funds.
This says nothing of the plethora of activities taking place in the regions of the country. Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada are working hard to ensure that their efforts merge seamlessly with those of community based organizations in the provinces and territories. They are ensuring that prevention and awareness measures are not limited to the health care domain.
FASD is an issue that cuts across sectors and jurisdictions. All these activities contribute to a comprehensive approach that seeks to reduce the risks and tragic consequences of prenatal alcohol exposure. That, as witness after witness told the Standing Committee on Health, is exactly what is needed if we are to produce meaningful results.
Make no mistake. This is precisely what the Minister of Health has indicated he intends to do. All parties are well aware that the health minister is serious about preventing FASD. He has told the House of Commons that his department is working toward a comprehensive strategy for FASD based on proven and established best practices.
Do not forget that while I have focused on challenges specific to FASD, I remind my hon. colleagues that there is a broad range of important programs at play, including Canada's drug strategy, the alcohol and drug treatment and rehabilitation program, the drug strategy community initiative funds and the national native alcohol and drug abuse program, in addition to the national fetal spectrum disorder initiative.
It is important to remind ourselves that while the committee did not see fit to go through with the bill as proposed, the committee did not say, or I certainly did not as a member of the committee, that there was not a benefit to alcohol labelling. I believe what has been said by most witnesses at the committee and by the committee's decision at the end is that it is not in the interest of Canadians to proceed on a one-off basis on this one element, but that it is important to have a strategy. It is important to inform Canadians on the risk of alcohol abuse and drug abuse generally and to give the tools to the communities so they can help those affected individuals and so they can identify those who are at risk.
We should all be thankful of the hard work done by the member for Mississauga South, the information that it gives to the public, the baseline work that it provides to committee in the House of Commons and the anticipation of resolutions to these very serious matters in the future.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by indicating to all members and to the public, which is very interested in this subject, that the concurrence motion that I have on the order paper with regard to Bill C-206, which would allow it to continue to report stage and third reading, is still on the order paper. As a result of having this concurrence motion, which will require a comprehensive strategy by June 2, I will defer in calling that motion on the bill itself and the eighth report of the health committee until we receive the comprehensive strategy. If it calls for health warning labels, I would be more than happy to move the concurrence motion so we could continue working on Bill C-206.
Therefore, for those who are interested the bill is not dead.
I want to ask the member a question about a matter which appeared in the Globe and Mail on February 7. There was an interview with one of the representatives of the beverage alcohol industry. The individual was quoted as saying that there had been extensive meetings with Health Canada in regard to the framework and strategies, even to the extent that discussions were held on labelling beverage alcohol with regard to ingredients and also allergens.
It appears Health Canada already is quite engaged with the issue of labelling as it relates to ingredients and allergens. It would then raise this question, and I hope the member could shed some light on it. If the argument is that labelling does not work, why would we consider labelling of ingredients and allergens, but not consider information with regard to the risks associated with misuse of alcohol?
(1230)
Hon. Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, again I do not want to defend either side of the argument. I supported the motion presented in the House that we not proceed with the bill at this current time based on the evidence that was provided. I understood that this type of labelling would not be effective as a stand-alone measure.
On the question of other labelling for other purposes, there are rules and regulations under the Food and Drugs Act that allergens have to be reported on and labelled. While I have not researched this matter, I presume that would be to what the member has referred.
Many people spoke on the question of labelling at committee. This is particularly true when it comes to questions like FASD and other problems associated with the abuse of alcohol. We have to reach the individuals at risk before they buy the bottle because often that decision will not change at that time.
For women of child-bearing age, who are considering pregnancy, it is important they have that understanding in the information and education provided to them prior to them buying a bottle. We heard the evidence of experts that it was too later for people who had problems, those who we refer commonly to as alcoholics, or women who continued to drink through pregnancy because of an alcohol or drug dependence. We have to work with them before it becomes a problem.
Those are elements that were provided by experts who appeared at committee on the strategy on comprehensive drug use. In this motion we talk about FASD. However, let us remember we heard at committee, and it was brought to light by the private member's bill, that there was more than the risk of FASD from the abuse of alcohol. There are general health risks such as liver disease, heart disease and cancer. There is also the risk in operating machinery while intoxicated or drinking and driving. Mothers Against Drunk Driving made an excellent presentation on those risks and costs to society and families due to alcohol abuse. Many of us know first-hand of the excesses of alcohol and the stress it can put on the family, the community, individuals and all our systems.
When I consider a comprehensive drug strategy, I go beyond FASD. This motion deals with FASD which is a very important element within that strategy.
(1235)
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
I commend the member for Mississauga South for fighting on this issue for so long. His fight against the negative effects of irresponsible alcohol use, fetal alcohol syndrome disorder and drinking and driving, to name only two, has been inspirational.
The member deserves much credit for the momentum building toward a comprehensive FASD strategy. I and the Conservative Party wholeheartedly share his concern about FASD and drunk driving. My party supports the intent of the member's bill but, unfortunately, not the bill itself. Simply put, it has not been proven yet to be the best way to address the problem it seeks to solve.
The eighth report of the health committee recognizes the ineffectiveness of alcohol labelling, highlights the costs associated with it and recommends that the House proceed with a comprehensive FASD strategy that may or may not include warning labels.
The Standing Committee on Health voted almost unanimously in favour of a more comprehensive strategy. In fact, the vote was ten to one.
The eighth report contained reasons why the committee recommended that a label only strategy proposed by Bill C-206 be replaced with new comprehensive FASD and drunk driving strategies. All witnesses and committee members agreed that FASD and drinking and driving were serious problems that demanded action.
We know that these issues cause untold suffering on those affected by them. However very little evidence was put forward to indicate that alcohol labels would be an effective way of preventing either FASD or drunk driving. Labelling certainly works for a variety of purposes but for FASD and drunk driving, given the intended targets of the messaging, labelling may be ineffective.
The implementation of Bill C-206 would have cost the federal government significant dollars to implement and maintain. A diversion of these resources to labelling at the expense of targeted programs may not be cost effective. The implementation of the bill would have likely raised trade and charter questions which would have imposed further costs on the government.
Many witnesses calling for a comprehensive FASD strategy did not feel that the first dollars should be committed to labelling initiatives.
There was constant concern that if the government moved ahead with labelling that it would be able to claim that the problem was addressed and would not feel compelled to do what was really needed. The cost of labelling would have crippled many smaller breweries, distillers and wineries.
A leaked cabinet document indicated that Health Canada was aware of the ineffectiveness of labels in preventing FASD and drunk driving. In the letter, however, Health Canada acknowledged that to not support Bill C-206 would look bad politically.
This is no way to draft legislation. This is no way to govern. Laws should not be justified based on how they will be perceived. Laws should be passed based on sound research and well proven facts.
The majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee told members that established targeted programs currently in place to address FASD and drunk driving had a much better chance at success than warning labels.
The Conservative Party of Canada believes that a comprehensive strategy that may or may not include warning labels is the best way to tackle FASD. We therefore support the motion to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Health. The Conservative Party will demand that the alcohol beverage industry play an active role in the new strategy. Although the industry has played a part in previous initiatives, it must do more and will therefore be called upon to take a leading role in a comprehensive strategy.
(1240)
The committee supported the motion by the member for Yellowhead that the committee call upon the government to present to the Standing Committee on Health a new strategy for the prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder to be developed by Health Canada and its stakeholder groups by June 2, 2005. The motion will be tabled at a later date.
The health minister has indicated that he is serious about preventing fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and has told the House of Commons that his department is working toward a comprehensive strategy for FASD based on proven and established best practices. The Conservative Party hopes that Health Canada will develop, release and implement that strategy as soon as possible and the motion by the member for Yellowhead will hopefully accelerate that process.
As a member of Parliament for Manitoba, FASD is a serious problem. I was also involved with Teens Against Drinking and Driving at a very young age. In fact, the program was set up at my high school so I am aware of these challenges. However I want to ensure that if efforts are made they are not done in a haphazard way but in a manner that will ensure we get the maximum impact on the population that these programs will be targeting.
Therefore I hope that we will work together as a nation to reduce the occurrences of FASD and drinking and driving to basically nothing. Only together will we make that happen. I ask that we all support the member's intent of Bill C-206 but that we wait to see a comprehensive strategy that may or may not include alcohol labelling. We have to do the work required.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his intervention in this matter and would ask him if he could tell the House how this matter has directly impacted Canadians.
Sometimes when we talk about policy in the House, certainly if we are not intimately involved in the issue as my colleague is, we can lose sight of how real Canadians are impacted. I would be interested in my colleague's comments on that dimension of the issue.
Mr. Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting aspects of the bill that struck me as helpful was that the labelling targeted two areas of harm by alcohol consumption that are completely preventable. There is no need for babies to be born with FAS and there is no need for drunk drivers to be on the roads. We all know that each year too many people are killed by drinking and driving. We all know the terrible effect that fetal alcohol syndrome has on the population, especially the most vulnerable part of our population, the children.
Not only is it terrible for a child to have that health challenge at the beginning of life but it is also important that prevention measures are implemented so we do not have to deal with children with FAS. For the unfortunate children who do have FAS, we need to provide the resources to allow those children to live meaningful and productive lives. However that is a heavy drain on the resources in society for something that is completely preventable. It seems that we could do a lot more as Canadians.
Alcohol labels, in and of themselves, may or may not reduce the effects but we know that the existing programs reduce the effects. It would be great to have a program that incorporates the best policies from all stakeholders to ensure that FAS and drinking and driving are reduced to zero.
(1245)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia for his thoughtful and constructive participation in the hearings at committee and the counsel he gave to all his colleagues on the issues facing us and the difficult question about warning labels and the likelihood of their affecting behaviour as opposed to simply informing people or improving their awareness.
Some suggestion was made that labels in a vacuum would not do anything special other than satisfy the obligation or the duty to inform.
Should Health Canada table with the House a comprehensive strategy laying out its argument that the strategy would be enhanced by having health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages, would my colleague support Bill C-206 calling for those labels?
Mr. Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, if a comprehensive strategy is put forward I hope it would include elements that would require Bill C-206 to be redundant. If they decide that labels are necessary, then that needs to be given serious consideration.
The one thing that really struck me during the hearings was the fact that one of the industry representatives said that if it were part of our constructive strategy and it were shown that labels would in fact change behaviour then they would have no objections to doing so. That buy in by stakeholders is important and that may be one of the great legacies of their participation in this process.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the discussion on this very important issue calling for concurrence of the House in the ninth report of the health committee. This basically it is a motion where the health committee is asking that Health Canada work with stakeholders to complete and present a comprehensive strategy and plan to address fetal alcohol syndrome.
I will begin by acknowledging the member for Mississauga South. I did mention this earlier in a small intervention but I think all members appreciate the efforts of the member over many years to advance this cause before the House. I personally, as a member of the health committee who sat through the debate and discussion, am pleased that it came before the committee. I think we all learned a lot about it and I am hopeful that we will see this issue advanced.
What is fetal alcohol syndrome? It is the leading cause of developmental disability among Canadian children. It was first established as a medical diagnosis in 1973. That makes it rather modern as something that has been recognized in the medical world.
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, is not one set of symptoms alone. It is a spectrum of disabilities associated with prenatal exposure to alcohol. The issues range from very mild symptoms to very severe mental disability and deformity.
While preventable, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a complex, multifaceted public health and social issue. It affects Canadians from all walks of life but, interestingly enough, we know that there are some communities that have been affected far more significantly and more profoundly. Certainly in our first nations and Inuit communities it has been disproportionately devastating.
The bottom line is that alcohol for a pregnant woman is a disaster and the only way to ensure or guarantee a safe pregnancy is to avoid alcohol entirely. However the message is not that a single glass of wine for a pregnant woman will be a disaster in itself. It is the multiple drinks, the binge drinking or the heavy dose of alcohol that can be extremely destructive to the fetus.
There is a huge range of serious physical and mental defects. It varies with the amount, the timing and the frequency of alcohol consumed and depends upon a number of factors, perhaps the genetics of the fetus and the mother or the overall state of health.
What has been done? I think this is significant. Since the early eighties there has been a patchwork of awareness campaigns and activities that have grown to support women at risk as well as to meet the needs of people in communities affected by FASD. More research, monitoring and evaluation of individual initiatives have increased in recent years.
Some of the programs that came before committee were quite significant. In the province of Quebec, statistics show that fetal alcohol syndrome is even more prevalent in Quebec than in other provinces. The province has responded with a very good educational program. Some of the tools that Éduc'alcool has put out for public awareness are actually very good. They are making an impact. They are out in the schools. They are being used in the communities and in the clinics and there is a real effort to get the information out.
The program promotes moderation; how to behave with our children, whatever their age; and that prevention begins with the family. It provides very good practical advice for parents on how to behave with children, whatever their age and whatever the risk to which the children are exposed.
It also provides advice on how to interact with 8 to 11 year olds and what type of messaging parents should have. It provides advice on how to behave with 12 to 14 year olds who are now increasingly in the risk range as their possibility of pregnancy rises. It also provides advice on dealing with 15 and 16 year olds. Statistics show that some 24% of 16 year olds drink alcohol just about every week. These, I believe, are Quebec statistics because it is the Éduc'alcool program that is providing the information. Just 23% of 16 year olds have never had a drink. They are at risk.
(1250)
The program goes on to give advice on how to behave with 17 to 18 year olds who increasingly are vulnerable to peer pressure and have more access and more economic capability of accessing alcohol in quantities that could be destructive.
Some of these programs include influencing young people not to drink and drive and to make the right choice.
Efforts have been made in recent years to address education, important initiatives to getting the information out.
It is estimated that 9 babies in 1,000 born in Canada have fetal alcohol syndrome, which is about 1 in 100. It is the leading cause of developmental disability. The costs to society are high. Without taking into account the lost potential and opportunity, which is not measurable for individuals, the direct costs have been estimated to be about $1.5 million per person. That is a huge cost to society.
It is also known that we are facing a lifelong disability when a fetus is damaged at this early developmental stage, that it can be prevented and that we need to be taking some action to reduce the cost of morbidity and the terrible affliction on society.
The essence of Bill C-206 was that we should go out and label alcoholic beverages. I think there are some advantages to be later addressing this with other nations because we have with the United States, for example, some 15 years' experience with labels. The member for Mississauga South had brought us examples of labels from some products. The label on a beer bottle, for example, was around the neck. It was in a text that was either vertically orientated or in a colour that made it nearly invisible. We might wonder why some of those labels are ineffective but when we look at them it is clear that we need a microscope and some special lighting to read the message at all.
We saw other labels that were brought in that were clearly visible. The problem is that after a whole range of initiatives were tried, no one could really provide the committee with any evidence that these labelling initiatives had actually had an impact. In fact, it seems that in spite of the labelling things have become worse and the incidents of fetal alcohol syndrome continues to increase.
The significant thing about Canada addressing the latter issues is that in spite of the fact that some people think it is a good idea to put labels on there and it might feel better that we are doing something, we do not want to take an initiative just so we can feel a little better if the initiative will not be effective. It seems to me that the government has enough initiatives that turn out to be ineffective or misdirected.
We might mention some common examples, like a gun registry that turns out to be ineffective or misdirected, or a range of other issues that are actually misdirected, or the criminal justice with concurrent sentences. Someone gets a five year sentence but in fact receives concurrent sentences. People have committed crimes that are maybe two crimes that call for five years, but they get only a five year sentence and then get statutory release and are released early.
We have a lot of messaging that goes out that turns out to be ineffective.
On the labelling issue, while we want labelling and there may be a way to make labels effective, the evidence is not clear that is the primary direction in which we should be going, and the committee has therefore asked for a comprehensive plan.
We were startled, as committee members, to hear that although Health Canada officials had been working on a strategy for several years and meeting with stakeholders, they were giving indications that although they felt they were closer to a strategy for fetal alcohol syndrome, they felt they were nowhere near a comprehensive plan for the whole range of managing alcohol.
What the committee wants and what we want to propose is that Health Canada put some emphasis on this matter and come up with a comprehensive plan that would include a wide range of issues.
I want to bring up an issue that came out of committee that many people listening to the debate may not have heard. I actually raised the issue with the member for Mississauga South earlier in a question but I think he missed the point I was trying to raise.
The point I was trying to raise came out of a report to the committee by Dr. Gideon Koren, who is involved with Motherisk and the Hospital for Sick Children. The good news is that after some 10 years he reported that some 15 studies in animals showed that administering antioxidant vitamins, vitamin E, vitamin C, vitamin A, lowers or eliminates the risk to the fetus in animals. Thank goodness CIHR has funded some studies to demonstrate this in human beings.
(1255)
A little good news came out of the study and it is an inexpensive way to begin protecting people. The information did not surprise me because we know antioxidant vitamins mitigate a whole range of chronic degenerative diseases. It would be very good news indeed if we could recommend and make sure that people at risk, particularly young mothers and women who are consuming, were getting antioxidant vitamins to reduce the risk.
We are asking the House to endorse a comprehensive strategy which might include labelling, include greater public awareness and put some real funds into making sure we advance a program that works.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague very carefully and I agree with him when he says that Health Canada has been working on this for years. It is very true. I also agree with my colleague from Mississauga South, who is right to say that after ten years of studies and evaluations, it is time to take vigorous action to fight the tragic but avoidable effects of fetal alcohol syndrome and excessive alcohol consumption by young people, and I would add to that, drunk driving.
Anyone who calls for a national strategy is calling for procrastination. We were told here just yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Health, that of the $1.2 billion the Health Infoway program was given, only $51 million has been spent so far. Well, that program was created five years ago.
Insofar as the child care system is concerned, $700 million will be invested in a trust. It will obviously be hard to access the funds. If I remember correctly, a few weeks ago my colleague and his party were decrying the child care system approach.
What I would like to know from him is whether it is not better for each province to have its own policy, under which each could respond to its own needs and problems. With a national strategy, we have the same old problem: the approach is too centralizing and the strategies that are needed to solve the problems never get developed.
(1300)
[English]
Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the member's point regarding trust funds. I do not know whether she was referring to the money that was set aside for hepatitis C, for example, to compensate people. That is a very good example of another misdirected program which promised to deliver help to people in great need and here, after all these years, we find that of the $1.2 billion, over $1 billion still remains in that fund. We are still discussing in this House how we might administer help to people. If that was an illustration of another ineffective program, she was making a very good point.
On the question of whether a national strategy would be better or whether it would be better to allow provinces to develop their own strategies, I want to commend the province of Quebec for recognizing a problem and advancing the Éduc'alcool program. It was very encouraging to see the work it has already done. Perhaps a national strategy would want to incorporate a lot of what Quebec is already doing. However I think the issue is big enough but the provinces are so strapped for resources because of the huge costs of health care that they are basically treading water. I do not see us advancing this without a very comprehensive national strategy that would include labelling and a whole range of other educational materials.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. I did misunderstand his previous point. Motherisk has come up with interesting research that analyzes stools of newborns which shows that the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy is actually 10 times higher than they previously thought through interviews. I thought we were talking about that.
In any event, could the member please tell us about the funding of Éduc'alcool?
Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the funding, which I believe is a penny a bottle, but it is a small amount collected at the distribution centres where alcohol is being sold that goes into the program. I am sure that is a very valuable asset.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, having taught school for 21 years, there are many fetal alcohol syndrome children who are in the school system. As we know, FAS is a leading cause of development disability.
Could the member please comment on how FAS impacts on the school system?
Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, there are huge costs to the education system in trying to manage the very complicated problems associated with these kids as well as trying to deal with autistic children. The House has been facing that issue as well.
Many people have been looking for a means to address this question. It is time we found answers because the educational system and parents cannot carry this alone. We need a comprehensive strategy to address these issues and reduce the challenge these children face.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite an expert on natural health products. During committee hearings we heard that some research had been done to decrease the damage in fetal alcohol spectrum disorder by using vitamins properly.
Does the member foresee the use of vitamins in prevention or perhaps added to certain products as part of the comprehensive strategy?
Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, the member who has introduced a private member's bill in the House on natural health products that would change the way we regulate them.
I was very hopeful when I heard the announcements about the study, not only to diagnose these damages early in meconium stool, but also to find out if we could reduce the morbidity rate by getting antioxident vitamins to women at risk in their child-bearing years. This would ensure they would have adequate antioxident vitamins to protect their fetus and to ensure they not only would enjoy good health themselves but also to protect their children from this very serious condition. That is something--
(1305)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on a motion which would accept the report of the Standing Committee on Health on Bill C-206. First, I would like to congratulate the member for Mississauga South for his very diligent work on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol.
What the committee dealt with, when it reviewed the private member's bill, was the idea of putting warning labels on bottles of beer, wine and spirits warning against the consumption of alcohol. The member's intent is very well-founded. We know that he has taken a very keen interest in the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome and has made quite a study of it. We know he has very good intentions when it comes to his bill.
However, we need to focus on the process where his bill was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Health. That committee had witnesses from a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups. In the wisdom of committee members, after hearing all the testimony, they decided that the bill should be defeated and that the committee ask the Minister of Health to present a comprehensive plan to the committee by June 2, outlining a strategy for helping people who drank irresponsibly, including drinking and driving and fetal alcohol syndrome. That was a very sound recommendation.
The question of the labelling came up and pre-empted the review of the Department of Health and the Minister of Health of a very thoughtful drug strategy. We should not rush ahead with putting labels on bottles of spirits, wine and beer until we have a look at that comprehensive program. A caution is also warranted because there does not seem to be any evidence, notwithstanding the member for Mississauga South's best intentions, that putting warning labels on bottles will have any impact whatsoever.
In fact, it will put an additional cost burden on industry without any appreciable benefit. We are trying to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving, drinking while pregnant and drinking while operating heavy machinery. The information in studies that have been done in Canada tells me that 96% of women know they should not drink while pregnant. If we survey pregnant women, 99% know they should not drink while pregnant. If we do the same survey about drinking and driving or drinking and operating heavy equipment, a full 95% or thereabouts of people know that they should not drink if they are going to operate heavy equipment or drive.
If the objective is to educate people, people already know this. Therefore, I wonder what we will accomplish. What we will accomplish is that we will put an additional burden on the beer industry, the wine industry and the spirit industry. They will have to move resources from programs that already work, and we know they work very well.
For example, at committee we heard a witness who formed a company called TAXIGUY. The firm operates across Canada. If people want to get a lift from a bar because they have had too much to drink, TAXIGUY has a 1-800 number. Drivers will pick them up, drive them home and the next morning they will come back and help them find their car. That program is funded partly by companies like Molson and Labatt and partly by MADD.
The industry would have to review all these programs. I know the beer industry for example does some tremendous work with fetal alcohol syndrome. It has worked with a group called Motherisk which has a hotline for pregnant women who can phone and talk about drinking and pregnancy.
(1310)
There is a host of responsible drinking programs that the beer industry and other industries support. The industry would have to review those. We could ask review those for what purpose? It would be so they could absorb the cost of putting labels on bottles where there is no evidence to suggest that these have any effect or impact. They have had warning labels in the United States for many years and there is no evidence whatsoever that labels have any impact.
If we look at the mechanics of it, what about if one goes to a bar and gets a glass of draft beer? What if one goes to a reception and gets a glass of wine poured? There are no labels. I think the impact of this measure is very dubious at most.
What we really need to focus attention on, in my judgment, is the drinker who drinks in excess and drives for example, and these are repeaters. We need to deal with them. It is not the casual drinker who is the problem. The same thing applies to women who are pregnant. It has been shown statistically that some 60% or thereabouts of women who drink when they are pregnant will do it again and again. They will repeat that kind of behaviour. Putting a label on a bottle I do not think will have any impact.
For these reasons, I will support the motion. The health committee looked at this very carefully. Let us accept its recommendation. Let us get a strategy from the Department of Health and then see if labels are part of that strategy or not.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
[English]
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Petitions
Diabetes
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a large number of petitions. Juvenile type 1 diabetes creates many devastating health consequences that produce not only a human cost but a large financial burden on the Canadian health care system.
The petitioners pray that the federal government would secure federal funding targeted specifically to juvenile type 1 diabetes research of $25 million a year for the next five years.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions containing several thousand names. The petitioners are from British Columbia and Alberta. They are very passionate and determined that the traditional definition of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, be retained by Parliament.
They pray and petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman.
(1315)
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present two petitions signed hundreds of people from my constituency of Okanagan--Shuswap.
The petitioners note that the traditional definition of marriage has been changed by the courts and not by the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament. They call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others as the best foundation for families in the raising of children.
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with a number of signatures from constituents who pray that Parliament defines marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Health
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition calling upon the House of Commons to demand that the federal government implement and fund a national strategy on cancer control in collaboration with the provinces and all other stakeholders.
* * *
Marriage
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition on the definition of marriage. The petitioners ask that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting petitions from my riding of Vancouver Island North with over 100 signatures asking that Parliament pass legislation to recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The petitioners characterize marriage as the best foundation for families and the raising of children under the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.
* * *
Natural Health Products
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to present petitions from across the country in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. The bill is a response to the frustration of Canadians by the overregulation of natural health products and will give Canadians the right of choice in their personal health care.
Bill C-420 will be studied in the coming weeks by the Standing Committee on Health. I am proud and humbled by the support I have received to date in my efforts to give Canadians greater choice in personal health care.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I also have some petitions here on Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, in favour of natural health products.
[Translation]
They are from Montreal, Lachute, Blainville, Laval, Quebec City, and from other francophones in la Belle Province.
[English]
They are also from Regina, Kipling, and Corning in Saskatchewan. The signatories are in favour of regulating natural health products as foods and not as drugs. People are calling for more freedom of choice in personal health care.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I also have several petitions on the subject of marriage with almost a thousand signatures from right across the country and many from my own riding of Nanaimo—Alberni. They call on Parliament to recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and to take all actions necessary to ensure it remains the way marriage is understood in this country.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from residents of British Columbia concerned about the mismanagement of the Fraser River sockeye.
After last summer's disaster, the government appointed a committee headed by a former chief justice of British Columbia, Mr. Williams, to examine this problem. Mr. Williams was promised all sorts of assistance and any documentation that he required from the government. Yet the minister has refused to provide that committee with the documentation it needed.
That is why these petitioners are calling upon the government to establish a judicial inquiry into the management of the fishery, so that any of these documents would be presented as requested.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Macleod. The petition requests that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House, the subject matter of which is marriage. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not the unelected judiciary, and that the majority of Canadians support the current definition of marriage.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
(1320)
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 92 will be answered today.
* * *
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 104 and 108 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Canada Grain Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
Civil Marriage Act
The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to again address this bill, which extends equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples while respecting religious freedom.
Clearly the government believes that this legislation is an appropriate way to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is committed to its passage. We have been considering this bill at length in the House over the last few weeks. To date, there have likely been over 100 members who have spoken to this bill.
I suggest that the time is right for us to take this matter to committee and I would, accordingly, like to discuss the matter of whether we are really going to be committed to this legislation or not. It is extremely important because when we look at what is set out for Canadians, the government has put out very clearly and distinctly the opportunities and options. I think Canadians can see through what has been brought forward by the members of the opposition.
When we look at this matter, there are clearly many issues brought forward that simply do not stand the test. When we look at the alternative approaches that have been brought forward by the opposition, clearly we find ourselves in a position where they simply do not carry the day. They simply do not make sense. They do not have the support that is needed.
Why are we in fact going forward with extending civil marriage instead of using other terms, and other means and methods? Clearly only equal access to civil marriage will fully comply with the charter equality guarantees. Any institution other than marriage, such as civil union, is less than equal.
The government represents the rights of all Canadians equally and will not treat some Canadians as second class citizens. Rights are rights are rights. None of us can, nor should we, pick and choose the minorities whose rights we will defend and those whose rights we will ignore.
The Supreme Court was very clear in its approach to this matter. Although some in the opposition would suggest that in fact there was not a clear and distinctive statement about religious freedom, there were a number of very clear statements made in the decision of the Supreme Court.
When we look at the actual reference report, it asked whether the freedom of religion guaranteed by subsection 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects religious officials from being compelled to perform marriages between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs. Clearly and distinctly it was answered yes. I do not think there is any doubt about where the matter stood.
When we look at the issues of alternative approaches that have been brought forward by members of the opposition, it is clearly no longer possible to create a civil union system within Canada's constitutional and legal framework unless the notwithstanding clause is used. Even then our federal structure makes it virtually impossible to ensure equal treatment as civil unions are within the provincial and territorial jurisdiction, so 13 civil union schemes could have differences that would lead to legal confusion and not equality.
There is no middle ground here. Either same sex couples can marry civilly or they cannot. The law has already been changed in eight provinces and territories to extend equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples. To return to limiting marriage to opposite sex couples would require using the notwithstanding clause in order to overturn these decisions.
(1325)
The courts have clearly indicated that any institution other than civil marriage, such as civil union, is less than equal. Only equal access to civil marriage will fully comply with the charter equality guarantees. Leaving this to the provinces and territories to resolve could cause a patchwork of 13 civil union schemes. Only Parliament has the ability to look at the complete picture in designing a Canada-wide approach.
The government bill is the only true compromise that is consistent with the rule of law and the Constitution, opening civil marriage to provide real equality and at the same time respecting religious freedom, both for those religious groups opposed to same sex marriage and equally for those who support it.
The Supreme Court is not the only court in the country that governments are bound to respect under the rule of law. Courts across the country have declared that restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. Those decisions do not have to be appealed. They stand in the absence of a Supreme Court of Canada decision overruling them.
Governments can legislate to overrule an ordinary court decision, but where a law has been found to be unconstitutional, the only way to legislate to overrule that court decision is by invoking the notwithstanding clause to publicly state that the government will pass the law regardless of the fact that it violates a charter right or freedom.
The Prime Minister has stated that he will not use the notwithstanding clause in this circumstance to deny rights guaranteed by the charter to a minority. If one minority can be deliberately discriminated against, then others are potentially at risk. The Government of Canada can either uphold the charter because we believe in its values, or we can abandon the charter. The government will uphold the charter.
When we talk about the question of equality I do not think there is any doubt that the courts across Canada have ruled that equal access to civil marriage by same sex couples is an issue of equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In legal terms, the charter deals with human rights, the basic rights that Canadians believe should be available to all, including the right to equality. Although there is no right to marriage for anyone, there is a right to equality and, therefore, equal access to civil marriage.
Courts have explained that the essence of equality is ensuring the human dignity of all Canadians. Comparisons to other countries are interesting, but each country must make its own decisions in accordance with its own values.
Where is the onus and where does the onus lie? I suggest that if the onus were on those excluded to prove that their equality is absolutely necessary, what would have happened in our past? Would women have been able to prove that they absolutely needed to vote? Would Sikhs have been able to prove that they absolutely needed to be part of the RCMP?
The standard is simply wrong. This government is not changing the fundamental institution of marriage but preserving it, and now allowing same sex couples seeking the same degree of commitment in civil law, but who were previously excluded, to equally undertake the same fundamental vows of mutual love and commitment.
When we look back at the motion that was made in June 1999, the opposition motion was passed by the House of Commons before the decisions of the three courts of appeal and the courts of four other provinces and one territory.
(1330)
Mr. Speaker, do we have enough people in this House? I wonder if it would not be an appropriate time to see if in fact we do have a quorum. I would like to have more people listening to this speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member is asking for a quorum count, I understand.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): There is quorum. Resuming debate.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, accordingly I move:
|
That this question be now put. |
(1335)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The motion is that this question be now put and it is properly seconded, so we will continue the debate.
Ms. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in support of Bill C-38, both as a citizen of this democracy and as a proud Conservative. In an ideal world, I wish that we did not even have to be here in Parliament discussing the concept of marriage, a matter much better suited to the private world of individual relationships between fellow human beings. But I am a realist. The courts have been speaking in unison across the country in support of individual rights and we must take up our responsibility in this chamber.
At the core of the issue in Bill C-38 is the definition of marriage. We cannot cut it any other way. It is hard to imagine a more personal or emotional question, and we all have our own views. I have been talking with my fellow citizens in Newmarket and Aurora for months and canvassing their views. I wanted to make sure that I had the benefit of their input before I voted on the earlier amendment and on the bill.
Two conclusions emerged from those consultations. First, my riding is as divided as the country is on the issue so there is no overwhelming majority opinion. Second, the overwhelming majority of people do not raise the issue unless asked directly. Most set their priorities for what they expect from government in other areas, such as jobs, good quality health care, education, public services like mass transit, safe streets, the environment and so on. There is a lesson in here for all of us.
My own approach to the core issue of Bill C-38 relates both to rights and to my appreciation of my own conservatism. It is not about homosexuality.
On the first aspect, the discussion of same sex marriage is a question of rights and equality before the law. For me it is quite simple: how can we, as citizens in a modern democratic Canada, think that we can enjoy a right and then deny that right to a fellow citizen? If we want the right to be considered married, then that right must apply to each and every person. We cannot divide and choose among rights; they are indivisible. A right must exist independently of its exercise. It is a question of being fair, and fairness too is a Canadian value.
The same litmus test of fairness and rights applies equally to the other side of the equation. Churches and religious leaders have the right not to perform same sex marriages. I have argued consistently that this was a necessary part of the package since the very first day I entered public life. With rights come responsibilities, and if a church decides for its own reasons not to marry a same sex couple, then that couple should look for a different church that does or have a civil ceremony.
When compromises are presented to find ways to substitute other equivalent legal benefits for the right to be called married, I still find myself at the same place. I appreciate and understand that the effort to find compromise is taken to broker a way forward. However, the fact that the right to be called married is at the core of the law means that there is for me no way around that reality. That is what the right is all about.
My position on Bill C-38 is taken as a conservative. I respect very much the views of others based on the values they perceive in traditional marriage, but for me the transcending and overriding value is the liberty of the individual to choose what is right for herself or himself without the state telling her or him what to do, how to arrange their lives or how to behave. I think John Stuart Mill summed it up in his classic formulation: “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.
As long as a person is not violating the rights and the safety of others, my conservatism is about his or her freedom: freedom to act, to choose one's own path, the freedom to pursue potential and dreams without having to live through the values of others. For me this debate is not about whether traditional marriage between a man and a woman has any more value than another kind of marriage, but rather that it is none of my darn business to try to tell another individual that my kind of arrangement has more value.
(1340)
Canada's laws that protect individual rights and liberties should be separate from the grand debates of moral conscience. Those laws protect all of us equally, conservatives whether more traditional or less traditional, liberals, churches and minorities.
To borrow the words of U.S. congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, “The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of other people you don't agree with”.
There is an even greater responsibility facing members of this House. When the debate on Bill C-38 is over and the voting is completed, Canadians expect us to move on to the issues that really matter to them and quickly. We need a strategy in this country to be the most competitive in the world. We need policies that will create quality jobs. We need leadership on education. We need a competitive tax structure. We need to rebuild our relationship with the United States.
Before ceding the floor, I would like to thank and congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for having allowed a free vote on this bill, a piece of legislation that cuts to the heart of our beliefs as individuals. I think that all members of the Conservative caucus appreciate his decisive leadership on this matter.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion for second reading of Bill C-38, the Liberal bill that proposes to redefine traditional marriage.
I am very disappointed at what the Liberals have done today in shutting down any possible motions and in fact trying to ensure that this matter is not fully debated. I hope that Canadians understand what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has just done. He has shut down debate on one of the most crucial matters in the Canadian political scene today.
I have already addressed some of the concerns I have with the bill and with the manner in which the Liberals handled this issue during the course of the past several years. I do not want to repeat those points of debate at this time. What I do want to address today is the refusal of the Liberal government to allow the legislative committee on Bill C-38 to hear testimony on the substantial matters of the bill and the refusal to allow the committee to travel and hear Canadians' views on this important matter of social policy.
Let us recap what happened in 2003 when the justice committee examined this issue. The committee heard from a wide range of witnesses from all across Canada and travelled across the country. It was unfortunately turned into a sham by the Liberal-led majority on the committee which voted to shut down the committee before it could even issue its report.
The former justice minister, Martin Cauchon, had asked the House of Commons justice committee to travel the country and hear representations on same sex marriage from all walks of life. We did that and we were writing the report. Then on June 12, 2003 the Liberals on the justice committee, helped by the NDP and the Bloc, voted by a margin of one to recommend to the government that the committee not appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on this issue.
The committee's work was rendered irrelevant and the committee did not report back to Parliament on its hearings on marriage and the recognition of same sex unions.
I would like to remind the House that the Liberal government at that time actually replaced some of the regular members of the committee with others who were guaranteed to vote in a certain way, despite the fact that they had not heard the evidence.
During the course of those committee hearings, we heard from a broad spectrum of witnesses, including not only representatives from religious faiths but also economists, lawyers and academics. These included such respected figures as Dr. Dan Cere and Dr. Margaret Somerville from McGill University.
Simply hearing the evidence without having the opportunity to evaluate it and report on it to the justice minister and the House of Commons does not do the committee much good. It is hardly a substitute for a substantial hearing on the matter.
The Liberals are once again trying to stifle not only the House, as the parliamentary secretary just did a few moments ago, but they are also trying to stifle the committee. Instead of bringing this matter to the full justice committee where the justice committee could have heard substantive evidence from all types of witnesses and could have travelled this country to hear from witnesses, they have referred it to a special legislative committee.
According to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, special legislative committees can hear witnesses only on technical matters. As such, the committee itself has no jurisdiction to change its mandate. It is bound to hear only technical evidence. Regardless of what the Prime Minister has promised, regardless of what the justice minister has promised, the committee has no jurisdiction to change that Standing Order.
The common statement is that a committee is master of its own procedure. That is not correct in this situation. In fact the committee is bound by the provisions of the Standing Order. Standing Order 113(5) reads as follows:
|
Any legislative committee shall be empowered to examine and enquire into the bills referred to it by the House and to report the same with or without amendments, to prepare a bill pursuant to Standing Order 68 and to report thereon and, except when the House otherwise orders,-- |
The House can otherwise order--
|
--to send for officials from government departments and agencies and crown corporations and for other persons whom the committee deems to be competent to appear as witnesses on technical matters, to send for papers and records, to sit when the House is sitting, to sit when the House stands adjourned, and to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. |
(1345)
The jurisdiction that the committee has is limited by Standing Order 113(5). While credit should be given to the hon. member for London--Fanshawe for doing his best to persuade the Prime Minister of the necessity of expanding the committee's mandate, it is highly doubtful that these promises can be carried through.
Again it is another example of the Prime Minister making a promise and breaking that promise, knowing full well that the committee that is going to hear this matter cannot do what the Prime Minister publicly stated to Canadians it would do. The Prime Minister knows that. He has in fact misled Canadians on that point.
What specific assurances can the Prime Minister give that there is authority for the committee to hear evidence beyond technical evidence? The point is quite clear that he cannot give any assurances. Only this House can give those assurances. That is why the parliamentary secretary stood up today to make sure that there are no further motions, to make sure that the jurisdiction of the committee cannot be expanded.
The Prime Minister stood before Canadians, including the member for London--Fanshawe, and made all kinds of promises about how the committee was going to do what committees usually do. In fact he knows that he has misled his own member for London--Fanshawe and he has misled the Canadian people on this fundamental debate.
The parliamentary secretary himself has indicated that there will be no travel across Canada. What do Canadians get from this technical hearing at a committee? A number of bureaucrats, a number of justice department lawyers telling Canadians what is good for them. It is a prime example of when Liberals come to Ottawa. They do not represent to Ottawa what Canadians want. Rather, they tell Canadians what Ottawa wants. This is a perfect example of telling Canadians what Ottawa wants, and not telling Ottawa what Canadians want.
According to the most recent statements by the justice minister, the minister states he is not aware of any promises the Prime Minister has made to the member for London--Fanshawe. That is interesting. The Prime Minister stood up on national news, on national TV. Everyone in Canada heard those assurances by the Prime Minister, and the justice minister has said that he is not aware of any assurances that were made. Then his parliamentary secretary walked in here and shut down debate to ensure that the Prime Minister's promises cannot be kept. That is shameful conduct for the Prime Minister of Canada.
The Minister of Justice said in response to a question:
|
Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any backroom deal. I only know the answer I gave to a question asked by the hon. member in the House, to which the hon. member referred. |
|
I said that any special legislative committee that was set up would address this bill in hearings as it did any other bill. |
What the Minister of Justice is saying is that there was no backroom deal. Canadians know that there was no backroom deal. The Prime Minister made those commitments publicly. Promise made, promise broken.
The Prime Minister must now explain to the Canadian people why he has specifically broken his word to the member for London--Fanshawe, to the members in this House and indeed to the people of Canada. Why is he shutting down debate in this House? Why is he limiting debate in committee?
The Prime Minister has held out false hope on a number of occasions. This is only the latest example of a promise made, a promise broken.
(1350)
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of the traditional definition of marriage. I am also rising in support of the values and the interests that my constituents have communicated to me.
On this critical subject that will define our times, my constituents have told me overwhelmingly that they would like to see their member of Parliament take a balanced position on the question of marriage. They would like to see non-traditional relationships given equal spousal rights through civil unions. They believe that those couples should have the same financial, property and other forms of rights as married couples, but that the meaning of the term “marriage” ought to be preserved as a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I start by making an observation. Had the people of Nepean--Carleton chosen to elect my predecessor, to send him back to the floor of this House of Commons, while he personally supports the traditional definition of marriage and while he has conceded that the people of his former riding support the traditional definition of marriage, he, as a member of Prime Minister's cabinet, would have been forced to vote against his constituents, against his conscience and in favour of the Prime Minister's gay marriage bill. That is a violation not only of one man's conscience but of an entire community's trust.
Thankfully, he was not re-elected, and people sent to Parliament Hill someone who has the conviction to represent the interests of his constituents but who also has a leader who will permit him to do so. That is why I am fortunate to stand here today to defend both my constituents and my conscience.
Our Prime Minister, our Liberal Prime Minister, has made gay marriage the top priority of his first year in office. That means we will ultimately be voting on whether or not to preserve the traditional family. I believe in approaching this subject in a manner that is respectful of both sides of the debate. That is why I am so disappointed with the meanspirited and intolerant approach that our Prime Minister and his Liberal Party have taken.
Let us be blunt. Our Prime Minister and his Liberal Party have divided Canadians with their obsession with imposing gay marriage. The Prime Minister has made it clear that anyone who supports the traditional definition of marriage is not welcome in the Liberal Party. He has said that the traditional definition of marriage is against the law, according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Fortunately I do not sit in the Prime Minister's caucus, so I will have the right to represent the will of my constituents.
To begin with, our Conservative Party leader is the only national leader in this House of Commons who is allowing a totally free vote. As such, we have members of our caucus and members of our shadow cabinet who will be voting differently than the leader will, but they all have the right to hold their convictions because we in this party support their democratic right and we support their right to the freedom of conscience. That is not a right that is respected on the other side of the House.
The Prime Minister's behaviour on this issue in the House of Commons tells us a lot about his intentions, for he is willing to turn his guns against those in his own party, his Liberal friends, with whom he disagrees. If he is willing to coerce them with pressure and threats of demotion and force them to vote against their conscience and their constituents, if he is willing to do all of that, if he is willing to attack the independent conscience of his own members of Parliament, how can he as Prime Minister be expected to defend the freedom of conscience of the Canadian people? He will not.
(1355)
We have already seen examples of where freedom of religion is under attack. Numerous marriage commissioners across the country have been fired for refusing to perform gay weddings. A pro-family bishop, Bishop Henry, has faced threats that his diocese may lose its charitable tax status if he continues to speak out against the Prime Minister on the subject of gay marriage. At their recent policy convention, Liberal delegates proudly donned pins that called supporters of traditional marriage “stupid”.
That is not the Canadian way. Frankly, I find the use of the word “stupid” rather interesting given that the definition of marriage for which our party stands happens to be the same definition that is held by every civilization on planet earth. Perhaps the Liberal youth think that every other civilization is stupid as well. Perhaps they think that every religion in the world is stupid. Perhaps they think that the vast majority of Canadians who would prefer to give spousal rights to non-traditional couples through civil unions are stupid too.
On this side of the House we will not engage in those types of insults. I have members in my caucus who disagree with me on this subject, members who are with us in this House today. I want to send a message to them and to all people who may take a different point of view on this subject: that I deeply respect their point of view and I respect the way in which they have arrived at it.
That is the Canadian way: respect and tolerance. We should respect people who are in relationships that are non-traditional and we should give them the same rights, but that need not require us to change the meaning of the most quintessential social relationship in the history of civilization. We can have both at once. We can protect rights while at the same time preserving tradition.
It is my position that this social relationship, adhered to throughout the ages, handed down to people from above, is a basic building block of any healthy society. The government should not only tolerate it but encourage it. Therefore, being that I am in the company of members of the House of Commons on the other side who use terminology like “charter” and “equality” as a blanket in order to smother tradition, I want to question their commitment to equality.
Why is it that their government imposes tax penalties on those families that make the sacrifice of keeping one parent in the home? If they believe in equality, why is it that the family that lives in one house and earns $50,000 a year with a single income while keeping one parent in the home pays a much higher rate of taxation than the family next door with two different incomes of $25,000? They have the same family income, yet one is penalized.
Do the Liberals really believe in equality when they attack the right of families to make their own independent decisions? Evidently not.
I am proud to stand in this House and in this chamber not only to defend tradition, but to defend my constituents on the very basis of responsible democracy, which sees us, the members of this House of commoners, as employees of the people, as the servants, not the masters, who take the word of the people and exercise it in this highest democratic chamber in the land. I am proud to stand for my constituents on this day.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Brain Tumours
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past two days representatives of the Canadian Alliance of Brain Tumour Organizations have been meeting with members of Parliament. This organization of volunteers is dedicated to advocating for better patient care, increased government funding for research in the area of brain tumours and an increase in public awareness.
Each year over 10,000 Canadians are newly diagnosed with brain tumours. Brain tumours are also the leading cause of solid cancer death in children under the age of 20.
Our country needs to better understand the issues related to brain tumours, particularly as this relates to access to drug coverage and supportive care services for those affected. At present, provincial drug coverage varies considerably from province to province. In my own province of Nova Scotia, effective new treatment is not available to all those it could help. This needs to change, because lives are at stake.
I wish to congratulate these dedicated volunteers on the work they do.
* * *
Child Care
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no election will undo the Liberal Party record on the creation of a national child care program. In 1993: a promise made, a promise broken. In 1997: the same promise made, the same promise broken. In 2000: again, promise made, promise broken. In 2004: yet again, the same promise made and broken.
The minister has backtracked on his promises. He no longer promises a national universal system. He says he will hand over some money to the provinces for a seed fund, maybe.
The Conservative Party supports children and families. A Conservative government would put families' choices first. We would let parents decide what is best for their children. We would provide options that respect every family's needs and priorities. We would support all families, especially those who need it. We would respect provincial jurisdiction.
We just do not think the Liberal Party that wants to legalize marijuana and prostitution is ready to raise anyone's children.
* * *
Pope John Paul II
Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the profound effect that the late Pope John Paul II had on my community.
Through his spiritual leadership and tireless efforts for peace around the world, Pope John Paul touched and inspired many Canadians of all faiths.
Thousands of members of my community have expressed their support and love for this great man through signing books of condolence located at my office and around the city. They respect and revere this man, particularly for his presence on the international stage, highlighting issues that desperately needed the world's attention.
I was fortunate to be in Vatican Square some years ago with thousands of others to receive a blessing from the late Pope. It was truly an amazing experience.
While we welcome today's election of Pope Benedict XVI, my community and I will always remember and celebrate the life of Pope John Paul II.
* * *
[Translation]
Pope Benedict XVI
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after two days of conclave in Vatican City, an enthusiastic crowd in St. Peter's Square watched as white smoke appeared from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel announcing the election of a new Pope.
The 115 cardinals from 52 countries have chosen Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany to succeed John Paul II. Cardinal Ratzinger has taken the name Benedict XVI.
Many important challenges await Pope Benedict XVI. Among other things, he will have to carry on the diplomatic efforts of his predecessor in favour of reconciliation.
This is a day of celebration for Catholics worldwide. They have a new spiritual leader at the head of their Church. We wish him a good pontificate.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Thérèse Casgrain Awards
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Social Development presented the Thérèse Casgrain Volunteer Award to two outstanding volunteers.
Named after a remarkable Canadian, this award is presented during National Volunteer Week. Thérèse Casgrain lent her voice to those who had none. She was a defender of disadvantaged members of society and spoke out against social injustice.
This year's recipients exemplify the very same unwavering commitment to defending the marginalized in our society.
A tireless fighter for human rights and civil liberties and a strong voice in the battle against child poverty, June Callwood, who is from my riding of Etobicoke Centre, has lent her support to over 50 social organizations, including, among others, Jessie's, a centre for teenage parents.
Ashraf Ghanem immigrated to Canada in his twenties. Through the years he has worked tirelessly to provide services to new immigrants in Canada and has helped them in their transitions.
I congratulate the two recipients in their battle to alleviate social injustice. I am especially proud to see--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for Fundy Royal.
* * *
Canadian Guernsey Association
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate three very talented dairy farmers in my riding of Fundy Royal.
For more than 50 years, brothers Ted and Bill Wanamaker have been producing milk for New Brunswickers. Their nephew Blair continues this family tradition from their Cedar Rock farm in the Kennebecasis Valley.
The Wanamaker family is renowned for its top quality guernseys. Their breeding program has produced all-Canadian champions and has won numerous awards from the Royal Winter Fair.
Just recently the Wanamakers have been nominated for an honorary lifetime membership with the Canadian Guernsey Association in recognition of their outstanding farming knowledge and experience. This prestigious award is given to individuals who have been of extreme value to the Canadian Guernsey Association over the years. In fact, there are only 20 living honorary members across the country.
Again, congratulations to the Wanamaker family of Nauwigewauk, New Brunswick on this exceptional nomination.
* * *
Volunteerism
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the many volunteers in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. We should never take for granted those who dedicate their time and energy to the benefit of others. Volunteers, young and old, embody true Canadian values such as compassion, empathy and dedication. They are indeed fine examples among us.
Last Friday, April 15, I was honoured and pleased to recognize 45 outstanding volunteers from my riding. I commended them for their exemplary sense of duty. In particular I want to mention Ms. May Herron who is 94 years old and is still a dedicated volunteer at the Islington Seniors Centre.
To all volunteers not only in my riding but in all of Canada, keep up the great work. We in the House are so very proud of them.
* * *
[Translation]
Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to extend heartfelt congratulations to the entire Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs team on winning the Hommage bénévolat-Québec award in the organization in action category.
This agency from my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska will receive its award at an official ceremony tomorrow evening at the Quebec National Assembly.
Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs recruits volunteers and pairs them up with people who are intellectually challenged in order to create strong bonds of trust, caring and friendship.
This award is a testament to commitment to the community and will raise the profile of Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs in the region.
* * *
[English]
Poland
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the massacre of about 20,000 Polish officers, prisoners of war and civilians by the Soviet authorities in the forest of Katyn in the spring of 1940.
Last Sunday I participated in the annual commemorative ceremony at the Katyn Monument in my riding, together with members of the Polish Canadian Congress and veteran and youth organizations.
It took almost 50 years for Mikhail Gorbachev to admit that the massacre in the Katyn forest was the work of the Stalin regime. However, in March 2005, Russian authorities ended a decade-long investigation into the massacre, but declared that it was not a genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity. Consequently, on March 22 the Polish parliament unanimously passed an act requesting the Russian archives to be declassified and requesting Russia to classify the Katyn massacre as genocide.
To this day, the Katyn massacre remains an open chapter in the history of the Polish community in Canada and a stumbling block on the path of building international relationships, trust and transparency.
* * *
(1410)
Justice
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in a recent survey, criminal justice issues ranked as the most important concern of my constituents and with this Liberal government, it is little wonder.
Liberals have done nothing to fight marijuana grow ops. Conservatives will shut them down.
Liberals have done nothing to fight street racing. Conservatives will make it a crime.
Liberals have done nothing to fight the rise in home invasions and auto theft. Conservatives will get tough on property crime.
Liberals have done nothing to fight date rape drugs. Conservatives will protect women from those who abuse them.
Liberals have done nothing to fight child pornography. Conservatives will raise the age of consent, have an effective sex offender registry and ban all forms of child pornography.
Liberals have done nothing to fight violent criminals. Conservatives will impose consecutive, not concurrent, sentencing for violent thugs to hold them accountable.
The Liberals have had 12 years to make Canada safer. They have failed. However, hope is around the corner when Canadians throw out these corrupt Liberals and elect a new Conservative government.
* * *
Immigration
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a great day for Canada. Brampton—Springdale was pleased to host the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and other fellow GTA colleagues for an announcement that strengthens the social fabric of our country.
Yesterday, the Liberal government once again delivered on a promise to ensure our nation's economic growth and competitiveness, allocating $191 million dollars for three new initiatives that will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our immigration system and also address the concerns of many constituents across the country.
Reuniting sponsored parents and grandparents with their families, allowing international students the opportunity to work both during and after their educational programs and reducing application processing times for citizenship will ensure our country's long term economic viability.
We are a country of immigrants. Our nation's legacy will be stronger, thanks to our willingness to embrace newcomers.
* * *
China
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week marks the first anniversary of the visit of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, to Parliament Hill.
As someone who met His Holiness at that time, I certainly remember being impressed with his wisdom, his humility and his sense of humour, but most of all, his commitment to non-violence as a way of solving Tibet's longstanding grievance against China.
As a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Tibet, I want to urge the Chinese government to rethink its policy toward Tibet. I also want to encourage the Canadian government to work to ensure that Beijing takes concrete measures to further the current dialogue between representatives of the Dalai Lama and China with a view to a negotiated solution.
The Dalai Lama embodies the hope that peaceful struggle is a superior alternative to terrorism and violence. We all have a responsibility to make sure that such an approach succeeds and that some day soon the Tibetan people will have meaningful autonomy.
In the meantime, China's demographic strategy in Tibet should cease, and those who may be aiding it, like Bombardier by building a railway to help such a policy, should rethink their policy as well.
* * *
[Translation]
Conservative Party
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is set to make major gains in Quebec in the next election.
Josée Verner is already recognized as a member of this House by the Bloc Québécois itself, which is a signal that she will be a formidable opponent in the next election.
For the past year, Ms. Verner has been the voice of the Conservative Party in Quebec. She is so effective that, in a recent interview on Radio-Canada, the member for Québec commented on Ms. Verner's work as if she were already an MP. Through her comments, the member for Québec has publicly recognized the formidable presence of Ms. Verner in Quebec.
The Conservative Party, therefore, wants to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dynamic and excellent work of the chair of its Quebec caucus. We are confident that the hard work done by Ms. Verner will lead to her resounding victory in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent, and that of the entire Conservative team throughout Quebec.
* * *
Prime Minister
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who presents himself as the voice of democracy, has just shown his true face, that of a Prime Minister who has lost all moral authority to govern.
Stopping at nothing in order to avoid being judged publicly, the Prime Minister has decided to postpone the sitting days reserved for the opposition parties. His goal is clear: to prevent the introduction of a motion of non-confidence in his government, which would result in an immediate election.
Yesterday, he was accused by Warren Kinsella, a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal, for not complying with the rules governing the awarding of public opinion research contracts when he was finance minister in the 1990s. So it is no surprise that he is panicking.
This says a lot about the Prime Minister. It says a lot about the Liberals.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Pope Benedict XVI
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have just received word from Rome that a new Pope for the Roman Catholic Church has been named. He is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from Germany.
Canadians of all faiths wish him well and pray for God's blessings on his pontificate. The papacy has played a far-reaching and positive role in world affairs during our lifetime. We have every expectation that this will continue.
The new pontiff will face great challenges, but he has the example and record of his predecessor, the beloved John Paul II. He showed the world what an individual of immense faith could accomplish.
Stepping into the shoes of that future saint is a daunting task, but the new Pope will have the comfort of knowing that he will take with him the prayers of the world, the protection of the great Mother of God and the blessing of the God who has guided all his predecessors back to St. Peter.
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada's International Policy Statement
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface): Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented the government's International Policy Statement. It is intended to strengthen Canada's role in the world and includes strategies in four key areas: development, defence, international trade and foreign affairs.
The Liberal government continues to show the way as far as world issues are concerned. In this statement, it defines a multilateral foreign affairs strategy which favours enhancing the effectiveness of the UN Security Council and creating a peacebuilding commission.
Our government also understands that we need armed forces with the ability to adapt to new global security requirements. To that end, we will be allocating additional sums to improve training, upgrade infrastructures and resolve the equipment shortage problem.
Canada's contributions to development, diplomacy and peacekeeping have earned it a reputation as a committed and contributing member of the international community.
* * *
[English]
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Margaret Wilson, Speaker of the House of Representatives of New Zealand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's sworn testimony at the public accounts committee makes it clear that the Prime Minister funnelled tax dollars to Earnscliffe and his campaign manager David Herle. A top secret document dated 1995 says that at least $615,000 in improper contracts had already flowed. A memo outlines that the competition was flawed, the payment excessive, the work probably not needed.
As David Herle prepares yet another campaign of dirt and slander, should the taxpayers of Canada not know that it is money going from finance to Earnscliffe that gave birth to it all?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Deputy Prime Minister appreciates the enthusiastic support, but we have to be able to hear the answer.
The Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, first, I hear all those hon. gentlemen and women across the way calling out, “Where is the Prime Minister?” Let me tell everyone where the Prime Minister is.
This morning we had a most successful launch of this government's international policy statement which in fact speaks to the direction in which this government wants to take our country as it relates to our role in the rest of the world. The Prime Minister is now meeting with some of the globe's most important and influential ambassadors to ensure that they understand the role we want--
(1420)
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is not a person in Canada who does not understand that these announcements are about a government that has done nothing for 12 years and is now trying to run away from a rocky record of corruption.
Why does the government not just admit, as public servant Allan Cutler testified, that the Prime Minister abused the process to get contracts to his friends at Earnscliffe, to his campaign manager David Herle? Why does he not just admit that he got public money to his political associates?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have the views on this subject of the Auditor General of Canada. I would quote from her report in 2003:
|
Our review of a sample of standing offers found that the competitive process had been followed in pre-qualifying suppliers. Requests for proposals were issued, and the selection process resulted in standing offer agreements with the successful bidders. |
We note that the vast majority of these suppliers were not the same as those providing sponsorship or advertising services.
The opposition should pay attention to the relevant parts of the testimony.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how breaking the rules on ordinary contracting makes any difference that it was not sponsorship.
The Prime Minister said last week in the House, “I have never interfered in any contract”, yet Warren Kinsella testified under oath that the Prime Minister phoned him at home to push for a contract to Earnscliffe.
With the Prime Minister caught in the biggest scandal in history, in the web of his own deception, should he not be here to answer questions on the floor of the House?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in reference to that testimony yesterday, I would note that in today's Toronto Star the former policy adviser to the Prime Minister, Eddie Goldenberg, completely denied a number of the allegations that were made by Mr. Kinsella.
I would also note that in reference to the credibility of Mr. Kinsella, this House has already been warned to be careful in that matter. There is a reference to the “poisoned partisans like Warren Kinsella”, and that advice comes from the deputy leader of the Conservative Party.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. When each group of Liberals calls the other group of Liberals a bunch of crooks and liars, does it really matter which one we believe?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in matters like this, yes indeed, the truth does matter a lot. I would refer the hon. gentleman to the Auditor General's report from the year 2003, or the external audit that was conducted by Ernst & Young in 1996. Let me quote that one. Ernst & Young said:
|
Our audit of the research contracting process determined that APORS was in compliance with prescribed policies and procedures.... We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit. |
The truth does matter.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is hard to audit envelopes of cash.
Yesterday at the public accounts committee it was revealed by a longtime Liberal strategist that there was concern within the Liberal government as far back as 1995 that government contracts were being used to cross-subsidize the Prime Minister's leadership campaign activity.
Under sworn testimony Warren Kinsella said, “I and perhaps others would consider it inappropriate that you cross-subsidize that political activity using the public treasury. That's inappropriate”.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that he was both informed and involved in an ad scam-like kickback scheme to use taxpayers' money to fund his leadership campaign?
The Speaker: Order. I have some reservations about questions concerning the financing of party leadership campaigns. I see the minister is rising. I urge all hon. members to be cautious with their questions. The hon. Minister of Finance.
(1425)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will make no such concession as the deputy leader of the Conservative Party has asked for. Today the member is relying heavily upon the views and the comments of Mr. Kinsella. I would simply ask him why then, not very long ago, did he call that individual “a poisoned partisan”?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in November 1994, Warren Kinsella wrote Terrie O'Leary about a contract awarded Earnscliffe, and I quote:
|
Terrie, all of this spells trouble and you know it. The competition was flawed, the payment is excessive, the work is probably not needed, and the research community can be fully expected to blow the whistle on the political connections here. |
Given this statement, will the Prime Minister finally recognize that his entourage intervened to get the contract awarded to Earnscliffe, the firm employing key players in his leadership campaign?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very period referred to by the hon. gentleman was subject to an independent external audit conducted by Ernst & Young which covered the period from 1994-96. It was reported in 1997 and it says:
|
Our audit of the research contracting process determined that [the agency at the Department of Public Works] was in compliance with prescribed policies and procedures.... We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit. |
That is the independent audit.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Warren Kinsella was testifying under oath, with evidence. Not only must there be no conflict of interest, there must appear to be no conflict of interest. So we have the executive assistant of the former finance minister, now Prime Minister, who happens to be the wife of someone working at Earnscliffe, and the contract is awarded to Earnscliffe.
Is this not a conflict of interest? I would like to see what sort of birthday card he sends to the spouse and to the woman who was his assistant.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman obviously has a very subservient view of women in this world which I think is unsavoury. I would point out that the sworn testimony that he refers to has in fact, not within 24 hours, been contradicted. Indeed, there is a public audit conducted independently by Ernst & Young of the very period that the hon. gentleman is talking about that determines that the proper procedures were covered.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was aware of the interventions made to ensure Earnscliffe got the contracts for the Department of Finance, because he intervened himself to add pressure.
What does the Prime Minister have to say about Mr. Kinsella's statement under oath that the former finance minister had even called him at home to complain?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no evidence of such a mythical phone call.
As many of the media outlets are reporting this morning, despite the raucous atmosphere around the committee yesterday, there was absolutely nothing new in substance that was presented. All of these matters have been previously covered over and over again. The documentation is the same, and indeed it supports the case that the staff of the former minister of finance was arguing for more contracting competition, not less.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, indeed, the documents submitted in evidence to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts show beyond any doubt that the finance department intervened at least four times—and this has been confirmed—to promote Ekos, Earnscliffe and Everest.
How could the Prime Minister say here in this House on April 14 that he knew nothing and had never intervened in this regard, when documents show, on the contrary, that the Prime Minister was running his own little parallel sponsorship scandal?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the documentation does not in fact demonstrate what the hon. gentleman is alleging. The documentation demonstrates that the office of the former minister of finance was arguing for more competition, not less competition, and indeed, the contractual arrangements complained about were inherited from the previous Conservative Mulroney government.
* * *
Democratic Reform
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to see if the Prime Minister understands why people are so disappointed in him right now. He said that he would improve and respect Parliament, that he would improve and respect democracy, that he would tackle the democratic deficit.
How can shutting down the right of this House to hold the government to account be consistent with what he said he would do?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. Once again I am sure the government House leader appreciates the accolades, but we have to be able to hear the answer. The hon. government House leader has the floor.
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact I hear the cat calling across the way. It is quite typical of the official opposition in particular.
The members opposite can stomp their feet and yell and scream, but what really happened yesterday is that the official opposition was trying to do something very sneaky and it got caught. That is what happened.
There are six remaining supply days. All of those need to be allotted before June 23. In fact all of those six allotted days will be allotted.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be in this House today to answer this question. We do not need any backup from that hon. member as--
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members that they cannot refer to the presence or absence of members. The previous reference was on very thin ice because it might have been taken that the Prime Minister was not answering. The hon. member is suggesting the Prime Minister is not here and he knows that it is improper to make reference to the absence of hon. members. What goes around comes around. The hon. member for Toronto--Danforth will proceed with his question.
Hon. Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who is on thin ice. He is out making announcements apparently about how we are breaking our promise to the world on foreign aid. He should be here to defend his government--
The Speaker: I am not sure if there was a question there. We will move on to the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.
* * *
Government Contracts
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here is what we have. We have the Prime Minister when he was finance minister directing contracts to a firm, the head of which was the chief architect of his leadership bid and the same person who was the partner of the Prime Minister's then chief of staff.
Contracts involved, government contracts involved, all mixed up with the Prime Minister's leadership bid and political work.
Only the Liberals could fail to see a problem in that. Why will they not just admit something was wrong?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mere repetition of allegations does not in fact make them true.
It is obvious that there were substantial defects with the testimony offered in the public accounts committee yesterday because in less than 24 hours substantial portions of that testimony have already been contradicted.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, mere denial of allegations does not make them untrue either and the government should know that.
Here we have a key Liberal who was a chief of staff of another minister, who was supposed to be overseeing the contracting process, concerned about the Prime Minister interfering in that process.
We have, under oath, a key Liberal accusing the Prime Minister of doing something improper. Then we have the Liberals saying, “Oh well, other Liberals have contradicted that”.
Which Liberal version of the truth are Canadians supposed to believe?
(1435)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the evidence provided under oath by the Prime Minister and members of his staff is indeed credible and reliable.
I would point out that if the hon. member is not satisfied with that, she has the opinion of the Auditor General who examined this matter and said that it complied with the rules. She also has the opinion and the advice of an independent auditor, Ernst & Young, that also examined the matter and found that no rules had been broken.
There are lots of opinions that indeed publicly and professionally support the Prime Minister's view.
* * *
Sponsorship Program
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Claude Boulay, who worked on the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, to whom the Prime Minister writes very glowing and very personal letters, received $67 million in sponsorship cash when the Prime Minister was the finance minister.
The Prime Minister's campaigns and the Liberal Party were financed by Boulay and Boulay was financed by dirty money from the sponsorship inquiry.
Why will the Prime Minister not tell the whole truth about his relationship with Claude Boulay? Is it a guilty conscience?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear and completely truthful about his relationship with Claude Boulay. He has said over and over again in this House and I have said that the Prime Minister never lunched with Claude Boulay in relation to the direction of any contract to anyone.
I do not understand what the opposition does not get about the fact that the Prime Minister has been absolutely forthcoming about his relationship with Mr. Boulay.
In fact, the hon. member can read his testimony before the Gomery inquiry.
[Translation]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 14, the Prime Minister denied having dined with Claude Boulay, but Alain Renaud has stated that the Prime Minister did dine with him. Now we learn that, when the PM was finance minister, Mr. Boulay received over $67 million in sponsorships.
Why is the Prime Minister denying his relationship with Mr. Boulay? Is it because this would directly implicate him in the sponsorship program?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not hiding anything here. He has been absolutely clear about his relationship with Mr. Boulay.
The Prime Minister testified before Gomery. The member should read that testimony. The Prime Minister said in this House that he did not have lunch with Mr. Boulay, or anyone else as far as that goes, in relation to directing any contract to anyone. How much clearer can the Prime Minister be?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an internal PWGSC memo dated July 24, 1995, we learned that nearly $298,000 in contracts was awarded by dubious means to Earnscliffe, a firm with close ties to the Prime Minister, in 1994 and 1995, by the finance department.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to make us believe that he knew nothing, when his department did this for Earnscliffe, which had close ties with him, was involved in his leadership campaign and was headed by the husband of his chief of staff? Those are a lot of coincidences for one man.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing on the written record or on the public record that would indicate anything but an appropriate competitive process was followed in this case. As a matter of fact there have been two audit reports that have confirmed that, one by the independent external firm of Ernst & Young and one by the Auditor General of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, speaking of the sponsorship scandal, a few short months ago, we were told exactly the same sort of thing, until we learned the extent of the turpitude of this government and the illegal activities.
Today, the Prime Minister is also in up to his neck, as are his friends, his chief of staff, his officials, his department and a firm closely involved with him and his leadership campaign. There are too many coincidences, too many accusations and too much evidence. He will not get out of this.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us why we should accept this and not be scandalized by the Prime Minister's actions?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has said from the very beginning that where there was wrongdoing it must be identified, it must be condemned and it must be thoroughly punished.
That is why we called in the Auditor General, why we called in the RCMP in those cases that were appropriate and, most important, why the Prime Minister, within a half an hour of receiving the Auditor General's report in the spring of last year, called the Gomery inquiry to get to the bottom of this issue and make sure it was thoroughly exposed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano said that the current Minister of Transport had approached him to put in a good word for his friend François Duffar of Cossette, a company trying to land federal contracts.
Does the Minister of Transport recognize that what he did for Cossette, despite what he says, was nothing short of lobbying?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not true, but we know that Groupaction employees gave $100,000 to the Parti Québécois and that Groupaction won contracts from the Société des alcools du Québec and Télé-Québec.
That is quite something for a party that claims to be clean.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were talking about Cossette. The Minister of Transport would have us believe that he invoiced only for policy analysis or brainstorming, but not for time spent arranging meetings with ministers for his friends, and their subsequent meals.
Does the Minister of Transport think we believe that? No one believes the Minister of Transport.
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is also interesting to note that Groupaction won a contract from Société générale de financement, which is headed by the husband of former PQ minister Pauline Marois.
During the last election campaign, Ms. Marois worked in support of the Bloc. Again, quite something for a party that claims to be clean.
[English]
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister testified that he barely knew Groupe Everest president, Claude Boulay, and his wife. Yet the Prime Minister's letters entered into evidence show this relationship was in fact warm and quite personal.
Here is what he said about Boulay's wife, the queen of Liberal ticket sellers, “I still believe that the years wash over Diane with such grace and beauty that she remains youthful”, a statement so fresh to an acquaintance it deserves a slap.
Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his Gomery testimony was not the full truth?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I think we all send out such letters of congratulations on people's birthdays, anniversaries and other special occasions.
As I also said yesterday, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the opposition takes this simple letter of birthday congratulations and turns it into something that it simply is not.
The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about the nature of his relationship with Claude Boulay.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wrote a letter like that to my wife, I would have him outside this House real quick.
According to the Prime Minister's Office, the Prime Minister sent out 53,000 greetings last year. I have a very simple question. I would like to know how many he sent out when he was finance minister and how many of those greetings referred to wine, golf games and hot wives?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada sends out about 50,000 birthday and anniversary letters every year. The fact is that last year I received a Christmas card from the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. In the card it said, “Ron and I send Christmas greetings and wishes for good cheer now and the whole year through”. In fact, not only was it a very pleasant greeting but she drew a happy face with her name on it.
I do not know why she drew that happy face because, frankly, I have not seen a happy face on the member for Calgary—Nose Hill for a long time. Was she hitting on me, Mr. Speaker, or trying to--
(1445)
The Speaker: Now we will hear from the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, well before his intimate letters of—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
The Speaker: Maybe we should start again. I realize there is a lot of merriment in the chamber at the moment but the hon. member for Calgary Southeast now has the floor and I am sure he is going to ask a serious question.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Quite right, Mr. Speaker. Well before he sent his intimate letter to Claude Boulay in 2001, the Prime Minister sent another “Dear Claude” letter in 1994, in which he stated, “The services you provide could be of interest to the federal office of regional development for Quebec, of which I am the minister responsible. Your letter has been forwarded to my office in Montreal”.
Is this not proof that the Prime Minister intervened in order to make sure his buddy Claude Boulay got some of the dirty money?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the hon. member's question is no.
Part of the testimony that we have heard, as indicated by Mr. Boulay, was that he has done business with the Government of Canada going back to 1984. That was not a Liberal government; that was a Conservative government.
Mr. Boulay has dealt with the Government of Canada and has done business with the Government of Canada for over 20 years under successive governments.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Yes, Mr. Speaker, and he has known the Prime Minister for some 20 years. Why is it then that the Prime Minister said it was a short term relationship? Why is it the Prime Minister said that he barely knew him when the Prime Minister was recommending him for business 11 years ago, when he was commenting on the good looks of his wife four years ago and when he was working on the Prime Minister's leadership 15 years ago?
Why did the Prime Minister not tell the whole truth under oath to Canadians?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada always tells the truth and he did tell the truth under oath.
The fact that they take one of the 50,000 anniversary and birthday letters that the Prime Minister sends out every year and try to make an issue out of it is absolutely shocking. It speaks to the desperation that they have in trying to sully the reputation of the most respected and trusted political leader in Canada. They will not succeed because Canadians know that they can believe our Prime Minister.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, new Canadians are very concerned about the proposal of the hon. member for Newton—North Delta who demands his constituents post a $50,000 to $100,000 bond in return for support of short term visa applications--
The Speaker: Order, please. I am afraid there is a slight problem with the hon. member's question in that under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, matters that have been referred to the Ethics Commissioner for a review cannot be raised as questions in the House.
The Standing Orders were adopted very recently and I would refer the hon. member to that, so he will want to avoid a reference to that in his question. If he has a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, he will want to put it directly.
Mr. Ken Boshcoff: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration outline some serious initiatives the government has taken to improve our system of immigration?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question, which is a serious question regarding governance and the programs the government is putting forward. I was pleased yesterday on behalf of the Government of Canada to indicate three initiatives in our immigration and citizenship program, things that are of no interest to members opposite, the Conservative Party members or others.
We accelerated the process by which parents and grandparents will be brought into the country. As well, we put in a program for regionalizing immigration and recruiting more international students who will be trained here and who will be given an opportunity to gain Canadian experience and then locate in regional municipalities. That is unification and that is--
(1450)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
* * *
International Cooperation
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made speeches ad nauseam about launching a policy review on how to give the world more of the Canada the world wants.
Two years later, the foreign policy review is stillborn. Mr. Dithers has become Mr. Do Nothing with his betrayal of our 0.7% commitment for overseas development assistance.
Why, to the collective embarrassment of Canadians, has the Prime Minister gutted our commitment to meet our millennium development goals and made our contribution to making poverty history?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud as Minister of International Cooperation to have joined my colleagues in the release today of the international policy statement. It is an excellent portrayal of where the Prime Minister will take us and Canada in its role in the world.
The government is aiming for 0.7%. We are aiming to continue to increase our aid in the international assistance budget by 8%. We will see it doubled by the year 2010. In the last year alone we have seen an increase of 21%, which by any federal budget comparison is a remarkable benchmark. We are standing proud in our--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine the embarrassment of the CIDA minister in trying to explain why Canada has said that it wants to be a leader in meeting its 0.7% commitment to overseas development assistance. In the absence of an implementation plan, in the absence of timetables and targets from the Prime Minister, Canada may reach its commitment to 0.7% by the year 2035.
How can the minister defend the broken promises on this--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International Cooperation.
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year alone saw our budget in the international assistance envelope go to $3.7 billion. In five years we will be at more than $5 billion.
What this government and this team know is that aid is far more than just volume. It has a great deal to do with aid effectiveness. What has been announced today gives us five sector priorities and gives us 25 countries with which we will have a very strong development relationship. That is about aid effectiveness.
* * *
Government Contracts
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, apparently the Prime Minister has entered the witness protection program, so let us try a question for the finance minister.
In 1995 David Dingwall wrote the following to the current finance minister when he was the agriculture minister:
|
In addition, three projects have been funded through “contributions”. I'm concerned this method of funding could become a means to avoid the normal procedures for public opinion research. |
|
My Department has made efforts to inform Agriculture and Agri-food Canada officials of the policies. It would be helpful if you could reinforce these efforts along with the concern about contribution arrangements for public opinion research. |
How can the finance minister stand up and say--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issues raised by the then minister of public works were referred properly and immediately to the deputy minister of agriculture. The deputy minister of agriculture made sure that within the Department of Agriculture all the procedures were properly followed.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it must be pretty embarrassing to get chastened by somebody like David Dingwall.
This was exactly the same thing that was happening in the Department of Finance as has happened in the sponsorship program. Money went from the Department of Finance to Earnscliffe back to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign. How can anyone believe that the Prime Minister, who said he would leave no stone unturned, will actually look at all, given that he is doing exactly the same thing?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is drawing his crayon on the paper but he is not connecting the dots. The fact of the matter is that all the evidence on the record indicates that the Prime Minister and his staff sought to increase competition, not to decrease competition. That is verified by at least two reports of two auditors: Ernst &Young externally and the Auditor General of Canada internally.
* * *
(1455)
Natural Resources
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has buried Nova Scotia and Newfoundland's offshore moneys in the implementation bill. Then, for no apparent reason, it took the implementation bill off the order paper, adding another delay to what has already been too long a process. Apparently the implementation bill is back on the order paper, confirming that the Liberal government is playing games with the accord and treating Atlantic Canadians with disdain.
Will the Prime Minister split the offshore accord from the budget and pass it today?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill is on the order paper. I offered to the House on a previous occasion and I will offer it to the House again: I will ask for unanimous consent to move all three stages of the budget implementation bill, have it passed and send it off to the Senate. Atlantic Canadians would have the Atlantic accord. The money for the new deal for cities and communities would flow to the communities. The child care program would be in place and $700 million would go to provinces for child care.
The hon. member should not suggest that we are not proposing this. What the hon. member needs to do is convince the rest of his colleagues to pass the budget implementation bill.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, they would love to see--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl has the floor.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would love to see the 24 clauses passed without scrutiny or due diligence because that is the way they operate.
First of all, the Prime Minister had to be pressured into promising the deal. Then it took months of more pressure from us and the provinces to get an agreement. The government refused to bring forth stand-alone legislation. Then the Liberals eliminated our opposition day when we could have debated this. Now they are playing around with Bill C-43. Why does the government not want to give the provinces their money?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition has said it supports the Atlantic accord. Those opposition members have said that they support the provision of money to pensions. They say they will not stand in the way of the changes in RRSPs. They say they support national defence. They say they support the tax reductions. They are now even implying that maybe they are warming up on the issue of climate change.
It is all in the budget. It is all in the budget bill. Pass it.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the international policy statement released this morning trivializes the UN, opens the door to an unclear new multilateralism and makes possible the alignment of Canada's foreign policy with that of the United States.
Will the government acknowledge that its policy statement would suggest that it has decided to align its foreign policy with that of the United States?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's interest in our international policy statement. I can certainly reassure her by stating that, on the contrary, it is intended to strongly commit Canadian diplomacy in favour of the reform of the United Nations.
We believe in multilateralism and it is precisely because we believe in it that we want to make it more effective. When it is not, that is when some countries choose not to respect this system which is of such importance to the international community. We do, of course, want a special relationship with the United States, but Canada is where—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
* * *
International Cooperation
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has expressed its agreement with the UN objective of having each country give 0.7% of its gross national product in international aid by 2005.
The Prime Minister had no hesitation appearing on stage with the singer Bono, where he made international aid commitments. With this new policy, he has shown today that he does not want to do anything, or not much, and that he does not keep his word. Why?
(1500)
[English]
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's direction and the goals he has set are admirable. I am very proud to be a part of where he takes us in Canada's role in the world.
I think it is incredibly important to take a look at where we were and where we are. We have seen an increase of 21% in our aid in the last year. We have a commitment for 8% to continue until we double by the year 2010. This government has made a serious commitment. We are increasing and doing so in a very accelerated manner. His commitment is clear. This government is clear. This is an effective and good development team.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian victims of terrorism are here today advocating for legislation which would force terrorist groups in Canada and the foreign governments which sponsor them to be held financially accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, the government has a history of dithering when it comes to officially banning terrorist groups in Canada.
I wonder if the government would abandon its go slow policy and send a signal today that it will move swiftly to ban terrorist groups so the victims can be compensated. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have listed a whole series of groups as prohibited terrorist organizations for fundraising purposes. I understand the member's representations with regard to giving a recourse to victims of terror and I have asked my officials to look into that situation. I should say that right now our position on state immunity is consistent with what is the practice of states, but we will be looking into it.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a number of states are moving on this. Today we heard from Canadians affected by the Air-India bombing, the 9/11 disaster and the homicide bombing of a Canadian in Jerusalem, but regretfully, representatives of Canada's Tamil community had to cancel their appearance here at the last minute. They had received threats to their safety because they were going to talk about the terrorist group, the Tamil Tigers.
The Tamil Tigers are only partially restricted in Canada but are fully banned in the United States and Great Britain. Why is our government content to just scold some groups like this instead of fully banning them so that victims can be fully compensated?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in this House, we take the listing process very seriously. In fact we constantly review and update our list of listed entities under the Criminal Code, as I think the hon. member knows. Of course the organization to which he refers is listed under UN regulation and can be pursued in this country and elsewhere.
* * *
Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Accenture, a U.S. based research company, recently released its global study on leadership and customer service, and for the fifth year in a row Canada is being recognized as a world leader in government service online delivery.
Could the Minister of Public Works explain how this leadership in government service delivery will benefit rural Canadians?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the fifth consecutive year the Government of Canada online initiative, headed by Public Works, has been ranked first out of 22 countries surveyed in North America, Europe and Asia. Canada has outranked the United States, Denmark, Singapore and Australia.
Government online is giving Canadians in all parts of the country the ability to access government services anywhere, anytime, in either of Canada's official languages. Further, we are leading the world in electronic delivery of government services of public works, and this is great news for Canadians.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of one of this year's recipients of the Thérèse Casgrain Volunteer Award, Ashraf Ghanem.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Civil Marriage Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my comments today commence with the metaphor relied upon by Pope John Paul II in 1988 in his encyclical letter which said:
|
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth-- |
The bill involves the balancing of two of the fundamental personal freedoms which are protected under the charter: freedom of religion on the one hand and individual equality rights on the other. The legislation therefore, by definition, takes us into the realm of both faith and reason.
I speak today on behalf of the people of Calgary Centre-North, and in so doing I point out that this issue is one on which there is a wide divergence of opinion because of the unique geography and demography of my riding.
I have learned though extensive consultation with the constituents of Calgary Centre-North that there is a diversity of opinion on this question. I will attempt today to reflect in my comments what I have heard. The vast majority of my constituents do not wish to see this as an issue which divides Canadians.
[Translation]
I would also like to recognize in the House the courage of our leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, who had the strength and integrity to allow Conservative MPs vote freely on this motion. In fact, at the last Conservative Party policy convention, members adopted a policy authorizing a free vote on moral issues such as this.
The Liberal Party and its leader have neither the courage nor the faith in their own MPs and parliamentarians to do likewise.
(1510)
[English]
Let me begin with the province of faith, for I am a Christian and there are strong communities of faith in my riding, both Christian and otherwise. Even among Christians there are strong disagreements on this matter. I emphasize that freedom of religion is central to who we are as a nation.
Subsection 2(a) of our charter provides that freedom of conscience and religion is a fundamental right of every Canadian. Freedom of religion lies at the heart of our free and democratic society.
[Translation]
This freedom was guaranteed under the British North America Act, even before this country was founded. In 1774, shortly after the British conquered North America, the British House of Commons adopted the Quebec Act, which ensured freedom of religion.
[English]
The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 provided protection for freedom of religion and throughout our history, whether it be beneath the shelter of the charter, the bill of rights, or the freedom of worship legislation of which I speak, we have stood as Canadians in defence of freedom of religion. In my own riding strong Christian congregations, such as the Centre Street Church, flourish in the shelter of freedom of religion.
Bill C-38 is limited to civil marriage. It has no bearing upon religious marriage or its solemnization. Clause 3 of the bill provides:
|
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. |
In the marriage reference decision of 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in clear language that any attempt to compel religious officials to perform same sex marriage almost certainly runs afoul of the charter and would violate the charter. The court also stated that the same holds true for any attempt to compel the use of sacred places for same sex marriage.
[Translation]
In my opinion, this observation by the Supreme Court sufficiently clarifies the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage under federal legislation.
However, provincial legislation must still be amended; this is no small task. Legally, the provinces are responsible for issuing marriage licences to couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual.
[English]
I am somewhat surprised by the absence of attention to the provincial ramifications of this federal bill. In the marriage reference even the Supreme Court pointed out that the provinces will have to pass legislation relating to the solemnization of marriage so as to protect the rights of religious officials while providing for the solemnization of same sex marriage.
In my view provincial legislation needs to be adopted in each province to address the following issues: first, the right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies with which they disagree; second, the right of religious groups to refuse to make real property which they own or control available for the performance of marriage ceremonies or celebrations with which they disagree; third, the right of public officials to decline to perform marriage ceremonies with which they disagree; and fourth, the right of religious groups to maintain their charitable status irrespective of the beliefs which they hold in respect of marriage.
I am of the view however that the proposed bill does not violate freedom of religion or to the opposite sex requirement which many, although not all, religious groups believe is a precondition to religious marriage.
I return then to reason, accepting that it can never be entirely divorced from faith. Clause 2 of the bill provides that:
|
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. |
Let me be clear. I have been married to the same woman for 21 years, reflecting my own personal definition of a marriage. It is not however the personal definition of many of our fellow citizens who are homosexual and who have sought the protection of the charter to obtain civil marriage licences from the government. In a constitutional democracy, such as Canada, what should we do about such a conflict?
(1515)
[Translation]
This begs the fundamental question: what right do we have, as a society, to deny homosexual Canadians something the rest of us are entitled to, namely a civil marriage licence?
As hard as it is to admit, the answer is quite clear, in my opinion. We have no such moral authority because relationships between individuals, of any gender, do not concern the government as long as these individuals are not harming anyone.
[English]
I am a Conservative and this is the philosophy that guides me in public life. I have previously referred to John Stuart Mill who commented that “over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.
The recognition of same sex marriage does not discriminate against nor harm opposite sex married couples. Recognition of the equality rights of one group does not violate the rights of another.
Many of my constituents are concerned about the risk of societal harm and I understand the fervour with which they hold that point of view. Others see little or no such risk. As a member of Parliament I have attempted to weigh these concerns, noting that my constituents are completely divided on the subject.
[Translation]
In the end, I have decided to defend the constitutional right of homosexual couples to civil marriage. The proposed legislation is consistent with the Constitution, the charter and our history as a tolerant nation.
[English]
I will be equally vigilant in defending religious marriage and religious freedom, for it is equally clear that neither the Christian community nor the other communities of faith can be compelled to accept or perform same sex marriage. That freedom, to quote the Supreme Court, “will be jealously guarded by the courts”, and I say today that it must be jealously guarded also by this House. Religious freedom must stand sacrosanct and religious marriage must stand as the exclusive preserve of our communities of faith.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to speak to Bill C-38. I had an opportunity to speak on the amendment which, unfortunately, was defeated. I think the vote on that particular amendment, which was that the bill not pass a second time, showed that this House is divided. Indeed, Canadians are divided on this question.
There have been some very eloquent speeches about the issue of granting marriage. I know in my own speech I spent a fair bit of time talking about the charter and how important the charter was, and reviewing cases up to the Ontario Halpern decision in which something had changed.
Up until that time the courts had ruled that section 15 of the equality provisions of the charter were in fact being infringed, and under a section 1 analysis, which permits infringements of some of the charter provisions, it dealt with it on the basis of whether it was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It was not until the Halpern decision that the courts started to focus in on marriage as an institution. Unfortunately, the panel of three looked at marriage in a very mechanical way.
The court said that marriage as an institution was a declining institution. It pointed out that marriage breakdown or divorce was very prevalent and that obviously society at large was not very much interested in the institution of marriage.
The court also went on to look at the number of people who are seeking common law relationships rather than married relationships. That again is a precise indication that marriage as an institution is a declining institution. Those numbers are continuing to rise. Indeed, Statistics Canada has projected that the number of common law relationships on the current trend line will in fact exceed married relationships within about 10 years.
As an institution marriage has come under attack. I know that many members are quite concerned about the social tendencies. The court went even further. The argument about children in marriage has been a matter which has been debated in this place substantively. The court basically said that there are situations where people can rely on reproductive technologies for instance to have children. There can be artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and adoption. In fact, a same sex couple can indeed have a child from a previous heterosexual relationship. The existence of children within a same sex couple is not necessarily unusual.
The court literally trashed the institution of marriage as having relevance. The court basically said, under the section 1 analysis of the infringement, that it was no longer a reasonably justified infringement on the equality provisions and that the definition of marriage was indeed contrary to the charter.
Here is where we are now. There is the Ontario court decision and then there were these copycat decisions in other provincial jurisdictions. Here we are in Parliament and I have heard petitions day after day reflecting what Canadians wanted to hear from parliamentarians. It was that the definition of marriage is in fact the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada. Parliament is still the highest court in the land, even above the Supreme Court of Canada. We now have this instrument in Bill C-38.
(1520)
I find Bill C-38 a very peculiar bill. It is a bill which includes a variety of whereases. As well all know, the courts have indicated that whereases have absolutely no basis in terms of law.
There also is a clause in there which makes some peculiar reference to religious freedoms being protected. If we took everything away and left that one clause in, it absolutely has no result or consequences. The responsibilities vis-à-vis solemnization of marriage are, according to the Supreme Court decision ultra vires, a responsibility of the provinces not of the federal government. To have a statement recognizing that the solemnization of marriage is going to be taken care of is not within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. In fact, clause 3 has absolutely no relevance whatsoever in the legislation.
Ultimately, if we take out all the whereases and we take out clause 3, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything, we are left with one line and it says that marriage is the union of two persons. Bill C-38 is all about that. If we take the definition of marriage and we reduce it down to the union of two persons, it has no distinctiveness whatsoever. It has absolutely no defining characteristics. The debate has been about this. What are the defining characteristics?
We know what it is throughout history. We know that marriage pre-existed even religions. It is an institution which historically has been viewed as an institution which fosters an environment for the fundamental responsibility of all species, and that is to survive, to procreate. Marriage is that institution which has played this role. It has given people hope. It is why young people now are flocking back to marriage, and the numbers are changing. They see this as a stable institution.
We have had so many debates in this place about problems of domestic violence, poverty and problems in other social areas. The conclusion in all of those debates and all the research have been that the basic unit of society, the family, mothers and fathers, the children with the biological mother and father is the safest place for children and for women. It is the most nurturing environment to ensure that healthy, well-adjusted children are raised in our society. This is a good thing.
When we go through this debate, how often have members who want to defend the traditional definition of marriage been characterized as being homophobic? I believe we have to remind people that one can be for something without being against something else.
There are many people here who have absolutely no problem with homosexual couples having relationships and considering other forms of it. However, to say that it has no impact, that it will not change anything, from my standpoint, the member for Mississauga South, the bill is an affront to me. It is an affront to my religious beliefs. It is an affront to the holy books of virtually every mainstream religion, of which I know, dealing with the institution of marriage. It is something that is so sacred to so many people across Canada.
With such a divisive issue, why, when we have so many people across the country who are upset about this, should we have a bill that will not be sensitive to those needs? We did not look for an opportunity to have some sort of compromise. The bill did not look at civil unions. Many people feel that is a reasonable compromise.
However, marriage is an institution which has a history. It has a tradition. It has a purpose. It is known. It is respected. What we are going to do now is take that tradition, that institution, and we are going to reduce it down to something as simple as a union of two people. How bizarre, how unfortunate and how sad for Canada.
This is not a good bill. It is a bad bill and it should be defeated.
(1525)
I know most of the members in this place. I have a great deal of respect for this place and a great deal of respect for the members who have put themselves forward in public office to do the best job they can.
I do not know how all this will work out, but I want Canadians to know that all the people in this place who have fought so very hard to defend the traditional definition of marriage have done so in favour of the traditional definition of marriage and not against some other lifestyle choices. There is a high degree of respect and integrity in this place and I am very proud to be here.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I support the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
In 2003 the Liberal government's position in support of the traditional definition of marriage was clear and unambiguous. Department of Justice lawyers argued in the Ontario Court of Appeal that the definition of marriage predated our legal framework and had a meaning and life independent of any act of Parliament or court decision.
The government lawyers led expert evidence to show the existence of the universal definition of marriage across cultures and across religions, that marriage has always been and continues to be understood and defined as a particular kind of human relationship, a publicly committed, monogamous, heterosexual union. The Department of Justice stated:
|
The fundamental meaning or essence of marriage can only be derived in reference to its history, including its religious origins. It is not merely a legal status, or a creature of the common law, but a social practice and institution that has an independent and ordinary meaning, which is universally, understood–that is, the union of a man and woman. |
Now the government would have us believe that Parliament ought to fundamentally alter the definition of marriage and that the Supreme Court of Canada compels it to do so. That is not the case. In fact on December 10, 2004, the Supreme Court refused to give an opinion on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage and implied that it was Parliament's job to legislate with regard to marriage, not the court's.
Neither the absence of an opinion nor the observation that Parliament is the custodian of the definition of marriage can be construed as a Supreme Court mandated obligation to alter the definition of marriage.
Interestingly, when it has addressed the definition of marriage, the Supreme Court has rejected claims that the traditional definition of marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan decision stated:
|
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. |
Further, the court noted that the importance of marriage to the stability and well-being of family and society. Heterosexual marriage, it said is, “a social unit that is fundamental to society” and “is unique”. It differs from all other couples including homosexual couples.
This was also the position of the Liberal Government of Canada in the Ontario courts. It said:
|
Marriage has never been defined merely as one context for producing or rearing children, both of which can occur–and often do–without marriage. Marriage has always been defined as an “ideal” context for producing and rearing children. |
There is concern that if same sex marriage is legalized by Parliament, there will be significant intrusions by the state into the lives of ordinary Canadians of faith. The National Post in an editorial, entitled “Freedom of religion under threat”, speculated about where such a change would take us as a society. The editorial referenced cases which gave some credence to its concern.
First, a same sex couple in B.C. is trying to force a Catholic men's organization, the Knights of Columbus, to provide space in its hall for their marriage ceremony. Second, in Saskatchewan, a evangelical Christian was charged for placing an ad in a Saskatoon newspaper that cited four scriptural passages denouncing same sex relations.
The National Post editorial concluded that “gay rights are now taken to trump every other freedom”.
In its same sex legislation, the government has failed to ensure that substantive protections are available for people of faith and religious institutions. The bill before Parliament has a one sentence clause the government claims protects religious freedom. This clause which states that religious officials will not be forced to solemnize same sex marriages has already been ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Canada. Parliament, the Supreme Court stated, lacks the constitutional authority to enact such a provision because the Constitution gives provinces exclusive responsibility for the solemnization of marriage.
The government claims that same sex marriage is a fundamental right. The highest courts in other countries and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have rejected such claims.
(1530)
For example, the New Zealand supreme court found that the opposite sex requirement of marriage was not discriminatory, noting that the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman was not based on an act of Parliament or a court decision, but was a recognition of the fundamental nature of marriage itself. The New Zealand court saw it as no more discriminatory than prohibitions against marrying someone who was underage, marrying a sister or a brother, or marrying someone who was already married, prohibitions contained in the New Zealand marriage act.
Following the New Zealand ruling, the UN Commission on Human Rights heard a complaint that the decision violated the international covenant for the protection of human rights, to which New Zealand, like Canada, is a signator. The commission rejected this complaint in 2002, in effect upholding that same sex marriage was not a basic universal human right.
The Liberal government's same sex legislation is seriously flawed and a threat to religious liberty. Neither the Supreme Court of Canada nor the UN Commission on Human Rights would compel the government to rewrite the traditional definition of marriage.
The government now raises questions about the validity or appropriateness of religious based contributions to the debate about same sex marriage. At least one minister of the government misrepresented the notion of separation of church and state to mean that there was no room for a religious based view in a discussion of what constitutes marriage. That was not the position of the government in 2001.
Expert evidence presented for the Government of Canada in the Ontario courts identified religious communities as stakeholders within the institution of marriage. In her testimony, the government's expert witness, Suzanne Scorsone, made clear the following:
|
1. Every political issue is necessarily addressed from the perspective of ideology, that is a general belief set. Among these, we find religious...belief sets. Every individual has an ideology, whether that ideology is consistently integrated or not, and whether it is “religious” or not. |
|
2. Societies that function harmoniously reconcile, insofar as possible, the values and norms of their stakeholders and constituencies. |
|
3. Religion is an important model of and for society in that it articulates and frames the conceptualization of its members as to what relationships and behaviour are and/or should be. |
|
4. Religion and religious communities constitute an essential “voice” in Canadian society which is secular, diverse and eclectic. Organized religion has always played a particularly important role in the Canadian community. The state has always interacted with organized religion, in the context of special guarantees for religious freedom. |
|
5. Given the historical roots of marriage, the strong “religious” attachment that Canadians have to marriage and the long history of responsibility undertaken by religious bodies with respect to the celebration of marriage, religious communities have an important historic and current stake in the institution of marriage. |
Every one of us has a core set of beliefs, an ideology which guides our decision making. The beliefs of some may be religion based. For others it may not be. However, just because one's core set of beliefs is religious based does not disqualify him or her from participating in a discussion, especially a discussion as fundamental to our society as marriage.
The Government of Canada, through the expert testimony of Professor Shorter of the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, cautioned against a fundamental alteration in the definition of marriage. He said:
|
Marriage represents an institution of incalculable importance to society...That single enduring meaning that has been as a union of a man and a woman for the bearing and nurturing of children. If we begin inserting players into legal marriage whose own values may be at odds with this core mission, we may be undermining that sense of mission for all. We shall be undermining this task privately... And we shall be undermining this task publicly as well, diminishing a core institution that has offered the most stable environment for childbearing...Tampering with it in the name of well-meaning but untried experiments could have a negative outcome for our society. |
While the government's expert witnesses were consistent in their observation that marriage between a man and a woman was a universal norm, they rightly urged respect for those who, for whatever reason, entered relationships inconsistent with that universal norm.
Professor Young, on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, advised the court in Halpern, “All societies must deal with the inevitable anomalies and exceptions. The mark of a healthy society is to have not only strong norms but also humane ways of evoking tolerance for those who either do not or cannot adopt them”.
We in this party have proposed a legitimate and sensible alternative to changing the definition of marriage.
We should not forget that all individuals, because of their inherent human dignity, are entitled to our respect and, furthermore, all are entitled to express their point of view.
(1535)
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to one of the most controversial bills we will see in this 38th Parliament. It is also gratifying to see so many Canadians speaking out on the bill. Regardless of whether they are in favour or opposed to it, it is generating an outpouring from Canadians, and that is positive.
This is a bill that they feel so strongly about that my office is being inundated on a daily basis with hundreds of letters and faxes, and they are not just from my riding. They are from all over Canada. They are from young and old alike. If we could get this kind of response during an election, we would have a 90% turnout at the polls.
I must be clear from the beginning that my approach to any emotionally charged issue has always been the same. I take the emotion out of the argument, examine the facts and reach a sound conclusion based on logic. I remain open-minded to any and all arguments presented and am prepared to shift position if new information is revealed.
My husband and children lovingly refer to this method of thinking on emotionally charged issues as Spock mode, so named for the famous Vulcan character from Star Trek. I make no apologies. It has served me well in both domestic situations and in 20-plus years of public service.
Based on that preamble, let us examine the facts.
There is no federal law defining marriage in this country at this point. That is precisely what we are about to establish. Yes, it is true that government has developed other laws and protections pertaining to citizens who fall under the categories of traditional marriage, common law marriage and same sex relationships, but that has been in reaction to pre-established levels of commitment by couples outside the purview of federal rule and should not be confused with today's debate subject, the federal definition of marriage.
One might reasonably ask why the federal level of government has not established a definition of marriage after more than 100 years. To me the answer is fairly clear. The ceremony of marriage is not the creation or the intellectual property of any government. It is the creation and intellectual property of religious institutions.
Churches, synagogues, mosques and temples of the world established the meaning of marriage and the ceremony that formalizes it in response to a need to establish boundaries in accordance with the fundamental beliefs derived from the text adhered to by their religious followers. Logic dictates that marriage is therefore the intellectual property of religious institutions, not the in