Steven Fletcher

[Autism Spectrum Disorder, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of Motion No. 172 as the House has accepted the amendments just moved by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

I would like to say how moving the words were from my colleague who just spoke. Talking about his son, and the joy and happiness his son has given him, his family and the people who know Jaden speaks to why we have all worked together in the House to bring forward this amended motion.

Motion No. 172 will pave a path to a better understanding of autism spectrum disorder or ASD. I want to begin by saying to all Canadians with ASD, their families and so many tireless activists, that this motion is far from marking an end point. I say this because initiatives in this motion call for a will to bolster Canadian research capabilities and, therefore, our overall knowledge of ASD.

For far too long Canadians with ASD and their families have been trapped in the dark. Today there is still so much we do not know. With knowledge, however, comes light. With greater knowledge, the more informed and effective future actions will be from the government, provinces, territories and stakeholders. In turn, more help will be provided to Canadians with ASD and their families.

I have worked in cooperation with the members for Fredericton and Sackville—Eastern Shore. We have taken action that crosses party lines for the good of thousands of Canadians and I am asking my fellow members to support this motion for the same reason.

Above all, this amended motion, if accepted, calls on the federal government to do what it can within its jurisdiction to lay the foundation of hope for all Canadians affected by ASD. It commits the federal government to launch a consultation on implementing a national surveillance program and calls on the government to provide additional support for research and to develop evidence based standards for diagnosing ASD. Finally, it recommends that the government work with the provinces to develop innovative funding methods to help Canadians care for their loved ones who have ASD.

This motion is consistent with the action and leadership that the health minister announced just last week. It includes a research chair that will focus on effective treatment and intervention for autism, a national symposium on autism that will be held in the spring of 2007, and a program on ASD that will be conducted by the appropriate branch of government.

A web page on autism has now been added to the Health Canada website. This web page will facilitate access to public information related to ASD. Finally, the minister 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.

It is safe to say that I am not alone in hearing about the challenges posed by ASD from individuals and their families in my riding. The challenges range all the way from financial to emotional and the collective toll is enormous.

Canadians with ASD and their families deserve action. The motion before the House gives members the chance to take action. In supporting this motion, members can raise their voices in favour of laying the foundation we need for informed, effective future action. By supporting this motion members can further fuel our research down a path which may lead to finding the causes of ASD.

In conclusion, I want to add that this motion derives directly from parliamentarians successfully setting aside partisanship to help those in greatest need.

It is issues like this which attracted me to politics in the first place. I never planned to be a politician. I wanted to be an engineer like my father, grandfather and great-grandfather, and I actually became one. I worked in gold mines, but after my accident, a collision with a moose, I realized that my career as an engineer would be impossible. I had to make different choices.

It was after my accident that I realized that in our society we have a contradiction. We can and do invest enormously in treating illnesses, injuries and conditions like ASD, but then we do not invest enough in pursuing the actual causes or trying to ensure that these same individuals can live meaningful and dignified lives.

Canadians expect that everyone should have the opportunity to live the Canadian dream. This is a point related to public health and public policy that I have raised whenever I can, and in fact, it is this contradiction that has brought me to public life in the first place.

On a day like today, when this House has an opportunity to increase support for research to learn more about the causes of ASD, where we can all put up our hands to lay the foundation for helping individuals and families in need, and when partisan politics are bowed to spur public policy with principle and purpose, it makes me proud to be a parliamentarian, and I think we are all proud today to be here.

This is the right decision. I would like to urge my fellow colleagues to support this motion before the House.

I understand there is an objection from one party because of the word “national” in the motion. This House should always put Canadians first, regardless of the province they may come from because we are here together. As Canadians, it is our role to work together for the common good. This motion is an example of how Canada works well, and I am proud to be a Canadian.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to a motion that goes to the heart of what it means to be a Canadian. As a Canadian from the centre of Canada, Manitoba, today's motion is an opportunity to remind ourselves what is at stake not only for the Québécois but also for all Canada.

The success of our country has not happened by accident. It is not something which can or should be taken for granted. We think of Canada as a young country, a country, as has often been said, with more geography than history. It is, therefore, ironic that this young country should also be one of the oldest democracies and one of the oldest federations on the planet.

Canada represents a paradigm shift from the 19th century nationalism of a nation state based on cultural, linguistic and ethnic homogeneity. Canada was premised on the concept of diversity as a permanent characteristic. The Fathers of Confederation chose a form of government uniquely suited to expressing and accommodating regional, linguistic and religious diversity. The most important example of this diversity was undoubtedly the existence of the two major language groups.

One of the major factors in the creation of Canada as a federation was the presence of Quebec. The founders of our country wanted to build a country which embraced our diversity. Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, stated very well:

I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other; I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.

Cartier stated in the Confederation debates:

We could not legislate for the disappearance of the French Canadians from American soil, but British and French Canadians alike could appreciate and understand their position relative to each other.

He went on to say, “It is a benefit rather than otherwise to have a diversity of races”.

From a historical perspective, we have a long tradition of dealing with the accommodations necessary in a society with two important language groups. The federal structure is perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only structure possible.

In the context of a North America which is overwhelming English-speaking, the Canadian federation has provided the framework for an effective commitment to the continuity and survival of a French speaking society centred in, but not limited to, Quebec.

Today it is hard to imagine any other arrangement which would have served us so well and one which, 140 years later, is still a model for the world.

The challenge of accommodating diversity is perhaps one of the most difficult facing the world today. The recent debate in Quebec on what constitutes reasonable accommodation for religious minorities is echoed in similar debates across the globe.

Diversity is a modern reality. Most states in Europe, Asia or Africa contain a variety of languages, religions and cultures, and many of the most successful in dealing with this diversity have chosen a federal system of government. Looked at from a contemporary world viewpoint, it is the apparently homogenous states that are the exception.

The nation state, which implies the parallel occurrence of a state and an ethnic nation, is extremely rare. In fact, there are no ideal nation states. Existing states differ from this ideal in two ways: the population includes minorities; and they do not include all the national groups in their territory.

Today, Canada is a prosperous, politically stable country because we have made diversity an asset rather than a problem. Canadians are able, as a result, to make democratic choices based on the respect of human rights. Today, more than ever, we understand that accommodating pluralism is not merely a political necessity, but also a source of pride and enrichment which reflects Canadian values.

Our capacity to develop and adapt as a society and to build institutions that respond to demands of its citizens has served us very well. Federalism is the natural response to governing a large, demographically and regionally diverse country. With 10 provinces, three territories, six time zones and bordering on three oceans, Canada's regional diversity is obvious.

Our diversity is also reflected in our two official languages. Almost all Canadians speak English or French and one in five also speaks a non-official language. In Newfoundland and Labrador, 98% have English has a mother tongue, while in Quebec in 81% have French as a mother tongue. In Nunavut 79% speak Inuktitut, a language spoken by less than one in a thousand Canadians.

Today, nearly one million Canadians report an aboriginal identity. This is also a rapidly growing segment of our population.

Canada is increasingly urban and multicultural. In 2001 nearly 80% of Canadians lived in cities of over 10,000. Today, Canada's immigration population represents 41% of the growth in 2004 and new Canadians tend to settle in our major urban centres. Between 1996 and 2001, Toronto received more than 445,000 immigrants, 180,000 settled in Vancouver and 126,000 in Montreal.

Beyond accommodating regional preferences and diversity, the Canadian federation has provided an environment which is complementary to national, provincial and cultural identities, all of which have flourished. Federalism allows and encourages experimentation in political, social and economic matters.

Quebec is inescapably in the heart of the Canadian dream. Canada's values have been shaped by the challenge of understanding each other and responding to the presence of two major language communities with courage, generosity and sensitivity. Each successive generation of Canadians has had to face this challenge.

The choice we have made expresses our shared hopes for the future of this vast land and has made us the envy of the world. Anyone who has travelled extensively outside our borders knows that Canada remains one of the world's most favoured nations. Our prosperity and our civility are the product of much hard work and cannot be taken for granted.

Canada is a pluralistic society not only because we have the diversity that is the makeup of our population, whether it be linguistic, cultural, ethnic or regional, but more important, because we have come to understand that these differences contribute to our national community.

Across the country Canadians work together in a variety of ways to build a better nation that either group could not build in isolation. As a result, Canada has become a model for other countries. In a world with some 6,000 languages and only 200 states, pluralism is the norm, not the exception.

Success requires a uniquely Canadian talent, the ability to work together and transcend our diversity. This vision of Canada as a nation, inspired by generosity and tolerance, has repeatedly triumphed over the narrow ethnic tribalism.

Canadians in Quebec and across the country are proud of our success. Our Canada includes a strong, vibrant francophone Quebec. Canada and Canadians have every reason to be proud of our francophone heritage, which is centred in Quebec and very much alive across Canada. It enriches our public life, arts and culture and is a source of cultural enrichment for millions of Canadians who speak French as a first or second language.

Canada's diversity is a source of strength from which all Canadians benefit. Our respect for diversity has in no small manner contributed to the enviable reputation we enjoy throughout the world. We would not have it any other way.

I am, like much of humanity, genuinely perplexed by the desire of certain intellectuals in Quebec to form an independent state. This is why I support the motion of the Conservative Party. We are a strong Canada. We respect the great contribution that the Québécois have given our nation.

I am also very appreciative of my friends in Quebec and the Québécois for exposing me to another language. I have undergone French language training. I am only beginning, but I would like to continue it because I want to be able to reach out to my friends in Quebec. Canada is a great country and I hope, after this motion is passed, we can focus on the things that matter to all Canadians: the economy, health care, justice.

We all want hope. We all want to live the Canadian dream and that dream includes the Québécois in a united and free Canada. As it says in our national anthem, “God keep our land glorious and free”.

[The Environment, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first nations communities are experiencing challenges with water supplies, much like other small communities across the country and around the world.

Boil water orders are being issued under provincial legislation and it is becoming common across Canada. This is due to the 13 years of neglect by the member's party.

This government has announced $450 million over the next two years to address drinking water, education, children and women and housing issues. This government is taking action.

[2006 Grey Cup, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to acknowledge the tremendous success of the 2006 Grey Cup game held in my hometown of Winnipeg.

The people of Manitoba once again have demonstrated to the world that Winnipeg is an excellent city to host world-class sporting events, including the Pan Am Games and the World Hockey Championships.

This past weekend, the Grey Cup parade attracted over 100,000 spectators. The game was sold out, and the week preceding the game was jam-packed with fun an festivities. In fact, many Conservative youth caucus members of Parliament were in Winnipeg this past week reaching out to students in high schools and universities and telling them how to get involved in their community. The MPs were also able to enjoy the legendary Winnipeg hospitality.

Congratulations to the CFL finalists, Montreal Alouettes and B.C. Lions.

Once again, Winnipeg has demonstrated why we say “friendly Manitoba”. I encourage all Canadians and citizens of the world to visit and enjoy the glorious beauty and unbridled entertainment that Manitoba has to offer.

[International Cooperation, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, AIDS and HIV remain an important issue for everyone in the federal government. The health minister has been very involved in discussions to ensure the Government of Canada does the right thing for people in Canada and throughout the world.

[November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canada remains only one of two major industrial countries where silicon gel implants have not been available. Now they are and that puts us in accord with international standards.

It is interesting to note that Health Canada has taken four years to review over 65,000 pages of manufacturers' information and test results submitted to meet the safety and effectiveness requirements of the medical device regulations.

Health Canada has convened an expert advisory panel to consider the information and questions raised during the review process. This panel has also heard from members of the public, health care professionals and other scientists on the issue of silicon filled breast implants. Health Canada has received and considered the advice of the panel in its review.

Canadians can rest assured that Health Canada is doing everything in its power to ensure the safety, health and well-being of Canadians. I would also like to stress that Health Canada has taken strong measures to ensure Canadians are protected through every step of the process.

It is evident from the hon. member's question that she does not believe that the safety and effectiveness of silicon gel breast implants have been established. However, in the past 15 years silicon breast implants have become the most intensely studied medical device in the world. There have been a number of strong, well controlled studies undertaken by independent researchers. There have been more than 2,500 scientific articles published in the scientific literature. More than 100 million patients in 78 countries have received breast implants over the--

[November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Laval for raising awareness of this important issue. In the original question in June, the member asked why one product was allowed under the special access program and why one was not. I will take a moment to discuss this.

Health Canada has two special access programs, one for drugs and one for medical devices, and both are governed by different regulations and administered differently. Both programs are administered with the aim of providing Canadian health care professionals with access to therapeutic products to meet the treatment needs of their patients.

Neither of the two special access programs were intended as a means of marketing a product without appropriate regulatory oversight. The drug special access program allows physicians to access drugs for the emergency treatment of serious or life-threatening conditions of their patients. Health Canada must be assured that sufficient evidence exists to support the safe use of the drug.

The drug special access program is not intended to replace clinical trials. A drug clinical trial is most often the best option for manufacturers, patients and physicians to ensure both continued access and protection of patient safety. It is a means for manufacturers to collect the necessary safety and effectiveness data for the marketing applications.

The medical device special program allows physicians access to medical devices for emergency use or conventional therapies that are not available or unsuitable. The medical device special access program, which is the program dealing with breast implants, was not intended to replace general marketing authorizations. Health Canada must be assured, through the review of safety and effectiveness data for the device, that the device will provide a benefit for the patient without causing undue harm.

In the case of the drug special access program request for the access to combination treatment for HIV-AIDS, the physician that was referred to in the original question in June was unable to supply the necessary data to support the authorization of access to the drug combination.

In August 2005, Health Canada offered to consider early access to the same combination through a clinical trial. Had this offer been taken, the patients would have had the medications they were seeking at the time and been protected by inherent checks and balances in the clinical trial settings.

A clinical trial application was not received from the physician until December 2005 and once received it was subsequently reviewed and approved within 24 hours by Health Canada. Each medical device special access request for a silicone gel breast implant was supported by the safety and effectiveness data contained in the licence application.

In addition, the specific benefits and conditions to be treated are provided for each individual patient by their surgeon in support of their special access authorization application. As we made that decision on silicone gel breast implants, the special access program is no longer relevant in this case. The fact remains that there have been many trials that have taken place within the margin of reasonable risk and they have been approved.

[Diabetes Month, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that November is Diabetes Month.

Diabetes is a serious public health problem in Canada. Diabetes currently affects about two million Canadians and costs our economy $1.6 billion each year.

Type 2 diabetes accounts for about 90% of diabetes cases in Canada. In most cases, type 2 diabetes can be prevented through physical activity, healthy eating and maintaining a healthy weight.

Canada's new government is providing $18 million this fiscal year to the renewed Canadian diabetes strategy, which has set the foundation for moving forward on diabetes prevention in Canada. Our government is working with the Canadian Diabetes Association and other partners on the future direction of this strategy.

In addition, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research will continue to provide funding for research to address both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Canada's new government also has an aboriginal diabetes initiative, which will grow to $55 million annually at maturity.

I would like to ask all members of the House to wish the Diabetes Association a very successful Diabetes Month.

[Canada Health Infoway Inc., October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the Annual Report 2005-06 and the Corporate Business Plan 2006-07 for Canada Health Infoway Inc.

[Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there were several components to the member's question.

With regard to the question of safety, the member will know that this government has made substantial commitments toward increasing border security. Not only will we increase the resources to maintain border security, but over time we will also allow our guards to be armed, which the previous government would not allow.

What the member is talking about is more of a transportation issue. When we are dealing with trade, there are a variety of systems around the world to assess the safety of material. The Canadian approach ensures that workers will have the health and safety information they need, even if the exact ingredients of the products are not disclosed. In this bill, regardless of where the product comes from, the safety of the worker is assured and that is really the main issue.

The issue of transportation and border security is outside my realm, but I am very proud of the work that Minister Day has done and the investment this government has put into the importance of cross-border security. I think the workers at the border appreciate the investment that this government is making to their heroic and tremendous contributions to the safety of our country.