Tony Clement

[Health, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform this House of what I consider to be the height of irresponsibility by the opposition party.

Last night the official opposition tabled a motion at the health committee beginning a several week study on the supervised injection site in Vancouver, which means that all the important work that the committee has to do in regard to the consumer product safety act is put in abeyance.

What troubles me is that this is the same band of individuals who said that we do not need any more research. Now they are tying up a committee with weeks of more research. Our children, our mothers, our fathers, everybody needs better safety. The opposition is preventing it from happening.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs, and I announced that the federal government will continue to fund the medical services at Norway House First Nations during the final negotiations with the Province of Manitoba.

Because of this government's actions, the days where children and families are left in the lurch are over. Canadians support us because when this government makes a promise, as we did last December when we voted in favour of Jordan's principle, we get the job done.

This is one more example of the Conservative government delivering for Canadians and delivering for first nations Canadians.

[Health, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the expert advisory committee has reported. It is public information. It is available at HealthCanada.ca.

I invite Canadians to read it for themselves. They will see that the research is indeed mixed on this issue and that there are certain issues that have not been resolved by injections at Insite. There are other things that the site does particularly well. These are all things that will be taken into account in due course.

[Health, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. Last week the government announced $111 million for treatment and prevention services because we believe that no individual in Canada should be denied the opportunity to get out of an addiction and to get off the terrible spiral that these drugs cause.

That is our commitment to the people of Canada. If the hon. member cannot get off her high horse and recognize that, then shame on her.

[Health, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this government has sought and commissioned further research in order to make an informed decision on this particular exemption. In fact, the report of the expert advisory committee was posted on the Health Canada website this past April 11. I encourage all Canadians who are interested to visit our website at HealthCanada.ca and read the report for themselves.

The report says the research is mixed. More than 95% of injections occur outside Insite and less than 10% of addicts used Insite for all of their injections. I am sure Canadians would be interested in reading this information. I can assure the House that I will take all relevant and available information--

[Health, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unusual for the hon. member to make that allegation.

We are the government that actually wants more research and has commissioned more research. We want to ensure this decision is the right decision for Canada, for addicts and for the community in Vancouver.

That is the decision we have made, more research and more consideration. That is because we are open-minded and we want to make the best decision for Canada and Canadians.

[Health, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the extension ends on June 30 and the government will make a decision before that time.

However, I was very pleased to be with the justice minister and the public safety minister last week, when we announced $111 million to help individuals addicted to illicit and unhealthy drugs and for prevention purposes as well, to ensure our kids get the message that these drugs are unsafe.

That is the kind of government we have in Canada now, a government that cares about addicts and cares about those who would otherwise be twisted on to these very dangerous drugs.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not chair the committee, but it would strike me as reasonable that this approach be seriously considered by the committee chair.

What I can tell the hon. member is we have engaged in numerous discussions with various stakeholders in the natural health products area. We continue to have those discussions. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Quite frankly, there has been some scaremongering about the intent and the effect of the bill. We are trying to have a reasoned conversation with people to ensure they realize that this is not an attack on the industry. This is not designed to shut down the availability of their products.

This is designed to protect the health and safety of Canadians and there are certain things found in the bill that will apply the proper balance between the right to commerce on the one hand, but our rights to safety as Canadians on the other. I think that is appropriate.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians would be surprised to learn that the Minister of Health and the Government of Canada do not have the power of recall under the Food and Drugs Act presently, except for food, but for other products, therapeutic products, for instance, that is not the case.

Therefore, we are left in the situation where if Health Canada believes there is a dangerous product on the shelves, whether it be a prescription drug, or a natural health product or some other therapeutic product, we presently have to negotiate with the manufacturer and the distributor to get the product off the shelves. We are left with merely issuing warnings on websites and various media outlets not to take this product because it has a deleterious effect.

Therefore, that is a problem. In the last resort, at the very least, we want to have the ability to recall.

In respect to the member's question on the life cycle approach, in a nutshell, we would have the same standards available for approving, let us say, a prescription drug at the beginning of the process, but we would still concern ourselves with any additional studies, or information or evidence of adverse reactions that occur as a drug is distributed throughout the country as a medicinal product.

Therefore, we do not stop our concern just as the product is licensed. We continue our concern throughout the life of that product.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

First, with regard to funding and human resources, it is important to invest in these areas so that these bills can provide a solution. As I said, budget 2008 includes more than $100 million for the next two years and more than $500 million for the next five years for human resources and the other obligations arising from these bills.

Second, the regulations are also very important, of course. There will be many opportunities in future to discuss the regulations. It is important that these bills act as an umbrella. It is important for Parliament to discuss the regulations.