Leona Aglukkaq

[Product Safety, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should have confidence in the consumer products they buy. That is why we reintroduced the Canada consumer products safety legislation, Bill C-36. This bill would not only provide the tools needed to act quickly and effectively to protect Canadians, but it would be good for our economy and it would put industry on an even playing field.

[Health, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have allocated $15.7 million annually under the federal tobacco control strategy to support a number of tobacco projects across Canada designed to help people stop smoking, prevent youth from starting to smoke and to protect Canadians from second-hand smoke.

Thanks to the actions of our government, Canada is a world leader in tobacco control.

[Health, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when we were first elected, one of our goals was to reduce tobacco-related deaths and diseases in Canada. We acted quickly by introducing Bill C-32, the Tobacco Act. This was an important bill because it banned the advertising and flavours that were particularly appealing to children.

We are encouraged by the results of the recent Canadian tobacco use monitoring survey report which shows an increase in the number of young Canadians who have stopped smoking.

[Health, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, again, this government is supporting the rollout of the Infoway electronic health records across the country, which is why we invested $500 million in the economic action plan. The member really should read page 106 of our report; it will explain how the money is being rolled out across the country.

[Health, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to implementing the rollout of the $500 million that we invested in Canada Health Infoway. The economic action plan also provided $500 million.

I would suggest that the member read page 106 of the report released today, which describes how we are rolling out the electronic health records Infoway project.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), from 2003 to present, the only published study with a specific focus on aircraft noise, was a review of the scientific literature on aircraft noise-induced sleep disturbance. This was published as a peer reviewed journal article in 2007. In this review, it was found that people living around airports show disturbed sleep in the form of awakenings and increased body movement.

Aircraft noise is one reason, but it is responsible for less sleep disturbance than spontaneous awakenings and other indoor noise events. Aircraft noise appeared in a very preliminary field study conducted by Health Canada from November 2006 to February 2007, designed to examine possible relationships between noise annoyance and stress. This was presented only in a poster at a 2007 University of Ottawa fourth year honours thesis symposium. Where exposure to aircraft noise occurred, the number of subjects was too small to obtain reliable conclusions about any possible relationships between stress hormone responses and annoyance level.

Aircraft noise annoyance was also used as an example in a 2008 peer reviewed journal article which provided an analysis of how noise annoyance can be used as a health impact in environmental assessments. In the review of the scientific literature on noise annoyance in this study, it was found that there was some evidence to suggest an association between road traffic and neighbourhood noise levels and some stress related adverse effects, e.g., hypertension and migraines. It was also found that on average a given long term exposure to aircraft noise makes a greater percentage of a population highly annoyed than would road traffic noise.

Health Canada has also published a total of three laboratory studies on the potential for noise-induced stress in either rats (two studies, one published in 2003 and the other in 2005) or people (one published in 2006) using noise sources other than aircraft noise. In the 2006 publication of the laboratory study where people were exposed to noise, it was found that the exposure of people to noise events during sleep did not appear to create a stress response. It was also inconclusive as to whether there were adverse effects on their sleep. The laboratory studies of rats showed inconsistent stress responses to noise, indicating that assessing the biological plausibility of noise-induced stress in humans from animal studies appears to require further investigation.

In response to (b), advice Health Canada has provided to Transport Canada – the department, as a member of Transport Canada’s Domestic Aircraft Noise and Emissions Committee, D-ANEC, has provided advice on a number of occasions since 2003. Health Canada specialists have contributed information about the health effects of noise in discussions at D-ANEC meetings and to requests for input, outside of meetings, on D-ANEC issues. Examples include (i) the proposed changes to the Transport Canada document TP 1247--Aviation--Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports--Part IV Aircraft Noise and (ii) the use of chapter 2 jet aircraft.

Departmental scientists publish peer-reviewed journal articles related to the health effects of aircraft noise, and ensure that the Committee is made aware of these documents e.g., the two major reviews on noise-induced sleep disturbance and noise annoyance, published in 2007 and 2008, respectively and described in the answer to part (a) above.

A 2003 summary analysis of annoyance and sleep disturbance health effects from aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports was sent to Transport Canada regional staff that is responsible for Toronto--Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

In response to (c) (i), the department has no record of having provided specialist information directly to Montréal-- Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport since 2003.

In response to (c) (ii), the department provides advice, on request, to responsible authorities (federal authorities specified in regulation) designated under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, for airport projects regarding the health effects of noise. This advice is not provided directly to the airport authorities but to the responsible authorities under the act. Comments were provided on the health impacts for several environmental assessments for airport projects since 2003 such as: Jean Lesage International Airport in Quebec City in 2006, a ground transportation infrastructure project concerning Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport from 2004 to 2006 and a runway extension at the Kamloops airport in 2008.

There is only one record of having provided specialist information directly to an airport in Canada since 2003. Health Canada provided publicly available information to a consulting firm engaged by the Calgary Airport Authority in September 2009; specifically, the 2008 review on noise annoyance as a health impact for use in environmental assessments.

In response to (d), an update for the It’s Your Health relevant to aircraft noise is intended for the fall of 2010.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to give a detailed response to each question for the following reasons: the confidential nature of the information, the terms of the court supervised settlement agreement, and the nature of how data is collected. The following provides information on the settlement agreement and the administrator’s most recent update on the funds.

On compassionate grounds, the federal government set aside $1.023 billion ($962 million for compensation, the balance for administration, legal fees and disbursements). Of the compensation amount, $93.1 million was designated for the Past Economic Loss and Dependants (PELD) fund.

The Pre-86/Post-90 class action settlement is a court supervised administration. The administrator, Crawford Class Action Services, was appointed by the courts, is supervised by the courts, and reports to the courts. The administrator is not permitted to release any information about the administration of the settlement unless authorized by the court. Authorized information about the status of claims is posted monthly on the administrator’s website: http://www.pre86post90settlement.ca/index.htm.

Compensation to eligible class members is provided for both general and economic damages. Payments to individual claimants will vary.The amounts paid reflect the disease state of class members at the time of their application, their age, any lost income, and the probability of disease progression. The agreement is designed so that those who are most sick and have suffered the most from their hepatitis C infection will receive the highest amounts of compensation, as was the case with the 1986-1990 agreement. Hepatitis C has varying effects on the human body, and the compensation plan is structured to reflect this fact.

The agreement includes schedules for calculating the amount of compensation for infected persons, their estates, family members and dependants, both for general compensation and for past loss of income. These documents are available on the administrator’s website under the heading Settlement Agreement--Appendices.

Persons infected with hepatitis C are entitled to general damages from under $10,000 to more than $400,000. The lowest amount of payment is for those who have essentially cleared hepatitis C from their blood, while the higher amounts are for those suffering from serious health effects.

Economic damages include payments for loss of income and services, uninsured medication and treatment costs, care costs and out-of-pocket expenses, compensation for funeral costs, and payments to estates and surviving family members. Subject to certain provisions and limits, eligible class members are entitled to compensation for loss of income in an amount equal to 8/11ths of 70% of their past loss of net income, indexed to inflation, for each year until they attain the age of 65 years.

The administrator’s most recent update, dated August 26, states that, as of mid-August, 15,584 claims have been received, of which 11,695 (75%) have been approved and 1,241 (8%) have been rejected, leaving 2,648 still being processed. These figures concern the total number of claims and are not separated into compensation fund and PELD fund categories. Of the $962 million set aside for compensation, $779,057,986 has been approved for payment, leaving approximately $183 million, not counting accrued interest.

The amounts designated for the PELD fund and for the main compensation fund, as well as an estimate of the number of individuals who would be compensated, were the result of a complex negotiation process between a group of lawyers representing the class members and counsel for the government, based upon underlying estimates of class size provided by class counsel.

The settlement agreement was approved by the courts of the provinces where the class actions were filed. The settlement agreement contemplates that, if the take-up rate for claims to the PELD fund is high, the administrator may exhaust the original $93.1 million. Therefore, the settlement contains a mechanism to top up the PELD fund if approved by the Court.

It is the responsibility of class counsel, not of the administrator, nor of the government, to apply to the courts to transfer money from the compensation fund to the PELD fund.

The settlement agreement sets out the requirements for the application, as well as the criteria the courts must consider in deciding whether to approve the request to transfer funds. Class counsel must demonstrate to the courts, through actuarial evidence that will be reviewed by the government, that the compensation fund is sufficient to cover all the claims, as defined in the settlement agreement, prior to transferring funds to the PELD fund. This process ensures that all claimants’ interests are protected and the federal government is following that process.

Class counsel have advised that work with their expert to conduct the necessary actuarial analysis has begun and they will be filing a motion for the transfer of funds in due course.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as a food safety regulator, Health Canada is responsible for setting regulations and policies that help ensure the safety of Canada's food supply. The Food and Drug Regulations require certain substances used in food, such as food additives, to undergo a thorough safety and efficacy assessment, before they can be added to foods allowed for sale in Canada. It is only when Health Canada scientists are satisfied that food additives would not pose a risk to Canadians’ health, that Health Canada would recommend their use under specified conditions.

As a result, Health Canada issued an Interim Marketing Authorization on March 20, 2010 permitting the possible use of caffeine as a food additive in non-cola type carbonated soft drinks to a maximum level of use of 150 milligrams per litre, or parts per million. Health Canada maintained its approval of the use of caffeine as a food additive in cola-based carbonated soft drinks at a maximum level of 200 milligrams per litre, or parts per million. This Interim Marketing Authorization was signed by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health Canada's Health Products and Food Branch through the delegated authority and approval of the Minister.

In response to (b), Health Canada scientists will continue to review the scientific data on caffeine and research findings as they become available to ensure that recommended maximum daily caffeine intake levels are based on the results of the most up to date scientific evidence.

At this time, the scientific evidence available supports the absence of health risks for the expanded authorization for caffeine use in other carbonated soft drinks.

[Health, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, again, our government continues to be a large player in pharmaceutical benefits, spending approximately $600 million last year to cover pharmaceutical products, medical supplies and equipment for diverse populations and individuals, including first nations and Inuit. The responsibility is with the provincial and territorial governments to decide whether or not to provide their residents with publicly financed drug therapy.

[Health, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of affordable access to drugs as part of the quality health care program. That is why we will continue to honour the 2004 health accord, which provides $41.3 billion in additional funding to provinces and territories.

As part of the accord, our government agreed to a shared agenda with provinces and territories to improve our collective management of pharmaceutical products, recognizing our complementary roles in the sector. In addition, we have made investments in Health Infoway and a number of other projects that are important to provinces and territories, and we will continue to do that.