Tony Clement

[Health, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. There was a problem facing Canadians and we had to take action to protect their health.

I can only quote Chris O'Brien, who is the head of the Ontario Association of Nuclear Medicine. He said this on the very day that we were debating the bill before Parliament:

Last week, I guess you could describe it as struggling. This week it's devastating, and next week potentially catastrophic.

That is what he said. This was a crisis. We acted on behalf of Canadians. We are proud we did.

[Health, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, she and I at least share one thing, diminutive statures. I was standing up for medicare. Perhaps that was not noticeable where she is in her part of the House.

We do take this seriously. That is why our focus has been on the patients. That is why we have worked with the provinces and territories to ensure health care is a priority for this government and our future governments as well.

[Health, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the position of this government and this party is clear. We support the five pillars of the Canada Health Act, which include universality, accessibility and affordability. We have acted to ensure better access.

The Liberal members are barracking right now. When they were in power, the wait times doubled in the country. We have tackled wait times with the provinces and territories. We put the focus on the patient. We are very proud of that record.

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the last refuge for scoundrels is to say that they have been misled.

All of the information that has been put before this House has been fair, has been accurate, and has been borne out by the facts. We were acting for the health and safety of Canadians. Clearly those on the other side of the House were acting in a partisan political way and that is shocking.

If anyone should be resigning or saying sorry, it should be the hon. member and those members of the House because they were not acting in the best interests of Canadians.

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, February 5th, 2008]

No, Mr. Speaker, in fact it is quite the opposite.

When this government learned of the situation, which was a serious situation affecting the health and safety of Canadians and other citizens worldwide, we acted. We put a bill before Parliament to do the best thing and the quickest thing and the most effective thing to restore isotopes which was to get the Chalk River reactor open again. The member's party voted for it.

[Privilege, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interventions. The member is an honourable member and surely there is a way that we can sort this out outside of the time of the House. I would be happy to do so at the earliest opportunity.

[Privilege, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question of privilege raised by my friend, the hon. member for Mississauga South, a couple of days ago.

Requests for information received at Health Canada from members of Parliament and senators are of great importance to me and to my officials. We take them seriously. In order to facilitate the flow of information to MPs and senators, Health Canada officials follow the departmental guidelines that have been in place for many years. Indeed, these guidelines were in fact inherited from the previous government.

These guidelines advise officials to provide all public information to parliamentarians immediately. Upon receiving the inquiry, officials complete an electronic form, which is sent to parliamentary affairs officials in the department in case follow up action is required. This electronic form is used for tracking the inquiry.

The information is passed to the minister's parliamentary staff, who, as a courtesy, will often contact parliamentarians to ensure that they are provided with accurate information. Indeed, in this case, the minister's staff did contact my hon. colleague and provided him with the information sought.

It is important to note that the electronic form in question was developed many years ago and was, as I have said, inherited by the present government. It did include contact information to ensure follow up and, yes, it did include party affiliation. I recognize that this could be misconstrued and give the wrong impression. Consequently, I agree with my hon. colleague that this is something that should have been stopped many years ago. I have, therefore, instructed my department to remove the information pertaining to party affiliation and we have asked officials not to seek this information. This was done yesterday.

Yesterday, the hon. member stood in his place and raised a point of order indicating that he had not received the form in question and that my office failed to correctly provide the information that he had requested. I trust the member has now, after 24 hours, taken the time to read the four documents and web links my staff provided to his office, because it is clear that he had not done so when he stood in the House yesterday. If he had read the documents, he would have realized that the note in question was regarding lead coating on pencils and not lead pencils themselves. That is the point.

My officials provided that document to the hon. member so that he may inform himself and his constituents on the issues surrounding topical lead coatings on products, including paint brushes, pencils and toys. Had he but taken the time to read past the first paragraph of the note, he would have found information on the health impacts of lead exposure, how to determine if someone is suffering from lead exposure and other vital information. This includes lead coating of children's toys, as the member requested.

Mr. Speaker, I hope these brief remarks address the member's very important question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, through you, I sincerely hope that this action and explanation assures him and all those who are watching that Health Canada will continue to respond to inquiries from all parliamentarians quickly and efficiently, regardless of their party affiliation.

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during committee, we did contact the Belgians. It was in fact clear. We contacted them on December 7 and December 10. We had a conference call with all of the European suppliers. It became clear that they could not supply Canada with the radioisotopes in the quantities we needed. The hon. member mentioned South Africa. South Africa's reactor was closed during this crisis.

We left no stone unturned to protect the health and safety of Canadians. It became clear that the only way to react, the only way to save the lives of Canadians, was to restart the NRU reactor. We acted. We showed leadership. We did it for the health and safety of Canadians.

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, January 29th, 2008]

In fairness, Mr. Speaker, just as I answered her question at committee just a few minutes ago, in fact we were in contact with all the additional suppliers of radioisotopes.

The problem was that the European suppliers could only add 10% to 15% more to supply and then only at the end of December. We had to act in early December. We had to pass this legislation in mid-December to protect the lives and safety of Canadians. We did the right thing.

[Privilege, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence and the indulgence of my fellow members of the House I would like to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Mississauga South earlier this morning.

On the question of privilege the member for Mississauga South raised, I have the blues with me. Apparently in a conversation with a staff member of Health Canada's product safety branch he was asked the question, “Is your member of Parliament a member of the opposition?”

I want to assure members of the House that this is not standard operating procedure at Health Canada. I was not aware of this until the hon. member raised this issue. We will certainly make it clear to members of the public service and staff members that this is not a relevant or appropriate question to ask.

Sometimes in the House, Mr. Speaker, things get a bit confused. Sometimes we have people who cross floors. Sometimes we have people in the opposition who think they are in government. Sometimes we have people in government who still think they are in the opposition. However, in this case I think it is pretty clear that this kind of question is not necessary. I do take it very seriously and certainly will find an appropriate response for the hon. member.