House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was taiwan.
Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from a portion of Saskatchewan whose the petitioners are asking the Government of Canada not to pass the private member's bill, Bill C-250.
Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, which asks that the government enact section 33, the notwithstanding clause, if it is necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
This petition, Mr. Speaker, asks that we make use of the adult stem cell and that we should not in any way be pursuing the embryonic stem cell as a method of treatment.
Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from across Saskatchewan on pornography. The petitioners are ordering the government to re-examine this issue and to give priority to the protection of children and not the pedophiles.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions to Parliament today. These petitions represent the voices of the constituents of Prince George--Bulkley Valley.
The first petition is from several dozen people who are concerned about the fact that the government may allow the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research despite the fact that non-embryonic stem cells, known as adult stem cells, have shown considerable significant research progress.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
The next two petitions, Mr. Speaker, call on the Parliament of Canada to recognize the democratic vote that was taken in the House regarding the state of marriage. The petitioners pray that Parliament legislate the definition of marriage passed by a motion in the House on June 8, 1999 as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
There are several hundred signatures on these petitions.
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions signed by constituents in my riding of Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar.
The petitioners are asking that Parliament make sure that junior A hockey players are treated like Olympic athletes and that modest reasonable expenses and allowances are not treated as taxable income under the provisions of any applicable federal tax legislation.
There are many more people who have not signed this petition but who want their voices heard.
Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today.
The first petition comes from people mainly in my constituency. They point out to the House of Commons that Canadians suffer from debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. They are asking the government to support ethical stem cell research which has shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for these diseases and illnesses.
Non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without immune rejection or ethical problems. Therefore the petitioners ask Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the next petition comes from a large number of petitioners from Saskatchewan and from across Canada. It is with regard to property rights.
The petitioners cite the December 10, 1948 United Nations resolution which states that everyone has the right to own properly alone as well as in association with others and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. They note that the federal government has failed to comply with this article 17.
They therefore petition that Parliament support private member's Bill C-452 introduced by the member of Parliament for Yorkton--Melville, which would strengthen the protection of property rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights and specifically guarantee that every person has: one, the right to enjoyment of their property; two, the right to not be deprived of their property unless they are given a fair hearing, paid timely and impartially fixed compensation; and three, the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon.
Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the last petition I would like to present also comes from petitioners from Saskatchewan and from across Canada.
The petitioners cite that the violent crime rate is a major concern and that all law-abiding citizens want safer streets regardless of whether they live in a big city or a rural community. The 1997 report by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics showed that 1994 represented the largest annual decline in police strength since it has been surveying and that the number of police on the streets is a serious problem.
In an attempt to do something about the criminal use of firearms, the government passed Bill C-68 into law in 1995 and now is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on it. The petitioners ask that Parliament repeal Bill C-68 and redirect the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being wasted on the licensing of responsible firearms owners and registration of legally owned guns by doing something proven to be more cost effective at reducing crime and improving public safety, such as more police on the streets, more crime prevention programs, more suicide prevention centres, more women's crisis centres, more anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for fighting organized crime and street gangs.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Mississauga South I am pleased to present two petitions to the House. The first petition is on the subject of child pornography and is signed by a number of Canadians, including people from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify the abuse of children are outlawed.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present has to do with funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research with regard to stem cells. The petition is signed by a number of Canadians, especially those from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that it is unethical to harm or destroy human beings in order to benefit others and that adult stem cell research holds enormous potential and does not pose the serious ethical questions of embryonic stem cell research. The petitioners also point out that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have recommended guidelines on stem cell research that include the use of human embryos which they disagree with.
The petitioners petition the House to ban embryonic stem cell research and direct the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to support and fund only promising ethical research that does not involve the killing of human life.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 174, 198, 202 and 209.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Pertaining to the Francophonie Day that took place Thursday, March 20, 2003 and the 625 million people from francophonie countries, can the government please indicate the amount of money, in dollars, spent by the government on all activities and undertakings in Canada to recognize this day and our membership in the francophonie?
Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
The amount spent by the government on all activities pertaining to the Francophonie Day that took place Thursday, March 20, 2003 came to a total of $1,534,000.00.
Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB
Concerning the pesticide approval process at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA: ( a ) why does it take Canada significantly longer to approve and review pesticides and herbicides than the United States; ( b ) is there any specific part of the approval process that is a roadblock; ( c ) what is the step-by-step description of the pesticide approval process; ( d ) what is the average length of time it takes at each step; ( e ) what is PMRA's target length of time for each step; and ( f ) has the approval process been any faster with the establishment of the new ombudsman?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health
(a) It does not take significantly longer to review and approve a pesticide in Canada as compared to the United States. In fact, for new active ingredient submissions, the review and approval time is shorter in Canada. It may seem to take longer in Canada because historically most companies submit applications for registration in Canada long after submitting an application for registration in the United States. The result of this company practice has been that a number of new pesticide active ingredients and the related end use products are available on the U.S. market before they come to the Canadian market. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, has addressed this problem through implementation of joint review programs with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA . One of the goals of the joint review process and other work sharing initiatives with the EPA has been to make the new products available to users in both countries at the same time. The North American Milestone Report may be found at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmraarla/english/pdf/-nafta/docs/naftawgrep-e.pdf.
(b) There is no specific part of the approval process that can be considered a ‘roadblock’.
(c) The step by step description of the approval process is contained in the PMRA publication 96-01 Management of Submissions Policy, MOSP, found on http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/english/pdf/pro/pro9601-e.pdf. In general there are five steps: verification, screening, review, public consultation/final decision, and verification of final label. The quality of a submission has a major impact on the length of time it takes a submission to proceed through the submission examination process. For example, a high quality, ideal submission for a new active ingredient has a timeline of 737 days or less. For a submission of the poorest quality, there are seven possible points in the process where the applicant has the opportunity to provide missing data, missing fees and/or corrected labels. The PMRA requires time to screen and/or review the additional information submitted to correct the deficiency. For these poor quality submissions, up to 1,912 days may be added to the submission examination process depending on which of the 7 delays are needed by the applicant. Only 6% of the category A submissions registered over the period from 1997-2002 have been ideal submissions. Category A submissions include new active ingredients and companion end use products and/or manufacturing use products, or import maximum residue limits, MRLs, for a new active ingredient, or major new uses (addition of a new use-site category (see response to question d). 94% of the category A submissions registered in this period have had quality problems requiring the use of at least one of the seven delays resulting in additional time being added to the 737 day ideal submission target. PMRA has developed and held training courses and has worked with applicants to assist them in putting together better quality submissions. Through pre-submission consultations and a number of guidelines, the applicant is provided with details of what is required to make a complete submission.
(d) The average length of time to register a pesticide depends on the complexity of each of type of submission. In Canada, for major new active ingredient pesticides, the average time to completion, including the screening and review components, in 2001-02 was 23 months; whereas in the United States, based on the information available from the EPA, in 2001 it was 38 months on average. In 2000-01 the average time to completion in Canada for new active ingredient submissions was 21 months while in the United States in 2000 it was 27 months.
The length of time for each step varies depending on the submission category and subcategory. For category A submissions, which are the most complex and are for new active ingredients or major new uses, there can be eight different sets of performance standards depending on whether the submission is standard or priority or chemical or microbial or reduced risk or a pheromone. For submissions subject to the MOSP, (see response to question c) the typical standard category A submissions registered in 2000-01 had an average verification time of 6 days, first screening time of 49 days, review time of 432 days and first final label verification of 29 days. For 2001-02 the times were 7, 65, 515 and 27 respectively. As part of the MOSP, the final step and end of the review stage for category A submissions is the release of a proposed regulatory decision document, PRDD, for public consultation. For those registered category A submissions that had a public consultation, the public consultation time was always 45 days and the average time for final decision was 32 days. Please note that PRDDs are not currently required by regs but will be required by the new act.
(e) For category A standard submissions, the PMRA targets to complete the review portion of the submission, i.e. after all deficiencies have been addressed by the company, in 18 months (550 days) for traditional chemicals, and 15 months (465 days) for reduced risk chemicals. In 2001- 02 PMRA met its performance target for these submissions. The ideal target length of time for the typical standard category A submission is 7 days for verification, 45 days for screening, 550 days for review, 45 days for public consultation/45 days for final decision, and 45 days for final label verification. For standard category A submissions, subject to the MOSP and excluding deviations, registered/ rejected/withdrawn in 2001-02 that were screened and the review completed, the PMRA met the review performance standard of 550 days on 94% of the submissions.
(f) The new ombudsperson has facilitated increased communication between growers, the PMRA, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to ensure the data requirements for approvals are met and has helped streamline the processing of submissions. In 2002-03 PMRA approved more than 450 minor uses which was more than double that of any of the previous years.
Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK
With respect to the following statement in paragraph 10.29 of the Auditor General’s 2002 report to Parliament, “The costs incurred by the provincial and territorial agencies in enforcing the legislation were not reported. In addition, costs that were incurred by firearms owners, firearms clubs, manufacturers, sellers, and importers and exporters of firearms, in their efforts to comply with the legislation were not reported.”, in addition to the government's response in respect of the preparation and function of the regulatory impact analysis statements, what specifically were the above-mentioned unreported costs for the period from 1995 to the present?
Wayne Easter LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
The Canadian Firearms Centre, CFC, does have records of costs for the opt-in provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as has been reported publicly. The CFC does not monitor other potential or actual costs that may have been incurred by provincial or territorial agencies in enforcing the Canadian firearms legislation. The CFC does not monitor the costs that may have been incurred by firearms owners, firearms clubs, et cetera, as a result of the Canadian firearms legislation.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
What is the breakdown, by gender, of federal appointments made during the 35th and 36th Parliaments, and during the 37th Parliament up to and including March 31, 2003, at all levels, to: ( a ) judicial positions; ( b ) deputy ministerial positions within the federal public service; ( c ) agencies; ( d ) boards; ( e ) commissions; and ( f ) other bodies?
Rodger Cuzner LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
The Privy Council Office submits the following chart with the information required to respond to the question.
Men/Women Distribution: Appointments and Re-appointments within a specific timeframe
NOTE: 262 (218 men and 44 women) of these appointments are not technically new appointments. They were for existing incumbents of the Ontario Court of Justice who had to be appointed anew when this court’s name changed to the Superior Court of Justice following amendments Ontario Courts of Justice Act and the Judges Act.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Halifax West Nova Scotia
Liberal
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 184, 186, 191 and 199 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it agreed that Questions Nos. 184, 186, 191 and 199 be made orders for return?
James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB
Concerning the regional economic development bodies (i.e. Western Economic Diversification Canada, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario, and Canada Economic Development/Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) and the Community Futures Program since 1993: ( a ) what was the annual budget for each body; ( b ) what amount of the annual budget was for grants, loans and contributions broken down by province and territory; ( c ) what percentage of the grants, loans and contributions is repaid on an annual basis; ( d ) what percentage of the grants, loans and contribution is written off on an annual basis; ( e ) what are the top 50 annual write-offs for each body/program since 1993 (including the name of the company, province and the amount written off); and ( f ) who were the Ministers responsible since 1993 for each body or programme?
Return tabled.