Debates of March 12th, 2009

And the bells having rung:

Committees of the House

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The vote will stand deferred until Monday, March 23.

Colombia

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present in the House petitions that are filed by hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, from British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. All of these petitioners call upon the government to halt any discussions with the Government of Colombia around a possible free trade agreement until such time as a human rights assessment that is done independently can fully ascertain the human rights situation in that country.

As you well know, Colombia has the worst human rights record in the Americas. It is a country that kills more trade unionists than any other country on the planet. More trade unionists die there than anywhere else. For all of those reasons, these Canadians are calling on the government to halt the process and allow an independent and fully impartial human rights assessment to take place before proceeding any further.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the sad duty to present a petition signed by over 700 upset constituents, and counting, who are very disappointed by the decision of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deport Lioubomir and Olha Nalesnik.

Mr. and Mrs. Nalesnik fled Ukraine in 1994 for security reasons. They have since that time made a positive contribution to Canadian society by working continuously throughout this period, paying their taxes and volunteering in our local community. They are exactly the type of new Canadians our country needs.

Consequently, the petitioners urge the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to reverse this decision to deport Mr. and Mrs. Nalesnik. To do so on a finding that the security threat no longer exists would destroy the lives they have built in Canada and the positive contribution they have made to our community during the last 15 years.

Pornography

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present this petition signed by over 200 Canadians from the Edmonton—St. Albert constituency, calling for Parliament to enact legislation that will make the production and distribution of explicit pornography illegal in Canada.

Asbestos

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by thousands of citizens from across Canada who call upon the House of Commons to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known and that more people in fact die from asbestos-related disease than all other occupational causes combined, yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world and that Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry.

These petitioners call that corporate welfare for corporate serial killers. These petitioners are calling upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all its forms and to end all government subsidies of the asbestos industry, both in Canada and abroad, and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos such as the Rotterdam Convention.

Sri Lanka

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that calls upon the Canadian government to respond to the proposed suppression of religious freedom in Sri Lanka, and requests that the government, particularly the Minister of Foreign Affairs, take whatever steps necessary to exert its influence and prevent this contravention of basic human rights as enshrined in article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with regard to worship and the practice of faith of citizens.

This is signed by over 100 residents from Scarborough, Pickering and Ajax, Ontario.

Animal Cruelty

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by a number of citizens from Ontario. The petitioners call upon the government to take strong action in the Criminal Code on animal cruelty.

Illicit Drugs

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition from a number of students in Saskatchewan. The petitioners call for a toughening of the laws dealing with illicit drugs, particularly illicit drugs in schools.

Animal Cruelty

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

The first petition is from a significant number of citizens from London—Fanshawe who petition the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare. There is scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals can feel pain and suffer. All efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering.

Over a billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihoods and many others rely on animals for companionship. Animals are often significantly affected by natural disasters, yet seldom during relief efforts and emergency planning, despite their recognized importance to humans, are they considered.

Consumer Price Index

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from a number of seniors in my riding who are concerned that Statistics Canada made a major error in its calculations of the consumer price index. That resulted in Canada's inflation numbers being underrated by half a percentage point since 2001.

This mistake affects anyone whose benefits are tied to the CPI, including recipients of Canada pension, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. They have been underpaid by a compounded half a percentage point a year, thereby losing benefits totalling over $1 billion for the seniors of Canada.

The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to take full responsibility for this error and take the required steps to repay every Canadian who was shortchanged by a government program because of this miscalculation.

Fisheries

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Inverness South Fishermen's Association. These are fishermen who ply their trade from Inverness, Mabou Mines, down through Baxters Cove and Murphys Pond and along the west coast of Cape Breton, Little Judique Harbour. Sixty-five fishermen have signed this petition.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to investigate whether there has been an unreasonable and inequitable fettering of discretion with respect to the Government of Canada's allotment of snow crab fishing licenses in area 12 among the fishermen of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Nova Scotia. They call for a 3% annual assignment of annual total quota for area 12 to the association.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32 and 36.

Question No. 4

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

With regards to the use of Claymore munitions by the Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan: (a) does the CF have special doctrine for the use of the Claymore in Afghanistan; (b) does the CF chain of command give instructions with regard to the use of the Claymore and obligations under the Ottawa Protocol; (c) is the chain of command aware of uses of the Claymore that have not followed standard procedures in Afghanistan; (d) is the Minister of National Defence aware of any use of the Claymore that violated the Ottawa Protocol; and (e) is the Minister or chain of command aware of any use of the Claymore in which the intended target of the weapon was responsible for its detonation?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the use of a Defensive Command Detonated Weapon C19, sometimes referred to as a “Claymore”, is restricted by Canadian Forces doctrine, and further clarified by the rules of engagement for Operation ATHENA issued to Canadian Forces personnel in theatre.

In response to (b), yes, the Canadian Forces publication entitled “Defensive Operations” provides information on the use of the C19. The publication “Ambush and Counter-Ambush” provides further information on the use of support weapons, such as the C19, for ambush tactics, techniques and procedures.

Soldiers and officers are instructed in the use of the C19 and the associated doctrine during their infantry training. Each task force is provided with C19 training in Canada before deploying to Afghanistan. This allows the Infantry battle group to practise testing, setting up and initiating the C19.

In its use of the C19, the Canadian Forces follow the International Law of Armed Conflict as set out in the Joint Doctrine manual, “Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels”. The manual, at paragraph 511(4), provides as follows:

4. The use of an anti-personnel mine that is manually detonated (for example, by land line or electronic signal from a remote or protected position) by a [Canadian Forces] member is not prohibited. Therefore, the use of an explosive device such as a “Claymore Mine” is not prohibited if it is manually detonated. Any anti-personnel mine that is designed to be exploded automatically by the “presence, proximity or contact of a person” cannot be lawfully used by the [Canadian Forces]. The “Claymore Area Defence System” is not prohibited if it is command detonated. If horizontal fragmentation weapons which propel fragments in a horizontal arc of less than 90 degrees, such as the Claymore, are placed on or above the ground, they may be used for a maximum period of 72 hours if they are located in the immediate proximity to the military unit that emplaced them, and the area is monitored by military personnel to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians.

In response to (c), (d) and (e), Canadian Forces leadership is not aware of any incident involving the placement or detonation of C19s in a manner inconsistent with Canadian Forces doctrine, rules of engagement, or the Ottawa convention.

Question No. 6

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

With respect to United Nations conventions and treaties to which Canada is a signatory: (a) what are the federal government’s criteria for assessing individual provincial and territorial endorsement for ratifying a treaty or convention; (b) as of November 1, 2008, which provinces and territories have, according to these criteria, endorsed ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention); (c) what steps will be undertaken by the government to secure endorsement by the remaining provinces and territories; (d) when is the next federal-provincial-territorial ministerial meeting on human rights scheduled and will Convention ratification be on the agenda of that meeting; (e) has the Convention been added to the list of international human rights treaties and conventions that are standing items on meeting agendas of the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights (CCOHR); (f) has progress on the ratification process for the Convention been discussed at CCOHR meetings and what is the status of that progress as of November 1, 2008 according to the minutes of those meetings; (g) is the target date for the completion of consultations with the provinces and territories on the ratification of the Convention within the required timeframe to permit Canada to participate fully in the first meeting of States party to the Convention, expected in November 2008, to chart the oversight committee’s future course and, if not, why not; (h) what is the federal government’s criteria for assessing individual provincial and territorial endorsement for signing the Optional Protocol of an international treaty; (i) as of November 1, 2008, which provinces and territories have, according to these criteria, endorsed Canada signing the Optional Protocol of the Convention; and (j) has progress on signing the Optional Protocol for the Convention been discussed at CCOHR meetings and what is the status of that progress as of November 1, 2008, according to the minutes of those meetings?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada has sole authority to ratify international treaties and seeks to ensure that domestic laws, policies and programs comply with the treaty in question prior to ratification. Where an international treaty has implications for provincial and territorial governments, as is the case with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, e.g., regarding accessibility of buildings and services, legal capacity, health, education, family law, et cetera, these governments will do their own assessments to ensure conformity with the relevant provisions of the treaty. The Government of Canada and provincial and territorial governments are currently reviewing their policies, programs and legislation with a view to ratifying the CRPD.

In response to (b), consultations with provincial and territorial governments are ongoing. It is essential that governments have the time required to consult in confidence in order to ensure Canada’s compliance and support for ratification of the CRPD.

In response to (c), the Government of Canada is providing support and assistance to provincial and territorial governments throughout the ongoing review and assessment process. All governments are actively reviewing their policies, programs and legislation as required prior to ratification. As is common practice, the Government of Canada will seek the formal support of provincial and territorial governments once these internal reviews are completed and following a decision by the federal government with respect to ratification.

In response to (d), a ministerial meeting has not been scheduled. The Government of Canada continues to work with provinces and territories through the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights.

In response to (e), the CRPD is a standing item on the agendas for biannual face-to-face meetings of the CCOHR and the monthly conference calls of the CCOHR.

In response to (f), discussions on ratification of the CRPD were held at the last in person meeting of the CCOHR as well as prior and subsequent conference calls. The review and consultations are ongoing.

In response to (g), the Government of Canada has not set a firm timeline for ratification in order to ensure that all governments have the time required to review their policies, programs and legislation for compliance with the CRPD prior to a final decision on ratification.

The timeframe in which governments are currently working is within the norms established by the process for ratification of other international human rights treaties which had similar implications for provincial and territorial governments.

In response to (h), (i) and (j), the process with respect to ratification of an optional protocol establishing an individual complaints mechanism in respect of an international human rights treaty, such as the optional protocol to the CRPD, is the same as the process for ratification of the treaty itself. The focus of current discussions with provinces and territories has been on the convention.

Question No. 7

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

With respect to the government’s cessation of funding for the First Nations and Inuit Tobacco Control Strategy announced on September 25, 2006: (a) as the evaluation of this strategy was not completed until March 2007, on what evidence of not providing “value for money” was the decision to cut funding based; (b) as the former Minister of Health, who has acknowledged the need to address the serious health implications of higher-than-average smoking rates in First Nations and Inuit populations, has given public reassurances – to the Standing Committee on Health on November 23, 2006 – that funding will be revived once a revised strategy has been developed, (i) what steps has the government taken since September 2006 to develop a revised strategy, (ii) what is the target date for the initiation of the revised strategy and its full funding; and (c) as the strategy’s evaluation document cited the absence of statistical data as an impediment in evaluation, will the collection of baseline and ongoing national tobacco use statistical data specific to First Nations and Inuit be included in the revised strategy and its funding?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in budget 2006, the Government of Canada promised to review programs to ensure every taxpayer dollar spent was achieving results, providing value for money and meeting the needs of Canadians. As a result of this expenditure review, funding for the first nations and Inuit tobacco control strategy, FNITCS, was eliminated because the program had been ineffective in achieving its goal of lowering the smoking rates among first nations and Inuit. Current data indicates that smoking rates among first nations and Inuit remain very high, at approximately triple the Canadian average; 59% of first nations and 58% of Inuit are smokers.

In response to (b)(i), in September 2006, the federal government committed to work with first nations and Inuit leaders to examine options for measures that would reduce smoking, prevent the harms of tobacco smoke, and show accountability for results not achieved by the former first nations and Inuit tobacco control program. First nations and Inuit leaders are important partners and have a major role to play in an effective program that will meet the needs of their community, address the issues of smoke-free spaces, youth smoking and access to tobacco products.

Canadian and international evidence shows that in order to achieve lasting results, tobacco control actions must be comprehensive, integrated and sustained. This includes the full range of interventions, including prevention, cessation, education, as well as protection--smoke-free spaces, retailer actions and compliance--, pricing, research, surveillance and evaluation.

Health Canada has worked with first nations and Inuit partners in a number of ways to promote evidence based approaches to tobacco control: supported the Assembly of First Nations to hire a special adviser to the national chief; collaborated with the Assembly of First Nations on public opinion research regarding first nations health directors’ perceptions of tobacco control activities; and supported Inuit tobacco network to develop an evidence based, Inuit specific strategy.

In response to (b)(ii), this work, in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations and Inuit tobacco network, has informed first nations and Inuit participation in the federal tobacco control strategy, FTCS. Funding is available to support first nations and Inuit projects through the FTCS proposals process. In addition, Health Canada supports a range of health promotion programs in first nations and Inuit communities, from diabetes prevention to maternal and child health promotion. These programs aim to enable first nations and Inuit to adopt healthy lifestyles, which includes tobacco cessation.

In response to (c), national tobacco use statistical data specific to first nations is being collected through the first nations regional longitudinal health survey. Data is currently being collected for the phase II 2008 survey. Tobacco use data specific to Inuit, as well as other aboriginal residents of Canada, is collected through Statistics Canada’s aboriginal peoples survey. Results of the 2006 survey were released December 3, 2008.

Question No. 9

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With respect to mitigating the impacts of the next pandemic influenza: (a) have provincial pandemic plans been tested during the last twelve months and, if so, which ones were tested, and what revisions were made based on lessons learned; and (b) what legislative and logistical steps has the government taken regarding social distancing measures?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to, (a), for the Canadian pandemic influenza plan, a number of provincial and territorial jurisdictions have either conducted comprehensive testing of their pandemic plans, have tested components of them, e.g, mass delivery and administration of vaccines, incident command system. In some jurisdictions, local exercises have occurred while others have also taken part in national exercises related to pandemic testing. Additionally, testing of the structures and processes that will be used during a pandemic has occurred as a result of recent avian influenza outbreaks or exercises related to other events, e.g., the 2010 Olympics. All of these activities have enabled jurisdictions to learn lessons that are being applied to pandemic preparedness and response.

In response to (b), the Quarantine Act is the legal authority under which the Government of Canada implements actions at Canadian points of entry to limit the introduction and spread of communicable diseases. Activities associated with this include screening of travellers at points of entry into or exit from Canada. Sick travellers are isolated and placed under this authority until believed to no longer pose a risk to the public. Social distancing measures are identified in Annex M, Public Health Measures, of the CPIP. Annex M provides overarching guidelines of logistical steps that can be taken by the provinces and territories s during a pandemic to control the spread of pandemic influenza. Decisions regarding implementation of these measures would be made at the discretion of provincial, territorial and local levels and will depend upon many factors including, but not limited to, severity of disease, level of disease in community, and societal impact. Social distancing measures are one component of a community based disease control strategy and can range from logistical recommendations to stay home if ill to closure of schools and daycare settings and restriction of public gatherings. These guidelines are considered by pandemic planners across the country. Timely communication of any public health measures and other relevant information to all affected will be important to help ensure compliance with the recommended interventions at the time of a pandemic. Provinces and territories would take logistical steps to implement guidelines according to the situation in their respective communities.

Question No. 10

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regards to the risk of a pandemic influenza: (a) what steps has the government taken to protect the health of Canadians during the initial delay in the availability of a specific influenza vaccine for the pandemic strain; (b) what human health and economic costs have been identified for Canada for the delay period, and what steps has the government taken to reduce these costs; (c) what is the government stockpile of Tamiflu, and has the government achieved the stockpile target for antivirals and, if not, when will it be reached; and (d) what specific steps has the government taken to address the limited shelf life of Tamiflu, and the development of resistance to the drug?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada, in partnership with provinces and territories, has developed the Canadian pandemic influenza plan for the health sector, a planning tool to guide all those involved in planning and responding to an influenza pandemic. The multi-faceted plan includes a pandemic vaccine and antiviral strategy. The national antiviral stockpile, NAS, has been established to protect Canadians while a vaccine is being developed. Additionally, non-pharmaceutical measures and public messaging will be implemented to reduce the risk of disease transmission during the initial period when a pandemic virus-specific vaccine is not available.

In response to (b), the Department of Finance has conducted preliminary assessments of the economic impact and concluded that a pandemic would have limited economic effects and that a 1918-type pandemic would likely reduce annual GDP growth by up to one percentage point in the pandemic year. Planning assumptions in the Canadian pandemic influenza plan for the health sector are that a pandemic may last 12 to 18 months and more than one wave may occur within a 12 month period; that 15% to 35% of the population will be clinically ill over the course of the pandemic and, that there would be an estimated 20% to 25% rate of workplace absenteeism during the peak one to two weeks of the pandemic wave. Canada’s comprehensive approach which includes vaccine and antiviral strategies, non-pharmaceutical measures, e.g., social distancing, and public communications, would reduce the impact on human health.

In response to (c), governments have achieved the stockpile target amount for the NAS and will continue to manage the stockpile to ensure that the appropriate composition and size is maintained. The NAS contains 55.7 million doses of antivirals. An additional 14.9 million doses of antiviral treatment are stockpiled in the national emergency stockpile system for surge capacity. These numbers do not include additional provincial and territorial stockpiles or other private or government departments stockpile amounts.

In response to (d), federal, provincial and territorial public health experts are reviewing options to address the limited shelf life of Tamiflu. Moreover, in order to ensure the best possible antiviral strategy for Canada, regular reviews are conducted on new and emerging evidence on antiviral resistance, the optimal mix and amount of drugs in a diversified stockpile.

Question No. 11

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regards to the stockpiling of Tamiflu for an influenza pandemic: (a) how does Canada rank among other G7 countries in terms of the number of antiviral treatments the government has stockpiled or intends to stockpile; (b) how do the steps of the government compare to the actions of other G7 countries in terms of using Tamiflu for prophylaxis and treatment; (c) what is the ethical framework for identifying priority groups during a pandemic, and what priority groups have been identified by the government for prophylaxis and treatment; and (d) what priority age groups in order of ranking for prophylaxis and treatment during an influenza pandemic have been identified?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Canada is comparable to other G7 countries in having a stockpile of antivirals for approximately 25% of the population. This includes the provincial and territorial, P/T, stockpiles of the national antiviral stockpile, NAS, the federal national emergency stockpile system, NESS, and other federal and provincial and territorial stockpiles. Antivirals are only one component of Canada’s multi-facet approach for managing a pandemic. Canada is unique in having a domestic supply agreement for the provision of pandemic vaccine. Canada’s target for antiviral stockpiles was established to complement other aspects of our pandemic response.

In response to (b), the Government of Canada, in collaboration with provinces and territories, has developed policy recommendations for the use of antivirals during a pandemic. Canada’s recommendations of a limited prophylaxis strategy are well within the range of plans of G7 countries. The recommendations do not support widespread use of antivirals for prevention but limited use in the following two situations: in the pandemic alert period, should cases occur in Canada, to prevent illness among people who are known to have close contact with infected individuals and during a pandemic for controlling outbreaks in “closed settings” such as long-term care facilities.

In response to (c), the Canadian pandemic influenza plan for the health sector outlines the ethical framework for planning and response to an influenza pandemic. Canada has a “treat all who need it” strategy, so there are no priority groups identified for early treatment. A report and policy recommendations on the use of antivirals for prophylaxis during an influenza pandemic was released in 2008 and included the ethical considerations that informed the recommendations. The recommendations can be found at the following weblink: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2008/prapip-uappi/07a-eng.php

In reponse to (d), Canada has not identified priority groups specifically for antiviral treatment during a pandemic. Age was not a factor when the policy recommendations for prophylaxis were made.