The hon. member for Mississauga--Brampton South.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 43% of the vote.
Health May 28th, 2008
The hon. member for Mississauga--Brampton South.
Health May 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich for the member from the New Democratic Party to start lecturing us on ideological positions. That is its bread and butter over there, but we on this side of the House are here for public policy.
We are here to help our kids and prevent them from getting on drugs in the first place. We are here to help addicts. We think the best public health is when we get addicts off the drugs, to treat them, to treat them as human beings, and to be there with the passion. That is what we believe on this side of the House.
Health May 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am not in charge of appeals. That is the Minister of Justice.
But I can say to the House that on this side of the House at least we are disappointed with the judgment. We disagree with the judgment. We are, of course, examining our options and I would say to the House that we on this side of the House care about treating drug addicts who need our help.
We care about preventing people, especially our young people, from becoming drug addicts in the first place. That is our way to reduce harm in our society and we are proud of taking that message to the people of Canada.
Health May 27th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. What I said at committee was that as a result of budget 2006, budget 2007 and budget 2008, we have added 6% per year compounded to the health budgets of every single province and territory in this country. We are proud of that record. It means the provinces and territories that care about home care have the funds necessary to do the right thing.
I say to the hon. member, if she cares so much about actually implementing home care, she should resign from Parliament, run provincially for the leadership of the NDP, and then she can do something about home care in her province.
Health May 27th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, in the paroxysm of self-righteousness, which characterizes NDP policy, he has made a conclusion without having read the report.
Let us read the report, get all the scientific data and then we can make a reasonable conclusion.
Health May 27th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member for his question.
Obviously we are seized with this issue. We have received a report and we will be studying it. The government will be making its decision in due course.
FedNor May 26th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it is important to have these questions relating to FedNor, because in two years the Liberal opposition has not asked a single question in relation to this file.
We think it is important for northern Ontarians that FedNor has a five year stable budget for the first time in the history of any government. It is a five year budget and we delivering tens of millions of dollars to the people of northern Ontario, from Parry Sound to Muskoka, Kenora and Timmins.
We are there for northern Ontarians and this government will continue to be there for northern Ontarians.
Questions on the Order Paper May 16th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the debts, obligations and claims written off and forgiven by the federal economic development initiative in Northern Ontario, in response to a) the type/levels of approvals required for write-offs or forgiveness are as follows:
In response to b) There were six proponents with a total of nine projects written off in 2006-2007.
In response to c) The total amount approved for write-offs in 2006-2007 was $2,286,790.01.
In response to d) The levels of approval are the same for all write-offs or forgiveness.
In response to e) There were three proponents that were written off due to bankruptcy.
In response to f) The amount written off due to bankruptcy of the three proponents was $1,750,955.10.
Health May 12th, 2008
First, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate both sides of the House for supporting the hon. member's motion and coming to an agreement on this important issue.
I am disappointed that the Bloc members did not support this motion.
As the motion suggested, it is important to bring all of our partners on side. This includes the provinces and the territories and, indeed, we will be engaging with them to see if we can get further toward a solution on this very important issue.
This motion was a very important first step and we will move forward.
Questions on the Order Paper May 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, in response to a) Following are the terms of reference of the expert panel on chrysotile:
Purpose
The panel will consider and report on the dose-response relationships for pleural mesothelioma, peritoneal mesothelioma and lung cancer associated with exposure to Canadian “commercial chrysotile asbestos” fibre.
Panel members’ responsibilities
On November 13-14, 2007, panel members are to attend and share expertise at the Chrysotile Asbestos Expert Panel: Characterizing the Toxicity of Chrysotile Asbestos, in Montreal, Canada.
Panel members, working individually and collectively, are asked to determine the main areas of scientific agreement and disagreement on the toxicity of chrysotile asbestos fibres, and to assess the importance of these agreements and disagreements.
Panel members, working individually and collectively, are also asked to produce a probabilistic estimation of the dose-response relationship for chrysotile asbestos and cancers rather than a point estimate. If dose-response estimation is not possible, panel members are asked to estimate the relative dose-response between chrysotile asbestos and various amphibole asbestos.
If it is concluded that amphiboles are significantly more potent than chrysotile asbestos, the panel is asked to assess the toxicity of “uncontaminated chrysotile asbestos” and the effect of reported tremolite contamination on the toxicity of Canadian commercial chrysotile asbestos.
Considerations
Panellists are to debate constructively with peers holding opposing views, and work together to reach consensus. However, where individual views differ, these are to be reflected in the report.
In response to b) The panel was convened to provide Health Canada a perspective on scientific studies on the health effects of chrysotile that have been published since the last international peer-reviewed study of this substance which was published in 1998 by the World Health Organization.
In response to c) Dr. Michel Camus, Health Canada, had the lead scientific responsibility for ensuring that the panel fulfilled its commitment.
In response to d) Direct expenses of $101,387.96 were incurred in the preparation for, and conduct of, the panel meeting and the writing of its report.
In response to e) As part of their ongoing, normal duties, approximately nine different officials or administrative staff worked on a part time basis to help establish and support the panel.
In response to f) There were no external consultations for this report.
In response to g) There were no consultations with other parties. The costs of the panel were wholly borne by Health Canada.
In response to h) The chair and each of the panel members were reimbursed their travel expenses and were additionally paid a flat fee for their time.
In response to i) No new research was commissioned in support of the study.
In response to j) It is premature to assess how the panel might affect government policy.
In response to k) The panel did not consider Canadian consumer products in its deliberations. [See terms of reference in answer a)].
In response to l) The panel has completed its work.
In response to m) The panel report will be made available to the public once Health Canada has reviewed the findings. The time-frame for release is yet to be determined.