Colin Carrie

[Tobacco Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to urge all members to support Bill C-32, the bill which cracks down on tobacco marketing aimed at youth.

Smoking is Canada's most serious preventable public health issue. It lies at the root of deadly conditions such as emphysema, lung cancer and cardiac disease. Every year these conditions kill thousands of Canadians and cause suffering for thousands more. We want to reduce future suffering by helping to prevent young Canadians from starting to smoke in the first place. That is why our government is following through on a key campaign commitment by proposing these crucial amendments to the Tobacco Act.

These changes will help protect our children from marketing practices designed to entice them into smoking. By amending the Tobacco Act, we can keep more young people from experimenting with an addictive substance. By doing so, we can shield them from unwittingly laying the foundation for a possible lifelong addiction with potentially serious health consequences.

Through this bill, we are taking a tougher stand against tobacco products that are packaged, priced and flavoured to appeal directly to young people. For example, Bill C-32 seeks tighter restrictions on tobacco advertising. It also seeks to rid store shelves of certain products tailored and packaged specifically for young people.

For example, in 2007 more than 400 million little cigars, or cigarillos, were sold in Canada. Many of these come in flavours such as chocolate, bubble gum and tropical punch, flavours designed to entice young people to try smoking. Flavoured sheets or tubes made from tobacco, known as blunt wraps, are also marketed to young people and sold individually or in low-priced kiddie packs.

These types of marketing strategies have to stop. Tobacco is not candy and should never be mistaken as such. It is time that we recognized these kinds of products for what they are: simple enticements aimed at luring non-smokers into a potential lifetime of addiction. It is for this reason that Bill C-32 proposes making it illegal to add flavours to cigarillos, cigarettes and blunts.

Another factor encouraging young people to try smoking is pricing. If a product is inexpensive, more young people are likely to try it. More than a decade ago, the Tobacco Act was changed to require that cigarettes be sold in packages of at least 20. This change was made precisely so they would be less affordable for our children. Today under Bill C-32 we are going a step further by proposing that the same rule be extended to cigarillos and blunts for exactly the same reason.

This legislation proposes new action on banning flavours to make tobacco less enticing to young people. It proposes new measures to make it less affordable and therefore less accessible. In addition, we are proposing new restrictions on advertising to ensure our youth are not tempted.

Indeed, it is our goal to put an end to a resurgence of tobacco advertising capable of reaching out to our youth through a variety of publications. As it stands now, the Tobacco Act prohibits most advertising; however, advertising in publications claiming an adult readership of at least 85% is still permitted.

In the first few years following the last amendments to the Tobacco Act, the industry did not actively advertise, but things have changed. Over the last two years we have seen a new wave of advertising aimed at young people. Of particular concern are the many free publications with content geared to teens, publications that are available in curbside boxes, at malls and bus stops in just about every community across our country.

What is clear is that in the years following the last changes to the law, the tobacco industry has adapted. It has poked and prodded and found the loopholes it needs to penetrate and get its products into the hands of young Canadians. By doing so, the industry seeks to recruit a new generation to replace the thousands upon thousands who have either fortunately succeeded at quitting, or unfortunately lost their lives prematurely.

Let me be clear. In the face of an industry preying upon a new generation to protect its profits, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I am dedicated to taking action that will protect the health of this country's future, and I am proud to say that I am far from alone. In fact, I am but one of several members of this House who feel the same way. I say so because this House and the Standing Committee on Health are composed of dedicated members from all parties who have advocated valiantly for the kinds of changes we seek in Bill C-32.

In particular, I want to point to the great work the hon. member for Winnipeg North has undertaken during her time as a member of Parliament. Many of her ideas are included in Bill C-32 and I want to thank the member for her support and efforts in this regard.

In closing, let me summarize some things that we know in relation to this issue. One, we know that the vast majority of adult smokers became addicted when they were in their teens. Two, we know that if people have not started smoking by the age of 19, they are unlikely to ever become a lifelong smoker. Three, using the illustrative examples that I have provided, the tobacco industry is alive and well and trying as hard as it can to exploit gaps in the law to reach more and more young people with its products to start them smoking. As a result, we have an obligation to update our law to make tobacco products less appealing to young people, less affordable and less accessible.

Finally, when it comes to a question like this one and the problems that Bill C-32 seeks to address, I call upon all parties to seek a strong consensus in favour of this very important bill. No matter what party members belong to, what region we hail from, or what community we represent, we are all elected to protect the health of our citizens and safeguard the future of our country. This is precisely what Bill C-32 seeks to do.

[Automotive Industry, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal hypocrisy continues. On his blog, the Liberal leader's senior adviser disagreed with the government's decision to protect Canadian auto jobs. He wrote:

...sell off entities which actually make you money, and then buy shares in companies which are total, unmitigated disasters. Could someone remind me, again, why Canada doesn't need an election right now?

Do Ontario Liberals agree with their leader's top strategist that providing support to GM and Chrysler is a waste and a total unmitigated disaster? Does the Liberal leader agree with his top strategist?

This decision is the right one for my riding, and Oshawa is grateful for the action the Conservative government is taking to protect the future of Canada's auto sector. This shows again that the Liberals are out of touch with the economy and how to protect Canadian jobs during these tough economic times.

When in B.C., the Liberal leader criticized the auto sector, something he dared not do in Ontario. Now, his most trusted campaign strategist is letting Ontarians know what his leader truly thinks of the auto industry. The Liberal leader should come clean. Ontario's auto industry needs action, not lip service.

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Act, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but listen to the member's response, saying that this is a decision of the Conservative government. This is a decision of the democratically elected governments of Canada and the democratically elected government of Peru.

The sadness here is the Bloc member, who claims to support democracy, standing in this House and saying that even though two governments have come to a decision on trade, the Bloc members will vote it down and disrespect that decision.

As we see historically with free trade agreements, when Canadian companies go into other countries they raise the bar and provide jobs. What I am hearing from that member and other members in the House is that they immediately start to disrespect Canadian companies that have a wonderful reputation around the world by saying that our companies are out there exploiting people in these other countries, which is entirely disrespectful.

What does the member have against Canadian companies and Quebec companies going out into the world to provide jobs for people and raise their standard of living? Why do the Bloc members not respect the democratic right of these countries to make trade agreements in order to raise the bar for all citizens involved?

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Act, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently and I did notice a theme throughout the hon. member's speech. It seems to be a paternalistic theme and a theme of disrespect.

One thing the NDP forgets is that the countries involved in these free trade agreements are actually democracies. In other words, here in Canada, whether the NDP likes it or not, Canadians have a democratic right to elect a government based on a platform, the same as Peru and the same as other countries where we are negotiating free trade agreements. One of the things that political parties run on is a platform, and some political parties actually run on a platform to help promote free trade. This happens to be the case between the two countries we are discussing now, Canada and Peru.

I am wondering why the NDP has such disrespect for a democratically elected government. That was put forth by the people of Peru and the people of Canada in this negotiation. These two democratically elected governments came to an agreement that would benefit both countries. I am wondering why she has such a paternalistic attitude towards these democracies and how she can explain that disrespect.

[Human Rights, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the delivery of health services is a provincial jurisdiction. This government is very proud to be working with the provinces. We have given the provinces more money than any other government has before. We are very supportive of their decisions.

[May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we can hear the member's partisanship on this issue and again I am very disappointed.

He says that nothing has been done but, as I relayed through my heartfelt words, this government and many members of the House, who have put their partisanship aside, are working together toward bringing forth the issue of autism in order to understand it better so we can move forward to deal with it in the appropriate way.

The member would be quite honest if he admitted that health care and autism and different types of strategies are things that we hear about every day. However, what is important is that we do things right and we work with the provinces and territories.

This government has done more for autism and the autistic community than any government, and that member should know that because he was a member of a previous government that did absolutely nothing. He is correct in that regard.

As I said, we are committed--

[May 12th, 2009]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Product Safety, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the action we are taking to promote the health and safety of Canadians through the chemicals management plan.

Canadians expect action. We monitor these chemicals on a regular basis. We do act appropriately when complaints occur.

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there are about 3,500 laboratories that import these agents into Canada and they are covered under the existing importation regulations. However, there are approximately 4,000 other laboratories in Canada that work with human pathogens and toxins, but they do not import them and they are not subject to the same federal regulation and oversight. These laboratories may be applying national laboratory safety guidelines on a voluntary basis, but the precise extent of this application is unknown.

That is why we have this legislation to ensure that Canada's reputation remains stellar worldwide.

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member is quite correct. There are stakeholders who feel that this legislation, like any piece of legislation, is not perfect. However, I think the member realizes that in any type of legislation there has to be a balanced approach. We have to decide and debate what we want in the legislation and whether we want to move forward with the regulations.

I was impressed with Health Canada when it said that it would consult with us and give strong consideration to this piece of legislation through the implementation phase. We also brought forward an amendment for an advisory committee.

The member may be totally correct in saying that not all stakeholders believe that this is perfect legislation, but it did pass committee and we did have a good debate.

Overall, we have come up with a good piece of legislation, a balanced piece of legislation. The Canadian public deserves legislation that would protect their biosafety and biosecurity. This government and all opposition parties are in line with that intent, that is for sure.