Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2012

World Autism Awareness Day Act

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I have been blessed with many joys in the House. Seeing hon. members unanimously pass my motion targeting Internet predators, Motion No. 388, was an occasion where we rose above partisanship.

When an overwhelming majority of hon. members united to deliver a message of hope to vulnerable Canadians everywhere by voting to pass Bill C-300, my legislation on suicide prevention, I felt humbled to once again be part of an occasion where our normal partisan rancour was put aside.

Today, I stand as sponsor in the House of Bill S-206, a bill from the other place, calling for recognition of World Autism Awareness Day. Once again, I feel blessed because I sense unity on this issue.

Through the study at committee and through the debate at second reading, not a negative word was spoken about this effort. Instead, we have used our time to educate each other on the very real need to promote autism awareness and to share some very personal stories about how autism has touched our lives.

I mentioned the experience of my friend and colleague, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. I thank him for his very personal sharing of his life with parliamentarians. The way the member and his family care for Jaden and bring him to the House to allow us to interact with Jaden has been one of the joys that I have personally experienced as a member of Parliament, and I think all of my colleagues would agree.

Also the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier shared some experiences from her own family. Some hon. members want more to be done, but no one has disputed that every effort to promote autism awareness is a worthwhile effort.

During study of the bill at the Standing Committee on Health, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel asked Mr. Richard Burelle, the executive director of the Autism Society of Canada, if the passage of Bill S-206 would be helpful. Mr. Burelle's reply was:

Keeping autism in the forefront is always a good thing. As Senator Munson said, the fact that we're piggybacking on World Autism Awareness Day is great. Any kinds of forward steps we can take in order to keep autism in the forefront, to create that awareness, are steps in the right direction.

There is no controversy here. There is no federalist-sovereigntist division, no left-right divide. In truth, I do not believe there is any reason to continue debating the bill. Rather than spending our time agreeing with each other, I would ask hon. members to allow debate to collapse and to allow Bill S-206 to pass on a voice vote today.

This effort did not begin with this Parliament. Previous efforts enjoyed similar support, but never became law, due to election calls.

Families coping with autism spectrum disorders have waited long enough, since 2006, in fact, for the House to simply acknowledge an awareness day.

Given the broad level of support the bill enjoys from all quarters, I ask that we stop talking about recognizing World Autism Awareness Day and just get this done.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the important thing to do right now, after that wonderful speech form the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, is to ensure nobody speaks so we can pass this on a voice vote.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of my colleague. I would certainly favour moving right ahead, but I know there are a number of members in the House who have personal stories they might like to share, which would add a little to the conversation. I am open to having a few more short conversations, but I agree that it is important for us to get this finished today and move it on so it can actually receive royal assent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to express our appreciation in recognition of what the member has attempted to accomplish here, autism is a very important issue for many Canadians who are affected directly and even those who are affected indirectly by this disorder. Many individuals who are affected with autism are absolutely outstanding citizens and contribute in every aspect of our society.

I applaud the member for bringing forward the bill. We in the Liberal Party support the bill and look forward to its passage.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone in the House knows someone who has been affected by autism. For me, it is a matter of the joy that these folks bring to our lives. If we are more knowledgeable about this issue, it will certainly help us in our interaction at home, in the House and wherever we are in Canada. There are so many people who will benefit from autism awareness day, which will simply raise the awareness that these people can contribute so much, and have contributed so much, to our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am most impressed with the work that has been done in the House by the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga and by other members from all corners of the House.

Autism is a cause that I have personally embraced. I have raised money to support it ever since I was elected 2,463 days ago. I am very humbled to give it Royal's assent immediately.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have this kind of support for the bill. I agree that the sooner it gets royal assent the better. However, we should allow a few other members to have a few comments to add their support to this initiative that has come from the other place.

I want to acknowledge Senator Munson and his efforts in getting this done. I had the honour of supporting it in the House, but Senator Munson actually did the work to get this to where it is now. It is important that we move on it as quickly as possible.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset, on behalf of the NDP, that we have agreed that the debate tonight will hopefully be cut short, that this will be approved on a voice vote. Therefore, there is no controversy, in case people start spinning this up. There were discussions held on this, and we certainly agreed with that.

We would welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks about the bill. First, I would like to thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, as well as the senator who came before the health committee and spoke about the bill. We had a good discussion. We were very clear at the health committee, when we dealt with it a week ago, that we in the NDP very much support a day in recognition of autism and the impact it has on Canadian families.

As the member alluded to, if there is any slight criticism it is that this really is a bill about an awareness day. We would hope to see much more meaningful action take place, as many members in the community have called for, families who are living with autism. There are some very severe needs that need to be addressed. For us, this is an issue about certainly giving recognition but needing to do more than that. That is our point.

I would point out that a number of our members have also had bills on autism. The member for Vancouver Kingsway, put forward Bill C-351. That has been a very important bill that he put forward. There is also the member for Sudbury, who has had two bills calling for action to better support those living with autism. That is the kind of meaningful action we need to see.

We in the NDP are somewhat concerned that for a number of years the government has not taken the kind of leadership that is required on this issue. We do see many organizations calling for a national strategy. In fact, there were promises made to have a national strategy on autism. That is something that is very important to do. I know the member for Kitchener—Conestoga probably supports that. I hope he will encourage his government to now go further and build on the day of awareness we have.

The only other point I would like to make is that much has been said overall in this debate, in the first hours of debate, but there is new information that is coming out. One of the issues is an issue of gender, which on the surface appears to be an issue about age. This has to do with where early intervention is provided.

The fact is that there are some estimates that the average age of diagnosis for a girl on the autism spectrum is 12, whereas for boys it is between the ages of 5 and 7. What happens is that, because early intervention often takes place around the age of 5 or 6, many girls are actually being cut out of that early intervention.

This was something that was brought to my attention by a family in Nova Scotia who actually have three daughters who are on the autism spectrum. It is something to factor in about what needs to be done, to understand the kinds of supports families need to have and to understand, when we say early intervention, that it actually has to be appropriate to the ages of children when they are diagnosed. Certainly intervention is important, but it has to be appropriate and it has to meet the needs of the children at the ages they are being diagnosed.

I did want to make that point today, because I do think it is something that helps build the debate on this issue. In conclusion, I would again say that, in the NDP, we have supported this bill. We supported it at committee. We are happy to let it go on a voice vote today, which means it will be approved.

However, we would use this opportunity to say to the government members who have been supporting this bill, and indeed to all members, let us see this as a first step, let us build on this issue, let us hold the government to its commitments for a national strategy, and let us support the families in their needs, as well as people who are living with autism, because there is much more that needs to be done.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues in the House, I want to support the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, who suggested that we make some quick comments and then take it to a voice vote.

The Liberal Party supports this very much and we are very grateful to Liberal Senator Jim Munson, who brought the bill forward. However, I do want to add some comments.

My hon. colleague for Vancouver East discussed the fact that gender is a huge issue in terms of early diagnosis. We know that early diagnosis is very important to get the kind of early interventions one needs. However, there are some other things I want to highlight.

I was quite impressed and moved at a conference I was at this weekend in British Columbia. It was an international conference with people from eight countries, all of whom themselves were autistic or on the spectrum disorder at some level. I heard some things from them that, even as a physician, I was not aware of and that moved me greatly.

We talk about this as a spectrum disorder, which becomes an illness, a diagnosis, et cetera. However, I was very much moved by the people in that room, from eight countries, in that that they did not want people to see them as a disorder. They wanted people to understand that many of them are functioning well and have great ability. They need people to understand the nature of autism in its full spectrum.

It was interesting when the member for Vancouver East talked about diagnosing girls at about 12. I met women with Aspergers who belong to the Asperger Women Association, who were diagnosed at 50, 42 and 35.

We see that we do not understand, in fact, that many people with autism function in our society. However, the people at the conference commented that they are discriminated against in society. Sometimes at home and school there is a certain protection for them, but when they go out into the real world they are discriminated against. They cannot get jobs. They find that people look at them as if they have a mental disability, when many of them have extraordinarily high IQs. Many are extremely talented artists. Some are very verbal and very good at all kinds of communications, not necessarily verbal ones.

I heard that they wanted the schools to understand them and not discriminate against them. They are subject to bullying a great deal and they wanted to deal with that issue.

As we talk about awareness, they very much want people to understand the fact that they are very able. Many of them are highly functioning. I met people there that day who had extraordinary IQs that were much higher than mine. They would be at genius levels. I also heard that they are concerned about their human rights.

I heard some moving things. For instance, they do not want people to fix them or cure them, but they do need support, understanding and opportunity to participate fully in jobs and the economic, cultural and social sectors. This is where I want to put a plea on the table. I was extremely moved by that.

As a physician, I had understood the spectrum disorder very differently. However, I do not even want to talk about it as a spectrum disorder anymore. As a physician, I saw it as a problem for a long time and not necessarily as something where a person would say they were born autistic, that is who they are and they are happy with the gifts they have. They just want opportunity, understanding and the ability not to have people say they want to fix them.

In fact, some said that family doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists have told them that if they are functioning well they should not tell anyone they are autistic. If they did not tell anyone, they would not be discriminated against. It was kind of like telling the LGBT community, as in the old days, to stay in the closet and not to come out.

I want to put that to members here so that we can understand people with autism spectrum disorder very differently from how we have tended to understand them.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to engage in debate today either. I am very heartened by the members of all parties saying they want to bring this to a vote tonight. I am also heartened, listening to two members of the opposition who have been around here for a long time, who have both said they have learned something new about autism in the last little while. I am excited about that. I look forward to having further conversations with them. If there is any way I can help them increase their understanding any more, or put them in touch with others who may also be able to express similar types of challenges, certainly I would be glad to do that.

I want to recognize a few people today, if I could. I want to thank Senator Munson for moving this bill in the first place. I really appreciate that. I appreciated having the opportunity to work with him on this issue over time. I want to thank some government ministers: the Minister of Health, the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of National Revenue and staff who we worked with to try to move some of the issues.

The opposition members talked about some of the challenges. We have had the opportunity to bring forward some of those challenges to these various ministries and their staff, and stakeholders have been received very well as we have tried to move some of these issues forward. I want to thank those ministers.

I want to thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for picking up the bill in the House and for his very enthusiastic support of it, as with everything he does. The vigour and the positive attitude with which he supported this have been really encouraging.

I am doing a lot of thanking today, but I have spoken a lot about the issue. I want to thank my own staff, who I do not thank enough, for their work on this issue. They have embraced the issue as their very own. They have embraced Jaden as though he is their family member. It is a lot of work on top of the regular life of an MP. The work they do to raise awareness of this issue on top of their regular workloads is astounding, and I really want to thank them for that.

Jaden and I had the opportunity to go to New York a couple of weeks back. We went there for a UN event. The World Autism Awareness Day actually arose out of an initiative by the UN and Bob and Suzanne Wright, who founded Autism Speaks. It arose out of conversations they had. They have continued their work to raise awareness on this important issue.

We were there for a couple of days, and while we were there we had a chance to speak to the spouses of world leaders. There were 15 or 16 spouses. We actually spoke with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and the President of Panama at the same time. We were very enthused and excited. We had the chance, as we were speaking to them, to play a bit of football in front of them. I had to explain that North American football is a bit different from the football most of them are used to. We do that to settle Jaden down, because he sometimes gets very excited and intense when we are doing some of these things. Playing football kind of calms him down, so we had the chance to show them how that works for him.

While we were in New York, I was constantly working, so Jaden was grabbing my shoulder and hanging off my shoulder, staring at my BlackBerry the whole time because he had to be on top of what the schedule was, but he was more excited than I have ever seen him in two days. We really had a fun time.

We went to Times Square on Friday night and, in terms of autism awareness, one of the things we have to be aware of as parents is that when we are in situations like that, Jaden is very excited, hanging off my shoulder, but if he gets two feet away from me in a crowded atmosphere like that, I might never find him again. We had the opportunity to experience Times Square together with all the excitement of the bright lights and everything else. It was a spectacular time.

We had the chance to do about five media interviews while we were there. I do want to recognize the folks in the media who have really worked to raise awareness of this issue. David Ariosto from CNN did an interview with us, and so did David Common from CBC. They both got it immediately. They both understood Jaden immediately. They made that connection with Jaden, and their stories reflect that. That was similar to the things that Tom Clark and Steve Paikin and Evan Solomon have done here when they have had the opportunity to raise awareness. We talked to Marci Ien at Canada AM and a lady named Susan James at ABC News. All of them really took an interest in this issue. It was not just another day in their lives of work, but they actually took an interest in really raising awareness of this issue.

They had a chance to get to know and connect with Jaden and move that issue forward. I want to thank them for doing that and for taking the time to go above and beyond in their approach to this.

I do not want to take much more time. I know that we want to pass this bill. No one wants that more than I do. However, I would be remiss if I did not thank the families of people with autism. When it comes to autism awareness, we can do a lot in the House, but it is the families that model the grace, perseverance and love for their family members, the sons, daughters, siblings, and in some cases, parents, who may not have been diagnosed until later in life as being on the spectrum. No one who advocates is more aware of the challenges than they are. They live every day with this. We discuss it once in a while in the House, but every single day those families live with this.

We heard the hon. member down the way refer to individuals with autism and their own unique perspectives. There is certainly a whole variety of unique perspectives. When we focus on the challenges, we also have to focus on the amazing, unique skills and talents these people have. As a society, we need to try to find ways to include them, take advantage of their incredible strengths, and learn from them. They make our lives better. My life is infinitely better because my son Jaden is involved in it. I would say that everyone in the House who has had the opportunity to meet Jaden, without exception, would say that their lives are better for having had the opportunity to give him a high five, a hug or a kiss.

With that, I will close. I thank all members from all parties for the way they have embraced Jaden during the time I have been a member of Parliament. God bless them all.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill S-206, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day.

I will first read some interesting figures. We are all somewhat familiar with autism, but I would like to provide some information about autism in Canada.

In Canada, although there is a lack of detailed epidemiological data, there are currently around 48,000 children and 144,000 adults with some form of autism. It is estimated that one in 150 children in Canada is autistic. We know that the rate of autism is increasing every year without a discernible cause. Boys are much more susceptible than girls to be affected by autism. It is estimated that autism is four times more common in men than in women. Autism is more prevalent than childhood cancer, AIDS, and diabetes combined. It is estimated that treating an autistic person in Canada can cost between $80,000 and $100,000 a year.

These figures reflect the scope of the situation. That is why we will definitely support this bill. In fact, we would like to do so as quickly as possible.

This awareness day will help organizations specializing in childhood illnesses, such as the Autism Society of Canada, promote public awareness of this illness and perhaps go further and make parliamentarians aware of the importance of developing a broader strategy. I see this bill as a first step.

Last year, I talked about another bill dealing with the establishment of an illness awareness day. At the United Nations, only three days are dedicated to illnesses. This shows the importance of this day. If the United Nations has decided to recognize only three illnesses and if autism is one of them, it means we should really talk about it.

This will not only give these organizations a day for meeting with parliamentarians and senators. It will also give them enough visibility so that people better understand the illness and learn how to help those who suffer from it better integrate into society.

This illness costs parents from $80,000 to $100,000 annually. That is a tremendous cost. If we have a better understanding of this illness, perhaps more people will have better jobs. I am thinking of mothers who must look after their child and who may want to work part-time. It can also provide tools to employers to help families who have a member suffering from autism better integrate into society.

I would like to explain what the NDP really wants. Establishing an autism awareness day is a good thing. However, people in different parts of Canada do not all have access to the same care. Since health is a provincial jurisdiction, people do not have access to the same care in every province, and health insurance plans do not pay the same amount. This is an issue that should be discussed.

There is also the case of young aboriginal children who suffer from autism. Currently, there is nothing in Canada to tell us what we should do for these young children. Yet that is clearly a federal responsibility, because everything related to aboriginal affairs comes under that jurisdiction.

We hope that this bill is just a first step and that we can create this day, but we also hope to go further.

I would therefore first like to thank the senator who sent this bill here and the Conservative member who sponsored it; however, I would also like to make them aware of the fact that we should take this a little bit further. When this type of bill is introduced, it is important to determine whether it will improve the overall situation of people with autism.

We must make them aware of the fact that this bill is a first step for young aboriginals. However, we would like it to go further.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

I understand that the member for Kitchener—Conestoga wishes to have a brief right of reply to the hon. member.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again thank all my colleagues for their strong support of this initiative. The stories we have heard tonight from many quarters illustrate perfectly the need we have to increase awareness around this issue. I just say, “Let's get it done”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

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

International Trade

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with regard to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, or CETA. Specifically, I will follow up on a question I asked in the House following a leaked Health Canada report that suggested that the government may consent to provisions in the CETA that would raise the price of prescription drugs in Canada.

I will first reiterate the position of the official opposition New Democrats, which is that we want to encourage trade with Europe. We see in Europe and the European Union an excellent trading partner that comprises many wonderful jurisdictions. Europe comprises mature democracies with mature and progressive economies. In many sectors, our industries are complementary, which means that there are great opportunities for Canadian exporters to tap into the massive European market.

However, the CETA is also raising concerns among Canadians, both because of what they fear is in it and due to the secretive and non-transparent manner in which it is being negotiated. These two issues are illustrated perfectly in the question at hand involving the leaked study from Health Canada. This report concluded that the changes to intellectual property proposed by the European Union and CETA could raise the cost of medication in this country by $2 billion a year.

Canadians have been voicing their concerns about this for years, since first hearing rumours that the Conservatives were willing to negotiate away access to affordable drugs to get a free trade deal with the E.U. In addition to the leaked Health Canada document, there is a reputable study that concludes that the changes may raise the cost of drugs in Canada by nearly $3 billion.

How has the government responded to these concerns? It has ridiculed them and misled Canadians. The Conservatives have repeatedly been asked to shed light on what they are seeking in the trade agreement with the E.U. In June, government officials testified that they did not have a mandate to make changes that would raise drug costs. The government then put out a so-called fact sheet, calling the idea that CETA would raise drug costs a myth.

If there was no mandate to do this, if the government was not seeking to change the intellectual property regime in Canada, why would Health Canada and Industry Canada take it upon themselves to conduct a study this September on the cost implications of the IP changes in raising prescription drug costs in Canada?

In a further example of non-transparency, the government has not released the Health Canada study. Just as with the rest of the CETA, Canadians are left to rely on leaked documents.

Transparency is critical to democracy. Honesty is critical to democracy.

We understand that the actual negotiations must happen behind closed doors, to some extent. However, that does not mean that they cannot have a level of transparency. A government can seek input from Canadians as to what they want out of a trade deal. A government can announce what it will be seeking. A government can also be up front about the possible implications and give regular progress updates to Canadians. That is a transparent approach to negotiating trade deals. This is the approach New Democrats would take to negotiating trade deals.

Trade deals are extremely important in all aspects of Canadian society, and New Democrats know that co-operating and consulting with a wide variety of interests will lead to a better deal. Canada should consult with investors, business leaders, labour leaders, municipalities and stakeholders of all types. There are legal implications, so we need to hear from legal and constitutional experts.

In the case at hand, when we are talking about making changes that would raise the cost of drugs, perhaps by billions of dollars a year, we need to consult with those most affected. Businesses pay for drug costs through their employee benefits plans. Provinces are large buyers of prescription medication. Seniors and disabled people, the most vulnerable in our society, are the ones who will bear the brunt of these changes. Yet the government dismisses all of these people and refers to their fears as myths, while studying the very issue they are concerned about.

Will the government come clean with the Canadian people and tell them how much the CETA will cost them?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes there is simply no better job creator than free and open trade. In fact Canada's economy proves it, with trade equivalent to over 60% of our GDP and with one in five jobs generated by exports.

Our government understands that helping Canadian businesses expand and succeed abroad directly benefits workers and families by creating jobs and prosperity.

This is more important now than ever. These are challenging, uncertain economic times. Our government has an economic plan to meet these challenges, a plan with deeper trade at its core. We see trade as the new stimulus, an opportunity to create new jobs and prosperity for Canadians.

Our negotiations with the EU are a cornerstone of our plan. The EU is already Canada's second most important trading partner, with two-way merchandise trade reaching $92.1 billion last year.

A successful agreement would give Canadian businesses a serious competitive edge in the single largest market in the world. Tariff elimination would make our exports far more price competitive in the EU market. In fact, a comprehensive agreement with the EU is expected to provide a 20% boost to our bilateral trade and a $12 billion boost to Canada's economy. That is the equivalent of a $1,000 increase to the average Canadian family's income, or 80,000 new jobs.

In sector after sector across the country, Canadians are counting on our government to negotiate an ambitious agreement with the EU and we are not going to let them down.

Canada's economy has thrived with free trade. Millions of jobs have been created since Canada and the United States signed the NAFTA. It has given our businesses and workers the kind of access to the U.S. market that other countries can only dream of. We want to create the same benefits for our workers in the EU market.

Despite these facts, the NDP and professional anti-trade activists continue to resurrect the same old, tired arguments. Canadians know the NDP has consistently opposed our government's efforts to open up new markets for Canadian exporters. Now NDP members are even opposing agreements while they are being negotiated.

The hon. member should not prejudge the outcome of negotiations. That is what negotiations are all about. Our government has said many times before that our government seeks to strike a balance between promoting innovation and job creation while ensuring that Canadians continue to have access to the affordable drugs they need.

I can assure members that we continue to consult with stakeholders and provinces and territories.

We know that Canadians believe in the greater power of free and open trade and the benefits that result. Thanks to our government's ambitious pro-trade plan, we are well under way to unlocking new jobs and opportunities for Canadians across the country.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a Conservative trade policy that raises drug costs to Canadians from $2 billion to $3 billion a year is not the kind of trade policy that Canadians want. I notice that my hon. friend did not say a single word to refute that.

The government refers to its record on trade with an air of pride. Well, it should not. It talks about the deals that it has signed as if it were crossing off a shopping list. However, let us look at those deals. Generally these deals have been with small economies, and in many cases with partners with whom we should not be dealing, countries like Honduras and Colombia, with disturbing track records on human rights and environmental protection.

What about the Conservatives' record? Here are the real numbers. Under the Conservative government we have gone from a trade surplus of $26 billion in 2006 to a trade deficit of $50 billion to date. Our manufacturing trade deficit has exploded sixfold to $90 billion today and our exports of raw or barely processed resources are going up while manufactured items are going down.

We would like to see a deal with the EU, which is a good partner and a large economy. However, Canadians could be skeptical about whether or not this would be of benefit to them, when they see their drug costs go up by billions of dollars a year. What does my hon. friend say to Canadians about drug costs and CETA?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians should be skeptical about is the NDP's claim of their new conversion to believing in trade, because they have not supported any free trade agreements. In fact, they go to Washington to argue against trade, so we have a difficult time believing that.

As I said before and will say again, our government will continue to seek a balance between promoting innovation and job creation through trade while ensuring that Canadians continue to have access to the affordable drugs they need.

Let me be clear: our Government will only sign an agreement that is in the best interests of Canadians.

Search and Rescue

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place today, even though the topic is a bit unfortunate. Being born on Prince Edward Island and knowing the fishing community and the importance of the Coast Guard, I want the parliamentary secretary to elaborate on a question I asked in the House on May 18.

On May 18, I indicated that the St. John's and Quebec City Coast Guard stations were closed down. At the same time the government announced that one of the biggest and most important Coast Guard centres in Canada would be closed down. Kitsilano is a very important Coast Guard base. The government also sent out 763 notices to Coast Guard employees, telling them they were no longer required by the Government of Canada.

Having lived all of my life among fishermen and along the sea, I am well aware of how important the Coast Guard is.

Although the issue in Kitsilano is on the other coast, this base responds to hundreds of emergency calls every year. It is located in one of the largest ports. About five million people pass through this port every year. Billions of dollars pass through this port every year. Every year 75 to 100 of the calls that Kitsilano gets are life-threatening. Some of those calls can be from people who are attempting to take their own lives or whatever. The Coast Guard has people prepared to handle these kinds of things. It is just so unfortunate that the likes of this would happen.

The mayor of Vancouver has clearly stated that there could be a high risk of increased fatalities due to the Kitsilano Coast Guard base closure. It is a massive concern for all of those in Vancouver. The City of Vancouver does not have the mandate or the resources. In the meantime, Mayor Robertson has said that the people of Vancouver and across the country should inform their members of Parliament that this is totally unacceptable. I hope that having had a number of people indicate to their members of Parliament how serious this is, I will get an indication from the parliamentary secretary that things will change.

The Coast Guard station in Quebec City has closed down. St. John's has also closed, and it had 500 search and rescue incidents a year. The station covered 900,000 square kilometres and 30,000 kilometres of coastline.

We are talking about people's lives. It is important to note that a Fifth Estate investigation showed that Canada has one of the worst search and rescue response times in the world. If an emergency happens in the evening or on the weekend, it sometimes takes four times the normal time for search and rescue teams to respond.

I hope when the parliamentary secretary responds to this question he will understand, he will listen to the people of Vancouver and he will take their information. Hopefully he has convinced the government that the Kitsilano Coast Guard base should remain open so that no lives will be lost on the west coast of this country.

Also, I hope the parliamentary secretary will indicate that instead of releasing 763 people from their jobs in the Coast Guard, he will indicate that more well-trained people, as those in the Coast Guard are, will be employed.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Cardigan for his intervention on this matter. I am sorry to say that he got many of his facts wrong. I do not have the time to correct all of them, but let me comment on the two major issues he raised.

With respect to the reorganization of the Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue resources and the consolidation efforts in St. John's and Quebec City, I have spoken on this several times. I just want to reiterate that our government would not make a change to search and rescue resources that would jeopardize safety.

The consolidation of the marine rescue coordinators into the joint rescue coordination centres in Trenton and Halifax will not change the quality of service provided in coordinating rescues on the water, or the number of resources available to provide response capacity in the waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec.

The decision to consolidate the rescue sub-centres in St. John's and Quebec City with the joint rescue coordination centres in Halifax and Trenton resulted from the Government of Canada's strategic review exercise, which provided us with the opportunity to streamline programs and the way services are delivered to Canadians. It was determined that search and rescue coordination services could be delivered in a more efficient and effective manner, with no impact on service delivery or safety. This process ensures that the tax dollars of hard-working Canadians are used in the most efficient way possible, which Canadians demand of us.

The marine rescue sub-centre in St. John's was successfully consolidated into the joint rescue centre in Halifax earlier this year. Our highly trained coordinators will continue to be available to coordinate rescues on a 24/7 basis. As with St. John's, we will continue to commit to not closing the sub-centre in Quebec and consolidating its responsibilities into the joint rescue coordination centre in Trenton until safety can be assured and we know that we can continue to provide the same level of service in both official languages.

Regarding the decision to close the Kitsilano station, we know that a safety gap will not be created, as multiple resources will continue to provide search and rescue support. The Coast Guard, the volunteers of the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, the Canadian Forces and other local responders will all continue to be available to serve the area for maritime distress calls.

In addition to this, a new in-shore rescue boat station will be established in the Vancouver area and will be available to respond to incidents in the busy summer period. As well, the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue will be increasing its response capacity in the Vancouver area.

We also know that the Coast Guard hovercraft at Sea Island has the capacity to support additional search and rescue calls. In 2011, the Sea Island hovercraft spent only 4% of its available time on search and rescue services, including time to and from incidents. Therefore, we certainly think there is more capacity there as well.

The Coast Guard remains confident that the current level of service will be maintained after the reorganization of resources is complete, and it will continue to effectively support maritime safety in the Vancouver area, as well as the rest of Canada, by coordinating responses to maritime search and rescue incidents using all available resources.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this idea of downsizing and downloading only creates hardship for people.

The report prepared for the City of Vancouver by the deputy city manager indicates that the Vancouver police officers consider the Kitsilano base to be a significant source of crime prevention and needed enforcement on the water. They rely on support from the Kitsilano Coast Guard base for various call types, as the members of the Vancouver police department are not trained in search and rescue and have no paramedic capabilities. They also support the Coast Guard with search and rescue when they can.

Opposite to what my hon. colleague had to say, the conclusion of this report indicates that the Kitsilano Coast Guard base closure creates a significant gap.

The current activities at the Kitsilano Coast Guard base are within the legislative mandate of the Government of Canada. It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada. As my hon. colleague indicated, the people of Canada and Vancouver want the Kitsilano base left open. I hope my hon. colleague understands that.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live very close to Vancouver, unlike my friend from Prince Edward Island, and what the people of Vancouver want is an effective, efficient network of search and rescue resources.

As is the case across the country, that network includes many other resources in addition to the ones provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. We are continuing to provide that network. We believe that when all of the changes are implemented, including the new inshore rescue boat station, the new hovercraft and the new capacity with the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, we will be able to provide those services in a very effective way.