Debates of May 12th, 2009

Canadian Forces Superannuation Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is next on my list for debate. I should point out that we do have to go to the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore in about six or seven minutes to give him his five minute right of reply. For now, we will go to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add a few words, at least, to this initiative sponsored by my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

Let me begin by paying tribute to the initiative that my colleague has undertaken and to his commitment to all things as they pertain to the quality of life for veterans. I want to emphasize this because I heard some remarks from members on the government side who were accusing my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore of stirring things up. They were questioning his motivation in raising this issue, and even questioning the veracity of his arguments that have been put forward, I note, not by him alone, but by a member from the Liberal Party and by other members from my own party who represent many military families.

I do not want the record to stand with those remarks which are critical of my colleague. We should recognize as a group that the veterans of this country have no better friend and no greater champion than my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore.

We come together today to attempt to remedy a historic injustice of long standing. It is one of the greatest things we can do as members of Parliament. It is one of the privileges we have that we can put forward a private member's bill to trigger debate and hopefully to bring some resolution to these long-standing problems that have frustrated and stymied well-meaning retirees from the armed forces and the RCMP for years.

People have been trying to address this issue for decades. It is not as though we just stumbled across this recently. We have been getting representation from well-organized groups and retirees organizations, including the Military and RCMP Veterans' Campaign Against Pension Benefit Reduction. This is an organized group. It did not fabricate this, notwithstanding the remarks by my colleague from the Conservative Party. These are legitimate concerns by civil society. It was not fabricated here for any political motivation. This is something that needs to be addressed.

We should also take note that we are at second reading of the bill. Many of the concerns brought up by my colleagues from the Conservative Party had merit, but the place to address those things is at committee. A private member's bill of such broad interest and such broad public support deserves to go to committee where witnesses can be called and questioned and testimony can be given. We can promote the positive side of the bill, and if there are some shortcomings, we can address those too by amendment at the committee stage.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

There is one big shortcoming.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled. I cannot believe I am being heckled on a bill about veterans benefits. Here we are trying to have a thoughtful, considerate debate about a legitimate issue of great importance to the quality of the lives of our retired veterans, and I am being heckled by members of the Conservative Party. I know you will bring them to order, Mr. Speaker, if they get any further out of line.

I have a letter here from Mr. Tim Gale, who is a veteran. He lives in Hubbards, Nova Scotia, which I believe is somewhere along the south shore. I wish my colleagues from the Conservative Party who are making light of this initiative could hear the passionate representation in this letter from a former member of the armed forces.

Where do these people go for satisfaction except to their members of Parliament? These are people who fought for our country, fought for our democratic institutions, who have confidence that in their hour of need, if they cannot get any satisfaction out of the Department of Veterans Affairs, at least they can come to their MPs to put it on the table here and have a respectful debate about their issues.

I hope I have time to share with hon. members at least some of the tone, if not the whole content of the very passionate letter that Tim Gale wrote. He wrote, “As one of the approximately 80,000, plus, supporters of the Military and RCMP Veterans' Campaign Against Pension Benefit Reduction...I am interested in knowing if you and your party would support the provisions” put forward by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

They view my colleague as their champion on this issue, again notwithstanding the disparaging remarks from colleagues in the Conservative Party. People have put their confidence in my colleague to aggressively put forward these points of view and have them debated before the House and this is their hour. This is not our hour of debate, this is the hour for which 80,000 Canadians have waited. I hope we can keep the tone in a respectful way that it deserves.

He goes on to say:

The former government argued that the reduction is fair in that it is comparable to that of the Public Service and private industry; failing to take into account that members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP must be prepared to place their lives on the line in the maintenance of peace and security throughout Canada and abroad. It is this uniqueness that separates the Military and the RCMP from the Civil Service...

I see I am out of time. I am interested in hearing what my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore has to say in his summary remarks. I am glad to have had this opportunity to add my voice to this very noble initiative.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is time. For four years now and well over 110,000 emails, people like Lewis MacKenzie, Roméo Dallaire, the Royal Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada Association and Air Force Association have called for this. I did not just make this up. It is not a myth. Members can call it what they want, but the men and women of the service call it a clawback.

When they become disabled or when they become age 65, their pensions are reduced. Most of them end up losing money. Not once did one Conservative tell these veterans where the figure of $7 billion came from. It is a fabrication and a myth. Only 30% of the retired veterans qualify under the bill because they are the ones who served over the 20 year mark. Many of our war veterans did not serve for 20 years, so they do not get that pension. We are not talking about them. We are talking about the people of the military and RCMP.

Also I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that this is not retroactive. It does not apply to anyone else in the public service. It is strictly for the military and the RCMP veterans who served over 20 years and who became seriously disabled. The estimate is much lower. We estimate it to be around $300 million to $450 million.

For the hon. parliamentary secretary to stand up and say that a member can serve 32 years and pay all that EI and then be able to collect it is a myth. I am looking at Conservative side right now. Those members should look at their paycheques at the end of the month and see if they have an EI deduction. The answer is no. Why? Because we do not collect it. They have to pay and they do not get to collect it after 20 or 30 years.

The best way to handle this is to cancel that deduction and beef up their pensions so these brave men and women do not have to suffer this clawback at age 65.

I was born in Holland and my parents were liberated by the Canadians. We owe our brave men and women of the military and RCMP. We owe it to them to stop this disgraceful practice of clawing back their pension when they become age 65 or when they get CPP disability.

It is a private member's bill. I hope the former Reform Party and some of its members who are here will listen to the words of Preston Manning, that they should vote according to their constituents and not on myth and fabrication or what their government or bureaucrats have told them. They should stand up and be members of Parliament. They should stand up for the men and women of the service. If members think I am wrong, get it to a committee and we will have that thorough analysis and that debate. There the Conservatives will find out that I am correct, that the men and women, about whom I am talking, deserve to have this clawback on their pensions ended once and for all.

I will stand in the House and defend my record of service to the veterans of our country any time. I will never apologize to any Conservative who would besmirch my reputation on it. That party deliberately misled people on the VIP. It deliberately misled the agent orange people. It deliberately made veterans go through a Cirque du Soleil act to get their veterans benefits. Now it is attacking the Veterans Ombudsman. That is the record of the Conservative Party. I, for one, will never apologize for standing up for the brave men and women of our country.

Tomorrow the rubber hits the road. We will see tomorrow where the Conservatives stand. Will you stand up and vote for a bill to go to a committee. If they do not like it, then vote against it at third reading. They have that prerogative. However, at least for once, stand up, look at those men and women in the gallery. You should look in the camera and tell those men and women, who are watching from coast to coast to coast, that you will stand and vote for them to get the bill to a committee and have a thorough debate. I ask the Conservatives to do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to direct comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 13, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here in this House after such a fine speech by my NDP colleague.

I rise here this evening because on February 12, 2009, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages a question and I must say, I did not receive a satisfactory answer. Normally, when I say that at this time of day to begin the adjournment debate in the House, I always hear a little voice that says, “And she probably will not receive one here again this evening.” However, I am somewhat ingenuous and I want to believe I will get a satisfactory response to my question here this evening.

On February 12, 2009, we were talking about the Canada prizes for the arts. We heard all kinds of adjectives concerning those awards, none of which were positive. These Canada prizes were announced in the budget tabled in this House in February. The minister announced that he would grant $25 million for the Canada prizes to stage a big show in Toronto, somewhat along the lines of Star Académie, from what we understood. It would be organized by the directors of Luminato. In the weeks that followed, those organizers—Tony Gagliano and David Pecaut—said in The Globe and Mail and other Toronto newspapers that they were the promoters for these Canada prizes, for which the Government of Canada, that is, you and I as taxpayers, would contribute $25 million.

That hurts. We have no problem with putting together the Canada prizes, but before we bring young foreign artists here, whether it is to Montreal, Rouyn or Toronto, and give them six-figure bursaries—minimum $100,000 each—there are two other things we should do first. First, we should make sure that our own artists are making a good living. Right now, they are not. The same week the $25 million Canada prizes were announced, a study commissioned by the same Department of Canadian Heritage revealed that artists in Canada earn an average of $22,000 per year. The government could have made sure they were making a decent living. The truly scandalous issue is the cuts to two major Foreign Affairs and Canadian Heritage programs: Trade Routes and PromArt.

These two programs subsidized artists and enabled—past tense, because the programs have been cut—our best artists and performing arts organizations, such as Grands ballets canadiens and La La La Human Steps, to tour abroad. Now they will not be receiving any subsidies from this government to fund these tours, which means a gaping hole in their revenue. Some will be forced to reconsider their tours—some already have—or to cancel them entirely, while others will be forced to close their doors and lay off their artists.

It makes no sense. There are no other programs. No other Canadian Heritage or Canada Council program can replace Trade Routes and PromArt. The Canada Council has a few other small-scale programs that complemented those two big ones. They were not designed to replace them, but to complement them. For example, in June, Grands ballets canadiens is going on tour in the Middle East, but they are going to have a cash shortfall. Why? Because the government chose to give $25 million to its friends in Toronto instead.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for giving me another opportunity to talk about this government's commitment to arts and culture.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has been working tirelessly since his appointment, criss-crossing the country in an effort to meet and speak with leaders from across the arts community.

Those he has spoken with expressed their opinions and made suggestions, and this government has listened. We listened by announcing in budget 2009 an unparalleled investment of $540 million into arts and culture over the next two years, an investment that the Bloc Québécois voted against.

Budget 2009 also announced the establishment of a $25 million endowment to create the Canada Prizes for the Arts and Creativity. This one-time investment will not only reward Canada's most promising emerging artists, it will link this country internationally with the highest level of artistic achievement.

If the member opposite is so concerned about how this government invests funds into arts and culture, then maybe when her party presented the second phase of its relaunch plan on April 30, it should have actually made a recommendation, or who knows, perhaps two, on how it would better provide for the arts and culture community, something it failed to do. In fact, there is no mention of arts and culture in its document at all.

I hope that the member's interest in the Canada Prizes shows that she will support this government initiative.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all the Bloc Québécois made several suggestions to help the arts and culture. Its first suggestion was that funding to cut programs be restored. We proposed that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage examine this option. After doing so, the committee concluded that certain programs should be restored.

Therefore, we urge this government to restore the arts and culture programs that were cut last August. That truly is the conclusion that has been reached. That is the conclusion drawn by the Bloc Québécois on several occasions but the Conservatives did not vote in favour of the suggestion made by the Bloc Québécois and other opposition parties.

This Conservative member will soon have to vote on a Bloc Québécois motion to restore funding to the arts and culture. That is a clear, specific and realistic proposal, which will not cost millions of dollars.

This government cut $26 million last August. The government need only restore these programs and acknowledge that the Bloc Québécois makes concrete and realistic proposals.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually the Bloc members are kind of all over the road with respect to arts and culture. They do not want to recognize the significant enhancements and the significant investments that have been made in the Canada Council for the Arts.

The member mentioned the Canada Council for the Arts, but she failed to mention that we have increased their budget from $150 million when we became the government to $181 million, a 17% increase that we have made to that.

The member did not mention the fact, again, that our budget for arts and culture in budget 2009 is a record unparalleled investment of $540 million. She did not mention that she voted against artists receiving that support.

She mentioned the Grands Ballets, but she did not mention that it received, if I am not mistaken, a little over $1 million in support. It got $8,000 from the program that she mentioned.

We are standing up for arts and culture. We are putting our money where our mouth is.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, as always, to rise in this House to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay.

We are now six weeks into the school shutdown in Attawapiskat since the botched demolition of the J.R. Nakogee site. I was in the community two weeks ago, and the smell of diesel was so strong that kids could not be put in those classrooms. I have met with the families, the educators and the students who were sickened as a result of being exposed to the fumes and the dust.

What happened recently in Attawapiskat is part of a much larger problem, the fundamental failure of the government and previous governments to address the need for a coherent plan for education for first nations children in this country.

Before I ask my question, I would like to remind my hon. colleague about a bit of the history that this community has faced.

It has been 30 years since the diesel leaks happened while the federal government had the school. It has been nine years since the parents, not Indian affairs, but the parents, pulled their kids out of the school because the smell of benzene was coming into the grade one classrooms. They found benzenes within an inch of the classroom floor.

It was the parents who pulled their kids out of school because it was unsafe. It would be unsafe in any other jurisdiction in the western world, but it was considered perfectly safe by INAC. Plans began on the long road to build a school. When we talk about shovel ready, this is the ultimate shovel-ready project.

I remember in August 2005, when then Indian affairs minister, Andy Scott, said, “Absolutely. We will accelerate the discussions to get this school. Let there be no mistake. The Government of Canada is committed to the process that will see the construction of the school”.

I was at the meeting in November 2005 with senior Indian affairs bureaucrats when they called to move that school ahead. Following that, the regional director, Bob Howsam, for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ontario, said he would “expedite” the building of the school because it was a priority.

This was not just a commitment by the Liberal government. The former Indian affairs minister also made the same commitment in December 2006, when he said, “I plan to support your funding request at Treasury Board”.

The paper trail on the support for this school is extensive; it goes all the way to November 2007. Then there were internal Indian affairs documents that stated Attawapiskat would no longer be on the list for building a school because the money was going to be spent on water projects. Those were internal INAC documents. If Attawapiskat was never going to get a school, why were they saying they were moving the money towards a water project?

In fact in that same month of November 2007, we found priority for three projects in Ontario, and one of them was Attawapiskat. It specifically listed health and safety requirements, that existing portables were in need of extensive repairs, and they had identified $28.5 million for Attawapiskat .

I have pointed out in the House the role that the various bureaucrats have played in covering up and changing stories, but I would like to quote a letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs to me. It is a letter that was never sent; I obtained the letter through internal documents. He said, “Excessive funding pressures have arisen...This has caused a number of new school projects to be delayed, including Attawapiskat”.

That was the letter the minister was going to send me, where he made it clear that the government's priorities had changed. It was moving the money out of building schools such as Attawapiskat into other areas.

I am going to ask my hon. colleague a simple question. We do not need to continue to bicker back and forth. Attawapiskat has financing at the bank; it is ready to build a school. They just need to know how many years it will take for the government to commit. Could the parliamentary secretary simply tell us that tonight?

The government has gone ahead and built these 10 schools. I totally understand that. Most of them are going to be in Conservative ridings. I understand that. Could he tell us when?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the question from the member for Timmins—James Bay.

We believe that first nations students are entitled to an education that will encourage and inspire them to stay in school, an education that will enable them to get the skills they need to find and keep good jobs. Part and parcel in this is the need for quality learning environments that ensure first nations children have the best possible facilities to help them succeed in their studies and start building a solid foundation for the future.

Our government is fully aware of the calls for a new school in Attawapiskat. We remain committed to assisting the first nation in finding solutions and alternative funding sources for a new elementary school for the community. Members of the community walked away from talks on this. We hope they return. We stand ready.

Since 2000 INAC has invested over $5 million in Attawapiskat for temporary classrooms and expansion of the high school. The department also provided more than $8 million in formula-funded operations and maintenance specifically for the schools.

What is more, Health Canada inspections continue to show temporary classrooms present no health and safety concerns. Further, the amount of classroom space in the community meets the federal government's level of service standards which are comparable to the standards applied to provincial schools.

As always, health and safety will continue to be our guide on this matter, not how many photo ops or how much political spin or rhetoric is generated by the MP for Timmins—James Bay. This member also said, in the Timmins Times in December of last year, that there is a process in place for a new school to be built in Attawapiskat. He could not give a date for when a new school would be built if he was to be part of a government formed with the Liberals and the Bloc. So he agrees with our government, but only when asked tough questions by a select few reporters.

We are committed to ensuring that aboriginal Canadians can share fully in our country's economic opportunities. That is why the Conservative government is putting special emphasis on improving education for first nations, with tripartite agreements with the first nations and provinces. Nothing demonstrates this more than budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan.

With its action plan, the government provides $1.4 billion over two years for specific initiatives aimed at improving the well-being and prosperity of aboriginal people. These new investments include $515 million to accelerate first nations infrastructure, focused on schools, water, and critical community services such as health clinics, nurses residences and policing, to name a few.

These investments also include an incremental investment of $200 million over two years for building 10 new schools on reserve and 3 major school renovations.

Our government recognizes that life chances improve with quality education, and to obtain a quality education, a quality learning environment is essential. These recent investments demonstrate clear action toward this goal and we will continue in this endeavour.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that we can never have the government speak about what is happening to the children of Attawapiskat without resorting to cheap shots against myself. I can live with that. The government has taken cheap shots on any particular issue.

However, we are talking about children who are exposed and put at risk. According to the only internal Indian Affairs document, the site of J. R. Nagokee on a class list of toxins and threats to human health was rated 89 out of 100. These children have been at risk. They are in substandard conditions. Neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary has ever been to Attawapiskat.

I asked him a simple question. Now that these 10 schools have been built, when will Attawapiskat appear on the capital plan? That is all I need to hear from the minister. When?

We have the financing. The school is ready to be built. These children have suffered enough. All they need is the government to put aside the rhetoric, work with the community and move forward.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government has made significant progress on education and aboriginal issues over the past three years working with willing partners to achieve tangible results. We have demonstrated a new practical approach of working with aboriginal governments and organizations, the provinces, the territories, and the private sector to address clear priorities in an effective and targeted manner.

In aboriginal communities throughout Canada, this is paying off and producing results. With budget 2009, our government continues this commitment with $1.4 billion for priority initiatives aimed at improving the well-being and prosperity of aboriginal people in Canada. Our approach is working. We are getting real results.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in May 2006, Andy Scott, the former member of Parliament for Fredericton, introduced a motion calling for the creation of a national strategy on the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder and assisting the provinces in the funding of persons diagnosed with autism.

The original wording of the motion was not acceptable to the parties, especially the Conservative Party. There were extensive negotiations between the parties as to an amended motion that would be agreeable to all parties, or at least the Conservatives and the Liberals. The motion was amended to satisfy the wishes of the government members. On December 5, 2006, the motion as amended was adopted by the House. As a representative democracy, the House was speaking on behalf of all Canadians and each member who voted for this motion was speaking on behalf of their constituents.

The motion, as amended, reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should create a national strategy for autism spectrum disorder that would include: (a) the development, in cooperation with provincial/territorial governments, of evidence based standards for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder; (b) the development, in cooperation with provincial governments, of innovative funding methods for the care of those with autism spectrum disorder; (c) consulting with provincial/territorial governments and other stakeholders on the requirements of implementing a national surveillance program for autism spectrum disorder; and (d) the provision of additional federal funding for health research into autism spectrum disorder.

Voting for this motion was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the member of Parliament for Oshawa, the Prime Minister, and 114 other Conservative members. The motion was made in good faith and I believe all members were acting in good faith.

I reviewed the debates on this issue and the former Conservative member for Avalon summarized the mood of the House, saying that we were standing “shoulder to shoulder”. He also said, “Motion No. 172 addresses the concerns of the children themselves and hopefully the health care that is needed will be provided”. I should point out that that member lost his seat and was subsequently appointed to the Senate.

This House and all Canadians are extremely disappointed that there has been no strategy. There have been no meetings with the provincial counterparts, no standards, no study or concrete actions, nothing, zilch. Nothing has been done.

The parliamentary secretary will get up in a minute and he will read a speech prepared by the Department of Health. The response will ignore this motion. It will say that there were two or three research projects funded. It will say that the Minister of Health has met with some families and interest groups. It will say that the Minister of Health and the government are concerned, but it will not address the basic fact that this motion was totally ignored by the government.

Canadians are very interested in hearing the response of the government. I ask the parliamentary secretary to leave aside the written notes, to stand up in the House, address the Speaker and tell Canadians watching these proceedings what he was thinking about when he voted for this motion. Did he have any intentions of fulfilling the motion? Why did the other 114 members of the Conservative Party vote for the motion? Why has nothing been done? Why did the government abandon Canadian families that have persons suffering from autism?

If he gets up and reads what was presented to him, it will be an affront to the House, to every Canadian and especially to every Canadian family with an autistic child.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we heard that partisan rhetoric from the member because autism is not a partisan issue. I myself have a son who has been diagnosed on the spectrum. I am a little disappointed at the tone the member has taken. I think all members in the House would like to do what they can for these families and these children.

The Government of Canada recognizes that autism is a serious health and social issue affecting many Canadian families and individuals from all walks of life, including parliamentarians. We do not know what causes autism. We do not know its prevalence in Canada. We do not know the effective treatments and interventions.

In order to advance any strategic work, which is what the member is talking about, to address autism, it is essential that governments and stakeholders better understand the condition, its causes and its treatments.

Accordingly the Government of Canada needs to continue its efforts in supporting a stronger, evidence base to enhance our understanding before we commit to other action.

There has been a great deal of attention toward and activity dedicated to autism over recent years and, fortunately, so too has there been increased Government of Canada action on developing knowledge and awareness about this very important condition. By way of examples, I would like to read them for the member.

In November 2007, the Government of Canada, this government, hosted a symposium devoted to autism knowledge, and yet the member says that nothing has been done. This event provided a wonderful opportunity to bring together leading Canadian researchers, policy makers and people affected by autism to discuss the latest in autism research.

With Simon Fraser University, the Government of Canada is supporting a national research chair in autism to address issues related to treatment and intervention.

The Government of Canada has also examined the establishment of an autism surveillance system through a consultation process, the results of which are currently being analyzed and will be made publicly available this spring.

This government provided funding to the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network to support the development of updated material in both English and French and is currently providing additional funding to develop an online national survey of research priorities in autism and hold a national autism conference in Toronto this spring.

Over the last seven years, more than $27 million have been spent on autism-related research by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

I am confident that these activities will continue to contribute to and enhance Canada's capacity to address this important issue.

The Government of Canada welcomes the opportunity to increase information and awareness on autism and provide access to the latest information to those affected by this condition and their families.

The more we share the knowledge, the more we gain.

By transforming this knowledge and awareness into appropriate treatments and interventions, we can provide the necessary change for Canadians living with autism and their families.

I am confident that, as time goes on, the challenges posed by gaps in knowledge and lack of awareness on autism will be overcome and that we can then take appropriate action in collaboration with our provincial and territorial colleagues to address this important issue. We are committed to that.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member across did exactly what I predicted he would do. He read the speech prepared by the Department of Health saying that a research project had been funded but he made no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.

A motion was passed by the House and the member voted for it, the Prime Minister voted for it, as did 14 other Conservative members. The member across vividly recalls the motion, recalls voting for the motion and recalls what the motion stated. The motion called for the creation of a national strategy for autism and it was very specific as to what this strategy would entail. I urge members of the public to read that motion. There has been absolutely no attempt whatsoever by the member, the Prime Minister or any other Conservative member to follow through on that motion.

I will go back to my question and ask the parliamentary secretary to be specific--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.