Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 8 - Evidence - June 3, 2010
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:34 a.m. to study Bill S-211, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, as well as Bill S-203, An Act respecting A National Philanthropy Day.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, we have a quorum. I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I am Kelvin Ogilvie, from Nova Scotia, deputy chair of the committee. While I realize that our distinguished witness recognizes all the committee members, nevertheless, for the viewing audience, I will have senators introduce themselves. I will start on my right with Senator Demers.
Senator Demers: I am Senator Jacques Demers from Quebec. I am happy to be here.
Senator Martin: I am Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Champagne: I am Andrée Champagne from the province of Quebec.
Senator Eaton: I am Nicole Eaton from Ontario.
Senator Callbeck: I am Catherine Callbeck from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Banks: I am Tommy Banks from Alberta.
Senator Merchant: I am Pana Merchant from Saskatchewan.
Senator Cordy: I am Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Seidman: I am Judith Seidman, from Quebec. Welcome, Senator Munson.
Senator Plett: I am Don Plett, Manitoba.
The Deputy Chair: Today, we will consider two Senate-introduced bills. First, we have Bill S-211, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, which will designate every April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day. We will hear from our distinguished witness, Senator Munson, followed by consideration of proposed amendments to the bill and clause-by- clause consideration.
Senator Munson, please proceed.
Hon. Jim Munson, sponsor of the bill: It is wonderful to be among colleagues from both sides of the Senate. I have had a great deal of support from all of you in this endeavour of mine. I have been in this position before, about one year ago. I had reached the point where I was hoping the bill would become law because the bill had moved from committee to the House of Commons and almost went to committee in the other place with the support of my Conservative friends, but Parliament was suspended. That is the way things happen in politics, which I accept, although I am not necessarily a patient man.
I am here representing the autistic community on my personal voyage. I hope that one day we will have a World Autism Awareness Day.
[Translation]
I am very happy to appear before you today. It seems to me that I am on a long voyage and that this day is a very important stage in this voyage.
[English]
Sponsoring Bill S-211 is the culmination of work I started shortly after being appointed to this place. I was moved by witnesses who have appeared before the committee but I was moved first by Andrew Kavchak, on Parliament Hill, who was wearing a kind of billboard that read: ``Please help my son now.'' He said to me, ``Senator, I knew you when you worked at CTV; you will not walk by me; you will hear my story.''
He told me his story about his son; it was a tearful moment. Andrew, along with many other people in the autistic community, has been in my corner and I have been in their corner trying to help out in any way that I can in moving toward a national strategy for autism spectrum disorders, ASD.
For the last six years, I have been working on behalf of people with autism or ASD and their families. It has given me a sense of focus that has enriched my experience as a senator with meaning and purpose. As you know, a few years ago, with all-party support, we issued a report called Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis. The words ``pay now or pay later'' came from an autistic man from New Brunswick who said that we needed to pay now because it will cost society a lot more later. The last thing he wanted to see was people placed back in institutions because, for some reason, we do not feel they should be included in society.
We worked hard and learned a lot during that inquiry. Many recommendations in that report still need to be put into place.
As we move toward making this bill law, I want to say that our former colleague Senator Keon has been in my corner from the beginning. The good doctor has supported me in all my endeavours in dealing with autism, and I miss him, as I am sure we all do, and I will always seek his counsel.
We need World Autism Awareness Day because we need to provide awareness. We need to provide opportunities for Canadians to come together around a common cause. Autism is a condition that affects families from coast to coast to coast. As I have said before, there is no border when it comes to autism. We recognize that ASD is a national problem, and we need to have this day to validate the people who have autism, those who love people with autism, those who care for people with autism, and those who work on behalf of people with autism.
During that inquiry we heard of the sense of isolation that people and families with ASD feel. Social isolation is, of course, one of the principal characteristics of autism. This condition also isolates the families and friends around the person with ASD. ASD is a 24-hour-a-day, 7-days-a-week job requiring constant care. This requirement often means that in two-parent families one person stays at home full time and looks after the child with autism.
This parent has a heavy burden and, given the nature of the condition, lives also in isolation. Simple things such as birthday parties, play groups, play dates, and trips to the library or the mall are difficult. For example, we sometimes see a mother struggling with a child in a mall. Our instincts may be to wonder what is wrong. We do not take the time to wonder what is right, and what we can do to participate and be part of that child's life.
The cost of care, much of which is not covered by provincial programs, may require that the family earner take on a second job. This requirement means more isolation and more family stress. As many of you know, some families with ASD are breaking apart, and the load of ASD is too much to bear alone.
Declaring April 2 ``World Autism Awareness Day'' will not change that day-to-day reality, but I believe strongly that it sends out a message. It tells these children and their families that they are not alone. We may never fully understand the isolation a person with ASD feels but we can imagine a little of what it might be like — the frustration, fear and anxiety — and we can also imagine the isolation of the people who care for and love people with ASD.
While we still have much more to do to help them in a substantive way, as Pay Now or Pay Later recommends, in the meantime we can say, through World Autism Awareness Day, that we care, we are here, we want to help and we want to understand.
The legislative journey for this bill has been enlightening for me as a senator. I have learned that autism affects people all over the world. It is estimated that tens of millions have autism worldwide. The figure is staggering, but it is a fact.
Countries everywhere have taken action. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States has declared autism a serious public issue, and President Obama promised to appoint what he refers to as an ``autism czar'' to oversee and coordinate a nationwide response. He has promised a bill, the ``Combatting Autism Act,'' which will provide $108 million for research. He promised as well to fully fund the education of individuals with disabilities.
I applaud the government for the work that has been done in terms of tax breaks for grandparents and others who have grandchildren with autism. That work is helpful.
However, the day that the Government of Canada devotes even more funding to ASD will be a happy day, especially the day when we have a national autism strategy to pull together the disparate efforts that exist across the country, helping us to be more effective and coordinated in our support for families with ASD.
I have been to dozens of places across the country and spoken about the isolation. In Ottawa, we are working on a program called First Start with Suzanne Jacobson who has two grandchildren with ASD. Each of us is doing a little something to raise money, but we are operating in isolation.
People in Atlantic Canada, which is where I am originally from, are going to Alberta, not for jobs in the oil sector but because there is a fund there for autistic children from the ages of 2 to 18. Ontario is doing a good job, but there are still line-ups. Families are breaking up and people are mortgaging their homes.
In the meantime, like hundreds of other United Nations members, we can recognize April 2 legally as World Autism Awareness Day. In April of 2009, the Minister of Health issued a press release declaring April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day. This declaration is a positive development, but I do not believe it should take the place of legislation. We need a law that declares April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day. A law that results from the legislative process is an expression of the country's democratic will. In other words, it is an act of Parliament. We talk about what we do and what government does, but sometimes we as parliamentarians become lost in the shuffle. This is an act of all Canadians; it is an act of Parliament, and it shows the values of a nation. It will be the result of consultation, collaboration and listening, as this committee has done. It will be the result of careful study and thoughtful debate. A bill reflects the will of the nation, an act voted on by legislators who represent the regions and citizens of this country. As I said, I am happy with the declaration, but we can take it a step further.
I hope committee members will give this bill their full support. I thank you for your attention and consideration.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Munson. We will now have discussion before moving to clause-by-clause consideration.
Senator Callbeck: Welcome, Senator Munson. I commend you for the work you have done and continue to do in this field.
I believe that this legislation will increase the awareness of the challenges of autism, and that it will send a message to the people who have autism spectrum disorder and to their families.
How many countries have passed legislation already to recognize World Autism Day?
Senator Munson: Well over one hundred countries have passed this legislation in their parliaments.
Senator Callbeck: Do they all recognize the day on April 2?
Senator Munson: Yes, that is the day. I do not want to use the word ``celebration,'' as we are not celebrating anything. We are talking about recognizing in our society those of us who are beside us who should be included in the walk that we walk and the talk that we talk. It is the law of many other countries.
Senator Merchant: Senator Munson, I, too, want to congratulate you for the work that you do. I know that you feel strongly about it.
I support this bill, of course. You have spoken about the frustrations and challenges that families face when they have autistic children. What happens to these people when they become adults? You talked about a strategy beyond simply recognizing this day. Will you tell us something about the lifetime challenges and problems that these people face?
Senator Munson: This is one of the greatest fears that has been expressed to me by persons in their 60s who have either children or grandchildren with ASD. Not that long ago, we started closing institutes across this country, one as close as Smiths Falls here in Ontario. We closed those doors for a reason. We made promises to people, both financially and mentally, that we will be here to help them and to work with them.
As more and more autistic cases are discovered, the sad thing is, unless we act on this issue and develop a national strategy where we have a level playing field — it does not matter that the amount of money is high, it is not about money; it is about people — if we do not pay attention to this issue, I think we will see that these people who are 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 will end up back in institutions because their parents cannot care for them anymore. Some parents have the livelihood and can take advantage of this taxation program the government has in place, but those parents are a small percentage.
What I fear is that the dark shadows will gather and these people will be put away because, as a society, we did not pay attention and pay now as opposed to paying later, as the person told this inquiry. That is my greatest fear.
Senator Merchant: When we close these institutions, we need something else to replace them. We need programs to take over.
Senator Munson: Programs for those who are disabled have evolved over the last 40 or 50 years in an immense way. I will give you an example. We had a son with Down syndrome who passed away. He was only a year old. He was going to be our Special Olympian. That was 1967; time moves. At that time, Dr. Frank Hayden, we call him Dr. Frank in the Special Olympics movement, worked with the Shriver family and the Kennedys on a program at York University that said a person with an intellectual disability — we used horrible words in the 1960s — has the right to play and participate in sports and we can develop programs where they can do that. Until that point, we were closing the doors on those babies, those children.
Those doors have been opened, and look what we have now around the world—millions of Special Olympians. In this country, we have 32,000 Special Olympians. They are out there being included. We do not even look twice any more. As I said before, with Special Olympians, I have never been hugged this much since my honeymoon. We started this movement only in 1967. Before that we said no, they will hurt themselves; they cannot do it. Look at what is going on there now.
The autistic children are part of this Special Olympics. They participate. I am saying that the more that we pay attention, the more we have awareness campaigns and programs, the more money we spend on research — as Dr. Keon told me over and over again, do not forget research — we will get there. As we have provided for those with intellectual disabilities, we will provide for those who are autistic, and we will not look twice. Who knows? No one dares to talk about a cure — there is no cure — but there is a place for them and a promise that we can keep in helping autistic children.
Senator Merchant: I thank you for your work.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Munson. You answered one of my questions when you answered Senator Callbeck. I was wondering why April 2, and you answered that question.
I have one question for you, and then a comment. Is Member of Parliament Mike Lake doing something on this issue as well? I am not suggesting he is but Mike and his wife have an autistic child, and I thought he was moving something forward on this issue. Are you aware of anything?
Senator Munson: He has been working on the issue as well. I think this is the way Parliament works; we work at it from both ends, and Mike is a friend. I played hockey with Mike and he is brutal.
Senator Plett: Good for him.
Senator Munson: His son is with him all the time and his wife is there. They have been working on all kinds of programs. Mike spoke along with other Conservative MPs in the last go-around in support of this bill. As I said before, it does not bother me who arrives at home plate first on this particular bill or whatever it takes to have a national strategy. We are all looking for the common good, the common cause, of arriving there. I have been working closely with Mike Lake along with other autistic groups across the country. He always encourages me to keep pushing forward.
In the House of Commons, to answer about Mike Lake and others, every party on the other side has supported this particular bill. The Bloc Québécois has a small terminology problem with the word ``national.'' I can work around that word, but I think the NDP have a private member's bill on the other side. No matter where we cross in life, if we cross for a good thing, I will be happy with that result.
Senator Plett: Fair enough; I was not in any way suggesting anything else. I was concerned that we were working against each other trying to accomplish the same thing. If you say Mike Lake supports the bill, at least we are not working against each other.
I have a comment: My wife and I have a niece in British Columbia and they have an autistic child. Although we are not there often, I have seen some of what these families experience. I have never been supportive of institutions because I believe people forget about the people there. My niece and her husband are so happy for the help they receive from the schools. There is a lot of awareness in British Columbia, or at least in this area of British Columbia. They live in Abbotsford and are receiving a great deal of help. I am happy about that help, and I support an initiative like this bill. I commend you for the work that you have done.
Senator Munson: Thank you. I would love to see April 2 officially recognized, because once it becomes law, we would have to repeal it, and that is not an easy thing to do because we have expressed the will of a nation. However, I would love to see the day where a federal government — I have said this before — would sit down with provincial ministers and close the door.
When I first arrived on the Hill in 1972 as a young reporter, people said, that is provincial jurisdiction; we are setting a precedent. Are we not all trying to set precedents in some way or form to change people's lives? That is why we are here. I think reporters and a few others in society forget what we came here for. I am not on the front page of any news story any longer, but I feel I am on the page of people's lives who matter, and I think you are, too. All of you are on the page of people's lives who matter. You do things behind the scenes with bureaucrats and others. I think it is about the common good; it really is.
There are moments when laws are passed and we say: I was part of that law. That is not a headline, but laws are passed, whether they relate to health, autism or so forth. I want the day to come where a federal government will sit down with ministers, close the door and say: Autism has no borders; how can we work at this issue to make a level playing field across this country?
I want them to set up significant research centres and allotments of money so every autistic child receives a break.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Senator Munson. I know you have done much work in the field of autism, and it was because of your initiative this committee initiated the study on autism and released our report, Pay Now or Pay Later. I know you are a voice for the autism community within Canada.
I think this bill to have a world autism awareness day is great. It will provide a focus and make Canadians, at least in April every year, think about autism.
I know as a former schoolteacher, when I first started teaching, no one had ever heard of autism. When I finished teaching, which is almost 10 years ago, the prevalence of autism within each and every school that I was in was growing in leaps and bounds. I think we had better pay attention to what is happening.
I did not hear it today but I remember hearing during one of the other occasions you appeared before this committee someone talking about a ministerial declaration, that because of a ministerial declaration, perhaps there was no need for the bill. I was not familiar with the difference between a ministerial declaration and a bill, so can you explain the importance of having a bill for World Autism Awareness Day?
Senator Munson: I will do that briefly. I want to commend and thank the Library of Parliament for the work it does in terms of research and background. I will read verbatim what can happen.
There are a number of ways that a certain calendar day or days can be declared to be of significance. A public organization or foundation can declare a certain day, week or month to be of significance. A Governor in Council order can make the same declaration. A Cabinet Minister can also make a declaration. The highest form of designation for a calendar year, however, remains a law passed by Parliament to mark the given event or occasion. A designation in the form of a law passed by Parliament, once in force, remains in force, until such time as it is repealed.
In the case of a ministerial declaration, unless authorized by a legal statute, a declaration made by a Canadian Cabinet Minister has no official authority, and is not legally competent or enforceable. An example of such a declaration would be the ministerial declaration made by the Minister of Health to recognize, in Canada . . . World Autism Awareness Day.
I said in my remarks that I thought the declaration by the minister was extremely positive. I went back and did a bit of homework, and thought that one more step will get us there. I think that basically says it all.
Senator Cordy: With respect to a ministerial declaration, if ministers changed and the next Minister of Health who came in did not want to have a World Autism Awareness Day, then we would not have it; whereas a bill is forever, unless it was changed by Parliament. Is that correct?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Demers: Senator Munson, just a little shot but if you had a good coach, you would have made it to the National Hockey League, but obviously you did not.
On behalf of my family, I thank you for the awareness you provide. My niece has two boys and one has autism. No one knows how difficult it is until they have lived in the situation. No one can even come close to knowing until they have walked in someone's shoes.
The story becomes worse. His father was hit while on a bike and killed a few years back. He lost his father. Apparently he was smart, but not as deeply involved as you. This is unbelievable, but one time she was at a gas station when the young child acted up, and someone thought she was beating her child. We know when they lose control it is difficult.
Thank you so much for making people aware of how difficult it is having a child with autism and how appropriate it is because there is more prevalence of autism than ever, as we are now starting to discover. I commend you for what you do.
Senator Munson: Coach, thank you for that comment. That is why we are here. I never thought that six and half years ago, when I was appointed to the Senate, I would be doing the work I am doing. It was because of one person lighting the Centennial Flame that lit a flame in my heart to move on this issue.
Sometimes I feel frustration because I do not know how far I can go, but as The Globe and Mail said about the Montreal Canadiens, describing them as dogged little men, I am a dogged little man, and I did play Junior B hockey in Quebec. I played for the Bathurst Papermakers in senior hockey, and these are not my teeth.
Senator Martin: Senator Munson, I have always liked your smile, and now you have revealed another truth.
I want to echo what has been said already about our admiration for the work that you have done and the champion you have been for this cause. Thank you so much.
I believe there is so much more education to be done. As Senator Cordy has mentioned about the rising numbers of students with autism in schools, I taught many of those students and talked to the families. I know of families who have even moved from one province to another because of better support in that other province. I think about the conversations we need to have around the table with the ministers from the provinces to look at what provinces are doing and to make sure that support is there for everybody in all provinces.
I have a question regarding how Canada compares to other jurisdictions. You mentioned there are other countries that already recognize World Autism Awareness Day. I know there is a long road ahead and we must all be vigilant and educate everyone because it takes support from the whole community to raise that child, not only the parents. When neighbours and even strangers see a child with autism, how they respond to that situation requires a whole lot of education.
How does Canada compare, in your opinion, to other jurisdictions that you know of?
Senator Munson: I think we are halfway there. A great example is the United States of America that I mentioned in my opening remarks and the $108 million in the Combatting Autism Act. The present government has spent a substantial amount of money for various groups. I am trying to convince the autistic groups across this country speak with one voice, as opposed to many. There is that sort of funding. Some provincial governments have stepped up, and some do not have the money to step up because they have other priorities.
We have a long way to go. A recent government announced a chair at Simon Fraser University two years ago. I have talked to the leader of the government in the Senate privately about that chair, but it was not enough. I believe the offer was a few million dollars, but it was not enough to attract a research chair to Simon Fraser, yet they were prepared to create the chair.
I know there are other routes and the money goes back into a pot, but I think there must be a national research chair at whatever university who would dare to take it on with more money in the pot to do that. We are halfway there.
I have studied a bit on some of the European countries, and they are lagging way behind, countries like Germany and other places. I am sorry to be general about that answer.
Senator Seidman: Senator Munson, I, like everyone else around this table, truly commend you for all the work you have done on this issue. In designating April 2 World Autism Awareness Day, we all recognize the exceptional challenges of children and their families who deal with this group of disorders on a daily basis. I think the bill also brings the issue to the forefront of the consciousness of all governments and the scientific community to continue their efforts on the research front, which Senator Keon always reminds us is critical. I think we need to take up that cause.
I thank you indeed. I do not have any questions. I only have thanks to you for your work on this bill.
Senator Munson: I appreciate that.
Senator Banks: Senator Munson, you have always had the admiration of all your colleagues, and now you have heard that you have added to that admiration with this effort.
I have a question regarding practicality. As you pointed out, this act will call attention on the day to the fact of autism in Canada. One hopes the declaration will focus Canadians' attention, but it does not do anything to solve the problem directly.
You pointed out the difference between respective provinces in Canada and the way they address autism. In the more than 100 countries you referenced that have declared a day for autism, has it had an effect on the way governments in those countries have dealt with autism in their countries?
Senator Munson: Leave it to Senator Banks to ask the question I cannot answer. To be candid, that is another area I will have to investigate. It has worked in the United States. I do not know about other countries.
However, I know that if Canada declares the day, it will not be only one day, but 365 days per year where we urge, lobby and push provincial and federal governments not only to give a speech or two, but to follow what this committee recommended, which is the essence and context of the situation regarding autism. The day is only one piece of the puzzle, and autism is a puzzle.
If a federal government follows what this committee suggested on a national autism spectrum disorder strategy, ministers will sit down to ask how to move forward. It will be a time to close doors and hammer out something. Autism is an epidemic; it is urgent; and it needs to be addressed.
We are addressing it now by making the day more than a declaration. I will follow up on how much difference, if any, the declaration has made in other countries.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Munson, your thought and appreciation on this issue is clear to the committee. We commend you for your efforts. However, I know the more important issue to you is clearly the recognition of those who spoke with regard to the importance of the issue. You focus our minds on the important contextual aspects of autism for which you are bringing forward this particular piece of legislation. We thank you for that focus.
As agreed at the outset of the meeting, we will move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. As I and many other senators are new to the processes of Senate committees in this regard, I will review the process to ensure we are all aware of the reason things are presented in a certain manner.
You have the bill before you. You know there is a title, a preamble and a first clause that states the obvious. It is normal that we simply postpone consideration of those items to the end after we have gone through the bill clause by clause. We postpone consideration of those items because if there were any changes in clauses, it can require consequential change in the title or other aspects. The process is simply procedure. It does not mean these items are diminished in any way in their importance to the bill.
I will first ask if we anticipate any amendments. If we do, we will take a moment to circulate those amendments to every committee member before continuing.
Will amendments be proposed?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: We will circulate the amendment and then continue consideration of the bill clause by clause. Senator Banks has a question.
Senator Banks: Before I ask the question of the proposer of the amendments, I remind committee members that if this bill were to pass here unamended today, it will be susceptible to rule 89(1) in the House of Commons, which will restore it to the position that it occupied immediately at the moment before prorogation. It was in committee, Senator Munson, was it not?
Senator Munson: It was going to committee.
Senator Banks: It was at second reading, then. If we amend the bill in any way, by so much as a comma, then rule 89(1) in the House of Commons does not apply because it applies only to those Senate bills, in particular, which are returned to the House of Commons within 90 of its sitting days in exactly the form in which the bill existed prior to prorogation. If we amend the bill today, it will have the effect of having it reintroduced at the beginning stage in the House of Commons. Once the bill is there, even though it is a Senate bill, it is susceptible to the selection process in the House of Commons with respect to its sponsor there having to obtain a position in it. The likelihood of this bill passing before the next prorogation, and even before the beginning of summer recess, will be virtually zero.
In this context, I will ask the proposer of the amendments to explain to us the purpose, the usefulness and the reason for the amendments, in that the amendments propose to delete from the bill parts of the preamble, none of which, as far as I can see, cause harm.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Banks, with regard to procedure, I think it is appropriate to raise your question at the time the amendment is introduced, because it will be introduced. Your general comment is on the record, but a specific question on the amendment needs to have an amendment moved.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
Senator Merchant: I will pass; my concerns have been raised.
Senator Cordy: Chair, are you saying that we cannot have a comment concerning the fact that if we approve these amendments, the bill will have virtually no chance of passing before the next election?
The Deputy Chair: Those comments and observations have been made. I am not sure what more you want. The point has been made, and it is on the record.
With that, we have agreement to move to consideration of Bill S-211, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day. I will now proceed as I had indicated prior to the brief suspension.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you; that is agreed.
We now come to the one remaining clause in the bill. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Any abstentions? Contrary? I declare it unanimous. Carried.
I shall now come back to clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Any abstentions? Hearing none in the negative, I declare agreement unanimous. Carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Seidman: I propose four amendments, which I propose to put one at a time.
The Deputy Chair: The senator has the floor and there is an indication to propose amendments. Please proceed.
Senator Seidman: I propose that Bill S-211 be amended in the preamble on page one by replacing line two with the following:
``a significant number of families in Canada.''
[Translation]
Then, in the English version: that Bill S-211 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by replacing line 2 with the following:
``a significant number of families in Canada''.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: The amendment has been moved and is open for discussion.
Senator Munson: Senator Banks raised a point about where this amendment will end up. I am not talking on the amendment now. Once again, we need to have patience to move this issue along.
I do not have a big issue with the word ``significant'' as opposed to ``1 in 165'' However, let me tell you that all the data comes from reliable sources. Health Canada uses these statistics, and the epidemiology of autism spectrum disorder is in an annual review of public health. That occurrence is probably even greater now. That review was in 2007.
In all these amendments, we have conducted our research. I do not have this problem with the word ``significant,'' because the situation has changed dramatically. However, I have a small problem with the idea that it will be put on a back burner again in the other place and may never see the light of day.
Senator Banks: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am not a member of this committee, as you well know. I am officially a member today, because I am replacing a senator, so I will speak only once with respect to all the proposed amendments that we have had the opportunity of seeing. As far as I can see, they do no harm — and I have heard no proposal that they do harm, or they are inaccurate or they adversely affect the intent of the bill. However, I will oppose each of the four amendments. I will not speak further on that until the votes come.
Senator Cordy: I will speak to the first amendment. The statement that is in the bill — 1 in 165 — is data that is used by the department; it is not inaccurate. Other than killing the bill, I am not sure what purpose the amendment will serve.
Senator Seidman: I am happy to respond. Indeed, this bill is important. However, because it is a bill, the feeling here is that it should not be specific to time and place. When the bill uses Statistics Canada data from 2007, that data makes it specific to time and place.
It is a bill that will be there forever, hopefully. When the bill says 1 in 165 families in Canada, that data was based on the definition of autism spectrum disorders in 2007. As we all know, definitions change and prevalence and incidence data change. I think it is preferable to create a bill that will stand the test of time; and that is the spirit in which this amendment is being made.
Senator Champagne: Senator Munson, you made the point earlier of the importance of this bill because it is more than a simple ministerial declaration. Because we all want the bill passed and in our books forever, I think that the Senator Seidman is bringing up points that are valuable. We should stay away from numbers that will vary from one year to the next. Let us state the facts, but let us stay away from numbers.
It is a bill. It is more than a ministerial declaration. You have repeated many times that you felt it was more important to be in a bill. None of us is against the idea in itself. We only want to make sure the bill is good.
Senator Munson: I respect that. If it is the will of the committee, the word ``significant'' is fine with me, and I will fight my battles on the other side. However, another amendment is coming up that has no numbers, which I think you want to delete, but I will talk about that when that amendment comes.
Senator Merchant: Is this the usual pattern that we follow in bills? Does that mean we can never use statistics again because we do not want to use numbers? Is this pattern typical or a specific thing that is happening here today?
I do not know the reason for these amendments, frankly, but I will keep my suspicions to myself. Can someone clarify this point — if this pattern is indeed always followed?
Senator Seidman: Senator Merchant, I do not think I can comment on other bills, as they are devised and created by the lawmakers. However, I think in the case of the bill that is before us — we deal in specifics as opposed to hypotheticals — this amendment is being made as a well-meaning amendment, not in any other fashion.
As I have said, incidence and prevalence data change over time. As Senator Champagne said, we are making this amendment in all earnestness and seriousness in a bill to create an awareness day that will mark it forever in time, and we should take it seriously and do it seriously. Why should we mark 2007 in the bill — which, in a sense, is what we are doing here? This data is from Statistics Canada 2007.
Senator Merchant: I have raised my objection.
[Translation]
Senator Fox: As the saying goes ``The best is the enemy of the good.'' Indeed, hundreds of bills contain imperfections, but were adopted because the legislator was in favour of an important part of the bill.
All the senators present here have praised not only Senator Munson's crusade, but those important parts of the bill that are parts 1 and 2. If historians later wish to analyze things — because they are virtually the only ones who will be looking at these numbers —, they will observe that at the time the bill was passed the numbers were valid.
The question that must be asked is if this amendment is that important to Senator Seidman that she wishes to set aside what everyone spoke so highly of at the beginning of the meeting, namely the importance of recognizing a World Autism Awareness Day. That is what matters, and not this number of 165 million.
Once again, the only people who will dwell on this number will be historians or economists who will say at such and such a point in time that it is no longer a valid number, but that at the time of the bill's adoption, senators based themselves on these numbers.
Once again, the best is the enemy of the good, and if you insist on this amendment, you know as well as I do that you will be putting this bill off indefinitely. This bill deserves to pass for the benefit of the autistic community and not for the benefit of historians or people who will be fussing about commas or semi-colons.
[English]
Senator Banks: I promised I would not speak again. I apologize.
The Deputy Chair: I take back calling you a professor.
Senator Banks: I am grateful for both of those things.
I want to make an observation. I am not a procedural expert, as everyone here knows and will learn the longer we are all here. However, it has been pointed out to me in the past that the point Senator Fox made is extremely valid. In operative terms, the only function of this bill is set out in its clauses 1 and 2. Preambles in bills have no force in law. It is not unreasonable to say they are not even part of the law in terms of the operability of the act. The thing that counts is what is said in clause 1 and clause 2. As a general rule, it is not unfair to say that preambles in bills are incidental to the effect, purpose and intent of bills.
When we consider these amendments, we must consider that they are not amending in any way the effect of the bill. They are not amending in any way the operative parts of the bill. They are not diminishing in any way the future effects of the bill. The effect of the bill, which is to declare a certain date to be a certain day, is not in any way mitigated, reduced or made less effective by anything, wrong or right, that is said in the preamble of the bill.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senator. That is an observation. Nevertheless, the amendment is valid and does not overturn the intent of the bill. I am required to allow the amendment. Therefore, honourable senators, the motion of the Honourable Senator Seidman is:
That Bill S-211 be amended in the preamble on page 1, by replacing line 2 with the following:
``a significant number of families in Canada;'' and the French equivalent, which states:
[Translation]
``a significant number of families in Canada;''.
[English]
Honourable senators, is it your pleasure that the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: I request a show of hands.
In the affirmative?
Contrary?
I declare the motion carried five to four.
An Hon. Senator: Six to four.
The Deputy Chair: Six to four. I missed one hand. I declare the motion carried. The amendment carried.
I believe Senator Seidman has additional amendments.
Senator Seidman: Yes, I do.
I move:
That Bill S-211 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by deleting lines 6 to 8:
``Whereas the number of Canadians diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder has grown by 150 per cent in the last six years.''
It is paragraph 3, lines 6 to 8. I believe I am quoting lines instead of paragraphs because in the French version, the lines are different. In the French version, paragraph 3 includes lines 9 to 12.
The Deputy Chair: The intent is to delete what you read in English as well as the equivalent in French?
Senator Seidman: Exactly: lines 6 to 8 in the English version, and lines 9 to 12 in the French version.
The Deputy Chair: Is the amendment understood by the committee? Hearing none, it is open to discussion. Senator Cordy followed by Senator Munson.
Senator Cordy: I continue to find it unusual that we cannot have any data or numbers in a preamble of a bill because the bill should always be timeless and not specific to time and place. I have never examined all bills, but I find it unusual that we would not use statistics in any bill. While the premise behind the bill is timeless, one hopes that the statistics can be used in its preamble to make a bill more understandable.
I continue with what I said earlier that I do not believe that this amendment adds anything to the bill. It delays and virtually kills the bill because the bill will not likely pass before the next election or before Parliament is prorogued once again. For that reason, I will vote against this amendment because I do not think that it adds to the bill.
Senator Munson: In a court of law and in other contextual arguments presenting a person's case, they use statistics. If a case were based only on motive, environment or other reason, there would not be many convictions. They need statistics to back up arguments.
In this case, for the record, my source was Autism Speaks, the Autism Society of Canada and Dr. Eric Fombonne from Montreal, who is renowned for his reports that the prevalence of ASD has increased by this much. The Centres of Disease Control and Prevention confirm these same rates. I have no nefarious intentions. One builds a case, comes to a conclusion and presents the arguments using some of these statistics.
Senator Plett: In response to Senator Cordy's comments and possibly to Senator Munson, I support the bill. I hope that no one thinks that because I voted for an amendment that I am not supportive of the bill; I am.
The deed that Senator Cordy and Senator Banks spoke of was done by passing the first amendment. I do not think the rest of the amendments in any way will impede any further the passage of this bill because we can only impede it once. Whether we agree or disagree, that has been done. We need other reasons for not passing the rest of these amendments than that they will slow down the bill, because further amendments will not slow the bill any further.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators. The Honourable Senator Seidman has moved an amendment. Is it your pleasure to have the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
Senator Cordy: I want a vote by voice, not hands.
The Deputy Chair: You want a recorded vote? In that case, can I ask the clerk to call the vote?
Jessica Richardson, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Champagne?
Senator Champagne: For.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Demers?
Senator Demers: For.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: For.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: For.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Fox?
Senator Fox: Against.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Merchant?
Senator Merchant: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion carried by a vote of six to four in a recorded vote.
I believe the Honourable Senator Seidman has an additional motion.
Senator Seidman: I do, thank you. I move that Bill S-211 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by deleting lines 15 to 17 in the English version and lines 20 to 23 in the French version.
The Deputy Chair: The motion is before us. Is there debate? Are senators ready for the question?
The Honourable Senator Seidman moves that Bill S-211 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by deleting lines 15 to 17 in the English version.
[Translation]
— and the deletion of lines 20 to 23 in the French version —
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Lines 20 to 24.
The Deputy Chair: Lines 20 to 24, thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you very much. It is lines 20 to 24.
[English]
Senator Seidman: No, it is 20 to 23.
The Deputy Chair: It is 23. It is the section. Thank you, senators. I want to be absolutely clear.
[Translation]
In the French version, it is the removal of lines 20 to 23. Is that correct?
[English]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Senator Cordy: Can we have a recorded vote, please?
The Deputy Chair: Senator Cordy wishes a recorded vote.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Banks?
Senator Banks: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Champagne.
Senator Champagne: In favour.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Richarson: Senator Demers.
Senator Demers: In favour.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Eaton.
[Translation]
Senator Eaton: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Fox.
[English]
Senator Fox: No.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Merchant.
Senator Merchant: No.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: In favour.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion carried by a vote of 6 to 4 in a recorded vote.
Senator Seidman: I move that Bill S-211 be amended in the preamble, on page 2, by deleting lines 1 and 2.
[Translation]
In French, by deleting lines 9 to 11.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: The motion is before us, open for debate.
Senator Munson: For a point of clarification, this is the part where it says:
Whereas Canada has no national strategy to address autism spectrum disorders;
Senator Seidman: Correct.
Senator Munson: There are no figures here. There are no statistics in this argument. It is a fact.
I will plead my argument to my Conservative colleagues. When this committee met and thoughtfully listened to the autistic community across this country, who sat in the same place I sat and pleaded their case, we listened. We listened with honourable intentions of trying to do something.
At the end of these meetings, as we said before, we came up with a report, a Senate report, that was approved by the two parties. In that report it says, on a clear basis, whereas we do not have a national autism spectrum disorder strategy, and we do not really have one. We have a patchwork program across the country that is implemented by provinces.
I will plead to my Conservative senators, if there is one thing that I would love to see left in this bill, it is those two lines. It does not obligate a federal government to do it. All it is saying — as we said in the preamble before it about the United Nations and about the signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — is that we have to move forward on this issue and try to do something about it. It is about building blocks and getting inside that autistic puzzle and completing that puzzle, so that we do the right thing for the autistic community in this country.
I ask senators to reconsider that amendment. It is extremely important to me in my arguments. I will leave it at that.
Senator Seidman: I might try to give some kind of response to Senator Munson. I think that here we are not saying that this is not a terribly important issue, and that indeed we have listened to the community. I am not sure it is fair to say distinctly that Canada has no national strategy to address autism spectrum disorders. I think it is a question of how one approaches the issue.
There is no question that over the last couple of years an enormous effort has been made to fund more and more projects, both at the university level and the association and group level, to further research and provide services to the autistic community.
How well-developed is the national strategy? Probably not as well-developed as we might like to see it. However, perhaps it is not fair to say that Canada has no national strategy to address autism. The strategy may be evolving — it may be in its early stages of development — but we may not say we have no national strategy. I think that is why we put this amendment forward, with all due respect.
Senator Munson: I have a brief response. If we want to be positive, we can say, ``Whereas Canada needs a national strategy to address autism spectrum disorders.'' That wording takes out the negative context. That is a suggestion.
Senator Cordy: Are you willing to accept that amendment?
Senator Seidman: I think we would need another discussion about amendments, so I think we should leave it at this. This is my amendment for now.
Senator Cordy: You said that to say there is no national strategy is incorrect and that the strategy may not be well- developed. I wonder if perhaps, at the next meeting of this committee, after this bill is passed with its amendments — we already have three of them — that you can bring forward what we have so far in terms of a national strategy. I am not aware of any national strategy, one that is not well-developed or one that is even partially developed. I have not heard of a national strategy. Perhaps you can bring something forward, because we are all interested in this issue. Perhaps you can bring forward to the committee, at our next meeting, what we have in terms of the development of a national strategy for autism spectrum disorder.
Senator Seidman: In fact, if you went back to my speech as the government critic on this bill in the Senate, you will probably find some development of the government's strategy around autism. Perhaps if you check that speech you might have some sense of where the government is going.
The Deputy Chair: Is there further debate?
Seeing no indication, the Honourable Senator Seidman has moved an amendment to the preamble of Bill S-211, such that it be amended on page 2 by deleting lines 1 and 2 in the English version.
[Translation]
By deleting lines 9 to 11 in the French version.
[English]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: We will record the vote.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Champagne.
Senator Champagne: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Demers.
Senator Demers: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Fox.
Senator Fox: No.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Merchant.
Senator Merchant: No.
Ms. Richardson: Senator Plett.
[Translation]
Senator Plett: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Senator Seidman.
[Translation]
Senator Seidman: Yes.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I declare the amendment carried by a vote of 6 to 4, recorded.
I now return to the preamble, as amended. Shall the preamble, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: I declare by voice vote that the amendment carry.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Deputy Chair: On division. Is that agreed? Thank you.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the title carried.
Shall the bill as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the bill as amended carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the bill?
Hearing none, is it agreed that I report this bill as amended to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare that approved. Thank you very much.
Senator Munson: I sincerely want to thank all honourable senators for their observations and point of view, and I sincerely hope that we can carry on and have this day recognized in a legal statute.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Deputy Chair: On behalf of the committee, we want to thank you very much, Senator Munson, and I hope out of this meeting, you have taken the unanimous support from the committee for the substance of your intent.
We will now consider Bill S-203, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, and I invite Senator Mercer to provide the committee with his comments.
Hon. Terry M. Mercer, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, colleagues.
This bill was here in the First Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament as Bill S-46. It then became Bill S-204, and in the second session it was Bill S-204 again. In the First Session of the Fortieth Parliament it was Bill S-210, and in the second session it was Bill S-217. All those times it was proposed by our former colleague Senator Grafstein, who I pay special tribute to for his determination to move this bill forward. I worked with him to move this bill through, and we did move it through the Senate a couple of times and over to the House of Commons. The last time an event ensued through Parliament.
I am familiar with the frustration that goes along with trying to pass what seems to be uncomplicated legislation here in the chamber and then in the other place. It took me two to three years in working with Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec to have the week in which June 14 falls declared National Blood Donor Week. World Blood Donor Day, which falls within National Blood Donor Week, occurs on June 14. It seemed like a motherhood issue when we started, but the parliamentary process can sometimes be cumbersome, but it is also one that is recognized.
This bill is important in that I have been involved in the philanthropic sector as a volunteer, staffer and professional fundraiser since 1978. I had the privilege and honour to work for many of Canada's largest charities, and to help tens of thousands of volunteers raise hundreds of millions of dollars for those charities. National philanthropy day is an opportunity to celebrate those people and that process of providing the necessary money for charities, whether they be community orchestras, universities or colleges in the neighbourhood or the local minor hockey team. This bill is an opportunity to have that celebration.
November 15 has been celebrated unofficially by Canadians for many years, and indeed, I have had the privilege of speaking at national philanthropy day celebrations in almost every province across the country. One year, I spoke in three different provinces on the same day for the celebration.
The celebration involves thousands of Canadians, mostly people volunteering to help raise money, but many are also donors celebrating their giving. There are also people who help organize these events and this raising of money professionally.
In my speech in support of this bill in the chamber, I went through a number of associations and organizations that some committee members are affiliated with. I will not redo that now, to save time. However, in the previous go-round, I gave a similar speech and I used another list of our colleagues. I paid particular attention to my colleagues on the government side, mainly because I was courting them, without doubt, but also because I already had talked to people individually on my side.
I am pleased to say we have had good support from both sides in the Senate chamber and also from all four parties in the House of Commons when the legislation moved there.
A number of volunteers across the country who are supportive of this legislation have spent a good deal of time and effort talking to their local members of Parliament to ensure they understand the importance the volunteers place on this legislation. As I said, celebrations happen in all provinces already. This bill gives the celebration official status. Over 50,000 people in 125 events across North America have celebrated this day, not including events happening around the world.
I do not want to go on because I know time is of the essence today, chair. I am happy to answer any questions that my colleagues might have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Mercer. The bill is open for questions.
Senator Champagne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair. Senator Mercer, I am looking at the bill and I see that clause 3, which asks the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make a declaration, has already been done by our Minister of Canadian Heritage. Therefore, I do not think we need this added clause. I think we all agree to have this day to say thank you and honour all the people who help so much in all kinds of areas.
I think Senator Banks will agree that without ``les mécènes'' — the people who give so much for the arts — I do not know where we would be. We are all for this bill, but I wonder if clause 3 is necessary now that it has been done by the minister.
Senator Mercer: Senator Champagne, I appreciate your support. In discussions that I and my office have had with the minister's office after the bill was introduced, it was suggested that this clause might be redundant.
Recognizing that the bill will have to start again, as Senator Banks outlined earlier, when it passes the Senate and goes over to the other place and, in the spirit of accommodation, I am happy to accommodate that suggestion and remove that clause. I suggest the simplest way to make the change is to defeat the clause in clause-by-clause consideration. That removes it from the process instead of going through the necessity of an amendment.
However, if you want an amendment, one is available. That said, I think defeating the clause is the simplest way to make the change. I have no problem with that suggestion. I thank the honourable senator for her support.
Senator Cordy: I agree this declaration has already been made by the minister and it is redundant. There is no point in having it in the bill. I agree with both senators.
Senator Plett: I am supportive of the bill. Thank you, Senator Mercer, for all your work. You have my support.
The Deputy Chair: Seeing no further discussion, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to move to clause-by- clause consideration of Bill S-203, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Senator Champagne: I have an amendment to the preamble.
The Deputy Chair: We will come back to it, as indicated earlier.
Shall clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Deputy Chair: I declare clause 2 carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: I declare clause 3 defeated.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare clause 1 carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Champagne: Allow me to be picky. At line 20. . .
[Translation]
In the French version, the text reads ``il est importante de rendre hommage.''
[English]
It is a typo, and nothing more than that. Regardless, we have to send the bill back. I think we should correct that typing mistake.
The Deputy Chair: We have an amendment before us and it is open for discussion. Are members ready for the question on the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
[Translation]
We are proposing that the bill be amended at line 20, on page 1, in the French version, by replacing the word ``importante'' by ``important.''
[English]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to approve the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the amendment carried.
Shall the preamble as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the preamble as amended carried.
Shall the bill as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Excuse me; will the committee give the chair permission to move back and determine whether the title shall carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the title carried.
Shall the bill as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the bill as amended carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the committee does not wish to append observations.
Senator Champagne: Unless we want to send our best to Senator Grafstein, who carried this bill for so long, and to also give a ``thank you'' to Senator Mercer.
The Deputy Chair: It sounds to me like Senator Mercer will do that in the appropriate location.
I want to thank Senator Mercer on behalf of the committee for bringing a bill before us that is so obviously supported by the committee. It will be a pleasure to take it forward, as amended, to the Senate on behalf of the committee. Thank you very much.
I will determine that members wish me to carry the bill forward to the Senate on behalf of the committee. Can I take that as agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. With that, I declare the committee adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)