Steven Fletcher

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is the government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars over and above what had previously been invested by the previous government.

The question deals with Kashechewan and the challenges the people face there, so I will focus my remarks on that particular situation.

I think all members of the House will agree that last year the people of Kashechewan faced a very difficult and serious set of problems. We said at the time, and we will repeat, the situation that existed before the government took office was completely unacceptable, and we have worked hard to ensure it does not happen again.

I am happy to report that one year later there has been significant improvements in the community, but we know the work is far from complete. That is why our government continues to work with the leadership of Kashechewan and the tribal council to find durable, long term solutions to the challenges faced by the people of Kashechewan.

We recognize that the problems faced by the community are both immediate and long term. We are taking action on both fronts. We have already made progress in many key areas. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada continues to work with first nations to ensure that the current community is sustainable in the short and medium term. Work has been done to repair housing and other key infrastructure in place.

As of August last year, all residents had returned to the community. I am happy to report that the problems with the community's drinking water have been alleviated as well. The drinking water advisory was lifted on June 26 last year. The water produced by the community's water treatment plant is safe and meeting provincial standards. Also the latest phase of automation of the water treatment plant is expected to be completed in the near future.

To date, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has invested approximately $12.2 million in housing in Kashechewan and that includes $8.5 million to the tribal council for renovations to 60 homes and another $4 million for 35 mobile homes to be set up in the community as temporary accommodation. These can also be used as permanent, longer term housing if needed.

Most of the 42 homes damaged by the recent flooding have also been repaired and renovations to another 30 homes are almost complete.

The government is working with partner agencies on measures to make every reasonable attempt to prevent flooding and reduce the impact on the community if flooding does occur in the spring.

A working group made up of representatives from several federal and provincial departments and ministries, including Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Health Canada, Emergency Management Ontario and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources have formed a plan to prepare for possible flooding in the James Bay area first nations this spring.

In terms of other infrastructure to meet the needs of the community, a new jail and police detachment building have been in operation since September 2006. As well, an assessment of elementary schools has been completed, while both elementary and high school students are accommodated at the high school. We have agreed to cover the costs of repairs to the elementary school and to address the health and safety concerns. As of yet, we have not received a response from the education authority or the first nation.

Progress has been made in resolving--

[Brain Tumour Surveillance, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's concluding remarks. In fact, this motion is very compatible with the government's agenda to increase collaboration with the provinces and territories and is well aligned with the Canadian strategy for cancer control which has now been released as a pan-Canadian partnership to fight cancer. It also goes along with the healthy living and chronic disease initiative that this government is pursuing to create a comprehensive pan-Canadian surveillance system. The member's concern about surveillance has been addressed by the government, which is very positive.

Speaking to the motion itself, first let me congratulate the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley on this excellent motion. As we know, benign brain tumours have not routinely been collected by provincial and territorial cancer registries and thus are not included in the Canadian Cancer Registry.

There are several reasons why data on benign brain tumours should be collected. First, there is the human dimension. Brain cancer is the most common solid tumour in children and youth. Each year in Canada over 200 children and youth under the age of 20 are diagnosed with brain tumours and nearly 60 die from their disease. Among those who survive, the long term health effects and functioning consequences are serious.

In addition, brain cancer is also significant among young adults. In 2003 there were 388 cases diagnosed within the 20 to 44 age group, or close to 20% of brain cancer cases among Canadians age 20 or older. In total, 2,500 cases and 1,650 deaths from brain and nervous system cancer are expected in 2006 in Canada. The number of brain and nervous system cancer cases would increase by between 40% and 70% if benign cases were included. Benign cases contribute to a substantial portion of the total burden of brain cancer.

Second, the creation of uniform national standards and guidelines for the surveillance of all types of brain tumours has the potential to improve the quality and completeness of brain tumour registration across Canada.

Third, having this complete and accurate data on primary brain tumours would facilitate research into the causes of this disease, which may lead to improved diagnosis and treatment of patients. It would, for example, help identify factors that influence the risk for developing various types of brain tumours.

Fourth, cancer registries serve several important purposes by linking available sources of administrative data to obtain information on a number of new cancer cases and corresponding patient follow-up information. This information allows basic surveillance and establishes a platform to provide the additional information needed to develop and evaluate cancer control programs.

There are also links from cancer registries to other administrative databases, such as vital statistics, to further assess the causes of cancer, behavioural risk factors, as well as occupational and environmental exposures. It would also allow an evaluation of trends in the rates of newly diagnosed cases.

Fifth, the inclusion of benign brain tumours is also needed to allow these tumours to be compared across registries both nationally and internationally.

Sixth, there are many subtypes of brain and nervous system cancers. The chance of recovery and choice of treatment depends on the type, grade and location of the tumour and whether the cancer remains after surgery and/or has spread to other parts of the brain. In addition, since studies have demonstrated that some benign brain cancers transform into more dangerous types of tumours, the full spectrum of information about these diseases should be included in cancer registries.

As I said earlier, the motion is highly compatible with the government's agenda to increase collaboration with the provinces and territories. It is well aligned with the objective of the health minister to create a comprehensive, pan-Canadian surveillance system.

I heard some of the comments from my hon. colleague from the Bloc and it is important that Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand that there are synergies that can be gained by working together, that people in Quebec, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, B.C., Yukon and so forth can benefit by us sharing information and learning from each other's experiences. One of the great flaws that we see in the Bloc's argument time and time again is that somehow pandemic or other diseases respect provincial boundaries. Of course they do not and we need to work together so that all Canadians can be as healthy as possible.

I would also like to take a moment to comment on the leadership that the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have undertaken with the creation of the Canadian partnership to fight cancer. This partnership has the backing of all the major cancer groups throughout the land, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the prostate and breast cancer groups. We could name any type of cancer group and we would find that they all support the government's initiative.

When I was the health critic, I brought forward a motion on June 7, 2005, when the government of the day refused to fully fund and implement the strategy, even though every stakeholder in the cancer community supported the initiative. It took a change in government and the political will of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to ensure that the strategy could be brought forward.

The motion that the member has brought forward demonstrates the importance of the government's strategy to fight cancer. It will be a model for future parliaments on how to deal with chronic disease and, hopefully, we will defeat cancer.

However, it will take all Canadians working together, be it on walks or runs, or just individual responsibility or guidance from the government on how we can ensure that the risks to the health of Canadians are such that fewer Canadians will develop cancer.

Just last Friday, the health minister and the environment minister made a major announcement on reducing and eliminating the number of toxic substances that exist in Canada. This makes Canada a world leader in this area. A suggestion was made that many of the toxins and compounds that will be banned are some of the reasons why people acquire cancer. This government has demonstrated a profound sense of leadership and vision to ensure that Canadians live healthy lives.

This ties in very well to our wait times guarantee and other very innovative and thoughtful approaches that this government has taken in dealing with our health care crisis. As the population grows older, cancer cases will increase but if we can manage that increase and work together to increase, not only the lifespan but the healthspan of Canadians, we will improve their quality of life, reduce wait times and together we will all be stronger as we stand together.

No matter what part of the country we are from, Quebec, Ontario or Manitoba, by sharing data and having national standards we can make significant improvements. I think the bill brought forward by the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley and the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the entire Canadian cancer community will go a long way to ensure that Canadians are as healthy as they can be.

I congratulate the member and I thank the members for listening to this presentation and I wish everyone a happy holiday season.

[Brain Tumour Surveillance, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the bill. The member's commitment to fighting cancer is commendable, and I think all Canadians should be very proud of the work he has done.

Could the member talk about the initiative, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and how there will be synergies between the member's initiative and the $260 million over five years that the government has committed, of which the entire cancer community is supportive. Could he comment on the government's work on cancer and how it works with his private member's bill?

[National Strategy for the Treatment of Autism Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that the member did not answer the question with respect to process. My colleague from Edmonton raised the issue of selecting diseases on that ad hoc basis. The wording of the Canada Health Act is such that it should catch all health related issues. I wonder if the member has given any consideration to lobbying his provincial government to look at the costs related to autism because that would be the appropriate venue to do this type of lobbying as it falls under provincial jurisdiction.

We recognize that the growing number of children and families affected by autism spectrum disorders requires action, but the government cannot support the bill put forward by the hon. member for Charlottetown. Given the respective roles and responsibilities of the federal, provicial and territorial governments in the area of health care, amending the Canada Health Act may not be the best way to go.

We all appreciate the reasons behind the introduction of this bill. While we know that many people with autism are not disabled by the impact of the disorder, but live regular everyday lives, we also know that autism spectrum disorders can affect people in many very difficult ways, sometimes isolating them as a result of compulsive behaviour and speech disorders that close them off from their families, friends, teachers, neighbours, and society as a whole. Autism can impact all aspects of a person's life and if untreated, result in physical, emotional, social and intellectual isolation.

Sadly, we also know that there is no universal treatment that works equally and in all cases. Many believe that behavioural therapy services such as applied behavioural analysis or intensive behavioural intervention, known collectively as ABA or IBI, are the best treatments for children with autism spectrum disorders.

Families of children with autism spectrum disorders have reported improved self-functioning, self-efficiency, and quality of life when their children are provided with ABA or IBI services, particularly at an early age.

There is no doubt that a situation for which the treatments most likely to be beneficial cost tens of thousands of dollars can be a profound challenge on top of the challenges that autism spectrum disorders may bring in the first place.

No one on either side of this House denies that families affected by autism face gaps in the services, especially the social services, that can be used to address the needs of their children. We have heard from parents and other autism stakeholders that one of the challenges facing children with autism spectrum disorders is the inconsistency of services available across the country.

It is not surprising to me that people in the autism community, parents and supporters of many kinds, have been so active in seeking action on autism spectrum disorders. We understand that parents of children with autism spectrum disorders are concerned about access to treatment and we have tremendous sympathy for them. However, the responsibility for delivering health care services in Canada rests with the provinces and territories, and it is at this level that the issue must be addressed.

Amending the Canada Health Act to include behavioural therapy is not an appropriate response to this issue. Rather, Canada's new government is committed to working to help Canadian families affected by autism spectrum disorders.

As announced recently, we are undertaking five initiatives to improve knowledge and research on autism spectrum disorders and to help those individuals and families who may need more assistance meeting the challenges that autism can bring.

In addition to initiatives aimed at additional research and surveillance of autism spectrum disorders, we will be sponsoring a symposium on autism next spring. It is our hope that this symposium will serve as an opportunity for all stakeholders to share best practices, exchange knowledge and learn from others.

While the details are not final yet, we anticipate that the focus of the symposium will be in the areas of research, surveillance and knowledge development. In particular, we have heard time and time again from stakeholders of the importance of knowledgeable information and research on autism spectrum disorders.

A symposium designed to bring together key researchers and knowledge experts in the area will be extremely valuable. We also hope that the symposium will assist with the establishment of more surveillance and epidemiological studies to determine actual incidence and possible geographic “pockets” of autism.

Finally, we hope that the symposium will enable stakeholders, including individuals with autism and their families, to share information on the individual manifestations of autism and to discuss essential supports for people with autism and their families.

We know that access to reliable information is a challenge for the public, including parents of autistic children. That is why, as announced two weeks ago, a web page on autism has been added to the Health Canada website. The web page, as it grows and is further developed, will facilitate access to public information related to autism spectrum disorders.

We also indicated that the health policy branch of Health Canada will be responsible in the future for the coordination of policy and program activities at the health portfolio level.

These initiatives are important and they have been very well received by stakeholders. We recognize that these initiatives do not address all the issues associated with autism spectrum disorders. However, they will contribute to laying the foundation for a national strategy on autism.

I am pleased to have lent my support and also co-written Motion No. 172 that was introduced by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Fredericton. One of the components of the motion was the establishment, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, of national standards for diagnosis and treatment. We know that many families of individuals with autism have felt that action had to be taken in this area. There are many different treatments for autism and very little research has been done to evaluate how they work.

The government recognizes that there is a need to compare different forms of ABA and other treatments through randomized controlled trials and other methods to determine what is most effective in particular circumstances. This is why the investments we are making in research are so critical. They are a necessary foundation for a broader approach to the issue.

While we are moving forward on these new initiatives, the government will continue to provide support to individuals with autism and their families who need it, including financial support through the tax system. In budget 2006, the Minister of Finance raised the maximum annual child disability benefit. In addition, he extended eligibility for the child disability benefit to middle income earners and therefore reaches almost everyone.

Canada's new government will continue to fund the four centres of excellence for children's well-being with an emphasis and interest in autism spectrum disorders.

There are other programs that the government has undertaken, however, time does not permit me to speak on all of them. Let me just say that autism is an important issue. We have to work together. We have to be honest in the discussion and be honest where the responsibility lies.

The federal government is taking responsibility in the areas that lie in the federal government's jurisdiction. I hope the awareness that is being created by this debate will empower the people who are affected by autism and help ensure that provinces make the right decision in their jurisdiction.

[National Strategy for the Treatment of Autism Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member will be happy that the health minister has announced that he will be having a national symposium in 2007 on the issue of autism.

The member talked about specific diseases like diabetes and cancer, but the Canada Health does not mention any of those specifics. It deals with five broad principles, of which I am sure the member is aware. In opening up the Canada Health Act for autism, how many other diseases, ailments and other things would the member like to add and what would the process be to do that?

His party, my party and other parties have all said they will not amend the Canada Health Act. Is the member suggesting that his party is looking to break its promise on amending the Canada Health Act?

Finally, the member talked about health being a jurisdictional issue, and it is. Why have some provinces decided to classify autism under another name or category? Would the effort not be better served to lobby provinces to include autism as a health issue?

Those are the questions. Though I appreciate the intent of the member, logic dictates that the efforts, though well intentioned, may be misplaced. Could the members answer those questions?

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member objects to national programs and initiatives such as our strategy to fight pandemics. That is known, even though most people agree that pandemics do not respect boundaries. I think the same logic goes to why the Bloc objects to the national cancer strategy, an autism strategy and other things that will benefit all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Would the member agree that under the previous Liberal government, wait times doubled and $25 billion was cut from health care? Would she agree that the reason the Supreme Court said what it did in the Chaoulli decision was because of the lack of leadership and poor management of federal dollars by the previous government?

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a recent review of breast implants. They have been determined to be safe, though there is always a risk with any kind of implant. However, all OECD countries now allow breast implants.

Since the member is from Quebec, let me just compliment a Liberal government. The Government of Quebec has made great progress in dealing with the wait times issue. Jean Charest has shown great leadership, and I think there is a model there for the rest of the country under the Quebec Liberal governance.

It is really heartening that this government is willing to work with governments of all party stripes to ensure Canadians, regardless of where they live, get the best possible health care in a timely manner.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on the cancer front, we are still pursuing the $300 million, but the cancer announcement is an extra $260 million to fight cancer.

Perhaps the member does not want to get into a tit-for-tat. She knows she will lose that fight because the Conservatives will win every one.

With regard to partisanship, I have a lot of friends on the Liberal side of the House. I and many Canadians have a problem with the members who denied needy people compensation with regard to hepatitis C or who caused the crisis in the health care system in the first place. I hope the member will support this government in future endeavours, even though I know, for partisan reasons, she has voted against many of this government's productive initiatives.

With regard to Brian Postl's report, the government is working all the aspects. In fact, we have shown great progress on every aspect dealing with wait times. We are setting benchmarks and increasing funding. We have the cancer control strategy. We have pilot projects with first nations communities.

The Minister of Health has done an extraordinary amount in a short period of time.

I recall the so-called fix for a generation announced by the previous prime minister. He neglected to mention that people would have had to wait a generation for any kind of progress under that previous regime, whereas this current government, within that 10 months, is has made significant progress. It is really heartening. We are getting feedback from Canadians across the country that they appreciate the wait times guarantee, they appreciate the Conservative Party is a party of its word and they appreciate that we have made significant progress in all areas.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Yellowhead.

I listened to the member's comments and also to her response to my question. It is a bit rich for the member to say that it is not right to call the Liberal approach to the compensation for hepatitis C victims meanspirited, because I think a lot of Canadians who look at the issue saw that approach as meanspirited. As for the term “meanspirited”, I got that from the Liberal side of the House. In every question period we hear that term many times, and even the member herself, I believe, has used that term. If the member has a problem with the term, perhaps she should talk to her colleagues and ask them to stop using it when describing others.

In regard to the motion itself, I do find it ironic that the motion has been brought forward by a member of the previous government, because the previous government has a very poor record when it comes to health care. In that regard it is a partisan issue, because the Conservative government is doing what we have historically done and that is to try to fix the problems that Liberal governments have created, and surely health care is a major problem.

Let us put it in context for a moment. It was the Liberals who cut $25 billion in transfers to the provinces. It was under the Liberals that wait times doubled. It was under the Liberals that there was a deliberate policy to cut the number of health care professionals in the system. That occurred about 10 years ago and now we have a major health care profession crisis because we do not have the HR. I think people who apply common sense will see that the Liberal record is very poor.

However, in the last election the Conservative Party came up with a tremendous concept and commitment, and that is the patient wait time guarantee. In fact, I was honoured that the Prime Minister made that announcement in my campaign office on Portage Avenue in Winnipeg, Manitoba. In that announcement, he described what the guarantee is. It is to ensure that people get the health care they deserve in a reasonable amount of time in their jurisdiction, and if they cannot get it where they live we will provide the option to send them to some place that can provide that care.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I know that Canadians have said that establishing a patient wait time guarantee is their priority. Now the Government of Canada has committed to a wait time guarantee that offers recourse when wait times become too long. It is time to state the obvious: the status quo is not acceptable and failure is not an option. It is time to declare it unacceptable in a nation as wealthy and modern as Canada to have a health care system that permits long delays and offers patients no recourse to alternate treatment options.

That is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has said, under the Liberal record, that unless we are able to provide care in a timely manner the Supreme Court will step in and allow people the option to get the care they deserve. That is really the ultimate indictment of the previous government's record. Perhaps that is why the people of Canada elected a new government: to try to fix that problem and to get control of the situation so that people will get the care they deserve in a timely manner.

Doctors overwhelmingly support this concept. Health care professionals support the guarantee. The public supports the Conservative guarantee. In Canada we have a deal: people pay their taxes and government provides reliable health care. Canadians have lived up to their side of the deal. They have paid their taxes year in and year out, but they have not been getting the value they deserve for that money. The health care wait lists are still too long.

Canada's new government understands this fact. Canadians expect all levels of government to work together to get things done for families and taxpayers. They expect practical health care programs, properly managed. Are wait time guarantees a new idea? In Canada it is innovative, but other countries in the world are doing it. New Zealand, Denmark and the United Kingdom all offer some sort of guarantee.

In fact, the current minister of health has travelled to some of these countries to see what their experiences have been. Fortunately, our federal health minister has also been on the provincial side as a health minister, so he knows how to work with provinces, territories and all our health care partners to deliver a system that is more accountable to patients, not to policies or providers, but to patients.

For too long, patients have been treated as a cog in the wheel. Doctors care, nurses care and family members care, but the system does not care. It was not designed to put patients first. Patients need and deserve to be at the centre of the health care system. Canada's new government is committed to a patient-centred approach.

It is obvious that we cannot do everything at once, but I know that reducing wait times is a key component. We have to start somewhere. The good news is that we have indeed started.

Canada's new government is taking action to deliver and improve health care results for families and taxpayers. Canadians have told us that this is what they want. The Supreme Court has told us that this is what we must do. We will do it.

What does a patient wait time guarantee mean to Canadians and their families? It means a system that provides certainty and confidence that care will be there when we need it. It means a system that is responsive, accommodating changing health care needs in a timely manner. It means a system that is fair, based on need, and transparent, providing us with readily available information and keeping us in the loop. Finally, it means a system that is accountable so that Canadian taxpayers see value for their money.

In 2005, all the provinces and territories worked together to establish an initial set of benchmarks for acceptable wait times in priority areas. As they say in business, “If you can't measure it, you can't manage it”. With these benchmarks in hand, we can now measure against them in order to determine which areas of our system we need to focus on for improvement.

In budget 2006, our government committed to honouring Canada's health care accord by continuing to transfer to the provinces an additional $41 billion over five years, including $5.5 billion specifically earmarked to reduce wait times. We also are committed to a 6% increase in funding in each of those five years.

Let me emphasize that: each and every health ministry in every province and every territory can now budget to receive a 6% increase every year through the Canada health transfer. For the first time in over a decade, the health ministers are working with health care budgets that are increasing. We have given them the money to make these improvements and Canadian taxpayers expect to see these improvements.

We have seen reductions in wait times for hip and knee replacements in Alberta, from 47 weeks to 4.7 weeks. We have seen the Manitoba wait time for cancer radiation therapy going down to under one week versus six weeks. Quebec and Manitoba have publicly declared de facto guarantees for select cardiac and cancer services. Last Friday we introduced the Canadian strategy for cancer control, which the previous government refused to fund or implement. We have a patient wait time pilot project for first nations that will be a landmark, especially for a community that is all too often forgotten.

The Conservative government is taking action. We are increasing funding and looking for innovative approaches. We support the Canada Health Act, which is important to all Canadians. Thank goodness for the Conservative Party.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that the member forgot to mention. It is ironic that the hon. member did not mention that wait times doubled under her government, that the enrollment of family physicians was reduced, or that $25 billion was cut out of health care by her government.

One thing that I was very involved in, and I know a lot of Canadians were disturbed by the inaction of the previous government, was the issue of compensation for hepatitis C victims from tainted blood. The government in a whipped vote, a vote of confidence, denied pre-1986 and post-1990 victims compensation. This government, under this Prime Minister and the health minister, found the moneys to do the right thing and compensated these hepatitis C victims. The previous government refused to do so time after time. In fact, when we took government, it was obvious that no work had even been done to think about compensating these hepatitis C victims.

I wonder if the member is willing to apologize to the hepatitis C victims for the previous government's meanspirited attitude toward them.