House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was yukon.

Topics

Petitions
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, I am here to present a petition on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, particularly those from Arnprior, Braeside, Renfrew and Kinburn. The petitioners are requesting that Parliament recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, that the facility should stay in Arnprior, that the money promised to them for these facilities should be allocated there, and that the government should upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training for Canadians.

Petitions
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Anders Calgary West, AB

Madam Speaker, these petitioners note that March 10 marks the anniversary of Tibetan uprising day. In 1959, Tibetans rose up against the invading Chinese and about 100,000 were massacred, and some 1.2 million have lost their lives in the past five decades. Authorities continue to detain 13 year old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Panchen Lama, whose detention is now approaching its eighth year.

The petitioners say that the Human Rights Commission should adopt a resolution on the situation of human rights in China, East Turkestan and Tibet, with a view to ending specific human rights abuses. Further, the petitioners call upon the Canadian government to sponsor a resolution at the upcoming United Nations Commission on Human Rights to petition Chinese authorities for permission to visit the Panchen Lama for the purpose of ascertaining his safety and well-being

Petitions
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of some constituents in my area. It has to do with a proposed amendment to Criminal Code sections 318 and 319 which these constituents believe will lead to individuals being unable to exercise their religious freedoms, their rights under the charter of rights. Therefore, they wish to petition this Parliament to protect the right of Canadians to be free to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Beauséjour—Petitcodiac
New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 45 and 105.

Question No. 45
Routine proceedings

February 28th, 2003 / 12:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Delta—South Richmond, BC

Following the Mefloquine adverse event monitoring report received on August 26, 2002 by Health Canada indicating a murder and an attempted suicide: ( a ) what investigation has been carried out by Health Canada and other government agencies; and ( b ) what was the result of these investigations?

Question No. 45
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

I am informed as follows:

Health Canada:

The Canadian Adverse Drug Reporting Monitoring Program, CADRMP, in Health Canada is responsible for the collection and assessment of adverse reactions that have been submitted by health professionals or consumers, either directly or through manufacturers. Information on all reported adverse reactions is maintained in a computerized database and is used as part of the continuing assessment of marketed health products. It is important to remember that reports to the CADRMP represent the suspicion, opinion or observation of the individual reporter. Cause and effect relationships have not been established. Adverse reaction information is used to help ensure the benefits of a marketed health product continue to outweigh the risks, to continuously update the labelling and product information for a marketed health product and to inform health care professionals and consumers about adverse reactions.

Since mefloquine was marketed in Canada, 1993 to October 8, 2002, the Canadian Adverse Reaction Monitoring Program, CADRMP, has received a total of 65 reports in which mefloquine was listed as suspected or interacting drug.

Health Canada analyzes adverse reaction reports to discover potential health product safety signals. A signal is considered to be the preliminary indication of a product related issue, for example a report of an unusual or unexpected adverse event, or an increase in the number of reports of a particular adverse event. The identification of a signal is not by itself the proof of the association of an adverse reaction to a health product but it triggers the need to further investigate a potential association. Health Canada’s regulatory actions are based on a scientific analysis of cases and are taken according to the regulatory framework in place. This includes updating the product monograph. Since Lariam, mefloquine, was approved in 1993, the Product Monograph has been revised seven times.

Health Canada continues to monitor the adverse reaction profile of mefloquine. The Marketed Health Products and Therapeutic Products Directorates are working in collaboration to ensure that measures are taken to address safety issues and make sure that the information in the Canadian Product Monograph is accurate, current and reflective of the Canadian experience. With regard to Lariam, mefloquine, there was a communique in the Canadian Adverse Reactions Newsletter, Volume 8, No 1, January 1998, on the neuropsychiatric reactions with the prophylactic use of this antimalarial drug. The Canadian Product Monograph of Lariam, mefloquine, contains all information on very rare neuropsychiatric reactions reported in some patients as well as cautions to be considered by physicians when prescribing this drug.

Because information that could identify the patient or the reporter in an adverse reaction report is confidential as per section 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, Health Canada cannot comment on investigations of any case by Health Canada or other government agencies.

National Defence:

a) The Department of National Defence reviewed the report.

b) Given that the report deals with incidents that the Department examined in the past, no further investigation is deemed warranted.

Question No. 105
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

With respect to cancer and cancer research in Canada for each of the previously recorded nine fiscal years, what has Health Canada determined to be: ( a ) the incidence and fatality rates for breast cancer within the female population expressed as a percentage of all Canadian women; ( b ) the incidence and fatality rates for prostate cancer within the male population expressed as a percentage of all Canadian men; ( c ) the total amount of federal tax dollars put towards breast cancer research; ( d ) the total amount of federal tax dollars put towards prostate cancer research; ( e ) the provinces and territories in which mammograms are paid for by publicly-funded health care insurance when used as a tool in the early detection of breast cancer; and ( f ) the provinces and territories in which prostate specific antigen tests are paid for by publicly-funded health care insurance when used as a tool in the early detection of prostate cancer?

Question No. 105
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Edmonton West
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Minister of Health

The answer is as follows:

(a) Breast cancer continues to be the most frequently diagnosed cancer for women. One in nine women are expected to develop breast cancer and one in twenty-seven are expected to die of the disease. Following small but steady annual increases over three decades, breast cancer incidence among women levelled off in 1993. Mortality rates for breast cancer have declined steadily since 1986. This pattern of divergent trends is consistent with the benefits being achieved through screening programs and improved treatments.

The table below indicates the incidence and mortality* rates for breast cancer, female only, in Canada for the years 1990 to 1999.

  • Age-standardized rate: The number of new cases of cancer or cancer deaths per 100,000 that would have occurred in the standard population, 1991 Canadian population, if the actual age-specific rates observed in a given population had prevailed in the standard population.

(b) Prostate cancer will continue to be the most frequently occurring cancer for Canadian men. One in eight men will develop prostate cancer during their lifetime, mostly after age 70 and one in twenty-eight will die of the disease. Beginning in 1994, incidence rates* for prostate cancer began to decline after having increased rapidly for several years. Mortality rates for prostate cancer peaked between 1991 and 1995 and have fallen since. Increases in prostate cancer incidence in the early 1990's were likely due to the rapid increase in the use of early detection techniques.

The table below indicates the incidence and mortality* rates for prostate cancer in Canadian men for the years 1990 to 1999.

  • Age-standardized rate: The number of new cases of cancer or cancer deaths per 100,000 that would have occurred in the standard population, 1991 Canadian population, if the actual age-specific rates observed in a given population had prevailed in the standard population.

(c) The table below describes the Federal contributions towards breast cancer research. Partners include the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, CIHR, and Health Canada, HC.

(d) Federal tax dollars contributed towards prostate cancer research is as follows:

(e) Mammograms are paid for by publicly funded health care insurance in all provinces and territories when used as a tool in the early detection of breast cancer.

(f) Currently, Saskatchewan is the only province in which prostate specific antigen, PSA, tests are paid for by publicly funded health care insurance when used for screening asymptomatic men. However, prostate specific antigen tests are paid for by publicly funded health care insurance in all provinces and territories when used for diagnostic and monitoring purposes.

Due to a lack of evidence that PSA screening reduces death from prostate cancer, it is not a proven tool in the early detection of prostate cancer. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommends against the use of PSA test for routine screening purposes.

Question No. 105
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 105
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is that agreed?

Question No. 105
Routine proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon, be read the third time and passed.

Question No. 105
Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Madam Speaker, I can assure my Progressive Conservative Party friend from Manitoba, my friends from the opposite side of the House, and you, Madam Speaker, that I do not intend to use all of the 27 minutes.

I did wish to raise one additional point. There is another concern that I believe the Yukon Territory is going to have to confront, assuming this legislation does proceed. That is the conflict in the territories with regard to outstanding land claims. The land claim issue of course is a problem across the country. Yukon is no exception to that, but there is a particular concern in Yukon because of the pressure that is being exerted on that territory in terms of the demands that we have for fossil fuel and the building of a pipeline that would cross the Yukon Territory.

As we know, there were various proposals outstanding for different pipelines, but one proposal would have fuel flow out of Alaska through the southern part of Yukon down through British Columbia and Alberta. The land that is in the area in the southern part of the Yukon Territory is subject to a land claim that, like so many others, has been outstanding for quite some time. This legislation, if it is applied to the proposal for the pipeline to run through that area, is also going to be confronted with how we deal with that proposal when we have an outstanding land claim. What role does that first nation play? It is not the only area in the territory where this is a potential problem. It obviously behooves this government to move as quickly as possible to resolve those land claims. On behalf of the NDP, I highlight this as a concern as to how this legislation is going to be implemented.

By way of summary, let me say that the NDP is in support of this legislation. We believe it has some innovative features which make it mandatory that it be supported. I have expressed today, as has the member for Winnipeg Centre in the past, certain concerns about the legislation, but it does enhance significantly the role that the first nations will play in the environmental assessment process. It introduces to a much more significant degree socio-economic issues, particularly cultural and heritage matters. It brings into play the cumulative impact principle. Finally, this legislation has had a significant amount of consultation with the first nations, with the government of the Yukon Territory and with local communities in Yukon. On that basis we will be supporting the legislation.

Question No. 105
Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I am speaking to legislation that was taken through committee by my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River who, unfortunately, cannot be here today. He has been absent from the House and committee in the past while, although I know members of the committee miss his important influence and input into the committee work. I know they miss him because he does have a good grasp on what is happening with regard to first nations issues.

I have stood in the House and spoken in favour of Bill C-2 previously on behalf of my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River, and I will again reiterate the support of the Progressive Conservative Party for Bill C-2.

This past Tuesday a vote was held in the House on an amendment to Bill C-2. The original amendment was proposed by the member for Dauphin--Swan River and passed at the committee. It said that any future changes to regulations were to be brought before the standing committee before being published in the Canada Gazette or before coming into force. Effectively the committee agreed with this as being a good amendment, that before any of the regulation changes were to go forward and be gazetted they would come back to the parliamentary committee. What an innovative way of doing business in the House that in fact parliamentarians and the committee, which knows how the regulations would affect this legislation, would be able to deal with it.

However, even though the committee accepted and approved the amendment, it came back to the House and the minister felt that it was a little beneath him to take an amendment from an opposition member of the committee so he decided last Tuesday to do away with it.

I am somewhat disappointed with the member for Yukon. I respect him and his ability to bring this legislation to the House. I respect the passion by which he has dealt with this legislation. However I have to admit that I am disappointed that the member for Yukon did not stand up and support what the committee had done to bring this legislation forward and support the amendment. This would be a small chastisement of the member for Yukon, an individual who has put his heart and soul into this legislation, and who, as I said earlier, I respect for what he has done in the past but perhaps cannot respect him quite that much for not supporting this amendment coming forward.

Having said that, we do support it. We believe it is a good step forward. We believe the process was a good process, right up until the committee amendment was defeated in the House, but it brought together basically three levels of government, and I say that with some trepidation, but it was the federal government, the territorial government and the Council of Yukon Indians which represented the majority of the aboriginal governments within Yukon. I believe 11 of the 14 were represented at the table. That is good, co-operative federalism at work. I wish other departments and other ministers would consider that co-operative federalism when dealing with their own portfolios. They could probably learn a lesson from the minister in this particular case when they did go out and did use the consultative process and used it well, I might add, in order to bring all those parties to the table.

What it also does is it creates the process whereby environmental and socio-economic effects of a wide range of development activities are carefully assessed and considered before a project is approved. That is also very positive. This puts a process in place that will allow developments to go forward without having all parties throwing unnecessary barriers or roadblocks in the way. The ultimate result will be increased opportunity for economic development within the Yukon territory. That in itself is extremely positive.

The bill would also establish a development assessment process which would oversee development proposals within a province, which is, as I just said, a proposal that obviously would assist the process as opposed to having roadblocks thrown in its way.

There are some concerns, as was mentioned earlier by my colleague from Windsor and by other sitting members. The fact is that the benefits of the bill certainly outweigh all the negatives. As I say, it speaks to the insensitivity of not only the minister but certainly of the member who brought it forward, in not allowing what we consider to be a very important amendment that was brought forward and accepted by the committee but which was then taken out of the system in a back door fashion.

I want it on record that the Progressive Conservative Party will support Bill C-2 in its final reading. I appreciate the fact that the first nations in Yukon have the ability to more forward as well as they should.

Question No. 105
Government Orders

12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is the House ready for the question?