Joe Volpe

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, October 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member wants some indication of what has been happening.

Let me reiterate what was said in the House on October 10. Specifically, Health Canada has been working on this problem for a number of years and now has in place, in over 50% of the pharmacies across the country, a state of the art point of sale adjudication system. By the end of this calendar year this system will be in place in all pharmacies. It will eliminate most of the problems identified by the auditor general.

In addition, the drug utilization review report has been developed which allows Health Canada to identify potential abuse situations for physicians, pharmacists and clients. This system ensures that all those involved can be alerted and that appropriate follow-up action initiated to address situations where abuse is identified. In fact, that abuse occurs in a very limited number of cases. When one looks at the statistics in the auditor general's report, it would appear that some 98% of the time First Nations utilize non-insured health benefits drug programs in an appropriate fashion. No one wishes to condone any abuse.

Health Canada continues to develop advanced systems, technology and an appropriate review processes to ensure that all those who are involved are aware and alerted to the issues of abuse. It must be clearly understood that addressing these problems is a joint responsibility of Health Canada, physicians, pharmacists, provincial licensing bodies and First Nations communities.

It would be unfortunate to stigmatize First Nations citizens as being the problem when it comes to the issue of prescription drug abuse. Without the diligent co-operation of providers and practitioners, this problem will not be completely resolved.

The department's staff worked with the first nations to ensure they better understand the scope of the problem so strategies may be developed to resolve matters in the community itself.

I emphasize this is a complex problem. Abuse exists but it does so in a very small percentage of cases. Simply designing a system, no matter how advanced, will only produce maximum results if all the various jurisdictions collaborate to create an environment where there is zero tolerance and zero opportunity for abuse.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, October 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member's attempts, grudgingly as they were, to recognize that the minister makes decisions on the basis of good, sound evidence, data, careful study and analysis.

As well I am glad that she acknowledged the minister announced today the reinstatement of the majority of the 24 projects in the food programs branch initially slated for termination last July. All these projects will be restarted with the exception of five that would require the use of research animals part way through the project.

The projects involving the use of research monkeys will be considered by the Royal Society of Canada as part of its study in the animal research division. They will also be submitted to a science advisory board. The board will be appointed shortly by the Minister of Health to provide him with the expert advice on how Health Canada's protection program can be strengthened.

Not only where the food research projects re-established, but the moratorium also re-establishes the projects and programs in other sectors of the health protection program and ensures their continuance.

These announcements underscore the Minister of Health's commitment that his bottom line is the health and safety of Canadians. The moratorium stabilizes the health protection program to ensure that a three-year project to review and strengthen the science and regulatory capacity of the health protection program is as comprehensive as possible.

The Canadian public must be reassured that its health and safety is of paramount importance and that the scientific capacity of the health protection program remains strong.

Out of a staff of 2,100 individuals, the health protection branch has some 1,300 scientists and professional personnel. The moratorium and the scientific review will further strengthen this capacity for the health protection program of the future.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member for Waterloo—Wellington, who is already beginning to make his mark in the House with very poignant and very incisive interventions, that as far as the federal government is concerned, in Canada childhood is for children. As Canadians we want our children to enjoy all the opportunities that Canada has to offer both in childhood and as they grow into adults.

As a society we need to seize the opportunity early in the lives of our children to nurture their development and to help them prepare for the years ahead. The growing body of research evidence is clear. Children's early experiences have long term effects on their health, intellectual development and well-being.

While families are the ones who are first and foremost responsible for the development of their children, they are not the only ones who must assume some responsibility. Governments, communities, employers, unions, teachers and individual Canadians in all walks of life have an important role to play.

This government has identified children as a major priority in its public policy initiatives. The Speech from the Throne highlights work that we are undertaking with the provinces and territories to create a national children's agenda.

I take pride in noting that this government has already made contributions to the well-being of children. The member for Waterloo—Wellington will acknowledge this as well.

The national child benefit process with the provinces produced a federal commitment of $850 million of investment in the Canadian child tax benefit. There is the prospect of further investment in this area.

I am also pleased to mention that the last federal budget provides for a $100 million increase, over a three year period, under the Canada prenatal nutritional program and the community action program for children.

These two sets of initiatives are indicative of a commitment to children and an approach to children's issues which is comprehensive and structured.

[Denturists, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that October is national denturist awareness month. Denturists received legal recognition as a profession in Canada in 1961. Since that time Canadians of all ages have benefited from improved quality of life and health care that denturists provide.

The Denturists Association of Canada seeks to promote nationwide standards and common legislative treatment in all provinces. As part of denturist awareness month denturists are seeking to encourage and facilitate the standardization of education among their colleagues and to make the public more aware of their commitment to providing the best services available to Canadians in need of oral health care.

For our part the federal government continues to co-operate with the provinces and territories, as well as non-government organizations, to ensure that the health care needs of Canadians, including oral health care needs, are addressed in a cost effective but efficient fashion.

[Health Care, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may have a different perspective on what is the obligation of government. However, I can assure the House that what is of great concern is not the economic considerations to which he alludes. The government wants to make sure that any product that is on the market which has medicinal claims fulfils the requirement that it is a safe, effective, high quality product. There is no other consideration is far as Health Canada is concerned.

I think the member should be ashamed for suggesting that there is any concern other than that.

[Health Care, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member opposite heard the first response. I stated that Health Canada is very interested and is determined to guarantee that the products on the market are of high quality, safe and effective.

We agree that some products have been used over centuries, but no medicinal claims have been made for them.

I point out to members opposite that there are some such as ephedra which in Texas has already proven to have negative effects in over 500 cases. There is comfrey, chaparral and germander that have caused liver toxicity and chou wu chih that has caused heart palpitations.

I am sure the member opposite would not want Health Canada to put a stamp of approval on products that have already caused some serious negative considerations in the health community.

[Health Care, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member will be reassured to know that Health Canada already has a consultative group that includes practitioners who distribute and who are expert in the consumption of some of the remedies she is suggesting. Health Canada, over the course of every year, approves for distribution, for sale and consumption some 100 such items.

She should feel secure that Health Canada is up on all the issues that relate to herbal medicine and that the appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that Canadians can have the confidence that all those items are safe and effective.

[Health Care, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the only real and effective choice is one that ensures that the product is safe and effective.

The mandate of Health Canada is to ensure that every product on the market, on the shelves, has already received the stamp of approval from Health Canada that the product fulfils the medicinal claims listed on the items.

I am sure that the member opposite would agree that this is a basic responsibility that the government must fulfil.

[Tobacco, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to put a Liberal logo on a race car I am sure we would get all kinds of support. The hon. member knows full well that all the articles of the bill indicated that we would have restrictions on sponsorship. There was never any question of anything else.

I might add for the member's edification that we would have an opportunity to get people to understand the objectives. There were restrictions but no bans. We said here are the health objectives and we carried those out.

The legislation went through the House with the health objectives in place, consistent with the Supreme Court decisions that generated this and consistent with all consultations we had in the field leading up to the legislation.

Nothing has changed, absolutely nothing. Canadians are pleased the Canadian government could get the legislation out of the Commons, into the Senate and into the public. She should applaud it.

[Tobacco, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is shameless is the poor attempt to try to score political points by distorting the facts.

The facts are still as follows. Bill C-71 went from the House to the other place and from there into the public domain with clear health objectives that remain as they were when they left this place.

We had already considered all other ramifications of the bill. Those ramifications are included in some amendments that were accepted here, for example that we would have an implementation period following which there would be consultation with all stakeholders and a review of some of those implications in the context of Health Canada's health objectives as stated in the bill.