Elinor Caplan

[Health, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the minister is committed to doing everything he can to ensure that the people of Canada have access to the drugs they need. That is why a conference was held on pharmacare.

As a result of that conference, it is very clear that any access to needed drug therapies must be done through the development of an integrated health model to ensure that we do not make the mistakes that have been made in the past which have often resulted in people not getting optimal drug therapy from the drugs they take.

I acknowledge the member's interest. I also say to him that the minister is determined to work co-operatively with the provinces to determine how they can provide better access for the people of Canada.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only are the member's facts inaccurate, but I do not think she is speaking to the topic.

[Health, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect in the premise of his question. This government believes very clearly that there is a very distinct difference between the infection of AIDS and hepatitis C.

We have taken appropriate action. We understand this is a very serious and sensitive issue. That is why we have offered $1.1 billion. Negotiations are ongoing with those infected between 1986 and 1990.

We are hopeful of an outcome that will be put before the courts to ensure that that is approved before any final settlement is taken.

[Health, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member's preamble deals with a court case that dealt with AIDS.

While I am not in a position to comment on court cases, I would tell the member that our position on hepatitis C is very clear. Negotiations are ongoing at the present time for those who were infected in the blood system between 1986 and 1990.

A proposal has been made to provide ongoing lifetime care to those infected outside that window. That is because this government and the Minister of Health believe that people no matter how they were infected deserve to have the care that they need. We do not believe in cash compensation.

[Competition Act, 1998, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I start by stating very clearly that the health of Canadians, particularly the health of Canadian children, is a priority for Health Canada.

The government's decision to delist MMT was in response to a ruling by a panel established under the agreement on internal trade. In acting on the panel's recommendations the government also moved to resolve Ethyl's NAFTA claim.

Health Canada conducted a thorough review of the health effects of manganese that could be attributed to the use of the gasoline additive MMT and published those findings in December 1994. The review considered all age groups, including children and the elderly, and concluded that the vast majority of Canadians are exposed to levels of manganese that are well below a level of concern as determined by Health Canada and the World Health Organization. I remind the member that the report is an assessment of the health impact of MMT and not an endorsement of its use.

In developing the conclusions reached in the report, Health Canada reviewed the science contained in over 200 published research papers. Departmental scientists were satisfied that the database was sufficient to achieve and reach valid conclusions on the subject of MMT. As with all scientific issues, gaps exist in our knowledge.

The department is also aware of other studies being planned or already in progress which might provide new information on this subject. We are aware of the studies and of the learned scientists the member referred to in his opening remarks.

I assure the member and all those watching this interesting debate that Health Canada will continue to examine all available studies as an ongoing effort to reassess the 1994 risk assessment. We believe that is appropriate. I assure the House that any health developments will be reflected in the government's policy toward fuel additives.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the health and safety of Canadians are always a priority with Health Canada.

[Income Tax Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the government's efforts to reduce tobacco use among young Canadians.

Protecting the health of our kids is a priority. We have put in place a comprehensive four pronged strategy that includes legislation, regulation, enforcement, research and public education.

In April 1997 the government passed the Tobacco Act, one of the toughest tobacco control laws in the world. It restricts access by young people to tobacco products, empowers governments to introduce stronger health warnings and establishes broad powers for tobacco regulation. Let me remind members that the World Health Organization has recognized our Tobacco Act as one of the toughest in the world.

We have initiated consultations on the process of regulation which would make those regulations among the most stringent in the world. We are addressing labelling and promotion of tobacco. We have already alerted Canadians to the realities of light and mild messaging. We have hosted a round table with experts to learn about strategies designed to increase public awareness and to ensure that concerns about tobacco are widely known.

We are working with provincial governments to increase compliance. We recognize this is a serious problem. That is why we are working with the National Cancer Institute on monitoring and surveillance activities.

We have committed $50 million over the next five years to encourage and support young Canadians not to smoke. In addition, we have a caucus committee which is looking at enhancing options for tobacco public education efforts.

Our priority is protecting the health of young Canadians. As I said, we have a comprehensive strategy. The one thing that is certain is that the critic for the New Democratic Party will never be satisfied. That is a good thing. It is her job to complain, to criticize and to issue rhetoric. That is why we are here—

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to talk about Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act. It will regulate advertising services supplied by foreign magazine publishers to Canadian advertisers where such services are directed at the Canadian market.

The new law will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers continue to have access to Canadian advertising revenues which are necessary for the survival of our periodical publishing industry.

Advertising revenues from the supply of advertising services are the main source of revenue for magazine publishers. They finance the production of editorial content, the purchase of photographs and much more. Without such revenues there would be no original Canadian content. Therefore access to revenues from the supply of advertising services is critical to the continued production of Canadian stories and of information of interest to Canadians.

Since Confederation Canada has preserved, promoted and enhanced cultural identity through mass media. Canada's longstanding cultural policies have supported the creation and communication of Canadian ideas, stories and information through the establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, our National Film Board and a host of other organizations that give voice to Canadian stories and Canadian culture.

As well, Canada's cultural policies have played a key role in cultivating a vibrant, domestic magazine publishing industry. In 1996 Canadian publishers produced 1,500 magazines and sold 539 million copies and generated revenues of more than $1 billion. Of the magazines in circulation in Canada, the percentage of Canadian magazine titles has grown from 20% in 1956 to 65% in 1997.

In a land as vast as ours and given our rich cultural diversity, Canadian magazines are a powerful vehicle for expression in the sharing of stories, information and perspectives. Canadian magazines help define who we are and enable us to read about ourselves in our own voices as well as share Canada with those who live outside our borders.

In a world that technology continues to shrink it is critical that the federal government continue to support our domestic magazine publishing industry so that the creation and sharing of Canadian stories and Canadian perspectives will thrive.

With more than 250 million English speaking Americans to our south there is no shortage of American stories coming into Canada. From U.S. magazines we would not hear about Canada Day or St. Jean Baptiste Day or celebrating Thanksgiving in October. Nor would we hear about the details of Canadian bank mergers or the challenges of gardening in our northern climate. What we would hear is the perspectives and interests of other nations and other people.

This measure is not about excluding foreign magazines from our domestic market to enjoy hearing what others have to say, and we will continue to do that. In fact, Canada imports more American magazines than the rest of the world combined. Canadians also want to be able to read about themselves, their communities and their country. This is clearly demonstrated in the fact that 18 of the top 20 magazines in circulation within our borders are Canadian.

We must make sure that Canadian publishers have access to advertising revenues. Because of the relatively small size of our market, one-tenth the size of the U.S., a strong domestic advertising revenue base is required to support the creation of distinctly Canadian magazines. This way we can ensure that Canadian magazines help project our stories to our own citizens as well as to others around the world.

This new bill is really about choice, choice for Canadians to benefit from Canadian voices, perspectives and shared experiences.

As I mentioned, and this is very important for anyone watching this debate, we are not excluding others from our domestic market. Rather, Bill C-55 will result in a secure advertising base for Canadian magazine publishers. This in turn will ensure that this vibrant cultural industry continues to provide distinctive expressions, distinctive vehicles for expressions which are distinctly Canadian.

Therefore I urge all members to seek speedy passage of this bill. I also urge opposition members and all those speaking on this debate to give Canadians watching this debate and the Americans and others watching this debate the facts. The fact is it is important for Canadians to have the opportunity to read and hear about Canadian expressions and Canadian stories.

I have had a number of calls from residents in the constituency of Thornhill. Many of them have expressed to me their concerns. When my children were small I searched for Canadian publications and magazines. At that time there were not nearly as many as there are today. They are here today because there is a demand for them within Canada. The fact that we have a relatively small market means we need to do what we can to ensure that they will be here not only for today but for future generations. It is therefore my pleasure to participate in this very important debate.

[Criminal Code, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask unanimous consent of the House for the following order:

That the Order for consideration at the report stage of Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), be discharged and that the said bill be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health for reconsideration of clause 1.

I believe you would find unanimous consent for this motion.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the mandate of the Health Protection Branch is to protect Canadians against current and emerging risks to health. These risks come from prescription drugs, medical devices, consumer products, food and water contaminants, air pollution, radiation, chemical hazards, tobacco diseases, and natural and civil disasters.

Risk management is a decision making process for dealing with health risks. The health protection branch uses a formal method called a framework that lists all steps in the risk management process.

I want to tell the member what these steps include: identifying and assessing risks; developing, analysing and choosing options for managing the risks; implementing the selected options; and monitoring and evaluating the results.

This approach is used by provincial, territorial, national and international health organizations. The risk management framework was adopted in 1993. It has helped to ensure consistency and thoroughness in the way that risks are assessed and decisions are made.

It also results in a more understandable and transparent process. It promotes the use of best available scientific and technical information. It clearly identifies roles and responsibilities. It ensures that those who are affected by risk management decisions are properly consulted.

The health protection branch is one of the department's organizations that contributes to the management of risks to the health business line. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the member that the health protection branch has not been replaced by an entity called the management of risks to health.

Earlier this year the minister launched a process called transitions which includes improving the risk management framework for the 21st century. At the present time this is a process of review. It is open and transparent consultation which hopefully will lead to an era in the new millennium so that even the member will have confidence and stop saying such nasty things about the renewed health protection branch.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the interest of the hon. member for Mississauga South and thank him. Thirty-five seconds in question period does not allow for a full answer.

This evening I would like to tell the member that the advisory council's final report called the Canada Health Infoway: Paths to Better Health was presented to the Minister of Health and made public on February 3.

The report contains a number of recommendations relating to the development of a Canada health infoway including protecting the privacy of health information, empowering the public, strengthening and integrating health care services, creating information resources and building an aboriginal health infrastucture.

The report presents an exciting, positive, future vision of a Canada's health infoway, a vision which the Minister of Health and the Government of Canada strongly endorse. The 1999 budget provided the needed support toward actualizing the vision. We have committed $328 million over three years for improving the gathering, sharing and analysis of information about health and Canada's health care system.

The advisory council acknowledges in its report that developing a Canada health infoway will require collaborative efforts with all stakeholders, particularly the provinces and the territories. In fact, the Canada health infoway is to be built on the foundation already being designed or implemented by provinces and territories. Without their participation and support there can be no Canada health infoway.

Accordingly, the Minister of Health has already initiated discussions with provincial and territorial counterparts to seek consensus on how they can move forward together in these directions and build on current collaborative efforts.

As I said to all members of the House, we believe there needs to be greater accountability by all governments, not to each other but to Canadians, and the health infoway will help us to achieve that goal.