Jeannot Castonguay

[National Horse of Canada Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to shed some light on this for the hon. member.

First, at the time we were in what many have described as a crisis. I think it is important today to remember what the context was back then.

The minister made a statement and I will reiterate it for him. He makes no apology for the actions of his officials. At the time, officials took steps to ensure that appropriate levels of antibiotics would be available for Canadians to protect them in the event of a biological attack involving anthrax. That was the situation we then faced.

The House knows very well that the affidavits of officials at Health Canada are within the public domain. They show quite clearly that Bayer was contacted not once, but twice, to supply the national emergency stockpile system with the antibiotic Cipro, but that Bayer could not supply the Cipro.

The obvious question then is this: If Bayer could provide enough of the antibiotic to ensure the health security of Canadians, why would Health Canada officials have to look elsewhere to secure the supply?

The only logical answer is that Bayer had said that they could not supply the Cipro. If Bayer could have supplied this antibiotic, Health Canada would not have had to seek a source of the antibiotic Cipro elsewhere.

In fact, it is Health Canada's responsibility to guarantee the security of the citizens of Canada by protecting the health of all Canadians. It is Health Canada's responsibility to ensure that sufficient quantities of health service supplies are available for Canadians in times of emergencies. Health Canada secured a supply of antibiotics for Canadians on Canadian soil.

Health Canada has taken measures to deal with a potential anthrax attack. The national emergency stockpile system is stockpiling the following drugs that are usually effective against a variety of organisms: Ciprofloxacin, Doxycycline-including Vibramycin-Amoxicillin, Tetracycline and Penicillin. The target number is 100,000 Canadians, while it was only 40,000 a bit earlier, before this crisis occurred.

These drugs are recommended as standard treatments for this infection by leading American health authorities, including the Centre for Disease Control, NATO and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

In the United States, it is the most recommended drug for this disease, although it can cause side effects like any good medication, which is why we keep in our Canadian reserves other kinds of medication in order to be able to deal with this situation, if need be.

Instead of impugning the integrity of public servants who were acting in good faith at the time, we should congratulate those public servants for making the right decisions in a time of crisis.

[Alzheimer's Disease, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to inform the House and all Canadians that January has been declared Alzheimer's Awareness Month.

Alzheimer's disease is a degenerative disease which destroys vital brain cells. It is one of the primary causes of death among seniors and affects over 300,000 Canadians. Although it strikes primarily seniors, younger people are becoming increasingly worried. Despite the research now being done, no cure has yet been found.

The Alzheimer Society of Canada is working to inform the public about this disease. It is improving the quality of life of all those affected by offering support, providing information about the disease, and funding research.

Please join with me in wishing the Alzheimer Society of Canada and its dedicated volunteers a month filled with success.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I mentioned earlier. The auditor general stated:

The Branch has a good process in place to manage its grant and contribution programs and ensure that public funds are managed properly.

In the three grants and contributions programs audited by the auditor general, “there is a well-established project management process and clear program guidelines”.

At her press conference on December 4, the auditor general stated, referring to examples quoted in her report, “We found nothing illegal in any of the cases”.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member on behalf of the Minister of Health.

In her report on certain of Health Canada's programs, the auditor general said the following:

The Branch has a good process in place to manage its grant and contribution programs and ensure that public funds are managed properly; in all three programs we examined, we found a well-established project management process and clear program guidelines.

These are the words of the auditor general in her report, and Health Canada is delighted with these comments. The Minister of Health is appreciative of the constructive opinions from the auditor general, which have enabled the department to take the necessary corrective steps in keeping with the report's recommendations.

The hon. member asks whether the Minister of Health could not use the $2 million to provide true health care in this country.

I can tell the hon. member that, without a doubt, the $2 million in question is being used for a legitimate purpose for the improvement of health care in Canada: research into the second-ranking cause of cancer deaths in men. More than 18,000 Canadian men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year, a total that will no doubt increase as the baby boomers reach the age group most at risk for prostate cancer.

The auditor general's concerns about this project are of a technical nature. She is not questioning the legitimacy of the project itself.

Resources have been allocated to the Vancouver Centre of Excellence for prostate cancer research. This centre, with research teams from Vancouver General Hospital and the British Columbia Cancer Agency, is world renowned for its successes in basic and clinical research.

This centre of excellence was created in response to the advice and recommendation of eminent experts who attended a national forum on prostate cancer in February of 1997. It is an integral part of the government's health research commitment in the 1999 budget.

In order to meet the highest standards of quality, the projects undertaken by the centre are submitted to a rigorous peer review process. No funding is provided for research projects until the peer review has been completed. Legitimacy is therefore not at issue, and there has been no wasting of public funds. The research work done on a major health problem is excellent.

I also would remind the member that, at her press conference on December 4, the auditor general herself said, on the subject of the examples cited in her report, that they had found nothing illegal in any of the cases.

Nevertheless, Health Canada is taking the concerns of the auditor general very seriously. The department has already reacted on a number of fronts and has prepared an action plan to follow up on all the recommendations contained in the auditor general's report.

As well as doing other things, these measures will result in tighter control over the management of grants and contributions.

Health Canada will continue to work with non government organizations, other levels of government and teaching facilities on initiatives to improve the health and well-being of Canadians and to reduce inequalities in terms of health within or between certain groups. Health Canada firmly intends to apply the highest standards of accountability to these initiatives.

[Health, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec, like all other Canadian provinces, is entitled to a share of Canada's assets.

As I said earlier, but I think my hon. colleague was not listening, the money is available, $135 million. It is a matter of sitting down at the table and reaching agreement in such a way as to continue to be accountable to all Canadians for the investments we make. They need to know how their money is being used.

[Health, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that our colleague is raising this matter, because in September 2000, when the ministers of health met together, they reached an agreement: $800 million would be devoted to primary care, which includes this type of project.

I must also point out that $135 million were available to Quebec, but we are still waiting for Quebec to sit down at the table and reach an agreement on the way it will receive these funds.

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances, things are done in the usual way. But because of the crisis that we have been going through since September 11, there were important things that had to be done.

Since Bayer could not guarantee that it could supply the drugs we needed to protect the health of Canadians, it was important for us to have access to those drugs. That is what we did, that is what the Minister of Health did, and his officials worked very hard to make sure we had access to those drugs.

A mistake was made, and we admitted it again and again. Now we have all the drugs we need. We are ready to respond to this type of emergency and we are very proud of our officials.

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will set the record straight. First, the minister has said before, and I will reiterate it for him. He makes no apology for the actions of his officials. We support the officials of Health Canada for the actions they took in ensuring appropriate levels of antibiotics would be available for Canadians to protect them in case of a biological attack involving anthrax.

The affidavits of officials at Health Canada are within the public domain. They show quite clearly that Bayer was contacted not once, but twice, to supply the national emergency stockpile system with the antibiotic Cipro. But Bayer could not supply the Cipro.

I ask but one question. And I ask honourable members to listen carefully. If Bayer could provide enough of the antibiotic to ensure the health security of Canadians, why would Health Canada officials have to look elsewhere to secure the supply? Why? Because, the only logical answer is that Bayer said that they could not supply the Cipro. If Bayer could supply this antibiotic, Health Canada would not have had to seek a source of the antibiotic Cipro elsewhere.

Health Canada officials made a mistake in how they tried to secure another source of drugs. That mistake has been acknowledged and corrected. But they made the mistake in an honest effort to protect the health of Canadians and, at the end of the day, Canadians are protected.

It is Health Canada's responsibility to guarantee the security of the citizens of Canada by protecting the health of all Canadians. It is Health Canada's responsibility to ensure that sufficient quantities of health and social service supplies are available for Canadians in times of emergencies. Health Canada secured a supply of antibiotics for Canadians on Canadian soil.

We have now what we have always been after. A secure supply of drugs to protect the health of Canadians. This government will continue to protect the health and safety of Canadians and we will continue to do it aggressively.

The agreement reached to purchase drugs will not cost the taxpayer a single penny more.

Furthermore, after the United States government forced Bayer to provide the drug at a cheaper price, the Minister of Health took similar action. I am sure all members will be pleased to learn that, as a result of the minister's actions, Bayer has offered the same deal to Canada.

I also want to quickly review some of the other drugs Health Canada is stockpiling. The national emergency stockpile system is stockpiling the following drugs that are usually effective in against a variety of organisms: Ciprofloxacin, Doxycycline—including Vibramycin—Amoxicillin, Tetracycline and Penicillin. The target number is 100,000 Canadians.

These drugs are recommended as standard treatments for this infection by leading health authorities, including the U.S. Centres for Disease Control, NATO and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

Instead of impugning the integrity of the Minister of Health and of public servants who are acting in good faith to protect Canadians, the opposition parties in the House of Commons should be standing with the Minister of Health and applauding those public servants for their dedication to ensuring that the health security of Canadians is protected in a time of crisis.

[Contraventions Act, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, following the May 17, 2001 debate on the use of drugs for non-medical purposes, a special House committee was formed to examine the many issues surrounding this important topic. It will be presenting its conclusions in November 2002.

The Minister of Health and this government are impatiently awaiting the recommendations of this committee and of the special Senate committee now studying Canada's anti-drug legislation and policies.

I would remind the House that, through the various departments, which are working together to develop a drug strategy for Canada, the government is actively making its expertise available and providing support for the proceedings of these two committees.

The issue of anti-drug legislation and sanctions, and especially marijuana, is now the subject of a broad public debate. I will go over some of the proposals in the amendment proposed.

This amendment would mean that simple possession of small quantities of cannabis or cannabis resin could be dealt with under the provisions of the Contraventions Act. It would change the procedures and the legal system for offences of possession, possession for trafficking, and trafficking of one gram or less of cannabis resin or 30 grams or less of cannabis.

The Contraventions Act, which was passed by parliament in 1992, was designed to provide a simplified process for prosecuting violations of statutes and regulations that would otherwise be prosecuted under the Criminal Code before provincial courts.

According to the Contraventions Act, summary conviction offences may be designated by the governor in council as a contravention. The fact that an offence is designated as a contravention under the act eliminates the stigma normally associated with a federal conviction offence.

One of the objectives of this bill seems to be the elimination of a criminal record for possession of small amounts of cannabis. Another objective is to re-allocate the savings to the legal system toward the prosecution of dealers and traffickers of illicit drugs. These are obviously laudable goals. However, without an indepth study of the subject, including a cost benefit analysis, and information on the social and economic benefits, we cannot speculate as to whether or not the amendment would meet its objectives.

Amendments were made to the Contravention Act in May 1996. They were the result of consultations with the provinces and territories. Similar consultations would be vital for the proposed bill.

The amendments allowed violations of federal statutes to be prosecuted under the various provincial and territorial legal systems. The governor in council was able to make regulations to have a provincial system apply to the offences.

The 1996 amendments also allow the Minister of Justice to sign agreements with each province or territory regarding the administrative details of the act, implementation procedures for the act, and the prosecution of contraventions.

The Contraventions Act allows the governor in council to designate summary conviction offences under federal statutes or regulations as contraventions. Indictable offences are specifically excluded from designation as contraventions.

These proposals are all good, but we must be careful to ensure that all of these provisions are carefully considered.

Once again, we would need to have special consultations with the provinces before considering this approach.

Furthermore, we have to hear from the Canadian public on this subject before making any decisions regarding cannabis policies. This work is underway.

First, the Senate committee and the special committee of the House, together with the results of their studies, will be a considerable help in examining the questions. These committees may recommend a cost-benefit analysis and further public consultation before a decision to amend the policies on cannabis according to the Contraventions Act.

I stress the need for broad consultation with representatives of the provinces and territories to obtain their support for this approach and their opinion on its implementation. A strong consensus among the provinces, the territories and the federal government is the only way to rectify the inconsistency of the current enforcement scheme.

We must explain the changes clearly to Canadians.

We must also make sure that a new and innovative approach is not unnecessarily complex and that Canadians understand the reason for the change and its application in practice.

In addition, processes should probably be established to provide training to police officers in the appropriate enforcement of the provisions of the Contraventions Act to make sure that the result is not a broader or discriminatory enforcement of the law.

An evaluation framework would probably be needed. Mechanisms should be established to obtain the basic data on current trends in substance abuse and arrests and to monitor the social, legal and health related effects of the Contraventions Act.

In conclusion, the government believes that the time is not right to pass this amendment and that the preliminary work required has not been completed. In our opinion, the work of the parliamentary committees must be completed before any change is made to current legislation, such as the Contraventions Act, in the case of cannabis.

[Health, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a topic of interest to all Canadians, and rightly so. They should know that smallpox is not a local problem. It is a global one.

I am very pleased to say that yesterday, and the day before, at the OECD conference with health ministers from some 30 countries, this was one of the items on the agenda: specifically, how we could work together in the event of such an attack. Such an attack is highly improbable but we must still be ready anyway.

These are measures taken by the government. This conference was requested by the Minister of Health—