Debates of May 13th, 2003

Supply

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

I want to make the point that there is no rule. If there is agreement that the House wants to proceed in that way, the Chair is at the House's disposal.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I would propose that in order to regularize this debate we ensure that the response by the minister is no longer than the question asked by the member so that we have some rules in the House.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I think we all understand very well that it is easy to pose a question but it might require a complex answer. It is easy to think the question is simple but members know full well that the details for which they are asking sometimes require more time for the answer. That is obvious.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

Does the hon. member for Yellowhead want to continue this debate?

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, I just wanted to say that we had this debate earlier in the evening with the previous Chair and a decision was made at that time. However I will leave it at that and hope there is discretion on both sides so we can continue in a civil manner.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I would like to elaborate on the point. Perhaps the way to proceed is that every time the minister answers a question, the next question should be half as long as the minister's answer.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Chair, we do know that the minister appreciates the opportunity for wholesome and fulsome answers. We know that from her appearances at committee. However wholesome and fulsome answers are not the point. The point is debate. That is why we have five hours in this Chamber rather than five hours in committee. This is debate. I do not think any member of the opposition or any member of the government should be able to talk for 10 minutes or 15 minutes without interruption. This is about debate. This is about the pros and the cons.

I would suggest, Madam Chair, that you live with the agreement--

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

Order, please. I think the Chair has had enough advice for the evening, thank you very much. Shall we proceed now because we are eating into the time of the hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, I would like to go back to the minister's last answer because she likes to quote Dr. Heymann, the executive director of the WHO. She claims that Dr. Heymann said that Canada was the first to implement screening measures at airports.

I would like to say that it is not so important how quickly this was done, it is how effectively it was done. He obviously felt that it was not done effectively. On April 23 he said that we now had these areas with a high magnitude of disease and a great risk of transmission locally outside of the usual health workers. He said that we were still exporting these cases.

April 23 was the day on which the WHO actually gave the travel advisory to Toronto. The next day, April 24, Dr. Heymann said:

When you see exportation of cases it makes you question whether the control measures going on are effective to control the disease. Possibly Toronto was not able to really control the spread.

When we hear these kinds of comments coming from the same individual, obviously he was very concerned and convinced that we were exporting the disease. The screening measures at the airport were not done appropriately and are still not being done appropriately. The minister has suggested that she is doing everything appropriately and in a timely fashion. I would suggest that is not happening.

We know that someone can leave China, arrive in a third country, and then travel on to another airport in Calgary or Edmonton, for example, without appropriate screening measures in place for SARS. If the minister has learned anything she should learn that we cannot take a passive approach to something as serious as SARS. It could elevate into a national disaster yet. Now that we have it contained, I would ask the minister to please not do that.

Does the minister have the appropriate screening measures in place right now for those third party travellers coming into this country? We know that the SARS virus is out of control in China and, as sure as we are in this place this evening, we are in danger. Will the minister do the right thing and make sure those measures are in place?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

As I have already indicated, Madam Chair, during the weeks when the SARS outbreak was at its height, we did a daily risk assessment in relation to the procedures around screening. I have indicated in this House that we are increasing our procedures, especially as they relate to importation. This speaks directly to the hon. member's question around indirect movement of people, say from an affected area like Beijing via Frankfurt, New York or Toronto.

We are very sensitive to ensuring we do everything that is reasonably possible to prevent that kind of importation of case. That is why I indicated there would be new measures put in place. We are working with the CCRA. Incoming passengers will be requested to fill in forms, not only providing us with travel locator information but answering questions and providing information in relation to the symptoms of SARS. Also they will be expected to answer specific questions in relation to whether they have been in any SARS affected areas or have any symptoms. We will have Health Canada officials working with CCRA officials. If CCRA officials see anything in relation to the response to the questions asked, that person will be pulled out of line and will go to a secondary screening procedure where Health Canada health professionals will be available to ask follow up questions. We are taking very seriously the issue of importation into this country and we will continue to take the steps that we believe are required by the risk assessment.

I come back to the point that there is no system in the world that will pick up every person who may ultimately contract SARS or be a SARS carrier because someone can come from Beijing, New York or Toronto and show no symptoms whatsoever. The incubation period is 10 days. Six days after being here, the person may get a fever and may become a suspect or a probable case. There is no system in the world that could pick that up. That is the reality of infectious disease. That is the reality with which we have to deal.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to share my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

I would like to stress that Health Canada has adopted an important measure to strengthen its capacity to monitor marketed products. The creation of a new marketed health products directorate, an organization exclusively responsible for the surveillance of marketed health products, clearly illustrates the increased importance of this activity within the department.

The directorate will have initial funding of approximately $10 million. Of this $10 million, $7 million is new funding provided in the 2002-03 fiscal year to strengthen post-market surveillance activities in the department.

The new organization will consolidate and continue the work previously undertaken in different areas of Health Canada. It will support further improvements in capacity to identify safety hazards and communicate any product related risks to health care professionals and the public in a more timely manner.

Canadians expect drugs and other health products to which they have access to be both safe and effective. Health Canada is the federal authority responsible for pre-market approval of drugs, based on the exhaustive data provided by the manufacturers demonstrating that, during clinical trials, their products were safe, effective and of high quality.

I can assure the House that we take this responsibility very seriously. Canada, following in the steps of other countries, is placing greater importance on the surveillance of the risks and benefits of marketed drugs. We realize today that our marketed products surveillance activities are as important as our rigorous pre-market approval process.

Surveillance of marketed products provides information on the safety and effectiveness of drugs used in real situations. To facilitate reporting by health professionals and consumers of undesirable effects and incidents related to drugs, Health Canada has set up new toll-free phone and fax numbers.

Health Canada has been in discussions with the U.S. food and drug administration about gaining access to its data on adverse drug reactions. Data from the United States is particularly useful because of its considerably larger population base. International collaborations like this one augment domestic data and help us to identify public health and safety risks as quickly as possible.

To improve how health data communicates health risks, an electronic mailing list has been created to electronically disseminate the adverse reaction news letter and advisories for health professionals and consumers. This news letter, which has recently been redesigned to present new safety information in a more user friendly manner, is also now being distributed to physicians as a separate attachment to the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I do feel rather terrible that I have to interject, but this is a situation where we are supposed to be able to ask questions of the minister. We have speeches from the government side that seem to go on interminably and yet we find there is no opportunity to ask questions of the minister about the estimates of the department.

Will the member ask a question or will we have a speech that goes on ad nauseam? That is my question.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

The nausea comes from your side.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

I would caution members on the use of certain words which may or may not be construed as parliamentary. I will rule if we continue along these lines.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Chair, I also rise on a point of order. I am afraid that my hon. friend's comments are quite inappropriate to suggest that someone is going on ad nauseam. He knows the rules in this place. He knows this a five hour period of time when the minister is here and there are all kinds of opportunities to ask the minister questions. She has been giving answers for several hours already and will be here for more than an hour.

I find his interjection at this point not very helpful. I find it entirely inappropriate and I think that he ought to show respect to members of the House and listen to the comments of my hon. colleague.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

This is becoming a debate and not a point of order. I would not like to eat into the time that the hon. member has available because we have already used up three minutes on so-called points of order.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Chair, I was speaking about the adverse reaction news letter and advisories which is a separate attachment to the Canadian Medical Association Journal . This increases its visibility and ensures distribution to the Canadian Medical Association's 64,000 members.

Health Canada has had a system for monitoring and assessing undesirable effects of drugs since 1965. With its vast experience in this field, the department is in an excellent position, in collaboration with all stakeholders, to improve post-market surveillance of all marketed health products, so that all Canadians will have access to important safety information.

I would also like to briefly discuss the issue of mandatory reporting. Department officials are conducting a review of the Canadian--

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Chair, I rise again on a point of order. I have to say that this is about the accountability of the minister for her estimates before Parliament. When the member stands and says in a speech that she would like to discuss a point that she may have, it means the minister does not have to answer for her estimates. This is a process whereby Parliament will examine the minister on the estimates of her department. This is not about members of Parliament discussing their position on health care. It is about the accountability of the minister for her department.

I would ask you, Madam Chair, that you stay to the true intent of the reason that we are here for five hours, at 10:20 this evening, which is to discuss, debate and examine the minister on her estimates. That is why we are here.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. As I said earlier, the member knows the rules here. By now my hon. colleague across the way perhaps he has been here in the past for similar meetings of this sort in the House committee of the whole reviewing estimates. He knows full well the process and I am not sure why he wants to delay things this way or try to establish some bizarre precedent.

The fact of the matter is that he can use his time as he wishes, members on this side can do the same and he knows that. Members are entitled to speak during their time. If they wish to fill their time speaking, they may do so, expressing their views and their concerns about the issues at hand, or they can ask questions or do a mixture of both, as they wish.

He knows the rules. I do not know why he is trying to change the rules or set some bizarre precedent but he ought to let the thing go on and not delay it. If he wants to get back to having more questions and having a turn for his side again, then I would think he would want to show respect for members, listen to their points of view, and wait his turn.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Chair, I would also like to simply add, in the minute that remains to me, that department officials are conducting a review of the Canadian adverse drug reaction reporting system, which will examine the barriers to reporting on alternate strategies to increase reporting rates. The new Marketed Health Products Directorate will draw on additional advice through increased emphasis on involvement of external experts and stakeholder advice and input concerning marketed health product safety and effectiveness.

In the few seconds I have left, I would like to add that the department has worked very hard, not only to respond, but also to anticipate what could happen during such unfortunate circumstances as those faced by Toronto, other parts of Canada, and other parts of the world. The Department of Health is ready—it has been and it still is—to protect the lives of Canadians.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I have to point out that this is about examining the minister on her estimates. We have had a speech by the member of the governing party that did not even culminate in a question for the minister, and now we will be moving on to the next speaker which may or may not culminate in a question to the minister, but the minister is absolutely absolved from having to answer questions.

Parliament negotiated an all party agreement that we would have this opportunity to examine the minister of our choice in the opposition about the estimates of the department. That is why we are here this evening, to examine the minister on the estimates. Therefore these debates and speeches, which mean that the minister is absolved of answering the questions, mean that the debate this evening is irrelevant. You should ensure that the minister has questions to answer and that this debate be on--

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

The hon. member for St. Albert has made his point but again I would like to remind the hon. member for St. Albert and the other members in the House that the Chair is not here to referee. There perhaps were certain practices in the past in terms of how we examined the estimates but there certainly are no hard rules in either Montpetit or Marleau in terms of how we deal with the estimates. If each member chooses not to ask a question, it is not up to the Chair then to insist that a member from either side of the House ask a question.

I think the hon. member for St. Albert has had five occasions to put his point on the record.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Chair, last year was the first year that we started this new process. There is very little precedent on the books about the procedure this evening. One cannot look at 100 years of precedents and say “This is how we have done it and these are the rules”. This is a brand new procedure and if we allow this type of process of speeches and speeches and speeches, rather than examination of the minister, that will become the precedent.

Therefore, Madam Chair, you have a responsibility to ensure that the rules that were negotiated by the parties are adhered to, which is the examination of the minister on the estimates that are before the House to ensure that she has the answers and that she can convince the House that we should vote for what she is asking. That is why this is about answers and not about speeches.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

The hon. member for St. Albert is right in stating that this is a new practice in the House and that there is no precedent created. As the hon. member knows, the House can choose to revisit the Standing Orders and perhaps put more guidance within the Standing Orders in terms of how the Chair should or should not rule in terms of the allotted time for questions and answers.

However, at the moment and in keeping with the Standing Orders, it is not up to the Chair to tell members how they should proceed.

The hon. member for Parkdale--High Park.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, I rise today to take part in exactly what the hon. member for St. Albert has talked about, an examination of the estimates of the Department of Health. I will examine the estimates no different than I would as a member of the committee that I sit on, which is the heritage committee. I am no longer a parliamentary secretary so as an ordinary member I also have the right to question my minister.

I rise today to talk about the things that are important to the people in my riding. One of the great things that the opposition members always speak about is accountability for their constituents.

There is a lot of noise from the other side. If the hon. member would just let me speak I would like to question my minister, as we on this side do. We question our ministers in caucus all the time. Let me share with members what we talk about in caucus. We talk about what is important to our constituents.

I would like to talk about mandatory nutrition labelling. With all due respect I cannot ask a question unless I am allowed to say a few things.

I am sure the member, as chair of the public accounts committee, does not stop people in committee from speaking before they have had a chance to speak. In fact, I know he is a member who is very concerned about parliamentary proceedings, and is very concerned that members on his committee have a chance to speak.

Since we are in committee of the whole, I would ask the member to please give me the same common courtesy that he would give the members in the public accounts committee to say what I would like to say and to ask a question.

With all due respect, I know he is a very good chair. I know that tomorrow we do not want to pose a question in question period which is only a 30 second question and answer period. I would like to have a little more time to pose my question to my minister a little more eloquently than they do in 30 seconds.

As I was saying, what is important to the people in my constituency is mandatory nutrition labelling. So that people understand the nature of my question it is important to understand the history. On December 12, 2002, mandatory nutrition labelling was introduced in Canada. New regulations under the Food and Drugs Act now require that labels of most prepackaged foods sold in Canada carry a standard nutritional facts table.

Why is this important? Because it will enable consumers to make better decisions about the nutritional value of prepackaged foods that they purchase. Why is that a concern? Because we as consumers in Canada buy prepackaged foods. Having nutritional information that is easier to read and on more foods is essential to making informed choices for healthy eating and healthy living. Why is that important? That was one of the priorities of the government. It is not just about health and hospitals. It is about ensuring that we make the right choices in life and that we as individuals make those choices.

Let me talk a little about the nutrition facts tables before I lead up to my question. The nutrition facts tables list the calories and 13 key nutrients contained in a specified amount of food. The extent of the mandatory disclosure of a food's nutrient content and the manner in which information is displayed places Canada at the forefront of nutritional labelling. This is an important priority of the government.

As a member of Parliament I have personally taken goals from the Speech from the Throne that applied to healthy living. Eight months ago I stopped smoking. I did it because it was a time in my life that I had to be an example to my children and to other people. I could not be a member of the government and talk about what I was going to do about health and how I was going to eat properly unless I did something about it.

I would encourage all members across the way, instead of standing up and saying why we are not doing anything about anything, to start talking about how we can all work together for a healthier environment.

Yes, we are here to question the Minister of Health. I commend her for jogging and running 10K races. She is an example of what all Canadians should be doing.

We talk about questions. We do not just have questions in the House of Commons. We have questions and comments. Aside from the fact that she is doing a great job as the Minister of Health, she is also an example to all Canadians, especially young Canadian women.

We do not need to be anorexic. We need to be nutritional. We are part of this nutritional labelling. We are jogging. We are having healthy lifestyles and we are making a difference. We are being leaders in our communities.

Members ask the minister to be accountable. The minister is accountable for everything she does. She is accountable not just with her legislation, but in everything she does.

I am here this evening at 10:35 to commend our Minister of Health for being a leader as the health minister and for being a leader in what she is doing for my community in Toronto. I would ask all members on both sides of the House to applaud and commend her and to thank her for being here to address our issues and our questions this evening.