Debates of Oct. 20th, 2003

Statistics Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

This question was raised previously and it is a legitimate one. One can indeed wonder if legislation put forward and the approach taken will increase the paperwork significantly, resulting in a situation where there will be huge extra costs.

Often, government bills seem to have been prepared in a mad rush. We have seen this in the past, in particular with regard to terrorism, where they had to come back three times with the same bill. In this case, I think the bill has been put through a fine-tooth comb, it has been reviewed by people who are really looking for a balance. I think that the modern computer tools available will help ensure a follow up and appropriate management without necessarily resulting in a huge amount of paperwork, which stifles the administration of the act.

I want to reiterate that the question raised by my hon. colleague is a very appropriate one. For instance, under the bill establishing the gun registry, which in itself is a good thing, the system that was put in place is so cumbersome that it puts into question the very basis for the Firearms Act. This is definitely not a model to use for other legislation.

It seems to me that, in this bill, a balance was maintained. In its application, we will see whether the information can be processed without creating too much paperwork. Since, after 112 years, the information may be disclosed to anyone, there will be very little paperwork, because everyone will have access to the information.

For use during the period between 92 and 112 years, it is right to ask historical societies, historians, genealogists and anyone who requests access to the information to provide the reasons for their research, if only because, after 92 years, the census records may contain information on individuals who are still alive.

Thus, we must make sure that there are no frivolous data, and that no one is going to look for data that could be used improperly, for example, to ridicule a segment of the population. Requests will have to be properly justified.

Bureaucratic control will be needed to ensure the balance described in the bill. I dare to hope that the people who will be managing the data in the future will do so with sufficient common sense. I am confident that we have established the minimum acceptable conditions.

One thing of which I am certain is that the members of genealogical and historical associations in every riding that we represent will be very pleased to see this bill passed so that the information can be utilized. In villages where a centennial or sesquicentennial is being celebrated, the people will thank them for access to the data.

We are talking about the census and about writing the history of the last century. It is important to clarify these positions. At the same time, this is a bill for the long term. It appears that there has been enough consideration, and we would hope that the government would have the same kind of attitude to various other bills, on which it does not appear to be taking the same approach, that is, consulting widely enough before passing laws.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member gave an opinion as to whether or not he felt that the bill had hit its mark in terms of protecting confidentiality or privacy, giving us a solution to this long-standing debate and impasse.

I understood that there was an undertaking that the information would never be released by those who participated in the census. I understand that the bill is now calling on those who have the legitimate reasons of genealogy or historical work to sign an undertaking, which would be developed as part of the regulations. I can only assume that the undertaking would say something to the effect that any information that would come to their attention but was not directly related to the purposes of genealogy or historical work would not be disclosed.

I wonder if the member could clarify that for me, because it still does not explain how we would deal with the undertaking that was made in the first instance, that being that information would never be disclosed.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I will not repeat the entire paragraph I quoted in answer. The government's committee of experts, one of whom was Mr. Justice La Forest, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, found overall that, despite the comments made in the past and despite the identified objectives in bills relating to the need for absolute and almost eternal protection of such data overall, various bills presented opposing views. I will quote an example from the committee's report.

We have come to the view that the release of pre-1906 census records constitutes a particularly important precedent particularly when combined with the fact that release of the 1891 and 1901 census records occurred in concert with the 1983 Privacy Act.

So, jurisprudence and legislation in this area have evolved over time. This year, with Bill S-13, we are trying to reach a balance to ensure proper and reasonable release of information for historical research. However, adequate protection of privacy must also be ensured.

After 92 years, genealogical and historical research using data collected during a census can be conducted only with written authorization. All research projects are subject to an assessment of their scientific and public value.

There are conditions and criteria to ensure that, ultimately, this bill will take into consideration the provisions included in previous legislation. It also takes into account changes that have occurred over the last century.

We want to adopt legislation that will ensure, during the next century, proper management of all this so that historians, genealogists and others wanting to conduct appropriate and adequate research can do so within an adequate regulatory framework. However, there is also a legislative provision so that individuals who do not wish to release such data will be protected for life.

I think that, consequently, this is an acceptable compromise.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak today to Bill S-13. It is a bill on which many members of Parliament have been lobbied.

Certainly, there is a need to open up the census information. I do not think there was an intent, at least the professional panel never found an intent, under the original wording to protect information in perpetuity.

Unlike the member from the Bloc, I would suggest that we do not have the right to protect information in perpetuity. I realize that some information given to the census may be sensitive, but I fail to see any rational argument that after 92 years information cannot be released.

Bill S-13 was introduced by the hon. Senator Sharon Carstairs, Leader of the Government in the Senate. After a short debate, it received second reading on February 11, 2003. It was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The bill has been a long time in coming. It has been before both Houses now for nearly a year and it is time that we move it forward with at least some degree of alacrity.

The purpose of Bill S-13 is to make census records available for research and to the public after a certain period of time. As such, the bill is designed to remove a legal ambiguity that currently exists with respect to post-1901 census records. The bill would allow access by historical and genealogical researchers to census records between 1910 and 2003 under certain conditions, beginning 92 years after the census took place. The census records would then be available for examination without restrictions after 112 years. The bill also contains provisions to avert potential problems in releasing future census data.

It is absolutely essential for genealogists to have access to information. It is absolutely essential for a number of Canadians who may be trying to trace their ancestry or who may be trying to establish their aboriginal rights to have access to census records. If we do not give out this information, then people cannot use that tool, which may be the only tool to prove their ancestry. It is a legal issue. It is not complicated. It is just a matter of opening the door and allowing the information out.

Census records up to and including the 1901 census have already been made available for public use. The data from the 1891 and 1901 censuses was released by the National Archives 92 years after its collection. In 1998, however, the 1906 census records were not released, despite the passage of 92 years. At that time the legal opinion from the federal Department of Justice concluded that later censuses, specifically 1911 onward, were conducted under changes to the law that legally guaranteed the information would not be shown to any other person. As such, the potential existed to prevent the release of any other census records.

It would be a serious mistake not to release this information, particularly, for genealogists, historians, or anyone who is interested in tracing their ancestry or even studying the social values and the progression of history. Most of these people are already dead.

I can certainly go back to the 1831 census in the small community in which I live and find my direct ancestor's names, all down through the census. William Alexander Keddy lived in Lake Ramsay. It is a clear record: naming his children, how many animals he kept on the farm, what was his trade, and his place of business. It is a fantastic record for genealogists. We cannot somehow close the door and not allow people to find information about their own family members.

Everyone does not keep a diary. As a matter of fact, the majority of people do not keep a diary.

An expert panel on the historical value of the census records was formed. It came out in favour of releasing the information. It put a lot of thought into this issue. In its summary, the panel stated:

The Panel is firmly convinced of the benefits of the release of historical census records. The Panel is of the view that with the passage of time, the privacy implications of the release of the information diminishes and that the passage of 92 years is sufficient to deal with such concerns. We are persuaded that a guarantee of perpetual confidentiality was not intended to apply to the census. We believe that the indication of transfer to the National Archives also implied an intention that the census records would eventually become public and we would not view any legislation deemed necessary to do so as a breaking of a promise to respondents. We view the historical and international precedents as fully supportive of this position. The Panel is equally convinced of the value of the census and other work of Statistics Canada and is unwilling to make any recommendation which it believes will jeopardize this work. It is for that reason that we recommend release of the pre-1918 Census records and post-2001 records on a 92-year cycle, while advising some caution regarding any legislative steps that might be thought necessary to effect the release of those census records for the period 1921 to 2001.

The truth is, and it is a very simple truth, that a lot of people do not want more recent census records opened up because of taxation issues. That is the very reason the original respondents to the original censuses in Canada did not want to put down how much property they owned, the value of it, and the amount of livestock they held. It is a very simple application here.

There are a number of arguments in favour of releasing census records.

Without the release of any census records, historians will lose important information about our nation's heritage and those interested in genealogy will lose important information about their ancestors.

Privacy interests are minimal after 92 years--and I think we would all have to agree with that--and are outweighed by the public interest in having access to historical documents.

No perpetual guarantee of confidentiality was ever made.

Most of the information collected by the census is not of a highly sensitive nature and the information that may be sensitive, such as income data, is likely to lose its sensitivity over time.

While census respondents were told that their responses would be confidential, there was also evidence of an intent to preserve the information for the use of future generation. For example, it is stored at the National Archives, which has always had the mandate to store information for future use.

Many of the concerns relating to the privacy of census records relate to short term issues that are irrelevant 92 years after the fact. For example, people were worried that the information could be used for taxation purposes.

Other countries routinely release census records without arousing contention. For example, in Britain and the United States, records are released after 100 years and 72 years, respectively.

This is a good bill. It has been supported by historical and genealogical societies across the country. They have lobbied Parliament hard to have this piece of legislation passed. I agree with it totally and have no difficulty at all supporting it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know all hon. members have been seized with this issue from time to time for a long period of time.

The member did say one thing, though, that caught my attention. He said that, in his judgment, the information included in a census was not of a nature that would need to have protection under perpetual confidentiality. The question really is, as legislators, is it our job to determine what is confidential or needs to be held confidential or not, or whether it is to respect the undertaking?

If the undertakings made by genealogists and those willing do historical research pursuant to the regulations for access to the information after 92 years, how does the 112 year provision, whereby anyone can have full access without any undertaking, satisfy the concern that was raised initially, which was that the information would be held confidential in perpetuity?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member states that it is my assertion that somehow I have come across this information or that it simply appeared to me, I guess, as an epiphany. That is just simply not correct.

I was actually quoting--and I would expect if the member had done his research on this, he would have come to the same conclusion--from the results of the expert panel. It is not my decision. There was a panel formed.

The Expert Panel on Access to Historical Census Records was established by the Minister of Industry in 1999 to examine the issue of disclosure. The members of the panel were: Dr. Richard Van Loon as the chair, president of Carleton University; the hon. Lorna Marsden, president and vice-chancellor of York University; professor Chad Gaffield of the University of Ottawa; professor John McCamus of Osgoode Hall Law School; and retired Supreme Court of Canada judge, the hon. Gérard La Forest.

This is not an issue of partisan politics. This is not an issue about one political party or one member's interests. This expert panel concluded that no perpetual guarantee of confidentiality was ever intended to be attached to the census records. That is a pretty straightforward answer.

We seem to run about here like chicken little every time we feel there is information that we do not agree with. We have the right to disagree with whatever legislation, but there was an expert panel formed that looked at all the information that was in front of it.

If there is any final discrepancy about the confidentiality, it is very easy to just eliminate that from future censuses. In the meantime, we do not want to leave a gap of 100 years. We cannot. It would be irresponsible of us, as members of Parliament, to not allow access to this information. This specific information from Statistics Canada is a gold mine for historians, statisticians, genealogists, and social engineers. There is a whole wealth of information that somehow we are going to say we cannot have access to.

There is a very solid argument against the confidentiality issue. I recognize it and I will agree with the member that it is not something that should be simply discounted, but there is a lot of information to say otherwise. The importance of the ability of family members and genealogists to trace their roots takes precedence over any ambiguous claims for confidentiality.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague, like me, supports this legislation, and I agree with the interpretation of his last reply.

It is not a matter of correcting what the member said in his remarks, but of putting a slightly different slant on it. In his enthusiasm he made the point that this was fully available public information. He gave the example of his own family and what a valuable thing it was to know about his ancestors. He is quite right about that.

However the purpose of the compromise between the 92 years and the 112 years is not to deal with a family that wants to know about its own background. It is where some other family wants to know about another family's background. It is our job as legislators to deal with that matter. This is where the privacy aspects come in and that is why I support that for professional use, for want of a better word, 92 years is a good time. There should be some procedures for accessing the information up to 92 years, then after 112 years it would become a matter of easy public access.

My point to the member is that we legislators have a role and it is not to protect his family's information from him. In the general case it is to protect the privacy of people who might want the information to remain private.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I give the floor to the member, I would just remind the House that government orders has been extended by seven minutes due the time taken for a vote earlier this day. We will conclude government orders at 6:37 this evening. The hon. member for South Shore.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. Actually it was more of a statement than a question, and I quite agree with his statement.

I have no difficulty accepting that 92 years is a reasonable period of time for the majority of information contained in the census records to be released. I would even go a step further and say we do not need the extra 20 years behind that. After 92 years, to tack 20 years on to that and go to 112 years is questionable. However if that quells any fears or any substantive issues that members or individuals of the public may have surrounding this, then I have no problem or difficulty with it.

After 112 years of not so private information to be begin with being held in secrecy, it would not hurt to release that information to the general public. I would agree entirely with the member.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to show the support of the New Democratic Party for Bill S-13. One thing I would like to highlight is the bill clarifies and corrects a situation which we have had with previous legislation going back in the country's history. It also sets an example and deals with how we will handle census information in the future. It is important to note that.

Census information is important not only for genealogical and historical reasons, but also for the decisions we make in the country. In fact today there is a story in the Globe and Mail with the title, “--Census statistics save Ottawa $1-billion”. It reviews the census information over the past year. The reallocation of funds are determined by the census data. It affects social policy, government decision making about expenditures and all the different things we do in terms of legislation, which at the end of the day will have a result upon the services that we will provide as a country.

Bill S-13 would remove a legal clause that was ambiguous at best in relation to the access to census records taken between 1910 and 2003. It would give all genealogical and historical researchers access to the records under certain conditions for a 20 year period, beginning 92 years after the census.

The important thing, which I think we sometimes forget, is it also sets the terms and conditions past 2003, and that is where we decide enlightened consent about whether we as citizens will allow that information to be released.

I have noted this before and I will take a little time today to identify what we are doing with statistical information in terms of the actual decision to accumulate that data through private tender outsourcing, outside government hands, to Lockheed Martin, one of the world's largest multinational arms manufacturers. It is not even a Canadian company. It plays to the whole issue as to how confident Canadians will feel about making personal decisions to release information not only about their age but also about gender and other issues related to their lifestyles that would then be accumulated for decision making.

Specifically on this amendment, genealogists or their authorized representatives would agree in advance that they would release only tombstone information pertaining to their own family members. Tombstone information includes such information as name, address, age and/or date of birth, sex, relationship to head of family or household, marital status, country, place of birth, year of immigration to Canada if an immigrant and occupation or trade.

It is very important for them to be able to trace those specific aspects. It is not uncommon as members of Parliament to receive many different questions from people looking to track their family histories, for health reasons, for historical reasons about their status, for reasons about their own cultural history and background that was previously contained outside the realm which we want to now open up for them. This is a reasonable compromise that has been achieved by the experts who sat down and discussed this very sensitive issue relating to privacy.

Historical researchers would have the public and scientific nature of their proposed research confirmed by appropriate peers or community leaders prior to starting their work. Again, only tombstone information would be released.

The conditions would be in effect for a 20 year period following the release of the historical census records, 92 years after the census. After 112 years, the conditions would be removed and access and release would be unfettered.

The period of 112 years sounds like a long time. I hope we all in this room live to 112 years and have long and prosperous lives. Maybe some people do not. There is the fact that people could agree to have their information released but other family members would then have their data exposed. That is a very sensitive issue for those existing family members.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Windsor West will have approximately 15 minutes remaining when Bill S-13 is called back before the House.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons to advocate again for the city of Windsor and for our border crossing.

More than a year ago the government created a plan with the province of Ontario, and announced $300 million in funding. Then later on it came in with a 60-day committee. It took the committee longer than a year to present what it called a nine point plan.

My question of the day relates to the fact that right now the city of Windsor has a gateway action plan, but it has a problem. Approximately 9,000 hazardous material trucks illegally cross the border each year, breaking both Canadian and U.S. laws. This statistical information came from the province of Ontario. Despite the security risk, the industry and finance ministers did not seem to care about that.

We have a crossing for hazardous materials in the city of Windsor. It is the Windsor-Detroit truck ferry which is pre-authorized. It is the only crossing in Canada where the data on the materials is gathered before the vehicles are loaded on the ferry and then sent across. In fact this ferry service received a grant from Tom Ridge, under the homeland security act, because of its operations. There were 14 years without problems.

What is happening is many of these hazardous material trucks are crossing over the Ambassador Bridge, breaking U.S. laws. This government has entirely left the ferry service out of our current border crossing plan, despite the fact that it could be the quickest, the cheapest and, most important, the safest for certain types of materials that are crossing the border.

Recently we had the explosion of a gasoline truck on I-75 in Detroit, Michigan. This could happen on the Ambassador Bridge as well. There is no security. The trucks drive straight on and anything could happen.

The frustration in my community comes from the fact that there are consensus items about the nine point plan that the government has put in place, but it has not done anything with them. One is a pre-staging area where trucks would go to a certain area to be staged and marshalled through. The second is the ferry service. As well, there are pedestrian crosswalks and a number of other things.

Unfortunately, we had a recent tragedy where a resident was killed on Heron Church Road. Despite the fact that we have had this advocacy for our community about the contentious plan, the government will not move on the items of consensus which I have noted.

Interestingly enough, the Minister of Industry came before the industry committee to testify. He said that the plan was a package. He said that the government could not do the pre-authorized staging area beforehand or anything else because it all happened at once and nothing was moving on the file until they met with the new provincial ministers and there was a municipal election.

Just last week the Minister for International Cooperation, the member for Essex, said that there was actually movement on the plan and that things were happening. We do not know in our community from where the leadership is coming.

I want to know why the government is allowing us to break U.S. laws and threatening the residents of my community by the fact that these hazardous material trucks are on the streets and crossing illegally. The government is not providing sufficient funds to get the trucks to cross at the designated crossing.

Why can we not move on items of consensus? Today it has been reported that since 9/11 the border crossing has cost this area $100 million.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by reassuring Canadians in the strongest possible terms that dangerous goods are not illegally crossing the Ambassador Bridge.

Yes, the government is going ahead with major improvements to the border infrastructure, which are sorely needed and much anticipated by commercial and local interests. The Governments of Canada and Ontario recently announced the next steps in the implementation of the Windsor gateway action plan, recognizing the economic importance of the Windsor gateway and the need to improve the approaches to the border crossings.

The federal government has committed its share of the border infrastructure fund toward major infrastructure improvements at the Windsor border points. The Windsor gateway action plan includes upgrades to the road network, along with the deployment of technologies that will facilitate the flow of traffic and enhance access to the border.

In September 2002, the federal and Ontario governments announced a total of $300 million to improve approaches on the Ontario side of the Windsor-Detroit border crossing. The federal portion comes from the border infrastructure fund. A joint management committee has been tasked to examine how the funds should be allocated.

As I mentioned earlier, on May 27, 2003, the Governments of Canada and Ontario announced the next step in the implementation of the Windsor gateway action plan. The terms and conditions of the border infrastructure fund are such that only land based infrastructure is eligible. These initiatives follow the memorandum of understanding signed on September 25, 2002, to provide $300 million over the next five years to upgrade infrastructure approaches on the Ontario side of the border.

I am actually pleased that the hon. member opposite has raised this question, as there has indeed been a public perception that dangerous goods are totally banned from the Ambassador Bridge and that truck drivers remove dangerous goods placards in order to avoid delays or detours.

To refer to the matter the hon. member raised in June, the transportation of dangerous goods regulations require safe transportation of dangerous goods for all modes, whether the goods are being carried on a ferry or across the bridge. Indeed, there are private rules imposed by the owners of the privately owned bridge. These rules are not a total ban. There are conditions which include the type, quantities, speeds and time of day under which one can carry dangerous goods across the Ambassador Bridge.

Customs officials accept dangerous goods at both the bridge and ferry crossings. Customs officers always check whether dangerous goods are carried and whether the documents and the safety marks, such as placards, are consistent with the goods being carried. I have been informed that no problems have been reported.

There is a regime of regular inspections plus occasional Transport Canada and Ontario joint transportation of dangerous goods inspection blitzes, which have shown that the removal of placards is a rare event. This has not occurred by accident, if the House will excuse the turn of phrase, but is the result of a great deal of work by federal and provincial inspectors, and the industry has complied.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nothing short of incredible. We have had several media reports, as well as footage of truck drivers admitting to taking their placards off or to knowing people who do that on a regular basis. It is something that happens all the time.

It also does not deal with the fact that we will allow those goods to sit on our city streets in lineups hour after hour in front of schools, businesses and residences because they are not diverted to the truck ferry service. It is ironic, because this truck ferry service could actually provide some type of benefit immediately and the government is punishing it by making it pay for customs officials, the only one in the country. The government also even makes them pay for the ferry ice breaking service that the U.S. Coast Guard does. The U.S. Coast Guard provides that service.

So I would ask the parliamentary secretary, has he actually talked to his staff? Has he seen the media reports? Would he want to come to my community and talk to the people who are taking off the placards and putting our community at risk?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, inspectors from the Canadian government and the Ontario government carry out regular inspections, and I am informed that this does not occur. According to what my hon. colleague is saying, this is happening on a regular basis. According to our inspectors, it is not happening on a regular basis. It is in fact rare that it happens.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am referring to a question I asked on May 29 specifically regarding fetal alcohol syndrome. Although I have to refer to that one question, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I have raised this question repeatedly in the House since April 2001, when in fact this place gave almost unanimous support to a private member's motion I introduced requiring labels on all alcohol beverage containers, which were to state a warning that drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause fetal alcohol syndrome.

Here I am today, two and a half years after the government promised to act, after this place, Parliament, made a commitment to the people of Canada that it would act; here I am, asking again, where is the action? Why has the government not taken the necessary steps to implement the will of Parliament?

I hope that I do not get the usual drivel from the government. Or should I say from the dictatorship? I do not want drivel from the dictatorship anymore. I would like some action on an issue that is very important to Canadians, an issue that matters a great deal to people who have to live with fetal alcohol syndrome and to all the families and friends and supporters of people who have fetal alcohol syndrome and know exactly what we are talking about.

We are talking about an issue that costs taxpayers an enormous amount of money because of the inaction of this government. It costs about $1 million per person in the lifetime of a child to treat fetal alcohol syndrome, yet it is entirely preventable. How is it preventable? It is preventable if we can convince women who are pregnant not to drink during their pregnancy. One way we can do that is to put labels on bottles saying that there is a problem if they drink when they are pregnant. It is done in other countries. It is a matter of public policy in many other governments. For our neighbours to the south of us, it is a requirement that all alcohol beverage containers have such a warning from the Surgeon General. Obviously, Canadian manufacturers of liquor, wine and beer who want to export to the United States have to put those labels on the bottles, do they not?

All we are asking is for the government to have the courage to stand up to the brewers, to the liquor industry and to the alcohol corporations and say that there is one small thing they can do for the good of all. It will not cost taxpayers a penny and it is really not going to affect the bottom line of those liquor corporations, but it is going to make a tiny bit of difference in our persistent pursuit of the eradication of fetal alcohol syndrome in our society today.

I do not know what else I can say to the government to make it wake up and take notice. We had a motion passed almost unanimously by Parliament. We have surveys showing that 90% of Canadians absolutely support this small measure. We have had letter after letter from pediatric societies and from medical associations, from the Alberta Medical Association, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and other organizations, asking why we are dragging our heels on this matter.

I ask again today. I plead with the government to do what is important for the children of this land and bring in this very important motion and ensure that we do everything we can to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by praising the efforts expended by the hon. member in seeking an approach to the very serious problem of fetal alcohol syndrome.

I share her concerns about the necessity of taking steps to address one of the major avoidable causes of congenital defects and developmental delay in Canadian children.

FAS results in irreversible disabilities associated with social, emotional and financial difficulties for those with the syndrome as well as their families and caregivers. They require ongoing support and our interventions must be as effective and efficient as possible.

Our government acknowledges the complex and urgent nature of this issue. The multi-faceted strategy includes a study of the effectiveness of warning labels as a total approach to FAS.

Hon. members will recall that Motion M-155, passed by this House in April 2001, called upon the government to consider the advisability of requiring all alcoholic beverages to carry a visible and clearly printed label warning that drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause birth defects.

As has already been reported to the House, the information we have obtained so far has not allowed us to conclude that labels warning of the dangers of alcohol use would have the impact we all want to see, namely a change in the risky behaviour of drinking during pregnancy.

We are, however, continuing to consult the most reliable studies and to examine the opinions of experts in this field. Our objective is to apply measures that make the most efficient use of our resources while obtaining outcomes that are as positive as possible, ultimately.

The Government of Canada has been proactive in its response to FAS-related issues. In 1999 funding was increased by $11 million in order to expand the number and scope of community projects under CPNP, the Canadian prenatal nutrition program.

We have provided funding for preventive, educational and public awareness activities, early intervention, the development of practical tools for the CPNP, the establishment of strategic project assistance fund, an FAS web site, monitoring, and coordination and collaboration.

Funding was also used for early detection, diagnosis and training, including the development of a training manual entitled A Manual for Community Caring . A national survey of health care professionals was undertaken to identify knowledge and attitudes with respect to FAS and the use of alcohol during pregnancy.

Health Canada will publish its findings in a number of formats that will be used to improve the education and training of health care providers.

Health Canada is also working with representatives from Canadian diagnostic centres to prepare recommendations for standardized guidelines with respect to diagnosis and patient referral. This measure is the first stage in a process that will lead to the collection of data on the incidence and frequency of FAS in Canada.

We have also formed a national advisory committee that will provide valuable recommendations on the issue of FAS, including the use of labels to warn about the risks of alcohol use, as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy.

In the December 2001 budget we announced an additional $25 million to treat FAS on reserves, in cooperation with our first nations partners.

The Minister of Health has promised to develop a national action plan on FAS in cooperation with our many partners. The minister is currently bringing together participants from all the parties in Canada, working in this area, to create a viable action plan.

This plan relies on a comprehensive coordinated and cooperative approach that will bring together the best evidence and experience available on the most effective strategies for preventing FAS.

In this context, we will continue in our efforts to combat FAS and to provide support to people, their families, care providers and communities.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the parliamentary secretary. He must be embarrassed after reading such drivel from the Minister of Health and her departmental officials. We have heard that all before.

What the member forgets to mention is that this issue was studied long before my motion came on the books and long before Parliament gave almost unanimous support for a simple measure to put warning labels on alcohol beverage containers.

I do not know how the member can stand in his place, look anyone straight in the eye and say what he just said with any kind of integrity. He should go back to the Minister of Health and the department and say that this is outrageous.

This kind of dictatorship is unacceptable. What is going on with the government? Is it that much in the pockets of the brewers in this country? Is it that dependent upon the alcohol industry for donations? Are payoffs going on? What is stopping the government from taking one small step toward the prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome?

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what I said to be sure that you understood. The Minister of Health has promised to develop a national action plan on FAS. This plan relies on a comprehensive, coordinated and cooperative approach that will bring together the best evidence and experience available on the most effective strategies for preventing FAS.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.)