Colin Carrie

[Health, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the hypocrisy of the NDP. Each time we try to work with first nations communities and put money aside in the budget, what do the NDP members do? They vote against it.

The member said earlier that we are making cuts to the health transfers to the provinces and territories. Actually, we are making a 6% increase per year, but each time we do that, the NDP votes against it.

It is our government that takes the misuse of prescription drugs seriously, and we are taking action. The pharmaceutical company that produces OxyContin, made a decision to cease distribution of that product and to replace it with OxyNEO, which is particularly harder to abuse because it is in a gel capsule.

Our NIHB program will automatically approve clients previously claiming OxyContin to use OxyNEO. Being mindful of the health and safety of Canadians, individuals should always consult their medical professionals and follow their directions.

However, individuals obtaining OxyContin from illegal sources may be affected when the drug is removed from the market. We will ensure that primary care supports are in place for short-term stabilization and monitoring of individuals who are going through opiate withdrawal.

Our government provides $90 million annually for addictions programming, including funding to support a network of treatment centres for first nations. We will continue to fund prescription drug abuse prevention and treatment supports and services.

We hope that one day the NDP will actually take the issue seriously and help support first nations people and vote with the government for these very important programs.

[Health, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about our concerns regarding the abuse of prescription drugs in first nations communities.

I know that members of this House are also concerned about this issue. Our government takes the misuse of prescription drugs seriously. That is why we are working with other health partners to develop a targeted strategy to address this problem.

A few first nations communities struggle with various kinds of addictions. However, first nations leaders and communities are expressing particular concern over the ripple effects from the recent decision by Purdue Pharma to cease distribution of OxyContin and replace it with OxyNEO. The reason behind this is that, unlike OxyContin, OxyNEO cannot be abused as the capsule is in a gel form.

Through the non-insured health benefits, NIHB, program, we will continue to ensure that first nations and Inuit clients who received coverage for OxyContin during the three months prior to February 15 will continue to receive coverage for OxyNEO. Any new requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and coverage may be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as for individuals with cancer or palliative pain.

Changes to the listing status of long-acting oxycodone under the NIHB program are consistent with the changes made in the public drug plans for the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Some individuals who obtained OxyContin illegally or through multiple sources may experience withdrawal if it becomes harder to obtain OxyContin.

Department officials from Health Canada will continue to work with first nations leadership and the provinces to ensure short-term stabilization as well as monitoring of individuals going through opioid withdrawal. This support is in addition to the care offered by provincially funded treatment facilities.

We are also addressing the abuse of prescription drugs by funding community substance abuse treatment programs. We are investing close to $90 million a year to support a network of 58 drug and alcohol addiction treatment centres and prevention services that benefit close to 550 first nation and Inuit communities throughout Canada.

Working in co-operation with first nations, various Health Canada programs fund a variety of projects. Other treatments for drug dependency are also available.

The NIHB program provides coverage for methadone and Suboxone for the substitution treatment of opioid dependency. Suboxone is available for clients who are unable to take methadone due to life-threatening adverse reactions, such as a serious cardiac reaction to the drugs.

The NIHB program will also review requests for Suboxone from health providers on a case-by-case basis to help ensure first nations and Inuit clients who may not have access to methadone treatment can safely access substitution treatment without leaving their community.

Between December 7, 2011 and May 8, 2012, the NIHB program has approved 95% of the requests received for Suboxone coverage. When looking specifically at the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the program has approved 99% of the requests received with the remainder pending receipt of further information.

I would like to assure the House that Health Canada will continue to monitor and address this ongoing problem.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. When he talked about debate, was he aware that last month his colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster spent 13 hours filibustering by reading tweets in the House. It prevented literally dozens of MPs from getting in on the debate.

The truth is there is a democratically-elected government in our country and no matter what we bring forward, the NDP will be against it. It wants to put forth policies like those in Europe, where countries, whether it is Greece, Portugal or Spain. New Democrats want to bring Canada down to that level. We are trying to support jobs.

Could the member stand in the House and name any policies by the NDP that are consistent with creating jobs, because New Democrats have voted against every one that we have put forward?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickelback for his speech, but I would like him to explain the NDP math that he is using. He quoted in his speech that we are cutting health care.

Being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I understand that the health care system is important to Canadians. We have consistently increased the transfers to the provinces and territories by 6%. This year is no exception, and we are transferring 6% to the provinces and territories.

In my province, which is also his province, the premier has said that he will be holding health care to a 3% increase. Therefore, he will have an extra 3% of federal transfers to utilize, supposedly, on health care.

How does the member come up with calling a 6% increase a cut? Could explain that math? Also, what will his premier be doing with the extra 3% that we will be allotting him this year for health care?

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can reaffirm for my colleague that we did take the recommendations of the Weatherill report seriously. That is where we will be focusing and targeting the investments we are making.

As the member knows, Mrs. Weatherill actually made over 57 recommendations. There were issues that needed to be dealt with. We have taken those targeted investments to ensure we have looked at every one of her recommendations because, at the end of the day, it is our government's commitment to the health and safety of Canadians that is most important and Canadians expect that.

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all of the good work that he has done. As I said in my speech, under his leadership, we have put over $50 million into ensuring that the food in Canada is healthy and safe. These amendments would not have any impact on the scientific processes or the rigour of the reviews of these new products. The amendments would only change the approval process after the scientific assessments and consultations have been concluded. They would provide tools to allow safe new products with potential health benefits for Canadians to get to market much more quickly. This has been a problem. Sometimes it can take months or years for these great products to get to market.

I can give some examples of the types of products that would be authorized more efficiently and effectively and maybe I will get a chance to do when answering another question.

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the important work that this government has promised to do to ensure and protect food safety.

The health and safety of Canadians have always been a priority for our government. This is reflected in the work that we do to protect and promote our health. It is also reflected in our investments in food safety. These investments were done with the intention of strengthening our ability to reduce food safety risks. That means better surveillance and early detection and improved emergency response.

As a government, we have acted on all 57 recommendations in the Weatherill report and have funded improvements to the food safety of Canadians. Budget 2012 contains a commitment of more than $50 million to be invested over the next two years. As a result, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and CFIA will continue their ongoing support to strengthen and make more effective our food safety system.

I would like to inform members of this House of the role that Health Canada plays in food safety.

Our government recognizes that a safe food supply is a major contributing factor to the health of Canadians. We all know that safe food and good nutrition are important to all Canadians and their families.

For that reason, Health Canada works closely with the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the provincial and territorial health departments to ensure food safety in Canada. It is important that we all co-operate in order for the work to continue.

Together with our partners, industry and consumers, Health Canada works to establish policies, regulations and standards related to the safety and nutritional quality of all foods sold in Canada. Today I will speak about some of the key changes that our government is making to food regulation in Canada while continuing to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Health Canada's food scientists conduct detailed and rigorous evaluations that focus on safety. Our safety assessment of food is internationally recognized. In fact, our government scientists are leaders and regular contributors in international discussions related to food safety and standards.

Underpinning all this work is the Food and Drugs Act. This is our primary legislative framework for foods, drugs and cosmetics, and it has served us well. Its solid foundation has helped to protect the health and safety of Canadians for over 50 years, but we recognize that modernization is needed if we are to continue to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Specifically, our food regulations need to keep up with the advances made in science and technology. We need to keep up with consumers' interests now and in the future.

Finally, we need to be able to respond quickly, efficiently and effectively to current and emerging food safety challenges. Modernization is needed to respond to these changes. In particular, updating the tools available to implement food safety decisions has been identified in the Red Tape Reduction Commission's work. As part of our ongoing discussion with stakeholders, the need for updated tools has also been identified as a priority area for modernization.

I would like to explain how these changes will maintain the scientific rigour with which our government approaches its work while making key changes to reduce red tape.

Currently, once Health Canada scientists have made a safety decision, be it about the safety of a new food or additive, setting the limit for a chemical contaminant or approving a new health claim on a food, it can take many months and sometimes years to implement that decision through a change in the regulations. The current lengthy and cumbersome process causes long delays in the approval of some products that are scientifically proven to be safe. Many of these scientifically proven products have a potential beneficial impact on the health and safety of Canadians. These delays affect our ability to update food safety standards quickly when new science emerges. For consumers, these delays limit their access to innovative and safe products.

That is why our government introduced targeted amendments to the Food and Drugs Act to reduce these delays and cut red tape while protecting the health and safety of Canadians. The targeted amendments to the Food and Drugs Act are included in the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, which was tabled just last week. Including these amendments, the act will allow us to move forward quickly to address these delays while maintaining the science related to this very important work.

Specifically, targeted amendments to the Food and Drugs Act include a new authority for making authorizations and a broader authority for incorporation by reference. These changes will shorten the time it takes for some safe food products to be put onto the Canadian market.

I will take a few minutes to describe each of these new authorities and how they will work together to continue to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

I will start by describing marketing authorizations. Marketing authorizations will be regulations made by the Minister of Health. They will exempt products from specific prohibitions in the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations.

The marketing authorization will give the Minister of Health an improved ability to act on certain food safety decisions—for example, the approval of some serious health claims for foods or setting safe levels of substances used in food production, such as food additives. The minister will be able to set conditions on the approval of a product or substance, providing more flexibility to address particular risks. This will allow Canada to make these safety decisions at a pace similar to that of our major international partners.

Marketing authorizations must follow an open and transparent process. They will also be subject to the same provisions as other regulations under the Statutory Instruments Act, ensuring such things as review by the Department of Justice and publication by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

It is also important to note that the marketing authorization does not change the scientific process or review. This will be done with the same rigour as our scientists have always used and with the priority to safeguard the health and safety of Canadians.

The marketing authorization only changes the way the decision is implemented after the scientific assessment is completed. By using marketing authorization for these decisions, the government will be able to continue to focus its efforts on safety, while reducing delays in implementing those safety decisions once they are made.

There will also be a second authority, which will allow more flexibility in the use of incorporation by reference. Currently tables such as approved food additives or authorized food health claims must be written word for word into the Food and Drug Regulations. Consequently, if a change to the list is needed, a regulatory amendment is required, a time-consuming and resource-consuming process that adds no benefit to the safety of Canadians. This regulatory process does not allow Health Canada to respond quickly to updates and advances in science and technology, market trends and/or emerging food safety risks.

This authority will allow Health Canada to incorporate by reference standards and methods, guidelines or other documents into the food and drug regulations, including documents developed by the government.

This could include a list of permitted food additives, certain substantiated health claims or testing methods that were proven to be effective in detecting harmful pathogens in food. Changes will be able to be adopted as soon as the scientific assessment and related comment periods and notifications have been completed.

In addition to continuing to protect food safety, these amendments will also help address the recommendations of the final report of the independent investigator into the 2008 listeriosis outbreak. In the report, Sheila Weatherill noted the need to expedite approvals of food additives when appropriate. These two new authorities respond to Ms. Weatherill's recommendations.

Let me illustrate the importance of these changes by providing an example. Health Canada received an application for a new food additive that could be used in certain processed meat and poultry products to help control the growth of harmful listeria. Health Canada undertook a scientific assessment and determined back in December 2007 that this additive could be safely used.

However, it took another 36 months for the required regulatory changes and approvals to enable this product to be used in Canada. Under the proposed new process, which will include a period for public comment, approvals could take as little as six months after the safety decision is made.

We have a solid foundation that will help protect Canadians' health and safety, but the tools needed to support this foundation are outdated and rigid.

The targeted amendments to the Food and Drugs Act introduced last week through the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act will help update the tools we need to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.

These changes demonstrate the commitment that our government has made and continues to make to protect the health and safety of Canadians. The changes put forward will help the government to maintain our high level of scientific rigour but will allow our decisions to be implemented faster, cutting the red tape and delays for the approval process and providing Canadians with safe products.

We will continue to engage and consult stakeholders during the decision-making process. The government's commitment to consultation, transparency and openness will remain. Ultimately these amendments will help the government to respond more rapidly to the pace of change in science and innovation and to play its role in continuing to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is curious that we are actually debating this poorly worded motion by the member for Toronto Centre. One of the things that it says is:

...the House condemn the government for introducing a budget that will repeat the mistakes of the past and put Canadians in danger by reducing food inspection...

et cetera.

If we remember back to the decade of darkness when the Liberal government was in charge of things, it actually cut $25 billion just in transfers to the provinces. That was among all the other cuts that it made

We have decided not to cut the transfers to the provinces. We have actually increased them to record amounts.

I wonder if the member would stand on her feet today and condemn her previous government for those horrific cuts that went out to the provinces and territories under the Martin and Chrétien regime?

[Status of Women, April 26th, 2012]

As I said, Mr. Speaker, this fund was established at a time when there were not many programs aimed toward women's health. We have spent more money than any other government in promoting women's health.

Our government continues to assist the provinces and territories in the delivery of health care. We will be transferring historic amounts over the next few years: $40 billion by the end of the decade.

Again the NDP members voted against each one of those initiatives.

[Status of Women, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority when it came to controlling spending was to protect front-line health services that were not being provided by these groups. This fund was established at a time when there were not too many programs aimed toward women's health.

Since forming government, we have invested over $750 million toward women's programs. Shame on the NDP and the Liberals because they voted against it.