Debates of March 23rd, 2007

Criminal Code

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with my colleague's remarks is that it is not at all what Bill C-35 is about.

The bill is about detention before trial. It has nothing to do with the detention of a person who has been convicted. A person who is convicted is given a sentence and must serve that sentence. We are not questioning that. What we are saying is that to determine if an accused will be detained before the trial, the Crown has to prove that there is good reason to believe that it would be dangerous to let that person out on bail. That is how things are done now. In the example given by my colleague from the Conservative Party, I am pretty much convinced that any court would have concluded that someone who shoots people should probably not be out on bail.

That is how things are done now and it works. We have never heard of a case where it did not work. Therefore, there is no need to reverse the onus before the trial, claiming that what is already in the law is unacceptable. It is already in the law.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that reverse onus has been proven legal in a number of circumstances. I believe, and I want him to clarify this for me and he even mentioned it in his speech on this topic this morning, that for organized crime and importation of drugs reverse onus is required. So, it is not the crown which has to prove someone is not a threat to society, but those who are facing the bail hearing have to prove they are not. It does not say that there is not the potential still to get bail but who is responsible for proving that.

Is the member saying to me today that the Bloc believes that potentially individuals who have been charged, but not found guilty, with a firearm related offence does not have the same amount of importance as those who have been charged with an organized crime issue or those charged with the importation of drugs?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question was not as quick as the member said it would be, but I will try to provide a quick answer.

There is no reason to believe that extending current cases where there is reverse onus is justified. Basically, in our justice system, we believe in the presumption of innocence. This is the basic premise. In certain cases, the onus that is already provided in the law is reversed, but before extending it, we want to have the demonstration that this is necessary.

However, this government has never provided this. No studies support it. This is just an assumption among others, and we are opposed to sacrificing principles of natural justice for an opinion that has no justification.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Pursuant to order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-35 are deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 27 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

(Division deemed demanded and deferred)

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Quarantine Act

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years several significant public health threats, such as SARS, West Nile virus and avian influenza, have prompted both the medical community and policy makers to work together to better respond to public health threats.

Responding to the SARS outbreak, the Liberal government of 2003 established the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health. The committee's mandate was to provide a “third party assessment of current public health efforts and lessons learned for ongoing and future infectious disease control”.

Chaired by Dr. David Naylor, the committee recommended several legislative changes to better address risks of emerging or re-emerging public health threats. One of those recommendations was to update the existing quarantine legislation, which had remained largely unchanged since 1872.

In October 2004 the Liberal government acted upon these recommendations and introduced the new Quarantine Act. It received royal assent in May 2005 and most of the bill came into force this past December.

The new act enables the federal government to respond more effectively to disease outbreaks. While each province and territory has its respective public health or emergency preparedness legislation in place, which includes the ability to isolate or detain individuals who pose a risk to public health, the new Quarantine Act enables the federal government to apply public health measures at Canadian borders in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases entering Canada or other countries. It complements provincial and territorial health legislation that deals with provincial-territorial borders.

The act also helps Canada meet its international obligations as a signatory to the World Health Organization's revised international health regulations. These regulations aim to ensure maximum security against the international spread of disease with minimum interference with the global movement of people. These WHO regulations are scheduled to come into effect in June of this year.

More specifically, the Quarantine Act contains provisions to divert aircraft to alternate landing sites, to designate quarantine facilities at any location in Canada, and to prevent entry to Canada of travellers who represent an imminent and severe public health risk.

The bill also created two new classes of officials: environmental health officers and screening officers. These officials, along with quarantine officers, oversee the screening assessment and, if necessary, the detention of people, vessels, goods and cargo that represent a public health risk. The presence of these officers strengthens national preparedness for future potential public health risks, including an influenza pandemic.

The bill we discuss today, Bill C-42, proposes to amend the Quarantine Act by doing three things.

First, it obligates the operators of certain conveyances to report potential health issues to quarantine officers, as opposed to officers designated by the minister as stipulated in the act at present. I have no problem with this.

Second, it requires conveyance operators to report to a quarantine officer “as soon as possible” before entering and departing from Canada. This is distinct from the current act, which stipulates that reporting be done simply before entering or departing the country. Again, I do not find this problematic.

However, it is the main amendment proposed within Bill C-42 that I have concerns about. As the act is currently written, the operators of commercial air, water and ground transport are obligated to report when they are carrying a person who has died or have reasonable grounds to suspect that any person or cargo they are carrying could cause the spread of communicable disease.

However, Bill C-42 proposes to restrict this reporting requirement to aircraft and commercial watercraft only. This means that the huge volume of truck and rail traffic and cargo that crosses our border each day would be exempt from these reporting requirements.

As we all know, disease-carrying cargo and passengers pose the same health threats to Canadians, irrespective of the mode of transport by which they enter the country. Therefore, I do not understand the logic behind an amendment that seeks to narrow the scope of those required to inform Canadian officials of real or suspected health threats. It would appear to me that it creates a gaping hole in our strategy to protect the health of Canadians.

I must say that I find this very odd considering the extreme measures the government is prepared to take to ward off other threats it perceives to our physical safety. Just last month, the government tried to extend the two sunset clauses within the Anti-terrorism Act that empowered authorities to detain suspected terrorists without charge, subject to release on strict bail conditions, and to permit police to force witnesses to testify in a closed court before a judge. Those measures ran counter to the basic legal rights we all share and which have served our nation well.

It is instructive, too, that the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled against the related security certificate measures which, similarly, allowed authorities to indefinitely detain foreign-born nationals without charge and without making public any evidence against them.

As the government well knows, the Anti-terrorism Act was drafted at a time when North American was under extreme duress and reeling from the events of 9/11. Security issues had jumped to the top of America's priority list. There was both internal and external pressure for Canada to tighten its security detection and enforcement measures.

However, it was also recognized that the preservation of civil rights is absolutely fundamental to our democracy and that it is precisely at times of stress that our commitment to civil rights is most important.

That is why the Anti-terrorism Act was drafted to ensure those clauses that withdrew longstanding fundamental civil rights were only temporary measures. It is to the great credit of the House that we had the foresight to sunset these contentious clauses, thereby forcing a sober second thought at a future date, a date which came just recently.

I find it disturbing that an issue as important as the basic charter rights of Canadians was treated in such a highly partisan and highly politicized manner by our Prime Minister in the debate surrounding the Anti-terrorism Act. I would like to address a few of the misleading ways in which the Prime Minister attempted to frame this important issue for Canadians.

As noted above, the original Anti-terrorism Act included sunset provisions in order to ensure that the measures I have outlined were reviewed again under less emotional circumstances. That is precisely what happened.

Both parliamentary and Senate committees reviewed the act. In neither case did they recommend renewing the sunset provisions as is. The Prime Minister would have us believe that these committees had fully endorsed the sunset clauses when in fact they had not. In both cases, in both houses, committees recommended various revisions to the act to ensure that proper checks were in place, checks that would counter the potential for abuse that the two sunset clauses posed.

After the committees reported, there was ample time for the Prime Minister to act upon their recommendations, but he chose not to do so. He chose to ignore these inconvenient truths when framing this discussion before the media and in the House.

Instead, he turned what should have been a very important and sober discussion around fundamental human rights into rancorous partisan gamesmanship, which brought the level of discourse in Canadian politics to a new low. He also impugned the reputation of a member of the House in an audacious effort to imply that the Liberal position on the sunset clauses was formulated in order to protect the family of a sitting member from participating in an Air-India investigation.

This was and is ludicrous. The Prime Minister's refusal to apologize reveals a hubris that is quite extraordinary and is evidence of a value system that places personal political ambitions over a respect for truth or respect for others.

The Prime Minister also claimed the Liberals were flip-flopping on the Anti-terrorism Act, when he and his colleagues know full well that the insertion of the sunset clauses at the beginning of the process was designed by the Liberals to allow these clauses to expire. The Liberal position is completely in accord with the intent of the original bill.

However, if the Prime Minister wants to know what a real flip-flop looks like, he need look no further than his own income trust tax policy: now that was a flip-flop.

Next in the Prime Minister's plan was to dredge up the old tactic of accusing one's opponents of being soft on terror. This is a very odd accusation given that it was the Liberal government that brought in the Anti-terrorism Act in the first place. Perhaps another way of looking at this recent fiasco would be to consider the Prime Minister tough on human rights.

This is the other side of the coin that the Conservatives never want to discuss. Their actions, however, speak louder than words. The cancellation of the court challenges program, which was a key instrument in protecting civil rights, the cuts to funding for advocacy groups and the cuts to literacy training, all while politicizing the process of judge selection, are but a few examples of their policies in action.

The Prime Minister also tried to portray the Liberal Party as being deeply divided on the issue of the sunset clauses. Of the 101 Liberal caucus members, only a few expressed an interest in reviewing the clauses and most of these were only in favour of doing so if they were accompanied by offsetting amendments to ensure that the provisions could not be abused. This could hardly be seen as a major fissure.

What it does reveal, however, is that the Liberal Party is an open and inclusive party in which all members have a say and a healthy exchange of views is in fact encouraged. This, of course, is in contrast to the iron fist with which the Conservative cabinet and caucus are ruled. One does not need to take much time to decide which process fosters the best long-reaching policies.

Lastly, the Prime Minister tried to create the impression in the minds of Canadians that allowing the sunset clauses to expire would in some way impinge upon the ability of the RCMP to continue its investigation of the Air-India disaster. Once again, this is a politically motivated distortion that is simply unsubstantiated by the facts.

The RCMP has been investigating the Air-India accident for decades. For over five years now, RCMP members have had the Anti-terrorism Act at their disposal, and in over five years not once did they choose to use either of the two sunset clauses. I repeat: not once in over five years did the RCMP members feel they needed to use either of the two provisions that the House has now allowed to expire.

Furthermore, there have been close to 450 public inquiries in Canadian history, several of which have dealt with tragedies and legal issues of various sorts, yet never has there been a request for broader police powers by the chairs of these inquiries. They simply are not needed. Yet according to Mr. Harper, the nation's security is in imminent danger--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Oakville is quite experienced in this House and knows not to use the proper names of other members, but only their titles or the names of their ridings.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister is giving us the idea that the nation's security is in imminent danger and that only these clauses could have saved it.

I would like to turn back to Bill C-42 now and revisit the contradiction between this and the Conservative position on health risks, risks, I might add, that are much more a threat to the general population than those risks posed by terrorists.

It seems apparent to me that the reduced reporting requirements proposed in Bill C-42 will expose Canadians to the introduction of diseases and, as such, it cannot be supported in its current form.

I do recognize, however, that the Quarantine Act as currently enacted may require some modification in order to ensure that its provisions can be practically implemented and enforced. However, I believe it is important that provisions be made to ensure that cargo shipped across the border, both by rail and by truck, is subject to reporting regulations similar to those required of commercial air and water operators.

I would like to work with the government in ensuring that appropriate amendments to Bill C-42 can be made, enabling the creation of a more robust Quarantine Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her comments. There is irony in the member's statement in regard to the Anti-terrorism Act.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a ringing in the audio equipment. I always seem to get ringing in my ears when I listen to Liberals. They are sometimes hard to discern.

Having said that, the member may want to reflect on the Liberals' position on the Anti-terrorism Act. On one hand they say that the two provisions are not necessary, and on the other hand they say they are necessary and that is demonstrated by the fact that the bill was introduced by the Liberal Party in the first place. For them to flip-flop on that is disappointing. We have heard that debate many times before. I am surprised the member brought it up on Bill C-42, and on that note I will focus my comments on Bill C-42.

The main thrust of the member's concern is in regard to why land travel is not included in the act. In fact, it is included in the amendments to the act. I refer the member to section 34(1), which reads:

This section applies to the operator of any of the following conveyances:

(a) a watercraft or aircraft that is used in the business of carrying persons or cargo; and

(b) a prescribed conveyance.

The term “a prescribed conveyance” can be applied to the method of travel that the member is concerned about . There is less of a risk from land travel, but it is in fact addressed in the act.

With the knowledge that section 34(b) applies to any conveyance that in the future might be considered a high risk, be it a bus, train or whatever, will the member with that knowledge reconsider her position?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary in responding to my remarks made a statement that I find quite surprising. He said that there is less of a risk from land travel. I did not know that bacteria and viruses chose air and water travel over land travel. It would seem to me that the greatest volume of traffic entering our country comes by land.

Perhaps he means there is only one country from which people and cargo come into Canada by land and that is the United States, whereas we receive ships and airplanes from all over the world. Is he trying to imply there is less risk with people and cargo coming from the United States, or is this absence of reporting requirement for land travel simply a suggestion that our best friends and neighbours should not really need to report, whereas people from further afield should? I do not know. I just know it does not make sense to me, because I do not think germs and viruses really care which way they come into the country.

On my reference to the Anti-terrorism Act which I used in my remarks, it has been a long-held belief of mine that it is the government's main job to protect the personal security of Canadian citizens. The Canadians with whom I speak have far more worry and anxiety over two other sources that threaten their security.

One is the impact of some of these extreme weather events, the results of which most of us have watched on television, whether it was hurricane Katrina, the tsunami, or various other things, which I think is what has been the impetus behind our attempts to stop global warming.

The other thing Canadians are very worried about is the arrival in their midst of new diseases for which there are no vaccines or cures and which might spread quickly through the population. We have put a name to that, a pandemic influenza, but we know that is simply a label which is current. There could be many different kinds of diseases. The idea of a new quarantine act is as important to Canadians in protecting their health and well-being and their futures as is the anti-terrorism legislation. They are all pieces of a puzzle that are put in place by responsible governments to protect citizens.

That is why I felt quite free to use what I saw as a contradiction between the extreme measures of anti-terrorism legislation and activities and the extreme amount of money put into those things, as compared to the efforts and the money put into protecting us against disease, which threatens our health, and extreme weather events, which threaten our health, our lives and our property.

Perhaps that will explain to the parliamentary secretary why I chose to use that example.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on the fine balance between human rights and personal liberties and security.

The parliamentary secretary shocked me by seeming to suggest that in spite of the fact that Parliament had called for a five year review for the very reason of ensuring that balance was in tune, that that was not important. We saw that the Conservatives made that insinuation this week during discussions on prisoners in Afghanistan.

The member has been a great champion of this during her time in Parliament. I wonder if she could comment on the importance of maintaining the fine balance between human liberties, human rights and security.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Liberal Party and one who sat on the government side for a number of years, the thing perhaps of which I am the proudest is the achievement of balance. I am speaking of balance in terms of balancing budgets, balance in terms of balancing justice legislation against the rights of our citizens, and balance in terms of assessing the international situation as best we could given the evidence of the day. We did a fair job of that.

That is exactly why we put in the sunset provisions for those two clauses that many years ago. We feared we were stepping out of balance. Given the extreme circumstances of that particular autumn following 9/11, it seemed prudent to do that. It also seemed prudent to look further ahead because we did not know what was coming next. We put it in to ensure that we returned to the human rights balance with the terrorism legislation when it was reviewed a few years later.

There has been absolutely no flip-flop. I remember the discussions in caucus and exactly why we put in those provisions. That is why I am so proud that we sunsetted them, given the evidence we have today.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the critic for health, I listened intently to the member for Oakville on the Quarantine Act. She certainly went astray and talked about a number of other issues. I am going to ask her about the issues that were in her speech.

Can the member for Oakville stand in the House today and tell us that the threat of terrorism no longer exists and that is why she voted the way she did on those provisions? Has she given the same speech to members of her own party who supported us in maintaining those provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act?

She mentioned that the Liberal Party was open to debate and discussion on different items. Just this past week her own leader kicked out a member of her party who claimed that he was going to vote for our budget. Is that the kind of openness she was talking about in her discussions?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the member for Burlington is fairly new to this place and has not yet learned that when one gives a speech on one topic or bill, one may draw comparisons with almost anything and everything and it is perfectly in order.

He also does not know, or maybe he has not yet learned, that it is considered that anything to do with a budget requires party discipline, as his own party demonstrated at budget time, and as we demonstrated.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act.

The Quarantine Act was first passed in 1872. In those days, the movement of people and goods took much longer than today. The spread of communicable disease was therefore less and it was often more localized.

At the time when the legislation was drafted, marine transportation was much more of a concern than air transportation. But the significant expansion of air transportation in the intervening decades, as compared to marine transportation, justifies the need to modernize the act.

The proposed legislation would help protect the people of Canada and Quebec from the importation of dangerous, infectious and contagious diseases and prevent the spread of these diseases beyond Canada's borders.

It is true that, with the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, known as SARS, in 2003, the ensuing reports have emphasized the need to counter public health threats both at our borders and within our borders. We are not alone to have had to step up such measures. At that time, the World Health Organization requested that all countries do so, saying that we had to be extra careful and monitor the situation because of all these infectious diseases.

Bill C-42 would update the legislation to give effect to a specific section, namely section 34, which sets out the obligations that apply to the operators of certain conveyances in terms of informing quarantine officers of known or suspected risks of disease spreading on board their conveyances. Two other sections, specifically sections 63 and 71, as well as the schedule have also been amended to bring them in line with the new section 34.

While stressing that health falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle.

Coming back to the bill, it is simply a question of safety, a notion of safety that we completely support. Furthermore, long before the SARS crisis or the various outbreaks of diseases carried by birds and other carriers, many countries had already begun trying to protect their citizens. I remember a trip I took to Cuba in 1985 or 1987. Cuba was already cleaning the interiors of its planes and paying particular attention to ensure that no diseases could be brought in by air travel.

The enactment repeals the Quarantine Act and replaces it with another act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases. It is applicable to persons in conveyances arriving in or in the process of departing Canada. It provides measures for the screening, health assessment and medical examination of travellers to determine if they have communicable diseases. It also provides—and this is important—measures for preventing the spread of communicable diseases, including referral to the public health authorities, detention, treatment and disinfestation.

It provides for additional measures such as the inspection and cleansing of conveyances and cargo to ensure that they are not a source of communicable diseases. It imposes controls on the import and export of cadavers, body parts and other human remains. One never knows what could happen when such matter is brought in. We cannot know the circumstances when someone dies outside the country and whose remains are brought back to Canada. We must disinfect, at least. Furthermore, the bill contains provisions for the collection and disclosure of personal information if it is necessary to prevent the spread of communicable disease. Lastly, it provides the Minister of Health with interim order powers in the case of public health emergencies and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the act.

Section 34 is extremely important. This is where the bill is much more specific concerning operators of certain types of conveyances. The current act provides for an obligation to report any means of transportation, including watercraft, aircraft, train, motor vehicle, trailer and cargo container, that arrives in Canada or is in the process of departing from Canada. Moreover, any conveyance used in a business of carrying persons or cargo, or any prescribed conveyance, shall be reported. There is an obligation to notify a quarantine officer without delay. The act indicates that the operator must notify a quarantine officer as opposed to the designated authority. In the past, the operator was asked to notify the designated authority when departing from Canada or arriving in the country. Now, the operator must notify a quarantine officer. The new section 34 makes it an obligation for the operator to notify the officer as soon as the situation is known. Here is what it says:

(2) As soon as possible before a conveyance arrives at its destination in Canada, the operator shall inform a quarantine officer or cause a quarantine officer to be informed of any reasonable grounds to suspect that

(a) any person, cargo or other thing on board the conveyance could cause the spreading of a communicable disease listed in the schedule;

(b) a person on board the conveyance has died;

or (c) any prescribed circumstances exist.

As soon as possible before a conveyance departs from Canada through a departure point, the operator shall inform a quarantine officer or cause a quarantine officer to be informed of any circumstance referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) to (c) that exists.

(4) No operator contravenes subsection (2) if it is not possible for the operator to inform a quarantine officer or cause a quarantine officer to be informed before the conveyance’s arrival at its destination in Canada, as long as the operator does so on the conveyance’s arrival at that destination.

Thus, all doors through which some infestation or disease might enter Canada are looked at in section 34 as amended by the bill. These amendments thus clarify the obligations of operators of watercraft and aircraft when arriving in Canada or departing from Canada.

I was saying earlier that the World Health Organization, notably in the case of the avian flu, SARS, infestations or pandemics, had asked all countries to have a law that would guarantee the physical safety and the health of each of their citizens. The majority of WHO member countries passed such laws. Unfortunately, there are still countries that are not members of the WHO and that cannot legislate in that regard, but that are easy prey, that are vulnerable to diseases. We could mention a few of them. Let us start with the first one, Taiwan. Last year, that country asked for our support so it could have a seat at the World Health Organization.

Canada supported Taiwan's request, but not very strongly. Nonetheless, it supported the request that this island nation of 23 million inhabitants obtain a seat at the World Health Organization, in order to protect itself and also protect other peoples and other populations.

We know that a number of illnesses that break out in China spread all the way to here. We also know that SARS first appeared in China. The Chinese travel by boat and plane. Thus, if Taiwan had been able to set up a protective mechanism, then its people might have had a much easier time containing the SARS epidemic.

It is the same for Quebec. In cattle breeding we have experienced the mad cow crisis. We know that at some point, this epidemic started out west. Unfortunately, Quebec was unable to legislate on this since we are still not considered a country.

It is very difficult for a population that can only rely on the legislation of another country to protect itself from various infectious disease. I hope that Taiwan, like Quebec and other countries, can a obtain seat at the World Health Organization, can one day be recognized as a country, can write its own laws and pass them in order to protect itself and its people.

That said, the bill before us is a good bill. I was saying earlier that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill in principle. I will make the parliamentary secretary laugh by coming back to the fact that health is the exclusive responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Nonetheless, we recognize that infectious disease such as SARS and West Nile virus know no boundaries. That is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill in principle.

As far as the proposed amendments to Bill C-42 are concerned, they apply mostly to clause 34, which applies but is not limited to the operators of ships and aircraft. These amendments are technical in order to give effect to this clause.

We will vote in favour of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her comments. In reference to the previous speaker from the Liberal Party, I wish to state for the record that the risk at present is greater from countries other than the United States. To require bus operators, train operators and so on, and every time a person gets sick on the bus, this would be a very onerous and burdensome task. In fact, the risk factor may have all sorts of other consequences. However, the risk has changed. There are measures in the act that deal with that. I hope that the hon. member from the Liberal Party will see that and change her position.

Given that the Bloc member says she will support us here, I gather that we can count on the Bloc support in committee as well and that we can work together to ensure the safety of all Canadians and that they can all enjoy the same safeguards.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, with a bill like this one, where the object is to protect public health, I do not see why the Bloc Québécois would not work with the governing party. A bill like this one deals with everyone's security. As far as I know, Quebec and the rest of Canada are not separated by huge fences. Infectious diseases can spread on the ground and through the air, as is the case with birds and the avian flu. They can also spread by many other means.

I do not know if I was clear enough in my speech earlier. For example, when the mad cow disease came from Alberta, we had to deal with the problem in Quebec. It was not our fault and it was not your fault either. Such a situation just happens, and we were greatly affected. The disease may come from Quebec or Manitoba or British Columbia, but we will all eventually be affected.

Therefore, in the case of a bill like this, there is no doubt that we will work with you. There is no problem.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her eloquent speech, my colleague talked about the World Health Organization and Taiwan. I would like her to tell us more about this topic.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are probably all aware of what is going on with the tiny island of Taiwan. Taiwan is a very small island with a population of 23 million. These are people who want independence from China, who want sovereignty. They are located very close to China. If memory serves me, a narrow strait only 4 km wide separates Taiwan from China.

As we know, in 2003, when China was dealing with the SARS epidemic, there were no cases of the disease in Taiwan. Members may recall that at the time, China did not announce that it was facing a SARS epidemic. As far as I know, China was one of the last countries to admit that some of its people had SARS. Taiwan could have been infected. The small island has extremely competent doctors who attend meetings of the World Health Organization as observers.

Given Taiwan's population, 23 million people, this could have been disastrous because the country is so small. Those 23 million inhabitants are squeezed into a very small space. If there had been cases of SARS in Taiwan, the situation would have been dreadful.

At the time, Taiwan asked for a seat at the World Health Organization so it could stay up to date on procedures to prepare for SARS and treat the sick. China opposed Taiwan's request. Canada agreed to support Taiwan's request, which made the Taiwanese very happy. Unfortunately, their request was denied, but they still hope to have a seat at the World Health Organization one day. The World Health Organization did send Taiwan an invitation to attend because it is an Asian nation and, very often, these infectious diseases emerge in Asia.

I hope that Taiwan will get a seat at the World Health Organization. They have Canada's support, and Quebec's too, of course.

I chose this example to illustrate how important it is to cooperate in fighting epidemics and infectious diseases in a small nation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Surrey North is being recognized although with a bit of trepidation because she has 20 minutes to speak, of which there is less than two minutes today.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not try to do 20 minutes in 2 minutes, but I will make my opening comments.

When the act was last seriously looked at, the world was a very much smaller place. The idea that one Wcould start in Europe and be in Canada eight hours later, as opposed to six months later or four months later, was an unheard of concept. Therefore, keeping out communicable disease was probably not foremost in everybody's mind.

People would be cognizant of the tremendous tragedy that communicable disease brought to their own countries. We only have to look at the number of people who died of plague in those days, of smallpox, to know that it was a tragedy, but within countries. The idea that tragedy would travel across the water to a continent that many people could not name or would never see was not there.

However, we live in a very different world. Many people move around the world, either for work, or for leisure or to visit family, with great frequency. People fly to Australia, some fly to England for the weekend. Some of my family did that for some time.

With so many people travelling, the potential for communicable disease to move from country to country is significantly—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. It is with regret that I interrupt the hon. member for Surrey North. When we next return to the study of Bill C-42, there will be 18 minutes left in her time.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Employment Insurance Act

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke to the bill, I spoke of the very difficult circumstances for farm workers in Surrey who had been intimidated into signing employment insurance forms. Now people age 80 are being sued for repayment of employment insurance. That is in Hansard, so I will not repeat that today.

I am disappointed to hear of the Speaker's ruling about what will happen to the bill at third reading. Many deserving people could have been much better off if it were allowed to go forward.

The bill would reduce the number of eligible hours from 910 to 360. There are reasons for that, and it not so people can work less. In many circumstances women work part time. They pay employment insurance, but they are unlikely to collect it because it takes them so long to accumulate 910 hours. Many women lose a position before those hours are accumulated, particularly any kind of seasonal work, which is not just farm work. It could be tourist work or other jobs as well. Although they pay into EI, when their job is over they cannot collect it because of the 910 hour requirement. Sometimes they are the only wage earner. It has a major impact on them and their children as to what they eat, where they live and so on.

Also the bill would look at having the employment insurance calculated on the best 12 weeks of someone's employment. For some people, either seasonal workers or others, they may in the preceding weeks not earn as much money as they might have at a different time of the year. Right now it is calculated it on their previous work. If it is calculated on their best 12 weeks of the year, then people would receive an amount of employment insurance that would be fairer.

This is about fairness and it is about equity. Using the best 12 weeks and reducing the number of eligible hours accomplishes that, particularly for women workers who often have the responsibility of caring for their family.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the discussion today on Bill C-265. I would like to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for raising the important issue of employment insurance.

On a small personal note, during the last Parliament I was a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development and, while the member was not the regular NDP member of our committee, whenever there was a discussion about employment insurance he was certainly there putting his views forward.

Bill C-265 puts forth proposals affecting two key elements of EI. The first of these is the hourly entrance requirement for regular and special benefits. The bill proposes a reduced flat 360 hour entrance requirement.

Second, concerning the way in which benefit rates are calculated, the bill proposes establishing an approach based on the 12 best weeks of work over the last 52.

These proposals would have a profound effect on the program and, in determining if they are justified, it is important to see them in the broader context of today's labour market.

The Canadian labour market is continuing to perform exceptionally well. Statistics Canada data shows unemployment rates at the lowest level in about three decades. In addition, the share of the population that is working is at near record high levels. However, we know that even in times of high employment there are those who occasionally need the assistance of EI. Evidence indicates that the program is meeting their needs.

More than 83% of those who pay into the program and have a qualified job separation are eligible for benefits. In areas of higher unemployment, such as Atlantic Canada, the percentage of those eligible for benefits increases to more than 90%.

It is important to note too that the present system is also working well for those who wish to avail themselves of maternity, parental and sickness benefits. Evidence shows that more than 90% of employees could meet eligibility requirements for those EI special benefits.

Evidence also shows that not only are the EI eligibility requirements meeting the needs of Canadians, but so too is the time period over which claimants can receive these benefits. On average, individuals use less than two-thirds of their EI entitlement before finding employment. Even in areas of high unemployment, claimants rarely use more than 70% of their allotment. That is good news.

With respect to the bill's proposed calculation of benefits based on the 12 best weeks of work, I should remind the House that we are currently testing a pilot project in regions of high unemployment based on the best 14 weeks of work over the past 52 weeks.

This approach maintains elements of the program that evidence indicates have been successful in encouraging workforce attachment. Our aim is to balance providing adequate EI coverage while still encouraging individuals to accept all available work.

Until this pilot project is complete, we believe it would be premature to endorse any changes to the benefit rate calculation.

EI is there for Canadians, both men and women. In fact, I would like to address the misconception that has been raised in the House that EI is not serving the needs of women.

Looking first at access to EI, women's coverage rate is high. This is true for both regular and special benefits. According to Statistics Canada, for those who paid premiums and were laid off or quit with cause, 87% of women were eligible for regular benefits in 2005.

In the same year, among women with children aged 12 months or younger, over 85% received maternity and/or parental benefits if they had insurable employment in the previous year.

If we look more closely at maternity and parental benefits, we see that contrary to opinions raised in the House, EI is actually serving women better through enhancements made to the EI benefits. These changes include: extending benefit duration from six months to one full year; lowering entrance requirements to 600 hours of insurable work; waiving the waiting period for a second parent claiming the benefit; and, the ability to work while receiving parental benefits.

Women have greater access and better benefits while increasing their ability to maintain their labour market attachment. In fact, women accounted for 85% of claimants benefiting from those enhancements in 2004-05.

Women are also the principal beneficiaries of the family supplement provision, representing 74% of claims. Those benefits enable individuals in low income households with children to receive up to 80% of their insured earnings.

Clearly, EI has a strong track record in serving Canadian women in an effective and timely manner. I would also like to add that the Employment Insurance Commission monitors, examines and assesses how well EI is serving all Canadians.

The commission's annual monitoring and assessment report is tabled in Parliament each year. It provides comprehensive information on the effectiveness of EI, including analysis on the adequacy of EI benefits for both men and women. The report provides sound, gender based analysis that informs decision making on any potential EI changes.

We will continue to draw upon extensive monitoring assessment and evaluation of the program in this regard.

Canada's new government is committed to building a strong, competitive economy and a dynamic and flexible labour market. We introduced new measures in budget 2007 to ensure Canadians can continue to succeed and enjoy a high standard of living. This is what Canadians want.

As I stated earlier, our labour market is performing well.

Our government believes it is important that the EI program strike a balance between providing temporary income support for Canadians while they find new employment and keeping individuals active in the workforce. EI is working well to achieve this goal and to maintain this balance.

We will continue to monitor and assess the EI program and make changes when we have demonstrable evidence that change is warranted.

The proposals contained in Bill C-265 do not meet this criteria and, as such, we cannot support the bill.