John Cummins

[Points Of Order, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans suggested incorrectly that I had called for the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Marshall decision. It does not apply. What I did ask for was a stay of judgment in a rehearing.

[Fisheries, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is ignoring the Van der Peet decision. Earlier this year, Professor Stephen Patterson, the chief government witness in the Marshall case, provided evidence on behalf of the minister to the federal court. He said that he was not aware of any historical record of the Mi'kmaq catching lobster nor of Mi'kmaq stories or traditions relating to the catching and eating of lobster.

Given there is no evidence of Mi'kmaq harvesting or eating lobster, there can be no basis for recognizing an aboriginal right to a lobster food fishery. Since the court is not driving the minister's food fishing agenda, what is?

[Fisheries, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada said that Bud Sparrow had an aboriginal right to fish for salmon at the mouth of the Fraser River because his ancestors had done so from time immemorial.

In Van der Peet, the supreme court established the test for the aboriginal rights such as Mr. Sparrow's. It said that for such a right to be recognized the activity had to be a practice integral to native society prior to contact with Europeans. Does the minister believe that the food fishery for lobster that he has permitted on the east coast meets the test in Van der Peet?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, May 18th, 2000]

With regard to the recording and reporting of adverse events related to the use of the antimalarial drug mefloquine by the manufacturer, the Health Protection Branch and the Canadian Forces: ( a ) did the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff in May 1995 make a finding that mefloquine was a contributing factor in the suicide death of a Canadian soldier in Rwanda in December 1994, and did a United Nations inquiry come to a similar conclusion; ( b ) what problems with the use of mefloquine did the January 21, 1993, Canadian Forces medical services unit's post-op report of the relief phase of the Somalia mission record, and what actions were taken as a result of these findings; ( c ) what problems with the use of mefloquine did the April 1993 Canadian Forces medical services unit's post- deployment report on the Somalia mission record, and what actions were taken as a result of these findings; ( d ) what problems with the use of mefloquine did the October 1993 Canadian Forces medical services unit report “Medical Operations in Somalia, Surgical Section” record, and what actions were taken as a result of these findings; ( e ) what reporting procedures did the doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit in Somalia employ to ensure that soldiers exhibiting what the product monograph refers to as signs of unexplained anxiety, depression, restlessness or confusion discontinued use of the drug, as such signs were to be considered prodromal to a more serious event; ( f ) what special reporting procedures did the doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit in Somalia employ on the day that mefloquine was administered, normally referred to by soldiers as psycho-Tuesday or Wednesday, etc., to establish whether soldiers were exhibiting what the product monograph refers to as signs of unexplained anxiety, depression, restlessness or confusion; ( g ) did the doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit report to the manufacturer on a regular basis adverse events suffered by soldiers under their care who had been administered mefloquine between December 1, 1992, and December 1, 1995, and were these adverse event reports made available to the Health Protection Branch by either doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit or the manufacturer; ( h ) did the Health Protection Branch regularly receive from the manufacturer mefloquine (Lariam) adverse event reports; how soon after the adverse event occurred did the manufacturer normally report the event; and how many such events were reported by the manufacturer to the Health Protection Branch since 1990; ( i ) how many mefloquine related adverse events were reported to the Health Protection Branch by either doctors or their patients since 1990; ( j ) did the doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit have a responsibility to report to either the manufacturer or the Health Protection Branch suicide or suicide attempts by soldiers under their care who had been administered mefloquine (Lariam); ( k ) what were the findings of the August 24, 1992, “Review of the Safety Report Update for the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study” by the Infection and Immunology Division of the Health Protection Branch as regards investigators failing to return their completed case record forms to the manufacturer, and did this indicate that the safety data from the Safety Monitoring Study was incomplete; ( l ) following the August 24, 1992, “Review of the Safety Report Update for the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study” by the Infection and Immunology Division of the Health Protection Branch, what remedial steps were requested of the manufacturer so as to ensure the manufacturer required the investigators to comply with the reporting requirements of the Safety Monitoring Study; and ( m ) following the shipment of mefloquine by the manufacturer to CFB Petawawa ordered for the Somalia deployment, was the Canadian Forces medical services unit informed or reminded in any manner on any occasion by the manufacturer of the Canadian Forces' responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study as to administering the drug, recording adverse events and reporting them to the manufacturer or the Health Protection Branch and if so when?

Return tabled.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 18th, 2000]

With regard to the purchase of mefloquine from the manufacturer and the oversight of mefloquine by the Health Protection Branch as mandated by the Food and Drug Act: ( a ) did the Canadian Forces indicate to the manufacturer on the order form when ordering mefloquine for Somalia that it was for use under the Food and Drug Act's Lariam Safety Monitoring Study; when was the order submitted; and when was the shipment received; ( b ) was the Health Protection Branch informed by the manufacturer that the Canadian Forces had indicated on the order form that the mefloquine was being ordered under the authority of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and that this mefloquine was apparently purchased for the Somalia deployment; and when was the Health Protection Branch so informed; ( c ) did the Health Protection Branch receive from the manufacturer a request to fast track licensing approval for mefloquine (Lariam), and was licensing approval granted prior to the end of the Canadian Forces deployment in Somalia; ( d ) what was the date the Health Protection Branch received the final results of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study from the manufacturer, and the date of the receipt by the Health Protection Branch of the last submission of the Safety Monitoring Study's results prior to licensing approval; ( e ) did the Department of National Defence prepare an advisory note acknowledging that evidence provided to the Somalia Inquiry had mislead the Inquiry as to the status of mefloquine approvals for the mefloquine used in the Somalia deployment; was the advisory note forwarded to the Minister of National Defence; and what action was taken when the Minister was so informed?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions on the order paper, Question No. 28, which was first asked on March 23, 1999, and Question No. 29, which was first asked on March 24, 1999, which have never been answered. These questions go to the heart of the mefloquine scandal which brought the Department of National Defence somewhat into disrepute and the health protection branch of our country as well.

I think the questions are even more compelling and the answers would be much more useful given the current problems in Africa and the probability that perhaps Canadian troops may again be required to take mefloquine. I would like to know when I could expect an answer to these questions.

[Leigh Morrison, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of this week I am going to be in New Brunswick to attend the preliminary hearing of Leigh Morrison.

The House will recall that Leigh Morrison was one of the New Brunswick lobster fishermen whose truck was burned at the Burnt Church wharf. Later that day the large shed where he kept his boat and fishing gear was vandalized by hooligans.

Mrs. Morrison had received death threats that day and had sought police protection. The police refused to protect the family. For doing the work of the RCMP of protecting his family and property, police charged Leigh with three counts of assault.

Those who threatened the Morrison family were charged with break and enter and intent to commit an indictable crime. Their sentence, a conditional discharge and order to pay $1,200, was in my view insufficient.

This violence against the Morrison family was fueled by a flawed supreme court decision and the government's refusal to seek an immediate stay and rehearing. This government, and not Leigh Morrison, a fine and honourable man, should be on trial for mishandling this critical issue.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have two order paper questions, Questions Nos. 28 and 29. Question No. 28 was presented on October 15, 1999 and Question No. 29 was presented on October 18, 1999. Neither one has been answered yet. Question No. 29 was first asked on March 24, 1999 as Question No. 227, which was never answered.

These questions go to the heart of the mefloquine scandal and the illegal and inappropriate use of that drug by the Department of National Defence during the Somalia crisis.

I realize that it is very difficult and embarrassing for the government to answer these questions but I think they are questions that do deserve an answer. The drug did have an impact on the behaviour of troops in Somalia and the public has the right to have those questions answered promptly.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I also have two petitions which deal with the issue of federal funding for a road which is referred to in my community as the South Fraser Perimeter Road. It is a road necessitated by the construction and growth at two ports, the Fraser Port on the Fraser River and the Roberts Bank container terminal known as Vanport.

Those two ports have caused a serious increase in traffic to flow through the neighbourhood of North Delta through residential streets. The truck traffic is horrendous.

The proposal to build a road on the south shore of the river is unsatisfactory. The petitioners would ask that no federal moneys be made available until such time as their concerns about this road are taken into consideration.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. The first petition deals with the issue of child pornography.

The petitioners ask parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence.