Bill C-442 (Historical)

Federal Framework on Lyme Disease Act

An Act respecting a Federal Framework on Lyme Disease

This enactment requires the Minister of Health to convene a conference with the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for health and with representatives of the medical community and patients’ groups for the purpose of developing a comprehensive federal framework to address the challenges of the recognition and timely diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease.

Lyme Disease

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Lyme disease is a huge concern in Nova Scotia. People can suffer undiagnosed for years, pleading with their health care professionals to be tested and referred.

In 2018, Nova Scotian residents reported the second-highest number of Lyme disease cases in Canada, with 451 people. With these high numbers in such a small province, one would think we would have the best Lyme treatment program in Canada, but sadly, residents continue to travel outside our country for treatment.

While this is unacceptable in regular times, it is almost impossible during this pandemic. Bill C-442 was unanimously passed in 2014. This bill was supposed to identify and implement new diagnostic treatments or protocols for tick-borne illnesses, changes that have been painfully slow.

I recently read the story about Hailey Kane from the Annapolis Valley, a 17-year-old girl who lost her life to Lyme disease. Hailey's family can never escape the nightmare that is a result of this undiagnosed, untreated Lyme disease. We need to do better. We need to call on all levels of government to do better for these patients, who have had their quality of life taken from them or, worse, pass away before ever getting the help that they need.

Latin American Heritage Month Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill S-218, a bill for the creation of a Latin American cultural month in the month of October. Obviously, this is a heated debate over a very controversial bill, which is why we have six hours devoted to it.

I have been a member of Parliament for seven years. This is the first time I have been allowed to rise in debate during private members' hour when it was not my own bill. I spoke to my own bill, Bill C-442 in the previous Parliament, which created a Lyme disease strategy. For those who are political nerds and might wonder why it would be that a member in my position does not usually speak to a private member's bill, it is because private members' business is usually brief and speaking slots are hard to find. For some reason this evening I was able to get a much-coveted speaking slot on a Latin American heritage month for Canada.

For viewers, or historians opening up Hansard at some point covered in dust some decades from now, we should reveal that the successive six hours of debate on a non-controversial private member's bill is a tribute to political and procedural shenanigans in this place, and somehow or other, credit or blame—one might say how clever—is to Conservatives, who managed to force an extra five hours of debate on this bill. That is not to minimize that this is a great bill, but I do want to explain why we are here.

To anyone watching or anyone who cares about Latin American heritage, as I do, there is no disrespect intended, but there are more pressing matters facing the nation. However, tonight for six hours we are debating Latin American heritage month.

I want to turn my attention to that and start, as others have, by paying tribute to a departed colleague from the other place, Senator Enverga, whom I knew. His death was a terrible shock to all of us. He was on parliamentary business when he died quite suddenly, and it was a terrible thing as is always the case when someone dies unexpectedly doing his or her work on behalf of this place. This private member's bill comes to us from someone who did not have Latin American heritage, and that is quite interesting.

I am happy to support it. I want to say that in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, while we have a very vibrant community that is Latin American, it is indeed small. Spanish is spoken and Portuguese is spoken, but not by very many. I do want to share, though, that Spanish names and Spanish heritage are commonly found in the geography of place. In the colonial waves that came across Turtle Island, the Spaniards of course came. Looking at my riding, my representation is Saanich—Gulf Islands. “Saanich”, of course, is indigenous, from the Sencoten word: WSÁNEC. It actually means “the people who are rising”.

However, in the Gulf Islands there is Galiano Island, which is named after a Spanish explorer from 1792. There is Saturna Island. Saturna Island is actually named for a naval schooner, not a person. The Santa Saturnina came to the Gulf Islands in 1791. I could digress and discuss the pig war that took place at Saturna Island. It was a hotly contested piece of real estate. It is amazing that it is not now. If there are people who have never really looked at a map of southern Vancouver Island, they should because they will find that where I live is actually south of the 49th parallel and I look due east at the state of Washington. It is a territory that is entirely shared lands and waters.

Some of those shared waters are the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Juan de Fuca goes way back. Juan de Fuca was actually a Greek, but he was exploring on behalf of King Philip II of Spain in the 1580s. The Strait of Juan de Fuca is one that is terribly threatened by Aframax tankers loaded with dilbit, but that is a different debate.

The entertainment from across the way may distract me from telling members about Portuguese Joe, but this is fascinating.

Portuguese Joe was the first European to live in Stanley Park. He was born in the Azores in 1828, and he lived in Stanley Park outside of where Vancouver is now. He married the granddaughter of none other than Chief Kiapilano. He really brought Portuguese culture and heritage to Vancouver proper, the Lower Mainland, and in his later years, he moved to Reid Island. He actually bought a chunk of Reid Island, which is off Galiano Island.

He passed away on Reid Island, having had two first nations wives. The first was, as I mentioned, the granddaughter of Chief Kiapilano, and the second was from the Sechelt Nation.

All of this connects indigenous culture and Latin American culture, on which is I want to reflect.

So far tonight we have talked of Latin American culture exclusively in its colonial connotations. We have talked about Spanish dancing, Latin language, and yummy food. Let me just cast our minds to the reality that Latin America is an indigenous place. We stand tonight on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation, and much of Latin America is the traditional territory of the Mayan people and the Quechua-speaking peoples.

This is being reflected at UBC right now. For anyone who wants to go to UBC's Museum of Anthropology, starting on May 17 and running until October 8, there an exhibition entitled “Arts of Resistance: Politics and the Past in Latin America”. There is a write-up in The New York Times if members want to read about it.

Those who put this exhibit together looked at political overlay with respect to how politics and oppression showed themselves in the art of indigenous people of Latin America. It might seem incongruous that of all places in Canada, an exhibition like “Arts of Resistance: Politics and the Past in Latin America” is on display in the Museum of Anthropology at UBC.

I do not know how many members have been to the Museum of Anthropology at the UBC campus, but it is a spectacular place, overwhelmingly devoted to British Columbia culture and indigenous arts. There are a lot of original Bill Reid pieces, carved totems, and art from the Nuu-chah-nulth, Haida, and Saanich. There is a whole range of indigenous art from British Columbia. That is the place people can go to get a sense of the kind of art that is expressed from people who are marginalized and oppressed by colonialism within Latin America.

The connections between Canada and Latin American are not only those found in our shared colonial history, those who have moved to Canada who come from a colonial past. Many people who have come to Canada from Latin America also come from that indigenous tradition. Whether they are from Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, or whichever Latin American country, they also often come with a connection to their indigenous traditional past, and that culture infuses so much richness into history throughout Latin American.

By the way, one of my constituents, Ronald Wright, is a bestselling author who has documented these connections well in his book Stolen Continents, through his review of indigenous culture in Time Among the Maya, and through a lot of reflection on indigenous culture in A Short History of Progress, although the latter mostly focuses on the foibles of hubris, western civilization, and greed.

I believe this controversial bill on Latin American heritage month will pass, and we will celebrate every October with great gusto across party lines. If nothing else, the bill brought parliamentarians together on a June night in 2018 for the second hour of a six hour debate. This debate allows us to say Latin American culture is alive and well in Canada, and we celebrate it.

Member for Sturgeon River—Parkland

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend.

I met the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland 11 years ago.

I was not in politics yet. I was executive director of the Sierra Club Canada when I first sat down at a table opposite the current interim leader of the Conservative Party. She was then-minister of environment. It is a tribute to her personal characteristics of fairness, kindness and just plain likable that I could not help liking her as we discussed the Kyoto protocol.

I have searched my memory banks and I cannot remember a single time in the last 11 years when I have not thought well of her as a person, even if we disagreed. We share many things, including a love of dogs and hiking in the wilderness, and we also shared much when she was minister of health. I want to pause for that period and thank her once again.

She played a key role in ensuring the quick passage of Bill C-442 on Lyme disease. We are now working together on the national framework that will be implemented under that bill.

However, it took the minister of health deciding that a private member's bill from an opposition party leader would be okay to support. To have it pass unanimously in the House of Commons and the Senate is not about all the independent decision-making of all the MPs. Honestly, if the minister of health had not supported that bill, it would have died right there. I want to thank her once again for supporting remedies for the people across this country suffering from Lyme disease.

I also want to pay personal tribute to the fact that under her leadership and in the government of Stephen Harper, the strongest legislation ever, taking big pharma to task, Vanessa's Law, was passed. That is solid and it is a tribute I want to pay publicly.

Last, as another woman in politics, leading a teeny-weeny party over here in the corner, everything she has ever done as interim leader of the official opposition has demonstrated that women can do everything just as well as a man.

I saw her earlier today, standing at the podium in the foyer. I do not know how she stands in those shoes. I do not understand how anyone can walk in those shoes. They are phenomenal high heels. They are very gorgeous. It reminded me so much of what was often said of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, that she danced just as well as he did but backwards and in high heels.

Hats off to the leader of the official opposition. We will miss you.

Health

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Lyme disease does have a devastating impact on families and communities.

We welcome the passing of Bill C-442, An Act respecting a Federal Framework on Lyme Disease. I very much look forward to developing that federal framework along with our partners and stakeholders, including patient groups. We are working to deliver a robust conference this coming May, which will help shape a federal framework.

The Public Health Agency of Canada has also developed an action plan on Lyme disease to build awareness of the risks and better track the disease, as well as investing in more research.

Concurrence in Vote 1--Senate

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, going back to this particular example, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands introduced this legislation in the House in accordance with the precedents set on private members' bills. I believe the bill is coming up for debate shortly.

The bill will be debated here at second reading stage and will go to committee. Many of the stakeholders that my colleague has consulted on the bill will provide their input at committee stage. I hope that we have great debate on this particular bill. Should the bill be supported in the House, where would it go to become law? What is the next step in this process?

If we go back to what I just went through, which is publicly available and part of any civics lesson, the bill will go to the Senate for the next stage of review, and then royal assent. That is how the legislative process in Canada works. In order for Bill C-442 to become law, the Senate needs to be funded in order to pass it.

Not putting this vote forward in the estimates means that the NDP is voting to shut down the legislative process in this country. It is as simple as that.

We can have an extensive debate on Senate reform and how senators should be elected and so on, but that is not the subject of the debate tonight. The NDP has proposed to shut down the legislative process in Canada. For all of the democratic woe is us, for all of the democracy in Canada is this and that and what not, we have before us a suggestion to shut down the legislative process in Canada.

We are late in the session. Many of us want to be in our ridings connecting with our constituents. We should all give pause for thought as to what that means. It means that if legislation from the House cannot be passed, then it cannot be enacted. It means that next year, the routine process of government that goes through the Senate would not happen. Whether one agrees with Senate reform or abolition or however a member thinks we should seek to change it, the reality remains that not voting this particular piece forward means we cannot put government legislation through.

I have been listening to the questions and answers tonight. We have had a lively debate on how we could possibly make the Senate more accountable to Canadians; that is subject matter worthy of debate, but it is not the substance of what is being debated right now. Sometimes we lose sight of that.

I would ask my colleagues across the way just to have a think. The NDP has put forward a few private members' bills over the years, not just in this session, that have achieved consensus in the House. How do they become law? They become law by going through the Senate. This is part of Canada's Constitution.

The vote on the estimates that has been put forward here is for this upcoming fiscal year. Our government asked for a Supreme Court opinion on what we could and could not do in the House in terms of scope for Senate reform. We were obviously quite disappointed with the outcome of that decision. That said, my colleague the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has talked about how we as a government will press forward on this particular issue because it is something of concern to Canadians. We also have to look at this upcoming fiscal year, which is the subject matter of the estimates.

I would like to see government continue to operate because I would like to see legislation continue to go through the House. I hope that my colleagues will give pause for thought on this one and support Vote 1, because the reality is that this is part of Canada's Constitution. We need to separate the debate around how we could reform the Senate, which again is worthy of debate, from the reality of this particular motion.

I could go through numerous bills in terms of how this particular vote would affect them. The Senate right now has a very heavy legislative calendar. Many of the committees are tasked with a review of bills that have come from here.

Certainly my colleagues opposite would say that there is support for some or all components of some of these bills. I would like to see those bills passed. I would like to see that process continue to operate, which is why we support Vote 1 in the estimates. It is because constitutionally we need the Senate to operate in order for legislation to be passed.

It is very short-sighted for us as a House to sit here and say we cannot fund the Senate and that we are going to pull the funding from it. How, constitutionally, would we put legislation through? I just do not understand this. It is actually a little mind-blowing that the substance of this situation has not come up. Constitutionally, the Senate has to operate. Certainly in the next fiscal year, even if we work at lightspeed beyond the speed of government, the Senate has a job to do right now, and certainly we would all say that we should continue to support it.

Because the topic of Senate reform has come up in debate tonight, I would like to take this opportunity, because I have been itching to do so for a few months, to talk about the approach to Senate reform of my colleagues in the Liberal Party. I find it a bit disingenuous for the senators who consider themselves Liberals in their caucus to all of a sudden walk out and say that they are not Liberals anymore.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House and anyone who might be in the gallery tonight on a beautiful summer evening in Ottawa.

We need to be clear on what we are talking about tonight, what the substance of the debate is. It is my understanding that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre gave notice of opposition to Vote 1 in the estimates, which is an amount of approximately $57 million under “The Senate—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015”.

What does this mean? It means that this amount is part of the amount that the Senate uses to conduct its operations. There has been a lot of important debate tonight about changes in the Senate, about how we could reform the Senate, about how the Senate could act in a more transparent manner or be more accountable to Canadians. These are important, weighty issues.

I have certainly been quoted in the media. My opinions about the need for Senate reform are on the public record. When I go out to talk to my constituents, it is an issue. How do we make the folks who are responsible for legislation in this country more accountable to Canadians? There are several senators who would agree that this body should be made more accountable. This is a topic of debate.

Going back to what we are talking about tonight, it is the allocation for this upcoming fiscal year for the operations of the Senate. I am going to take a moment, because I have some time tonight, to read an article that is on the Parliament of Canada website. It is entitled “Making Canada's Laws”. It states:

...Canada's Constitution states that both the Senate and the House of Commons must approve bills separately in order for them to become law.Legislative basicsThe lawmaking process starts with a bill — a proposal to create a new law, or to change an existing one. Most of the bills considered by Parliament are public bills, meaning they concern matters of public policy such as taxes and spending, health and other social programs, defence and the environment.A bill can be introduced in the House of Commons (C-bills) or the Senate (S-bills), but most public bills get their start in the Commons. A bill goes through certain formal stages in each house. These stages include a series of three readings during which parliamentarians debate the bill. Prior to third and final reading, each house also sends the bill to a committee where members examine the fine points of the legislation. Committee members listen to witnesses give their opinions on the bill, and then subject it to clause-by-clause study based on the testimony.Either house can do four things with a bill: pass it; amend it; delay it; or defeat it. Sometimes, one house refuses changes or amendments made by the other, but they usually both agree eventually.All laws of Canada are formally enacted by the Sovereign, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons. Once both houses have approved a bill, it is presented for Royal Assent and becomes law.

Just to recap, how does a bill become law? It passes through the first House—sometimes the Senate, but usually the House of Commons—and it passes through the second House—usually the Senate, but sometimes the House of Commons—and then royal assent is given by the Governor General.

How does it pass through a House? It goes through first reading, when the bill proposing a law is received and circulated. At second reading, the principle of the bill is debated to verify that the bill represents good policy, et cetera. Then it goes through committee stage. Members of the public appear as witnesses to comment. At report stage, the committee report is considered by the whole House. Third reading is final approval of the bill, and the bill is either sent back to the other House or set aside for royal assent.

As a recap on how the legislative process works here, right now, for this fiscal year, we require both Houses in order to pass legislation. I actually do not think anyone here can argue that, and if they do, they need to have a refresher course prior to continuing their activities in the House. We need to have both sides under our Constitution right now.

The subject of the debate tonight is whether we should or should not approve funding for the upcoming fiscal year to keep the government operational. To put this in a real-life context, there is opposition on this particular vote. If this vote in the estimates were to be defeated, what would that mean in a real-life context?

A bill is coming up that my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is keen on, because she proposed it. I am talking of Bill C-442, an act respecting a national Lyme disease strategy. It had first reading in the House on June 21, 2012, according—

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

Health

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-442, An Act respecting a National Lyme Disease Strategy. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Lyme Disease

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. I am extraordinarily heartened to present over a thousand names of Canadians from coast to coast in support, as are all the parties in the House of Commons, of Bill C-442, an act to create a national strategy on Lyme disease. Thousands of Canadians are asking for our help.

Earlier this morning in the health committee I spoke to this issue. We have such strong support from across the country and around the House, so let us get on with it.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition regarding Bill C-442, the national Lyme disease strategy act, brought by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which would develop a national strategy to ensure the recognition, timely diagnosis, and effective treatment of Lyme disease in Canada. We have a large and growing number of citizens in Thunder Bay—Superior North who have Lyme disease, and unfortunately, it is increasing with climate change.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from residents of Brampton, Kingston, and Caledon. I am grateful for their support for the private member's bill that will be going to the health committee this week, Bill C-442, my private member's bill on a national Lyme disease strategy. I am very grateful to all members of the House for their support and for this petition.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions on Bill C-442, the national Lyme disease strategy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first is relevant to business that we will take up later this afternoon in private members' business. My bill, Bill C-442, calling for a national Lyme disease strategy, is up for the second hour of its second reading. Citizens from Etobicoke, St. Marys, and other locations in Ontario have petitioned this House to support the bill. I hope that will be the case.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is for my own private member's bill, Bill C-442, National Lyme Disease Strategy Act. I thank all members of the House, as I understand that at this point I have quite a lot of support. The petitioners from Milton, Brampton, and Thornhill also hope that the House will pass the bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by over 2,500 Canadians from across Canada: within Ontario from Bolton, Ajax, and Toronto; in Alberta, Calgary, and St. Albert; in British Columbia, Victoria, and Penticton; and Prince Edward Island. I will not keep reading the places for all these petitioners, but they call for the House to pass Bill C-442, which went to second reading this morning, my bill for a national Lyme disease strategy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Caledon, Ontario; Barrie, Ontario; Salt Spring Island; and other locations. I am very honoured that so many petitioners are rallying for support of Bill C-442, the bill to bring about a national shared approach on the threat of Lyme disease. More Canadians are suffering from Lyme disease all the time, yet it is preventable and easily treatable if we could only share best practices and put in place the measures under the bill. It will come up for second reading on Monday.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first is from residents from my own community, from Victoria and surrounding communities in Sidney and some of the Gulf Islands. They ask, and I say this with the greatest of hope, that when Bill C-442, the bill for a national Lyme disease strategy, comes before this House on March 3, that these petitioners' petitions can be realized with passage to second reading and then ultimately into law.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with my private member's bill, Bill C-442. I have been heartened by support from many members of Parliament in different parties in this place. The bill will come for second reading on Monday, March 3. These petitioners call for the passage of Bill C-442, to provide hope for many thousands of Canadians who are dealing with Lyme disease and who know that working together we can share best practices and improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this disease.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians all the way from Galiano Island to Thunder Bay, encouraging the House to pass the bill from hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Bill C-442, having to do with Lyme disease.

The petitioners feel that we need this bill because the science and medicine are running behind climate change. Lyme disease is an emerging problem, and we need to get on it.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians, including those from Thunder Bay—Superior North, who support Bill C-442, an act respecting a national Lyme disease strategy, introduced by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Lyme disease is serious. A growing number of Canadians will soon be living in areas at risk of Lyme disease due to climate change and global warming. This bill would lead to a national strategy.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present this petition from Toronto—Danforth residents who are supporting the passage of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' bill, Bill C-442, the national Lyme disease strategy act, which would convene a national conference to deal with this under-treated and under-recognized disease in Canada.

I would also like to mention that one of the signatories is David Leggett, a long-time sufferer of this disease, who has led the education campaign among Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Galiano Island and Victoria in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-442. I am pleased that it has now been set down for second reading. It is the bill I will put forward as a private member's bill for a vote in early March. These residents call upon the House assembled to create in a non-partisan fashion a national Lyme disease strategy to deal with this dreadful illness.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first is from residents of Thorndale, Ontario, as well as within my riding, Brentwood Bay, Victoria and Saanich. They are calling on the House to give favourable consideration to Bill C-442, my bill calling for a national lyme disease strategy. I am hearing from literally thousands of Canadians who hope that this bill can be passed to provide them some relief and some hope.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is from residents of my constituency, Saanich—Gulf Islands, from Sidney and Saanichton, supporting my private member's bill for a national Lyme disease strategy, Bill C-442, and they are very hopeful that it will receive non-partisan support across this House.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is in support of private member's Bill C-442.

This is the private member's bill I submitted to have a national Lyme disease strategy. I think there is hardly a member of this House who does not know someone who has been affected by this terrible disease.

I am very encouraged by the level of support being received. The petitioners who signed the petition I submit today are from Salt Spring Island in British Columbia, in my riding.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is from residents of Maple Ridge, B.C., as well as Oakville and Toronto, in Ontario. I am very grateful to the petitioners. They have collected petitioners' signatures to support my private member's bill, Bill C-442, calling for a national Lyme disease strategy. I hear from Canadians every single day who are suffering from this terrible disease. It is a non-partisan issue, and I hope the bill will be passed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to present two petitions. The first deals with Bill C-442. It is a private member's bill calling for a national Lyme disease strategy. I happen to be the person who tabled it, but I like to think it comes from all members of the House.

I have heard from many members of Parliament who have, as I do, constituents who are suffering from this terrible disease. This strategy will be of assistance to people who have Lyme disease, and significantly, will help with prevention and greater awareness.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by individuals in favour of my private member's bill, Bill C-442, a bill that would create a national Lyme disease strategy.

Lyme disease is a scourge. It is becoming an epidemic. This summer the U.S. Centre for Disease Control reported that the estimate for Lyme disease in that country has gone from 30,000 new cases a year to 300,000 new cases a year.

Like myself, these petitioners hope that the House will pass my legislation for a strategy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition, and I am encouraged by its support from across the aisles, is primarily from petitioners in the Surrey area who are in support of my private member's Bill C-442, which calls for a national strategy to deal with the dreadful human tragedy that is Lyme disease.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of the private member's bill I put forward, Bill C-442, calling for a national Lyme disease strategy. These petitioners from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Brampton, Ontario, join with many thousands of others across Canada hoping the House can be united in seeking help for those who are suffering from Lyme disease and in providing greater prevention and information so that we will reduce the spread of this terrible disease.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents in Leeds—Grenville. The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-442, An Act respecting a National Lyme Disease Strategy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today, and I wish to thank other hon. members who presented petitions today, as well, on the subject of Lyme disease and my private member's bill, Bill C-442. This bill would call for a national Lyme disease strategy to improve the sharing of best practices, federally and provincially, for diagnosis, cure and prevention of what is an extremely debilitating disease that is often misunderstood.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.

The first petition is from residents of Vancouver, Alberta, as well as within my riding, in Sidney, Salt Spring Island and Victoria, in support of private member's bill, Bill C-442. This is my bill calling for a national Lyme disease strategy.

I am very gratified by hearing from so many members that they are also concerned in hearing from Lyme disease patients in their own communities. I hope there will be full-party support for this private member's bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.

The first is from residents of Winnipeg supporting my private member's bill, BillC-442, calling for a national Lyme disease strategy. It is particularly timely, as this Saturday, May 11, is World Lyme Disease Day.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Sudbury, Ontario, and Langley, British Columbia, in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-442, to develop a national Lyme disease strategy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present two petitions.

The first is signed by residents literally from coast to coast, from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, all the way to Vancouver, British Columbia. The petitioners call for the passage of my private member's bill, Bill C-442, which proposes to develop a national strategy on Lyme disease.

I am encouraged by the fact that so many members on all sides of the House appear to be supportive of this effort.

Lyme Disease Strategy

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present four petitions, two each on the same topic.

The first two are on the subject of my own private member's bill, Bill C-442, calling for a national Lyme disease strategy.

The first set of petitioners are from Bedford and Stellarton in Nova Scotia; from Delta, Penticton, Victoria and Surrey in British Columbia; and from Burlington and Oakville in Ontario.

The second set of petitioners are from Chilliwack, Surrey and Langley in British Columbia, as well as from Saskatoon.

Across Canada, Lyme disease sufferers are hoping that all members of this House will come to agreement on a national Lyme disease strategy.

Lyme Disease

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is from residents of Caledon, Erin and Brampton, Ontario, who are in support of my private member's Bill C-442, an act respecting a national Lyme disease strategy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition is from residents of Surrey and Langley in British Columbia, as well as from residents of Halifax, Nova Scotia, calling upon the House to look favourably on private member's Bill C-442, which I have tabled, that calls for a national Lyme disease strategy.

I am hopeful that members on all sides of the House will see fit to give the bill their support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first is primarily from residents of Langley and Maple Ridge, British Columbia who are urging the House to support the private member's bill I put forward. Bill C-442 proposes a national Lyme disease strategy.

Canadians from coast to coast support this. Also, I hear from so many members of Parliament, on all sides of the House, who are hearing from their constituents of the debilitating, really dreadful symptoms, which are quite often misdiagnosed. Pulling together to ensure a national Lyme disease strategy would put us on the right path.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to present two petitions.

The first pertains to Lyme disease. I had the great honour of introducing Bill C-442 about this disease. The petitioners are asking all parties in the House of Commons to support this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people from Montreal and Gabriola Island.

The petitioners urge all members to support my private member's bill, Bill C-442, which calls for the creation of a national Lyme disease strategy.

Patients and doctors across Canada tell me they support this legislation. I certainly hope my colleagues will join me with all-party support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present petitions from residents across Canada—from Toronto, Vancouver and other locations—in support of my bill, Bill C-442, on a national Lyme disease strategy to deal with improving and sharing best practices in prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first is from petitioners in Chilliwack, Vancouver and other locations in British Columbia, supporting my private member's bill, Bill C-442, which calls for the creation of a national Lyme disease strategy. I am hoping for support across all sides of this House.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise today to present more than 500 names on petitions in favour of my private member's bill, Bill C-442, to put in place a national strategy on Lyme disease.

The petitions that I am presenting today come from Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta and coast to coast, calling for this bill to be passed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today with two petitions. The first is from residents from Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and Bracebridge and Oakville, Ontario.

The petitioners urge members of Parliament to support my private member's Bill C-442, which would move Canada toward a national Lyme disease strategy. I am hearing from patients and doctors across Canada who support this legislation. I certainly hope my colleagues will join me with all-party support.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today from some constituents in my riding of Leeds—Grenville. The petitioners call upon the government to support Bill C-442, the national Lyme disease strategy act.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to support for a private member's bill that I put forward, Bill C-442, that calls for a national Lyme disease strategy. The petitioners are from Mississauga, Fergus and other areas of Ontario.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is from residents of Alberta, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Manitoba. The petitioners support the private member's bill I put forward, Bill C-442, calling for a national Lyme disease strategy. I hope to have support from members on all sides of the House.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents asking Parliament to support Bill C-442 from my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands , the national Lyme disease strategy act.

National Lyme Disease Strategy Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

,

seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-442, An Act respecting a National Lyme Disease Strategy.

She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to rise today to present this private member's bill, for which I hope there will be support from all sides of the House. This is the ultimate in non-partisan issues. This is the ultimate in non-geographically limited issues. We are, in each of our ridings, facing an increasing threat to our constituents and their families from a very tiny threat, a little tick that is spreading and can bring debilitating illness to any one of us at any time.

I dedicate tabling this bill today to a very brave young woman who was with me earlier today at a press conference, Nicole Bottles. She was diagnosed in high school and is in a wheelchair waiting for her cure. I want to thank the Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation. I urge all members of the House to join me in working toward a national Lyme disease strategy.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)