Debates of April 1st, 2014

Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy

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

Mr. Speaker, this is definitely a moment when we can praise the work of other parliamentarians who have led the way on this file. Certainly in the Conservative caucus, the member from Kitchener has done extraordinary work on this. In our caucus, the member from Windsor led the work on this committee.

I have to admit that I meant to attend that committee, and I did not. I was busy with ten thousand other things, but at that time, I thought palliative care was something that was good and that existed. It was when I saw that Perram House had shut down, and I began to look around and realized that there are huge gaps, that I went back and read the report that had been sitting on my desk. I saw that parliamentarians from all different parties had really looked at these issues.

This is one of the great things about being able to bring forward private member's initiatives. Sometimes in the hustle and bustle and the political back and forth, some of these very important issues that front-line people are calling for, are asking for, are dropped along the way. These are moments when, as parliamentarians, we can bring them back into the House and say that there are people who are looking to us to do something.

If we as the Parliament of Canada said that we believe in an integrated vision of palliative care, it would certainly set a conversation at the provincial level and at the communal level. We could actually build a better health care system, a better way of serving the population that is looking to us for leadership at this time.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 456, sponsored by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. Palliative and end-of-life care are important topics, and I would like to recognize the member for Timmins—James Bay for raising these concerns in his motion.

I would like to briefly share an experience from my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla that I believe is relevant to the motion we are discussing here today. Back in the early 1990s, Andy Moog, a citizen from Penticton and a former elite NHL Stanley Cup winning goalie, started up a unique charity golf tournament known as Moog and Friends. Each summer, some of the NHL's finest players, coaches, general managers, and media personalities gathered to raise funds for a very important cause. That cause was the Moog and Friends Hospice House, which provides palliative and end-of-life care for loved ones in my community.

Today, Mr. Moog and many of his friends are enjoying retirement, but the legacy of the Moog and Friends Hospice House lives on to serve the community. This hospice house, and the unique care it provides, was a first at the time for our region. It has made what can be some of life's most challenging moments more bearable, so that those we love can pass on with dignity and greater understanding. That is why Motion No. 456 is an important one and will become even more important as our population ages.

Indeed, we know that by 2020, Statistics Canada projects that there will be 330,000 deaths in Canada each year. By 2041, that number will rise to more than 432,000. These statistics demonstrate the need for palliative care services right across the country. We also have to recognize that providing these services will require significant resources. In fact, since 2006, our government has invested more than $43 million to support palliative care research and has delivered $3 million to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers. Our government understands the very difficult challenges faced by Canadian families when they are caring for aging loved ones who need palliative care.

We must also recognize that ultimately it is our partners in the provincial and territorial governments who have the lion's share of responsibility for managing and delivering health care, including palliative care. That does not mean that as a federal government we cannot provide support to the provinces and territories in these efforts.

The question that is most often raised, and at times debated, is how best we can provide that support. One way to improve end-of-life care is to integrate palliative care through the health care system, in all settings where people spend the end of their lives. Integrated care systems, for which our government delivered $3 million in economic action plan 2011 to support the development of this, has shown promise. This funding supports the development of community-integrated palliative care models, fostering collaboration among all jurisdictions and the health care community. The $3-million investment to the Pallium Foundation of Canada announced recently by the Minister of Health will also support training in palliative care to front-line health care providers.

The motion before the House today highlights the need for integrative models of palliative care and the need to encourage Canadians to discuss their wishes for end-of-life care. It also focuses on taking into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of Canada, both urban and rural. The federal initiatives from our government to date, implemented through non-governmental organizations with expertise in palliative care, align with a number of the components that the member for Timmins—James Bay raises in Motion No. 456.

We should also not overlook that to better support front-line health care providers and to improve the quality of life and consistency of palliative end-of-life care is to make available the best and most up-to-date evidence. Research provides that evidence.

Federal investments in research also help increase the depth and scope of our knowledge of issues related to end-of-life care and the best ways to address them.

Since 2006, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has invested over $43 million in the area of palliative care, including $7.8 million in 2012-13 alone. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council are supporting the Technology Evaluation in the Elderly Network project, which is part of the Networks Centre of Excellence program, with an investment of $23.9 million between 2012 and 2017.

This network aims at improving the care of seriously ill, elderly patients and their families through the development, rigorous evaluation, and ethical implementation of health care technologies.

While my comments earlier highlighted the responsibility of the provinces and territories, our government recognizes the federal role in providing health care services, including end-of-life care, to a number of groups including first nations and Inuit, members of the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and veterans. These services are provided directly by the federal government or managed in conjunction with the provinces and territories.

This government's contributions, which I have just described, complement services provided by provinces and territories. In addition, the funding we have delivered for research serves to inform palliative program delivery and quality improvements at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels. Taken together, these federal actions help address the needs identified by the motion put forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Indeed, this government agrees that palliative care is the best option for end-of-life care.

However, we would like to see this motion amended to instead seek the establishment of a federal framework instead of a pan-Canadian strategy as it is currently worded. This amendment would clarify the federal, provincial, and territorial roles in health care as I laid them out earlier. The development of this framework would engage provinces and territories, as well as key stakeholders, so that federal activities complement their emerging and ongoing activities; reducing the potential for duplication.

A federal framework could also provide opportunities to raise awareness, share information on federal palliative care activities, and support public awareness about advanced care planning, palliative care, and caregiving.

Without further ado, I would like to move that the motion be amended by first replacing all the words between the word “should” and paragraph (a) with the following: “develop a federal palliative and end-of-life care framework to guide the Government of Canada's efforts to improve palliative and end-of-life care. This framework will complement flexible, integrated approaches to palliative care developed by provinces and territories with relevant stakeholders; and,” and second, replacing paragraph (c) with the following: “aligns with the goals of improving access to high quality home-based and hospice palliative end-of-life care for all Canadians; supporting family caregivers, particularly those balancing paid work and caregiving responsibilities; improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice palliative end-of-life care in Canada; and encouraging Canadians to discuss and plan for end-of-life care”.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in this House to speak to the member's motion, show our support, and bring forward an amendment that we think could allow us all to rally behind this cause.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

I therefore ask the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay if he consents to this amendment being moved.

There is no consent.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could clarify. Because an amendment has been asked of me, am I able to respond?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Since the hon. member does not consent to the amendment, we do not have an occasion to debate it. It is therefore not moved, if one could suggest that be the status of it.

We will move to resuming debate.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hon. member for bringing forward this very important motion. I want to suggest, however, that we add one amendment to the motion. I know that we are not allowed to do that, but I would like to include after the word “integrated” the word “comprehensive”. It is because it is not only about integrating a system of care we are talking about. It is about looking at all the elements of care that are necessary. The hon. member, in putting forward what is a broad-based recommendation, leaves it open for some of us to talk about areas that we feel are missing. The word “comprehensive” would encompass all of this.

The whole concept of palliative care is not a simple thing that happens when one's life is ending or when one is dying and wants to die a good death, as the word euthanatos means. What we are talking about here is the issue of palliative care as part of a continuum of care that should be divided, actually, into three parts. The three parts we want to look at have to be divided into the different levels of the end of life.

First, there are seniors ending their lives with chronic diseases who need to or can live in their homes. While those chronic diseases may eventually speed up their deaths, the point is that they are able to take care of themselves in their homes with a system that facilitates good home care.

The second part is a diagnosis of impending end-of-life, when the patient needs assisted care but is not yet dying.

The third piece we need to look at is the final piece, which is when the person is dying, which is when palliative care fits in.

Currently, palliative care and any of these levels of care are not considered to be core, mandated levels of care under the Canada Health Act. Therefore, they are spotty at best. We have some places where there is a wonderful integrated, comprehensive system in place and some places where there is practically nothing at all. That is why the motion is important.

The thing to remember is that 26,000 seniors die each day in Canada. Only a small percentage of them have the ability to get the kind of care they need as they lead up to and eventually end up needing palliative care.

The parliamentary committee, in 2011, had some excellent recommendations. As we develop a model to implement this, we can look at them, because some were quite comprehensive.

We need to talk about an integrated, comprehensive system, because we need to look at some areas that are not mentioned in the motion. One of them is support for caregivers. It is not only support for caregivers to take time off work so that they can look after the chronically ill and/or diagnosed patient. We need to have respite in place for caregivers. If caregivers are the only people on whom the care falls within the family, and they do not have an opportunity to take some time off to deal with some of the stress and emotional pain they have while they are looking after a loved one, we will not have fitted the system out properly. We would only consider burdening the actual family member with all the care and compensating them for it. Respite and time off is an important part of any support for caregivers.

I also want to talk about a piece that is not fully mentioned but that is really important. That is the issue of housing. I think we have forgotten that housing is a determinant of health and that housing is a core part of any kind of comprehensive and integrated system. As we get to the home care part, for instance, when people may be able to stay at home when they reach a particular point in their chronic disease and can still take care of themselves with help, we need to ask if we can retrofit homes. Do we have a program that would retrofit and renovate homes so that it would be possible for the person to live that period of their time at home?

Are we looking at new housing strategies through which people, once they get to the assisted living part, can move into an assisted living centre with all of the higher-level care that they may need, and eventually move on to palliative care in a facility particularly dedicated to palliative care?

The important piece that I would like to add is the comprehensive piece. We must talk about housing if we are to achieve that full system, and we must talk about respite if we are going to achieve proper support.

Pieces are missing. I support the intent, but there are pieces missing. For instance, we know that only 10 out of 17 medical schools in the country have any teaching program at all to train physicians in palliative care. Most physicians get something like a 10-hour course in those 10 universities, so most physicians are not really equipped to deal with palliative care.

The important thing is to look at how we educate and train caregivers, whether they are nurses, physicians, or others, to deliver appropriate care and to understand all of the pieces involved in end-of-life care, including the spiritual pieces, the cultural pieces, the emotional pieces, and all of that. We do not yet have that kind of training in place. That is one of the pieces that would be needed as we look at a comprehensive, integrated model of care.

The idea of helping people to develop a plan is very important. I think of the Canadian Medical Association meeting last summer. The doctors all talked about the fact that they did not do this very well, that they needed to start reaching out to their patients to talk about some sort of plan, and that patients need to understand that they can reach out to their physicians, or, if they are in a community care setting, to the nurse practitioners, the home care nurses, or whoever is looking after them to be able to discuss this matter openly.

The ideas here are excellent. I just wanted to add some elements to it that I think would strengthen it. That is why I wanted the word “comprehensive” in it. The mover of the motion may not agree with me, but after the word “integrated”, I would add “comprehensive” so that we deal not only with the health care system but also with other systems that would support it with palliative care.

That is what I had to say. I support the motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just for clarification, does the hon. member for Vancouver Centre wish to propose an amendment to the motion at this time?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Could she say state the amendment to the motion again?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the motion would begin after “establish a Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy by working with provinces and territories”. I would like add “and other groups” and then instead of “on a flexible, integrated model”, I would add “comprehensive” after “integrated”. I would like say “a flexible, integrated, comprehensive model”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will need the amendment to be put in writing and submitted, and perhaps indicate the seconder.

Perhaps while we are under way with that, what we might do is seek consent, as we did in the last intervention, again subject to Standing Order 93(3). As members know, an amendment cannot be proposed to a private member's motion without the sponsor's consent. I therefore ask, based on what has been presented, whether the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay would consent to such an amendment.

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

No, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There being no consent, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), the amendment proposed cannot be moved at this time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to support my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, and this great motion he has brought before the House.

It is a simple and straightforward motion, but it is incredibly important. As the member outlined, it is about establishing a pan-Canadian palliative care, end-of-life care strategy. It is about providing more support for caregivers, improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice, palliative, end-of-life care, and actually encouraging Canadians to discuss this issue.

When we look at our health care system, sometimes we think that things do not affect us. However, I think it is very true to say that we have all had experiences where a family member, a close friend, or maybe a neighbour, has been in the situation where they are approaching the end of their life, and it becomes a real struggle in terms of where they might be and what kind of care they might receive.

Palliative care and end-of-life care, whether in a hospice or at home, is something that is really very deep. It is very meaningful. For many years, we did not talk about these issues. We do not like to talk about death or think about what happens to us at the end.

However, we should talk about it. More than that, we need to have public policy around it. That is why this motion is so important. It shows us that across the country there are incredible examples of palliative care.

However, it is very patchy. For example, in my community in East Vancouver, the St. James Cottage Hospice, located in an historic building in Burrard View Park, is an amazing place. It is like a home. It is a place where people feel comfortable. It is where they have dignity. They do tremendous work there.

Every year in our community in East Vancouver, there is a festival of lights. The houses are dressed up with Christmas lights, and people vote and give donations in the street adjacent to the palliative care home. The money goes to palliative care. The whole community comes together to express itself. It is a wonderful initiative undertaken.

We need to state in this debate that, unfortunately, there are big gaps in the system. I was very proud last Monday when the NDP unveiled a very important document based on 18 months of consultation across the country about health care in Canada.

We went out and talked to Canadians. We did our homework about what needs to be done to improve and sustain our public health care system. It is a wonderful document, and I would certainly urge people to go check it out on the NDP website.

In the public forums and consultations we held across the country, one of the key issues people put forward, based on their own experience, their own need about what they know needs to happen, was that we need better home, long-term, and palliative care. That came through to us again and again.

I would like to quote from that document we put out a week ago.

Canadians want to see home care, long term care, and palliative care recognized as essential medical services just like treatment in the hospital. These services are not luxuries, and they need to be fully accessible, whatever a patient’s income, and provided at the same high quality and standards wherever they live.

That quote has come to us in our document because of what people told us. We are very cognizant that palliative care is part of a bigger issue that needs to be critically addressed in this country, which is the issue of continuing care of which palliative care is a part.

We do need to have home care. We do need to have long-term care. Again, it is very spotty across the country. Some provinces do well, others do not. People who live in smaller and remote communities have very little access.

The reliance we have on acute care facilities, the over-reliance because there is nowhere else to go, people end up in hospital, as the member for Timmins—James Bay pointed out. For people to die with dignity, they need to be in an appropriate place where there is support, resources, the right kind of medication to relieve pain, and the right kind of guidance, whether spiritual or emotional, from their family.

These are probably the most important times in anyone's life, yet these services really do not exist across the country in the way they should.

I really want to make the point today that in debating this motion, let us recognize that it is linked to a bigger issue around our health care system and that we have to make sure that the federal government shows leadership on this issue.

There are many reforms needed in our health care system. This is one of them. Today, I met with a group, the Parkinson's Association. I have met with many other groups. They all say the same thing, which is that the burdens financially and sometimes emotionally of caregiving create enormous stress for the family where people have to leave work, quit their jobs, and take out loans.

This is not what should be happening. There are incredible groups out there who have been calling for this kind of pan-Canadian end-of-life care strategy for so long. I think it is fantastic that we had an all-party parliamentary committee working on this issue.

Now that we are actually having this debate, we have our own power here to vote, one by one. We have the power to say that this motion has merit, that it is legitimate and has all of this groundwork, all of this homework, behind it. It is non-partisan. It crosses all political lines. We have this opportunity in the House to vote for this motion and to say to the government that this is the will of Parliament.

It is based on what we hear from our constituents. It might be based on our own experience. I certainly have my own experience. My partner of 24 years died of cancer just before I was elected. We were very fortunate that we had palliative care at home under the B.C. health care system.

I cannot imagine what that experience, as hard as it was, would have been like if my partner had been in a hospital, just in a ward or maybe in the hallway. Being at home and having people around him who loved him and cared for him on a daily basis and having the professional help and support that we needed was critical to how we went through our own process of grieving and losing someone that we loved so much.

That is just my experience, and this is manifest in hundreds of thousands of people across the country every day, so I want to say, let us pay attention to the motion. Let us look at how it is putting something forward that is real and legitimate. Let us put aside partisanship. Let us recognize the good work that has been done on this issue by an all-party committee. Let us unite, come together, and say to the government that we want to pass this motion so that the Government of Canada will establish a pan-Canadian palliative care strategy.

I would also like to move an amendment.

I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “Canada; (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of Canada's first nation, Inuit and Métis people” with the words “Canada, as well as Canada's first nation, Inuit and Métis people; (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of all Canadians”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have had some practice with this tonight. We are seeing consent from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Resuming debate. We will go to the hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to stand and speak tonight to Motion No. 456, and to draw attention to the palliative care needs and the end-of-life care needs of many Canadians.

I want to say to the mover of this motion that I appreciate that it is a motion and not a bill. I personally believe we can accomplish more in private members' time with motions than we do with small changes to legislation. This one is a bigger picture issue and it is very important that it has been brought forward.

As we know, the senior population in Canada is growing. In 2012, there were more than five million seniors in Canada, which is about 15% of the population. Based on what I have read, I believe that number may even double within the next 15 to 20 years. That is because of advancements in medicine and other factors that allow Canadians to live longer.

It is important for us to be ready for that aging population, even though many seniors today are very active in their older years, and that is very important. A few weeks ago I presented a bill on obesity, diabetes, and staying active, not just for youth but also for seniors.

Today's motion before the House draws some attention to the role of family caregivers. A Statistics Canada study revealed that family and friends provide 80% to 90% of the care for ill or disabled persons in our community. It is important to note that one-quarter of these caregivers are seniors themselves and are helping other seniors, whether their own spouses or family members. It can be expected that this will only increase with the increase in baby boomers.

At this point, I know other speakers have made this motion a bit of a personal piece, and I would like to take this time to do that on two fronts. One is that we are talking about hospice care. When I was on the council in the City of Burlington in 1999, it came to our attention that there was a need for palliative care and hospice care. Through the leadership of the mayor at the time, Mayor MacIsaac, and the Rotary Clubs of Burlington, they came up with a plan. By 2002, we had a 10-bed hospice, or maybe 12-bed, which was also able to exist because of the generosity of a number of Burlingtonians including the Carpenter family, which was the lead donor on the Carpenter Hospice, as we know it today. That was in 2002. As of last check, it has served over 1,600 individuals who lived there in palliative care since its inception. I have been very proud to be part of the council that developed that.

The other area that is very important to me and my family is that I am very fortunate to have relatively long life in my family. In fact, my grandmother Wallace will be celebrating her 97th birthday in a week and a half, or so. We are very proud of grandmother Wallace. Her mother, Granny Lasalle, lived to 100 years old; so I might be here for a while. In fact my Granny Lasalle worked on Parliament Hill. She was a housekeeping employee and, in a picture I have seen, she is cleaning the Prime Minister's offices.

We have been very fortunate. I want to wish my grandmother a very happy birthday. What is important is that she lives with my uncle and aunt. She has lived with a number of my dad's brothers over the years, and they are providing the care and support for her. We are very fortunate that Grandma Wallace is in really good health, but that is not the same for every family.

I lost another grandmother in the fall who was age 96. She was living with my parents for about five years. Therefore, I completely understand, from a personal perspective, the need for family members and the responsibility that goes along with end-of-life care and palliative care and care for seniors. The role that my Uncle Jack and Aunt Millie are playing for Grandma Wallace and that my Uncle Myles and his wife Cathy played for my grandmother Wallace in past years and that my own parents, Len and Cassie Wallace, played for my Grandma Gray make a big difference in the quality of life for them as the end of years come closer.

I am hoping, based on the 10% rule, that my Grandma Wallace will outlive her mother by about 10%. That will make her about 110 by the time she needs palliative care, and I am looking forward to that. That also means I will be the member of Parliament for Burlington until I am 120. Hopefully, I will have moved on before then.

Our government recognizes the critical role that many Canadians play in caring for family and friends with health conditions or disabilities, in addition to balancing their own work lives and family responsibilities. In 2012, over eight million individuals, or about 28% of Canadian adults, provided unpaid care to family members or friends with a long-term or terminal health condition, disability, or aging needs. Of these caregivers, about 67% provided care to a senior. Most often, family caregivers providing end-of-life care were caring for their own parents, as was happening in my own family. About one out of every 13 caregivers has provided this type of care in the last year alone.

Our government recognizes that while family caregiving is both beneficial and rewarding, it can also be very difficult. Take, for instance, the negative health impacts experienced by caregivers, particularly among seniors caring for other seniors, and those caring for individuals suffering from very difficult diseases like Alzheimer's and other related dementia. As these individuals become less capable of taking care of themselves, caregivers assume the responsibilities for their personal care. This gradual loss of independence often creates additional levels of stress and anxiety for the person with the disease, the caregiver, and the caregiver's family.

We have also supported research that is helping inform decisions as to how best to help the families and caregivers of people with chronic and progressive conditions. Indeed, since 2006, we have invested more than $650 million in research in areas related to aging, including more than $100 million in 2012 alone. Ongoing research, supported by our government, is also filling gaps in knowledge about rates of neurological conditions in Canada, including Alzheimer's disease. It is also looking at the efforts of individuals with these conditions, their families, and other caregivers.

Supporting Canada's caregivers presents an increasingly complex challenge, in part because of the very needs of each recipient and because of the unique situation of each caregiver. Responding to such needs typically involves the engagement of several partners at all levels of government, with the support of community-based organizations and employers. In addition to the above-mentioned research, the Canadian government has provided a variety of supports for unpaid family caregivers. For instance, economic action plan 2014 announced our intention to launch the Canadian employers for caregivers plan. This plan would engage employers to identify and implement cost-effective and promising workplace practices that better support employed caregivers.

I appreciate the motion from the member opposite to highlight and bring attention to the issue of palliative and end-of-life care, the important role of family members and family care for those in need, for the other opportunities that need to be addressed in working with other partners, including the provinces, and making sure that we have these services for the growing senior population we will have over the next number of years.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

Rail Transportation

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on January 28, CN announced it will terminate passenger services on the Algoma Central Railway because the government changed the subsidy that offset the losses incurred by providing the service. The last run is set for the end of April. The timing of the announcement was especially bad for tourist businesses such as lodges and outfitters, many of whom were attending trade shows and drumming up clients for the summer.

Shortly after that, I asked the Minister of Transport why the government would abandon the businesses, property owners, and communities along the line and was told the government is not in the business of giving money to profitable companies like CN.

While that statement could be challenged vigorously, time constraints will spare the government an itemized list that would surely begin with $1.3 billion in subsidies for the profitable oil and gas sector.

What is missing from the hard line being taken is any recognition of the economic cascade this will create. This is not a clear-cut case of saving $2.2 million. Every dollar invested in passenger rail creates economic activity along the line and supports a variety of business ventures.

Although there is no formal impact assessment, some of that work has been undertaken by the stakeholder group of communities, businesses, first nations, fur managers, property owners, outdoor enthusiasts, and passenger rail supporters who are working to save passenger services. They prepared a basic level of assessment that estimates the current regional economic impact of ACR passenger service at $20 million a year. Put another way, every dollar invested by the government creates $9 of economic activity.

These findings are consistent with an independent study undertaken by Tourism Ontario in 2013 on the economic impact of sport fishing in Algoma.

The subsidy was lost when the government removed the rural component from the former rural and remote passenger rail subsidy. The rationale for classifying the ACR as rural rests in the government's opinion that the communities and businesses along the line can be accessed by road. This is flawed thinking.

The government is assuming the industrial roads are safe and reliable for public use, but most of these are secondary roads and many are not even open during the winter. Also, people using them at their own risk may fall into an insurance vacuum should something happen while travelling on them.

The community of Oba is a good example. People there will be effectively isolated without passenger service. Oba has no access by public road. The only option is an industrial road that people can be denied access to at any time, and there is no guarantee that the road will be maintained either.

For those reasons alone, the ACR should receive the remote line subsidy, and if the government had done a proper assessment, we would not be having this discussion.

One thing this experience has done is to further shatter the myth of a seat at the table ensuring a constituency's good fortune under any government. This has a huge effect on the community of Sault Ste. Marie, which is represented by a member of the governing party. Many people in that community are having a difficult time believing the member has been working diligently behind the scenes on their behalf when he appeared to have been caught off guard by CN's announcement. He followed up by claiming “We didn't know how CN was going to respond” and indicated it would be his preference that CN continue the service at its own expense.

That amounts to wilful ignorance and wishful thinking. CN has no obligation to subsidize passenger services. It is far more appropriate for the government to maintain the subsidy, which is in keeping with other public transportation investments it is making.

It is also wishful thinking to believe that industrial road access is a guaranteed option as well. Those roads are maintained for the benefit of companies and can be abandoned at any time.

With that in mind, and with so many businesses, jobs, communities, and property owners left twisting in the wind, would the government do the right thing and find the money to support passenger services on the Algoma Central Railway?

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's role in the discontinuation process of rail lines is to provide a legislative framework that encourage stakeholders to seek commercial solutions to address this discontinuation.

The Canada Transportation Act outlines the process railways must follow if they want to stop providing service. The line transfer and discontinuation provisions in the Canada Transportation Act are aimed at encouraging retention of rail lines, where it makes sense to do so, by giving other railways or other interested parties the opportunity to continue railway operations.

The decision to cancel the Algoma Central Railway passenger rail service between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst was a business decision made by CN, the owner of the railway.

At one point in time, some communities along the Algoma Central Railway relied upon the rail line as their only means of access. However, other transportation options, including local highways, are now available on a year-round basis. As a result, the ridership on the service has declined by 37% in recent years, to less than 5,000 riders annually.

With regard to the situation in New Brunswick, CN will continue to be responsible for maintaining the rail line, to ensure that service is not disrupted while the discontinuation process is under way. If CN does not complete the discontinuation process for the portion of the track in New Brunswick, VIA Rail, an independent crown corporation, will be responsible for making decisions about its passenger rail services.

This government provides significant funding to support passenger rail services. In 2013-14 alone, the Government of Canada provided VIA Rail, a crown corporation that operates independently of the government, with $305 million to provide passenger rail services to Canadians. Since 2007, the government has also provided VIA Rail with nearly $1 billion in capital funding to support projects, such as station upgrades, railcar refurbishment, and track improvements.

The government will continue to monitor these two situations, but ultimately believes that railways are commercial enterprises and that its role is to encourage commercial solutions to address rail line discontinuance.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot wash its hands of this. Some $2.2 million is how much the current government spends on advertising every 10 days to promote itself, but when the chips are down it claims it is broke. The irony is not lost on the people affected by this.

However, there is still a chance to do the right thing for the lodges and outfitters that will be most affected by the end of ACR passenger services. Unfortunately, it is expected that the loss of service will force some of these outfitters out of business altogether.

I have received a great many messages from tourists as well, who have travelled from all over the world to ride the rails to these remote destinations. They tell me that the train is a big part of the experience and that its loss will affect their desire to return.

I am sure that most members are aware that sport fishing is a multi-billion-dollar industry in North America. Although many outfitters are accessible by well-maintained public roads, there are unfortunately only a few that offer the unique experience of arriving by train.

Will the government do the right thing and come up with the funds to maintain this passenger service in order to protect businesses, which it appears to be abandoning?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the decision by CN to discontinue the passenger rail service between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst is a business decision made by a private company. The Government of Canada has no direct role in owning or operating railways, and the member knows that.

Railway companies are private entities that make their own decisions concerning their operations and what services and routes to offer to their customers.

Those are the facts.

International Trade

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 28, I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Conservatives intended to seriously consider the proposal put forward by cheese producers.

Since the free trade agreement was signed with Europe, cheese producers, particularly in Quebec, have been working hard to find an appropriate compensation formula.

According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the EU's additional access of 17,700 tonnes of cheese allowed under the agreement is equivalent to a 2.25% cut in farm quota, which represents a possible farm income loss of nearly $150 million per year.

The Conseil des industriels laitiers du Québec developed a plan that would ensure that additional import quotas were run by producers and that would harmonize the standards. These adjustments would be phased in over seven years. This plan would provide appropriate compensation for cheese producers and would cost the federal government virtually nothing.

The Conservative government promised to compensate large and small Canadian cheese producers. It must therefore consider proposals that would allow it to keep that promise.

However, to date, the government has not put forward any concrete proposals. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé moved a motion in this regard that the government was very quick to ignore.

The motion calls on the government to reveal details without delay related to the compensation that will be paid to dairy and cheese producers; provide for an implementation period for the agreement that is as long as possible to allow producers to adapt; put an end to the circumvention of tariff quotas and the misclassification of products at the border; maintain high quality standards by imposing the same production and processing requirements on imported products; and commit to provide support for commercialization. Nonetheless, there has been nothing but silence from the government.

Canadian cheese producers need to know immediately what compensation they can expect to get from the federal government, particularly since no money was set aside for this sector in the most recent budget, even though there was money set aside for other industries, such as the automotive industry and the fishery.

It goes without saying that Canadian fine cheeses already have a well-established reputation. There are hundreds of varieties of high-quality cheese available, particularly in Quebec. We need to quickly find ways to protect this key agri-food sector before the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement comes into force.

Will the Conservatives seriously consider the proposal by the Conseil des industriels laitiers du Québec?

The last time I asked this question, I got a response that I felt was unsatisfactory. I am therefore asking it again today to learn a little bit more about the government's take on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question because it allows me to underline our government's support of Canada's dairy industry and supply management.

The dairy industry plays a vital role in Canada's economy. In 2012, the industry generated approximately $20.6 billion in both farm gate and processor sales. That has translated into thousands of jobs for Canadians while helping to support a stable economy. Our government continues to support an innovative Canadian dairy industry.

Under Growing Forward 2, we have increased that investment to $12 million to continue the cluster's great work over the next five years. The cluster will be led from a research centre in Sherbrooke, Quebec, home of a state-of-the-art dairy complex, supported by a $12-million federal investment.

We underscored our support for the supply management in the Speech from the Throne. It states that in protecting and promoting Canada's traditional industries, the government will seek “to develop new markets for Canadian products, while supporting supply management”.

This government continues to make it very clear that it supports supply management. Every single one of the three pillars of supply management remains intact: one, production control; two, import controls; and, three, price controls. However, the member does not need to take my word for it. Wally Smith, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, said the following at the agriculture committee on this very subject: “Yes, the three pillars are still in place”.

We are committed to monitoring any potential impacts from the implementation of this agreement on dairy producers' income and to provide compensation to address such impacts if they materialize.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is singing the praises of dairy farmers and fine cheese producers in Canada and Quebec, but this is all a ruse, since there is not currently a serious offer on the table to compensate these producers, who will probably suffer as a result of the free trade agreement that was just signed.

I do not want to hear about the investments that have been made in the past. I want to know what the government plans to do in the future for these producers who work very hard and who will have a hard time competing as a result of this agreement. That is what people want to know.