Steven Fletcher

[Employment Insurance Act, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I understand this is the third bill that has proposed changes to the EI program and that it would cost the system over $6 billion. Moreover, it may have disincentives to encourage people to return to work. Given that our unemployment rate is at a historic low and that there seems to be a strong demand for skilled workers, it seems that at this time the bill may be redundant and may actually lead to unintended consequences.

I wonder if the member could explain or justify the billions of dollars that this would cost. Particularly I am surprised that this comes from a Bloc member, a party that generally does not like national programs like the EI in the first place.

[Phthalate Control Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to Bill C-307, the phthalate control act. The bill seeks to regulate the use of certain phthalates in products that Canadians may be exposed to.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for their hard work in reviewing this bill.

BillC-307, as amended by the committee, will ensure that the government takes the appropriate evidenced based approach to protect Canadians from exposures to levels of phthalates that can cause them harm.

The amended bill restricts the use of DEHP in children's toys, cosmetics and medical devices using the appropriate existing federal statutes and regulations.

Under the current regulatory regimes and in keeping with the federal constitutional jurisdiction, Health Canada has legislative authorities in place to regulate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices and their manufacturers under the Food and Drugs Act and the medical devices regulations.

One phthalate known as DEHP is used as a softening agent for many medical grade plastic materials made from polyvinylchloride, PVC.

Without a softening agent life saving medical devices such as medical tubing and blood bags would be brittle and crack during use, or could not be sterilized as effectively.

Alternative materials have been developed for use in some medical devices for certain medical applications. In other cases non-DEHP containing devices are not available or do not perform as well as devices made with DEHP.

In these cases an individual risk evaluation must be undertaken to fully understand the implications of alternate treatments or no treatment compared with the use of a medical device containing small quantities of DEHP.

Only a physician in consultation with the patient can make the final decision as to what is an appropriate medical treatment. No medical device or drug is 100% safe and effective. This is an important consideration in any decision when seeking medical treatment.

It follows then that the government's response to the phthalates in medical devices must differ from its approach taken with other consumer products.

Concerns have been raised about the safety of DEHP in medical devices since the 1980s. These concerns are based on studies showing that DEHP administered at high doses to rodents caused certain adverse effects, particularly effects on the developing reproductive system in young males.

There is concern that DEHP has the potential to produce similar adverse reproductive effects on humans, although there are no reliable data demonstrating that it does.

Health Canada has extensively studied the safety of DEHP in medical devices. In 2001 Health Canada completed a review of the scientific and medical literature and in the fall of 2001 convened an expert advisory panel to review the report and provide specific advice on managing the risk associated with the use of DEHP in medical devices. The recommendations of the advisory panel were made public in January 2002 and implemented.

In 2003 Health Canada published a draft position paper regarding the use of DEHP in medical devices. Health Canada has committed to finalize this position paper within the next few months.

Bill C-307, as amended in committee, recognizes that it is not in the best interests of Canadians to ban all medical devices containing DEHP in Canada at this time because alternate treatment options may not exist; and secondly, alternate treatment options may present higher risks to the patients.

Bill C-307 will aim to provide Canadians with continued access to needed medical devices, such as blood bags and intravenous tubing, when DEHP-free devices are not available or appropriate.

Under this bill the Government of Canada will work with the health care community, hospital associations, industry and other stakeholders to facilitate the development and promotion of clinical practice guidelines for the use of DEHP-containing medical devices. It will finalize and release a position paper on the use of medical devices containing DEHP and develop a guidance document on labelling requirements for these products.

The government will also give priority to the review of phthalate-free medical devices intended to be used on vulnerable patient groups. These actions will lead to a phase-out of the use of DEHP in medical devices starting with those used on vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women and newborns.

This approach will aim to provide Canadians with continued access to the best available medical devices and treatment options. Health Canada continues to monitor and review the approaches of other global regulatory agencies with regard to the potential risks associated with DEHP and other phthalates used in medical devices.

Since the 1980s' Canada's risk management approach to this subject has been evidence based, recognizing the balance between potential exposure to DEHP with the need for medically necessary treatments.

I can assure members that Canada's approach to minimize the risk associated with medical devices containing DEHP is one of the most stringent in the world. I would also urge members to support Bill C-307 as amended by the committee and proposed actions by Health Canada and Environment Canada aimed to ensure the health and well-being of Canadians.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on the hard work of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the member for Langley, and his lead at the environment committee. We all know that can be a very challenging position. The member for Langley has demonstrated that the committee process is active and well through the cooperation of the mover of the bill and others to demonstrate that this Parliament is in fact working.

As I mentioned previously, Bill C-307 was amended at committee to make sure that we clearly reflect the realities in the medical community. Medical devices are very important. On one hand we want them to be available; however, as I said, there are always risks with some devices. I think the committee has struck a balance. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment should be congratulated for navigating this bill through the committee.

I think Canadians, in particular vulnerable Canadians such as children, pregnant women and newborns, will be better off for the hard work of the committee, and particularly the member for Langley, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Health Canada, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians, especially the safety of Canadian children, is a great concern for this government.

The manufacturer in question issued a recall yesterday of a series of products suspected of containing higher levels of what is considered safe in regard to lead content.

At this time, Health Canada is not aware of any incidents or accidents associated with these toys that are now being recalled.

This government takes the health of children very seriously and will do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of Canadians.

[Stroke Awareness Month, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, June is Stroke Awareness Month.

Every year, nearly 15,000 Canadians die of a stroke and nearly 300,000 Canadians suffer the effects of a stroke.

A stroke is caused by a lack of blood to the brain that can lead to irreversible brain damage, often resulting in long hospital stays and extensive rehabilitation.

The Government of Canada is promoting health and healthy lifestyles.

Some concrete examples that Canada's new government is taking action include the introduction of Canada's new food guide as well as funding the development of a health heart strategy and action plan.

Please join me in wishing the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Stroke Network, and their volunteers success for this year's Stroke Awareness Month.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the management of the overall transboundary water relationship with the United States has been a major irritant for the Government of Canada.

I am pleased to speak on this matter tonight. As many members will know, the Assiniboine River is the major tributary to the Red River and the Assiniboine River flows through my constituency with its many tributaries, like Sturgeon Creek and others.

The reason why I raise this is the fact that this issue goes far beyond Lake Winnipeg. It goes to the entire watershed and that includes the prairie provinces, Ontario, and who knows where it goes beyond that. This is an important issue for all Canadians and it is really important that we work together to solve this problem.

It is important that we continue with the critical science and engineering efforts that are currently underway. I wish to assure members that the Devils Lake outlet and its implications for Manitobans are key concerns for the federal government.

The President of the Treasury Board has spoken with his colleague the Minister of the Environment and the minister of water stewardship in Manitoba on the decision by North Dakota to operate the outlet.

The governments of Canada and Manitoba are united in their concern and disappointment over North Dakota's move to release water in the absence of a permanent treatment system at the outlet. The governments of Canada and Manitoba have been steadfast allies throughout the Devils Lake outlet dispute and we will continue to support each other's efforts to address this issue.

Engagement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of the Environment, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and other officials have underlined the government's commitment to put our concerns about Devils Lake front and centre in our dealings with the United States.

This government has conveyed Canada's concern regarding North Dakota's Devils Lake outlet to the highest levels of the U.S. government on many occasions and we will continue in these efforts until the matter is resolved successfully.

Our consistent aim is to address Canada's concerns regarding the outlet, including safeguards to prevent the transfer of invasive species from Devils Lake to Lake Winnipeg. Our government believes that the Devils Lake outlet should not operate until measures are implemented to ensure the protection of downstream waters from the potential threat of invasive species transfers.

Based on the boundary waters treaty of 1909, water that flows across the international boundary “shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other”. Our government takes its obligations under the treaty seriously and expects the U.S. government to make every effort to ensure that it upholds its side of the bargain.

In addition to exposing Canadian waters to an unknown and unwarranted degree of risk, North Dakota is jeopardizing very important binational scientific work on invasive species in the Red River basin being conducted under the International Joint Commission. The IJC is the international organization created by the boundary waters treaty to help resolve and prevent disputes on matters arising related to waters shared between Canada and the United States.

Based in part on the advice of this House and the terms of the 2005 joint statement on Devils Lake flooding and ecosystem protection, the Canadian and U.S. governments have engaged the commission to conduct a survey of fish parasites and pathogens in Devils Lake and the broader basin. This work will help shed light on the risks posed by the outlet and aid in informing the development of a permanent treatment regime.

As well, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with Canadian technical experts, is undertaking an important engineering analysis on the design of an effective treatment system for the outlet.

North Dakota's decision impedes the important progress that has been made with the United States toward resolving the Devils Lake outlet dispute. Further, we remain dissatisfied by North Dakota's effort to relax the terms of the operating permit for the outlet, a move that has allowed the outlet to run this year.

A key constraint on releases from the outlet into the Sheyenne River is the maximum sulphate concentration allowed in the river. Last year North Dakota's health department approved a request from the North Dakota state water commission to increase the allowable sulphate concentration in the Sheyenne River by 50%, from 330 milligrams per litre to 450 milligrams per litre. Our government was and remains critical of this weakening of the permit.

In its submission to the North Dakota health department on the permit modification, our government pointed out that the changes could result in degraded water quality at the international boundary and increase the risk of harm. In the final analysis, our government underlined its belief that there was simply not sufficient science to warrant the proposed changes. Lack of sound science has continued to be a persistent feature of the entire state of the outlet project.

Along with insufficient science to allow for informed decisions about the operating permit, the state outlet has proceeded without a proper environmental impact assessment. For these reasons, Canadian waters face an unknown risk from the Devils Lake outlet.

Because of this unknown risk, our government has worked closely with Manitoba and the U.S. government to advance our understanding of the potential threat by the outlet and to design an effective treatment system so that the outlet can be operated safely.

Once again, I hope that the House will support the government's efforts in pressing North Dakota to close the outlet and allow the engineering work now underway on a permanent treatment facility as well as to allow the important biological survey to continue unhampered by discharges from Devils Lake.

This is an important issue for Manitoba and all Canadians, and I hope we stand united to fight and continue to work on the science, so that we can make the best decisions with the information available.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her excellent contribution this evening and, in fact, for her excellent contribution since being elected and as an MLA before that.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake also has to be commended for what he described as his crusade. He is a very passionate advocate for Lake Winnipeg in all aspects, and in particular the problem that we have with Devils Lake.

The Devils Lake outlet remains a persistent irritant for the Government of Canada and the management of its overall--

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my hon. friend, the member for Peace River. I am fully aware of his deep concern for the problems that crystal meth inflicts on Canadians. I commend him for drawing the attention of this House, through this private member's bill, to the complex difficulties created by meth.

Crystal meth is a substance that can alter and damage the brain. It is a drug that is incredibly addictive, and the potential for abuse is very high.

Meth abuse can result in serious behavioural problems, psychotic symptoms and dangerous medical complications, such as cardiovascular problems, strokes and even death. Meth addiction is a chronic relapse disease that is notoriously tough to treat.

The illegal production and sale of this drug are wreaking havoc for thousands of Canadians.

Meth and other synthetic drugs have cost us millions of dollars in direct health expenses. They have cost us tens of millions of dollars in law enforcement activities. Worst of all, they have cost many lives and great heartbreak to families and friends.

Today, I would like to briefly talk about the magnitude of the problem with crystal meth and to give an overview of what the federal government is doing to fight the scourge of illegal drugs in general. I will conclude by talking about the measures taken by the government with respect to crystal meth and its abuse.

Why is crystal meth so insidious? First is the extent of the problem.

I have already touched on some of the serious health related issues, the harm caused by abuse, addiction and other problems. It is also easy to produce illegally. Recipes for producing meth abound on the Web, and books about how to make meth are readily available from popular online bookstores. The dozen or so ingredients and the manufacturing equipment are relatively easy to find.

I believe that regardless of our party affiliations, we can all agree that none of us would want a meth lab in our neighbourhood. None of us would want a meth lab to be produced near our schools, recreational areas or on the farm down the road. I am also sure none of us would want this relatively inexpensive, easy to produce, yet deadly drug in the hands of our children or anyone else's child.

A further difficulty is the hazardous nature of meth production. The ingredients can cause chemical burns and they are prone to explode in amateur hands. First responders called to the scene of an illicit lab face serious dangers, as do nearby residents. The environmental hazards associated with meth production are also very real.

Moreover, we have to consider the actual social costs in dollars of illicit drug abuse. Thanks to a groundbreaking study by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse released just last year, we have a much clearer picture of the direct and indirect costs to Canadians and the economy.

The harm from illegal drugs, including meth, accounted for more than $1.1 billion in direct health care costs and more than double that, $2.3 billion, for law enforcement. Productivity losses, because of illness and premature death, reached an appalling $4.7 billion. That is more than $8 billion in one year and the costs are rising.

Information on the specific costs associated with meth abuse alone is a bit harder to track down but, nevertheless, we know that the social costs are substantial and that meth use is very common.

For all those reasons, the insidious nature of harmful meth production and use and the costs to the economy, I want to emphasize that this government takes the problem very seriously.

The government is committed to fighting the production and abuse of illegal drugs.

Over the past decades, the core aim of Canada's effort to combat drug abuse has been a constant fight to see Canadians live in a society that is increasingly free from the harm associated with substance abuse. We must not underestimate the complexities of dealing with this deep-rooted problem.

Illegal drug use must be fought on several fronts. It must be challenged as a social phenomenon and it must be confronted directly as a health issue, an issue for the justice system and, in some cases, as with meth, an environmental issue.

This is why Health Canada and many other federal departments and agencies work closely with their counterparts in provinces and territories in supporting a range of prevention, treatment and enforcement initiatives. A comprehensive approach is vital and the provinces and territories are essential partners in the integrated nationwide campaign.

We undertake and sponsor research to understand substance abuse as a basis for effective decision making. Federal, provincial and territorial governments support a wide array of community based education and prevention programs to discourage and treat harmful substance use and to root out laboratories that manufacture synthetic drugs such as meth.

Health Canada will continue to work with its partners in the Department of Justice and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada to keep legislation, regulations and policies current and relevant.

Progress is, of course, incremental and, since there are no simple answers to this issue nor any magic solution to changing the behaviour of people abusing drugs, I believe that slowly, and sometimes very slowly, we are gaining ground.

Now I would like to discuss some measures taken recently by the government to fight crystal meth and its abuse.

First, we announced a national anti-drug strategy in the March budget with specific funding for an array of prevention, treatment and enforcement measures.

Second, in 2005, meth was moved up to schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This means that the courts can impose a maximum sentence of up to life imprisonment for anyone found guilty of importing, exporting, possessing for the purpose of exporting, producing and trafficking meth. Simple possession can draw a sentence of up to seven years.

Third, the precursor control regulations have been amended to include, and thus regulate the activities with, four additional substances that can be used in the illicit production of meth.

My hon. friend has given this a considerable amount of consideration and I think we can all support the member's intention. However, one of our concerns is with the penalties that would be applied when the bill's prohibitions are contravened. The bill does not establish any specific penalties and, therefore, the act's general, and much less onerous, penalty section would apply, for instance, a maximum of three years instead of five to seven years.

Perhaps more significantly, legitimate business and law-abiding Canadians would suffer immediately and seriously because, as I mentioned earlier, the same chemicals and equipment used to produce meth are also used to produce or are found in a large number of industrial, consumer and health products, ranging from cold medications to fabric dyes.

As such, an amendment would be required to make sure that businesses and people will not be caught by the offences imposed by the bill.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I applaud the intentions of the member for Peace River, and I support the principle of the bill to stop the production and trafficking of crystal meth.

As per the amendment or as per—

[Quarantine Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the member first asked me his questions, he had his facts completely wrong in respect to section 34. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and explain to him that the act was amended and land conveyances were included in what has been presented.

However, since then the member has continued to suggest things that are simply incorrect. He has admitted to reading the minutes from the health committee's meeting of June 4, 2007. If the member actually had read the minutes, as he has claimed, he would see the amendments presented. The amendments go on for pages in the minutes. Even a brief overview of the minutes would show the amendments presented. Yet, the member claims that he was unaware of the amendments because the minutes were not printed in accordance with his expectations.

He cannot have it both ways. If the member has indeed read the minutes, he will know the amendment was presented and unanimously passed by committee. In fact, I presented the amendments as parliamentary secretary.

Due to the leadership of the health minister, it is abundantly clear that this government takes the health of Canadians very seriously.

And I see the member is looking through the minutes.

Even in the previous version of the act the option of land conveyances was always there; it just was not explicit. The minister had the ability to include conveyances in paragraph 34(1)(b) in the previous act where it just stated “conveyances”.

Dr. David Butler-Jones, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, is quoted extensively in the June 4 committee meeting and in previous meetings as stating that the risk profile for land conveyances from the United States was very low, and that is why it was excluded.

In the interest of absolute clarity and to make sure there are no ifs, ands or buts, as parliamentary secretary on behalf of the minister I made those amendments.

The member spoke of the SPP. He will also see in the minutes from June 4 that the director general of the innovation partnerships branch of the Department of Industry, on page 2 of the minutes, made an extensive presentation dealing with the government's priorities and concerns in regard to this. In every case health is first and foremost.

The member has taken quotes out of context. Obviously, the member has not read the entire minutes. If he had, he would have seen there were amendments. The member should be more careful in taking selective quotes out of what was an extensive consultation.

Would the member agree—

[Quarantine Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member got up and made suggestions in regard to the act. He originally got up and incorrectly stated that the amendments to Bill C-42 did not include land conveyances. However, he continued to suggest otherwise. I wonder if the member could comment on the bill and confirm that it includes land, marine and air.

Before the member comments, let me just say I am quite disappointed in the previous questioner. He had his facts wrong when he first asked his questions, and that is fair enough, sometimes that happens. However, to continue on in that vein time and time again when the Minister of Health has demonstrated leadership on the health of Canadians is very disappointing and I wish the member would not be so partisan.

I wonder if this member could just confirm for everyone that marine, air and land is included in the amendment to Bill C-42.

[Quarantine Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to read the amendments. In fact he is completely wrong.

Section 34 now reads to include land conveyances. That is what the committee came up with. The government and all committee members had a very thoughtful discussion on this issue. We were able to come up with wording that addresses the member's concern, and more important, meets the health and safety of all Canadians.

The Minister of Health's leadership in this area was tremendous. I would also like to thank the opposition health critic, the member for Oakville, for her help in this matter and the Bloc health critic and the NDP health critic as well.

This is an excellent example of how the parliamentary process can work in a minority Parliament. I am very pleased and honoured to have had the opportunity to work with the committee.