Debates of Feb. 16th, 1999

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, May 5, 1998, our committee has considered Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. Our committee has agreed to report it with amendment.

Petitions

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House with 245 signatures from British Columbia.

The petitioners are calling upon parliament to take immediate steps (a) to provide a significant contribution toward homeowners affected by the residential construction crisis (b) to ensure that the cost of all qualified repairs are deductible from income retroactively and in the future (c) to repeal and refund all GST on qualified repairs and (d) to permit registered retirement savings plan or RRSP funds to be used to undertake qualified repairs without penalty and to permit previously withdrawn RRSP funds used to pay repair specialist assessments to be income tax rebated.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians including from my own riding of Mississauga South on the subject of human rights.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that violations of human rights continue to be rampant around the world in countries such as Indonesia.

The petitioners also acknowledge that Canada is internationally recognized as the champion of internationally recognized human rights. The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to continue to condemn human rights violations and to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning. The first petition is signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas and elsewhere in British Columbia.

It notes that a commission of inquiry into the quality of condominium construction in B.C. has concluded that condominium owners and residents are the victims of a systemic failure to provide quality accommodation and as a result tens of thousands of residents are suffering financially, emotionally, medically and domestically.

Therefore the petitioners urge parliament to provide a significant contribution toward homeowners affected by the residential construction crisis to ensure that the cost of all qualified repairs are deductible from income retroactively and in the future, to repeal and refund all GST on qualified repairs, and finally to permit RRSP funds to be used to undertake qualified repairs without penalty and to permit previously withdrawn RRSP funds used to pay repair specialist assessments to be income tax rebated.

Today on budget day I hope the minister heeds that call.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by residents of a number of municipalities in British Columbia including Burnaby.

It draws to the attention of the House the fact that the multilateral agreement on investment or MAI will disproportionately expand and entrench unprecedented rights to transnational corporations and foreign investors at the expense of the Canadian government's ability basically to make decisions about our own future.

It calls on parliament to consider the enormous implications to Canada by the signing of the MAI, to put it to open debate in the House and to place it for a national referendum for the people of Canada to decide.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 270 people from my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo.

The petitioners ask the House to fund all groups, including students involved in the RCMP public complaints commission investigation into the actions of the RCMP at the 1997 APEC summit, and not to engage and create activities at the expense of national and international human rights. They call for a full judicial inquiry.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 300 Canadians from the communities of Picton, Navan, Limoges, Fort Elgin, Owen Sound, Scarborough, Guelph, Aurora, London, Brampton and Kleinburg, Ontario, as well as Kentville and Halifax, Nova Scotia.

They pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 132 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 132—

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

With reference to the side effects experienced by those taking the anti-malarial drug mefloquine (Lariam): (a) provide a detailed update on the clinical study of mefloquine (Lariam) announced by the Department of National Defence in 1997, including trial design, subject inclusion/exclusion criteria, numbers of study subjects recruited to date and participating centres; (b) have reviews been undertaken of the side effects experienced by the Australian, British and Dutch forces, if so what were the results and recommendations, and what steps have been undertaken to implement these recommendations; (c) with regard to the mefloquine (Lariam) used for the prophylaxis of Canadian troops deployed to Somalia, what was the nature of the Department of Health's Health Protection Branch investigations in October 1997 into the failure of the manufacturer to properly supervise and ensure compliance with the Lariam safety monitoring study and the failure of the Department of National Defence to comply with its obligations under the safety monitoring study; (d) with regard to the mefloquine (Lariam) used for the prophylaxis of Canadian troops deployed to Somalia, what was the outcome of the Department of Health's Health Protection Branch investigations in October 1997 into the failure of the manufacturer to properly supervise and ensure compliance with the Lariam safety monitoring study and the failure of the Department of National Defence to comply with its obligations under the safety monitoring study; (e) what is the date of the insert in the mefloquine (Lariam) package used in Canada today; (f) what is the date of the product monograph for mefloquine (Lariam) used in Canada today; (g) have reviews been undertaken of the insert in the mefloquine (Lariam) package and the prescribing information used in Australia, if so what were the results and recommendations of the reviews, and what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations; (h) have reviews been undertaken of the insert in the mefloquine (Lariam) package and the prescribing information used in the United Kingdom, if so what were the results and recommendations of the reviews, and what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations; (i) have reviews been undertaken as regards the differences in the timing and content of the Canadian product monograph approved by the Department of Health Health Protection Branch as compared with Australian and British product monograph equivalents, if so what were the results and recommendations of the reviews, and what steps have been undertaken to implement these recommendations; and (j) what was the source of the mefloquine (Lariam) supplies used for the prophylaxis of Canadian troops deployed to Somalia?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed by the departments of health and national defence as follows:

a) A Department of National Defence (DND) specific research study to determine whether there are any objectively measurable neuro-psychological effects associated with mefloquine was approved by the Medical Services Research Board in 1995. The study designe is a double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled trial. The suggested sample size requires 280 persons per active and placebo group.

Inclusion criteria:

1. Age over 18 years; 2. Expected deployment to an area requiring mefloquine (chloroquine resistant area); and 3. Informed, voluntary consent to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria:

1. Prior use of mefloquine, with or without an adverse drug reaction; 2. Pre-existing medical disorders, including: seizure disorder, vertigo, neuro-psychiatric disease or cardiac conduction defect; 3. Pregnancy, or the likelihood of pregnancy during the study period and for three months following the study period; and 4. Any allergy to the study medications.

Due to the unavailability of a suitable number of Canadian forces (CF) participants (CF personnel since 1995 not having been deployed in sufficient numbers to a region where the use of mefloquine is required), no subjects have been recruited and participating centres have not been confirmed.

b) Yes, reviews indicate that the experience of the Australian, British and Dutch forces with mefloquine is similar to the Canadian forces experience. The common experience has demonstrated that mefloquine is a very effective prophylaxis against malaria and has few significant side effects, although minor side effects are common. As a result of the reviews, the Australian, British and Dutch forces continue to use mefloquine where appropriate and monitor personnel for side effects.

c) Health Canada did not undertake any formal investigations in October 1997. In October 1994, there were media reports of claims of involvement of Lariam in several incidents in Somalia. Health Canada took immediate and repeated action by requesting the manufacturer to provide all information and adverse drug reaction reports as required under the safety monitoring study (SMS) on the possible use by DND of SMS supplies of Lariam in Canadian forces deployed to Somalia.

d) In October 1994, when Health Canada became aware that Lariam had been administered to Canadian armed forces deployed to Somalia, the department requested from the sponsor an accounting of all the supplies provided to Canadian armed forces personnel by DND, and a listing of adverse drug reactions observed during the course of the use of the drug under the auspices of the SMS. DND indicated to the manufacturer that it was their belief that Lariam issued in Somalia was purchased separately from the SMS. Health Canada concluded that the manufacturer had conducted the trial as per the agreed upon protocol and had responded to the inquiries in a timely manner.

e) The date of the insert in the Lariam (mefloquine) package is December 12, 1997.

f) The date on the most recent product monograph which also contains an information to the consumer section is December 12, 1997.

g) Health Canada has not undertaken a formal review of the insert in the Lariam (mefloquine) package and the prescribing information used in Autralia. However, prescribing information from various countries (Australia, UK, US as well as the Roche International Standard Prescribing Information) when provided by the manufacturer and when examined has been found to be similar to the Canadian labelling information.

h) Health Canada has not undertaken a formal review of the insert in the Lariam (mefloquine) package and the prescribing information used in the United Kingdom. However, prescribing information from various countries (Australia, UK, US as well as the Roche International Standard Prescribing Information) when provided by the manufacturer and subsequently examined, has been found to be similar to the Canadian labelling information.

i) Health Canada has not undertaken a formal review of the differences in timing and content of the Canadian product monograph as compared with the Australian and British product monograph equivalents. Approval for marketing of a product in Canada and the content of the product monograph is based on the data submitted to Health Canada at the time of filing of the submission by the manufacturer. The filing dates as well as the data in support of the new drug submission may or may not be similar to that submitted to other regulatory organizations.

j) Hoffman LaRoche.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the bill was last before the House the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette had the floor. He has six minutes remaining in his allotted time.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume the debate. As I was saying earlier in debate, I would like to frame my comments in the setting of the following phrase, that the immigration system is broken and the minister is either unwilling or unable to fix it. I make that comment based on the fact that the minister has now been the minister for three years and has done very little in terms of substantive changes to the system.

I would like to read a little from the report of the legislative review group which the minister commissioned last. In the document it made the comment that one of the flaws in Canadian politics is the difficulty in dealing with subjects such as immigration—

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Reform Party continues to refer to this as the Immigration act. I would like to remind the member from the Reform Party that Bill C-63 is the Citizenship Act. Members of that party have continually referred to it as the Immigration Act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member has made his point, but I am not sure it is a point of order.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was stating, in my opinion the immigration system is broken. The minister is either unwilling or unable to fix it. The fact that the minister has brought forward the bill as her first substantive piece of legislation is evidence of that.

I would like to state again as I was stating before I was interrupted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—he might notice that word on the end of the minister's portfolio—that one of the flaws in Canadian politics is the difficulty in dealing with subjects such as immigration as if to raise the issue itself is tantamount to questioning its beliefs. The place of immigrants or the value of a certain category of immigrants in this kind of unspoken censorship has been a chronic problem for both journalists and politicians.

We firmly believe that the government must account for the way the objectives of immigration programs are being met. This is in accordance with the rules that allow the true exercise of the democratic rights of Canadian citizens. Only then can we restore the public's faith in the management of immigration programs. At the same time we will restore the confidence of those who implement these programs and, in the end, of all those who elect to settle in Canada.

I make that comment because quite often what happens is that members of the government throw names at members of the opposition who would point out problems with the system.

We do point out problems with the system because there are problems with the system. We point out those problems so that the system we would hope would be fixed by those who are in power and have the ability to do so.

We make these comments because we believe in immigration, we believe it is a positive force in this country and because the government is derelict in its responsibility to take care of glaring errors.

I will continue to raise those issues—

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of relevancy. The member is not addressing the substance of Bill C-63. Bill C-63 is about citizenship. We do not need members of the opposition getting up and slandering immigrants to this country.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette is coming to discuss the bill before the House. I think he knows his remarks must be relevant to the bill. I think the parliamentary secretary has made a point and I am sure the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette will make his remarks relevant to the bill before the House.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I frame these comments on the point that if the parliamentary secretary does not realize that citizenship and immigration are interlinked, I submit that points out a very difficult problem for that individual sitting as a member of the government. I am quite shocked that he does not see the relevance of that comment.

If he would like to direct the debate and send over some speaking notes for members of the opposition so we could say exactly what he wants us to say, that is fine, send them over and we will consider them. In the meantime, I will continue to make the same point. I would like to point out something that the member said which goes to the point of what he sees as priorities and what we see as priorities. We would like to see the system of immigration addressed.

The parliamentary secretary in committee, when these issues were brought up, said: “It is imperative that we not overly focus on the question of criminality in immigration. Too much time has been spent on it. I think we have studied the criminality question enough at the present time. We should be getting on to some other very important issues”.

I say that because there are a lot of important issues and that is one I have raised in committee and in the House. There is a problem happening in Vancouver with an abuse of the immigration system. Individuals who will eventually become citizens of this country, should they choose that course, will be governed by the precepts of this bill that the parliamentary secretary keeps objecting to. I make that comment to the parliamentary secretary in the hope that he will see the relevance of that.

Canadians see the relevance. They see that the system is broken. They see that the government is sitting on its hands and not taking action on some of the very important things that need to happen. The Honduran situation in Vancouver is one of them. The parliamentary secretary has the gall to say—

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are dealing with Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. Reform has time and time again not talked about this bill but instead goes off and talk about some other issues related to immigration, not to citizenship. That debate is going to come to this House at some point in time and then the members opposite can address the issue. Right now they are irrelevant. They are not addressing the citizenship act before this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you direct the member of the opposition to speak about the citizenship act. Otherwise he should not speak at all.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette is about to make his remarks about the bill. I invite him to do so at the earliest opportunity.