Steven Fletcher

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly if there was redundancy, I would acknowledge the senator's speech if that was indeed the case.

The fact is this is a pretty straightforward issue. I hope the member opposite will not cause undue delay or become partisan in the debate just for the sake of becoming partisan. There are times when we can work together here to pass important legislation. This is not exciting legislation, but it is important to the workers who have to deal with hazardous materials.

I will acknowledge the senator's comments. I hope the member will work with the government to ensure the safety of workers.

I will also take a moment to point out that it is not uncommon to find very similar comments in the Senate and the House of Commons. I believe we could find dozens of examples where this was the case with the previous government.

More important, we want to ensure the safety of workers, and this government will do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce legislation that has the full support of all stakeholders.

The amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act will benefit workers exposed to hazardous materials in the workplace, employers in whose businesses these materials are used, suppliers of hazardous materials to Canadian industry and provincial and territorial governments in their responsibilities for occupational health and safety. All of these interested parties see the amendments as very positive. There is no opposition to their adoption.

In particular, the net result will be earlier delivery to workers of full and accurate information on the safe handling of hazardous materials. As everyone will appreciate, the outcome is welcome for all those involved in the use of hazardous materials in Canadian workplaces.

Before discussing the provisions of Bill S-2, I would like to outline the responsibilities of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission in order to provide context for the amendments. The commission is an independent, quasi-judicial agency of government which, while it may not have been in the public eye, plays an essential role in the protection of workers' health and safety and of industry's trade secrets.

The commission is part of the workplace hazardous materials information system, or WHMIS, a joint undertaking of labour, industry and the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Under the authority of the federal Hazardous Products Act, WHMIS is the mechanism by which the health and safety information needed to handle hazardous products safely is disclosed to workers using those products.

The information which must be provided to workers identifies the hazardous agreements in products, the specific risks to the health and safety of those using those products, the precautions that must be taken in handling the products and the appropriate first aid measures in the event of accidental exposure to hazardous ingredients.

When WHMIS was established in 1987, industry was concerned that there were situations in which the full disclosure of information on the hazardous material would betray trade secrets. This in turn would result in financial losses to companies holding trade secrets or financial gain for a company's market competitors.

For example, a company might find through its research a new application for a hazardous ingredient in a manufacturing process. If the full chemical identity of that ingredient was made available to workers, it would be available to that company's competitor and the company making the discovery would lose a competitive advantage that it has gained. The commission was created with a mandate to grant exemptions from disclosure for bona fide trade secrets while at the same time ensuring that documentation on the safe use of hazardous products provided to workers is accurate and complete.

I also draw the House's attention to the fact that the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act has been incorporated by reference into the occupational health and safety legislation of the provinces and territories. The mandate of the commission to balance the rights of employers and workers to full information on the use of hazardous materials with the right of an industry to protect its trade secrets is, therefore, carried out on behalf of the federal, provincial and territorials governments.

This means that whenever a business wants to protect information it considers a trade secret, it makes application to the commission for an exemption from disclosure and with that application includes the required health and safety documentation. The commission reviews the economic documentation in support of the claim for exemption from disclosure and determines whether the information meets the regulatory criteria for trade secrets.

The commission also determines whether the accompanying health and safety information is in compliance with the federal, provincial and territorial requirements with respect to providing the information needed to protect the health and safety of those working with the product.

If the commission determines that the information being provided to the worker is not in compliance with the applicable federal, provincial or territorial health and safety regulations, the claimant is ordered to make the necessary corrections and to provide the commission with a copy of the corrected health and safety documentation.

The decisions and orders of the commission are published in the Canada Gazette so all parties have full information on the corrections the claimants have been required to make. If the corrections are not made within a specific time period, there are measures at the commission's disposal, including steps leading to the restriction of the sale of the product in question.

A key part of the national program delivered by the commission is a tripartite Council of Governors. The governors represent organized labour, industry, the federal government and all provincial and territorial governments. The council acts as an advisory body to the commission and provides strategic advice and guidance. It is through the council that concerns of stakeholders are expressed and it is through the council that appropriate means of resulting concerns are identified.

With the full support of the Council of Governors, the commission undertook a competitive and comprehensive renewal program with the objective of making its operation more transparent and efficient, with a focus on early compliance with the health and safety standards.

Through an extensive consultation process, many improvements in the operations of the commission were identified. Most of these improvements have already been implemented administratively or through changes in regulation. For example, the commission changed its procedures to make the scientific basis for its decision available to applicants early in the process. With a better understanding of the reasons of the decisions, applicants will have less incentive to appeal. Because appeals take time, this means that full and accurate information is in the hands of the workers much earlier if there is no appeal than if there is an appeal.

The legislative changes set out in Bill S-2 complete the renewal process and further the goals of making the commission more efficient and transparent and shortening the time required to get full and accurate health and safety information into the hands of the workers.

There are three changes set out in Bill S-2.

First, the bill amends the act to allow claimants to declare that the information for which they are seeking an exemption for disclosure is confidential business information. That documentation in support of this claim is available and will be supplied on request. Currently, claimants are required to submit detailed documentation on steps they have taken to protect the confidentiality and on the potential financial implications of disclosure. This is an administrative burden on claimants and on all of the commission. The commission has found nearly all claims for exemption to be valid.

While this amendment will generally allow claimants to declare that information is confidential business information, the commission will collect full documentation when affected parties, such as labour organizations, challenge a claim or when a claim is selected through the validation scheme set up to ensure the integrity of the decision making process.

This change will simplify procedure for industry claimants and reduce the administrative burden for both industry and the commission. This efficiency will facilitate getting complete and accurate health and safety information into the hands of workers. It should also be stressed that the protection from disclosure of confidential business information in no way affects the requirement that workers be provided with full information on the safe handling of hazardous materials.

The bill also amends the act to permit claimants to make the corrections needed to bring the accompanying health and safety information into full compliance without the issuing of a compliance order.

Currently, if the commission finds that the health and safety documentation is not compliant with legislation, it must order the claimant to make the necessary corrections and publish the order in the Canada Gazette. A large portion of the claimants are prepared to make all necessary corrections as soon as they need to be identified and feel these orders reflect badly on the commitment to workplace health and safety.

The amendments would allow the commission to enter into an undertaking with the claimants to make the required corrections to the health and safety information on a voluntary basis. If the claimant fulfills the conditions of the undertaking, the commission will confirm compliance and, for transparency, will publish the corrections which have been made in the Canada Gazette.

If the undertaking is not fulfilled, the commission will order the claimant to comply. This will speed up the process of getting health and safety information into the hands of workers because it will avoid the delays built into the current process.

The act now requires that when an order is made it must be published. There is then a period of 45 days in which appeals can be filed and a further 30 days after the appeal period before the claimant must have the changes in place. After adding the inevitable delays in publication, there are very significant advantages to workers in pursuing the amendments to permit the voluntary correction of health and safety documentation.

Finally, the bill amends the act to improve the appeal process. The amended act would allow the commission to provide actual clarifications to appeal boards when these are needed to facilitate the appeal process.

Appeals of the decisions and orders of the commission are heard by independent boards with three members drawn from labour, industry and government. Most appeals heard to date would have benefited from additional explanatory information from the commission but this is not permitted under the current legislation.

As I previously mentioned, the improvements already put in place through the commission renewal process have significantly reduced the number of appeals filed. With the proposed amendments, the process of dealing with any future appeals will be facilitated. As with the other two amendments, this would speed up the process of getting accurate health and safety information into the hands of workers.

Those are the proposed amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. I stress again the full support of all those affected: the workers using hazardous materials, the employers of those workers, the suppliers of hazardous materials and the provincial and territorial governments as guardians of occupational health and safety. There is no opposition.

The prime attraction of these changes is that they would be vital for the health and safety of workers as they provide information more quickly. The amendments would also provide more efficient and transparent processes and would benefit all the interested parties.

Given the unprecedented support and in light of the fact that the overriding objective of the amendments is to speed up the process of getting complete and accurate information on the safety of hazardous materials into the hands of workers, I have no hesitation in most strongly urging the support of the passage of this bill.

[Breast Cancer Awareness Month, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House and all Canadians that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Breast cancer is a disease that touches us all. This year an estimated 21,600 Canadian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,300 women will lose their battle against this disease.

Our government is concerned about the physical, emotional and social impact this disease has on Canadians. This is why, in addition to our support of the Canadian breast cancer initiative, currently funded at $4 million per year, Canada's new government is proud to have announced in budget 2006 $52 million per year for the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control. The CSCC has the united support of the entire Canadian cancer community consisting of hundreds of organizations, including the Canadian Breast Cancer network and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

Canada's new government is working to reduce the number of new cases of breast cancer, improve the quality of life of those affected by the disease and decrease the number of deaths it causes.

I encourage all Canadians to engage in the fight against cancer and recognize Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

[Health, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Mississauga—Brampton South made light of attention deficit disorder illnesses in reference to the federal accountability act. The member for Ajax—Pickering told the President of the Treasury Board that he thought the president had not been taking his Ritalin.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, is a serious issue relating to children's mental health and it affects the lives of a significant number of young people in this country. Ritalin is a commonly prescribed drug that helps families and young people cope with this huge challenge.

I would therefore humbly suggest that the member opposite and his colleague immediately apologize to all the families and young people who are dealing with this serious problem for making light and mocking such a challenging health issue for many children in Canada.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss a private member's bill, Bill C-283. Bill C-283 proposes amendments to the Food and Drugs Act that would make nutrition labelling mandatory on raw single ingredient meat, meat byproducts, poultry meat, poultry meat byproducts, and marine and freshwater animal products. Products would be exempted if the sales are below a certain amount, provided the label contains no nutrition or health claims. For simplicity, let me refer to these products as raw single ingredient animal products.

Bill C-283 would also require that for foods sold for immediate consumption, information on calories, the amounts of sodium and the sum of saturated and trans fats per serving be provided on the printed menu. If the menu options are set out only on a menu board, only the number of calories would have to be indicated on the board, and the sodium and fat nutrition information would have to be provided to customers upon request. When food is sold in two or more flavours or in bulk or buffet formats, the nutrition information would be required to appear beside the name of the food on the receptacle from which the product is sold in bulk or buffet format, beside the name of each flavour or beside the general name of the food as appropriate.

I note that Bill C-283 proposes to require the same nutrition information for raw single ingredient animal products that is required for prepackaged foods under the regulations published by Health Canada in January 2003, which came into effect in December of 2005. These regulations exempt raw single ingredient unground meats, meat byproducts, poultry meats, poultry meat byproducts, and marine and freshwater animal products from carrying a nutrition facts table unless nutrition or health claims are made for them.

These exemptions were included because of the lack of representative data on the nutrition composition for these products that takes into account the sources of variability, such as season, species, feed or trim level. Lack of such data presents a risk of mandating the provision of inaccurate information to consumers.

Since nutrition labelling is mandated on comparable products that are prepared in processing plants, such as raw seasoned meats, it is expected that major cuts of raw single ingredient meat and poultry meat that are packaged in plants will be voluntarily labelled if satisfactory data is available.

In regard to the proposal in Bill C-283 to require certain nutrition information on printed menus, menu boards and adjacent to food for immediate consumption sold in bulk or buffet formats, I note that the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association recently developed voluntary guidelines for providing nutrition information to consumers. This voluntary program will provide consumers with nutrient values that are consistent with the core nutritional label information required for packaged foods and will include calories, fats, such as saturated and trans fats and so on, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, including fibres and sugars, and protein content of standard menu items.

Since the February 2005 launch of the nutrition information program, more than 25 of the major restaurant chains, representing about 40% of all chain establishments, have committed to implementing these guidelines. Many of these chains have already completed this process and are already providing nutritional information to their customers. The guidelines state that nutrition information be made readily available to restaurant consumers through in-store brochures or pamphlets and that the availability of the nutrition brochure will be predominantly displayed on menus, menu boards and such vehicles as takeout and home delivery packages.

In general, the chains that are making progress in implementing the voluntary guidelines are the larger firms who have some access to the expertise required to do so and these appear to be the target of Bill C-283.

The voluntary program has the potential to provide consumers with the important nutritional information without the need for new legislation which would be expensive and burdensome to implement. The voluntary guidelines may provide consumers with information that goes beyond the requirements of Bill C-283 while avoiding the need for complex and costly governmental regulatory and enforcement programs. It would therefore seem prudent to allow the voluntary program time to work and to assess its effectiveness.

Bill C-283 proposes to exempt persons whose establishments or vending machine business has a total revenue of less than $10 million from the sale of food including income from all subsidiaries and franchises. The intention may be that the bill would only apply to those chains with standardized menus and highly controlled production facilities, since these are the minimal conditions for providing reliable nutritional information. However, the bill would also apply to hotel chains, many of which have independent restaurants with their own menus and with more variable conditions of production.

A further concern is the fact that at present restaurants and food service establishments typically fall under provincial jurisdiction and inspection is the responsibility of the provinces. Consequently, there would be a need for consultation with the provinces and territories. Bill C-283 would create heavy additional inspection requirements either for the provinces, if they agree to undertake the work, or for the federal inspectors and laboratories if they do not. No federal inspection system currently exists at the restaurant level which represents thousands of establishments across Canada.

Finally, Bill C-283 contains exemptions based on the dollar volume of sales. It proposes exempting from its requirements for raw single ingredient meat, poultry, or marine and freshwater animal products, persons with gross annual revenue of less than $500,000 from the sale of the same food, provided no nutrition or health claims are made for the product. It also proposes to exempt from its requirements food sold for immediate consumption by persons whose establishment or vending machine business has a total annual revenue of less than $10 million from the sale of food including income from all subsidiaries and franchises. This introduces an economic aspect totally absent from the Food and Drugs Act which would need to be assessed.

The government recognizes the importance of nutritional labelling in assisting Canadians to make healthy and informed choices about the foods they eat. This is why Health Canada introduced improved nutritional labelling regulations which became mandatory on most prepackaged foods in December 2005.

Health Canada is also currently working with industry and other stakeholders to find practical ways to develop reliable nutritional information for consumers about specific meat cuts and to determine the best means to assist consumers in making informed choices when eating away from home.

The government remains committed to helping Canadians continue to maintain and improve their health. I commend the intent of Bill C-283 in this regard; however, a number of initiatives are already underway which address the intent of Bill C-283 as I have already described. These initiatives should be allowed to bear fruit without the need of potentially costly and burdensome legislated requirements. Those are my remarks and I look forward to continue this very interesting debate.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could explain how a bill of this nature could be enforced. There are jurisdictional issues and inspection issues and there is a very large cost associated with that type of enforcement. I wonder if the member could comment on this aspect of the bill.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments. I have to say they were quite disappointing because there were a lot of inaccuracies and misstatements.

With respect to the Canadian strategy for cancer control, it is true that the government put $260 million toward a five year strategy. When the Conservatives were in opposition, I brought forward a motion to fully fund and implement the strategy. Unfortunately it did not happen with the Liberal government but our government is going to make it happen.

The strategy will provide coordination of best practices in cancer. If something is going well in Quebec, Quebec will be able to convey that knowledge to British Columbia, Alberta or P.E.I., for example. The same is true if something is going well in another party of the country. Quebec could benefit from that knowledge.

The other part of the strategy is research. The federal government plays a significant role in cancer research. It is ludicrous for the member to suggest that the research that will be conducted within the cancer strategy will not have the potential of helping people in Quebec.

With regard to the larger picture, we hear the same tired lines from the Bloc Québécois all the time about duplication and provincial jurisdiction. That is not the case with this bill. This bill allows for the coordination of resources to deal with a pandemic. Pandemics do not respect borders. Moreover, the Canada Health Act and the powers that the Minister of Health has are well known. The Public Health Agency is part of that. The health minister already has the power to deal with public health issues. The Public Health Agency falls under the responsibilities of the Minister of Health. It is not an encroachment. It allows the health minister to better deal with the challenges faced by all Canadians, including Quebeckers. The Public Health Agency also has to deal with our international obligations.

Would the member agree that pandemics do not respect borders? A simple yes or no answer would be fine.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the shortage of family physicians is extremely important. This government is committed, along with the wait time guarantee, to concurrently work on increasing the capacity of our universities to graduate more doctors. We will work with the provinces to ensure that happens because education is a provincial responsibility.

We will also work with the colleges of family physicians in each province to facilitate the integration of international medical graduates. There are many people in this country who have the skills or are very close to having the skills necessary to practise medicine in Canada. There are also a substantial number of Canadian born, foreign trained medical graduates. We will help facilitate their integration.

There is another issue when training doctors. Not only do we have to increase the medical school spots, but also the residency spots. In order to become a doctor, students need to spend a certain amount of time in residency positions. There needs to be an increased capacity there as well. We are looking at creative ways to do that in urban and rural areas and in the north to ensure that Canadians will get in time the care and the doctors needed.

The 13 years of Liberal mismanagement and the deliberate cut of doctors graduating from universities during the Liberals' time in office caused a major problem which will take time to fix.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion today.

The federal government recognizes that seniors are valued members of Canadian society. This is why Canada is working with the provinces and territories to ensure that our health and social programs and systems are in place to respond to an aging population. To this end, our government is committed to the renewal of publicly funded health care services as set out in the 2004 health accord. This government is committed to ensuring that a publicly funded health care system meets the needs of all Canadians, including seniors.

This agreement on a shared agenda for renewal is based on a deep and broad consensus that has emerged from an ongoing dialogue among governments, patients, health care providers and Canadians. It represents the convergence of efforts to ensure that Canadians have a high quality, accessible health care system based on their need, not their ability to pay.

The accord addresses Canadians' priorities for sustaining and renewing the health care system and builds on and supports work already under way across the country.

Health care renewal and sustainability of the system is about fundamental structural reforms and the funding to implement them. These innovations are more important than ever given the public debate on the Supreme Court of Canada's Chaoulli decision. This decision highlighted the need for all governments to follow through on the first ministers' health care renewal commitments.

First ministers recommitted in the 2004 accord to improve access to primary health care and expand health care services and improve pharmaceuticals management and access. First ministers also agreed to achieve meaningful reductions in wait times, beginning in five priority areas. I would like to add that it was this government that committed to a wait time guarantee to ensure that patients get the care they deserve, especially after over a decade of mismanagement.

Primary health care is of great importance in the renewal of Canada's health care system. Major national and provincial health studies have recognized primary health care as an integral part to achieving long term change and enhancing the sustainability of the health care system.

The health accord recommits first ministers to ensuring that they meet the objectives of 50% of Canadians, ensuring that by 2011 they have access to multi-disciplinary teams 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The accord builds on the commitment by accelerating efforts to set up multi-disciplinary teams, electronic health records and telehealth, all of which are key points to the sustainability of our health care system. The Conservative Party's health care guarantee will accelerate this process and enhance dramatically the health care of Canadians.

There is also a best practices network which will help bring forward reforms by encouraging the sharing of innovative practices and information barriers to progress and primary health care reform such as the scope of practice.

In addition to these initiatives, $800 million in the primary health care transition fund was established in 2000 to accelerate improvements. The Conservative Party commitment to the health care guarantee and the creation of national strategies in cancer, heart disease and mental health will help all of us deal with health care concerns in a better way.

Home care can help reduce wait times by freeing up hospital space for patients with urgent or complex needs. Canadians have long said they want to remain in their homes for as long as possible when they are sick, recovering from an illness or injury, and during the final stages of life. Research shows that in many instances home based care is less expensive than care in an institution. For these reasons, where it makes sense to do so in terms of health outcomes and cost effectiveness, Canadians should be able to obtain the services they need in the appropriate setting.

I am a very big advocate of home care. My personal experience is that after my accident there was a strong push to institutionalize me. At the age of 23 that was definitely not the direction in which I wanted to go. When people find themselves in a similar situation, either in the prime of their life or at the end of their life or anytime during their life, in most cases home care is less expensive. More important, it is better for the individual, for the family and for the community. We have to ensure that the resources are in place to allow this to happen. I am pleased to say that the government has done that.

In their accord, the first ministers agreed to provide first dollar coverage by 2006 for certain home care services based on assessed need. These include short term acute home care for two weeks, such as nursing and personal care, intravenous medications related to the discharge diagnosis, and case management; two week coverage for short term acute mental health and crisis response services; and end of life care for case management, nursing, palliative specific pharmaceuticals and personal care at the end of life. This means that no Canadian will have to pay out of pocket for these types of home care services.

The accord is a first step to a national approach for home care, ensuring that all Canadians have access to a common basket of home care services.

Prescription drugs are also a major issue. They can improve the outcomes when it comes to health care. Through advances in drug therapy, more and more Canadians are being treated at home close to their families and in the community.

Prescription drug expenditures are rising faster than any other component of the health care system. They cost more to the system than doctors' services. We need to deal with this issue. Part of the reason the Conservatives supported the 2004 agreement is that after 13 years of mismanagement, something needed to be done. Certainly the Conservatives will ensure that the appropriate action is taken.

Wait times continue to be the main concern of all Canadians. Reducing wait times and improving access is a key priority for this government. This is why the Conservative government brought forward the wait time guarantee. Under the previous government, wait times doubled. The Liberals cut $25 billion from the health care system in 1995. That caused the health care crisis which we are now experiencing. This is why this government is committed to ensuring that we have community based services to shorten wait times and reduce the demands on our health care system.

I am pleased that due to this government's actions, Canadians will finally see significant improvements in the way people in need are dealt with. We will ensure that anyone, regardless of ability to pay, will have access to high quality, sustainable health care within the confines of the Canada Health Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the member for her comments, I thought we were debating Bill C-5. There was some deviation from the Bill C-5 legislation, perhaps, and I would like to remind the member that the product she was referring to is dealt with by the PMPRB, which is a quasi-judicial format. It will be dealt with appropriately through that venue.

With regard to the aboriginal issue, this is a very big concern. There was money set aside in budget 2006 for an investment of $450 million in aboriginal public health: to improve water and housing on reserve and educational outcomes and to assist aboriginal women and children. It also confirms up to $600 million for aboriginal housing off reserve and in the north. Furthermore, there is $190 million for an aboriginal diabetes initiative and $145 million for maternal and child health. There have been significant investments made and there will continue to be.

Let us get back to Bill C-5 directly. Bill C-5 is important because it allows for coordination of provincial efforts. It does not in any way infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Rather, it is a focal point for coordinating provincial responses to a pandemic threat. This is important for everything from dealing with privacy concerns to communicating a message to the public. This would be done through the Chief Public Health Officer.

Speaking of provincial jurisdiction, if a pandemic were to break out in Ottawa, I think it is very important that we have a coordinated role so we can deal with it in Gatineau. For all intents and purposes, there is no boundary. It is just a political boundary. It does not deal with the realities of nature and pandemics. The Ottawa area is a classic example of why a national coordinating effort is important. It is because we are so close together.

I understand that the member comes from an ideological background which is provincial this and provincial that all the time; however, what I find interesting is that the people on the far left, the NDP, and the Liberals and the Conservatives all take a national view. We all see that having this public health agency is important. I wonder if the member would agree that pandemics do not respect political borders.