Jeannot Castonguay

[Health, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot claim to know if the minister has been invited; obviously, I have not rifled through her mail. Naturally, I will find out from officials in her department, in order to provide my hon. colleague with an answer.

[Health, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I should begin by saying that this product is being promoted as a treatment for certain conditions. Thus, Health Canada considers it a drug.

When we look at the ingredients in this product, and the claim that vitamins present no risk to health, I am sorry but I have to say that astronomical quantities of vitamins can be fatal to patients. Obviously, a product whose ingredients are considered to be drugs should be treated as a drug. We must abide by the law, and that we shall do.

[National Children's Memorial Day, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this motion before the House inviting the Government of Canada to establish a national children's memorial day.

The idea of establishing a special day to pay tribute to Canadian children is commendable. It illustrates Canada's determination to respect children, to never forget them and to pay tribute to them for all they bring us during our lives.

I am happy to note that this idea of the importance of children already received the support of the House when it passed Bill C-371, the National Child Day Act exactly ten years ago. This act designates November 20 of each year as a day to pay tribute to children. National Child Day has a positive impact on their life, their accomplishments and their role in society.

In the last ten years, National Child Day has become an important mechanism in helping communities and families pay tribute to children, and respect and cherish them in the ways they deem to be the most appropriate.

In the next few minutes, I would like to discuss the progress this country has made vis-à-vis children thanks to National Child Day. This important day has helped us better understand the rights that have been recognized for children and has prompted us to strengthen our collective commitment to provide Canadian children with the opportunities they need to develop their full potential.

National Child Day is observed on November 20 in order to commemorate two historic initiatives of the United Nations: the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, on November 20, 1959 and, even more important, the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on November 20, 1989.

The convention is the most complete international agreement on human rights that has ever been negotiated. It establishes fundamental rights for children around the world, and protects these rights by setting standards for the survival, growth and protection of children.

This convention addresses all aspects of the lives of children from birth to age 18, particularly their basic rights to food, housing, and accessible drinking water. It also deals with health care, recreation, education, protection against exploitation and violence, and the opportunity to be heard in matters that concern them.

It is also important to note that the convention assigns an essential role to parents and the family as far as child-rearing is concerned, and provides a framework focussed on parental rights and responsibilities.

Since the United Nations adopted it in 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has become the most heavily ratified treaty in the history of human rights.

As a signatory to the convention, the Government of Canada has made a commitment to enforce its provisions within the framework of its own laws, programs and policies. National Child Day is one of the most positive and tangible manifestations of that national commitment.

Since 1994, Health Canada has played a major role in National Child Day by preparing and distributing educational documents on the convention, and supporting special events aimed at raising public awareness of such vital issues as child protection and safety and healthy development.

Just recently National Child Day activities have been combined with another major UN activity, the special session on children held last spring in New York.

In preparation for the session, the Government of Canada took advantage of National Child Day 2001 to invite children and youth to express opinions on issues of concern to them. Their comments were collected in a report called “Your Voice Matters:Young People Speak Out on Issues Related to the UN Special Session on Children”.

One of the salient points of the report was that Canadian children and young people are very anxious to see their environment protected and to be safe from violence.

The opinions of Canadian youth were integrated into the declaration and outcome document of the special session, “A World Fit for Children”.

This action plan supports the principles and goals of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and consists of a program outlining goals, strategies and actions in the following four areas: promoting healthy lives, providing quality education, protecting against abuse, exploitation and violence, and combating HIV/AIDS.

In order to have the program reach every household, the theme of National Child Day 2002 was “A World Fit for Children”.

This theme was the basis for wide-reaching activities, including the production of a CD-ROM for teachers on the rights of the child. It was created in collaboration with NGOs such as Save the Children Canada, UNICEF, and the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children. It was distributed last fall to a representative sampling of schools across the country. This CD-ROM provides information on National Child Day, the UN Special Session on Children and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It also offers creative activities enabling children to learn about their rights, visit educational Web sites and be informed about the Canadian Children's Art Gallery project.

This artistic project led to the creation and distribution of postcards promoting a world fit for children, and to their participation in the activities marking World Child Day in 2002. These postcards were sent all over the country, to schools and RCMP detachments chosen at random.

Among the activities related to National Child Day, November 20, 2002, was an opportunity for Health Canada to reprint a poster for children, explaining the Convention on the Rights of the Child in simple terms.

The department also updated its popular Web site about National Child Day, adding other information on the rights of children and on the United Nations Special Session.

National Child Day in 2002 was also marked by the publication of two important reports on the Government of Canada's progress in helping young children get a good start in life.

The first one, entitled “Report on Early Childhood Development Activities and Expenditures”, sets out the government's progress in supporting young children and their families under the Early Childhood Development Agreement announced by federal, provincial and territorial first ministers in September 2000.

The activities listed included a new folic acid awareness campaign, improved maternity and parental benefits, and projects which were recently subsidized under Heath Canada's Community Action Program for Children.

The second report released on National Child Day 2002, entitled “The Well-Being of Canada's Young Children”, shows that the vast majority of these children are growing up in safe and secure environments. It points out that improvements are required with respect to collecting data on aboriginal children and children with disabilities, two areas the government is currently looking into.

The reports and activities I just mentioned show how important National Child Day is as a yearly reminder of this country's standing commitment to ensuring the health and well-being of its youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

The most important message National Child Day sends to Canadians is to do everything in their power to ensure that our children are surrounded by love, sympathy and understanding as they develop, that they are considered as individuals at the early stage of their development and that they are provided with every opportunity to achieve their full potential as adults.

A decade after the National Child Day Act was passed in this House, it is gratifying to see this national day occupy such a special place in the hearts of families, educational institutions, businesses, day care centres, youth groups and community organizations in every part of the country.

I am delighted that the spirit of this motion is consistent with the initiative already taken by our government. We will gladly support this motion which will ensure that we remember individually and collectively the children we have lost.

[Income Tax Act, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that the minister asked the Dean of Medicine at the University of Toronto to chair the committee to draw lessons from our experience that was unfamiliar to many, to see how we could improve our approach. I should add that there was communication with the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta to learn from their experience and to see how we could improve our situation here in Canada.

Pretending that nothing is wrong is not realistic and it is my pleasure to share this with the House.

[Income Tax Act, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to explain what happened in this whole situation. Of course, the government has been taking and continues to take this issue seriously.

Since the SARS outbreak began over a month ago, Health Canada has worked tirelessly and cooperatively with front line health care workers, provincial authorities and key stakeholders in an effort to control and contain SARS, which is not necessarily an easy task.

Beginning on March 15, Health Canada's Emergency Operations Centre has been a crucial point of coordination between Health Canada and players globally, nationally and locally.

The minister and officials at Health Canada began working with the World Health Organization as soon as SARS was identified and have stayed in very close contact every since.

On March 18, to assist airport staff to identify ill travellers, Health Canada sent officials to Vancouver International and Pearson Airports and on April 1, the department stepped up its efforts regarding the travelling public by providing information for departing passengers, people in flight as well as arriving passengers. By May 8, special equipment was being tested in Toronto's Pearson Airport to ensure we are identifying as many ways as possible to stop the spread by travellers.

Soon after hearing about the first case of SARS in Canada, Health Canada deployed six infectious disease and epidemiological experts to assist Toronto's public health unit and the Ontario Ministry of Health with the investigation of SARS cases. An additional eight experts were sent to Toronto during the week of April 1. An outbreak investigation team in Ottawa is in constant contact with the Toronto team.

As you know, managing a disease outbreak that is national in scope calls for national guidelines and Health Canada provided this expertise and advice to ensure that all parts of the country were equally protected and benefiting from the experiences of other countries and other parts of Canada. Health Canada developed, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, guidelines for infection control and for public health control measures in a variety of settings.

Health Canada has worked diligently with its partners, other government departments, federal, provincial, and territorial partners, the Centre for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.

Health Canada's National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg has worked tirelessly to find the cause of SARS as well as a diagnostic test. Our research to do this is taking place in collaboration with labs throughout the world.

Health Canada established a toll-free, public information line where callers can receive information on SARS and talk with health professionals.

In early April, the WHO said “Canada is doing an exemplary job and much of what has been going on in Canada, including the system of notifying airline passengers and of screening airline passengers, has been shared with other countries as an example of best practices”.

Let me repeat that, from the very beginning, Health Canada officials have worked around the clock with their provincial, territorial and international partners to investigate the cases, to reduce further transmission and to find the cause.

[Income Tax Act, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity today to address the members of this House with respect to Bill C-325. If adopted, this bill would entitle emergency service volunteers to claim a $3,000 tax deduction if they provided 200 hours or more of emergency volunteer work.

First, Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member. Emergency service volunteers deserve to be recognized for their valuable contributions to the safety, security and well-being of our communities.

There are numerous examples that come to mind in which emergency service volunteers played an important role: the tornado that whipped through Edmonton in 1987 and left large numbers of Edmontonians homeless, the Manitoba and Saguenay floods, or the crippling ice storm of 1998.

In these instances, disaster relief volunteers provided assistance at critical times. They aided the distressed victims of these natural disasters and helped re-establish calm out of chaos.

There are many kinds of volunteers that deserve some recognition, and there are many different ways to recognize their contributions. This may come as a surprise to some members, but Statistics Canada estimated that there were approximately 6.5 million Canadians across this country who volunteered in 2000. As you can imagine, these volunteers make valuable contributions to their communities in many different ways.

Some volunteers help seniors get around. They coach our children's sports teams. They prepare, serve and deliver meals to others in need. They provide education services and advocate on important issues. And they help protect our environment. In fact, in the year 2000, volunteers freely donated over one billion hours of their time. That is an average of 162 hours per volunteer.

Why do these volunteers give their time so generously? The member's bill reflects a view that emergency service volunteers either expect or need financial recognition for their service. But is this really true?

Statistics Canada has done a very interesting survey that sheds light on this question. Perhaps it should not be surprising, but the survey finds that most Canadians do not appear to expect financial assistance or incentives as a reward for their volunteering.

The National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating asked Canadians why they volunteered. There are a number of reasons, and none of the main reasons are related to financial gain.

Ninety-five per cent said they volunteered because they wanted to help a cause in which they believe; 81% volunteered because they desired to put their skills and experience to work; almost 70% volunteered because they had been personally affected by the cause that the charitable organization supports.

Canadians cited several other reasons for volunteering. They see volunteering as a way to explore their own strengths. They have friends who volunteer and they want to share the experience. They want to fulfill religious obligations or beliefs. And for some, volunteering is a way to demonstrate or acquire skills in order to open doors to new opportunities.

The hon. member's bill is well-intentioned, but it seems to miss the point. Financial rewards are not the reason that Canadians volunteer. Volunteering, first and foremost, comes from the heart.

I reach the same conclusion when I look at the issue from an equally important perspective: the perspective of Canadians who do not volunteer. The same Statistics Canada survey asked Canadians why they did not volunteer or why they did not volunteer more.

You have to search well down the list of reasons to find financial cost. In fact, the main barrier was a lack of time. Seven in ten Canadians cited time limitations, not financial costs, as a reason for not volunteering or not volunteering more.

There are other reasons why Canadians do not volunteer or volunteer more. Some find they are unable to make a year round commitment to volunteering. Some might consider becoming a volunteer, but have never been personally asked to do so. Perhaps they just need an invitation to get them started. Still others cited health problems, or a lack of interest.

At the bottom of the list is financial cost. Barely 10% of all volunteers believe that financial cost is a barrier to volunteering. Again, I respectfully suggest that the bill is aiming at the wrong issue.

Aside from financial rewards, what are some of the other ways to encourage volunteering efforts? There are many ways. Sometimes it is simply raising awareness of the volunteer's cause. Raising awareness is one dimension of the Canadian Volunteerism Initiative. This initiative is backed up with a new investment of $35 million, as announced by the Minister of Heritage last December. This funding will help establish national centres and local networks that, in turn, will help to strengthen the voluntary sector's ability to encourage and enhance the experience of volunteering.

Among other things, these investments will support an outreach awareness campaign, and help organizations develop and test new innovative methods for sustaining volunteerism.

The Canadian Volunteerism Initiative is the first ongoing program to be established under the Voluntary Sector Initiative, a partnership initiative that was established in 2000 to strengthen the voluntary sector's capacity and its relationship with the federal government.

Another way to recognize the efforts of volunteers if through public awards and honours. There are a multitude of awards distributed each year that recognize the outstanding contributions of volunteers. For instance, the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award is bestowed on a long-service volunteer who has contributed substantially to families and groups in his or her community.

I would just like to take a minute to talk about one of those recipients: Mary Fitzpatrick of Newfoundland. Mary was recognized for 14 years of volunteer work. She visited seniors' complexes. She hand-made quilts and donated them to needy individuals. And she knitted finger puppets for children undergoing blood work. Members must have seen those puppets that are put on the tip of the kids' fingers. Mary Fitzpatrick compassionately and freely gave to her community.

Clearly, this is a prime example of how to recognize the contributions of volunteers other than with money.

To reiterate, the private members' bill essentially misses the mark. Providing financial rewards is not the way to recognize and increase volunteer work. Due to the misguided premise of this bill, I would encourage members of this House to vote against it.

[The Environment, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Minister of Health to address Motion No. 399. This motion asks the government to take the necessary measures, including the drafting of legislation, to prevent medical conditions and illnesses caused by exposure to identifiable environmental contaminants.

Although the government recognizes the importance of the links between health and the environment, it is the government's opinion that passage of this motion would not be responsible. That may seem harsh. However, if we examine the undeniable facts in this matter, which I shall describe shortly, I believe that the hon. members will understand that passage of such a motion would duplicate the federal environmental and health protection programs already in place, and would waste resources without making any appreciable improvement in the health of the Canadian population.

Even though I sympathize with the concerns behind Motion No. 399, the government believes that it shows a lack of understanding of the scope and breadth of the current federal legislation that protects the health of all Canadians.

First, I would like to provide the hon. members with some historical details. It has been said that you do not know your subject unless you know its history. I am not about to deliver a lecture on the history of legislation related to environmental protection and health in Canada. Nevertheless, I do want to point out some significant stages in the evolution of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1988, which led to the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, passed in April 1999.

More than 40 years ago, the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring attracted a great deal of public attention to environmental pollution caused by the inappropriate use of pesticides. This book was the precursor to the ecology movement and helped push governments, in Canada as well as in the United States, to create departments of the environment and to create environmental protection legislation.

In Canada, responsibility for the Environmental Protection Act is shared by the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment, with the latter being responsible for implementation. The first environmental protection act passed in Canada was called the Environmental Contaminants Act, and it received royal assent in December 1975. It was intended to protect human health and the environment from substances which could contaminate the environment.

During the 1970s and 1980s, it became clear that the legislation needed to be reinforced and expanded. This process led to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1988. This world-class legislation created an international precedent in that it determined that the Government of Canada would comply with various deadlines set out in the statute regarding the assessment of health and environmental risks associated with various substances, considered priority substances, in the environment.

Furthermore, this was very forward-looking legislation since the government, rather than reacting and remedying problems, decided to take an anticipatory and preventive approach using strict provisions targeting new substances marketed in Canada. Under these provisions, the importing, manufacture and use of substances in Canada are prohibited, unless the government is convinced that they pose no danger to the environment or health. These provisions also require the industry to provide certain specific information to the government.

The legislation included a mechanism to guarantee that it would evolve over time, so as to take into consideration new realities and trends. This mechanism, provided for under section 139, obliged Parliament to undertake a full examination of the provisions and application of the statute in the five years following its passage.

Consequently, the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which came into force in 2000, gives us a much wider mandate. The purpose of this legislation is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention and to protect the environment, human life and health.

One of the important components of this new legislation is part 5, “Controlling Toxic Substances”, which is sometimes called the central component of the CEPA. If these provisions are key to the bill, the definition of toxic is vital.

A substance is defined as toxic under the legislation if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that, and I quote,

(a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;

(b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or

(c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

This definition is very important, because it corresponds with what we consider a risk and it complies with the principles and practices set out for risk assessment and management. Once government scientists decide that a substance is toxic within the meaning of the legislation, the risk management process is initiated and the substance may be subject to regulation.

Under CEPA, the government took effective measures to control various substances that are hazardous to the environment and human health. Measures include the gradual elimination of substances that break down the ozone layer, furan and dioxin discharges from pulp and paper mills that use chlorine bleaching, and lead and sulphur in gasoline.

CEPA has another provision that is unprecedented at the international level, under which the government is required to control substances that are currently used for commercial purposes in Canada, to determine if they are hazardous to the environment or health and to classify them based on the results.

In conclusion, I believe that the members can see that the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a powerful and effective tool for protecting health and the environment. Although I understand the reasoning behind Motion M-399, this motion does not offer a responsible solution.

[Health, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the first part of the motion before us asks that the Standing Committee on Health to fully examine whether or not abortions are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability.

The Government of Canada attaches considerable importance to the surveillance of issues affecting the health of Canadians. In 1995, the department began developing the Canadian perinatal surveillance system, or CPSS, as part of a departmental initiative to fill the gaps in national public health surveillance.

The CPSS collaborates with Statistics Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, provincial and territorial governments, health professionals organizations, advocacy groups and university researchers. Representatives of these groups and several international experts serve on the CPSS steering committee and its study groups.

The CPSS considers a health surveillance system to be a core system of ongoing data collection, analysis and interpretation on vital public health issues. Two issues related to public health surveillance, which greatly interest the CPSS and Canadian women, are the health effects associated with induced abortions and those associated with and full-term pregnancies.

There are no studies directly comparing the risks associated with induced abortions and those associated with full-term pregnancies in scientific journals. This can be attributed to the fact that Canadian women and their health care providers do not consider direct comparisons very important.

The physiology of pregnancy varies widely from one stage to the next. The risks associated with most undesirable events during pregnancy are, in all likelihood, higher later in pregnancy than at the stage when induced abortions are performed.

The close monitoring of undesirable events on health and the risk factors are more instructive in the case of induced abortions and full-term pregnancies. The department, thanks to the CPSS, has undertaken several important initiatives in this regard.

As far as induced abortions are concerned, the maternal health task force of the CPSS is looking thoroughly into the statistics on this provided by Statistics Canada. In addition to examining the complication rate as reported by Statistics Canada, the CPSS is examining delayed complications via a study on readmissions after discharge from hospital.

These efforts to link induced abortions in hospital with subsequent readmissions will further our understanding of the nature and frequency of serious complications connected to induced abortions.

As far as the health risks relating to pregnancy in general, the CPSS is involved in two pertinent initiatives. The first of these is a national study of maternal deaths, a first of its kind in Canada, which will attempt to examine all maternal deaths from 1997 to 2000, regardless of cause. A summary of the various provincial and territorial review processes for maternal death coupled with a study by experts on reported maternal deaths will be published by the department in 2004.

Fortunately, maternal deaths are still relatively rare in Canada, but the CPSS recognizes the need to monitor serious pregnancy outcomes that do not lead to deaths.

As a result, a study is currently under way to examine the profile of serious maternal morbidity in Canada. It will use surrogate variables including blood transfusions and admissions to intensive care to establish serious negative events involving pregnant women. These two initiatives will yield a more thorough knowledge of the risk factors and of the scope of serious outcomes affecting the health of Canadian women during pregnancy.

In short, a direct comparison of the health risks for women undergoing induced abortions and women going to full term does not necessarily represent the optimum approach. A careful monitoring of serious events for women's health at all stages of pregnancy will provide the basis for policies and programs designed to provide Canadian women with the safest possible perinatal health services.

The department is fully behind this effort with these initiatives for surveillance.

[Hepatitis Awareness Month, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that May has been declared Hepatitis Awareness Month by the Canadian Liver Foundation.

Hepatitis is the most common disease in Canada, and Canadians should know the consequences and take the necessary measures to protect themselves.

Despite the availability of vaccinations against hepatitis A and B, thousands of people contract these diseases each year because they are unaware of the risks associated with certain types of behaviour, for example, sexual activities, tattoos, body piercing and the injection of drugs. There is no vaccination against hepatitis C, but precautions can be taken.

The Canadian Liver Foundation is on the forefront of efforts to reduce the incidence and impact of hepatitis and all liver diseases. Each year, the foundation provides research subsidies to renowned Canadian doctors and scientists so they can find new treatments and cures for hepatitis and other liver diseases.

I ask the House to join me in saluting the Canadian Liver Foundation and its volunteers during Hepatitis Awareness Month.

[Multiple Sclerosis, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that May has been designated Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Multiple sclerosis is a neurological illness that can cause balance problems, impaired speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and paralysis.

Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world. The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada provides significant support for research in this field.

In 2002, the MS society raised over $24 million.

Last year the society directed more than $5 million to its MS research program.

It is also supporting a new clinic for children with MS at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

This month volunteers across Canada will take part in the MS carnation campaign in support of MS research and services.

I invite my hon. colleagues to join me in wishing the best possible success to the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, and encouraging all Canadians to take part.