Debates of Nov. 9th, 2017

Report Stage

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member has drawn the conclusion that he will not support this proposed legislation. This is legislation that was campaigned on in the last federal election, and the government got a very strong mandate. I think that Canadians as a whole want to see cannabis and marijuana dealt with in a very progressive fashion, and we have a bill that would really make a difference.

In terms of the criminal element, and the number of young people, this is good-news legislation. I would suggest to my Conservative colleagues across the way that they might want to reconsider their position on this proposed legislation. I believe society will be in a better place if we have a regime where there is strong regulation and the ability to keep more cannabis and marijuana out of the hands of children. We know that, here in Canada, we have the highest percentage per capita of children using cannabis of any country in the world.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a bill that is nothing like what the Liberals ran on in the federal election. In addition to that, the strong mandate that the member talked about is 39% of Canadians in support. It is not the majority of Canadians who have supported them. If the member is so adamant about the Liberals' position that they ran on in the election, they would have come up with a much more coherent bill.

The bill before us tries to say two opposite things at the same time. I do not know what to say on it anymore. The entire point of my speech was that the bill is nothing more than wanting to raise taxes off the legalization of marijuana. When we look at it through that lens, suddenly the bill might make a little sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-45.

Before I start my comments on Bill C-45, let me take a minute to reflect on the upcoming weekend and the remembrance services that many of us in this room will be attending this coming weekend, and to thank our veterans for the freedoms that we enjoy. Last weekend, I had the privilege of attending a number of remembrance services in New Dundee, New Hamburg, Linwood, and Elmira. This coming weekend, I will be in New Hamburg, Waterloo, Kitchener, and Elmira again. Let us just to think of the sacrifice that our veterans have made, and thank our legions for the great work that they do in not only supporting our veterans but also in helping us never to forget. I want to highlight that before I get into my remarks on Bill C-45.

There are a number of really important issues that are dealt with in this chamber on a daily basis. Over the last number of weeks, we have discussed a number of them, from rising debt to taxation, supposedly fair taxation, the economy, the deficit that is growing every day, and the amazing excessive interest we will be paying on that over the next four years of $33 billion per year. All of these things are important. However, in relation to the topic before us today, really they are of minor significance. This topic we are discussing today will have a life-changing impact not only on our youth and our citizens but on the very nation of Canada. I think it is important that we think clearly and soberly about the changes we are making, especially as it relates to three areas.

I first want to refer to our youth. That has been referred to many times today, the health, safety, and well-being of our children and our grandchildren, the safety of all Canadians on the roads, and the social risks that are involved in our communities with complaints and issues that will arise between neighbours.

However, let me first refer to our youth.

In question period today, my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, and I just happened to catch it, made this great statement that the decisions we make reveal the values we hold. How much do we, as members of Parliament, in this room value the youth of Canada? That is a question that we need to ask. I believe youth are a sacred trust that every one of us in this room has an obligation to guard seriously. We cannot take this obligation lightly.

The Liberals claim repeatedly that the purpose of this legislation is to protect our young people and to increase public safety. How can we keep this drug out of the hands of our youth when we are actually allowing four plants per household? How can we say we are keeping it out of the hands of our youth when we are allowing 12-year-olds to have up to five grams in their possession? We often hear of people being polled about whether they favour the legalization of marijuana, and the polls are all over the place, but it is somewhere around 50:50 or 60:40. However, I am convinced that if we were to give the details of what this bill entails with respect to the availability of four plants per household and up to five grams for 12-year-olds, we would get a much different answer.

The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Psychiatric Association have both stated that Canadians who consume marijuana recreationally under the age of 25 have a higher risk of developing mental illness, such as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. We can all probably tell some anecdotal stories of family members or neighbours who have been derailed by the early use of marijuana.

The Canadian Psychiatric Association says:

Regular cannabis use in youth and young adults can affect aspects of cognition...attention, memory, processing speed, visuospatial functioning and overall intelligence. Worse performance is related to earlier adolescent onset of use.

I do not know how much earlier an onset one could get than offering this availability to a 12-year-old. Therefore, parents and grandparents are very concerned about the direction in which this bill is going.

Dr. Diane Kelsall in the Canadian Medical Association Journal wrote, “Most of us know a young person whose life was derailed because of marijuana use. Bill C-45 is unlikely to prevent such tragedies from occurring—and, conversely, may make them more frequent.”

There are far too many young people who have already been derailed. These are not just opinions, these are medical and psychiatric experts, and it is important that we listen to them.

I want to use the bulk of my time today to listen to one of the youth of Canada, who is concerned that this legislation and the actions we approve here in this House would, or could, in fact derail young people. She does not want to be one of those derailed, and she does not want her friends to be derailed. This young person is my granddaughter who wrote this two years ago, in November 2015, when she was 15 years old. She wrote:

Marijuana, the dangerous substance that damages our lungs, brain, educational value and social activity is the substance the government of Canada is trying to legalize. Claims say that legalization will erode the black market but in reality, legalizing marijuana will give people easier access to the drug. Recently I heard the testimony of a man who at age 14 was heading to Toronto for 420 with one hundred dollars worth of Marijuana. The fact that ten years ago a 14 year old boy who had no job and no car was able to get his hands on one hundred dollars worth of weed blows my mind. Can you imagine how easy it would be for someone to get marijuana now, especially if it were to become legal? Easier access to Marijuana will have many negative effects for Canada such as major health damage, ruining our educational system, our workplace and our society. The future of Canada rests in the hands of our generation, there is no way marijuana will be a positive tool in that regard....

With long term and short term effects the list of things that marijuana does to damage your health is endless. Short term effects include impaired memory, impaired body movement, changes in mood, hallucinations, paranoia, difficulty thinking and problem solving. Along with temporary damage Marijuana proves to once again be a dangerous substance having a long lasting effect on your brain and mental health. A study showed that people who started heavily smoking marijuana in their teens lost an average of eight IQ points between ages of 13 and 38. Even after quitting as an adult the lost mental abilities did not fully return. There are many different ways to consume Marijuana but no matter which way, it is harmful. Marijuana smoke contains the same tar and chemicals that are found in tobacco smoke which will lead to the inflammation of bronchitis. The drug harms cells lining and respiratory tract leading to precancerous changes that are associated with lung, head and neck cancer. Marijuana also stimulates your heart rate and blood pressure which can increase the risk of heart attack among individuals. I have named only a few of the health risks that occur when marijuana is consumed however, I hope that this is enough to strongly discourage you from believing the legalization of medical marijuana will infact be a positive thing in any way shape or form.

She went on:

The damage of marijuana does not end with your health, the drugs negative effect leads into your educational life as well. A review of 48 different relevant studies all found that marijuana use is associated with reduced chances of graduating. A recent analysis of data from studies in Australia and New Zealand found that youth who have used marijuana regularly were significantly less likely to finish highschool and obtain a degree than their non-using peers. Marijuana is encouraging lazy work habits and a 'don't care' attitude, leading students down the path of becoming a high school dropout. The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) reports that while under the influence of marijuana the still developing brain will have difficulty retaining memories, when related back to school this can seriously affect your learning skills as a student. “Falling behind in school is par for the course when marijuana use is a factor. It's not an issue solely based on loss of memory; they also report that psychological skills are reduced among students as well, decreasing their ability to sustain their self-confidence and remain focused on achieving academic and other goals”—NIDA. Even though marijuana is an illegal drug it has not stopped teens and students from buying and using the drug, what is to happen now if marijuana becomes legal? By legalizing this drug we are practically encouraging students to go out and get high, ruining their high school career and affecting whatever may lay beyond that....

Believe me when I say that marijuana not only negatively affects your health, your education but your social and work life as well. Studies show specific links between the use of marijuana and the workplace such as increased risk of injuries and accidents. One study among postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on a urine drug test had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries, and 75 percent greater absence compared with those who tested negative for marijuana. After all of the papers you wrote, tests you studied for and emotional trials you went through over the minimum of 16 years of schooling, is it really worth it to throw that all away for the temporary high of marijuana?

....Before make the decision to legalize this dangerous substance lets first think of all of the health risks caused by this drug, the negative effect that it would have on our educational system and how different and harmful the workplace and our economy would be with marijuana easily accessible and legal.

I have so much more to share.

Let me finish with some comments by Dr. Diane Kelsall, director of the Canadian Medical Association, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. She says, “If Parliament truly cares about the public health and safety of Canadians, especially our youth, this bill will not pass.”

I hope my colleagues will listen.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga is sincerely concerned and I want to address some of those concerns so I might perhaps ease his mind.

My colleague has said, as did many of his colleagues earlier, that this legislation authorizes 12-year-olds to possess cannabis. That in fact is misleading, and it is really important for every member of the House to understand exactly how this law will be applied.

One of the harms that we are attempting to reduce in this legislation is the criminalization of kids. We do not believe the best way to protect our kids is to put them in jail, so under this legislation possession of over five grams will remain a criminal offence, but for amounts less than that, young persons aged 12 to the age of majority will be subject to an absolute prohibition on the possession, purchase, and consumption of this substance under provincial regulation.

We have worked with all of the provinces, and those who have already announced their regulatory regimes have made it very clear that they will enforce a prohibition. A young person between the ages of 12 and 18 or 19, depending on the provincial decision on what the age would be, would be subject to an absolute prohibition enforceable by a provincial offences ticket. The police could seize the drug. The police can charge the youth, not under the criminal law, but under a provincial statute. That is precisely how we deal with alcohol in each of our provinces and territories. This actually reduces a significant harm.

I hope this information might assist the member by addressing the concerns he has raised.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said anything above five grams would be a criminal offence. The bill does not indicate that anything above five grams for those 18-years-old and beyond would not be a criminal offence. My concern remains.

When we give a message to youth aged 12 to 18 there will be no prohibition for being in possession of up to five grams of marijuana, and in addition give homeowners the ability to grow up to four plants within each household, we have a recipe for easy access for youth, and not one that would keep this drug out of their hands.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for sharing what young people are actually saying about this legislation. I have heard the same thing. My youth group also told me that this is a bad idea.

I would like him to address two important things that the Liberals keep repeating over and over again that I find very misleading. They have said the reason they are doing this is to keep it out of the hands of kids and organized crime. Everyone in the House would agree that that is a great thing to do, but this legislation would not do it. The Liberals are trying to push a message out, but I find it is really misleading and, in a way, very deceitful.

Could my colleague please address why the bill would not keep it out of the hands of kids and not keep the profits out of the hands of organized crime? We know it will not do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the deceitful aspect of the bill is very similar to what the Liberals are doing on the taxation front. They say they are going to tax the wealthy and put those dollars into the hands of the middle class, when in fact in the last couple of weeks we have seen exactly the opposite. Those who are wealthy and well-connected have been left totally alone, with not a cent increase in their taxation, while those in the middle class who are working hard, including farmers and small business owners, are being accused by the Liberals as tax cheats.

To imply that this legislation would keep drugs out of the hands of youth is certainly not accurate when we see that kids aged 12 to 18 will be able to have five grams in their possession. This is not the way to go.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member mention the negative aspects of cannabis consumption, but he did not mention any solution. He did not offer anything.

The fact is that five or ten years ago when his party was in government, it did nothing. He would know their solution was often nothing. At least our government is taking steps to legislate and to invest in education. We are investing $46 million in public education and awareness. We are also investing $274 million to support law enforcement and border officials.

I request the member to address these issues also.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative position is not to go down this very dangerous road. We have heard many times today about the Colorado experiment and what that state is doing. I do not have the very latest report, but I do have this one dated September 2016 showing some of the negative impacts. Marijuana-related traffic deaths have increased 48% in over three years on average, from 2103 to 2015. Before that period, the increase was only 11%.

I would ask for unanimous consent to table this document or, better yet, the updated one from 2017 to allow my Liberal colleagues to see the negative results in jurisdictions that have authorized the recreational use of marijuana. The statistics are alarming. For my colleagues not even to want to look at this, I find unconscionable. We have an obligation in the House to stand up for the protection of the youth of our country, and I hope we will do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Just to be clear, is the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga requesting unanimous consent to table this report?

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

Absolutely.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak in the House in regard to Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.

I am trying to think of an appropriate word to use that the people across the aisle would possibly accept and understand. The bill is harmful to young people. It is harmful to our society. It is poorly thought out. It is extremely rushed, and as a result, it is very dangerous legislation for us to be putting forward in Canada.

The Liberals claim that it will protect the health of young persons. That is one of their virtuous goals in putting this forward. Medical professionals have talked about mental health issues, including addiction, and the impact on the developing brain. Data shows that 30% to 40% of young people under the age of 25 who use cannabis will develop psychotic disorders, depression, or anxiety disorders. This is information from professionals, as my colleague was trying to present to the House to enable the Liberal Party to read and possibly discern that there are dangers in what they are suggesting they legalize in Canada.

The Liberals also talk about restricting access by young people. I have never heard a more confusing argument: trying to restrict the use of a dangerous substance by legalizing it and actually making it more available to young people. We know that the bill would allow young people between the ages of 12 and 18 to possess five grams at any one time. This would not say to young people that this is not something they should do. It would say it is okay for them to have this. Maybe it is because they do not want them to have a criminal record. It is irrational to say we do not want them to have a criminal record, so they can take and hold this much. It is not right, because it would encourage them to consider this.

In grade seven, I was part of a debate team. Our class was given this topic: grade seven students are juvenile and immature. Of course, we wanted to debate against that, because we were in grade seven, and we were not juvenile and not immature. My teacher told us to debate the other side, and somehow he convinced us to do that. We won that debate, because grade seven students are juvenile and immature. They are not grown up yet. They are formulating what their values are, and here we are with a government that is saying to them to go ahead and have five grams in their possession at any one time. It does not take long to realize that it would be a risk to them on many levels, besides their trying to process it with their own moral values. They could be coerced to carry it for others, possibly parents, or possibly older teens in the family who want more available. They could carry it for their siblings or their parents or a friend.

These young people also could be very much drawn into the black market to be handlers. I think especially of youth at risk. We like to think that this is not going to impact them in any way, but it will, because they are already at risk. They are vulnerable, and they are an easy target for people who are immoral and dishonest and will teach them behaviours that are not right and will draw them into a life of crime. There is also the opportunity to simply sell it personally and make money on something the government is saying they can have in their possession. Finally, there is the potential for them to say that they can have this, so why not just try it.

All these reasons totally negate this irrational argument that somehow, by legalizing this and making it available to children aged 12 to 18, it would restrict access. I have never heard a more disjointed, inaccurate, and inconceivable argument put forward. The government also said that it wants to protect young people from the inducement to use. Well, I have already said that just by putting the bill forward in this way, it is actually encouraging young people to consider using.

Another member on the other side of the House came back with the argument, on the question of youth having it in their possession, that it is the parents' responsibility. It is just like any other thing in the house they might have. The parents are responsible. On one level, I totally agree that parents are and should be responsible, above all other influences, for determining what direction their children should be guided. Parental rights, responsibilities, and privileges in raising children, which are our most precious and valuable resource as a nation, need to be protected. They actually need to be encouraged by government. Government should be supporting Canadian families through legislation. However, here it is working in opposition and challenging parents by telling teenagers between the ages of 12 and 18 that it is okay, and legal, to have five grams of marijuana on their person.

I have worked a lot with teenagers, and I actually survived raising three amazing young adults myself. I have to tell members that at that point in life, the right thing for them to be doing is challenging things around them and trying to determine where their values are in relation to their parents and in what direction they are going to go.

When I tell my children that something is not right, and it is something they are thinking about, but their government turns around and tells them that it is okay and that it is legal, that is not supporting parents. The government is pushing this responsibility on them, just like it is pushing the responsibility on provinces and municipalities. The Liberals created the bill because they made an election promise, and they are having trouble finding one they can keep, so this is the one they will pull it off on.

This is entirely wrong. If youth should not use it, then they should not carry it.

The government also uses the argument that it is going to reduce illicit activities in relation to cannabis. In other words, it will somehow shut down the black market with the legal use of marijuana. We know how well that is working with contraband cigarettes.

I know from conversations with people I have helped in 10-step programs that there are rehab centres where black market drug dealers go to get healed. While there, they develop relationships with people they then meet on the outside, and they help them to become part of the process. This is not going to shut down the black market. It is money driven, it is greed driven, and it has nothing to do with caring for our society. The government is playing into its hands.

Canadians are very concerned all over this country. They are concerned about the workplace, law enforcement people, and our children, and they do not know what to do. They are throwing up their hands and asking how the government can do this.

Well, I have a few words I want to say to Canadians. I am going to post it, actually.

I will tell them that they have been amazing on so many fronts in dealing with issues this government has brought forward over the last two years, and they have made a difference. Opposition parties have a role to play, but we are here to represent Canadians, and as a result of their work and their telling this government what they will and will not accept, electoral reform is not on the table. They did that with their advocacy.

Punitive and unfair tax increases on the middle class, small and medium businesses, and farmers are not going to take place the way they would have if the Liberals had just been allowed to go ahead with their policies. Canadians made the difference.

They shut down the removal of section 176 and are protecting the right to freedom of religion in this country. They caused the Surgeon General to relegate the dangerous anti-malaria drug mefloquine to a drug of last resort, after decades of causing harm to our servicemen and women.

Canadians can do this. They can make a difference. I know that they see this law as irrational, dangerous, and rushed, everything that is not good. Therefore, I encourage them to do what they have done. I know they are exhausted. They should keep going.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville will have five minutes for questions and comments on her remarks when the House next takes up the motion before the House.

It being 6:02 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Automated External Defibrillators

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, within twelve months of the adoption of this motion: (a) the government should follow the example of other Canadian police services and act to save hundreds of lives each year by equipping all RCMP vehicles with automated external defibrillators (AEDs); and (b) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security should undertake a study to determine the availability of AEDs in first responder vehicles across Canada and make recommendations to the House in that regard while respecting the jurisdiction of other levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who are here in the House.

It may not be common practice, but I want to dedicate this speech to a friend of mine, Stéphane Campagna, who is alive today because three of his friends reacted quickly and used a cardiac defibrillator to save his life during a hockey game. It is not every day that we have the opportunity to move a motion in the House of Commons, let alone one that can save lives. It is therefore with heartfelt emotion and pride that I rise to speak today on this fundamental and vital issue.

Our job as parliamentarians and elected officials is vitally important at times like these. If the House votes in favour of this motion, all members will be able to proudly say that their work actually helped to save lives. It is very moving to think that we can have such a major impact on the lives of our constituents. It is inspiring to know that our political involvement can lead to such tangible achievements. With that in mind, I invite all my colleagues to set partisanship aside and vote in favour of this motion.

This is definitely something to think about. Unfortunately, many of us have a friend, colleague, or even family member who has gone into cardiac arrest. There are approximately 40,000 sudden cardiac arrests in Canada each year. That is one every 12 minutes. That means that, during my speech, two Canadians will go into cardiac arrest. It is at times like those that every second counts.

For every minute that goes by, the chances of survival for a person who is in cardiac arrest drop by 7% to 10%. The problem is that this sort of thing almost never happens in a hospital. Most often, it happens at home, far from a cardiac defibrillator.

Unfortunately, that is the case for Michel Picard, a resident of Victoriaville. On December 30, 2016, at his home on Allard Road, the street next to where I live, while celebrating the holidays with his family, he collapsed without warning. Michel Picard suffered a life-threatening arrhythmia and someone called 911 immediately. Before the paramedics arrived, Mr. Picard's son-in-law, Steve Houle, courageously administered first aid by starting CPR.

Six minutes later, two paramedics from the Bois-Francs emergency hospital arrived. Fortunately, they had a defibrillator in their vehicle. It took three shocks for Mr. Picard to regain consciousness. Today, he has no remaining effects from his accident, which is nothing short of miraculous. This story that occurred in my region is a testament to the courage of Mr. Picard's loved ones, who acted quickly and did exactly what needed to be done, but also illustrates how important it is for first responders to have a defibrillator in their vehicle.

When the heart stops beating, as the seconds and minutes tick by, the patient has no blood or oxygen circulating. Under such conditions, the brain cannot survive for long. As Alain Vadeboncoeur, chief of the emergency department at the Montreal Heart Institute, explains, the brain's very fragile cells need glucose and oxygen, without which brain death is irreversible. In most cases, within 10 minutes of sudden death by cardiac arrest, it is simply too late.

However, a rapidly administered defibrillator shock can stop the arrhythmia and get the heart pumping normally. That is what saved Mr. Picard and thousands of other Canadians. A defibrillator is the only way to get the heart going again. Unfortunately, chances of survival when someone arrives in the emergency room with no pulse are practically nil.

The survival rate of victims of cardiac arrest outside a hospital is under 5%. Defibrillators improve the patient's chance of survival by 75%. This is where we, as parliamentarians, can make a difference. This is where we have the power to take action, to prevent death, to heal people, and to save lives.

By investing in prevention, we could increase the chances of survival for victims of cardiac arrest who are not in a hospital or in a public place where a defibrillator is available.

With cardiac arrests, time is of the essence. Each minute, each second of unconsciousness impacts the chances of survival. In that context, if all emergency vehicles were equipped with a defibrillator, the response time would clearly be shorter, and lives would be saved.

We know that dozens of police departments in Canada already use defibrillators, but gaps remain in the coverage. If all patrol vehicles were equipped with defibrillators, hundreds of lives would be saved each year. This would represent a meaningful, long term investment, and it would cost a pittance given the lives we could save.

In that regard, there is much hope. Results reported by cities, regional county municipalities and provinces who are at the forefront in this domain are very encouraging. First responders who have access to a defibrillator say they observe remarkable results.

The problem is that if some regions are very much at the forefront, others have not yet passed legislation. The coverage is incomplete and yet, no matter where they decided to live and raise their families, every Canadian should have the comfort of knowing that first responders have access to a defibrillator in case of emergency.

This issue is quite important to me. In a previous life, I was the mayor of Victoriaville. My team and I equipped all the vehicles of first responders with defibrillators. We made sure that municipal buildings, arenas, or sports facilities, for example, were equipped with a defibrillator in order to respond quickly to an emergency.

Businesses and institutions also mobilized to equip their buildings. The Sûreté du Québec decided to launch a pilot project to put defibrillators in all its vehicles. Defibrillators are also found at firehalls and are used by our response system. That is what saved the life of Stéphane Campagna. While playing hockey with his friends in Victoriaville, he suffered cardiac arrest at the arena. The arena had a defibrillator, which was donated by business people who had been proactive even before the municipality had decided to take action. Thanks to this tool and the level-headedness of Marcel Duquette, Jean-François Gagné, and Francis Garneau, Mr. Campagna was revived. The three men who work at Urgence Bois-Francs quickly helped him and were able to save his life because there was a defibrillator on site.

This cannot be overemphasized. This example once again shows how vitally important this device is. It is simple to use. People do not need training to use it, and like Marcel Duquette said, the more defibrillators there are, the more people can work together to save lives. He was one of the three paramedics who saved Stéphane Campagna's life.

That is the mandate that I gave myself when I was mayor. Now Victoriaville and the Arthabaska RCM are among the most proactive municipalities in this regard. It is therefore only natural for me to continue with this personal commitment and share this initiative that I care about with my colleagues.

As a federal MP, I would like to pursue this mission to help Canadians across the country and create more opportunities to do good and save lives. I hope I can count on the support of MPs in meeting this challenge. I therefore propose that we give the government the mandate to look at what is being done elsewhere in the country. I also propose that we give the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security the responsibility of undertaking a study in order to make recommendations to the House on this issue. In short, I am proposing to my colleagues that we legislate so that millions of Canadians know that they have access to this potentially life-changing technology in case of an emergency, should misfortune strike in a place where such equipment is available.

In fact, I challenge my colleagues to act together to save hundreds of lives and make thousands of miracles. I urge the House to adopt the following important motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, within twelve months of the adoption of this motion: (a) the government should follow the example of other Canadian police services and act to save hundreds of lives each year by equipping all RCMP vehicles with automated external defibrillators (AEDs); and (b) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security should undertake a study to determine the availability of AEDs in first responder vehicles across Canada and make recommendations to the House in that regard while respecting the jurisdiction of other levels of government [municipal, provincial, or federal].

If we all support this motion together, this would help save lives and give first responders the tools they need. All it takes is political courage.

In closing, I want to thank all the stakeholders and instigators who did not wait for legislation or even a budget before taking action. I hope that we can all work together, as members of the House of Commons, to ensure that every emergency vehicle is equipped with a defibrillator. Imagine the number of lives that could be saved if all our ambulances, all our fire trucks, all police cruisers, and all first responders in our municipalities were equipped with defibrillators, in addition to our arenas, athletic centres, schools, and commercial buildings. Businesses could also have them in their office buildings, stores, and retail spaces. Imagine the number of families that would be happier.

I sincerely hope that this motion is adopted. I will work very hard on it, in the hope of winning the support of my colleagues across party lines.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 124, put forward by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska. It calls on the government to equip RCMP vehicles with automated external defibrillators, or AEDs. It also calls upon the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to conduct a study to determine the availability of AEDs in first responders' vehicles across Canada and make recommendations to the House in that regard, while respecting the jurisdiction of other levels of government.

I had the opportunity of being the executive director of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and I want to share the member's enthusiasm for the use of AEDs in our communities. There is no doubt that these devices save lives. If we were to witness a cardiac event occur right now and did nothing, the chance of that life being saved is about 5%. If CPR is utilized in the first couple of minutes, that chance goes up to about 25%. When an AED is used within the first three minutes, it is north of 75%. These numbers are staggering when we start applying them on a nationwide basis.

Clearly, we need to be doing a much better job. On average, our ambient save rate is only at about 7%. When we look at King County, a jurisdiction in the United States that includes Seattle, it often gets as high as 16%. If we could just replicate that save rate across Canada, it would mean three jumbo jets filled with people not crashing, burning, and dying every single year.

For me, I particularly want to thank the member because this issue hit home personally. My partner's father had a heart attack, where an AED, quick thinking, and CPR played a major role in his survival. Too sadly, we hear of these cases all over the place. Most sadly, we hear it in the case when an AED is not available and, unfortunately, a life is unnecessarily lost.

There is strong and compelling evidence—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Is this questions and comments, or is this a speech?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I was just about to interrupt. I appreciate the intervention on the part of the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

I note we are under questions and comments, hon. parliamentary secretary. We are about two minutes in. We usually give a little bit of latitude, but if he could get to his question, we will carry on.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the long preamble. I included it because, before I got into my more generalized comments, I wanted to express how important this issue is. Given that, how does the member believe we can work with other jurisdictions to be able to get at the challenges of being able to see these devices not only being present but also being used by the general population?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for sharing his experience. My heart goes out to him. As I said, I myself went through a similar experience with a friend, and to make matters worse, the way I found out was by seeing it on the news.

The first thing we could do, following the decision that will be made in this House by all the members, would be to set an example. When I was mayor, I chose not to wait to be asked. I used the power at my disposal to persuade other elected officials to provide the necessary funding.

Since this is a motion, I do not have the financial power to do that in this case. I think that if we move in this direction, we will be sending a positive sign.

If we all wanted to, we could set an example with the RCMP and educate all levels of government, after the committee conducts its study. I do not want to step on the toes of other jurisdictions.

However, by conducting that study and putting in the work, we may learn about suitable programs, as it happened in the past with the installation of AEDs in arenas.

I should mention that many municipalities have first responder training programs. People expect AEDs to come in an ambulance, because they almost all have one. However, sometimes the first unit to arrive at the scene of an accident is a police car, or even a fire truck, if it is closer.

The simple answer to the question is that it is the leadership of this Parliament, by which I mean Parliament as a whole, not just the government, that will make it possible for us to set an example.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, actually, this is more of a comment.

I wanted to tell my colleague how useful this can be in rural regions. I am an intensive care nurse in the ER. That is my specialty. We often have just two ambulances. When one ambulance is away transferring a patient, we may find ourselves without an available ambulance. Sometimes, because of circumstances beyond our control, police officers have brought patients to me in the ER because we simply did not have an ambulance available to respond.

I just wanted to say how useful this would be for rural Canada.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment.

She is absolutely right. To estimate the chances of survival for someone having a heart attack, we can take a map of each city, put a dot in the centre, and draw a circle around it. The farther one is from a hospital or an ambulance station, the lower one's chance of survival.

It is therefore obvious that if we have more devices and put them in every emergency vehicle, we will have not only two ambulances able to respond, but also every firefighter and police officer. If municipalities decide to participate, city halls near towns and more rural areas can have the devices too.

Unfortunately, people think these devices are very expensive, but they are not that expensive, especially not compared to the value of a person's life to that person's family.

I hope this bill will make a big difference for people. We have an incredible opportunity here in the House of Commons to take non-partisan action that will do so much to help families across Canada.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to debate a great number of issues in this House on which there is some division, and occasionally some sparks, but this is an area where, particularly on the overarching principle, there really needs to be a consensus. I say this because the science is very clear that when we put AEDs in communities, when we ensure that people are CPR trained, and ensure that people know how to use AEDs, it saves lives.

Unfortunately, we also know that just calling paramedics alone is not enough. When we pick up the phone and call paramedics, they simply cannot get to the scene of a cardiac event fast enough to save a life, which means that we need this type of initiative that would ensure that all front-line individuals who keep our community safe are CPR trained, know where AEDs are, and perhaps, as the motion indicates, have access to AEDs within their vehicles. We need civilians, people who are not on the front lines, to be engaged in this battle as well, because when a family member goes down, people have to ask themselves if they know what to do. Do they know CPR, which is very simple but essential skill. Do they know where the nearest automated external defibrillator, AED, is? Too often the answer is no.

In workplaces and homes, folks do not know what to do, despite the fact that successive governments, both Conservative federally and the Liberal government in Ontario, have gone to great lengths to place AEDs throughout our communities. It certainly makes a great deal of sense from a public safety perspective to ensure that AEDs are in public places where cardiac arrests are mostly likely occur.

The rest of my comments concern some of the issues that relate specifically to the motion, issues that we can think about as the motion moves forward. Again, I speak from the lens of being generally supportive of it.

We certainly know that the motion calls for the committee to study the availability of AEDs. In this regard, there are certain important issues that the committee could look at, and that we encourage it to look at, when considering the proposal to equip RCMP vehicles with AEDs. For one thing, as with other medical equipment, provinces and territories are responsible for legislating and regulating public access programs to AEDs, including in public areas and workplaces. For example, some provinces such as British Columbia have guidelines recommending that public AED access programs should be overseen by physicians.

Further, there is no consistent legislative or regulatory framework governing access to or use of AEDs. It is very much viewed as a public or occupational health and safety issue left to local organizations, governments, and employers. It is also important to understand that this proposal would have important provincial, territorial, and municipal implications. As members will know, the RCMP is the police service provider for the territories and every province except Ontario and Quebec, and the vast majority of RCMP vehicles are used for contract policing services.

Under the police services agreements, policing services provided by the RCMP are cost shared with contract jurisdictions. This includes all operating and maintenance costs, such as salaries and equipment purchases. The up-front costs of buying AEDs, as well as the ongoing maintenance required to keep them in good working order, would therefore need to be supported by contract jurisdictions. Therefore, as members can see, there are jurisdictional issues that need to be looked at with respect to this proposal.

We are very supportive of the second part of the motion, which calls on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to examine the availability of AEDs in first-responder vehicles across Canada. Such a study would help us get a complete and up-to-date picture regarding the effectiveness of equipping police vehicles with AEDs. It could examine questions like how often AEDs installed in police cruisers have been used to respond to cardiac arrests. It would also help to ensure that any new policies, standards, or deployments of new equipment to front-line responder vehicles, including those of the RCMP, would be based on evidence about what works best from a health and public safety perspective. It would also be an opportunity to hear from provincial, territorial, and municipal partners to ensure that any new Canada-wide approach takes their needs and views into account.

In conclusion, we support Motion No. 124 in principle. We think the call for study is important, that the results should inform further measures, and that the policies and expenditures put forward do meet the public safety objectives we set forth. That is the point here.

We are all in agreement that any measure likely to help more Canadians survive cardiac arrest and save lives is very much worth pursuing. In that vein, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for bringing forward this motion. I think it is incredibly important, not only from my perspective in government but also personally. I look forward to working on it with him.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it really is a pleasure for me to speak to a motion like this one, because this was part of my daily life for many years for one simple reason: I am a nurse who worked primarily in acute and emergency care in a small, rural hospital. Every day, we had to face the reality that someone could suffer a cardiac arrest at any time, and sometimes they were 45 minutes away from the hospital. There are only two ambulances serving the entire RCM, which is about 100 kilometres across. It can sometimes take a very long time even for emergency responders to arrive.

Defibrillation does not really happen the way it looks in the movies, where the patient arrives at the hospital, we put the paddles on him and defibrillation occurs. For defibrillation to work, electrical currents still have to be going through the heart. If the patient flatlines, it is too late; nothing can be done and defibrillation will not work. That is why, if we want defibrillation to be effective, it must happen quickly, before the electrical currents in the heart stop following cardiac arrest.

It is good to have automated external defibrillators that are easy to use, not like those in hospitals that require training. These AEDS will save lives because people do not need much training to be able to use them effectively to reanimate someone. They will also help prevent the brain damage that can occur due to a lack of oxygen, as well as the harmful consequences that go along with that. The more quickly the defibrillator is used, the greater the chances of reanimation and the less severe the after-effects of the cardiac arrest and lack of oxygen.

This will have an impact on the number of lives saved and will reduce the severity of the consequences of a cardiac arrest. That is extremely important.

The motion refers to RCMP vehicles. Given that the indigenous police fall under our jurisdiction, I believe that we should also equip all of their vehicles with automated external defibrillators, particularly when we consider the fact that indigenous communities are often located in areas that are far from hospitals. For example, in my riding, the Long Point First Nation community is about 45 minutes from the hospital, when a person is driving fast. When weather conditions are not ideal, if there is a snowstorm, for example, it can easily take an hour and a half to get there.

I am certain that my colleague will agree with me that this should be extended to all emergency vehicles used by indigenous police and in all indigenous community gathering places, even though they are not mentioned in the motion. We could ensure that arenas, sports facilities, and all indigenous communities are also equipped with these defibrillators. I hope that the message will be passed on to the Minister of Indigenous Services so she can establish a strategy in that regard.

With respect to automated external defibrillators, it is important that they be available, but we must also discuss training for users. We must ensure that people know how to use them and where they are located. That makes a big difference because if the person has to look for the defibrillator, it will take longer. Members cannot answer me because this is not a question and comment period, but I am curious about how many people know exactly where the automated external defibrillator is located in the Parliament buildings. Does anyone here know? I am not so sure.

It is also very important for a communications plan to be put in place when automated external defibrillators are purchased so that everyone in the community can locate them quickly. Sometimes we believe that we have to know CPR and be very knowledgeable to save a life.

Just by knowing where an AED is located, people can help save a life by giving the device to someone who knows how to use it in under a minute. When a heart attack happens, the person who knows how to use the AED is often also the one who administers first aid to the victim. The first aider will start performing CPR and other techniques. If this person also has to go looking for an AED, valuable time will be lost. Making sure everyone knows where these devices are located can be highly beneficial.

A few years ago, there was a private foundation that had a program to help small communities buy AEDs. I passed on the information to small communities in my riding, and two AEDs were obtained through this program. I think private foundations that offer AEDs or help small municipalities buy them are extremely important. However, I also think that we need to play a major role in this issue. It is important to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces and other governments, but we can still play a leadership role, especially when we consider that lives are at stake and that this is a relatively simple thing to do. We can find solutions to make these devices more widely available.

I cannot overstate how much this would change things in rural communities like mine. I live in a rather remote area. When I give people my address they often get it wrong and never find their way. In more urgent situations, it might take longer to find my house. However, the local first responders know the area like the back of their hand and do not need an address. Just name the woman who needs help and they will get there in no time. If they are equipped with this device it might make the difference between hugging a friend and going to a funeral.

I sincerely hope that, in studying my colleague's motion, people will be able to set partisanship aside entirely. The motion deserves to be studied in committee because it can help us improve outcomes for Canadians. I also think that knowing that there can be a quick response will change a lot of things when it comes to people's health.

Unfortunately, heart attacks rarely occur in ideal circumstances. Most of the time, things do not go so well. I have seen cases where it happened to people who were hunting in the deep woods. That is not an ideal situation. Over the course of my career, only once have I witnessed someone having a heart attack right in the middle of triage. Lucky thing that happened in the ER. In real life, heart attacks do not happen in the ER. They happen in places where, most of the time, having access to an AED can change things for the better.

The majority of ambulances are now equipped with these devices, but considering the allocation of ambulance services in many rural communities, where few ambulances are available and wait times can be long in some cases, emergency response vehicles absolutely need to be equipped with these devices. We must also ensure that the first responders are properly trained in their use.

We can do a lot for people and I hope that we will move forward because it is a matter of life or death for Canadians. I hope that people will have a heart.