Debates of Oct. 5th, 2009

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 171 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 171

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Hamilton Centre, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions on the order paper be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Hunger Strike by Security Certificate Detainee

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair has received a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. I would be pleased to hear his arguments in that connection at this moment.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting an emergency debate under the terms of Standing Order 52(2) on the extremely serious situation at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre where security certificate detainee Mohammad Mahjoub is on the 126th day of a hunger strike. Hunger strikes of this duration are extremely dangerous with the ever-present possibility of permanent health consequences and death.

Mr. Mahjoub has been detained since 2000 never having been charged, tried or convicted of a crime. That indefinite detention without charge or conviction can happen here in Canada is of profound concern especially since it happens under the terms of legislation intended as an expedited deportation measure.

Mr. Mahjoub is the only person in detention in Canada who does not have access to an independent ombudsperson to review complaints about the conditions of his imprisonment. The Correctional Investigator Canada provides this important function for inmates of all other federal institutions. This is the key issue of Mr. Mahjoub's hunger strike.

The possible if not imminent death of a man in a Canadian detention centre, a man who has been held for almost nine years without charge or conviction, is an emergency that demands the attention of the House. Parliamentarians must be heard on a situation that challenges fairness, that subverts due process and that belies confidence in our justice system.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas for his remarks in connection with this matter. I agree with him that the issue is an important one, but I am not sure that it meets the exigencies of the Standing Order as being a serious emergency.

I recognize that the hunger strike has gone on for some time as indicated by the hon. member, but I am not sure that it constitutes an emergency within the exigencies of the Standing Order. Accordingly I am going to decline his request for an emergency debate at this time.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

As all hon. members will know, Treasury Board guidelines are very explicit with regard to guiding members as well as ministers in their activities and in terms of the criteria with regard to their communications to Canadians, and they are very broad. I am going to be circulating for members' interests the relevant Treasury Board guidelines.

What I would like to do at this point is seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a letter from the Minister of Natural Resources which was broadcast widely throughout Canada and which I believe would strain Treasury Board guidelines.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Mississauga South have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to talk against this bill that would give a message to Colombians that Canada supports a government that violates human rights. Of course, we all know that Canada would never support a country that violates human rights.

The Prime Minister launched his free trade talks with Colombia in 2007, around the same time that U.S. President George W. Bush was pushing a trade pact through Congress, where Uribe's government was vilified by the Democratic majority. The government-proposed trade pact is another sign that Conservative foreign policies simply shadow those of U.S. Republicans in an attempt to bolster our like-minded leader in Latin America.

Fearful of implicitly endorsing Uribe's government, Norway has put a hold on free trade talks with Colombia, and Britain has stopped providing training and support to the government's security forces. I would like to quote José Oney Valencia Llanos from Colombia. He said:

You know that here in Colombia, there are many human-rights violations. Business people, through multinational and transnational corporations, have violated human rights and attacked workers, directly and indirectly.

He goes on to say:

We don’t have the right to free association, or political rights, or the right to unionize...The government sees that we want to get together so that we can demand our rights, and they call us terrorists. Those of us that have had charges pressed against us, we’re accused of having links with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, even though we have never had links with—and at no time did we have meetings with—illegal armed groups.

This brings me to a company that we have in my riding. It is a company from Brazil. Brazil is not a third-world country, but I want to give an example of a company that is acting like a third-world company. This company purchased a company in my riding called Inco a few years ago. It was able to purchase this company through an agreement with the government of the day. It was an agreement that we cannot even see today. We do not know what is in this agreement.

I will give an example of what this company is doing. Right now, there are negotiations going on in my riding with Vale. Over the years, we have had a lot of negotiations because Inco has been in existence for 100 years. This company is not negotiating. It is not negotiating because it wants to bring us back 30 years to the times of third-world countries. It wants to take away our pensions, which are hard earned by the former employees of Inco.

It wants to take away what is called a nickel bonus. Miners earn a nickel bonus when the company is profitable. If the company makes money, the workers make money. There is nothing wrong with that. It says that it wants to make these changes to be more profitable. I think that it is profitable enough as it is.

This company was also negotiating in bad faith when it was negotiating. Last week, it fired three strikers. It fired these three strikers and then it did something that has never been done in negotiations in Nickel Belt before. With its third world attitude, the company sent out a press release announcing to the media that these three workers had been fired--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The time provided for government orders has expired.

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

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your French. It is getting better by the week. I know that you are working hard at it.

On April 29. I asked questions of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development about the enabling accessibility fund. This was a $45 million, three year commitment to expand opportunities for people with disabilities. The fund was to support community based projects across Canada that improve accessibility, reduce barriers and enable Canadians, regardless of physical ability, to participate in and contribute to their community and the economy.

The approved projects were to have strong ties to their communities and to support their communities. A bit of investigation by the Liberal critic for human resources and skills development, who represents the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour in Nova Scotia, revealed that the overwhelming majority of the funds went to Conservative ridings.

I think most Canadians would be astonished to learn that the overwhelming majority of disabled Canadians appear to live only in Conservative ridings. This appears to be a pattern with the Conservative government. It sees contribution programs, which are there to help all Canadians or certain segments of the Canadian population, in this case the disabled, as reward programs for members of that government, members of the Conservative Party.

In fact, when we looked into it we noted that overall a total of 61% of the approved projects were in Conservative ridings and only 10% of the total number of projects went to Quebec overall. Four projects were approved in the riding of the government House leader, four projects were approved in the riding of the Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification) and three projects were approved in the riding of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development herself. There were $15 million of the $39 million, which were approved, that went to the riding of the Minister of Finance.

I would like the government to explain how it is that the approvals of applications appeared to have been overwhelmingly slanted to Conservative ridings. It appears to be, as I said, an overall trend of the Conservative government to be using and spending public money as if it is a rebate rewards program for the ridings that have elected Conservative MPs.

When the Liberal critic for infrastructure looked into what happened with the infrastructure projects, it found that the overwhelming majority went to Conservative ridings, not opposition ridings, notwithstanding that money was supposed to go to ridings that have clear needs in terms of infrastructure.

When one looks at a whole series of contribution programs, it appears the Conservative government thinks that public money is a rebate rewards program for those ridings that are held by Conservatives. It is shameful.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the member to look at the big picture, all that has been happening and what our government has been doing.

Our Conservative government is proud to support Canadians of all abilities. We have introduced several initiatives to support Canadians with disabilities, including the enabling accessibility fund. Our government is very proud of this program. We have provided $45 million to support community based projects that improve accessibility, reduce barriers and enable Canadians with disabilities to participate in and contribute to their community and the economy, a very worthwhile goal. Under the program, a portion of the funding went toward projects that make buildings and vehicles more accessible, for example, through the construction of ramps or renovations and upgrading of washrooms.

Funding was also provided for the creation of comprehensive abilities centres that will provide a range of services for Canadians of all abilities.

Every project that received funding had to meet clear eligibility criteria and applications were based on merit. Funding was spread out across the country. The projects will make a significant difference in the lives of Canadians with disabilities. The Liberals may have difficulty understanding that, but what can one expect? That member and her Liberal Party voted against the creation of the enabling accessibility fund. The Liberals voted against $45 million for Canadians with disabilities. Now the hon. member has the audacity to make comments about a program that she did not even want in the first place.

The enabling accessibility fund has invested in many important and worthwhile projects. For example, the Iona Presbyterian Church in Dartmouth received funding. This is located in the riding of the Liberal critic and member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. In Toronto, JobStart, a not for profit organization that provides employment services, received funding to make its building more accessible. It is located in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the riding held by the Liberal leader. Is the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine saying that she does not think these projects are worthwhile? The Liberals voted against funding for both of those projects and now the hon. member is complaining about where the funding went.

The enabling accessibility fund is only one of several examples of investments our Conservative government is making to support Canadians with disabilities. One needs to look at the big picture. For example, our government introduced the historic registered disability savings plan so that parents and others can help their children and relatives to ensure financial security into the future, a program that was well received, a remarkable plan that is certainly heralded and accepted. That member and the Liberals voted against that as well.

Our government's support does not end there. Canada's economic action plan included $75 million for the construction of social housing for Canadians with disabilities. We have signed labour market agreements for persons with disabilities to ensure they have access to training and skills upgrading and can fully participate in our economy.

We have invested $20 million to make federally owned buildings more accessible. We have provided additional funding through the working income tax benefit specifically for Canadians with disabilities. Those are a number in a range of projects and one needs to look at the whole picture.

Our Conservative government is very proud of the enabling accessibility fund. These investments are making a positive difference in the lives of countless Canadians. Unlike the Liberals, who have repeatedly voted against funding for Canadians with disabilities, our government is standing up and is proud to support Canadians of all abilities.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what stands out very clearly is that the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of his government, did not deny that over 61% of the money in the enabling accessibility fund went to Conservative ridings. He did not come back with any statistics to show that 61% of disabled Canadians live in those Conservative ridings. He did not at all counter that. That is looking at the whole picture. That is looking at whether or not the projects went to those people and communities that need it or whether the first criteria was whether or not it was a Conservative riding.

Second, when one looks at the action plan, there again the government has overwhelmingly approved projects in Conservative ridings. The statistics have been made public. The government has not been able to counter those statistics so it makes personal attacks.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The record is very clear and we are very proud of the support we have provided for Canadians with disabilities. The enabling accessibility fund is just one example of this support.

As I mentioned, there are several others and they must be taken in context. Across the ridings, coast to coast to coast, from the registered disability savings plan, to the investment in social housing, to providing funding for training and skills upgrading for Canadians with disabilities, our Conservative government's record speaks for itself.

Where was the Liberal Party over the many years when these types of projects should have gone forward? We know what an important contribution we have made to Canadians with disabilities and what contribution they have made to our great country. That is why we are focused on encouraging their maximum participation in our communities and economy. Our record is clear.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is commenting on the enabling accessibility fund but she and her party voted against it. It is a matter of record that she and her Liberal Party have repeatedly voted against funding for Canadians with disabilities. Their actions speak louder than words. We have put in place a number of programs that will stand the test of time.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this issue tonight.

On May 8, I asked a question about sunscreens that use harsh chemicals such as oxybenzone and Benzophenone-3, which dermatologists and researchers say can cause severe skin reactions in adults and children. This actually happened to two of my constituents who filed a complaint with me in this regard.

I asked the Minister of Health to assure Canadians that their sunscreen will protect them from the sun and that it is safe to use. The minister's answer was that the government was promoting the health and safety of Canadians through the chemicals management plan, that it would be monitoring the chemicals on a regular basis and that it does act appropriately when complaints occur. However, that was the end of his answer. It did not really give my constituents the satisfaction that they sought.

I would like to follow up on that by asking the minister whether the government issues warnings or cautions, medical or otherwise, and, if it does not, why it does not. I also would like to know whether any tests have been done on this particular type of sunscreen or a variety of sunscreens that have these particular chemicals in them, and more I might add.

I also would like to ask if there have been any other complaints about this particular brand or any other brand containing these chemicals and whether there are any safe alternatives. In reading the literature out there, I understand there are some safe alternatives but, once again, companies have products to sell and I do not know whether there is proof of what they are saying.

I would like to know if there are any other complaints and whether there have been any settlements made.

In doing some of our research on this matter, my office looked up data that indicated that despite increased education in this particular area, the Skin Cancer Foundation said that more than 600,000 new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed each year and that the figure was rising. Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States and is responsible for 8,500 deaths annually.

The member will be aware that one of the members of this House died of skin cancer a number of years ago and that one member, who just recently retired from this House, was diagnosed with skin cancer.

This is a very big area that we should be looking at here because all of us, at some point, are exposing ourselves to the sunscreens. I could read a list of the types of chemicals that are involved, in addition to the ones I have listed. I would just like a deeper response than what I got that day to my question as to how on top of this issue the government is, where it is now and where it is planning to be on this in a year or two.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to give the hon. member a deeper response this evening. I wish to assure the House that the health and safety of Canadians is paramount to this government.

It has long been known that increased exposure to sunlight during the summer can cause a myriad of health problems and that added protection from UV rays by using sunscreen products has been strongly recommended.

Health Canada regulates the safety, effectiveness and quality of sunscreens in Canada. Sunscreen products are classified as drugs and must meet the requirements set out in Canada's Food and Drugs Act before they can be imported, advertised or sold in this country. Sunscreens may contain one or several UVB filters and are often enriched with UVA filters. In Canada sunscreens are approved by Health Canada and must meet the criteria identified in the department's sunburn protectants monograph.

Therefore, to answer one of the questions the member asked tonight, this monograph outlines both acceptable sunscreen ingredients and their concentrations as well as the required labelling such as directions for use, acceptable claims, cautions and warnings.

There are currently over 500 different sunscreen products authorized for sale from different manufacturers in Canada. Medicinal ingredients in sunscreen products are recognized to absorb ultraviolet A or UVA and/or ultraviolet B or UVB rays.

For drug products, including sunscreens, manufacturers must present Health Canada with evidence to support the safety, efficacy and quality of the products before they can be authorized for sale. This information is then conveyed to consumers through product labels.

Additionally, the department routinely performs assessments of drug products after they are approved for sale to look at any adverse events that may occur. It should be noted that to date there is no clear evidence linking the presence of the medicinal ingredients in authorized sunscreen products to the occurrence of skin irritation or cancer.

Health Canada takes adverse events reports very seriously. We strongly urge Canadians to report these unfortunate events with full details to Health Canada so that the issues can be properly investigated.

Exposure to UV light is the main cause of skin cancer. It can also cause tanning, sunburn, premature skin aging, eye damage, and a decrease in the immune system response. Health Canada continues to advise Canadians of the importance of using sunscreen products along with other sun avoidance methods to help reduce the risk associated with UV exposure.

It is paramount that Canadians use a common sense approach and a balanced approach to sun exposure.

This evening I was at the Health Charities Coalition of Canada speaking to the president of the MS Society. We found out, recently, with research, that vitamin D is very important and perhaps preventative for MS.

Therefore, the member brings up a very important question. He brings up a question that affects each and everyone of us as Canadians, but there is still a lot to be learned.

I would encourage him to encourage his constituents to follow up with any allergic reactions and let Health Canada know. There are reporting mechanisms for that and Health Canada is always looking to ensure that the products on the market are first of all safe and effective, and are what they claim to be because the health and safety of Canadians is our utmost priority.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is really part of the problem. People buy the sunscreens and they do not read the information about them. As a matter of fact, most people cannot pronounce the chemicals that are in the sunscreens in the first place.

Therefore, I would suggest that the government, rather than spending a million dollars on its advocacy advertising campaign to get re-elected, it should take some of that money out and perhaps do an advertising campaign on the health risks associated with sunscreens.

For example, there is some suggestion that there are harmful chemicals lurking in sunscreens that are doing more harm than good. In fact, some international studies have found that the greatest rise in melanoma occurred in countries where chemical sunscreens were heavily promoted.

I would be willing to provide for the member some of the additional chemicals that are of concern and perhaps he could look into them further.

The environmental working group, in a June 2007 study, said that 785 sunscreens were analyzed and 84% of them provided inadequate protection from the sun's harmful rays or contained ingredients with safety concerns.

I have more information for the member if he would like to talk to me about it.