David Wilks

[Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I can help the member out by asking him to tell the House how important it is to amalgamate the PAL and the POL together so people who possess firearms will be better able to move and acquire firearms.

[National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day Act, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-643, an act to establish a national spinal cord injury awareness day, put forward by the hon. member for Montcalm. It is important that she has brought this issue of spinal cord injury before the House.

Bill C-643 recognizes the courage and determination of Canadians living with spinal cord injury, and raises awareness of the importance of creating environments that encourage an active return to an inclusive society.

The bill also recognizes the dedication of their caregivers, which may include their families, friends, and professional health care workers who provide them with the vital support they need.

It also acknowledges the important contributions of leading Canadian scientists, whose research has improved the lives of hundreds of people with spinal cord injuries.

Bill C-643 aims to establish the third Friday in September every year as national spinal cord injury awareness day.

This would seek to reduce the risk of spinal cord injuries through increasing awareness and prevention, and it would also benefit those currently suffering from a spinal cord injury by shining a light on this important health issue across our country—with local government, non-government organizations, volunteer groups, and the private sector.

Spinal cord injuries include damage to any part of the spinal cord and may be traumatic or non-traumatic in nature.

Traumatic spinal cord injuries can result from many different causes including falls, traffic accidents, occupational and sports injuries, as well as violence.

Non-traumatic spinal cord injuries typically involve an underlying cause, such as an infectious disease, tumour, a muscle or bone disease such as osteoarthritis, or spina bifida

Regardless of how spinal cord injuries occur, both traumatic and non-traumatic injuries can be devastating for individuals and their families.

In terms of how traumatic spinal cord injuries occur, based upon hospitalization records from 2010 to 2011, there were 577 hospitalizations in Canada attributed to spinal cord injuries. Of these, 54% were the result of non-sport related falls, while 31% were attributable to vehicle accidents, and 4% were a results of a sport injury.

To gain a better understanding of neurological conditions in Canada, our government made a $15 million investment in 2011 to initiate the national population study on neurological conditions. It was led by the Public Health Agency of Canada and Neurological Heath Charities Canada in collaboration with Health Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The study was composed of thirteen research projects, three national surveys, and seven simulation models.

After the study was completed, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and Parkinson's disease were all added to the existing Canadian chronic disease surveillance system, which is managed by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

The study has improved our understanding of the incidence and prevalence of neurological conditions such as spinal cord injury. It has also shed light on the impact of neurological conditions on individuals living with these conditions, their families, and their communities.

Through this bill, we can create greater awareness for spinal cord injuries and their impact on the lives of those affected. We can highlight federal injury prevention efforts and showcase advancements in spinal cord injury and stem cell research in Canada, so that we as a country can make further gains.

Our government recognizes the impact spinal cord injuries have on Canadians and has directed significant financial investment into research to generate new knowledge and technologies to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Through our support for research on the functioning and disorders of the brain and spinal cord, I believe we are making a difference. With federal support, the work of top researchers has contributed to our understanding for the changes in nerve cells that could prevent and alleviate chronic neuropathic pain syndrome and improve recoveries of limb function following spinal cord injury or trauma.

Through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, our government funds research that covers the full spectrum of spinal cord research. This includes basic biological and clinical research to population health, health services, and quality of life and health determinants.

Since 2006, our government has invested $57 million toward spinal cord injury research to generate new knowledge and technologies to improve patient outcomes and quality of life. We have also invested $470 million in stem cell research since 2006 and over $53 million in 2013-14 alone.

Research in stem cell clinical therapies has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of degenerative diseases, such as spinal cord injury, and greatly improve the quality of life of many Canadians.

In September 2014, the Minister of Health announced a federal investment in support of 32 new research projects under the Canada Brain Research Fund. One of these included the development of the Rick Hansen Alberta Spinal Cord Injury Registry through the University of Calgary.

As some may recall, the Rick Hansen Foundation was founded in 1988 after Mr. Hansen so bravely and with such determination completed the Man in Motion World Tour in Vancouver. The foundation works toward removing the barriers that limit the participation of people with disabilities in society. Our government proudly supports the Rick Hansen Foundation, an organization that is inspired by the dream of creating an accessible and inclusive world, and driven to finding a cure for spinal cord Injury.

An investment of $30 million was provided by our government to the foundation from 2007 to 2013, to implement a spinal cord injury data system across Canada, support spinal cord injury research and promote best practices in spinal cord injury care. This investment aims to improve health care and quality of life for Canadians living with a spinal cord injury.

In order to maintain the momentum of the Rick Hansen Foundation, our government announced a further investment of $35 million to this foundation until 2018.

Bill C-643 would add to significant efforts already under way in Canada for people living with spinal cord injury.

In Canada, other jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba have commemorated spinal cord injury awareness. In 2009, the government of Saskatchewan, in collaboration with the Canadian Paraplegic Association, proclaimed May 2009 as Spinal Cord Injury and Physical Disabilities Awareness Month to raise awareness about spinal cord injuries and other physical disabilities. Manitoba declared a similar Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day in May 2011.

I hope my comments today have given everyone an understanding of the impact spinal cord injuries has in our country.

I would encourage each member to lend their support to Bill C-643 to establish the third Friday in September as the designated day for national spinal cord injury awareness day across Canada to increase awareness of spinal cord injury.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, to answer that question, in my speech I stated that Canada is a global leader in ensuring the health and safety of not only products used by humans but also other products with microbeads. Canada is a world leader and we will continue to show the world that we will ensure the safety of Canadians' well-being,

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of this motion.

The motion before us gives me the opportunity to highlight that the government has made great investments in protecting the health and safety of Canadians. Since 2006, we have made major investments in the chemicals management plan, an approach that has made Canada a global leader in the assessment and management of the environmental and health effects of chemicals.

Most recently, in 2011, the government announced renewed funding of $506 million for the chemicals management plan. I think I should reiterate that, because the opposition keeps saying that we are not investing anything in environmental issues. Again, that is $506 million for the chemicals management plan. This investment supports the ongoing review of the 4,300 industrial chemicals identified as priorities for assessment.

Before I go any further, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

We expect to complete this review, that is to say, we expect to have considered the potential health risks or environmental effects of all 4,300 substances by 2020. That is consistent with Canada's commitments in global chemicals management. This plan has been recognized by non-governmental organizations, industrial associations, and international partners as reasonable, balanced, and above all, successful.

Under the chemicals management plan, we are addressing such high-profile substances as BPA and phthalates. Furthermore, in 2007, the government announced the food and consumer safety action plan, which has likewise made Canada a recognized leader in the identification and management of human health risks from products like the food, cosmetics, and consumer products we all use every day.

Our focus is on ensuring that industry takes seriously its responsibilities to actively prevent dangers to human health and safety, on providing for targeted oversight of the marketplace to help us identify emerging health risks early, and on equipping the government to respond quickly when risks are identified.

Under these programs, we have continued to build Canada's cosmetic regulatory system into one of the most stringent and effective systems anywhere in the world. The chemicals management plan has led to the addition of 26 substances to the cosmetic ingredient hot list, which is a list of substances that are prohibited or regulated in cosmetics. The chemicals management plan has also resulted in two existing hot list items being amended to be even more protective of the health of Canadians.

I should add that the hot list is a science-based document that is reviewed and updated as new scientific data becomes available. The hot list serves to keep the cosmetics industry aware of new substances Health Canada considers inappropriate for cosmetic use or that require hazardous labelling.

While Environment Canada is the department charged with understanding and managing the effects chemicals may have on the environment in Canada, Health Canada is the department that evaluates human health impacts. To figure out whether a chemical can have negative effects on the user's health when it is used in a cosmetic, the department carefully considers both the science concerning the potential health effects of the chemical and the ways in which a person may be exposed. For most cosmetics, the main source of exposure is usually through the skin.

Health Canada scientists are constantly reviewing the emerging science and international regulatory actions. At this point, the department does not believe that there is evidence indicating that the kind of plastics used to make microbeads are harmful to human health as they are currently used in cosmetics.

Health Canada will continue to monitor this emerging issue, and certainly if a risk to human health is identified, the department will take action to address it.

Everyone who sells cosmetics in Canada is required to notify Health Canada of each cosmetic sold in the country within 10 days of the first sale. This notification must include details concerning the ingredients. The department must use that information to help to verify that cosmetics sold in Canada meet all of the legislative and regulatory requirements set out in the hot list and the cosmetic regulations.

On top of that, the cosmetic regulations also require manufacturers or importers to disclose all ingredients on the label. People looking to avoid plastic microbeads could check the labels of products that have beads or grit, such as exfoliating scrubs or face and body washes, and then avoid those that contain polyethylene or polypropylene, or any of their ingredients.

While these substances are not always used in microbead form, they are the substances most often used to make microbeads. These substances also have other known uses in cosmetics, including as binding and bulking agents, stabilizers, film formers and skin conditioning agents. If they are in the product, they have to be on the label.

Furthermore, many cosmetic companies have already voluntarily eliminated the use of microbeads in their products or they have already announced that they will be phasing them out of their product lines. With that, I would like to add that I was searching this morning and recognized that Crest, one of the major toothpaste producers, will be eliminating microbeads from its products in 2016. That is one way to recognize that companies themselves are eliminating an ingredient without regulatory requirement.

The requirements that apply to cosmetics provide a high level of safety for Canadian consumers and allows consumers to make informed decisions about the products that they purchase.

Our government, as members can see from my speech, has done a lot to ensure that we put the safety of Canadians first and foremost.

[Addiction Recovery, March 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on January 27-28 of this year, individuals from across Canada came together in Ottawa to create a united vision for what addiction recovery means in Canada. Hosted by the CCSA, one of their declared visions was that recovery is real, available, attainable, and sustainable.

I bring this to the House's attention because just over 26 years ago, I took my last drink. My life had spiralled out of control, but by the grace of God, I stand before this House and all Canadians to give hope to all those who suffer with addiction that they can find a path that will provide them with a daily reprieve from their addiction.

Today I can say that I would not trade my best day drunk for my worst day sober. Today I reach my hand out to anyone in need, rather than pushing them away. Most importantly, I accept life as it is, not how I think it should be.

May we all come together and support those in recovery.

[Respect for Communities Act, February 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a couple of things that I took note of. One point that I would like to bring to light is that there is not one point of heroin that is ever purchased legally anywhere in Canada, yet that illegal purchase of heroin is taken to a site where the person can inject it without prosecution. Insite provides services that can be obtained in other parts of the Lower Mainland as well. The fact of the matter is that Insite provides a safe place for someone to inject an illegal drug. When we talk about fighting addictions, the fact of the matter with Insite is that it is an enabler, because we are not trying to get the users off the drug. We are actually allowing them to come in with the illegal drug and inject it. That is extremely problematic.

Insite allows for an illegal drug to be administered, basically legally, within its confines without prosecution. Is the NDP looking for a place where people can purchase an illegal drug and then administer it without prosecution?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, comparing Bill C-51 with Canada v. Carter is a real stretch, but I will accept that 82% of people who have responded with regard to Bill C-51 are in favour of what our government is doing, and that is pretty significant to me.

With regard to Canada v. Carter, the fact is that this is very personal, well beyond something a police officer should look at. This is about human life. This is about a decision between people and their physicians as to whether they believe they should live or die.

We need to have broad consultation on this to ensure that we get it right, because we need to get this right. I believe the best way to move forward is with extreme broad consultation, which our government will propose and move forward with.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the problem I see with an assigned committee is that it can only hear so many people in a period of time. It is impossible for that committee to hear from the broad expanse of Canadians who want to have input into this.

The problem is, what do we do? Do we exclude tens of thousands of Canadians who want to have some input into this? What is the pecking order? That is the problem with the motion. There will be a pecking order, and there should never be one.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member basically said what I was going to say. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will be affected by the decision made by the Supreme Court—not hundreds, not even thousands, but hundreds of thousands—and a committee will never be able to hear from all of them.

We are going to move forward with extremely broad consultations with all Canadians, over a long period of time, to ensure we hear from every Canadian affected by this Supreme Court decision.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Carter, which found two Criminal Code provisions prohibiting physician-assisted death to be unconstitutional and provided one year to Parliament, to February 5, 2016, to develop its response.

Physician-assisted death raises complex ethical, legal, and medical issues. Many of these issues involve competing interests and values, such as preservation of human life, individual autonomy, the protection of vulnerable individuals and groups, and human dignity and suffering. End-of-life decisions are very personal and sensitive questions for many Canadians, with deeply held beliefs on both sides of the issue and far-reaching implications for our society as a whole.

At this early stage of the debate, I believe the experience and evidence from foreign jurisdictions that have implemented permissive regimes by regulating euthanasia, assisted death, or both, are invaluable in providing input to our discussion, including with respect to eligibility criteria or procedural safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals from unwarranted deaths.

In the United States, for instance, there are only three states that provide access to physician-assisted death: Oregon, since 1997; Washington, since 2008; and Vermont, since 2013. Their legislative schemes all allow terminally ill patients to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of a lethal dose of medication prescribed by a physician, although presence of the physician is not required during the self-administration of the medication.

Eligibility criteria for making such a request include that the patient be diagnosed with a terminal illness, which is defined as “an incurable and irreversible disease which would, within a reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months”; that the patient be a competent adult, over the age of 18, able to make and communicate health care decisions; that oral and written requests be submitted to the attending physician; and that the oral request be reiterated no less than 15 days after the initial demand.

The legislation also provides procedural safeguards that address the physician's responsibilities when granting such requests, including confirming that the patient is terminally ill; is capable of making a voluntary and uncoerced decision; has been duly informed of the diagnosis, prognosis, potential risks, and alternative options to the end-of-life medication; and has been referred to a second physician to confirm the diagnosis and other eligibility criteria.

Attending physicians must also refer patients for counselling when they may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder impairing their judgement.

In the U.S. state approach, as is the case in all permissive regimes, reporting requirements have also been enacted. In the three American states, physicians are required to report to health departments further to prescribing the lethal dose of medication. This process allows for relevant information on the implementation of the laws to be gathered, analyzed, and reported to the public. There is no question that such information and data will be invaluable to our Canadian discussion as we delve deeper into this societal debate.

In terms of enforcement provisions, although offences for falsifying and coercing patients have been enacted in the states of Washington and Oregon, it appears that no specific enforcement mechanism has been put in place to assess physicians' compliance with the applicable rules and safeguards.

If we now look at European regimes, which currently allow both assisted suicide and euthanasia, we will notice subtle differences.

By contrast to the U.S. state approach, the European countries, specifically Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, have broader laws that permit euthanasia or assisted suicide to be administered to a person who is suffering unbearably, either physically or psychologically, from an incurable medical condition, regardless of any proximity to death.

Since 2002, in Belgium adult patients or emancipated minors who are in a “...medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident” can request to be euthanized.

Patients must be legally competent and conscious at the time of the request, and their demand must be voluntary, repeated, and not result from external pressure. Procedural safeguards in place are similar to the ones in the three states in the United States, but also include the requirement to consult with a psychiatrist if the patient is not expected to die in the near future.

The legislation in Belgium was amended in 2014 and now allows euthanasia to be practised on children of any age if they are in constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated and are likely to die in the short term. In those very sensitive cases, an explicit request must be made and parental consent must be granted.

Once euthanasia has been performed, physicians must submit a detailed report to the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission, a panel of 16 experts that determines whether euthanasia was practised in accordance with the law and that has to turn cases involving non-compliance over to the Public Prosecution Service.

In the case of the Netherlands, although euthanasia and assisted suicide are both offences under the Dutch penal code, the Termination of Life and Assisted Suicide Act came into force in 2002, providing an exemption from criminal liability for physicians who perform such practices if they report their actions and comply with the due care criteria included in the act. The criteria are even broader in this jurisdiction, since patients are eligible to request that their life be terminated if they endure “...unbearable physical or psychological suffering with no prospect of improvement”, regardless of how close they may be to death.

Competent and informed adults are eligible to receive such assistance, but so too are children between the ages of 12 and 16 if their parents consent to the request, as well as minors between the ages of 16 and 18 if they consult with their parents prior to requesting euthanasia.

Here again, regional review committees are responsible for ensuring that physicians comply with the due care criteria provided in the law, and in the case of non-compliance with the safeguard measures, they must turn the case over to the Public Prosecution Service.

Most European laws also allow euthanasia of mentally incompetent individuals, such as patients suffering from dementia, when they have written, while they were still competent, advance directives requesting euthanasia under certain circumstances.

In all permissive regimes, physicians have the right to refuse to provide assistance in dying or to perform euthanasia and have at times refused to do so when there was treatment capable of addressing the suffering of the patient.

In conclusion, these are just a few examples of the manifold dimensions of this issue that will require close scrutiny and in-depth discussions over the next months.

The government opposes the motion to appoint a parliamentary committee to consult on a legislative framework and response to the Carter decision and instead plans to engage with Canadians, the provinces and territories, the medical profession, and the many affected groups in a national conversation on these very important issues.

This debate is one that concerns each of us individually, as well as all of us collectively. It speaks to our shared values and our responsibilities to protect the most vulnerable in our collective aspirations as a society.