Debates of Sept. 15th, 2003

Question No. 231

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

With respect to (a), Health Canada considers all forms of smoking harmful to health. Many of the potential long term health risks of cannabis use, such as respiratory damage and disease, are due to smoking as a means of ingestion. Heavy cannabis smoking during pregnancy has been associated with low birth weight babies. Smoking cannabis interferes with the ability to concentrate and impairs learning processes. Cannabis users can become dependent. Research indicates that cannabis smoking may trigger psychotic episodes among users who already have or are at high risk for schizophrenia or depression.

With respect to (b), Health Canada has not established estimates of public health impact of smoking marijuana. However, under the renewed drug strategy, research on this topic will be considered.

With respect to (c), there have been no specific Health Canada initiatives. However, under the renewed drug strategy, a public education program targeted at youth will be launched in the fall of 2003, on the health risks of smoking marijuana.

With respect to (d), no research has been conducted, but under the renewed drug strategy, research is underway and a survey is scheduled to start in November 2003. Thereafter, surveys on this subject will be conducted every four to five years.

With respect to (e), ( i) and ( ii) an medical marijuana, in 1999, Health Canada developed a strategy to determine the risks and benefits associated with the use of marijuana and cannabinoids for the treatment of the symptoms of targeted serious diseases in patients unresponsive to usual treatment modalities. This strategy now includes the medical marijuana research program MMRP, a partnership with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, a contribution agreement with the Community Research Initiative of Toronto CRIT, a community based HIV-AIDS non-profit research organization, and the Marijuana Open Label Safety Initiative MOLSI, another partnership with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. An undertaking with Public Works and Government Services Canada PWGSC to award contracts to the private sector to conduct clinical trials, is currently under consideration. These initiatives aim at developing new knowledge concerning the risks and benefits associated to the medical use of marijuana. This knowledge will allow Canadians suffering from some serious and chronic conditions and diseases and their physicians to make better informed choices of proven therapies and further inform Health Canada’s policy making capacity in formulating sound science based decisions regarding access and use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Health Canada is dedicating $7.5 million over five years to marijuana clinical research through its MMRP. The first study granted under this program will be conducted by the Pain Centre of McGill University. It is a short term study, involving 32 clinical subjects to evaluate the effects of smoked marijuana for chronic neuropathic pain. In addition, through a contribution, Health Canada is funding CRIT to conduct a pilot study on the efficacy of smoked marijuana on appetite stimulation in persons living with HIV-AIDS. In total, since 1999, not including in-house human resources and administrative costs, Health Canada has invested $1,292,385 in its marijuana clinical research strategy. This amount includes contribution and grant payments for the conduct of clinical studies, the holding of three workshops to assist the Canadian medical community in addressing specific issues related to conducting of clinical studies on marijuana for medical purposes, and contracts with consultants to develop two information documents for distribution to patients and clinicians. These documents describe the current scientific knowledge on marijuana and the risks and benefits associated with its use for medical purposes.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research CIHR, has supported 13 projects related to marijuana use since 2000, with a total investment of approximately $2,832,902.

With respect to (iii), see (c) above. Final costs of the program have yet to be determined, as the scope of work is under development.

With respect to (iv), The salary and operating costs of the Office of Cannabis Medical Access, for fiscal year 2002-03, were approximately $3.5 million. These costs include the administration of the medical marijuana access regulations and related regulatory and policy work.

With respect to (f), see (c) above. The medical marijuana research program described in (e) (i) and ( ii) will continue. Costs for research will depend on projects approved for funding by CIHR.

With respect to (g), during the development of the proposed cannabis reform legislation, Health Canada provided the Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General summary documents on the health effects of marijuana. These summaries were based on published literature.

On May 27, 2003 the Government of Canada announced the renewal of Canada’s drug strategy and the investment of $245 million over five years. The renewed strategy will take a balanced approach to reducing both the demand for, and the supply of drugs. Health Canada, in close collaboration with its partners, including the provinces, territories, communities and stakeholders, will take the lead on implementing and coordinating this renewed strategy by investing in: increased government and stakeholder coordination and funds to support community-based prevention, treatment and harm reduction initiatives; enhanced partnerships, education programs and interventions designed to discourage and treat substance abuse, particularly among youth; new research activities, including funding for statistical analysis of drug trends to enable more effective decision-making; new enforcement resources to address marijuana grow operations and clandestine chemical laboratories.

Health Canada has stressed that any move towards decriminalization must be done in tandem with a renewed and fully funded drug strategy in order to provide the necessary emphasis on public education, prevention programs, enforcement resources and new research activities.

Question No. 232

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

With respect to simian virus 40 (SV40): ( a ) what research has Health Canada done on the virus, and what were the results; ( b ) what research has Health Canada done to determine whether there is a causal link between the virus and human disease, and what were the results; ( c ) what research is Health Canada currently doing to determine whether there is a causal link between the virus and human disease, and when is it expected to be completed; ( d ) what research has Health Canada done to determine a link between the virus, polio vaccines administered in the 1950s and 1960s, and human disease, and what were the results; ( e ) what research is Health Canada currently doing to determine whether there is a link between the virus, polio vaccines administered in the 1950s and 1960s, and human disease, and when is it expected to be completed; and ( f ) since 1995, how much money has been spent, on an annual basis, on research concerning the virus?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

With respect to (a), Health Canada and external partners have developed the testing methodology for detecting SV40 in cells and tissues from patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NHL, and are currently developing blood tests to detect antibody to simian virus 40 (SV40) to permit our planned studies of the correlation of SV40 infection and certain cancers.

With respect to (b), “A review of relevant literature on Simian Virus 40 published between July 2000 and November 2002: Update to July 2000 Simian Virus 40 paper presenting recent knowledge on the zoonotic aspects of SV40 and any identified relationship to blood safety” was completed in early 2003. The review was aimed to identify research priorities and concluded: No firm link has established SV40 as a cause of human cancer. As in the July 2000 report, more recently published studies continue to show no evidence of a significant increase in rates of cancer linked to SV40. Continued research into SV40 will be important as SV40 may yet prove to be a cofactor in the development of certain types of cancers.

With respect to (c), risk assessment of SV40 for human diseases associated with blood is being done through two approaches:

One, the risk of SV40 for the Canadian blood supply is being assessed through Health Canada’s Rapid Response Surveillance System for Emerging Bloodborne Pathogens, RRSS; RRSS has in place a system which has been activated in response to this issue.

Two the Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group, CBMTG, approach: has stored blood specimens of patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, NHL, and other conditions who are being studied both retrospectively and prospectively and compared to assess the clinical implications of SV40 in NHL and possibly other malignant conditions, as well as, its transmissibility through blood and blood product transfusion, and organ and tissue transplantation.

Blood specimens from a sample of the general Canadian population and from patients at risk of multiple blood transfusion will be tested for SV40 infection with consent to assess: one, the level of SV40 infection in the general population; two, the risk of SV40 transmission through blood transfusion. The research is expected to be completed in 2004 upon the completion of an ethical review.

With respect to (d), it is presumed that SV40 is being transmitted among humans, but it is not known if this transmission occurred prior to the use of polio vaccine in the late 1950s and early 1960s, or was a result of its use. No study has satisfactorily confirmed whether SV40 found in the human population is from contaminated polio vaccine, or from some other source, and epidemiological studies to date have not determine whether SV40 contaminated polio vaccine did or did not cause cancer in the recipients of vaccine.

Research shows a remarkable rise in incidence of NHL over the last 30 years, double from 1973 to 1998; the incidence rate estimated for 2002 is 14.9/20.7 (female/male) per 100,000 (age standardized). However, it is not known if the doubling of NHL in Canada is related to the presence of SV40.

On November 22, 2002, Health Canada sponsored a meeting of our partners at the National Microbiology Laboratory, NML, in Winnipeg to discuss progress on the various research projects. Health Canada informed the group that it had developed the testing methodology for detecting SV40 in cells and tissues from patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and was in the process of developing blood tests to detect antibody to SV40 to permit our planned seroprevalence studies. A proposal is being prepared to conduct relevant study.

With respect to (e), it is not known how many Canadians may have been exposed to contaminated vaccine in Canada, nor is it currently known if the virus is detectable in cancers in the Canadian population. The evidence to date is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and cancer in humans.

Health Canada and external partners including the BC Cancer Agency, the Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group CBMTG, the BC Transplant Society, hospitals, provincial laboratories, as well as, academics are currently undertaking a risk assessment of SV40. This risk assessment involves a number of independent research studies which collectively aim to address several research questions, including: one, is there an any evidence of SV40 infection in the Canadian population? Two, is SV40 associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other human cancers? Three, is SV40 transmissible through blood? and four, what is the risk of SV40 for the Canadian blood supply?

A proposal is being prepared to determine the relative incidence of markers indicating viral infection with lymphotropic viruses in tissues of patients with NHL and other diseases. The proposal is also aimed to corelate findings of viral infection of SV40 in tissue with clinical parameters and diagnostic subsets of NHL, and to compare prevalence of SV40 infection in tissues among NHL patients born between 1955 and 1963, before and after that period.

With respect to (f), since 1995, only approximately $20,000 for the FY 2002/03 is for testing and approximately $50,000 from the Blood Safety Surveillance and Health Care Acquired Infections Division to support the CBMTG and other groups.

Question No. 234

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Concerning federal public servants, how many whose first language is a ) French, and b ) English are employed in (i) bilingual imperative positions, and (ii) bilingual non-imperative positions, for each of the following Official Language profiles: “E” (Exempt from further testing); “CCC” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior levels); “CBC” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Superior levels, Writing at Intermediate level); “CCB”(Reading and Writing at Superior Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); “CBB” (Reading at Superior Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BCB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Superior Level); “BCC” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior Levels); “BBB” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BBC” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Superior Level); “BBA” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Minimum Level); “BAA” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Oral Interaction and Writing at Minimum Levels); “BAB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Minimum Level); “ABA” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels, Writing at Intermediate Level); “ABB” (Reading at Minimum Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “AAB” (Reading and Writing at Minimum Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); and “AAA” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels)?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Data on bilingualism in the federal Public Service are derived from the position and classification information system, PCIS, which is managed by the Treasury Board Secretariat but fed and updated by the departments. The PCIS contains information on all employees of federal departments and agencies for which the Treasury Board is the employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

For this inquiry, it is not possible to provide a breakdown by imperative v. non-imperative positions, since this information has more to do with staffing than with position identification. Moreover, the E level is not really a linguistic profile; rather, it is an indication that an employee is sufficiently proficient in his or her second language to be exempted.

The following table shows, for each of the linguistic profiles requested, the number of bilingual positions held by anglophones and the number held by francophones, as well as the total number of bilingual positions.

Breakdown of Bilingual Positions by Anglophones & Francophones according to the Linguistic Profiles Requested

Question No. 237

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

What is the total number of employees in the entire Department of Fisheries and Oceans, what is the breakdown of this number per region in Canada and, specifically, what is the total for the following areas: Ottawa (National Capital Region), East Coast (Atlantic Region) and West Coast (Pacific Region)?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

The number of departmental employees is as follows:

Figures include all indeterminate employees and determinate employees whose term of employment is greater than three months.

Question No. 244

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to the recent Statistics Canada survey, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS): ( a ) what is the amount of money spent on the survey by Statistics Canada; ( b ) what was the response as a percentage by Canadian households contacted to participate in the survey; and ( c ) what is the cost of mailing the second notices and courier charges thereof?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

STATISTICS CANADA

With respect to (a), the funding earmarked for the CCHS was $28.4 million over four fiscal years to conduct the first two cycles of the survey, cycle 1.1 in 2000-01 and cycle 1.2 in 2002).

With respect to (b), for the 2000-2001 survey, 84.7% of contacted Canadians agreed to participate in the survey. The rate for the 2002 survey was 77.0%.

With respect to (c), it cost approximately $5,000 for sending second notices.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 204, supplementary, 229 and 240 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 204

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

With regard to border crossings between Canada and the United States since June 1, 2002: ( a ) what submissions have been made to the government of the United States; ( b ) what forms did these submissions take--verbal or written or both; ( c ) what was on the agenda at any face to face meetings or conference calls; ( d ) what were the titles of any written submissions; ( e ) what were the dates of the meetings and/or written submissions; ( f ) what correspondence, if any, was sent directly to the President of the United States or, if not, to which departments and/or agencies of the United States government were the submissions made; ( g ) have there been any submissions specifically dedicated to the possibility of a second checkpoint; ( h ) have there been any submissions specifically dedicated to the proposed 24 hour advance notice for commercial trade; ( i ) has there been any discussion and/or memoranda within Canadian departments concerning the possibility of sending a trade team or special envoy to the United States with respect to border crossing, trade and/or trade corridors; ( j ) have Canadian departments received submissions--verbal or written--from Canadian industries concerning problems with the border, and if so, how many; and ( k ) have Canadian departments received submissions--verbal or written--from Canadian exporters concerning a possible decline in trade and/or exports with the United States?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 229

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In fiscal years 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, how much money was paid out in subsidies and contributions by each of the government's departments and agencies, including Crown corporations and quasi- or non-governmental agencies subsidized by the government: ( a ) to support the anglophone community in Quebec; ( b ) to support francophone communities outside Quebec; and ( c ) in each case, to fund what needs?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 240

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

With regard to ports of entry into Canada: ( a ) what are the standards used by all customs officers across Canada to determine a high-risk traveller or shipment, and what is the standard procedure as to what to do with such a traveller or shipment once it is determined to be high-risk; ( b ) under what standard procedure are customs officers expected to refer travellers to immigration officers, and is there any standard for immigration officers to notify customs officers as to the results of such referrals; if it is determined that a traveller should be referred to an Immigration officer and there is no immigration officer at that location, what is the standard procedure that a customs officer should follow; ( c ) why are there no joint Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) evaluations planned to determine the effectiveness of customs officers and immigration officers at the border; ( d ) is there a standard for the sharing of data and intelligence between customs officers and immigration officers; ( e ) is there a standard referral procedure by which customs officers can clearly determine by which points should a traveller be referred to immigration officers; ( f ) is there an agreement between the CCRA and CIC that would provide for periodic evaluations to be performed jointly by CCRA and CIC to determine the effectiveness of their joint operations; ( g ) what percentage of the time does the Primary Automated Lookout System-Highway equipment correctly read licence plates of vehicles stopped at border crossing booths; ( h ) what facilities exist for examining commercial shipments at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and where are they located in relation to the bridge customs site: ( i ) what is the standard procedure for ensuring that truck operators told to report to the facility actually arrive there; and (ii) under what circumstances would procedures dictate that a truck be escorted to that facility, regardless of the amount of traffic at the port; (i) in 2002: (i) how many people passed through customs checkpoints without authorization from Customs officers; (ii) when and where did these incidents occur; (iii) what were the sequences of actions taken following the breach of the checkpoint; and (iv) and were the individuals apprehended; ( j ) how many applications have been denied for: (i) FAST; (ii) CANPASS-Air; (iii) NEXUS-Air; and (iv) NEXUS-Highway; ( k ) at what Customs locations has the CCRA placed the following new technology, how many of each does each facility have, and what portion of incoming traffic does it service: (i) mobile gamma ray scanners; (ii) low-energy baggage and cargo x-ray systems; (iii) ion scanners; (iv) gamma ray pellet scanners; (v) hand-held ion mobility spectrometers; (vi) fibre-scopes; (vii) density meters; and (viii) other new technology that has been purchased by the government within the past two years to be used at ports of entry; and ( l ) for every Custom office reporting to the district offices in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northern New Brunswick, Central New Brunswick, Southern New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Montérégie, Eastern Townships, Montréal Metro, Montréal Airport, Ottawa, St. Lawrence, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Fort Frances, Greater Toronto Area—Commercial, Pearson International Airport—Passenger Operations, Area Operations (Hamilton), Area Operations (Mississauga), Niagara, Windsor, St. Clair, Winnipeg & Northwest Territories, Emerson, Saskatchewan, North Central Alberta, Southern Alberta, Metro Vancouver, Vancouver International Airport, Pacific Highway, West Coast and Yukon, and Okanagan and Kootenay: (i) how many customs personnel are employed at the location, and of them, how many are Customs inspectors; (ii) are there immigration personnel at the location, and if so, how many; (iii) are there computers at the location, and if so, (1) do they have internet access, and if so, ( A ) what type of internet access do they have (dial-up, broadband, digital subscriber line, etc.); ( B ) do they have access to the Primary Automated Lookout System; ( C ) do they have access to CIC’s lookout system; ( D ) do they have access to US Federal Bureau of Investigation and US Department of Homeland Security databases or watchlists; and ( E ) do they have access to Canadian Police Information Centre; (iv) what is the distance to the nearest US or Canadian village, town, or city, and what is the name of that location; (v) is there a permanent police presence on location, and if not, (1) what is the distance to the nearest police post, (2) what is its location, and (3) what is the minimum number of officers on duty at any time; (vi) is there at least one telephone at this location; (vii) is this facility open 24 hours a day, and if it is not, what steps are taken to ensure that no one passes through while the facility is unattended; (viii) if there are representatives from departments other than CIC and CCRA, (1) what department or agency is represented; and (2) what is the purpose and responsibility of that department or agency at this location; and (ix) if this is a land border crossing, is there equipment for reading license plates at this location?

Return tabled

Starred Questions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 241. I ask that the answer to Question No. 241 be printed in Hansard as if read.

*Question No. 241

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

—With respect to each of the years between 1993 and 2002, what has the government, through the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, determined to be the total amount of Goods and Services Tax paid by: ( a ) Canadian municipalities; ( b ) municipalities in Saskatchewan; ( c ) the City of Saskatoon; and ( d ) municipalities located in the federal riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency does not capture the information in the manner prescribed in the question. To capture the information in this manner would require an inordinate amount of time and cost to produce and could not be completed within the expected timeframe.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

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

[The Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 39(5) to inform the House that the matter of the failure of the minister to respond to the following questions on the Order Paper is deemed referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows: Question No. 230 in the name of the hon. member for Repentigny, referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages; Question No. 233 standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River, to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities; Question No. 238 standing in the name of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; Question No. 239, standing in the name of the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Is it agreed that the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

The Chair has notice of an application from the hon. member for Palliser.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed applying under Standing Order 52 for Mr. Speaker to grant permission for the House to debate a matter that merits immediate and special consideration by the House. I am referring of course to the continuing crisis that arose through the discovery of a single case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Alberta this past May.

The crisis began four months ago but continues to threaten the livelihoods of tens of thousands of farmers, ranchers and beef industry workers across the country, as I noted the member for Peterborough commented on in his petition a few moments ago.

A BSE recovery program announced in mid-June ended in late August, but the crisis remains with us. The borders of the United States and dozens of other countries remain largely closed to our beef and beef products so there is an urgent need to discuss what further actions the federal government should take to alleviate conditions surrounding a crisis that threatens the very existence of our beef industry in Canada. That is why I am applying under Standing Order 52.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Palliser for having brought this matter to the attention of the House. I note that a similar request for a debate on this matter was granted by the Chair on May 26. The request came from the right hon. member for Calgary Centre at that time but there were three other requests the same day, including one from the hon. member for Palliser. The Chair considered his submission of a letter at the time as relevant to the application made by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre in granting the request at that time.

Having considered the matter, I do not believe that it is one that meets the exigencies of the standing order at this time. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant another debate on the same topic at this particular time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations), be read the second time and referred to a committee.