Steven Fletcher

[Mayor of Vancouver, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate my friend, Sam Sullivan, on his election as mayor of Vancouver. I have known Sam for eight years. We both have similar interests in the outdoors, politics and we both happen to be quadriplegics.

Sam made a name for himself when he co-invented equipment that allows people with disabilities to enjoy outdoor activities, such as hiking and sailing. He was also a city councillor for 12 years and now he is the first quadriplegic to be mayor of a major Canadian city.

I am very pleased to have gone to Vancouver to help Sam win. Sam Sullivan's victory is great for Vancouver and all of B.C. because, unlike the former mayor who used his mayoral seat to campaign for a Senate seat he now occupies, Sam will put Vancouver first. He is independent, thoughtful and will work with, not against, the upcoming Conservative government for the benefit of Vancouver.

Perhaps one moral of our story is that one should never underestimate the ability of a quadriplegic. I say way to go to Sam. His friends and all Canadians are very proud of his success.

[Official Languages Act, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that alternatives are not being ruled out. There is a case to be made that there is abuse of the substance and that there are very negative health effects to smoking marijuana, particularly over a long period of time. There is also the fact that the medical use of marijuana may be sending mixed signals to other members of our society, in particular our younger and more impressionable citizens.

The member did highlight a wide range of numbers, between $5 million to $24 million to produce this product. Perhaps the members from B.C. are more able to answer this, but it seems that growing marijuana can be done at a much cheaper way in a much safer location.

I wonder if the member could comment on any price reduction.

[Official Languages Act, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to follow up on some questions I had asked the minister earlier this year in regard to the government run marijuana grow op in Flin Flon, Manitoba.

This is a facility that is in a base metal mine far underground in an abandoned part of the mine in Flin Flon. There are, shall we say, deep concerns about the nature of the operation. Also there are recent developments in the medical uses of marijuana-like substances but without the medical harm.

My question for the minister is twofold.

First, if we have to grow the material, would it not be cheaper to do it on surface in a secure location? There are many other locations other than underground. I worked in a mine. Before my accident I was a geological engineer and I can tell members that the logistics of going underground are not simple. If the government is compelled to grow the material, would it not be more efficient and cheaper to do it on surface?

Second, there have been developments in science. There is a new substance on the market called Sativex, which provides all the medicinal benefits but without the harm of smoking. There is evidence that smoking marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes. The government on one hand is trying to curb smoking, but on the other hand is allowing people who are obviously in medical need to smoke, so there is definitely a contradiction there. The Cancer Society has major concerns about smoking marijuana, as do numerous other organizations. In fact, marijuana has about 50% more carcinogens than tar in unfiltered tobacco.

I would ask the member, first, if they have to grow the stuff, are there not cheaper places to grow it, and second, have the alternatives like Sativex been looked into?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the member has just said is very misleading and I am very disappointed.

First, the government needs to get it straight. Cancer is not a chronic disease. In the vast majority of cases it is a deadly disease. Second, the cancer community from all jurisdictions has said that this strategy needs to be fully funded and implemented.

The member in French suggested that they were still trying to work on it. No, it is already done. It has been in a document put together for over three years.

The member has refused to commit to fully funding and implementing the strategy and it is a disgrace. The government should be ashamed of itself. Will the government fund the strategy, yes or no?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in June of this year, the Conservative Party moved a motion to fully fund and implement the Canadian strategy for cancer control. The motion was passed by the House and then the very next day the Liberal government refused to fund and implement this strategy: again, typical Liberal hypocrisy.

I have called on the government on numerous occasions to fund the strategy. This is a strategy that has the support of the entire cancer community. It is a strategy that has proven to be effective in other industrialized countries throughout the world. It is a strategy that we need to protect the lives of Canadians from this terrible disease.

When I have asked this question before, the minister has talked about a chronic disease strategy. Cancer in too many cases is not chronic, it is deadly. Because of the unique characteristics of cancer, it needs to be dealt with in a national strategy, as the cancer community has outlined.

We know the government has refused to fund the strategy. The member may come back and say that it has put some money toward the cancer strategy. For the cost of a minor Liberal scandal, we can fully fund the entire strategy, which is about $260 million over five years. The government has committed only a fraction of that amount.

The government may say that it has invested other moneys in cancer. As a member from the Cancer Society said at a recent finance committee meeting, the cancer funding from the government has been done in “an ad hoc, uncoordinated and non-time specific manner”.

It is time that we fully fund and implement this specific strategy called the Canadian strategy for cancer control. Will the government, without any qualifications, yes or no, fully fund and implement the Canadian strategy for cancer control immediately?

[Petitions, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to present a petition signed by hundreds of Manitobans on autism spectrum disorder. The petition calls for more research to be brought forward to help these children.

[Health, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister insulted every physician across the country last week when he wrongly accused them of putting their financial concerns ahead of the health of patients. The minister should apologize to physicians.

The president of the Canadian Medical Association has criticized the minister for his comments in numerous newspaper editorials. The CMA strongly supports timely access to quality health care based on need, not the ability to pay.

Will the minister apologize to the Canadian Medical Association and to all the hardworking doctors who deliver health care to Canadians?

[Health, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Quebec wing of the federal Liberals endorsed private health care. The motion states that “prohibiting private health insurance has not proven to be an infallible means of protecting public health” and that private health insurance for core services should be allowed.

The federal Liberals are the first and only party to endorse such a measure. This demonstrates Liberal hypocrisy. Will the minister agree that the Liberals are promoting a hidden health care agenda?

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I commend the member for Brandon—Souris for his comments. In his role as a member of Parliament, he has demonstrated an outstanding ability to represent his constituents. As the western economic diversification critic, he has done an outstanding job representing that issue, and representing his constituents, the shadow cabinet and so on.

Beautiful communities like Ninette and Killarney are very fortunate to have the member as their representative.

One thing that struck me in the member's comments was the issue around the doctors and the fact that we already had lineups to see doctors. One of the unintended consequences that could happen by forcing face to face consultation with doctors is people will not have access. Because of the Liberal neglect of the health care system, the $25 billion that was cut in 1995, and the government's policy to reduce medical school graduates, we have a family doctor shortage. I happen to know the member's major community has a major doctor shortage so it is a double whammy.

Could the member discuss the implications of not having enough doctors in a rural community?

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, as a fellow Manitoban, I share the member's concern about the job situation. It is interesting to know that the senior Liberal minister has been quoted on the front page of the Winnipeg Free Press as saying that he would like to keep the online pharmacy industry going, but yet it seems that what is being proposed here will close it down. Therefore, I do have a question for the member. Is she concerned about the Liberal Party hypocrisy on this issue?

I have another question. The suggestions that the Liberals have brought forward suggest face to face doctor consultation. This is doubly worrisome for Manitobans, because we have a lot of rural areas where that may not be practical, or because of the illness itself it may not be practical, and of course because we have a shortage of doctors it may not be practical. This may add a level of unnecessary bureaucracy. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Finally, the Liberal Party has suggested that the health committee somehow has been delaying a study on Internet pharmacies when in fact the health committee is chaired by a Liberal and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health is on the committee. Already this fall, two or three health committee meetings have been cancelled. Also, the Liberals suggest that the meetings that have happened have been clogged up with ridiculous motions. I assume they must be referring to the motions dealing with breast implants or HIV. I certainly do not agree that those were hopeless or not useful motions.

I wonder if the member could comment on the doctor issue, the unintended consequences issue and the fact that the Liberals seem to be cancelling health committee meetings and not allowing the health committee to actually study the issue of Internet pharmacies. Could she also comment on the hypocrisy of the senior Liberal minister in Manitoba?