OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 064 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, March 28, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 28, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 064 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 064 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 064 (Version officielle) 147 064 28 03 2014 2014/03/28 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Government Orders Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Food and Drugs Act Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) Bill C-17. Second reading moved that Bill C-17,

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the Parliament of Canada today to endorse Vanessa's law, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. I am honoured to be a member of the first Canadian government ever to tackle the insidious and largely hidden problem of the injuries and deaths routinely caused by prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

I thank two consecutive ministers of health and the Prime Minister , who acted boldly to make Canadians safer, directly taking on the most influential industry in the world, big pharma, and the status quo in the practice of medicine, which has been corrupted by that industry. Today is a milestone for me and the Young family as well as for the Government of Canada. I stand here today due to a tragedy in my family that took place exactly 14 years ago last week, on Saturday, March 18, 2000.

Without warning, our 15-year-old daughter Vanessa, for whom this act is named, fell down dead in front of me, her heart stopped by the Johnson & Johnson blockbuster prescription drug Prepulsid, a drug we later discovered she should have never been given. Despite emergency ambulance services and the valiant efforts of doctors at two hospitals, Vanessa never regained consciousness and died the next day. We never had a chance to say goodbye. On March 20, 2000, I began the journey that led me to the House of Commons this morning.

The facts of this tragedy shock every layperson who hears them, yet I was to quickly discover that the insiders, the doctors, researchers, and people of big pharma, were never shocked. They knew all along that potentially life-threatening drugs were being pushed on patients with non-life-threatening conditions, as the drug business had become all about Wall Street, and they were benefiting financially big time. Our doctors are groomed through highly sophisticated big pharma relationship marketing programs. They get their first free lunch the first week of medical school.

They then go on to naively accept up to $4 billion a year in North America in gifts, lunches, dinners, event tickets, and free trips from drug companies, imagining that those debts of gratitude do not change their prescribing behaviour. Sometimes I would ask them, “Do you think a drug company takes a bunch of doctors to Bahamas out of kindness?” They also accept and hand out, without any prescription, $3 billion a year worth of free samples of new prescription drugs, creating debts of gratitude in their own patients. It is a dangerous practice, because patients get no safety warnings.

In November 2010, 18-year-old Brennan McCartney, of Bolton, Ontario, took a free sample of the anti-depressant Cipralex, with no safety warning about suicide, which is written right on its label. He went out and hanged himself from a tree in a public park. Four doctors knew that Vanessa was taking Prepulsid for bloating and a mild form of bulimia, yet neither Vanessa nor we, her parents, were given any warning that the drug was already responsible for 80 deaths. Why? How could this happen to the beautiful, innocent child her doctor described as the picture of perfect health?

How could four doctors, people we totally trusted, allow Vanessa to continue to take a drug that could stop her heart? I began the next day to find out how Vanessa died and why, and I have uncovered many dark secrets. Prescription drugs, taken as prescribed, the right way, are the fourth leading cause of death in North America. There are over 106,000 deaths a year just in hospitals and another 100,000 outside hospitals. That is about 20,000 deaths a year in Canada and 200,000 serious drug injuries.

The drug industry representatives who infest Parliament Hill love to talk about when doctors make errors or when patients use the wrong drug or take too much of a drug. What they never talk about is when a drug used the right way kills or injures a patient, causing 10,000 deaths a year in Canada. In fact, one in nine patients in Canada who goes into hospital will suffer a serious adverse drug reaction in hospital. All drugs are poisons. Any drug can be toxic; it is just a matter of dose. All drugs cause adverse effects.

Some people think over-the-counter drugs are totally safe, yet ordinary Tylenol, acetaminophen, causes hundreds of deaths every year and more cases of acute liver failure than all other medications combined. Too much taken with alcohol can destroy one's liver. Has anyone's doctor ever mentioned that? Ordinary aspirin and ibuprofen cause thousands of deaths every year across North America, mostly from internal bleeding, yet most patients have never heard this. Why not? There is only one reason. It is because the people who market the drugs, big pharma, do not want patients to know the truth.

That would reduce sales. What happened to Vanessa and Brennan McCartney could happen to anyone who takes drugs without proper safety warnings. Nothing significant has changed since 2000 except the current introduction of plain language labelling for drugs and this bill. Vanessa's law will empower the Minister of Health to compel drug companies to change their labels to clearly reflect the true risk to patients from their drugs. Patients would be empowered to make informed decisions to take the drugs or not. Patients could then take drugs only when they are relatively safe.

Twenty-seven drugs have been pulled from the Canadian market since 1997 for injuring and killing patients. Prepulsid is one. Another, the painkiller Vioxx, killed 55,000 to 65,000 people worldwide in four years on the market. Why do most Canadians not know that? It is because the drug companies never admit that their drugs have harmed anyone. They spend months and months investigating serious reactions, and then they attempt to blame the patient.

They conclude that patients must have taken too much, that they must have had a previously undiagnosed and unknown conditions, or that it must have been a combination of the company's great drug with the patients' other drugs. They then contraindicate their drug with the other drug and change the print on a 50-page label, which most doctors and few patients ever read. Then they carry on promoting it, including for off-label use, meaning for conditions for which it was never proven safe or effective.

Doctors can prescribe any drug at any time for any condition for any patient, even if it is never proven safe for such use. In fact, 70% of doctors prescribe off-label at least some of the time. Modern medicine can be the wild west. That is what the Johnson and Johnson detail reps did to Vanessa's doctors. They whispered to them that Prepulsid was effective for teens who threw up after meals, yet it was contraindicated and dangerous for anyone throwing up. That was the official warning, but they did not whisper that in her doctors' ears, because Prepulsid was heading for blockbuster status.

It was a golden calf, with $1 billion a year in sales. Just before Health Canada is about to take action to expose risks, the drug companies will pull drugs off the market voluntarily. That way they can keep selling them in over 100 other countries in the world, because they have never admitted that the drug could cause anyone harm. That is the drug business. Vanessa's law will give the Minister of Health the power to order drugs that present as serious or imminent risk of injury or death off the market without delay.

Had this been done with Prepulsid, instead of negotiating over weeks with Janssen-Ortho, Prepulsid would have been recalled. Vanessa would be alive today, along with many others. Drug companies refuse to provide the true number of serious adverse drug reactions to Health Canada. They report what they hear about, but what does not appear on their label is this crucial fact: only 1% of serious adverse drug reactions are ever reported by doctors. Whatever the number is on the label can usually be multiplied by 100 to get the true number, which the drug companies never do.

Most doctors never report adverse drug reactions. Outside of the doctors I have worked with in prescription drug safety, I have never met a doctor who has reported one. Despite my advocacy for over 14 years that reporting adverse drug reactions saves lives by providing a widely based early warning system for dangerous drugs, the Canadian Medical Association and the Ontario Medical Association, to this day, do not support making adverse drug reaction reporting a standard practice or mandatory. Doctors are fooled by their own negligence in not reporting life-saving information. Patients die as a result.

On October 9, 2011, 18-year-old Allison Borges of Oakville was found in a stairwell of her residence at Queen's University, dead, having suffered a pulmonary embolism caused by Apri28, a birth control pill that her doctor told her was safe. She received no warning that the newer birth control pills are more likely to cause deadly blood clots than the older ones. No woman should be given a birth control pill without a clear warning about deadly blood clots, yet it happens all the time. Sadly, 18 year old Marit McKenzie of Calgary suffered the same fate in January 2013.

Had Vanessa's law been in place and implemented, both deaths would have been prevented. Vanessa's law will impose, for the first time, a duty on health care institutions to report all serious adverse drug reactions, which will capture any adverse drug reaction that causes patients to end up in a hospital or clinic. That will hopefully capture the majority of serious adverse drug reactions so that officials can be alerted to dangerous drugs faster. This will help get them off the market faster and save lives.

We must rely on the provinces to persuade doctors themselves to stop covering up adverse drug reactions caused by their prescriptions. Over half the serious side effects of new drugs will not be revealed during testing. In fact, in the first two years on the U.S. market, one in five, or 20% of new drugs, will be pulled off the market for injuring or killing patients or will be assigned the highest level of warning, a black box warning, to be handed to each patient with the prescription. It is a more effective warning than Canada has ever had and that, under Vanessa's law, it will have.

(1010) In May 2007, 18-year-old Sara Carlin of Oakville stopped taking her prescription anti-depressant Paxil abruptly. Then she doubled up, to catch up, two days later. She had no warning that Paxil could cause suicidal ideation and akathesia in those circumstances. Her father found her the next day, hanging by her own hand, in the basement of their home. Neither Sara nor her family had heard about the five “Dear Doctor” letter warnings Health Canada had sent out about Paxil.

Vanessa's law will for the first time allow the minister to order assessments of a drug, including conducting tests or studies and reporting them to Health Canada, and to change the drug labels to better reflect the newly identified risks. Proposed regulations for drug labelling will empower Health Canada to order drug companies to issue labels and patient information leaflets that are written in plain language, with the rare but dangerous potential side effects listed up front, on page one, where patients need to see them. Patients can then decide if they want to accept those dangers or not. In 2003, Dr.

Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, the world's second largest pharmaceutical company, made this statement at a scientific meeting, thinking there were no journalists present: “The vast majority of drugs—more than 90 per cent—only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people”. What this means is that with a worldwide market of about $800 billion for prescription drugs, as much as $400 billion a year is not only wasted but millions of patients are exposed to dangers with no chance of benefiting.

According to the Canadian Pharmacists Association, between $2 billion and $9 billion a year is wasted in our drug system. This means that as patients increasingly reject the drug industry's pill for every ill, our health care system would save billions of dollars, hopefully to be invested in preventive care. Seventy percent of adverse drug reactions are preventable. They are caused by the aggressive over-marketing of drugs, misleading sales pitches, and the covering up of harms that victimize patients. How could any moral corporate executive push a drug that could stop a child's heart to treat bloating?

That is exactly what the executives at Johnson and Johnson's drug arm Janssen-Ortho did, and they broke the law in doing it. It is quite normal in the drug business. Drug safety is about one thing: does the potential risk of this drug outweigh the potential benefits for me? Yet the big pharma companies do everything they can to make sure that patients have no way to answer that question. They exaggerate the benefits and they hide the risks. I know that this sounds outrageous.

It sounds like a father who lost his daughter and then lost his objectivity, so let me give a few factual examples of where big pharma companies have openly admitted to crimes to increase sales of their drugs. In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline, the people who made our H1N1 vaccine, paid a fine of $3 billion, the highest in history, to U.S. governments for illegally marketing three drugs: Paxil, an anti-depressant, which causes suicides; Avandia, a diabetes drug that causes heart attacks and strokes; and Wellbutrin, another anti-depressant with similar adverse effects.

Yet GlaxoSmithKline had grossed $26 billion in sales for these three drugs in the previous six years. With markups on drugs at more than 100% and 1000%, a $3 billion fine is really just the cost of doing business for GlaxoSmithKline. It is kind of like a speeding ticket. Shortly after Vanessa died, I asked adverse drug reaction expert Dr. Neil Shear, in Toronto, why drug companies do not take dangerous drugs like Prepulsid off the market. Here is what he replied: “In the drug industry, killing people is not bad for business. As long as it's not too many”. Nothing has changed since that time.

Big pharma companies put the legal costs for injuries and deaths right in their business plans. Here are some more examples of big pharma corporate criminals. I will read a short list from a list that could be pages long. Merck has paid $1.6 billion in settlements since 2008, in part for paying illegal kickbacks to health care providers. Ely Lilly paid $1.3 billion in 2009 for illegally promoting Zyprexa, leading to the deaths of many seniors. Novartis paid $422 million in 2010 for off-label promotion of Trileptal. Forest Labs paid $313 million in 2010 for off-label promotion of Celexa and Levothroid.

Allergan paid $825 million in 2010 for off-label promotion of Botox. AstraZeneca paid $520 million in 2010 for misleading doctors and patients about the safety of Seroquel. The list goes on, and these are just since 2008.

(1015) The question is, how do the big pharma companies get away with this? They have power and influence. They are some of the wealthiest companies in the world and have no loyalty to any country, but, above all else, despite the thousands of deaths, no big pharma executive has ever gone to jail. Imagine if murderers, rapists, or extortionists could simply negotiate payments with some government official to keep out of jail and to keep on doing what they are doing.

The only way these companies will ever stop their corrupt practices is: one, if the practices become unprofitable; and, two, if those responsible face real jail time. Vanessa's law, for the first time, would impose tough new penalties for unsafe products, increasing fines from $5,000 a day to $5 million a day and including jail time for up to two years. That is the only way to actually get their attention and change their ways. And if these serious violations are caused intentionally, court-imposed fines could be unlimited.

My hope is that when life-threatening dangers are intentionally covered up, judges will fine offenders the entire amount of their sales of their blockbuster drug, or more, because nothing else will change their practices. Vanessa's law would be the beginning of the end for the unscrupulous and corrupt marketing practices in big pharma companies in Canada. It would no doubt reduce drug injuries and deaths in Canada by thousands. It is much needed and it is long overdue.

We can never have Vanessa back, in this life, or Sara Carlin, or Allison Borges, or Brennan McCartney, or Marit McKenzie, but we can change things moving forward. We can do what governments are supposed to do: protect vulnerable people. Vanessa's law represents the highest calling of a government, in my view. When the death of an innocent child can lead to definitive action by the Government of Canada to help prevent others from the same fate, our democracy is at its best. Every school day, across Canada, millions of children sing: From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

However, that promise has to be a two-way street. Vanessa Young would be proud to see that with Bill C-17 , Canada is standing on guard for its school children, its seniors, and its other vulnerable patients.

(1020) Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Oakville and I go back to 2008. We were elected together. I know his passion for this subject. I have read his book. I have had personal conversations with him. I have to say it was pretty thrilling to hear that speech. We do not agree on many things, he and I, but we agree wholeheartedly on this. In many ways, I wish that I had the courage to give a speech like that. It was incredibly powerful. I want to stand here and publicly give him my support and tell him that it takes a lot of courage to say things like that in this place.

Everything he said was the truth. He talked about uncovering dark secrets and, boy, has he ever, and that big pharma does not want patients to know the risks and, boy, does it ever not want that to happen. I want to talk about next steps. One step that I see coming after this legislation would be to include mandatory registration of clinical trials and public disclosure of those findings. I recognize that is not in the bill right now. I recognize that the bill is a great first step, but I want to keep going on this. He said it is the beginning of the end. What are his thoughts on next steps?

Would that be one of them? Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her kind words and for her support on this issue, over a long time. I agree with the member. The transparency in research and clinical trial research is a critical part of improving the data the drug companies use to get drugs approved in the first place. They are very secretive about it. They refer to it as “commercial rights” or “trade secrets”, or whatever, but I do not believe it is.

When a pharmaceutical company hires someone to do a clinical trial, they normally ask the researcher to sign a contract, which is basically a gag order that says the company can stop the trial at any time and he or she must never talk about it again. If the trial is not going well for the drug, that is what they do. No one knows the trial was even started. If the trial shows the drug might be harming patients, they stop the trial and the researcher can never talk about it again, or never get work again as a researcher.

They could do a number of trials like that on a drug until they finally find a researcher who gets them the positive result they want. I agree with registering all trials, that it should be done, and that even if the trial is stopped early, all the data should be published. I see the CMAJ has requested or suggested that this go into Vanessa's law. I can only say that the Minister of Health is willing to consider amendments to Vanessa's law and I would be very pleased if that were put into the bill.

(1025) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I too would like to applaud the member for Oakville . There is no doubt that due to his efforts and great amount of courage, we actually have this bill before us today, and it speaks volumes in what determination and the love of a relationship can bring. Ultimately, as we go through this bill, we want it to go to committee. One of the questions that came to my mind is on the Government of Canada’s ability to compel manufacturers to recall. Can the member provide some insight on that particular issue? Mr. Terence Young : Mr.

Speaker, the issue there is that the pharmaceutical industry, when it starts to get reports of serious adverse drug reactions, generally investigates them and drags them out and tries to blame them on the patients and on another drug. Or, if the company admits that its drug combined with another drug caused a serious adverse drug reaction, it then changes the label, which is a 50-page document that most doctors never read and patients never see. Then it continues marketing the drug. In the case of Propulsid, the drug that caused Vanessa's death, the manufacturer did that over 10 years.

It changed the label five times, knowing that no one ever reads the fine print on a label, and it added certain contraindications. It contraindicated it with erythromycin and clarithromycin over the years. Finally, just a few weeks before Vanessa died of heart arrhythmia from Propulsid, the manufacturer sent out a letter to all doctors, which the pharmaceutical companies can easily do and do all the time. The letter said not to prescribe Propulsid or give it to patients unless they have done an EKG first.

That was the first warning that really meant anything to doctors because even a doctor who is in a big hurry with a room full of patients will look at that warning and wonder why doctors would give an EKG to a patient for a drug. Vanessa's doctor did not see that. He was in Florida on a holiday, and he came back and we know the result. Dragging out the negotiations of changing the wording on the labels is one of the tricks pharmaceutical companies do to keep the drug on the market and keep the sales going, and it causes injuries and deaths.

With the new powers under Vanessa's law, the minister would be able to examine the situation, and if that is what is going on and there is an imminent danger, she could order the companies to take the drug not only off the market but also right out of the supply chain. Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his eloquent speech. Obviously one of the worst nightmares for a parent or for any individual is an allergic reaction or an adverse drug reaction.

Even as recently as last week, while I was in my other official capacity, a parent phoned me at home at 11:30 at night to say, “I have called 9-1-1; I am heading to the hospital myself, but can I meet you there because I am so concerned about my child's reaction to a drug they have just taken”. Obviously this is something that hits close to home, and parents become anxious every time they have to move forward to ensure they are taking care of their child under the right circumstances and that the drugs they are using to ensure their child becomes healthier are actually safe. My question for the member is this.

With respect to this serious issue of adverse drug reactions, what would be the reporting mechanism and how would that be enforced, to ensure that children across the country are safe? Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, currently Health Canada has a reporting mechanism on its website. Any doctor, health care professional, or individual citizen can report an adverse drug reaction. As I mentioned in my speech, only about 1% do get reported. Doctors are reluctant, for a whole range of reasons.

However, using the standards of practice for hospitals, Vanessa's law would insist that people working in health care institutions, clinics, and hospitals, report adverse drug reactions. It is something they are already doing in the institutions. They already have the information and they already keep it somewhere. I do not think it is particularly onerous. We would simply ask them to send the information to Health Canada so that it can look for patterns and for an early warning on drugs that may be risky or drugs that are being used in the wrong way.

Exactly how that is going to work is to be determined, but we would catch most of the serious adverse drug reactions because they are the ones that end up in hospital. If we can get the provinces to convince doctors, in some way, to start reporting out of their office on their own computers a suspected adverse drug reaction and create a really robust database from across Canada, we could even reduce more injuries and deaths.

(1030) Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his tremendous speech. I remember a speech like that a while ago from Mr. Chuck Cadman, when he was here, after the loss of his son. I take to heart the member's speech. I can assure him that nobody on this side of the House would ever accuse him of bias with respect to a bill that would have the potential to save thousands of lives now and in the future. My question to the member is this.

Because these drug companies are all big multinational or international companies and we have trade deals, for example, with NAFTA and others, does he foresee any problems with respect to the bill being challenged on a legal front through areas like

Chapter 11 of NAFTA? Can he also say what other countries, like France, Germany, Britain, Holland, Australia, or the United States, would do in terms of Vanessa's law? Is there anything similar out there that we can mirror as well? It would be interesting to know of his research on what other countries are doing concerning this very important issue. Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, the United States has generally had a more robust warning system for patients and doctors. I mentioned the black box warnings it has for the 200 drugs considered to be the most risky.

By law, that warning is supposed to be handed to patients when they pick up their prescription. The European Medicines Agency is ahead of us in some ways. It will often take a drug off the market before it is taken off the market in the U.S. or Canada. I mentioned Avandia, a diabetes drug that causes heart attacks and strokes. It was taken off the market in Europe in 2009. It is still on the market in the United States and Canada, with beefed-up warnings, but Europe seems to be a little more progressive.

Health Canada has recently begun communicating more with the best regulators in the world, which would include the FDA, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the U.K., and the European Medicines Agency, and sharing practices. Through them, it has gotten a lot of ideas on ways to handle these issues for Vanessa's law.

I think if the House agrees to pass the bill, it will put Canada in the forefront and will increase communications with these other bodies, so that the drug companies cannot keep a drug on the market in one country, take it off in another, and pull the wool over the eyes of doctors and patients. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I am pleased that the bill is in the House. As I said in my questions to the member for Oakville , that speech took a lot of courage. I do not think my speech will be quite as courageous.

The words that the member for Oakville said are exactly the words I wish I had said in this place. The bill is long overdue and I am glad it is here. I am not going to criticize the delay, because it is here. I do think it needs to go a bit further, but it is a great first step. When I was the health critic a few years ago, I knew nothing about the pharmaceutical industry. As a critic, people started giving me books and articles and I started talking to experts. I went around Canada and talked to all kinds of folks working on this issue.

When we start peeling back the layers of the onion, we realize what a messy, dark world that is. The power and control that pharmaceutical companies have is quite amazing, as is the trust we give them. We hand over our lives in this way because we think they know what is best. One example I often used when I was talking to people was the therapeutics initiative in British Columbia, which is an arm's-length body, not a government body. There are experts on that panel who make recommendations about what drugs will be covered under British Columbia's pharmacare program. One might wonder why we would have to do that.

Can one not just look at the label? Can one not just find out if a drug is worth covering or not? We are not always told the truth. Drug companies will go to great lengths to ensure that their drugs are on those pharmacare lists because they have a lot of money to make from it. Sometimes they will take a drug and change one molecule and say it is a new breakthrough drug when it is just one molecule different from the old drug that works. Maybe they are not making enough money off it. That one molecule change can do a lot when it comes to having an impact on the people’s health.

I am reminded that I need to seek unanimous consent to split my time. I hope the chamber will allow me that.

(1035) The Speaker : Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share her time with a colleague? Some hon. members: Agreed. Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan . Vioxx was touted as an incredible breakthrough in pain relief. Why do we need a breakthrough in pain relief? We have ibuprofen and acetaminophen. Some of these drugs do a bit of wear and tear on our stomachs and can cause internal bleeding, and some people have died even from something as simple as ibuprofen.

The big breakthrough drug, Vioxx, which goes under many other names, but that is probably the most common name, was touted as being a pain reliever that would not cause bleed-outs. It was approved by Health Canada, so people put a lot of faith in that approval. The thing was that there were no published clinical trial reports about this drug. We did not know if it did not cause bleed-outs or if it was a better pain reliever, and yet Health Canada approved it. When Therapeutics Initiative did an analysis of this new drug, it said it would not recommend it to be covered by B.C.'s pharmacare.

Since the clinical data was not published, it was a bit suspicious about what was going on, and it said no. Then the lobbying began, heavy-duty lobbying to government to get the drug on the pharmacare list because a lot of money was at stake. We have heard of grassroots organizations that are in our communities and work together. In dealing with pharmaceutical industries these groups are termed astroturf groups. Astroturf groups are not grassroots. They seem to be grassroots, but they are actually funded by the drug companies.

These astroturf organizations are funded by drug companies, but they are made up of just regular folks, and a lot of them probably really believe what they are being told. For example, if I have constituents calling me and saying they would like to talk about a drug that is not covered, I do not know that they are getting funding to do this from a pharmaceutical company. These groups pop up and, as politicians, we know it is hard to say no to constituents. A lot of pressure was being put to get Vioxx on the list.

Therapeutics Initiative did the right thing, because eventually Vioxx had to be pulled off the market, because it was killing people. It was not any better than ibuprofen or acetaminophen for a headache, and while it may not necessarily have caused internal bleeding, it did cause heart attacks. If I have the choice of living with a migraine for a few days or having a heart attack, I am going to live with the migraine. Many people have come forward and said that because of Therapeutics Initiative, hundreds of lives were saved in British Columbia.

All Canadians deserve these kinds of safety standards, not just British Columbians, because at the very least our federal government is here to protect us, to make sure we are safe, to make sure we are not being sold a drug that is actually going to do more harm than good. Partway through his speech, the member for Oakville said that he saw today as the beginning of the end for drug companies and the hold they have on us. I hope he is right. I am standing here with my hands clasped and I hope he is right, because they are so big and they make so much money.

The global pharmaceutical industry is one the most profitable industries in the world, if not the most. The industry is worth about $300 billion U.S. a year, and that is expected to rise to $400 billion in the next three years. Only ten drug companies cover one-third of the market; six are in the U.S. and four are in Europe. It is predicted that North America, South America, Europe, and Japan will continue to account for a full 85% of the global pharmaceuticals market well into the 21st century. The World Health Organization has spoken out about this.

It has said there is such pressure to maintain sales that now there is, in its words: ...an inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate business goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of providers and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way.

(1040) There is this tension between sales and our lives, our health, and our safety. This is particularly true—and it is the same with the World Health Organization—when we think about where we are getting our information about these drugs. We are getting that information from the companies. They are telling us which drugs are most effective. We rely on our doctors, but they are busy folks. They are courted by the pharmaceutical companies. They are given pages and pages of information, in which everything is embedded; then there is a little quick piece that says to try Vioxx because it is great for headaches.

We do not get the proper information because it is coming from the companies themselves. This bill is a good step in the right direction, because there are some key things in it. It would allow the minister to order a recall on drugs. That is a really important thing we need to see. It would allow the minister to order a manufacturer or importer to modify the label of a drug to update it on side effects or health risks associated with it. It would allow the minister to order a review of a drug and require that a copy be given to him or her. It would do some good things. It needs to go further.

The House heard my question to the member for Oakville about publishing clinical trial data. That is incredibly important. I will sum up by saying that, if there is one thing that the federal government is here for, it is to protect us and keep us safe. We need the federal government to fulfill that role. I am encouraged to hear that the minister is open to some amendments. I would also be encouraged to hear if the minister were open to more legislation, because this is incredible, and if we are going to see this as the first step in tackling the pharmaceutical industry, there logically has to be a next step.

I look forward to that next step as well. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we recognize how important it is to improve patient safety. There is no doubt about it; this is a bill we want to see go to committee. We heard the presenter talk about the possibility of amendments, which would be great to see brought into place. However, it is more than just legislation. One could argue that we need to ensure there are resources in place to ensure we are able to enforce the new measures. This is not something we should be taking lightly.

For a great deal of time now, my colleague, the Liberal Party critic for health care, has talked a lot about the health care accord and the importance of getting and achieving a health care accord, which in essence would ensure money into the future for our provinces. Different stakeholders need to be brought to the table because of the whole jurisdictional issue. I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment on the importance of resources and the different stakeholders making sure we are able to implement legislation of this nature? Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr.

Speaker, of course resources are needed that go hand in hand when it comes to drug safety. I will say, though, that I am really going to fight for changes in legislation here. I was doing media commentary in 2012, about Alysena 28, the birth control pill. There were about two or three rows of sugar pills in this birth control package, so women were at risk of pregnancy. For some women, it is a very serious medical issue if they get pregnant. People make all kinds of decisions about why they are taking birth control. I did media for the NDP when that was happening.

I was so frustrated because it was actually a pharmacist who disclosed that this was happening; it was not even the government. I wondered where the government was and why it was not doing something about this. The government actually could not say to the company that it had to recall it. There are some legislative places where we need to give powers to the minister. Of course, then, the next step is making sure there are resources, so the minister has the ability to enforce them. We do need to make those changes to legislation.

(1045) Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Halifax for her very passionate response to an equally passionate and powerful presentation by the member for Oakville . In the member for Oakville 's speech, he referred to the fact that GlaxoSmithKline, as just one example, paid a fine of $3 billion, having made $26 billion in the period of time at issue. However, what I see in this bill before us, if I understand it properly, is that the maximum is $5 million and imprisonment, I am pleased to see. As the member for Oakville pointed out, no big pharma rep has ever been to jail.

As you talk about the amendments you would be seeking in this legislation, would you support a larger fine beyond the $5 million that is currently in the bill, in order to address the huge discrepancy that the member for Oakville brought to our attention?

The Speaker : I would just remind the hon. member for Victoria to address his questions to the Chair, not directly to the member for Halifax. The hon. member for Halifax. Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, I would really look forward to a discussion at committee about just that, hearing from some experts like Joel Lexchin, for example, from York University. That is because the point of fines in this case would be to deter. Companies are making unfathomable amounts of money, so if the fine is not high enough, it is just the cost of doing business.

It is much like the cost of doing business is sending their pharmaceutical reps for a cruise after they score a good contract, or down to the south with their families for a couple of weeks. This really happens. It is a gravy train, if one gets a job as a pharmaceutical rep. Therefore, if a fine is just the cost of doing business and they are still going to make tonnes of money because they have changed one molecule in a drug, then it is not serving the purpose, is it? We will have to ask that at committee. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, today I am honoured to be speaking to Bill C-17,

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act . Before I begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oakville for the courage and determination he has shown in having this bill introduced in the House and in supporting it, as it touches him personally. It is very important that we debate such a sensitive and important bill. The federal government must shoulder its responsibilities regarding the Food and Drugs Act. It is good that we are debating this today. I would like to assure the hon. member opposite, the member for Oakville , that the official opposition will be supporting the bill.

I understand that the minister would be open to amendments. We would be more than pleased to participate in the debate and put forward amendments to Bill C-17 so that it can be improved and so that we create the best legislation possible. In that way, we can keep cases like Vanessa's and so many others from happening in Canada. The NDP will be supporting Bill C-17 , which makes several key improvements to drug safety laws. First, it allows the government to recall drugs or order the distributor to take corrective action to remedy the problem with the drug.

That is an extremely important element, one that I will come back to later on in my speech. Second, it allows the health minister to order a manufacturer or importer to modify the label of a drug to update the side effects or health risks associated with it. The minister can also order a review of the drug and require that a copy of the review be given to the department.

In addition, the minister can require manufacturers to update Canadian information about the risks associated with their drug even if the safety risks were discovered in other countries This bill is a good first step in establishing a comprehensive drug plan and in setting the course for our society on this issue. After calls from many health care professionals and advocates, this bill will finally grant the health minister the necessary power to pull unsafe drugs from the market and ensure better labelling of possible adverse effects of drugs.

We support this legislative measure and we hope that even more practical measures will follow. We support this bill, but there is still much to be done to improve drug safety measures. We will therefore propose amendments to improve this bill in committee. We hope that our efforts will lead to a comprehensive piece of legislation that will include follow-up by Health Canada on adverse drug reactions, increased transparency with regard to the assessment of prescription drugs and a better system for communicating the risks associated with drugs to health care professionals and patients, in particular.

As I mentioned, this bill will make it possible for the government to compel manufacturers to recall drugs and order distributors to take corrective action to resolve problems with their products. In this regard, at the end of her speech, my colleague from Halifax gave the example of a mistake that was made in 2011 by the manufacturer of Alesse 28. Alesse 28 is a type of birth control pill that generally works on a 28-day cycle. Women take the product for the first 21 days and then they take a placebo for the remaining seven days. The placebos are often just sugar pills.

The problem that occurred had to do with the content of the pills. Rather than containing 21 birth control pills, a package of the product contained two weeks' worth of placebo pills.

(1050) Obviously, this can have a rather serious impact on a woman's menstrual cycle. I do not necessarily want to get into the details of how the menstrual cycle works, but having good birth control that works is really very important. Since 1969, the year in which woman were given access to oral contraceptives, thousands of women in Canada and throughout the world have been using this method of birth control. I have used it myself, as many other female members of the House likely have, and many Canadian women use it. It is an extremely important part of our family planning, for all sorts of reasons.

There are various reasons why women use birth control. A drug that does not have the anticipated effect can have an extremely harmful impact on the health of women and on family planning. These thousands of women trust in the system, in our health care system and in the drug manufacturers. The women affected by this problem experienced low hormone levels, which caused a number of problems. The main purpose of the product is to prevent ovulation. The placebos prevent that prevention, so to speak, and allow the woman to ovulate. That can have a serious impact on family planning.

Bill C-17 could do something about this. How did people find out about this mistake? Pharmaceutical companies were certainly not forthcoming about it. Pharmacists were the ones who sounded the alarm after noticing that there was a problem with the drugs they were selling. If the pharmacists had not spoken up and told people about the situation, the pharmaceutical companies surely would not have told anyone. There is no telling how far the situation might have gone. It is good to know that with Bill C-17 , new provisions will enable the federal government to do something.

Currently, it cannot do anything about situations like that. The government has no power to act. It is very important to create legislation to address these situations. I am speaking on behalf of many women who believe that the federal government should have a say in the matter. We have to make sure that women have access to the best possible drugs, the best possible oral contraceptives. Once again, I would like to thank the member for Oakville for introducing this measure in his bill.

As I said, we will support this bill at second reading, and we will probably put forward a number of amendments in committee just to make it better. That said, we do think that it is a step in the right direction. We would like to see several more things in this bill. I know that I will not be able to go into detail because my time is almost up, but the bill ought to include a number of measures, such as optimal prescribing practices to ensure that Canadians are being prescribed the most appropriate drugs.

Public disclosure of clinical trial results is also important because, in Canada, the results of numerous clinical trials are never published or made available to the public. We are also asking the government to strengthen the common drug review. In closing, I would like to say that Bill C-17 is a step in the right direction and that the federal government has to step up to its responsibility with respect to the Food and Drugs Act. I am also pleased that the government is so open to amendments that might be put forward. I am very happy that we are talking about this bill in the House.

I can assure the member for Oakville that we will vote in favour of the bill and that we will make sure it is the best it can be. (1055) [ English ] Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members for their contributions to the debate and their kind words today. The member for Victoria raised an issue, and I guess he did not hear what I said in my speech. I mentioned that for situations of criminal negligence, where a pharmaceutical company covers up the risk of one of their drugs and it leads to serious harm to patients, there is authority for unlimited fines.

If a judge saw fit, he or she could fine the drug company, for example, the total amount of sales for that drug for the period it was on the market. That would be the absolute best way, and I would suggest the only way, to stop these corrupt practices. The key problem with the pharmaceutical industry and why Vanessa's law is so important is that CEOs of pharmaceutical companies, like all companies that sell shares on the market, have to by law increase shareholder value. On the other hand, there is no law against putting a risky drug on the market because all drugs cause adverse effects.

It is the level of the risk that has to be monitored. That is why Vanessa's law is necessary. [ Translation ] The Speaker : We have time for a brief response before we move on to members' statements. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Oakville for his comments. I must say, I am very happy that the bill contains provisions to change the current system. As I already mentioned, the NDP will vote in favour of Bill C-17 , and we look forward to discussing it in committee in order to make some changes that are even more significant.

I appreciate the comments from the member for Oakville . [ English ] The Speaker : There will be approximately three minutes left for questions and comments after question period. Right now we will move on to statements by members.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Charlie Young Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Charlie Young, a local music and Rotary Club legend, who passed away earlier this month at the age of 94. Born in the U.K., Charlie joined his first music group at the age of 14, playing the clarinet and saxophone. He continued to perform for the next 80 years, with his last gig at a luncheon at the Rotary Club of Chilliwack just five days before he died.

Charlie joined the World War II effort and brought comfort to Allied troops all over Europe with his music. It was during the war that he met and married his beloved Mary, also a musician. They made beautiful music together. They moved to Canada in 1955 and soon afterward formed the Copper Room Orchestra, performing at the Harrison Hot Springs hotel. Their award-winning music was the backdrop for many a memorable evening on that dance floor. Charlie's memorial service was fittingly a musical celebration, with his last band, The Rotations, doing their best to play on even though their heart and soul had passed on.

Forever young, Charlie Young left a lasting legacy. He will be missed.

(1100) [ Translation ] Government Policies Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about what I have been hearing from the people of Jeanne-Le Ber. People talk to me about how they are struggling to make ends meet and about the need to make life more affordable. They have pointed out the importance of social housing, and I received several hundred responses about maintaining door-to-door mail delivery. [ English ] The government talks about its mandate and having consulted with Canadians, but who are the Canadians that the government is consulting with?

Is it Canadians who were asked to consult on bill C-23 ? I think not. Maybe it is the Canadians who demand rail safety, or maybe it is Canadians who will no longer be receiving home delivery. No, I think not. From train derailments to the insipid attacks on the Canadian elections process, the citizens of Jeanne-Le Ber know that their representative and the NDP are there to listen and to hold the government to account when they cannot—until 2015.

Autism Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I applaud the town of Gibsons, B.C., for officially proclaiming World Autism Awareness Day on April 2 and for the official kick-off of the International Naturally Autistic People Awards Convention and Festival. This is the only convention of its kind in the world, and it is rooted right here in Canada on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast. On its fifth anniversary, the participation has grown from four to 22 countries.

For the first time in its history, it will kick off simultaneously in five different countries, with a Canadian delegation attending the Edinburgh conference. Yesterday, the Centers for Disease Control announced that autism affects one in 68 children in the U.S. The MP for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont is a real role model for all of us parliamentarians in how he integrates his role as dad and MP.

As he said, “Children with autism become adults with autism and eventually will become senior citizens with autism.” I commend my colleague and the Autistic People's Federation for their dedication to raising awareness about autism, supporting the autistic community, and helping all of us strive for the creation of a society in which autistic people can evolve and grow beyond any limits.

Rouge Park Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this week was the 24th anniversary of the announcement of the Rouge Park by the Government of Ontario. The creation of the park was the result of the tireless efforts by numerous organizations, community groups, and local volunteers united in their desire to protect critical habitat and a priceless heritage for the people of Canada. These groups included Save the Rouge, the WWF, the COSCA, and the thousands of other people who wrote letters and attended meetings.

The Friends of the Rouge have been clear in their desire to see the park at 100 square kilometres, which is the minimum necessary to support a sustainable and healthy ecosystem. Sadly, it seems that the government is considering a much smaller area to designate as the national park, which would put in jeopardy the ecological health of the park and all the hard work of local residents and citizens. Worse, the government has failed to even consult with these citizens.

On behalf of the thousands of Canadians who care about preserving our natural heritage, I urge the government to have meaningful consultations and commit to the creation of a park large enough to sustain a thriving ecosystem. To do any less would be a betrayal of all of those citizens.

Birthday Congratulations Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my sons, both of whom I am so proud of. I thank Kevin and Brandyn for their support on my campaign and their belief in my abilities. I thank them for taking their education seriously and for the trust they place in mom and me to ask for our advice. I thank them for the poker games with their friends, for our great outings on the golf course, and for our constant text messages. I thank them for the love, support, equality, and respect they show their beautiful gals, Chantal and Emily.

I thank them for being best friends to each other, but above all else, I thank them for the love and caring they show to their mother as she loves them more than, as men, we will ever understand. They have turned into superb young men. I admire them, look up to them, respect them, and love them both for who they are. God has so blessed us as a family. It is so cool to be their dad, and I want to say from the bottom of my heart that I am sorry for turning them into Maple Leafs fans. I love these guys. We wish Brandyn a happy birthday.

(1105) [ Translation ] Neighbourhood and Family Outreach Centres in Alfred-Pellan Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to acknowledge the exceptional work of the employees and volunteers at the neighbourhood and family outreach centres in my riding. In Alfred-Pellan, we are lucky to have a number of agencies that work hard to make our community more welcoming and dynamic. The Vimont neighbourhood centre, and the Saint François and Auteuil family outreach centres are a few of the agencies that support thousands of people in Laval every year.

I want to commend the Saint François family outreach centre in particular for its new community initiative, a community newspaper called La Voix de St-François . Everyone in Saint François was delighted to receive this publication in their mailbox and we are already looking forward to reading the next issue. To all the employees and volunteers at these agencies that are so important to our communities, thank you very much. Your devotion and hard work are essential to the well-being of the people of Laval.

[ English ] Brampton Batman Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us. A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a little boy's shoulders. Brampton has that hero: the Brampton Batman. Stephen Lawrence is more than just a man. He has devoted himself to an ideal and become something else entirely. For over two years, he has been a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a dark knight who has walked the streets of Brampton at night helping others.

He has changed tires, helped people cross the street, and even saved a life by performing CPR. The Brampton Batman is always happy to take pictures or lend a helping hand. He even has his own Batmobile, and yes, it comes in black. Brampton is full of people ready to believe in good, and the Brampton Batman helps us believe. He is a hero Brampton deserves.

Rural Economic Summit of Ontario Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the Rural Economic Summit of Ontario, an excellent event that will be taking place in my riding. [ Translation ] As the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, some of my main objectives are to strengthen the local economies in my riding, encourage innovation and promote entrepreneurship. Having owned a small business before becoming an MP, I can understand the desire of rural businesses to grow and prosper.

That is why I support the Rural Economic Summit of Ontario, which will be held from April 30 to May 2, in Clarence-Rockland, in my riding. [ English ] The rural economic summit will bring together rural business owners from all over Ontario and will tackle a number of important themes, such as agri-food industry challenges, best practices, networking, and entrepreneurial initiatives. I am very honoured to be attending this year along with our Minister of State for Finance .

Small and medium-sized businesses are the job creators within our communities, and they are critical to stimulating economic growth and stability within our local economies. I hope to see all Ontario businesses there at the summit.

[ Translation ] Air Passengers' Rights Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Bill C-459 on air passengers' rights in Canada was defeated in this place by the members opposite. Unlike Canada, most developed countries in the world have adopted laws on the rights of air passengers. As a result of the Conservatives' inexplicable decision, thousands of Canadians across the country have already been affected and will continue to be affected by this legislative void. Some of these passengers are seniors, people with disabilities, students and people with limited financial resources.

These travellers have been penalized because airlines have humiliated them by not recognizing their right to legitimate compensation. We wonder why this government refuses to defend consumers. The actions of this Conservative government and its usual and systematic negligence must be condemned and give us further incentive to restore Canadians' dignity and well-being in 2015.

(1110) [ English ] Offshore Health and Safety Mrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday we debated Bill C-5 , the offshore health and safety act, at third reading. While NDP members said they supported the bill, they continued to bring forward proposals that would further delay the passage of this important legislation. Offshore workers deserve better. This legislation is widely supported by industry, offshore workers, the offshore regulatory boards, and key stakeholders, including Justice Robert Wells.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia have already given royal assent to their respective bills and now wait on our Parliament for the law to come into force. NDP members failed Canadian workers yesterday when they filibustered Bill C-5 and refused to allow Parliament to give offshore workers what they have been asking for. When will the NDP stop its delay tactics and pass this bill?

[ Translation ] Quebec Organization for Immigrants Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this year is the 15th anniversary of Quebec's action week against racism, which is known as Semaine d'actions contre le racisme. Discrimination, racism and exclusion hold our country back, and we benefit from diversity in a world that is becoming increasingly complex. I want to highlight the exceptional work done by Chantier d'Afrique Canada. This organization helps Quebeckers of African origin successfully integrate by providing a place where they can find information, consult each other and work together.

The organization's CEPFI program, which provides professional support to immigrant women, is particularly close to my heart. The CEPFI program offers training, networking and internships to provide meaningful ways to help women get involved and to promote cultural diversity. I want to personally thank the entire team at Chantier d'Afrique Canada, and particularly Henriette Kandula, the executive director, for helping immigrants with their socio-professional development.

[ English ] Pensions Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal leader, who wants to raise taxes on seniors so he can spend, spend, spend, our Conservative government believes that seniors deserve to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. That is why we have taken unprecedented action to put more money back in the pockets of seniors and all other Canadians. We cut the GST, introduced pension income splitting and created a tax-free savings account that has allowed more than nine million Canadians to save tax free. However, we did not stop there.

We introduced pooled registered pension plans to help small businesses and the self-employed to save for their retirement. Yesterday a new report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Certified General Accountants of Ontario endorsed pooled registered pension plans as a solution for Ontario. A whopping 86% of employers surveyed support introducing PRPPs. We are pleased to see such strong support for our government's action. It is too bad the opposition voted against it. We encourage all provinces to move forward with PRPPs.

We continue to stand up for seniors and retirees in Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, and all of Canada, by building our world-renowned retirement income system while keeping taxes low.

Democratic Reform Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee, while studying the unfair elections act, we welcomed Mr. Harry Neufeld, the former elections chief of British Columbia. He recently wrote a report on the election of 2011. Because the minister likes to quote from his report, here is what Mr. Neufeld had to say: ...it is important to me that my report is properly understood. Having listened carefully to what the Minister has said, it is my opinion that he has not interpreted my report correctly.

He went on to say: However, over the course of my study, I heard of no candidate scrutineers, voters, or media representatives ever raising an issue with respect to vouching fraud. That is the very system the minister now wishes to eliminate. With regard to the minister's quoting of his report, Mr. Neufeld also said that the minister has been “selectively reading and quoting from my report.” Finally, he said this: ...I believe it is clear that parts of Bill C-23 require careful reconsideration. Finally, The Globe and Mail said— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

(1115) The Economy Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when one is the Liberal leader, no tough choices, discipline, or savings are required. Someone who thinks budgets balance themselves should never be trusted with jobs and the economy. Our government knows that good economic management requires tough decisions and sound judgment. Our government remains steadfast in our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians. Canada has had a strong economic performance during the global crisis and recovery.

Our overall job growth since the depth of the recession is among the best of the G7 countries, with over one million net new jobs. KPMG has just ranked Canada as the most cost-competitive mature market country in the world for business. Today, our government will introduce economic action plan 2014 no. 1, marking the next

chapter in keeping our commitment to Canadians. We remain focused on our key priorities: supporting families and communities, creating jobs and opportunities, and returning to a balanced budget in 2015.

[ Translation ] Job Market Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Conservatives had a bad habit of basing their decisions on their ideology or on good old Reform prejudice, but this week, we found out that when it comes to making decisions about the job market, the Conservatives rely not on experts or Statistics Canada, but on Kijiji. Yes, the same site where people buy a sofa bed for their teenager who just moved out. Across Canada, Canadians who no longer have access to employment insurance are looking for jobs.

The government's response is to check on Kijiji between an ad for winter tires and another for a garage sale in Mont-Joli. I never thought I would have to say this, but Kijiji is not a reliable source for managing the job market of a G7 country. Canadians deserve better than a government that makes it up as it goes along. In 2015, the NDP will put an end to the “Kijiji economy”. We will provide real jobs to Canadians.

[ English ] Truth National Tour Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP tried to distance itself from the truth national tour, denying its affiliation with the truther cause and its belief that 9/11 was an inside job. It should be mentioned, too, that the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Vancouver East also had links and exchanges with the truther cause, with the member for Vancouver East delivering a truther petition in 2008. The petition states: We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001.

It also says: ...scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. The NDP can say what it wants, but the real truth is that there is a disturbing pattern among its members, including the NDP leader and his deputy leader, the member for Halifax , of supporting and sustaining ideas of conspiracy— The Speaker : Order, please. Oral questions, the hon. member for Halifax.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Democratic Reform Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform keeps using the word “fraud” when talking about the Neufeld report. Yesterday, Mr. Neufeld stated very clearly that he did not find any evidence of fraud. When will the minister stop distorting what Mr. Neufeld said? Why did he not consult Harry Neufeld to find out what is really going on? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what I said yesterday and what I have been saying all along since I first introduced the fair elections act is that there are measures in place to prevent fraud linked to vouching. Not implementing those measures increases the risk of fraud. That is why the rules are in place. Those rules were broken some 50,000 times in the last election. That is unacceptable. That is one of the reasons why we expect people to bring a piece of identification to prove their identity when voting. [ English ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, again, he is selectively quoting to show he is not selectively quoting. Mr. Neufeld testified that our electoral system does need to be modernized, but he said there are ways to fix the problems with vouching. For example, there could be a declaration taken. Why did the minister refuse to look at practical solutions like this? Why, instead, are the Conservatives choosing to eliminate vouching and therefore disenfranchising thousands of Canadians?

(1120) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are the taking the reasonable position that when someone shows up to vote that they present some identification to show who they are. That is a reasonable position that I think average Canadians would support. They do not have to use photo ID, or even government-issued ID. They have 39 different forms of identification that they can use, everything from a utility bill to an OAS cheque stub to an employment insurance cheque stub, to dozens of others. Most Canadians would agree that is a reasonable approach to take.

Employment Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, moving on to another example of the government just making things up, Conservatives were pretty embarrassed this week when they were forced to admit that they used data from Kijiji instead of Statistics Canada to support their budget. This information was used to justify regressive attacks on wages and collective bargaining. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker : Order. It is a Friday, and the sound seems to be carrying more than— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: Order, order. Several ministers seem to be very anxious to answer questions, and I would be happy to give them the floor when the member for Halifax is finished asking the question, but not until then. The hon. member for Halifax. Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, as I said, the information was used to regressively attack wages and collective bargaining. Why did the Conservatives try to trick Canadians by using data from Kijiji instead of data from their own Stats Canada? Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, employers across Canada say that the biggest challenge they are facing is a lack of skilled workers. This is particularly problematic in certain sectors and regions where thousands of jobs are going unfilled because not enough skilled workers are available to fill them. That is why we are taking action, including with the Canada job grant, to ensure that skills training actually leads to permanent jobs and employers are investing more into equipping Canadians with the skills that the job market demands. [ Translation ] Mrs.

Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment has gone on and on for months about the so-called labour shortage. The problem is that the minister has no credible facts to back his claims. There is no labour shortage in Canada, unless you would rather believe Kijiji than the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Conference Board of Canada and Statistics Canada. Will the minister go back to the drawing board and refrain from basing his responses on dubious information obtained from Kijiji? [ English ] Mr.

Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we understand that there is no general labour shortage across the country, but there are sectoral and geographic labour shortages and skills deficits we need to deal with as a government to make sure that Canadians can gain employment, get jobs, and raise their families. That is why we are implementing the Canada job grant, so that we can bring more employer investment into training, like most other countries in the world. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the government's stubborn defence of Kijiji data is quite simply absurd. In 2009, economist Don Raymond participated in a panel that made dozens of recommendations to improve labour market data. We need reliable data in order to effectively curb unemployment and maximize the use of public funds. Why did the government not implement those recommendations? [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the PBO report is consistent with what we have been saying: “Aggregate numbers may obscure what is occurring in some regions and sectors across the country”. That is consistent with what employers are telling us across the country. For example, the construction sector says that we need 319,000 new workers in the next 10 years. The mining and industry sector says we will need 145,000 workers by 2020. The petroleum sector says we will need 130,000 workers by 2020.

We need to take steps, working with our provincial partners, to provide training so we can train the next generation of Canadian workers. [ Translation ] Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as a result of its misleading research on Kijiji, the government seems to think that the Canadian economy's problem is a skills mismatch,

whereas the real problem is simply a lack of jobs. In the last year, 95% of the jobs created have been part-time jobs. When will the Conservatives introduce a real plan for economic growth and job creation for the middle class? (1125) [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in fact over 80% of new jobs created in Canada over the last year were full-time jobs. Over 80% are also in the private sector. We have the best job growth in the G7, over one million net new jobs since the pit of the economic recession in July 2009.

Those are the facts. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, those facts are all wrong. However, based on its misleading research on Kijiji, the government seems to think that Canada's economic challenge involves a mismatch of jobs, when the real problem is not enough jobs. We have 265,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians. Fully 95% of the jobs created over the past year were part-time. Both job quality and job quantity are down. When will the Conservatives put forward a real plan for jobs and growth for middle-class Canadians? Mr.

Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear when we talk to employers across the country. In round table after round table, they continuously tell us that there is a skills shortage in different sectors within different geographic regions and we need to deal with this. That is exactly what we are doing by implementing the Canada job grant. Here are some facts. Skills Canada tells us we are going to need one-million skilled trades workers in Canada by 2020. Those are the facts. Hon.

John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada keeps telling us that all their facts are wrong. The finance department's own research shows that the best way to grow the economy and create jobs is through infrastructure investment, yet the government plans a nearly 90% cut to infrastructure next Tuesday. Given our terrible youth employment rate and the so-called recovery that is 95% part-time jobs, how can the government justify crushing its single most effective job creation tool? Why does it do that? Mr.

Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberal Party has it wrong. In fact, our government has made historic, unprecedented investments in infrastructure. That high-level investment in infrastructure will continue. Our application process opens this coming Monday, March 31. These infrastructure investments will enhance our quality of life, improve our productivity, and increase our economic competitiveness.

[ Translation ] Agriculture and Agri-food Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's new grain transportation bill has so many flaws that there is even a Conservative member who does not support it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already proposed some amendments less than 24 hours after the bill was introduced. This is consistent with the NDP's position regarding mandatory service level agreements.

Will the government finally listen to farmers, the NDP and even its own members and amend its bill, so that it serves the interests of the people involved? [ English ] Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, only two days ago, our government delivered important and decisive legislation on the side of farmers to move their grain to port: one million metric tonnes a week. It also establishes the minimum volume requirements for the transportation of grain. It strengthens contractual mechanisms between producers and shippers, and a lot more.

I can assure the member across the floor that my colleague supports farmers and he supports this legislation. My question is, will the member stand in her place and vote for farmers and vote for this legislation when it comes to a vote in the House? Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are standing up to fight for farmers. Conservative members are now agreeing with the NDP about serious problems with this new grain transportation bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs said it must be amended. He warned that it could make a bad situation even worse.

Saskatchewan called the legislation “deficient”. I visited western grain farmers. Their grain is sitting, stranded across the country. They are frustrated with the current government that refuses to take decisive action. Will the minister finally listen, do the right thing, and agree to amend the bill? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I really do encourage the member to work more closely with farmers.

I have a quote from the Canadian Canola Growers Association: The measures announced in yesterday's Bill, along with other efforts recently implemented demonstrate that Government is listening to farmers concerns. The bill will be in front of the House this afternoon for debate. Then it will be moving to committee and we will be doing our work in committee. However, when it comes back to the House, I would like to see the NDP stand on the side of farmers and support this move, support the bill that would move their grain to port.

(1130) Employment Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is true that western grain farmers have been abandoned by these Conservatives, just like workers have been abandoned. Governments should use sound data to develop sound labour market policies. Instead, the Conservatives use information from Kijiji. They ignored warnings that the data they used was not accurate. We actually have factual data from Statistics Canada and the PBO, and it is paid for by taxpayers.

Would they acknowledge that their data does not show what they claim and does not justify their regressive labour market policies that are only backed up by Kijiji? Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the PBO report is not inconsistent with what we have been saying. We agree that there is no general labour shortage across the country. If there were, wages would be rising faster than inflation, and that is simply not the case. What is happening is that we have sectoral and geographic problems with our labour market.

We need to make sure that we take steps so that employers can find skilled employees to fill those positions when they become open, and we need training programs in place, like the Canada job grant, so that people will be trained to take those jobs when they are needed. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the problem is that they have lost 500,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector since they came to power. The Minister of Employment and Social Development admitted that he had no idea about the state of the labour market in Canada.

We are right to have serious concerns about the Minister of Finance's report on the labour market that was tabled at the same time as the 2014 budget. What information did the Minister of Finance use for his report? If the government has no idea what is going on, why should we trust it? [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we have the best job growth of any country in the G7. Since July 2009, the pit of the economic recession, we have created over a million net new jobs.

I know the member is really concerned about manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Maybe he should have his NDP leader of the province stop supporting a Liberal leader who has the highest power rates in Ontario history.

[ Translation ] Democratic Reform Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' only justification for their electoral reform has evaporated. The former British Columbia chief electoral officer, Harry Neufeld, who was being quoted indiscriminately, decided to set the record straight. In 2011, 400,000 people used voter information cards to prove their address, and another 120,000 people had someone vouch for them so they could vote. Does the minister agree that if he gets rid of vouching and voter information cards, 520,000 people could be disenfranchised? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that. The hon. member is taking it for granted that none of those people had one of the 39 forms of identification allowed by Elections Canada. What we are proposing is that people be required to show ID with their name and address. That is reasonable. We are not saying that voters have to bring a photo, just one of the 39 forms of identification allowed. Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps going on about the irregularities Mr.

Neufeld observed during the 2011 election. That is exactly why Mr. Neufeld got irritated and decided to set the record straight. The irregularities identified in his report were the result of administrative errors. He never said that those irregularities had anything to do with electoral fraud or the voters themselves. Harry Neufeld made it abundantly clear that voters are not the problem. The minister has to stop misrepresenting what Mr. Neufeld said. Instead of choosing not to trust voters, maybe the minister would be better off implementing the recommendations in the Neufeld report. When will he act on that?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said, I do not agree with Mr. Neufeld's recommendations. Everyone knows that. Everyone knew that before yesterday, and my position has not changed. However, Mr. Neufeld's report was very detailed. I quoted those details and facts accurately, and I will continue to do so. (1135) [ English ] Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister talks as if the only solution to eliminate fraud is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. All he needs to do is to simplify the vouching paperwork. Mr.

Maynard said it, Jean-Pierre Kingsley said it, and Mr. Neufeld said it. When will the minister realize that voters are not the problem in our electoral system? When will he understand that blocking my constituents in Thunder Bay—Rainy River and thousands of other Canadians from voting will not solve anything? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am sure that his constituents in Thunder Bay are capable of producing any of the 39 different pieces of acceptable ID. He should be clear with his constituents that they do not require photo ID or government ID to vote.

They can choose from 39 pieces, including things like utility bills, OAS or employment insurance cheques, statements of attestation from aboriginal reserves, Indian status cards, and student cards. The list goes on and on. There are 39 different options. We just think it is reasonable that people bring some form of ID when they show up to vote. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, so far, the total number of experts who say that this bill should be adopted in its current form is zero.

Expert after expert is calling out the government for trying to ram through a bill that would give the Conservative Party an unfair advantage. Everyone in Nickel Belt agrees that it must either be scrapped or rewritten. Will the minister now stop twisting the words of experts like Harry Neufeld to justify his reckless changes? Will he agree to fix this bill? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by pushing special interest groups to the sidelines and rule breakers out of business.

It would close loopholes to big money. It would protect against the risks of fraudulent voting. It would crack down on rogue callers who impersonate either parties or Elections Canada. It would give the commissioner, the law enforcement watchdog, sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. It is a good bill. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. When there were problems with the vouching system, it was because of administrative errors. No voter fraud was reported. The minister has to stop treating honest citizens like criminals.

He is using false pretenses to try to disenfranchise 120,000 people, including aboriginal people, homeless people, students, seniors and the poor. Why are the Conservatives afraid of voters? Why do they want to take the right to vote away from society's most vulnerable people? [ English ] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I have in my hand a list of the 39 different forms of identification that are accepted: a driver's license; health card; Canadian passport; certificate of Canadian citizenship; birth certificate; certificate of Indian status; social insurance number card; old age security card; student ID card; provincial or territorial identification card; liquor identification card; medical and hospital clinic card; credit or debit card; employee card; public transportation card; library card; Canadian Forces identity card; Veterans Affairs Canada health card; Canadian Blood Services card; the Canadian National Institute for the Blind card; the firearm possession and acquisition licence or possession only licence; a fishing, trapping and hunting license— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[ Translation ] Employment Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government is getting its statistics about available jobs from websites, which is skewing all the benchmark data. Without expert analysis, the statistics from these websites are not reliable and fluctuate wildly. How can the government claim to have a coherent employment policy if it refuses to use sources that are recognized by all of the country's economic stakeholders? [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the PBO report is clear and is not inconsistent with the position that we have taken. I will quote from page 13: ...the lack of evidence of a national labour shortage or skills mismatch in Canada does not rule out regional- and sector-specific labour shortages or skills mismatches. Why do they not support the PBO? Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government's use of job numbers from Kijiji has shown Canadians yet again that the Conservatives prefer to pick and choose unreliable numbers to support their ideological policies.

We witnessed this distaste for evidence with the elimination of the long form census, and are now seeing it again. When will the government finally understand that reliable statistics are key to delivering effective job programs? When will the government start basing its decisions on facts rather than rigid ideological bias?

(1140) Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the policies put in place by this government have led to the biggest job growth of any country in the G7 since the pit of the economic recession in July 2009, with over one million net new jobs. Every policy that we bring forward to help create jobs in this country, that member and party oppose. Why do those members not get onboard and help us create jobs and build growth in this country?

Agriculture and Agri-Food Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the last time legislation was put before the House to deal with the grain transportation issue, the government ignored all the good advice it got from farmers. It voted down every single amendment that farm groups proposed, and because of that it has this $8 billion grain crisis on its hands now. When farmers, provincial governments, and even its own parliamentary secretary are saying that Bill C-30 is not good enough, is the government finally going to listen? Will it protect short lines and producer cars? Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, Bill C-30 is important and very good legislation. This legislation would help to correct the problem that farmers are having moving their grain to port. It would impose transportation requirements of one million metric tonnes of grain moved to port each and every week by the two railroad companies. It would impose fines of $100,000 per day for non-compliance. I have quotes here. The Manitoba minister of agriculture states, “The Manitoba government supports this move”.

The Alberta minister of agriculture says, “We are pleased that the federal government has brought forward the fair rail for grain farmers act.” I would ask that member and his party to support this key legislation.

[ Translation ] Canada Revenue Agency Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the minister is dismissing the revelations that the Canada Revenue Agency is compromising Canadians' privacy every year with its data breaches. More than 2,000 Canadians were exposed to identity theft through the minister's mismanagement of the agency. Canadians expect the minister to take responsibility. When will that happen? [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we do agree that Canadians should rightfully expect their personal information to be protected. The CRA has a close working relationship with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and acts on all of her recommendations. I would clarify that 95% of the reported privacy issues are related to misdirected mail. The CRA handles nearly 150 million pieces of mail each year, and therefore these incidents represent 0.001% of all of the supposed breaches that the hon. member— The Speaker : The hon. member for Victoria. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is cold comfort for over 2,000 Canadians.

Let us return to reality for a moment. The CRA's Montreal offices have been infiltrated by organized crime. The CRA is failing to collect untold billions of dollars in revenue from tax cheats and others who simply refuse to pay. Now we learn that it is exposing thousands of Canadians to identity theft through a lax approach to privacy. The CRA experienced more data breaches last year than all other departments since 2006, so how can the minister say it is no problem? Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the CRA takes privacy breaches with the utmost level of seriousness. We know this is a concern for Canadians. Canadians have a right to expect the CRA to look out for their privacy. We will continue to do that. The member opposite knows this. He should recognize that it is irresponsible to misrepresent the facts and undermine the confidence that Canadians place in the CRA.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly two years since the Federal Court ruled in favour of veterans on the issue of pensions, yet they are still waiting to hear whether the government will compensate them retroactively. The ombudsman has been inundated with telephone calls from veterans who feel that the minister has stalled long enough. The ombudsman and the Royal Canadian Legion are calling for a decision. Can the government tell us if it intends to compensate these veterans who have been unfairly treated? Yes or no? (1145) [ English ] Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that our government voluntarily increased benefits for veterans receiving the earnings loss benefit, the Canadian Forces income support, and the war veterans allowance. This meant thousands of dollars more for veterans in addition to added benefits to the veterans independence program. If the member and her party cared about veterans, they would not have voted against the initiative we brought forward. Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Maybe, Mr.

Speaker, it got lost in translation. My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is very clear. These disabled veterans were wrongfully clawed back on the earnings loss benefit from April of 2006 until November of 2012. Two veterans ministers previously said they would promise to fix this problem. My question is quite clear. For two years now, we and other people have been asking when these disabled veterans will get the money they so rightfully deserve. Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, there is no other government in the history of our great nation that has done more for Canada's veterans than this government right here under the leadership of our Prime Minister . We have invested almost $5 billion in additional funding since coming to office. The NDP and the Liberal Party have voted against virtually every single initiative we have brought forward. I would encourage the member opposite to please stop playing partisan games with our veterans and start supporting the initiatives.

The Economy Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under the strong, stable leadership of our Prime Minister , our Conservative government has remained committed to strengthening the economy for all Canadians. Canada's overall job growth record since the depth of the recession is the best amongst all G7 countries, with over one million net new jobs created. Nearly 90% of those jobs are full time and more than 80% are in the private sector. Despite a worldwide economic crisis, we have never wavered from seeing our plan through.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please tell the House what our newest step will be to create economic growth? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for that excellent question. Unlike the Liberal leader, who thinks that budgets balance themselves, we know good economic management requires tough decisions, a focus on priorities, and sound judgment. Under our government, Canada has enjoyed strong economic performance during both the global recession and the recovery.

Today we will introduce economic action plan 2014, act one, marking the next

chapter in keeping our commitment to Canadians. We remain focused on our key priorities, supporting families and communities, creating jobs and opportunities, and returning to balance in 2015.

[ Translation ] Privacy Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, according to a University of Toronto study, Internet service providers are sharing their clients' private information with Canadian surveillance agencies, without anyone knowing about it and without any transparency. The report also indicates that none of the foreign providers that manage Canadian Internet traffic shows any compliance with Canadian privacy laws. This is troubling and completely irresponsible. Can the government tell us what it has done to protect the personal information of Canadians? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure all Canadians that our government takes the privacy of law-abiding Canadians seriously. At all times, law enforcement agencies comply with Canadian law regarding receiving any type of information. For the record, we will take no lessons from the NDP. Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is about as vague an answer as one can get. Just because sharing data without a warrant is a common practice does not make it the right practice.

Canadian consumers deserve to know if their private information is being protected. Right now it is impossible to find out how often their data is being given to security agents without a warrant. This is a simple request. Will the government come clean to Canadians about how often their information is collected by Internet service providers? Yes or no?

(1150) Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the same answer is going to be provided for the same question. Of course, the Canadian government is concerned about the privacy of all Canadians. We take it extremely seriously and, at all times, all law enforcement and security agencies within Canadian jurisdiction abide by the law in all respects. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, no wonder Canadians do not trust the Conservative government to protect their privacy.

First, the Conservatives tried an Internet snooping bill, but that was killed by the minister's offensive comments. Now they have a bill that is supposed to stop cyberbullying, but the Conservatives cannot help themselves and are trying to sneak in unrelated measures that would let them take Canadians' personal information from telecom companies. Is that why the Conservatives ended the debate early? Did they think no one would notice? Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act applies to any and all voluntary disclosure of information. Anyone who violates the act can face civil litigation. We are giving the police the tools they need to crack down on all sorts of online crime, particularly cyberbullying and child pornography; and I look forward to this bill going to the justice committee where it can be studied fully. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, quite frankly, I am not surprised to see the Conservatives stooping so low, as they typically do, on an issue as serious as cyberbullying. This bill has been before the House for months now. Canadians want transparency on how their personal information is being handled. They do not want political games or troubling provisions on electronic surveillance brought in through the back door in a bill on cyberbullying. Why are the Conservatives afraid of debating their own provisions on surveillance in Bill C-13 ? Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, same question, same answer, only this time in French. The member is absolutely wrong. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act protects all Canadians and applies to any voluntary disclosure of information. Anyone who violates the act can face civil litigation. We are giving the police the tools they need to crack down on cyberbullying and child pornography, and I look forward to studying the bill more thoroughly.

[ English ] The Environment Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the IPCC released its latest report on climate change today. It shows that mitigation efforts are failing and that adaptation efforts have to begin in earnest. Simultaneously, the Minister of the Environment has cut her budget by 30%, eviscerated climate change programs by 77%, and gutted her department's capacity to do anything. Will the minister drop her usual nonsensical answers, take the IPCC report seriously, and engage her department in real mitigation and adaptation activities? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no government has done more on the environment than our government. We have invested record amounts, which include over $4 billion in science and technology at Environment Canada alone. We have invested a quarter of a billion dollars in Canada's weather services. We have given new tax support for clean energy generation.

Building on our record of protecting a historic amounts of land, budget 2014 is investing a significant amount of money to protect Canada's national parks and the environment; and right now we are providing almost $400 million to make even more improvements to our highways, bridges, and dams. Budget 2014 is also proposing to enhance incentives to encourage additional donations— The Speaker : The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, it is true that no government and no minister has done more to destroy her budget, lay off her staff, gut her department's capability, and to deny climate change. The minister loves to take credit where none is due. The IPCC report is saying that a huge effort is needed, yet the minister buries her head in the sand. Instead of passive fatalism, will the minister restore her budget, end the war on science, and get back in the game? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, let me continue on. Our government is also providing additional funding to support the Earth Rangers, which educates children about biodiversity and empowers them to become directly involved in protecting the environment. We have renewed funding for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and implemented a world-class monitoring system for the oil sands. Our government has also increased the penalties for those found guilty of breaking our environmental laws and provided additional funding for the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

We have done this without introducing a carbon tax, which they would have done. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1155) The Speaker : The noise level is creeping up again. I am going to ask members not to give assistance to their colleagues, either in asking or answering the questions. Especially during that last answer, there was quite a lot of help from the minister's colleagues. I am sure she does not need it.

[ Translation ] National Defence Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to use the army and soldiers in their photo ops, but do not seem to be bragging too much about the major cuts made to the Royal Canadian Army Cadets program. Out of a total of 800 employees in charge of running the administrative program, no fewer than 400 will be laid off, even though 53,000 young people currently belong to the cadets. How can the Minister of National Defence justify such a draconian cut to such a beneficial program for our young people?

How does he hope to provide the same services to those young people with half the employees? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to cadet organizations and their role in promoting good citizenship, leadership, community service, and physical fitness among young Canadians. On October 2, the government announced a five-year renewal initiative to strengthen the cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger programs.

The goal is to enhance program delivery to increase awareness and participation in the programs and to enhance partnerships and volunteerism. The five-year renewal plan will increase participation in the cadets from 52,000 to 70,000 and increase the Junior Canadian Rangers from 135 to 153 patrols. Through internal savings and reinvestment, resources at the community level will be increased and supports grow. Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, national defence headquarters keeps growing, but the number of people working on bases with cadets keeps shrinking.

It is more tail, less teeth. The rear admiral in charge explained these layoffs saying that he needed to renew, update, and refresh. Does the minister really think the people who help cadets and who are now losing their jobs are going to find this refreshing? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government has increased the defence budget by 27% since 2006. Funding for the cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger programs has increased for the last three fiscal years.

We are very satisfied on this side that the Canadian Armed Forces has embarked on a renewal of the cadet and the Junior Canadian Ranger programs that will see cuts to the administration but reinvestments into the programs for our youth. This is yet another example of our government's commitment to providing equipment and services required by our men and women in uniform, while safeguarding the tax dollars of Canadians.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Government of the Philippines and its partner have signed a comprehensive agreement on Bangsamoro. This agreement brings an end to the decades-long insurgency in the Philippines. This agreement is expected to bring increased opportunity and development in the autonomous region of Bangsamoro and, therefore, benefit all Filipinos. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs please share with this House the government's reaction to this development in the Philippines? Hon.

John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada warmly welcomes this very important agreement. This agreement is a testament to the determination of both President Aquino and the Philippine people, who have for many years worked to bring peace to their country. They are putting conflict behind them and building a better country. We congratulate them for that. Our government is very proud to have supported the crafting of the commission's recommendations on how to create a new civilian police force in Bangsamoro.

Our government encourages both parties to the agreement and all Filipinos to continue to work together to bring a genuine and lasting peace and reconciliation to their country.

Democratic Reform Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Bill C-23 , the unfair elections act, says that the party who wins one election will get to choose the central poll supervisor for the next election. Do Canadians want more partisans running elections? Before the Conservatives unfair elections act came along, the central poll supervisor was non-partisan, appointed by Elections Canada. Why do honest, hard-working Canadians trying to take care of their families need one more thing stacked against them by the Conservative government? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the tradition of having political parties recommend names to serve in the local elections administration is long standing. His party has, for example, been recommending positions for deputy returning officer and poll clerk for many years. That is the way it worked in the last election. That is the way it will work in the next election.

This process allows the various parties to hold each other accountable and make sure the system is fair, while the returning officer, the most senior official in each constituency, is appointed by Elections Canada as a result of changes we made in the Federal Accountability Act.

(1200) International Trade Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on May 15, the annual report on the impact that the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement has had on the human rights situation in Colombia is due. Civil society groups and labour groups have been given only six days to provide input to that report. The Conservative government has clearly set an impossible deadline. Will the Conservatives now agree to extend this arbitrary deadline to ensure meaningful consultations can take place on this important report?

Or, will they once again this year simply fail to take into consideration the very serious human rights situation in Colombia? Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, that trade agreement has a built-in review cycle to see the impact on human rights, and there has been no impact on human rights as a result of that agreement.

I would also note that $161 million has been dedicated to that country as a result of our relationship and our economic diplomacy in the region, to build its institutions and to help our partners build up their own human rights records. It is sad that the New Democrats criticize trade and oppose every measure our government brings before this House to create more jobs in our exporting sector, which is already creating one in five jobs in Canada. I would ask that member to look past the rhetoric, get behind our job-creating— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Oakville.

Health Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, my 15-year-old daughter Vanessa Young tragically died from a heart attack while on the prescription drug Prepulsid, which was later deemed not safe and was removed from the market. Today, our government has taken an important step to improving drug safety for all Canadians. Can the Minister of Health inform this House what is being done to strengthen drug and patient safety in Canada to better protect all Canadians from the dangerous consequences of adverse drug reactions? Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud of our government's historic legislation, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, or Vanessa's law. This is the first major update to Canada's drug safety laws in decades, and it will help identify potentially dangerous drugs, ensure the quick recall of unsafe drugs, and require reporting of adverse drug reactions. I thank the opposition members for their support. We will work hard to ensure we have the strongest possible safety systems in place so that we can keep Canadians safe. We can all agree that the member for Oakville deserves full credit for this.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

[ Translation ] Forestry Industry Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the government to introduce another omnibus budget implementation bill. Forestry workers in Quebec know that they will not be getting their share. While hundreds of millions of dollars will go to the fishers in Newfoundland, while half a billion dollars will go to the auto industry in Ontario, the forestry industry in Quebec will have to settle for crumbs, despite the challenges that remain. One might think that the forestry workers in Quebec are not worth as much to the Conservatives as other workers.

Is there a minister from Quebec who understands the importance of the forestry industry in Quebec and will ensure that it gets its fair share? [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to the softwood lumber agreement. That agreement continues to enjoy strong support from industry across the country, and from provincial governments, for the predictability and stability that agreement has provided. I would refer the member to a statement from Tembec, a Quebec-based forestry company.

It stated: Thanks to the Softwood Lumber Agreement, lumber exports are free of export tax or quotas today and for the majority of the past year, resulting in a resurgence of exports from Ontario and notably Quebec. This is another example of our government standing behind job creation. [ Translation ] Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, I have proof that the federal government has abandoned the forestry workers back home.

Even though Quebec has changed its approach to allocating stumpage fees, the federal government still refuses to use the provision in the softwood lumber agreement that would exempt Quebec from the surcharges imposed by the Americans. Even though Quebec has a more open system than the maritime provinces, it is still being penalized by the federal government. When will the minister dispense with the double standard and finally agree to the request from Quebec's forestry industry? (1205) [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, at current market prices, all Canadian exports of softwood lumber have duty-free and quota-free access to the U.S. market as a result of our agreement. The agreement reflects a negotiated outcome to a complex trade dispute and does not discriminate against any province or region of the country. That member should recognize this. He should listen to voices from Quebec, like Tembec, and get behind this agreement.

Foreign Investment Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, Industry Canada has been warned for some time that a lack of clarity in the Investment Canada Act is going to threaten foreign investment in Canada. The net benefit test remains nebulous, and terms added on the fly, in 2012, such as “exceptional circumstances” and “strategic resources”, are wholly undefined. Predictably, foreign investment is declining. For example, Chinese investment fell from $21.5 billion in 2012, to a mere $220 million last year.

As $100 billion of capital is required for Alberta alone for the oil sands by 2019, when will the government provide clarity to the Investment Canada Act to stop repelling foreign investment? Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government's first priority is creating high-quality jobs for Canadians and driving economic growth.

Since 2005, when this government came to power, foreign direct investment is up in the following: agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, 46%; construction, 70%; manufacturing, 62%; retail trade, 96%; transportation and warehousing, 206%; finance and insurance, 52%; and, the hon. member might be interested to know, in mining, oil and gas, 86%.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Special Economic Measures Act Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 7 of the Special Economic Measures Act, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, copies of the following regulations and orders made on March 17, March 19, and March 21, 2014.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 Hon. Peter Van Loan (for the Minister of Finance) Bill C-31. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Rail Transportation Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by many people in northern Ontario who are trying to save the Algoma Central Railway. It is a very important part of northern Ontario, particularly around Sault Ste. Marie. It is the sole point of access for many businesses, homes, and communities along the route. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to reinstate the federal funding that allowed for the operation of the Algoma Central Railway.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today. The first petition represents thousands of Canadians. It highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called “Families For Justice”, believes that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They are calling for new mandatory minimum sentences for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

(1210) Sex Selection Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights that over 200 million girls have been lost through sex selective pregnancy termination, creating a global gender imbalance and causing girls to be trafficked into prostitution. Petitioners are calling upon Parliament to condemn this worst form of discrimination against females.

The Environment Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition, representing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, in the Lower Mainland and beyond, who wish to make it very clear that the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal to ship U.S. thermal coal through B.C. communities poses serious and direct risks to both the residents and the environment along the proposed coal corridor. It includes White Rock, Surrey, Delta, New Westminster, Burnaby, Richmond, and Texada Island. The petitioners point out that coal dust causes respiratory illness such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and diesel particulates cause respiratory illness and are