Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 8 of 8
View Djaouida Sellah Profile
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us here in person or through videoconference. Unfortunately, they will not be able to hear me.
As a Canadian, I am very proud of new technologies being developed in public health, including nanotechnology and genotechnology, if we can call it that. However, I am disappointed to see that, although we have the potential to be a leader in those two technologies, there are obstacles, from what I understood from your presentations.
My first question is for Dr. Voyer.
Based on the list I have before me, your work is mainly on basic research. In your view, how will the current government cuts affect tomorrow’s applied research? I think that there will probably be economic consequences. My fear is that the current cuts to fundamental research will have an impact on applied research, which in turn will have an impact on the access of Canadians to modern technologies.
The second part of my question has to do with funding. How do you see the balance between public and private funding, given that the purpose of private funding is to obtain dividends from applied research?
Thank you.
View François Pilon Profile
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations. It was very interesting. We have a real variety of witnesses today.
I will put a question to Mr. Reeves.
You covered a subject that we practically haven't addressed until now, or even not at all, the effects of the environment on health.
Can you indicate to us how, in your opinion, an effective urban conservation plan could solve this problem?
View Sadia Groguhé Profile
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our two witnesses for joining us today. My question is for Mr. Tyndall.
You have presented the IFHP as a necessary safety net when it comes to public health and said that limiting health care would be a disaster. We fully agree with that opinion, especially since preventive health care is both more humane and more economical than curative health care.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes that everyone is entitled to the best physical and mental health status they can achieve and that states have a non-discriminatory obligation in the fulfillment of that right.
What do you think about those provisions? Do you think they can be ignored within the framework of public health?
View Matthew Kellway Profile
Where do we need to start? Is it with the traveller issue? Is that where the greater risk comes from for public health here in Canada?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
Thank you very much.
I want to just follow up a little bit on what Mr. Bergeron was saying just now. Absolutely, you have these hospitals and you have these clinics all going right now. But once your mine closes down, which it will eventually, after you leave will you continue to fund those clinics and make sure that they are operational?
View Malcolm Allen Profile
View Malcolm Allen Profile
2012-02-29 16:41
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't realize the government was all bad all the time, but in any case, maybe I'm happy I'm in the opposition and not feeling as if I'm all bad all the time in the government.
Mr. Culbert, I think you were saying earlier that you see E. coli as a public health issue. If I read you correctly, you're saying at three bucks a dose, it's about $50 million for the Canadian herd. That saves us about $221 million in health care costs, all dollars being approximate. Rather than your seeing it as a safety issue for the farm per se, it becomes a public health issue, so it's in the public purview in the sense that it should be in the form of legislation, etc.
If indeed there was a will to do this across the country as public policy, does the cost of three bucks a dose go down if we inoculate every animal in the country?
View Malcolm Allen Profile
View Malcolm Allen Profile
2012-02-06 16:14
I think you're probably right, sir. Nonetheless, on the whole issue of the market and marketing, it's interesting that when you talk about the EU specifically, you're talking about the sense that the non-tariff barriers are actually driven by consumers who say, “No, thank you very much” about certain types of things, whether GM or hormone-treated beef or whatever else. It doesn't really matter, to quote my friends across the way, what the science says: the consumers are saying, “No, thank you”, which ultimately means no sale.
A voice: Right.
Mr. Malcolm Allen: Mr. Raizada, you talked about the “ag plus” piece, which I found fascinating. We'll take out the alcohol part, although maybe you would prefer to have some, given your most recent surgeries.
However, you did say that public health experts may not like what you're saying. Is there a way to start thinking about how public health experts would like what you're saying, especially in developed countries specifically? That's not to give the same advantages to less developed countries, but developed countries already understand that they're on the verge of an epidemic of diabetes, which is a huge public health issue and has a huge cost as well. One of the things we're hearing is whether we can afford to pay these health costs. Do you see anything in your “ag plus” crystal ball, if I can use that term, as a way to try to help drive that as an “ag plus” piece to actually enhance livability and deal with the chronic disease that's upon us?
View Jack Harris Profile
Clause 205 is the introductory clause to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The purpose of the act being amended is “to protect public health and safety and to maintain the security of Canadian society”.
We don't have any major objection to this particular amendment, but we do have a problem with the amendments to that act and we will deal with them as we go through. I'll just say at the outset that we're concerned that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act changes were initially designed, or at least the government's intention was announced that the purpose of this was to protect applicants for work permits in Canada from potential exploitation.
Our view is that the way to protect foreign workers from exploitation is to ensure the laws within Canada that should be protecting workers ought to be robust and enforceable. The perceived wrong was really about a political response to something that happened in Toronto back in 2006, with the potential for issuing work permits to strippers—or exotic dancers, I think is the term that's used for certain people entering into Canada for that purpose—and the potential abuse of the law. The reality, of course, was that there were apparently only four permits given in the year this was raised as a political issue. So this seems to us to be a political response.
The real objection to the changes comes in the broad nature of the instructions that are essentially non-transparent and give untrammelled discretion to the minister to issue instructions in relation to this matter with respect to work permits—not only instructions that may be given by the minister, but instructions that would not necessarily be public.
They won't be in regulations. They wouldn't be gazetted. They wouldn't be made public. And it could happen by the minister's own issuance of same. The instructions still offer the opinion of the officer as to what the minister's instructions are, as opposed to an evidence-based decision.
In our amendments we are also proposing some independent evaluation of those, as we have done in other sections of the act. I understand there may be some rulings about that, but we will be able to nevertheless demonstrate that what we seek is to improve this legislation. If it cannot be improved by adding some independent adjudication or clarity with respect to what instructions we're talking about here, we would therefore be opposed to them.
Having said that, Mr. Chair, we will support clause 205. I don't know if my colleagues want to say anything else.
Results: 1 - 8 of 8

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data