Debates of Oct. 25th, 2010

Fairness at the Pumps Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his question. That is precisely the principle to which I was referring earlier: One must not bite the hand that feeds. The Conservatives—that is not the case for the NDP nor for the Bloc Quebecois—get hundreds of thousands of dollars in election campaign contributions. The $1,100 limit is respected, but there are many $1,100 contributions. The Conservatives receive funds from oil companies located in Calgary, in all of Alberta and in other regions. So, it is not true that the Conservatives will give more teeth to their legislation. A lax approach suits both the oil companies and the Conservatives. That is why they keep a low profile and do not make waves, instead of looking after the consumers' best interests, as the hon. member aptly pointed out. In the end, people cannot do without their cars, they have no other means to travel. They cannot go back to the horse and buggy days, before the automobile was invented.

For goodness sake we must soon have access to the electric vehicle to free ourselves from our dependence on oil.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question, since he often insinuates that oil companies make financial contributions to certain political parties. If he has a list of the oil companies or other corporations that make such contributions, the police should be called and such companies should be pursued, because that is against the law.

Can he give us any names?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House adjourns at 6:30 p.m. I will go get some documentation. I agree with the member—

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

A name, a name.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans to calm down? Perhaps it is because he is going to be on the losing side in the municipal election in Ottawa this evening, but I find him overexcited.

It is true that with the new legislation, Petro-Canada, Shell and Esso have not contributed to Conservative campaigns. However, I would like to point out that individual contributions of $1,100 quickly add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars in campaign contributions. That is how they do it. We just have to look at how the Minister of Natural Resources suddenly changed his story about the cocktail fundraiser, which he now admits he should not have attended. Those people contribute money to Conservative coffers. The guy gave $1,000 but in return got a contract to renovate the West Block. The minister did not see any problem with that. However, on two televised current affairs programs last weekend, he said that maybe it was not such a good idea for him to go to that cocktail fundraiser. Now the tables have turned.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will give me a chance to ask him a question in English. I found him to be quite animated and frustrated.

So I wonder if the member is frustrated because of the “gaspillage du temps de la chambre” to consider a bill of such insignificant magnitude. I say “insignificant” because it is typical of the government's sound bite legislation.

Here it is, we are talking about the fairness at the pumps act as if it has been unfair and the government has noticed that it has been unfair for five years and has done nothing about it.

I know my hon. colleague used to sit on the industry committee, amongst others, and he heard government members saying that they had to do something about this, they had to introduce competition, and they have not done anything. Now they are talking about a criminal act taking place at the pumps and they are going to pass legislation to change it.

I wonder whether the member thinks this is part of the government's crime and justice agenda. In other words, is this a sound bite but no bite?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague was paying attention to what I was saying.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, not on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. My riding is Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. The hon. member is confusing me with my namesake from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I sit in the first row. If he looks at the seating plan, he will see that my colleague sits in the fifth row. That is okay, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the effort my colleague from Toronto makes to speak French. His French is excellent. He is originally from Italy. We both have Latin roots. Many of my colleagues in this House arrived here at the same time I did, in 1993. It was 17 years ago today that we were elected. He has improved his French by spending time with francophones in this House, just as my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has. His French is extraordinary, but he studied at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi so it is no wonder. Other colleagues would benefit from speaking French like my colleague who just asked the question.

I simply want to say in closing that I would not go so far as to talk about wasting the House's time because we live in a democracy and it is up to the government to introduce whatever bills it wants. We, as members of the opposition, have no choice but to receive the bills the government decides to introduce.

I am not perfect, but I am a democrat. We consider the bills the government introduces, even though they sometimes lack teeth. This bill has more the teeth of a chihuahua than a doberman.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is only enough time for a quick question. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to see a bill that effectively does so little.

Just a few years ago, I was a critic on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and the gas issue was very serious. Prices were fluctuating so wildly that an emergency debate was held in this House. I was in Vancouver with the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and we had to come back for that debate. In the end, an election came, everything was dropped, and we never resolved the issue. The purpose of the bill that was introduced at the time was to give teeth to the Competition Act. I see that that is not the case here. It is all well and good to suspect that there could be collusion, but it has to be proven. I think my colleague demonstrated that. Could he tell us a bit more about that?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member has only 30 seconds to answer the question.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can add is that both my colleague from Trois-Rivières, when she was on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, did excellent work on this issue. We are still waiting for a bill with more teeth.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14.

First, I would like pay tribute to the person who is responsible for the little action that the government has taken in this regard, and that is the member for Windsor West. He is the one who raised this issue and has been pushing it and working extremely hard in the House of Commons. He is the one who has pushed the government to do the certain little action that has been brought forward. It addresses part of the problem, but as the member for Windsor West has said all along, it does not address the whole problem in any way. That is why we pay tribute to him for pushing the Conservatives on this, but we will need his continued efforts to ensure the government finally responds to consumers who are ripped off by the petroleum industry.

Because of the huge gaping hole in the legislation, we could almost call it the gas price ripoff enabling act. It does not deal, in any way, with the problems of gas price gouging that we have seen. It has been very clearly indicated year after year. We have had a number of members speak in the House about what happens with old stock. World prices move, but on that old stock, prices all of a sudden spike up and they stay up. Even when the world price has declined and new stock is entering the stream in Canada, we see those old prices maintained. That means the average Canadian family is being ripped off through the course of that cycle. Millions of dollars are being taken out of the pockets of Canadian consumers.

I do not expect that the Conservative Party will take full action in this regard. The government seems to enjoy enabling ripoffs, whether it is the financial industry or the petroleum industry. We have certainly seen this with the telecommunications industry. Every time some company is willing to rip off the public, the Conservatives just seem unwilling to intervene in any way.

We can add to that the kind of actions the government has brought in, for example, the hated HST in my province of British Columbia. The Conservatives brought in the HST and added additional costs for hard-working middle class and poor families, forcing them to pay more for a whole range of things. Whenever British Columbians finally get their opportunity to speak to what the Conservatives have done against them, whether that is in a byelection or a general election, we will see a significant shift in those who may have voted Conservative in the past. They are not going to vote for the party that forced the HST on British Columbia.

As we well know, many Ontarians feel the same way. They feel the Conservative government having imposed the HST on Ontario, making people and families in Ontario and British Columbia pay more is something that deserves a response when they finally have the opportunity to give their voice to what the Conservatives have done.

I am proud to say our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has stood up for Canadian families. He has called for the removal of the HST on heating fuel, as we approach winter, He stood in the House and he stood up for Canadian families in that way. This corner of the House will continue to press the Conservatives to start addressing the needs of ordinary working families, middle-class families and poor families rather than giving them HST or allowing them to be ripped off by the petroleum industry. They will have to start to listen to ordinary Canadians.

I will finish my speech tomorrow on the bill and what is missing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member is right. He will have about 15 minutes and 30 seconds to finish his remarks tomorrow.

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

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to follow-up on a question I asked regarding the white collar crime bill, which was tabled in the House, and specifically whether the Conservative government, in its rush to have a fancy title in an evening news cast, forgot a very important element of white collar crime, and that has to do with mortgage fraud.

I commend the efforts of the Conservatives to curtail white collar crime on paper and on the news cast. It looks okay, but I am glad to have another opportunity to discuss this subject, which is yet another Conservative bill trying to make people feel better about curbing crime without delivering the substance that could have been had with a more thorough bill being posited.

The fact is the bill would have done nothing for the victims of Earl Jones. It is nothing more than what is prescribed by law right now. The bulk of the white collar crime problem in Canada is the Earl Jones ponzi-type scheme and mortgage frauds, which are rapidly spreading across the country. The bill addresses neither. Choosing a flashy title for a bill does not protect Canadians.

The bill has a provision for a mandatory jail sentence of two years for fraud over $1 million. How would this comfort the victims of Earl Jones, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison?

If there is another ponzi scheme out there today, this law does not affect them at all. Jones stole $15 million from Canadians. He even stole from his own sister-in-law. I would think this situation should alarm the government enough to address that in its standing up for white collar crime act.

Victims of ponzi schemes are calling this bill insufficient. “It doesn't affect us at all”, said Janet Watson, a victim of the Mount Royal scam.

Of the hundreds of mortgage frauds across the country, almost none of them amount to $1 million on their own. Most of the mortgage fraud costs are absorbed by CMHC in any event, which means Canadians are stuck with the horrendous cost of mortgage fraud. The amount totalled some $50 million in one instance of repeated transactions involving Martin Keith Wirick in British Columbia. Is this not a serious enough crime for the government to address in meaningful legislation?

Why does the justice minister propose a bill called “standing up for victims of white collar crime” that has no effect on the predominant frauds of our country?

Will the parliamentary secretary tell us what provisions of the bill have helped the victims of Earl Jones' fraud and what specific provisions of the bill protect Canadians in general from fraud? I am looking for specific sections. That was the question before we recessed in the summer. That is the question Canadians are asking.

If the Conservatives are going to call a bill “attacking white collar crime”, why do they leave out so much of the notable crime, so much of the crime that has affected so many people, particularly in situations like Earl Jones?

Will the minister seriously consider adding serious provisions that address head on the serious mortgage fraudsters and ponzi schemes that cause so much harm to honest Canadians, our economy and our reputation?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak about Bill C-21, which deals with sentencing provisions in fraud cases and aims to improve them in many ways.

Canadians know how serious fraud is; how diverse, sophisticated and subtle fraud schemes can be; how difficult it is to uncover and avoid them; and how damaging the fraud can be for the person who is unlucky enough to be a victim.

That is why this bill is tackling fraud from various angles. First, it provides for a minimum two-year prison sentence for any fraud or series of frauds that leads to a loss of at least $1 million. The courts recognize how serious major fraud is and appropriate sentences are handed down in those cases. But there are smaller fraud cases that can still be considered large-scale fraud, fraud that leads to more than $1 million in losses but is not considered major fraud like some we have seen in the past. The government wants to send a clear message to would-be fraudsters, to the courts and to victims: this kind of fraud is very serious and deserves a prison sentence.

Bill C-21 provides additional aggravating factors that the courts must take into account when sentencing those found guilty of fraud. Aggravating circumstances include the following: the offence had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances including their age, health and financial situation; the offender did not comply with a licensing requirement, or professional standard, that is normally applicable to the activity or conduct that forms the subject-matter of the offence; and the offender attempted to conceal or destroy records related to the fraud or to the disbursement of the proceeds of the fraud. The courts will also have to take into account the complexity, duration and magnitude of the fraud.

As I said, fraud is a general offence that may occur in all kinds of circumstances. Over the past few years, we have heard a lot about securities frauds, which were devastating and bankrupted hundreds of people. Recently, a massive mortgage fraud in Alberta made headlines. Just a few years ago, fraudulent telemarketing was all the rage. Cases of fraud have been linked to charities, contests, vacation packages and home renovations. The list is endless.

That is why Bill C-21 proposes general measures. It does not cover specific types of white-collar crime. As such, it includes all types of fraud. Any activity involving deception causing loss to Canadians may be considered fraud. Fraud charges can be laid regardless of how the deceit came about. Fraud charges can be laid in cases of mortgage fraud, title transfer fraud, securities fraud, fraud in the non-profit sector and health care fraud. Our Bill C-21 will cover all types of fraud.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is very much appreciated. Having said that, I would like to mention that the Earl Jones affair took place in his province of Quebec. That case occurred in Quebec.

I have a quote from Janet Watson, a victim of the Earl Jones scheme, who said Bill C-21 “doesn't affect us at all”. She said that it did nothing to respond to the largest fraud, the most notable fraud in that part of Quebec in recent history.

The member comes from Quebec. I hope he would have a more salient response for his people in Quebec who wonder why the government did not stand up for white collar crime.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that the fight against white-collar crime is a priority for the Government of Canada. Bill C-21, Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, deals with the very serious consequences of major fraud on victims, and ensures that all consequences of major fraud suffered by the victims, including financial, emotional, psychological and health repercussions, are fully taken into account when sentencing the fraudsters.

I would point out to my colleague that the largest, most recent case of fraud in Quebec is that committed by Vincent Lacroix, from Norbourg, who had interests in companies associated with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. The Lacroix fraud was even greater than that of Earl Jones.

I would like to point out that Bill C-21 will not only punish offenders, but it also provides for the court to consider making an order of restitution. What is very important is that, henceforth, there will be the possibility of restitution for victims.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my question of June 2, 2010, during the second world war, Canadian scientists erected at Grosse Île, near Montmagny, an ultra secret military laboratory to produce the biological warfare agent anthrax. The development of a biological weapon named “project N” was one of three war secrets along with research into the atomic bomb and decoding German messages.

One year before the Grosse Île experiments, the British had begun this type of research on Gruinard Island, in Scotland. It was a disaster. The island was contaminated and would stay that way until 1990. At the time, operations ceased, but experiments continued at Grosse Île. It was a very risky operation, as we just saw.

A number of Canadian scientists who would be assigned to the project were opposed to Grosse Île as a site because the island was too close to shore. The scientists wanted to use a site at least 50 miles from shore. Grosse Île was only three miles from shore. The military ignored this scientific opinion.

It is estimated that roughly 439 litres of anthrax was produced, which represents the equivalent of 70 billion lethal doses, enough to destroy humanity 30 times over. At the end of the project, the anthrax was dumped into the St. Lawrence River.

With the help of the American and British governments, the Canadian government was the first mass producer of this chemical weapon for military purposes.

To summarize, the government's intention was to transform bacteria into a weapon of mass destruction. What is disturbing is that we are talking about a military secret that is over 60 years old. What happened to the anthrax? Were any tests done? Accessing the archives is very difficult and a number of documents have disappeared. For instance, some Department of National Defence documents were accidentally shredded. However, according to Thomas Stovell, a retired scientist from Toronto who worked in the lab, the leftover anthrax was mixed with solvents, left to sit for awhile and then tossed underwater.

Since anthrax spores can survive for about a hundred years and because people are worried, we would like more information about this disposal. On June 2, 2010, I asked the Minister of the Environment to tell us precisely where in the St. Lawrence the leftover anthrax was dumped. I believe it is the government's duty to get more information and conduct an investigation, in order to ensure that people are not exposed to a chemical weapon.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his important question and I am happy to provide an answer.

First, the Department of National Defence does assign a high priority to its environmental programs and is committed to conducting its operations in ways to protect human health and the environment. The department is also committed to ensuring that its contaminated sites and hazardous waste are managed in a safe and prudent manner. We have been working very hard at that for situations that have piled up over the last 50, 60 or more years.

The health and safety of our Canadian Forces members, the Canadian public and the environment is an important concern in the day-to-day conduct of the work of the Department of National Defence.

During the second world war, Canada and its allies participated in a chemical and biological warfare program, as my colleague has suggested. This program was driven by wartime urgency and the need to build defensive capabilities against weapons that had been used with terrible results in the first world war, which was at that time still a recent and painful memory.

As part of this program, the production of anthrax on a moderate scale commenced at Grosse-Île in late 1943 and continued through August 1944. To ensure that no hazards resulting from the production of Anthrax remained, the Government of Canada conducted a thorough decontamination of structures and surrounding terrain at Grosse-Île to ensure that the site was free of residual anthrax before opening the site to the public in 1997.

Once the decontamination was completed, an interdepartmental expert committee consisting of representatives from Parks Canada, Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and the Department of National Defence determined that the risk of a residual anthrax hazard was extremely remote and work commenced to restore the site.

A documentary aired in June 2010 reporting that barrels of anthrax mixed with a solvent were dumped into the St. Lawrence River by the Canadian Forces after World War II. The department conducted a review of all wartime agent disposals in the 2003-05 timeframe and there are no records that corroborate the release of anthrax into the St. Lawrence River.

That said, based on the information in the documentary, if barrels of anthrax were dumped into the St. Lawrence River, we can rest comforted by the fact that if the anthrax had been mixed with formaldehyde, as reported, this procedure would have been effective in destroying the anthrax.

DND will continue to assess new information as it becomes available.

The Department of National Defence takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously. As a good environmental steward, the department is addressing past environmental problems to maintain the health of the environment, the Canadian people and our Canadian Forces members into the future.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the parliamentary secretary just told us, except that the expert committee he referred to was hardly independent. It was made up of departmental officials who tried to compile some of the available information, but as we know, some information has disappeared.

The parliamentary secretary said that no anthrax was dumped into the St. Lawrence. Yet in the report and the documentary he referred to, a captain, Captain Joseph Lachance, recalled being in an ice canoe and coming across a jug full of anthrax. What he said, basically, was that of course they did not know what was in it. And even if they had known, they would not have been allowed to talk about it. So Captain Lachance's claims contradict what the parliamentary secretary just said.

My question is simple. Will the parliamentary secretary commit to tabling here in the House all of the documentation in his possession?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we have pointed out, there is no evidence of the fact that anthrax was dumped into the St. Lawrence River and records have been checked, the best that are available. The other fact is that, as raised in the documentary, even if that did happen, according to the information in the documentary, the anthrax was mixed with formaldehyde which would have rendered the anthrax ineffective or not a hazard.

The committee of experts we are talking about were from Health Canada, which obviously takes great interest in the health and safety of Canadians, and the Department of National Defence which always takes the interests of the health of Canadians and the environment very seriously.

As I said, if there is new information that comes forward we will look at it, but right now all of the information suggests that the department has done its job and is protecting the health of Canadians and the environment.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said:

We are currently awaiting the results of seven clinical diagnostic trials....

If the medical experts agree that there is sufficient evidence to warrant clinical trials, then our government will fund them.

I would like to address the seven correlational studies being undertaken, question the need to replicate these studies and argue that there is in fact sufficient evidence to warrant clinical trials in Canada now and that our government should fund them.

In countries around the world. evidence now exists that 80% to 97% of MS patients show one or more venous abnormalities. This is higher than ultrasound or MRI because angioplasty, the gold standard, was used. These studies were undertaken in separate centres in space and time by separate operators and yet show similar results. Why will the government wait another two years for repeat studies?

Time is brain in MS and patients cannot afford a two year delay. Thirty percent to 50% of MS patients who are untreated worsen by one EDSS score in one year. Fifty percent with relapsing remitting MS later develop a progressive form of the disease for which there are no drugs, and up to two-thirds of patients experience cognitive impairment, which can affect daily functioning, employment and social life.

There is a well-known rationale for supporting an association between MS and venous obstruction, namely, MS plaques are venocentric, as identified by Rindfleisch as early as the 1800s and Putnam in 1935 who said it was “...almost inevitable that venular obstruction is the essential immediate antecedent to the formation of typical sclerotic plaques”.

Increased iron content in plaques and vessel wall may be a biomarker of tissue damage and may be caused by changes in vascular flow and increases in intracranial pressure.

There may be as many as 48 categories describing the types of vascular abnormalities in the chest, neck and spine that have now been identified by Dr. Haacke, a world leader in diagnostic imaging. These abnormalities include: stenosis in one or more major veins draining the brain; truncular venous malformations; lack of flow in one or more of the major veins; malfunctioning or stuck valves; reflux in the deep cerebral veins or the jugular veins meaning that blood flood actually reverses and travels toward the brain instead of draining to the heart; and other abnormalities.

Astonishingly, one patient was actually born without jugulars, the deep cervical veins substituted. In other patients the deep cervical veins and vertebral vessels are almost non-existent.

Over 3,000 procedures have been undertaken worldwide in over 50 countries. More important, neurologists are seeing their patients get better, with reduced brain fog, fatigue and improved circulation and motor skills, as demonstrated through improved EDSS scores.

As Dr. Zamboni, the pioneer of the technique, told the neurological subcommittee last June, the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI are safe, had resulted in significant improvements in the quality of life of many MS patients and that clinical trials were needed.

Why is the government refusing to undertake clinical studies? Why not follow Canadian patients who felt forced to seek treatment overseas? Why lose this important data? Why not lead instead of follow 50 other countries and yet refuse to ask for their data and expertise? Most important, why ensure that Canadians be subjected to devastating MS for at least another two years?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank my colleague for her question. I know she cares about this deeply, as we all do.

It is a terrible disease that affects mostly young adults or is most often diagnosed in young adults, aged 15 to 40. Thousands of Canadians are currently affected by this debilitating disease and we probably all know someone. I know I do.

The disease does not just impact the patients. It also affects families, friends and colleagues and can take an emotional toll on all those surrounding the patient.

Many patients, as was said, obviously face difficulties at work as the disease can affect vision, hearing, memory, balance and mobility, making it often impossible to continue active life in the workplace.

That is why the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, has provided over $49 million in funding to date on MS research. CIHR has provided substantial funding to neurosciences and stem cell research, with many research initiatives focusing on MS.

CIHR also funds a great deal of research in related areas such as vascular disease.

All of these investments are building our overall understanding of multiple sclerosis toward more effective treatment and ultimately a cure.

One of the numerous research initiatives supported by CIHR is that of Dr. Brenda Banwell from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

Dr. Banwell's research team has focused much of its research on the effects that MS has on the developing brain. It is trying to determine whether childhood MS attacks can create lasting deficits. So far, Dr. Banwell's research has revealed that 40% to 50% of children with MS have some cognitive difficulties, particularly when it comes to multi-tasking and accessing short-term memories.

Dr. Banwell also hopes that the research at the SickKids clinic can help untangle the complicated interaction of genetic and environmental factors that potentially cause MS.

The House of Commons subcommittee has heard many different witnesses debate the merits of the recently developed chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, or CCSVI, treatment brought forward by Italian researcher, Dr. Paolo Zamboni.

It should be noted, however, that just a week and a half ago, at an MS conference in Gothenburg, Sweden, Dr. Zamboni himself indicated very clearly that more research is needed before patients proceed with surgery.

The Minister of Health and CIHR's president, Dr. Alain Beaudet, have been publicly encouraging researchers to submit applications to CIHR funding programs.

In addition, through CIHR's Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction and CIHR's Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health, the government has been consulting the research community on Canada's strengths and how to best contribute to the international effort to improve treatment of MS and evaluate CCSVI.

On October 19, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research announced the establishment of a working group of eminent scientists to review evidence and advise on a clinical trial. The first meeting is currently being planned for later this fall.

The government is committed to working with the provinces and territories to responsibly accelerate this scientific research. If the research shows that clinical trials are both appropriate and advisable, the government will work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they are fully funded.

Meanwhile, Health Canada and CIHR will continue to work with the MS Society of Canada to advance safe, evidence-based research and innovation on this devastating disease.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Zamboni's position has not changed. He said we need more research and we need clinical trials.

Canada needs a registry and clinical trials that are undertaken in multiple centres across our country and that are sufficiently powered. Diagnosis and treatment standards must be established, including ultrasound and MRI, to identify any abnormality, and other MRI techniques including flow quantification, iron content and venous damage. And those undertaking the liberation procedure must be sufficiently trained and practised, like Dr. MacDonald, to ensure the best results for the patient. Patients must then be followed for efficacy, improvements in quality of life, and side effects.

Based on the evidence, the fact that more trials are about to begin in the States, that Saskatchewan is setting aside funds for clinical trials and that neurologists admit their patients get better, will the government do the right thing and support clinical trials for MS patients here in Canada?