Debates of Dec. 12th, 2006

Brain Tumour Surveillance

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent bill and his thoughtful presentation. I think he will find a lot of support in the House for this tremendous initiative. The member's speech was very well researched and he had a lot of interesting information. Is there anything that he has not had a chance to say that he would like to say? I would like to give him that time to complete his speech.

A constituent of mine has complained, validly, about the determinants of cancer, which we could control such as chemicals in society. Could the member answer these two questions. First, why has he not extended this to all forms of cancer? That information would be helpful in saving living lives in other forms of cancer. Second, if the research could then be also studied to analyze or enumerate the causes of those cancers, could help prevent it in the future?

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, these cases have honed in on a gap in the research. There are more research statistics on cancer than there is on benign tumours. This is the issue. Benign tumours are often overlooked. As Dr. Cusimano from Toronto said, it is an inappropriate word. Because they are benign, often they are left off the statistics. Some people think that if benign tumours were included in the statistics we have now, there would be 40% more tumours listed.

My understanding is that there are 55,000 Canadians now suffering from brain tumours of one type or another, and we do not want to prevent anybody from having research. We want to ensure that they are all researched and recorded in a uniform way across the country so we can determine just exactly what the member raised.

Is this a cluster of people who have tumours and why? Is it hereditary, or is it environment, or is it lifestyle, or is there another group that may live near some kind of a mine or something, or some radiation? We have no idea. Without statistics, we cannot say. We cannot match the groups to find out.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the bill. The member's commitment to fighting cancer is commendable, and I think all Canadians should be very proud of the work he has done.

Could the member talk about the initiative, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and how there will be synergies between the member's initiative and the $260 million over five years that the government has committed, of which the entire cancer community is supportive. Could he comment on the government's work on cancer and how it works with his private member's bill?

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize, as I said it quickly, that I thank the Minister of Health for his support. He has been instrumental in us drafting the bill. After we drafted it, we asked him if he could support it. He said that if we could make a few little changes, he would love to support it. I am not allowed to say what goes on in caucus, However, he spoke in support of it, but I cannot tell anybody.

He has been very supportive all the way along. In fact, he said we should make this part of our $260 million cancer strategy, on which the parliamentary secretary worked.

To answer the member's question, I had a letter from a neurosurgeon who said that he thought this all tied in nicely with what the government was doing, and he supported it in that way.

Again, I thank the Minister of Health. He met with Brandon and Jennifer today. He had a long chat with them about their circumstances and what they had been through. He has been very supportive.

I am sure we will make progress with this.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion on a subject matter that is often important to many thousands of Canadians who are affected by brain tumours.

I would like to congratulate my colleague. the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley for the excellent job he has done on this issue and for placing before the House this important motion. It is one that I support without reservation.

Often hear in the House we hear members say that issues are not a partisan matter, but quite often they turn out to be that way. In this case it certainly is not.

I first had this issue highlighted to me when I was visited by a number of people, including Ann Chapman, the coordinating nurse at the IWK Brain Tumour Clinic perhaps just over a year ago. She told us of the plight of Canadians who were suffering from brain tumours.

I know Ann a little and I know of her dedication to children as a nurse at the IWK. As my hon. colleague did with the Dempsey family, if I were allowed to mention that Ann's daughter Ashley is with us today, I would, but since I am not I will continue.

As the nurse coordinator, Ann comes into daily contact with young children and their families all the time, families who struggle with this awful disease. She is with families throughout their treatment, and she wrote me a letter, which I would like to read only a small part. She said:

As the nurse coordinator who sits by the bedside of far too many children and families to help support them through this devastating diagnosis and treatment, this bill cannot get passed soon enough. This bill will help raise awareness about the actual number of Canadians diagnosed with brain tumors, both malignant and benign. There are many children diagnosed with “Benign” brain tumors but the treatment and late effects can be hardly considered benign on a young developing brain. Some children with “Benign” brain tumors undergo multiple surgeries and are treated with chemotherapy and radiation, so this word benign is misleading.

I have been on the board of the Isaac Walton Killam Children's Hospital in Nova Scotia before I became a member, Ann Chapman represents the kind of work that is done by so many people at that great institution in dealing with children from Atlantic Canada.

I believe the motion today will help raise awareness of persons diagnosed with brain tumours, both malignant and benign.

Statistics provided to us by the Canadian Alliance of Brain Tumour Organizations really are troubling. Every year in every community in Canada it is possible that someone could be diagnosed with a brain tumour. Data indicates that up to 10,000 Canadians are diagnosed with a primary or metastatic brain tumour in each year. Sadly, children account for about a third of that total.

Although some children are diagnosed with benign brain tumours, the treatment and the ensuing effects are such that it potentially harms a child's developing brain. Many of these people, as we have heard from Ann, have to endure very invasive surgeries that are treated with chemotherapy as well as radiation.

We hear that accurate data on primary brain tumours is needed to facilitate the research. We need accurate pan-Canadian data in order to better understand this disease, and by better understanding it, we can provide improved diagnosis and improved treatment.

The Canadian Alliance of Brain Tumour Organizations tells us that there is no national mechanism or standard for the collection of both malignant and benign brain tumours data. They have a particular concern that jurisdictions in Canada seem to be reporting only the malignant cases. It is clear, as has been suggested earlier, that we need to have a better understanding of the actual numbers to accurately reflect the impact of this awful disease on Canadians and their families.

I am very pleased that this motion calls upon the government to work with its provincial partners and advocacy groups in order to obtain timely and accurate data. I am also pleased to hear from my colleague that this has the support of the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister of Canada.

Brain tumours are second only to leukemia in incidence in children. The effects of brain tumours are particularly devastating because of the fact they are centred in the person's centre of thought, emotion and movement. The impact on families, as we have heard, is devastating.

I would like, if I could, to read a letter. Two constituents of mine have sent me letters today. They talk about the impact of this disease on their family. Marilyn Parker in Dartmouth wrote to me in support of the bill. She said:

Over a one year period Deanna underwent 5 different protocols of Chemotherapy and then finally 6 weeks (30 treatments) of radiation in Boston, USA. Deanna is now 10 years old and in Grade 5 at Robert Kemp Turner Elementary School. Miraculously, Deanna suffers no neurological deficits but suffer some, what I consider to be minor, physical deficits (vision, hearing, growth, thyroid). She is very active in school and community activities and is the joy of my life (along with her 2 older brothers).

I have a letter from Colleen Ferguson. She took the time to write to me today. Part of her letter is as follows:

I am the mother of a child with a brain tumour. Our son Mitchell was diagnosed in January of 2001 with a benign brain tumour. Once our surgeon indicated that the tumour was benign, we thought we would have somewhat of a reprieve. This, in fact, was not the case. As a result, Mitch has undergone four major brain surgeries, and a few minor.

Not soon after his diagnosis of a benign brain tumour, he quickly deteriorated. Mitchell was very ill. For quite some time we weren't sure that he would make it. The benign tumour became a mix of benign and malignant. This tumour has resulted in Mitchell undergoing six weeks of radiation and three and one half years of chemotherapy. The benign/malignant tumour, along with the treatments, has left our son with some definite deficits. We are learning to overcome some of these deficits, and with your help, families such as ours, will have more resources to draw upon.

These are pretty devastating stories, pretty impactful stories, from families who are affected by brain tumours. We are fortunate in Canada to live in a country that prides itself on its health care system. Many countries in the world are nowhere near as fortunate.

One of the principles of medicare is that nobody should be denied health service based on where they live or their condition. But we know there are gaps. We hear it all the time. Those gaps affect lives, often dramatically. Gaps can be province to province, perhaps another form of two tier health care in Canada. Treatment options vary dramatically in a lot of cases across Canada, and certainly in the case of brain tumours.

Last year, I presented a statement in this House on the issue of brain tumours after my visit with Ann Chapman and her friends. I have learned a great deal since then about how this issue affects the lives of our fellow Canadians.

As parliamentarians it is our duty to make choices every day and some of those are very difficult. The voices of people with brain tumours speak to the need to do more. We have heard the stories of families whose lives have been turned upside down, of Mitchell and Deanna and their families, of Brandon, who inspired his mother Jennifer Dempsey to work with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley to bring this motion forward today.

Many of us know people who have gone through chemotherapy or radiation. I have had two parents who have gone through cancer treatments. I can hardly imagine three and a half years of chemotherapy and how that impacts on individuals and their family.

I hope in some small measure that we can all be of help in creating greater awareness of this issue. Again, my congratulations to my Nova Scotia colleague for his work. I urge all members to support this motion.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a motion that calls on all hon. members who are concerned about the growing incidence of cancer to take action. The motivation and concern shared by many members, if not all, sitting here in this House is obvious. I will read the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Health should continue to work collaboratively with Statistics Canada—

So far, so good.

—the provincial and territorial cancer registries, and key stakeholders towards the ultimate goal of creating uniform national standards and guidelines for the surveillance of all malignant and benign brain tumours, including data collection, analysis and reporting.

The Bloc Québécois cannot support such a motion because it interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I am not the only one who feels this way. I will read what was reported in La Presse:

The Quebec government has decided not to join the project. “We are glad the other provinces are joining forces to fight cancer, but we already have our own strategy”, explained Isabelle Mérizzi, press secretary to health minister Philippe Couillard.

Since we are talking about health and cancer, I would also like to read what Premier Jean Charest said in reaction to the letter from the federal Minister of Health:

The day-to-day management of the health care network and health services delivery is our responsibility. And it would be a good idea for the federal government not to interfere in how we provide health care. In fact it would be a very bad idea for the federal government to stick its nose in how we provide health care services.

Quebec's health minister, Philippe Couillard, in reaction to the federal health minister's letter said:

We will absolutely not tolerate the slightest interference in our jurisdiction...the organization and prioritization of and our approach to providing health care and social services in Quebec are strictly the concern of the Government of Quebec.

We see clearly that the Bloc Québécois is not the only one pulling these ideas out of the hat, that it is not a recent issue and that it is shared by all political stakeholders in Quebec, whether they belong to a federalist Liberal government, a nationalist Liberal government or the Parti québécois.

So this is a long, ongoing story. When a motion says that national standards and guidelines are going to be created, the Bloc Québécois cannot support it. We are very concerned about the tragedy of cancer, which continues to increase. The figures are alarming. Statistics can be cited today in this House to show the extent of the problem. They say there is a new case every four minutes and eight deaths every minute. Indeed some cases are alarming and this rise of 3% a year in cancer diagnoses is very worrisome.

Perhaps not all the provinces have done their homework either, and they must each assume their responsibilities. For instance, with regard to wait lists, patients with cancer or prostate cancer receive their first treatment within four weeks. The situation is not the same in every province. They say that Saskatchewan is the province where wait times are the longest. Apparently over half of patients wait more than 12 weeks.

I can understand why a federal minister or an MP sitting here in Parliament feels concerned about patients living in the province they represent. But they should put pressure on their provincial government to better meet the expectations of the population.

They say that Quebec's performance is quite decent. It is also compared to Manitoba, which won the top rating for the most efficient system with median wait times of barely a week. Quebec is also aiming to reduce wait times for cancer patients.

Definitely it must also be recognized that Quebec has a strategy of its own. The issue is very complex. We know that health requires many types of intervention from various sectors, be it doctors, local community health centres or additional support provided by organizations involved in the medical field.

In 1998, Quebec adopted an integrated plan so as to improve its response to the problem of cancer. We built on the expertise of several players whose mandate was to ensure the sharing of information to ensure greater consistency in our actions. So it is not a question of pettiness or insensitivity, it is a desire to be more consistent in our intervention strategy.

I can understand the person who tabled tonight’s motion. It is a matter of concern to all of us and there is a lot of sensitivity surrounding it. But it is not by voting in favour of this motion that we will help Quebec to do a better job.

Let us revisit an issue that I would have liked to see debated here this evening. As we all know, since 1994, cuts made to health care have been staggering. The Canada social transfer was cut by $6.2 billion. That included a portion for education, but also a portion for health care. That money was put into paying down the debt. Other spending was given priority during that time and provincial jurisdictions were encroached upon.

Today's debate is extremely important if we want to help the provinces better meet the needs of Canadians. I would like to talk about the fiscal imbalance. It is the Bloc Québécois that laid the issue on the table. Now, the Conservatives have finally recognized this and the Liberals call it financial pressure on the provinces. We are talking about the fiscal imbalance here today only because the Bloc Québécois brought it up and made it clear that there was a fiscal imbalance, which was adding pressure to the finances of Quebec and the other provinces. They must show that they also acknowledge the existence of the fiscal imbalance and that they would also like to be fairly compensated for the sums they do not have in their coffers, so they may better meet the needs of Canadians.

It is all well and good to set social standards and impose them on the provinces. It is easy to take a paternalistic approach, impose standards and say that there have to be objectives and action plans, but the provinces must be able to meet the public's needs. We know that the federal government has too much tax money in its coffers for the responsibilities it has. Who has the hospitals, who has the community service centres, who provides care and social services for the public? The provinces.

We have a motion before us today. I do not think that Quebec and the other provinces do not want to provide information about their own programs or strategies, but all political players have said no to imposing national standards on the provinces.

Today, if we are serious about this, I would have liked to hear a proposal stating that the government recognizes the fiscal imbalance and that it must be corrected so that the provinces can meet the public's health care needs, especially with regard to cancer, and that the government will help the provinces by immediately correcting the fiscal imbalance. Health care must be a provincial responsibility, and the provinces must have all the tools necessary to better meet the public's needs.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion.

There is no question that this country does not have a surveillance method for brain tumours, either benign or malignant. It is important at the beginning, because when people hear the words “brain cancer” or “brain tumour”, they think of a malignant cancer. While a benign tumour is not cancer, it nevertheless can cause a great deal of damage to an individual.

Unfortunately, people who read a bit about medical terminology may hear the word “benign” and not pay much attention, because they think benign means it is okay and they do not have to worry. For example, if someone was suspected of having breast cancer and the result of the biopsy was that the tumour was benign, the person would sigh with relief, because benign to most people means that everything will be fine.

There has been less focus in the area of benign tumours, less focus on surveillance, less focus on follow-up and less focus on the kinds of supports that need to be in place for children or adults who may be diagnosed with a benign tumour. Whether a tumour is benign or malignant, with treatment, people can be very lucky with malignant brain tumours and may do well.

With benign tumours, we know that while the tumour will not spread, it may recur and in point of fact, does recur. It is not at all uncommon. I can think of three people in my life who have recurring benign brain tumours. For at least two of those individuals, the surgery and the treatment for the benign brain tumours has caused permanent physical disability. One person has lost most vision. One person has a number of facial movement and speech disorders.

When a breast tumour is removed, damage is not done to the surrounding area. When a benign brain tumour is removed, there is the potential for damage to the surrounding area, depending on where it is, because of the closeness to all those areas that control thought, smell, sense, movement and all of that.

It is important to have surveillance on both. I thank the member for moving the motion, because most of the focus has been on malignant tumours. If surveillance is done, there is an opportunity to determine if it is consistent across the country. Are there provinces or parts of provinces where this is seen to a greater degree? The federal government needs to know that and we need to be able to share that with other provinces.

In the case of neurotubular disorders, when surveillance was done, suddenly we saw a far larger number of children with neurotubular disorders. Although one should never see any, the statistics said that we would see a larger number of children with neurotubular disorders in areas where spraying was going on.

It helps us when we look across the country to see if there are places where we need to have a closer look at the environment in which children or adults who are developing tumours live.

It provides us with an opportunity to look at what happens after treatment. We do not currently provide enough support after treatment. The benign or malignant tumour has been treated and halted but there are no support programs in place that provide for education, job retraining, any health care that might be needed because the individuals do not fit into the existing categories. They do not have particular challenges for which programs have already been developed. They are often simply at home with no support or they are out of school or have to stand back from their jobs which supported their families. There has not been a focus on post-treatment supports that those individuals would need.

I would agree strongly with the member from Dartmouth that we have a health care system in which we believe that nobody should be denied treatment. The better the surveillance that is done, the more likely we are to be able to get more causal information and the better we are able to respond not just to the tumour but to what kind of support people need after the fact.

People in rural areas obviously need more support than people in urban areas because they have to travel for their treatment. That support has to be in place.

It also allows us to look at what we see in terms of population groups. Are we seeing more adults? Are we seeing more children? What percentage of them are children under five, teenagers, or older adults? What are we seeing around age? What are we seeing around cultural background or ethnic background? Do we see more people from a particular ethnic background than another? That would let us do a far better surveillance. It would also let us know more about genetics. Do we think it is familial or not? Surveillance allows us to identify that kind of information as well and then to be able to set up in the way that we have done with other kinds of cancers and whether there is a familial characteristic to a particular kind of tumour.

This may very well require more funds, not just funds for surveillance but because programs are significantly lacking after treatment, there are going to have to be more dollars for health, education and training certainly from the federal government and perhaps provincial governments. We need to make sure that once people are identified as having particular needs, they are not one offs and they are provided with particular programs that meet their needs.

There is a funding issue. We know that provincial governments are struggling for health care dollars now. They cannot meet the needs of everybody, with rising drug costs, wait times and growing populations. Having been a health minister, I know how hard it is to meet everybody's needs within a health budget.

I would like there to be a federal government responsibility to look at surveillance in a more overall way. I do not want people to have to bring a motion to the House every time somebody has a disease on which we need to do surveillance. It is a very cumbersome and ineffective way of doing surveillance.

It is not that I do not support the member's motion; I do. In terms of how we do surveillance on illnesses across our country, I do not want it to be a one-off approach just because a member can bring forward a motion because it is important to the member. I would like the approach to be done in a more organized, systematic, efficacious way than we currently see.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am afraid I have to cut off the hon. member as her time has expired.

Resuming debate with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's concluding remarks. In fact, this motion is very compatible with the government's agenda to increase collaboration with the provinces and territories and is well aligned with the Canadian strategy for cancer control which has now been released as a pan-Canadian partnership to fight cancer. It also goes along with the healthy living and chronic disease initiative that this government is pursuing to create a comprehensive pan-Canadian surveillance system. The member's concern about surveillance has been addressed by the government, which is very positive.

Speaking to the motion itself, first let me congratulate the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley on this excellent motion. As we know, benign brain tumours have not routinely been collected by provincial and territorial cancer registries and thus are not included in the Canadian Cancer Registry.

There are several reasons why data on benign brain tumours should be collected. First, there is the human dimension. Brain cancer is the most common solid tumour in children and youth. Each year in Canada over 200 children and youth under the age of 20 are diagnosed with brain tumours and nearly 60 die from their disease. Among those who survive, the long term health effects and functioning consequences are serious.

In addition, brain cancer is also significant among young adults. In 2003 there were 388 cases diagnosed within the 20 to 44 age group, or close to 20% of brain cancer cases among Canadians age 20 or older. In total, 2,500 cases and 1,650 deaths from brain and nervous system cancer are expected in 2006 in Canada. The number of brain and nervous system cancer cases would increase by between 40% and 70% if benign cases were included. Benign cases contribute to a substantial portion of the total burden of brain cancer.

Second, the creation of uniform national standards and guidelines for the surveillance of all types of brain tumours has the potential to improve the quality and completeness of brain tumour registration across Canada.

Third, having this complete and accurate data on primary brain tumours would facilitate research into the causes of this disease, which may lead to improved diagnosis and treatment of patients. It would, for example, help identify factors that influence the risk for developing various types of brain tumours.

Fourth, cancer registries serve several important purposes by linking available sources of administrative data to obtain information on a number of new cancer cases and corresponding patient follow-up information. This information allows basic surveillance and establishes a platform to provide the additional information needed to develop and evaluate cancer control programs.

There are also links from cancer registries to other administrative databases, such as vital statistics, to further assess the causes of cancer, behavioural risk factors, as well as occupational and environmental exposures. It would also allow an evaluation of trends in the rates of newly diagnosed cases.

Fifth, the inclusion of benign brain tumours is also needed to allow these tumours to be compared across registries both nationally and internationally.

Sixth, there are many subtypes of brain and nervous system cancers. The chance of recovery and choice of treatment depends on the type, grade and location of the tumour and whether the cancer remains after surgery and/or has spread to other parts of the brain. In addition, since studies have demonstrated that some benign brain cancers transform into more dangerous types of tumours, the full spectrum of information about these diseases should be included in cancer registries.

As I said earlier, the motion is highly compatible with the government's agenda to increase collaboration with the provinces and territories. It is well aligned with the objective of the health minister to create a comprehensive, pan-Canadian surveillance system.

I heard some of the comments from my hon. colleague from the Bloc and it is important that Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand that there are synergies that can be gained by working together, that people in Quebec, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, B.C., Yukon and so forth can benefit by us sharing information and learning from each other's experiences. One of the great flaws that we see in the Bloc's argument time and time again is that somehow pandemic or other diseases respect provincial boundaries. Of course they do not and we need to work together so that all Canadians can be as healthy as possible.

I would also like to take a moment to comment on the leadership that the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have undertaken with the creation of the Canadian partnership to fight cancer. This partnership has the backing of all the major cancer groups throughout the land, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the prostate and breast cancer groups. We could name any type of cancer group and we would find that they all support the government's initiative.

When I was the health critic, I brought forward a motion on June 7, 2005, when the government of the day refused to fully fund and implement the strategy, even though every stakeholder in the cancer community supported the initiative. It took a change in government and the political will of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to ensure that the strategy could be brought forward.

The motion that the member has brought forward demonstrates the importance of the government's strategy to fight cancer. It will be a model for future parliaments on how to deal with chronic disease and, hopefully, we will defeat cancer.

However, it will take all Canadians working together, be it on walks or runs, or just individual responsibility or guidance from the government on how we can ensure that the risks to the health of Canadians are such that fewer Canadians will develop cancer.

Just last Friday, the health minister and the environment minister made a major announcement on reducing and eliminating the number of toxic substances that exist in Canada. This makes Canada a world leader in this area. A suggestion was made that many of the toxins and compounds that will be banned are some of the reasons why people acquire cancer. This government has demonstrated a profound sense of leadership and vision to ensure that Canadians live healthy lives.

This ties in very well to our wait times guarantee and other very innovative and thoughtful approaches that this government has taken in dealing with our health care crisis. As the population grows older, cancer cases will increase but if we can manage that increase and work together to increase, not only the lifespan but the healthspan of Canadians, we will improve their quality of life, reduce wait times and together we will all be stronger as we stand together.

No matter what part of the country we are from, Quebec, Ontario or Manitoba, by sharing data and having national standards we can make significant improvements. I think the bill brought forward by the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley and the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the entire Canadian cancer community will go a long way to ensure that Canadians are as healthy as they can be.

I congratulate the member and I thank the members for listening to this presentation and I wish everyone a happy holiday season.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The time provided for the consideration of private members’ business has now expired and the motion is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my question on November 6, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said:

I am certainly prepared to meet with the chief or any other chief, at any time.

He subsequently said:

The Pikangikum community is one of close to 200 communities which the government inherited where the drinking water system is at high risk or worse.

Further on in his answer he said:

Certainly I am prepared to meet at any time to discuss the way forward.

My question is the same now as it was at the beginning of November. When will the minister meet with the leadership in Pikangikum to help them deal with this public health crisis?

I want to quote the Northwestern Health Unit's observations and final recommendations in its inspection report on the Pikangikum water and sewage systems. The report states:

The most basic of twentieth century (ie last century) health-supporting water/sewage infrastructures are not available to Pikangikum First Nation residents. This includes (but is not limited to) housing, air/water/soil contamination control and regulation, drinking/water provision and sewage disposal. In multiple conversations with federal and provincial representatives, the longstanding neglect is explained, in various rhetorical guises, through a citing of resource constraints and "big picture" considerations.

Further on in the report, it states:

Northwestern Health Unit Recommendation: It is recommended that, in the presence of, and led by, Pikangikum Elders, Chief and Council, and consultants of the community's choosing, an immediate (in 2006) meeting of the federal and provincial Ministries of Health, INAC, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, be held in Pikangikum regarding the urgent and longstanding need for adequate water provision, housing, and sewage disposal in the community. Tangible outcomes from this meeting are required. Anything less than this constitutes a tacit approval of the present illness-producing situation, and a continued liability regarding such health hazards as outbreaks of water/sewage-related illness.

Those are direct quotes from the Northwestern Health Unit. It sent a team in to look at the situation and, at the request of the community, presented a report with a number of observations and recommendations. These include both short term recommendations that could be immediately implemented, as well as some longer term plans.

The last quote was the overall recommendation. What has the minister done to date to meet that recommendation?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan regarding the first nation community of Pikangikum.

I first want to assure members of this House that the government regards the situation in Pikangikum with the utmost seriousness. The health and safety of all first nations is a priority for Canada's new government. In partnership with the community, I am determined to resolve the difficult situation in Pikangikum as soon as possible.

I recognize that this community faces a number of serious challenges. This is a remote community with difficulties in infrastructure, drinking water and waste water, compounded by limited access to electrical power. It has the economic and social issues that go with difficult living conditions, one tragically being a high rate of suicide. Frequent changes in the leadership have further complicated the problem.

Indian and Northern Affairs is committed to working with the Pikangikum First Nation, its tribal council and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation to address these and the other financial, social and capacity issues that challenge this community. We are determined to create an effective and an integrated approach to resolving these issues in both the short and the long term.

In fact, I wrote to the standing committee on November 8 asking for its advice. I recognized the complex, multi-faceted issues that face the community and accordingly I sought the counsel of this House. However, I am disappointed to say that the committee has not answered my call to contribute to finding a solution for the long-standing despicable conditions in Pikangikum, conditions that deteriorated under the watch of the former Liberal government and in the riding of the former Liberal minister of Indian affairs nonetheless.

Contrary to the avoidance tactics of the standing committee, action is being taken on Pikangikum. To this end, we are working with the Pikangikum First Nation and the Independent First Nations Alliance Tribal Council to plan and provide for the community's infrastructure needs. Meetings were held to further discussions as recently as November 2 and November 16 and, subject to weather conditions tomorrow, December 13, INAC and Health Canada officials, Nishnawbe Aski Nation grand chief, Stan Beardy, and tribal council officials will be meeting with the chief and the council in the community to further discuss the development of an action plan for the community.

Pikangikum's water treatment plant, run by a certified level three operator, is producing clean and safe water. Community members have access to this water at a water point located at the plant. We have also provided $900,000 in special funding to repair other vandalized or neglected water points throughout the community.

I am also devoting funds to address the long term water issues in Pikangikum. One million dollars has been identified for water and waste water work in the community this fiscal year, $1.1 million for next year and a total of $9 million in future years.

However, there are considerable barriers facing the expansion of the water services, one of which is limited electrical power. Over the past six years we have provided $7.5 million to assist Pikangikum in connecting to the Ontario power grid system via a power line to Red Lake, but financial issues, frequent changes to the community's leadership and changes in the provincial regulatory environment have hampered the development of this project. Nonetheless, we continue to be committed to work together. We have budgeted another $14 million over the next two years to complete the grid.

In closing, I am also aware that the growing student population in Pikangikum requires a new facility. We are working to address overcrowding in this school.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer but it is well within the minister's purview to take immediate action. Some short term solutions were recommended in the Northwestern Health Unit's report that are within both the minister's and the department's area of responsibility. These include things like decades old technology used across the north to deliver safe treated water to homes by trucks that can happen immediately. Community and climate appropriate, in-home or modern external portable toilet sewage disposal could be provided immediately.

I agree that some longer term issues need to be dealt with but the department, with direction from the minister, could take immediate action. It is this kind of immediate action that we are asking the minister to undertake. There are other examples of communities where there has been the political will to take these issues on.

I wonder when the minister will act on these short term immediate issues that have been--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that the government is determined to work with all partners to bring about real and lasting change for this community. It is for that reason that I asked for the advice of the committee and I reiterate my disappointment in the hon. member for passing the buck when she had a chance to act toward positive change.

Conservative members on the committee stood up for the people of Pikangikum while this hon. member and others have brought us here tonight to try to get out of this on technicalities. The committee has a mandate to visit communities. Even though the committee's counsel has been requested by both myself and the first nation, the hon. member continues to argue against going. It is shocking how fast the tides turn when it is no longer the shopping trip to New York, but rather a trip to the troubled community of Pikangikum.

The new Conservative government will not sit idly by while opposition members turn a blind eye. Instead, we believe that we will collaborate with the community to solve problems, and make a real and lasting difference for the people of Pikangikum if the committee will not.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this adjournment debate and to express my concern with regard to the lack of funding by ACOA for the women in business initiative and the SEED capital program, among others.

These programs make it possible to help people in Atlantic Canada acquire business skills and capital they need to set up, modernize and expand their businesses. Entrepreneurs are vital engines of growth in the Atlantic area. In addition to creating job opportunities in all sectors, local entrepreneurs further stimulate the economic performance of all Atlantic regions.

However, according to information received, ACOA no longer has funds available for programs such as the SEED capital program and the women in business initiative.

Operating one's own business certainly has its rewards, but also has its challenges. For a business to reach its full potential, a certain number of elements must be mastered, including planning, finances and marketing. Entrepreneurs in rural areas, such as my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, face the considerable challenges of financing and training.

Through ACOA programs, these people can get the training they need for successful start-up. Despite the obstacles they have to overcome, more people than ever before in Madawaska—Restigouche and the rest of Atlantic Canada are starting businesses. These people deserve a tip of the hat for taking on the risk involved in starting a business, but I must also note that ACOA has a role to play in promoting and improving economic development in rural areas like the one I represent.

Many of them depend on ACOA's seed capital program, which provides loans to start or improve a small business, as well as acquire business skills training. I myself oversaw the program for a number of years, so I understand the reality and the need for this kind of program, which enables our young people to start businesses without having to deal with a charter bank or credit union.

Another program currently experiencing difficulty is the women in business initiative, which helps many women in the region. In 2002, the Liberal government established the women in business initiative, a $17 million program designed to offer strategic financial support to female entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada. Over the past few years, ACOA has been receiving more and more funding requests. Atlantic communities depend heavily on the support of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to make many of their businesses successful.

Since this government came to power, funding has been refused or delayed for a number of projects. I would therefore ask the government to ensure that communities in Atlantic Canada will no longer be penalized because of this government's lack of leadership. We know that small and medium businesses are the economic backbone of this country and Atlantic Canada. The region I represent is no different in that respect. We must meet our citizens' needs and make more funds available to improve the region's economic development.

In closing, I would like to say one more thing. Will the minister continue to attack youth, women and entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada, or will he announce tonight his intention to put funds back into these programs retroactively?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for bringing this forward. It is a privilege to respond to his question tonight.

Our government continues to stand up for New Brunswick and in fact all of Atlantic Canada. Through ACOA the Government of Canada is focusing on helping New Brunswickers and all Atlantic Canadians succeed in business.

Our government is very much aware that the community of Baker Brook is facing significant economic challenges as the result of the downsizing of the local softwood mill. It might interest the hon. member to know that through ACOA the Government of Canada is continuing to focus on helping New Brunswickers succeed. We worked hard to conclude a softwood lumber agreement with the Americans that continues to ensure that the lumber produced from the logs harvested in the Atlantic provinces will remain exempt from border measures.

The agreement is the right one for Atlantic Canada's forestry sector which employs 30,500 forestry workers and accounts for 6% of Canada's softwood lumber exports to the United States.

The agreement ensures that lumber produced from logs harvested in the Atlantic provinces which are certified by the Maritime Lumber Bureau will not be subject to border measures. It exempts from border measures logs harvested in the state of Maine, a key component of bilateral trade in that region.

These producers used to be subject to anti-dumping duty orders and thus the agreement is of even greater benefit to them. In fact, the agreement enjoys the support of the three largest softwood producing provinces as well as the support of Atlantic Canada, the territories, and a clear majority of Canadian lumber producers.

Our government understands the need to be responsive to communities that depend on traditional industries such as forestry when they are faced with a significant downturn in industry or the closure of a major employer.

We also recognize that there is no one single solution. Any sustainable response relies on a strategic approach and effective partnerships. That is why the Government of Canada through ACOA continues to work with the local community economic development agency, the province and the community itself to help diversify the Baker Brook economy, and create other employment opportunities in the region.

ACOA remains committed through its various programs to fostering an environment in which businesses and communities in Atlantic Canada can grow and thrive. We are delivering on this commitment. The New Brunswick seed capital program continues to help rural entrepreneurs start and grow their businesses. This important program continues to be delivered across the province by community business development corporations and community economic development agencies including CBDC Madawaska and the CBDC Victoria Madawaska-South Community Business Development Corporations.

ACOA also provides advice and assistance through its women in business initiative where advisers provide business counselling and training services to women entrepreneurs. This initiative continues to support women's business networks and management training allowances for women entrepreneurs throughout the province including the northwest region.

ACOA remains committed to actively working with Atlantic Canadians to build strong communities. We recognize, and this government especially recognizes, that strong communities build a strong nation.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see my colleague from New Brunswick reply. Still, I would have appreciated a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or from the minister of ACOA. That would have been interesting.

I would just like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, since he mentioned the seed capital program and the women in business initiative, whether he can guarantee today that funding will be restored for loans to entrepreneurs, women, youth and people who want to make a better life for themselves in Madawaska—Restigouche, or whether what has happened in recent months, when no funds have been available for loans under these two programs, will be repeated.

By the way, I would like to point out to my colleague that I represent the region of Madawaska, but also the region of Restigouche.

I would like to know whether funding for these two programs will be retroactive and whether loans will be provided for people who want to go into business in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and in Atlantic Canada.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from New Brunswick for his question and I can assure the hon. member that the government will continue to support Atlantic Canada and will continue to provide support to New Brunswickers.

Over the past 11 months our new government has announced significant investments in New Brunswick communities. These include a regional pool for Shipigan and the Acadian Peninsula, infrastructure funding for the Huntsman Marine Science Centre, continued development of the Fundy Trail, upgrading of the Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska municipal water system, and a new multi-functional learning and training centre in Saint-Francois de Madawaska .

Over the past 11 months in northwestern New Brunswick alone, our government has approved investments of $8.2 million. These investments have leveraged more than $10.7 million in additional public and private funding, strengthening economic infrastructure and quality of life in communities across the region. So absolutely, the government will continue to support New Brunswick communities, New Brunswickers and all Atlantic Canadians.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this rare opportunity to follow up on the question I asked the minister last week about the error admitted to by Statistics Canada in calculating the rate of inflation.

At that time I asked specifically about the impact of this mistake on Canadians whose income is tied to the consumer price index. By way of example, I referred to seniors who have been shortchanged on their CPP and OAS for the last five years.

The minister's response was wholly inadequate, both in tone and, frankly, in substance. She began by saying, “unfortunately Statistics Canada does take a retroactive look”. That is not unfortunate, far from it.

If a serious error has been made that negatively impacts Canadians, then it is not unfortunate, but absolutely essential that the agency takes a look back to correct the error. The minister's response was callous and it lacked compassion.

Seniors have worked hard all their lives. They have played by the rules and all they are asking for now is for what is rightfully theirs. Reimbursing them is not unfortunate. It is the right thing to do.

That leads me to the next part of the minister's answer that was also incomprehensible. She said, “that adjustment is being incorporated with the regular updates to OAS and the GIS”.

What adjustment exactly is it that the minister is making? Is she only addressing the shortfall from here on in, or can seniors expect to receive the money that they are owed retroactively since the miscalculation was first made in 2001?

Why did the minister limit her response to the OAS and the GIS when my question specifically asked her about the Canada pension plan? Is the government reimbursing Canadian pensioners for the money that they did not receive for the last five years? All I need from the minister is a simple yes or no.

Then, of course, the minister said the adjustment was “very small”. Really? She clearly moves in different circles than all of us who live in Hamilton Mountain. This purportedly small adjustment for seniors amounts to over $1 billion.

While that may be pocket change to the government, it is a lifeline for seniors who are facing daily decisions about whether to buy food or pay their rent. It is time for the government to stop listening only to Bay Street and to start hearing the real concerns of Canadians as they desperately try to make ends meet.

The official consumer price index affects a whole host of payments that are based on the official inflation level as calculated by Statistics Canada: contracts, collective agreements, welfare rates and even inflation-proof investments that use the CPI to help determine payouts to bondholders.

The minister's blasé attitude about this issue is an absolute disgrace. The government owes it to Canadians of all ages and incomes to table a comprehensive report on how it plans to deal with making the appropriate corrections. Canadians deserve nothing less.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the member for Hamilton Mountain on the issue of providing good stewardship to Canada's pension plan for seniors. I thank her for drawing this issue to the attention of the House.

As has been reported in the media, Statistics Canada understated Canada's overall consumer price index by, on average, one-tenth of one percentage point between July 2001 and March 2006, that is, over a five year period.

The error related specifically to cost estimates associated with hotel and motel rooms, one of 600 components that are tracked in the calculation of this index. Statistics Canada had reported that room rates fell 16% when they actually rose 32%. We understand that Statistics Canada has now corrected the consumer price index, effective June 2006.

The Department of Human Resources and Social Development is required by law to use the published CPI data in the indexation of the Canada pension plan and old age security benefits. Human Resources and Social Development Canada acted correctly and according to the law.

In terms of the old age security benefits, these were adjusted in October, as these benefits are adjusted on a quarterly basis. Effective January 2007, the rate increase for CPP benefits will reflect the correct consumer price index as CPP benefit adjustments are made on an annual basis. These benefit adjustments are being made pursuant to the regulations set out in the CPP and OAS acts based on the consumer price indexes published by Statistics Canada during the period of the issue.

I wish to assure the member for Hamilton Mountain that Canada's new government is keenly aware of the contributions made by seniors to our country. We are making it a priority to ensure the Canada pension plan, the old age security program and the guaranteed income supplement remain the foundation of basic income security for seniors in their retirement years.

Retirement pensions under the Canada pension plan are received by over three million seniors, while benefits under old age security are received by four million. Together these programs put over $50 billion in the hands of Canada's seniors every year. In addition, the guaranteed income supplement helps over 1.5 million low income seniors. Last year these seniors received supplement payments totalling over $6.5 billion.

Thanks to these solid cornerstones of Canada's retirement income system, we have witnessed a gratifying trend. The incidence of poverty among seniors has been dramatically falling, from almost 21% in 1980 to less than 6% in 2004. This government, working with the member opposite, wants to continue on this momentum.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the government's response to my question, but perhaps I was too verbose in the way I put my question. Let me try to restate it much more succinctly. Will seniors get what is owed to them retroactively going back to 2001, yes or no?

I appreciate all the rhetoric about the government being keenly aware of the plight of seniors, but the reality is the government has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to improve the income supports that are available to seniors now. There has been no dramatic increase to the OAS, GIS, or CPP. There has not even been a parliamentary committee to review the process.

We know that in communities like Hamilton seniors are increasingly living in poverty. They are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Seniors do not need rhetoric. They need action.

Please tell me, yes or no, will seniors will be able to expect a refund cheque going back to 2001?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but I would like to take this opportunity to ask her to help us put through Bill C-36 which would really be an asset for seniors. I would like to inform the House that Canada's new government has introduced important legislation for seniors in Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act.

Under Bill C-36, seniors would apply for the guaranteed income supplement at the same time they applied for old age security. No separate application would be required. In addition, as long as seniors filed regular tax returns, they would automatically receive the GIS benefit in any year that they were entitled to it. This is good news for seniors. They would never need to reapply. In a nutshell, it means that all eligible seniors should receive the GIS as long as they file Canadian tax returns.

That is good news for seniors, that is good news for Canadians and that is good news for the member.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:21 p.m.)