Raymonde Folco

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, I want to share my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

I would like to stress that Health Canada has adopted an important measure to strengthen its capacity to monitor marketed products. The creation of a new marketed health products directorate, an organization exclusively responsible for the surveillance of marketed health products, clearly illustrates the increased importance of this activity within the department.

The directorate will have initial funding of approximately $10 million. Of this $10 million, $7 million is new funding provided in the 2002-03 fiscal year to strengthen post-market surveillance activities in the department.

The new organization will consolidate and continue the work previously undertaken in different areas of Health Canada. It will support further improvements in capacity to identify safety hazards and communicate any product related risks to health care professionals and the public in a more timely manner.

Canadians expect drugs and other health products to which they have access to be both safe and effective. Health Canada is the federal authority responsible for pre-market approval of drugs, based on the exhaustive data provided by the manufacturers demonstrating that, during clinical trials, their products were safe, effective and of high quality.

I can assure the House that we take this responsibility very seriously. Canada, following in the steps of other countries, is placing greater importance on the surveillance of the risks and benefits of marketed drugs. We realize today that our marketed products surveillance activities are as important as our rigorous pre-market approval process.

Surveillance of marketed products provides information on the safety and effectiveness of drugs used in real situations. To facilitate reporting by health professionals and consumers of undesirable effects and incidents related to drugs, Health Canada has set up new toll-free phone and fax numbers.

Health Canada has been in discussions with the U.S. food and drug administration about gaining access to its data on adverse drug reactions. Data from the United States is particularly useful because of its considerably larger population base. International collaborations like this one augment domestic data and help us to identify public health and safety risks as quickly as possible.

To improve how health data communicates health risks, an electronic mailing list has been created to electronically disseminate the adverse reaction news letter and advisories for health professionals and consumers. This news letter, which has recently been redesigned to present new safety information in a more user friendly manner, is also now being distributed to physicians as a separate attachment to the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[Portuguese Canadians, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, today is the 50th anniversary of the arrival of the first group of Portuguese immigrants officially recognized as such by the Government of Canada.

On this occasion, I would like to highlight the long and rich history of Portuguese Canadians and their contribution to Canada's development.

This is the ideal moment to celebrate the first immigrants who landed at Pier 21 in Halifax and settled here in Canada. Although many people had immigrated from Portugal before that time, they came on ships registered in Greece, Italy, Dominica, the U.S. or the Caribbean. Because there was no official agreement on immigration between Portugal and Canada, these first immigrants were recorded as nationals of those countries.

I salute the Portuguese Canadians in my riding of Laval West, and I invite all Canadians to take part in the festivities celebrating their heritage and contributions. They have enabled Canada to become the multicultural and diversified nation it is today.

[Laval Businesses, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on May 1, at the 2003 Dunamis gala, the Laval Chamber of Commerce and Industry highlighted the contributions of Laval businesses.

For the 22nd consecutive year, awards were given out at the event to Laval businesses contributing to the expansion of that city's business sector.

Awards were presented in a number of different categories: young entrepreneurs, women in business, communications, social and cultural animation. There was also an award for research.

I join with the people of Laval once again in highlighting the exceptional contribution of our local businesses to the economic health of our community. Congratulations to all our winners.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the Canadian firearms program in the context of Bill C-10A and specifically to address the public's support and the benefits of this legislation.

Canadians have often indicated that they want—indeed, demand—to live in a fair, peaceful and safe society. Public safety is the prime objective of the Canadian firearms program.

The firearms program is designed to improve public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, encouraging safe use of firearms, controlling specific types of firearms, and giving police officers a valuable tool for their investigations. This program is intended to keep firearms away from those who should not have them, that is, individuals who present a danger to themselves or to society.

I would like to point out that the purpose of the program is not to interfere with the legitimate use of firearms in Canada but rather to promote firearms safety and thus prevent death and injury by firearms and dissuade criminals from using firearms in the commission of crimes.

As the program has been implemented, the Government of Canada has been careful to respect the legitimate interests of hunters, target shooters and others who use firearms for legitimate purposes.

According to a recent Environics poll, a great majority of Canadians support the public safety objectives of the firearms program, including the licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms.

Licensing makes it possible to ensure that firearms owners meet rigorous public safety criteria. The registry makes it possible to link each firearm with its owner, which leads to greater accountability. Safe storage and training in proper handling of firearms are two other important aspects of the program.

In their letters indicating support for the program, citizens from one end of the country to the other are unanimous: public safety comes first.

The program has the support not only of the Canadian public, but also many experts in health and safety, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canada Safety Council, and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, to name just a few.

I will give a few examples of organizations that have expressed their support for the firearms program.

For example, Debbie McGray, president of the New Brunswick Nurses Union, wrote the following in a letter on December 13, 2002:

Nurses see the devastating effects of the misuse of firearms every day—however, thanks to the screening process and the requirement for owners to register their firearms, the program has resulted in a considerable decrease in the number of deaths from firearms.

Dr. François Desbiens, Director of Public Health for the Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec, wrote the following on February 21, 2003:

The Canadian firearms program comprises a broad range of concrete measures aimed at decreasing injuries by firearms—with a view to saving lives, avoiding accidental shootings because responsible owners will store their weapons better, protecting spouses in the event of family violence and making it harder for potential suicides to have access to weapons.

Finally, Kathy Belton, Co-Director of the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, made the following observation on December 11, 2002:

Firearms kill more young people in this age group, that is the 15- to 24 year-olds, than cancer, drowning and falls combined. The Canadian firearms program is just beginning, but the figures show that it has already brought about a reduction in the number of deaths and crimes involving firearms.

Clearly the program works and enjoys solid support. The firearms program has delivered good results. Up to this point, several thousands of firearms permits have been denied or revoked by those responsible for public safety.

The Canadian Firearms Centre has received a great many calls to its notification lines, which were set up to allow Canadians to express their public safety concerns with respect to certain persons who possess firearms.

Law enforcement agencies across the country have consulted the online registry data several millions of times since December 1, 1998. All of these efforts help us prevent people who should not have firearms from possessing any. In the end, it saves lives.

It is fairly easy to imagine dangerous situations that the program has already prevented. The purpose of the Canadian Firearms Centre is to make our families and our communities safer.

Through measures contained in Bill C-10A, the government plans on improving client service, reducing costs and increasing transparency, as Canadians have requested.

The bill contains a certain number of initiatives which, if adopted, would assist the government in responding to the concerns expressed by the Auditor General and the public.

One of these measures is to stagger licence renewals in order to avoid a bottleneck every five years. With a steadier volume of work, more effective methods can be used that will make it possible to improve client service and realize significant savings.

Simplifying the formalities for transfers of non-restricted firearms and transfers between businesses will make it possible for the provincial chief firearms officers to concentrate their efforts and their resources on other public safety functions. It will improve service to clients without compromising public safety.

Moreover, by grouping all administrative power in the hands of a commissioner, a more direct linkage is made with the minister responsible, now the Solicitor General. In this way, too, financial and political accountability will be improved.

The annual report mentioned in the bill will now be prepared by the firearms commissioner, who will provide complementary information on the Canadian firearms program and on the reports already presented to Parliament by the government.

The bill fulfills the expectations of the general public and other observers by building upon the strong support the public has already demonstrated for the firearms program.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 29th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the introduction of the government's initiative to update the Transfer of Offenders Act.

As legislators, we receive requests based on public opinion and suggestions made by non-governmental organizations. The Youth Criminal Justice Act, which came into force on April 1, 2003, is an example of how an aging law is replaced, in this case, the Young Offenders Act, which was enacted in 1985.

We went beyond revision in that case and, after broad and thorough consultation and the good work of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, replaced the existing statute with a more up to date version of the legislation that reflects the current political and public will.

More recently, we have voted to send Bill C-23 to the parliamentary committee, from which it will emerge to better protect the young and most vulnerable Canadians from sexual predators by establishing a nationwide registry of those convicted of sexual offences.

Bill C-33 is before us now and it is also an important piece of necessary legislation that we can take pride in considering and helping to fashion into a final product that will become the law of the land. As the name implies, the force of this legislation will be felt far beyond Canadian borders. It provides the international community with another example of Canada's progressive criminal justice system, which combines the best aspects of correctional practice. Bill C-33 and the act it will replace do so by balancing the need for fair and humane treatment of offenders with the need to respect the systems and philosophies of other countries.

The proposed bill retains most of the objectives and principles of the Transfer of Offenders Act, which was enacted in 1978.

The new international Transfer of Offenders Act will continue to provide for the implementation of treaties with other countries for the international transfer of offenders. The purpose of the act and the treaties signed between Canada and foreign states is essentially humanitarian. They allow Canadians convicted and detained abroad in difficult conditions to serve their sentences at home and foreign nationals to return to their home countries.

In the case of returning Canadians, the treaties promote public protection, as offenders are allowed to serve their sentences in Canada and to be gradually released into the community. Otherwise they would simply be deported from the country where they were convicted of an offence, however serious, at the end of their sentences and would arrive in Canada with no controls on them.

At the same time, in all cases, the treaties respect the sentences imposed abroad. Countries that return offenders to Canada can be assured that the sentences handed down by their courts will be enforced by the Canadian system.

However, this is not an exercise in clemency as some of my hon. colleagues opposite seem to believe. Anyone who knows Canadian penitentiaries knows that they are not places where one would wish to spend a great deal of time, even as an observer or visitor.

Some foreign administrations provide prison conditions tougher than ours, but it would not be appropriate to list them here. Nevertheless, offenders who are returned to serve sentences in Canadian prisons are not coddled. Other countries are aware of that and accept the transfer conditions before returning the offender.

The Transfer of Offenders Act as it stands continues to serve useful purposes. We are here today to bring it into the present century. The world has changed and the style and content of international treaties must change to keep up. There are obvious changes brought about by the birth of new nations and the rebirth of others. There are also nations that have become independent of former allegiances, thereby growing more attuned to democracy and a concern for human rights. These countries have a need to express these transformations internationally.

There is no better way to bridge these cultural gaps than getting together to negotiate constructive treaties. We find out where the differences are, discuss them, and arrive at compromises. That is the essence of international cooperation. At the same time, we learn from each other and establish new bonds of international partnership.

In this respect, I would like to mention that the very first country with which Canada negotiated an offender transfer treaty was, of course, our friend and ally to the south, the United States of America. That 25-year-old treaty is only one example of the convergence of our American neighbours' programs and policies with ours.

Since the act's proclamation in 1978, only technical amendments have been made to it, although more substantive issues have been identified. These issues have been brought forward with a broad range of interested parties since the consultation document was released in 1997. The wide-ranging consultations identified what amendments would be advisable and necessary. This exercise has been followed by an exhaustive drafting exercise, during which expert officials have identified what changes are possible given Canadian and international law.

As the Solicitor General indicated, the central clauses of the amended act will set out the principles and objectives of the act. This may seem obvious in the context of drafting legislation, but a cursory perusal of existing legislation quickly reveals that it is not so.

There is an excellent example of statement of principles and objectives in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act enacted by Parliament in 1992. These clauses proved to be very useful to corrections professionals. Having force of law, they are not easily amended and, therefore, provide consistency in sentencing.

In these times of mission statements and organizational commitments, the importance of clear and consistent direction for those who must stick to the intent of established legislation to exercise the will of Parliament is easy to understand.

An equally modern aspect of these legislative proposals is that measure requiring a new level of information sharing between governmental authorities and offenders. Simply put, Canadian officials will be obligated to inform a foreign citizen under its jurisdiction of the existence and substance of an international transfer treaty between Canada and the country of citizenship, a function that our Department of Foreign Affairs carries out with regard to Canadians convicted abroad. While this duty is routinely discharged, the added force of law will formalize the practice to the satisfaction of those signing treaties with Canada.

Another new provision will allow a foreign offender detained in Canada to cancel his request for a transfer at any point in time. This significant change will address the rare cases where the situation in the offender's country of origin has taken a turn for the worse between the time when transfer was requested and the time when it is to take place.

The last specific point I will mention may prove to be very important. This entails the new provisions to extend certain aspects of the transfer of offenders scheme to nations that have not yet joined the family of countries that currently have treaties with Canada for the transfer of offenders. One can see that circumstances might arise where such an accommodation would be essential to the well-being of a Canadian incarcerated abroad.

There are other aspects of Bill C-33 to explore, but I will leave it up to my hon. colleagues and, in due course, to the standing parliamentary committee responsible for looking into these measures.

Naturally, I am prepared to take questions from my hon. colleagues on these proposals.

[The Homeless, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, just before Christmas, the St-Claude shelter for the homeless in Laval was engulfed in flames that destroyed a large part of the facility.

In response to the losses suffered by this charitable organization, the people of Laval made generous contributions during a benefit Christmas concert to raise money and help the shelter to quickly resume its work in the community.

This is another heartwarming example of people's generosity. We hope that it will not be long before the St-Claude shelter once again opens its doors to the less fortunate.

[Human Rights, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

A human rights complaint has been launched against the government claiming that women are being unfairly shut out of the program to fund 2,000 Canada research chairs.

What is the government doing to ensure that women at Canadian universities have an equal chance at these prestigious positions?

[Canada Games, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, in all parts of Canada, young athletes were returning home from the 19th Canada Games.

One young athlete, Alexandre Tremblay of Lachenaie, brought two golds home, one of them won in badminton doubles partnered with Mathieu Laforest.

I extend my congratulations and those of all the people of Terrebonne—Blainville to the athletes who competed so ably in the 19th Canada Games.

I hope Alexandre Tremblay will be able to continue excelling in his sport for many years to come, and I am sure that one day his Olympic dream will come true.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak on Bill C-206. It is legislation that certainly seeks to assist those who need help to be able to provide care to a close relative, father, daughter or son who is seriously ill.

However, with respect to this bill, the funds allocated under the 2003 budget deal specifically with this problem.

I can well understand the thinking of our hon. colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore who has worked so hard to advance Bill C-206. However, while I fully share the values of compassion, caring and dedication that lie behind his bill, I believe it has some serious shortcomings.

Our government has pledged in the Speech from the Throne to find a way so that workers will not have to choose between taking care of a family member and their job.

As usual, we were quick to deliver on our commitments. Actually, the government has announced in the 2003 budget the establishment of a six week leave with employment insurance benefits. This initiative seeks to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for a seriously ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their job or income at risk.

Beginning in January 2004, six weeks of compassionate care benefits, along with eight weeks of Canada Labour Code job protection, will be available so eligible workers may take a temporary absence from work without fear of sudden income or job loss when a parent, spouse or child is dying or falls gravely ill.

Of course, at first glance, this leave may appear inadequate to my colleague, who is suggesting leave of up to 52 weeks. However, several analyses we conducted in the medical world showed that the average absence of a relative taking care of a seriously ill family member was six weeks. This is why the government suggested a six week leave paid by employment insurance.

Contrary to what my colleague from Vancouver East said, when she was drafting her bill, I am not so sure that our hon. colleague carefully researched the financial impact of her proposal on workers, employers and society as a whole.

Her bill includes not only close relatives such as children, parents, spouses, as does the government proposal, but also brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, as well as in-laws and step family members. This definition of family will be very costly for our society.

It gets worse when we consider the idea of impairment involved in the bill that applies to a wide range of care services entailing significant costs for Canadians.

I have noticed that no one here has mentioned any numbers. Let us talk numbers. Just to give members an idea, our compassionate care plan should cost the public purse approximately $86 million in 2003-04, and $221 million in 2004-05 and subsequent years. Clearly, Bill C-206, which would entitle more Canadians to this kind of leave and would make the leave almost nine times as long, would be very costly.

I do not believe that we as a country can afford this measure. The idea behind the measure is an idea that the government has already put forward and the government's position is one where we acknowledge the need, we try to answer the need, but there is certain limit to which we can go and this is a financial limit.

Bill C-206 runs contrary to the very principles on which we laid the new foundations of the employment insurance system, since it requires those who want to take care of their relatives to quit their job or be fired to be entitled to support.

The government proposal stresses that it is important for individuals to keep their jobs as long as possible. Unfortunately, I am out of time but, believe me, it is important to have a balanced approach.

[International Women's Day, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to draw attention to International Women's Day, which was March 8.

Canadian women have, through sustained efforts, taken charge of their futures and have brought our society to where it is today, and will help it continue to advance.

This day offers us an opportunity to focus public attention on women who have influenced others, among them Parasketi Hatzis and Demitra Thomakou. These two Canadians of Greek origin have been involved for more than 30 years in the educational field and have left an indelible mark on their families, their community of origin and the Canadian community as a whole.

We all know one or more such remarkable women who have left their mark on their communities. I join with all my colleagues in this House in paying tribute to all these remarkable women.