Rona Ambrose

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Health Canada is governed by the same communications protocols as other government departments, including the communications policy of the Government of Canada and any directives and guidelines set forth by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS.

With regard to (b), typically correspondence with respect to the program is mailed out by the Bureau of Medical Cannabis, which is part of the Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, or HECSB, of Health Canada. In the case of this mail-out, considering the volume of letters to be sent and the number of pages per envelope, Health Canada entered into a memorandum of agreement with Canada Post to conduct this mailing.

With regard to (c), it is not possible to accurately quantify the number of people involved in the mail-out.

With regard to (d), Health Canada has a comprehensive process that is followed in cases where a privacy breach may have occurred. When a possible breach is reported to the Access to Information and Privacy Division, ATIP, privacy and program officials work together to gather facts and assess next steps. In keeping with the TBS guidelines on privacy breaches and Health Canada’s own process, when the department assesses that a breach may have occurred, the principles of containment, notification, and mitigation are followed. Through this process a review of the incident and all associated events occurs.

With regard to (e), although it has not been determined by the courts or by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the OPC, that this incident constitutes a privacy breach, Health Canada has taken the expressed privacy concerns very seriously. The department is taking steps to ensure this does not happen again. Given ongoing litigation and OPC investigation, Health Canada is not in a position to comment further.

With regard to (f), Health Canada met with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, MMPR, to review the new framework. In addition, as part of the implementation of the new regime, a PIA process is in progress for the MMPR. Under the MMPR, Health Canada will no longer collect personal information on program participants, who now number over 37,000 Canadians, as it did under the old program. Instead, it will be in receipt of information from those applying to become licensed producers. The PIA is focused on ensuring adequate protection mechanisms for this type of data.

With regard to (g), once the PIA process is complete as required by Treasury Board policy, the PIA will be submitted to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2, the respect for communities act, was developed further to the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding InSite.

In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada set out five factors that the Minister of Health must consider when assessing any future applications of this nature, including evidence, if any, of the impact of such a facility on crime rates; the local conditions indicating a need for such a supervised injection site; the regulatory structure in place to support the facility; the resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support or opposition. Bill C-2 builds and expands upon these factors, setting out criteria that applicants would need to address when seeking an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with illicit substances at a supervised consumption site.

The proposed legislation was designed to allow for a range of stakeholders to provide their opinion on an exemption application for a specific supervised consumption site. For example, letters of opinion would be required from provincial/territorial ministers responsible for health and public safety, local government, the lead public health official in the province, and the head of the local police force.

Individual Canadians would be engaged directly through the proposed authority to allow the Minister of Health to publicly post a notice of application regarding proposed supervised consumption sites. Once posted, members of the public would have 90 days to provide comments to the minister.

Applicants would also have to provide a report of consultations with professional licensing authorities for physicians and nurses. The applicant would also have to consult community stakeholders and provide to the minister, among other things, a description of how any relevant stakeholder concerns would be addressed.

By addressing the criteria set out in the proposed act, applicants would provide the Minister of Health with information needed to balance public health and public safety considerations in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when assessing such applications.

In the development of the proposed legislation, Health Canada consulted with Public Safety Canada, Justice Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and central agencies.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-being, NDPHS, was established through the Oslo declaration on October 27, 2003. Canada participated in the adoption of the declaration.

With regard to (b), in September 2004, at the second NDPHS meeting of the committee of senior representatives a voluntary financing model for the NDPHS secretariat was agreed upon. Under this model, Canada was scheduled to contribute 8% of the secretariat budget. As countries--France, Denmark--withdrew from the NDPHS, Canada’s contribution grew to almost 12%, or 38,517 euros in 2011.

With regard to (c), Canada contributed to NDPHS between 2004 and 2011, with the amounts varying depending on the secretariat’s budget and the percentage requested from Canada. Over the course of eight years, Canada contributed 217,871 euros.

With regard to (d), Health Canada held interdepartmental consultations with the departments that had been engaged in the work of NDPHS. These included the Public Health Agency of Canada, Correctional Services Canada, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Health Canada also consulted the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, ITK, the national Inuit organization in Canada, as well as the Assembly of First Nations.

With regard to (e), the response is no.

With regard to (f), yes, Health Canada’s recommendation was to withdraw from the NDPHS, noting Canada’s limited engagement in NDPHS activities and overlap in programming with other key multilateral organizations that Canada is actively engaged with, including the World Health Organization; the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO; and UNAIDS.

[Health, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga for sharing the wonderful story of his wife, Betty, with all of us in the House today.

Today I had a chance to meet with the hon. member and with Hélène Campbell as well, a transplant recipient and inspiring young woman who reminds us of how precious life is, which is why I am so pleased today to launch a new social media campaign and website, along with Mrs. Laureen Harper, to help promote organ and tissue donations. I ask all MPs in the House to please go to www.healthycanadians.gc.ca. Anywhere people live in the country, they can register to become a donor at #giftoflife. I would ask members to make sure they do this. When they are at home this Christmas or Hanukkah, over the holidays, I ask them to please have a conversation with their families and tell them that they want to be organ donors. It is the most important thing they can do.

[Health, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the challenges facing the health care system with the demographic changes that are obviously looming are concerns not only for myself but for the provinces as well.

In meeting with the provinces, not only have we committed to record transfers to support them in their area but we have also committed to working with them in moving forward on a health and innovation framework. We need to do this because we are committing record funding.

This is predictable, but we also have to start working on the sustainability of the system. We have to address the cost challenges within the health care system, and I think that innovation is the right way to do that.

[Health, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member is inaccurate on that. He knows that the funding is actually increasing, and the funding commitment we have made is a record transfer to the provinces and territories. We have given the provinces and territories record transfers to give them the predictability they need for funding.

However, what we actually really need to focus on with the provinces and territories is sustainability. We are working with them to develop a health innovation framework that would hopefully bring down some of our costs within the health care system, which is a huge challenge that we are facing, and make our system more sustainable so that it is there for all of us in the future.

[Health, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member missed it, but it was actually only a few months ago, early on in my tenure, that we announced a pan-Canadian strategy with the provinces and territories to address drug shortages. It not only gives physicians advance notices of which drugs will experience shortages but also gives them alternatives, other drugs they can use, so that they can best take care of their patients.

We are tackling this challenge head-on in partnership with the provinces and territories and the drug manufacturers.

[Health, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to address that.

First I would like to give kudos to my colleague, the Minister of State for seniors, who is working diligently, in very targeted ways, on the issue of seniors. The minister for economic development is also working on a great deal of measures related to housing.

However, when it comes to seniors' health, I can tell members that not only do we take it very seriously, we have met with the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, all Canadian health care stakeholders that concern themselves with seniors, and, most importantly, with the provinces and territories, to which we are transferring a record amount of funding to deal with these very difficult challenges.

[Health, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with a number of those groups, and of course many of those reports also say positive things. The reality is that all of those stakeholders in the health care field that I met with work very hard.

There are challenges, but from the federal level we are taking leadership to address many of these difficult challenges and working in partnership with the provinces and territories.

Of course, the funding issue has been settled with a record funding commitment that will reach $40 billion per year by the end of the decade and provide stability and predictability to the system, something that the provinces, the territories, and all health stakeholders need.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the selection of expert panel members is an independent process undertaken at the discretion of the Royal Society of Canada, the RSC, as per their internal policy guidelines. The 2013 contract with the RSC stipulated the various areas of technical expertise required of the members that comprise the expert panel. As per the standard process established by the RSC with respect to the development of expert panels, Health Canada provided recommendations in 2013, upon request by the RSC, on potential members for consideration. All selections and final decisions regarding expert panel membership are made by the RSC. As such, any queries regarding the selection process should be directed to the RSC. Health Canada has no record of the process used for the selection of expert panel members contributing to the first report, dated March 1999.

With regard to (b), the 1999 expert panel consisted of a molecular biologist, a geneticist, a bio-statistician-epidemiologist, a biophysicist, a physician-immunologist, an epidemiologist, a radiologist, and a neurologist-biochemist. In terms of regional origin, six of the 1999 expert panel members were from institutions located in Canada: three from Ontario, two from British Columbia, and one from Quebec. Two members were from American institutions, one located in Ohio with the U.S. federal government and one located in California with a public university.

The 2013 expert panel is composed of an epidemiologist, a physicist, an engineer, a neurologist, a biologist, two radiologists, and a public health expert. Two members of the panel are from Ontario, one from Alberta, and one from British Columbia. The other four members are from international institutions, academia in the United States, a consultant organization in the United Kingdom and the government of the Netherlands.

With regard to (c), the RSC has conflict of interest provisions for expert panel members outlined in their procedural manual Expert Panels: Manual of Procedural Guidelines. These provisions require the disclosure of personal involvements that may impact service on an expert panel. It indicates that prospective panellists are required to complete declaration forms outlining any issues that might give rise to a real, apparent, or potential conflict of interest in relation to their official duties. Specific considerations are given to the following categories: individual economic impact; proprietary information; public statements and positions; access to government information; reviewing one’s own work; and employment by a sponsoring agency. Conflict of interest policies often acknowledge that the existence of such considerations does not in itself establish that the individual is in conflict.

Additional information on the RSC’s conflict of interest guidelines can be found in their procedural manual online, available in English only.

With regard to (d), the assessment of conflict of interest, as it relates to expert panel members, is an internal RSC process carried out by two committees; the Committee on Expert Panels and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Expert Panels. Procedures for reviewing points of view and conflict of interest are outlined in the RSC’s document; Expert Panels: Manual of Procedural Guidelines. These committees assess the declarations of prospective panel members and determine if any adjustments need to be made to the membership of the expert panel. All queries regarding this process should be made directly to the RSC.