Bernard Patry

[Democracy, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the great democratic tradition that prevails in Canada and in Quebec allowed for a referendum to be held on Quebec's constitutional future.

Ninety-four per cent of Quebecers voted. That, in itself, is an unprecedented democratic success, given the importance of the issue.

The very civilized campaign and consultation process show unequivocally that the principles of tolerance and freedom are valued by everyone in this country.

I want to congratulate all those who participated in the campaign. The responsible attitude and the respect displayed by both sides during that campaign reflect favourably on Canada and Quebec.

It is always reassuring to see that, in spite of the diverging views held on a given issue, the principles of democracy are shared by everyone in our country.

[Leader Of The Action Démocratique Du Québec, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the separatist leader of the Action démocratique du Québec asked Quebecers to support his plan for Quebec's separation because it was based on the same approach as the common sense revolution of Mike Harris.

This statement by the leader of the ADQ openly contradicted what was said recently by the leader of the PQ about the new government in Ontario. I may recall that recently, the Péquiste leader said in an interview with Le Soleil , and I quote: ``Ralph Klein and Mike Harris did not take the bull by the horns. They took the public by the horns''.

The Yes side should stop adding to the confusion and contradictory statements around the referendum and the future of Quebec. They can make as many clever moves as they want, but the public knows perfectly well that the real issue is separation, and on October 30, the answer will be no.

[Referendum Campaign, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are some paradoxes in politics that cannot be ignored. Last Sunday, like thousands of other Quebecers, I saw the new Yes signs spring up in my riding.

Two of them in particular caught my attention. The first one showed a nice big flower as the promise of a healthy environment. The second one showed the peace sign which, in my opinion, speaks for itself.

While separatists were busy putting up their signs, a horrible drama was unfolding on the other side of the world as France set off its second nuclear explosion.

While the whole planet is mobilizing against these nuclear tests, Quebec separatists remain silent to avoid endangering the support France has promised them and continue to post their flower and peace signs.

[Old Age Pensions, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec separatist spokespersons no longer know what stories to make up to scare people. Since they are incapable of showing the benefits of their separation project, they now try to make a fuss over non-existent issues. The most recent such attempt was made by the PQ environment minister, who said yesterday that, following a no vote, old age pensions would take a beating.

Such blackmail and scaremongering tactics have no place, given the importance of the decision that Quebecers have to make. Separatists must demonstrate the advantages, if any, of their option and stop raising the spectre of cuts in old age pensions. Quebec seniors are not stupid; they can very well decide for themselves which structure will afford them better protection: an independent Quebec or a united Canada.

[French Language, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, most major daily newspapers in Quebec feature advertisements bought and paid for by the Quebec sovereignty council about the future of the French language after the referendum.

As could be expected, the sovereignty council predicts a very dark future for the French language should the No side win, but wonderful days ahead should the Yes side win.

Last week, the BQ member for Rimouski-Témiscouata dispensed the same medicine to francophones outside Quebec, and I quote: "You should realize that a No vote in Quebec would spell the end of French Canada both within and outside Quebec". The French language is alive and well within Canada and will remain so after October 30, because Quebecers will say No to those who have nothing to offer but fear and threats.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is surprised to see that the public is questioning the validity of the referendum process.

Essentially, this resistance has to do with the three separatist leaders deciding not to honour their promise to make the question clear and simple.

Does the leader of the Bloc Quebecois remember making a speech on October 19, 1994, in which he said that Quebecers would be asked a simple question that would go something like this: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign country, yes or no?

Instead of fulfilling this promise, the Bloc leader decided to do precisely what he had condemned by asking a question so subtle and that it makes no sense and is ridiculous, to use his own words.

[Quebec Referendum, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois did not wait for his separatist partners to make an important announcement.

Yesterday, during a press conference, the leader of the Bloc declared that, starting tomorrow, the referendum will be its focus. From then on, the referendum issue will be its only concern.

This came as no surprise since, in fact, the Bloc Quebecois has always put its concerns as separatists before its responsibilities as the official opposition.

After having forced the PQ leader to "change his position" and the young Mario Dumont to become an "associate", are we to understand that, by being the one to announce the beginning of the referendum campaign, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has proclaimed himself the leader of the yes side.

[National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical Devices, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this afternoon on Motion M-375 moved by the hon. member for Yukon.

More than one million Canadians have some type of surgically implanted medical device. Some implants such as heart valves and pacemakers are life sustaining devices. The recipients will not survive without them. Other implants, such as intraocular lenses, joint replacements and breast prostheses improve the quality of life.

In considering the merits of a registry of implant patients, let me first discuss the question of therapeutic implants.

Recent widely publicized problems with some implants, such as heart valves, pacemakers and teflon coated jaw implants have highlighted the need to track implant recipients so that they can be quickly notified by their physicians in case of serious problems.

A better option would be to set up a national registry of medical devices implanted in the body, similar to the one already in existence in England for high risk cardiac implants.

Such a registry would provide all the required information to track down the patient.

It would also provide additional data needed to develop risk management strategies and valuable feedback, including earlier warnings about device failures to clinicians, manufacturers, Health Canada, and provincial health ministries.

A national registry could be administered by a board of directors made up of representatives from the implanting surgeons, manufacturers, Health Canada, and provincial ministries of health. The board will be responsible for managing the collection, storage, analysis, and dissemination of the data. All information in the registry will be deemed confidential. To protect the privacy of registered patients rules will have to be established by the board of directors for the use and release of information contained in the registry.

There is strong support for the creation of such a registry from the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the Ontario cardiac care network. Medical device manufacturers have also shown a keen interest, because this registry would allow them to meet mandatory standards on the replacement of medical devices.

In short, what is being suggested is the creation of a new program to improve the follow-up on all implants and medical devices used in the human body.

Since medical services are delivered and funded by the provinces and territories, the authority of the different levels of government to require patients to register or to require surgeons to register their patients will have to be explored, as will the authority to collect change of address information from provincial or federal records. The federal government could coordinate the involvement of provincial health ministries across Canada to ensure that the registry will meet the requirements of all participants.

The major drawback of the establishment of implant registries has been the lack of money. The start-up costs would be about $200,000. These will include the costs to develop the computer database program and data entry forms, negotiating participation in the registry, setting up a board of directors, developing a long-range plan and operating procedures, and establishing longterm funding.

Since about one million Canadians now have implants or medical devices, the annual costs would be $20 million.

Maintenance of a registry of implant patients is estimated to cost about $20 per patient per year. There are approximately one million Canadians with medical device implants, resulting in a total annual cost of $20 million.

Cost sharing will have to be considered with the federal government, the provinces and territories, manufacturers and patients.

The medical device industry and the provincial governments already spend resources on implant monitoring. It may be possible to redirect these funds to a national implant registry.

Let me now address the special case of a registry for breast implant patients.

In 1992 the Minister of Health instituted a moratorium on the use of silicone gel breast implants and commissioned an independent advisory committee to examine their safety. One of the key recommendations made by the committee in April 1992 was to create a national registry of breast implants. The proposal was for a confidential continuing registry of consenting recipients of breast implants in Canada.

Since most cosmetic surgery is not funded by provincial health insurance plans and provinces would therefore not have health records on breast augmentation procedures, the only way to collect information on such patients will be by voluntary participation of the patients.

It was recommended that start-up funding be provided by manufacturers and that the registry be operated by a national not for profit organization.

The initial cost of this national registry could be anywhere between $120,000 and $190,000, with an estimate of 5,000 new patients each year. After that, annual operating costs could be covered by a $10 registration fee.

The drawbacks that will be encountered in setting up a breast implant registry are the difficulty in the collection of patient information and inaccurate patient information, since many breast implant recipients do not know the type of implant they have or the manufacturer. These deficiencies will limit the usefulness of the registry.

After completing its preliminary assessment of the issue, the department believed it was not feasible to implement a breast implant registry for recipients who had surgery more than a few years ago because of the high cost and inherent difficulties in collecting complete and accurate information.

In summary, a registry for patients with therapeutic implants that is funded by provincial health insurance plans will have advantages for federal and provincial regulatory agencies, manufacturers and patients, provided that financial, legal, and organizational problems can be solved.

The benefits of such a national registry would be: a very quick way to trace the women concerned, when problems are discovered following the insertion of such implants; the gathering of useful data on the value of such products for clinical practitioners, manufacturers, Health Canada, as well as the health departments of the provinces and territories. Moreover, it would be possible to analyze the long term evolution of these implants.

[Quebec Sovereignty, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec pequiste government did not wait for the referendum campaign to start squandering public money. The Parti Quebecois has already spent $11.2 million on its propaganda campaign. That amount only includes activities which can be directly related to separatist propaganda.

Imagine what the total amount would be if we were to add the salaries of ministers, members of the legislative assembly and PQ government staff, who did nothing but promote their separatist obsession since the provincial election. It is time for Quebec separatists to stop wasting money on their pet project. Quebecers expect the PQ government to work with us to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

[2002 Winter Olympics, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Quebec Liberal caucus, I want to join with all Quebecers and Canadians in wishing good luck to Quebec City, which might be chosen tomorrow as the host city for the 2002 Winter Games. The decision will in fact be made in a few hours, and we will finally find out whether Quebec City is the lucky winner.

It goes without saying that we are keen to hear the outcome of the decision and that we will be delighted to have the 2002 Winter Games here. Quebec has a worldwide reputation because of its athletes, whose remarkable performances have made them provincial ambassadors, and because of the warm welcome it reserves for visitors.

The fact that Quebec City is among the top contenders is confirmation that we are a strong candidate for the next Winter Games. I offer my thanks to all those who have had a part in this important bid, and I extend my best wishes for good luck to Quebec City.