James Lunney

[Health Care, May 15th, 2015]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government, in concert with provincial and territorial partners, should develop a National Strategy for Innovation, Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness in Sustainable Health Care that: (a) establishes regional centers for collaborative research and experimentation with innovative models that (i) focus on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, (ii) are collaborative and interdisciplinary in character, (iii) team up integrative medicine with allied professions, (iv) utilize optimized information technology to document outcomes, (v) foster competition for better health care outcomes that are both effective and cost-effective; (b) is holistic in perspective and open to new models of care, delivery and discovery; (c) is patient-centered and emphasizes the importance of self-care, wellness promotion and disease prevention; (d) empowers the patient with information and choice; (e) creates financial incentives for innovation; and (f) promotes a “culture of innovation” throughout the healthcare system.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to introduce and discuss for the first hour of debate Motion No. 501. It is a national strategy for innovation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for sustainable health care.

Accelerating health care costs threaten not only the sustainability of the health care system, but they imperil the future competitiveness of the Canadian economy. If we want to develop a high-impact, sustainable health care system that leads the world it is imperative that we consider every avenue of promising intervention.

There are clinical efficiencies that exist but are underutilized, or they face institutional barriers in implementation. We have the capacity to overcome these challenges and release billions of dollars into our economy while improving clinical outcomes, and patient and clinician satisfaction.

Recognizing the constitutional divisions and powers that make addressing health care innovation a vexing challenge, Motion No. 501 calls for collaboration with provincial-territorial partners and it is crafted to empower the “outside the box” clinicians in the medical world.

Just three weeks ago, I was in Toronto with about 200 doctors from around the world who had gathered to look at what else works. It is an international society for orthomolecular medicine. These people are in every province, across the country, across the U.S. and around the world, looking at how we can get better clinical outcomes by using means and approaches that are less toxic to the body and get better clinical outcomes. Their approach is collaborative. It is interdisciplinary. It is driven by a passion for superior clinical outcomes, for patient empowerment, for self-care and choice. Self-care is the foundation of health care. We have many such clinicians across Canada. They are self-described as functional medicine, integrative medicine or orthomolecular physicians.

What does orthomolecular mean? It was a term coined by Linus Pauling, the only man to get two Nobel prizes in the history of the world. One was in science and the other was a peace prize. It just means using molecules in their natural state, as opposed to patented medicine, where they take a molecule but in order to control the molecule for its role in the body they have to change it somehow. I often describe it as like having someone analyze a football team and deciding that it is the quarterback that makes that team hum. However, they cannot use the quarterback in his natural state so they have to take his head off, tuck it under his arm and then send him out to play without the rest of the team. Actually, in nature, a lot of these molecules work in synergy with other compounds that are found in natural sources.

Therefore, they like to use natural molecules. They are using the foundational tools, such as thorough case history, physical, laboratory and technical diagnostic aids, but they prefer an applied biochemical approach, using natural molecules rather than patented medicines.

Patented medicines are not as good a fit because they have been modified. They have been hydrogenated, carboxylated or methylated to make them patentable. They are very much like the natural molecule, but they are not as good a fit. They are therefore xenobiotic or foreign to biological processes and many of them end up blocking other metabolic pathways in the body, therefore leading to side effects that are unhelpful.

Natural molecules are common in biological systems. They are generally well tolerated and low risk. When they are applied intelligently they are highly effective for a wide range of clinical presentations.

The strategy calls for, in collaboration with provinces and territories, setting up centres where we can look at what else works. I want to give examples of how this is already being done across the country and how it could release funds and get better clinical outcomes for Canadians.

The focus needs to be on both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness because we could have a treatment that is effective but so expensive it is very difficult for the public purse to pay for those treatments. That creates strain on the system. It needs to be collaborative and interdisciplinary, because apparently we do not know everything about the body. It is like saying we know everything about the universe. Apparently we are still learning.

It teams up integrated medicine with allied professions like naturopaths and chiropractors for mechanical, spinal and joint dysfunction. It fosters competition for better health care outcomes that are both effective and cost-effective.

We could have regional centres taking a small amount of federal investment along with a provincial investment to look at what else works and then reward the ones that are getting demonstrated outcomes. I will give examples in a moment of what some look like.

We need to empower the patient with both information and choice because sometimes a great treatment is offered, but there are institutional barriers to that being implemented because the patients are either not offered choice or people are standing in the way who do not want to see competitive therapies advanced.

I will give an example. In May 2014, the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, sponsored a vitamin D forum in Ottawa. It brought many lead experts to the Chateau Laurier: Dr. Heaney from Nebraska, Dr. Holick from Boston, Dr. Vieth from Toronto and others. A few MPs from the health committee attended. Their purpose was to meet with Health Canada officials about cost savings and the benefits of increasing blood levels of vitamin D3 for Canadians.

Canadians are not getting enough vitamin D. Why? It is the sunshine vitamin, but for eight months of the year the sun is too low in the sky, the atmosphere filters out the UV light that is necessary for skin to produce vitamin D and then for most of the time, our skin is covered. In the wintertime our faces and hands might be exposed a little, but we have 80 to 100 trillion cells in our body that all have receptors for vitamin D and the face cannot produce enough for our whole body.

Experts say that we need to get our blood levels up to about 100 to 150 nanomoles per litre for optimal health effect. Beyond bone health, it is about reducing cancer risk. It is about reducing heart disease. It is about reducing diabetes. It is about getting better mental health outcomes. It is about reducing pre-term births that cost the system an immense amount of money and put the babies born prematurely at risk. A whole range, almost any disease we could be name, is easier to manage if vitamin D levels are up.

Published literature indicates that we could save $14 billion a year just in breast and colorectal cancer alone. That is in the medical literature from the results of two major studies. Reductions in heart disease, diabetes, improvements in mental health and the cost benefits are immense. Why would Canada not move quickly to implement these kinds of cost savings?

Recently published research by Dr. Paul Veugelers and Dr. John Ekwaru, who re-examined the raw data that the Institute of Medicine in the U.S. used to determine what vitamin D3 amounts Health Canada adopted, found a huge statistical error in the analysis. The researchers wondered how it was possible that the levels recommended were low. Were they off by 10%, 20%, 50% or even 100%. No. According to the recent statistical re-analysis, they were off by a factor of 10, meaning the recommended levels were only about one-tenth of what people needed for optimal health care. Correcting this error could result in immense health care savings.

In Vancouver, Dr. Hal Gunn and his team at InspireHealth have been getting superior results with cancer patients, although the oncologists are treating the patients the same as other patients. However, their approach is to take the fear out of cancer treatment. They give nutritional instruction and advice to the patients. They emphasize the importance of exercise. They optimize the vitamin D levels. Everything works better when vitamin D are levels are up. They do things like yoga, stress management, explain what goes in bodies and empower patients with information and choice.

The province of B.C. has taken notice. The BC Cancer Agency has taken note and the province has expanded opportunities, but there are still barriers to optimizing and accelerating the potential in this approach.

There are new cancer drugs on the horizon that are about helping tumour cells trigger impaired immuno-defence or programmed cell death, or apoptosis. These new treatments are on the horizon. Scientists have spent nearly a decade trying to find ways. Programmed cell death is an amazing internal controlled demolition that cells go through. It is estimated one million cells a second go through programmed cell death if they have been hijacked by a virus, if they are a broken down components or they do not functioning properly, or they are unnecessary for what is going on in that particular tissue, without damaging neighbouring cells. However, these new treatments are entry level $10,000 a month. That would be $120,000 to $140,000 a year. The public system is going to come under enormous pressure to provide cutting-edge treatment.

Cancer cells have lost the ability to go through this programmed cell death, which means something has programmed the cell to interrupt that cycle, or has changed the program.

I can point members to literature from the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a prestigious journal in the United States, going back to 2005, where it talks about an intravenous treatment that will do exactly that. It will reinitiate apoptosis, or programmed cell death, by simply using intravenous vitamin C.

There are naturopaths and integrative medical doctors across the country doing these treatments. I know that the integrative cancer clinic here in Ottawa is looking at new models. It is a great program that is being worked on there.

However, there are barriers to these treatments being applied, even though they are far more cost-effective. We need to look at everything that shows promise and remove barriers to looking at more cost-effective treatments.

This treatment could be offered in any remote community. It is a simple intravenous treatment. Ascorbic acid is the agent that is administered. Linus Pauling was saying it more than 40 years ago. It actually introduces cell death.

We know that the mechanism of cell death happens through the production of hydrogen peroxide in the interstitial area of the tumour, and the cells proceed with programmed cell death. Unfortunately, some people have tried to apply this, but there have been barriers, such as oncologists not approving the treatments unless they have exhausted chemotherapy and radiation. Providing patients with choice is about giving them informed consent and allowing them to try a small “c” conservative treatment. When their immune systems have not been damaged by the unfortunate side effects of conventional treatment, the outcomes might be far superior.

C. difficile infections claim thousands of lives annually in U.S. and Canadian hospitals. The rise of these infections is linked to gastric acid-suppressing drugs and antibiotics. Health Canada recently approved a preventative natural health product called Bio-K+, which rebuilds the microbiome devastated by antibiotics. If a person has a lung infection and doctors want to give antibiotics, a nasty side effect is that all of the healthy bacteria in the colon are killed. That sets the stage for a C. difficile infection, which kills somewhere around 1,400 Canadians a year. In the United States, the new figures look like double that, so it may well be higher in Canada as well. All of this may lead to an unnecessary bowel surgery.

There is a hospital in the Montreal area that has been doing this for nine years, by simply giving a potent probiotic of 50 billion CFU twice a day. It has nearly eliminated all C. difficile infections, and created a high reduction in other antibiotic-associated diarrheas that cause extended hospital stays, hundreds of millions of dollars in extended health costs, and put Canadians at risk.

After 25 years of experimenting with acid-suppressing drugs, there is a 40% to 275% increase in the risk of C. difficile. I have been raising that issue for more than 10 years with Health Canada officials. I had press releases about this after the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network reviewed the issue. With the support of the health minister and the Prime Minister's Office, it took it on as one of its first projects, and basically came back reporting what I had been saying for 10 years. It is a dose-response fashion. There is a 40% to 275% increased risk, and it is a class effect.

I am pleased to see that the Canadian Medical Association Journal wrote it up about a year ago. I was also pleased to see that the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, under the Choosing Wisely Canada program of the CMA, has recommended eliminating the use, and the shortest possible use, of these antibiotics.

In Alberta, we have a program called Pure North S'Energy, which puts about $200 million into health care in Alberta. It is an innovative program that takes a lot of homeless people, high-needs people, first nations, Inuit, and other citizens, and gives them the vitamins and minerals they need. It has about 100 doctors, nurses, and naturopaths working on the program. From the outcomes, it estimates that it has saved an immense amount of money for the Alberta health care system.

Here is an article by the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, which was published in January, called “Bending the Medicare Cost Curve in 12 Months or Less: How Preventative Health Care can Yield Significant Near-Term Savings for Acute Care in Alberta”. It talks about this study with the Pure North S'Energy Foundation's preventative health care program. It found that the sorts of preventative health care services offered by Pure North S'Energy can lead to genuine and significant near-term costs savings for Canada's single-payer health system.

Participants in the first year of the program required 25% fewer hospital visits and 17% fewer emergency room visits compared to the control group. When those persisted for a full year, they had 45% fewer hospital visits in the year after joining and 28% fewer emergency room visits compared to the control group. That is an immense cost saving to the health care system. The cost is about $500 per participant, and they estimated that they save about $1,700 per person in Alberta. If everybody had access to a program like this, it would obviate the need for two hospitals the size of Calgary's Foothills Medical Centre and release about 1,600 beds to be used for other purposes.

That is what Motion No. 501 is about. It is about empowering people who are looking for better answers. I hope all members will support the motion.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.

The first is from citizens of Denman Island, the west coast of Canada, and Vancouver Island, all the way to Leamington, Ontario, in support of Motion No. 501.

The petitioners note that this motion calls for the establishment of regional centres for innovation that bring together integrative medicine with allied professions to collaborate, research, and document low-cost, low-risk health care options.

The second petition, also in favour of Motion No. 501, comes from constituents in the London, Ontario area. They note that the strategy of Motion No. 501 will be open to new models of care: delivery and discovery, be holistic in character, patient-centred, emphasize the importance of wellness promotion and disease prevention, and empower the patient with information and choice.

[Privilege, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the issue I am addressing here involves people being gagged, and it is not by party leaders necessarily. No party wants to be embroiled in controversy at the provincial level or the federal level. However, there are issues that affect many Canadians.

Scientists are gagged over a false construct related to the theory of evolution, which is bogged down at the cell. It is something I know something about. We are made up of 80 trillion to 100 trillion of them. They cannot explain where the first cell came from. Scientists are gagged and educators who disagree are gagged. Academic freedom is imperiled. In fact, anyone who dares make the slightest remark related to this has an inability to speak. A member of the Alberta provincial legislature, the new education minister, was trapped by this issue.

I have taken the time to prepare to explain a controversial issue. It has cost me something to cross to this seat so that I can address this without appending it to my party. Colleagues, who I care very much about, are dedicated to what they are trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking if you would give me the time to represent my constituents and millions of Canadians across the country who are increasingly frustrated about their freedoms being eroded. I hope members would give me the time to allow me to express myself on these issues.

One of the issues people are concerned about, like the faith leaders who were here, is freedom of expression and conscience for doctors. They are concerned about the freedom of law graduates who are under unprecedented attack from banks and corporations seeking to prevent a faith-based organization from graduating law students. Doctors are imperiled by changes to conscience provisions. Registrars from the medical colleges across the country are talking about eliminating conscience provisions. The president of the CMA has stated that eliminating conscience provisions is not acceptable. I hope that everyone in the chamber would support him on that.

I wanted to address the member, because he engaged me during this discussion, on social media. He is the science critic for the Liberal Party of Canada. He is an hon. member with impeccable science credentials himself.

The false construct that a person of faith cannot participate in science is what I am hoping to address here. The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie has a distinguished place in Canadian history as the first Canadian in space. He also has a colleague from NASA who is the fourth-longest serving person in space, Colonel Jeffrey Williams. He spent nearly six months in space, nearly one year combined. When he came back, he wrote a book about his experience and faith. Should that person's science be trashed because he is a person of faith?

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that you give me the time, with the consent of members, to carry on.

[Privilege, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all concerned in this place about the phenomenon, a new phenomenon that probably did not exist when our esteemed reference, O'Brien and Bosc, was written. It is this phenomenon of crowd shaming. It is when a member from the House here with 100,000 followers makes a comment and thousands of followers pound on somebody and insult the beliefs not only of this member but of millions of Canadians, and another member makes a simple comment and that makes thousands of other people begin to pound on religious faith in the country.

Since leaders have been here expressing concerns about freedom of religion, I am asking the House to indulge me and give me the time to make my case on behalf of the community I represent.

[Privilege, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the experience that I went through recently with thousands of hateful communications is still going on, frankly, because of a few words that I spoke about science, managing assumptions, and the foundations of science in general.

There are members in the House who engaged me on the controversy, as it were, and I would like to be able to answer their questions. I have no intention of attacking anyone rhetorically in the House. My personal beliefs and those of many of my constituents and millions of Canadians have come under attack, and I would like the opportunity to express those views before my colleagues here. I hope that my colleagues would support me in that opportunity to clarify what I believe on behalf of myself, many of my constituents, and people across Canada.

If I may proceed, Dr. Robert Salter began his career as a medical missionary with the Grenfell Mission in St. Anthony, Newfoundland. I note his—

[Privilege, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there is a concerted effort by various interests in Canada to undermine freedom of religion in Canada. The government has established the Office of Religious Freedom under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs, with an excellent ambassador in Andrew Bennett at the helm. I have personally made the case for freedom of religion where developing democracies like the idea but struggle to implement the reality. It is something I hope to contribute to in the next phase of my life through the newly formed International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, founded in part through the efforts of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Last week, leaders of the faith community were here in Ottawa to express their alarm at increasing and unprecedented attempts to stifle freedom of religion, conscience, and expression in Canada. They identified deliberate attempts to suppress a Christian world view from professional and economic opportunity in law, medicine, and academia. I share these concerns, and I believe there is a growing and malignant trend by what some would call cyber trolls to engage, entrap, belittle, and embarrass politicians of faith over false constructs of the word “evolution”.

In the past month, there were a few words exchanged on social media, apparently inflammatory words: science, managing assumptions, and theory or fact related to macroevolution. My remarks were inflated by media, blended with other unrelated but alleged heretical statements, and became a top story on national media, creating a firestorm of criticism and condemnation. My profession and two institutes of higher learning were subject to slander, and constituents I have represented for 15 years were insulted in the fashion that most would find astounding in a mature democracy. Two other politicians at the provincial level were accosted, and I see this as evidence of a developing phenomenon of crowd shaming on what some would call the dark side of the Internet.

After 15 years of serving among members, most of my colleagues would know that I announced more than a year ago that I would not be seeking re-election, so why not just slough it off, shrug it off, let it blow over, and ride off into the next chapter of my life—why, indeed? Maybe it is because I have a background in science. My credentials, modest as they are, are superior on this file to those of many in the chamber and most of my critics. Maybe it is because I have Irish in me and I do not like to be bullied. Maybe it is because, in my time as an MP, I have been sued and exonerated by the courts over the use of the title “doctor”.

Maybe it is because, when I started my practice 40 years ago in Kitchener and 15 years later on Vancouver Island, there were senior practitioners who spent time in jail, accused of practising medicine without a licence. I admired them for their tenacity and clinical effectiveness, and I knew that I could improve my technical skills if I spent time with them, and in several cases I did. Maybe it is because I am tired of seeing my faith community mocked and belittled. To not respond is to validate my accusers and, worse yet, imply that I lack the courage of my convictions to stand up for what I believe. That is not a legacy I wish to leave behind.

Many colleagues represent constituents beyond the ones who elected them. I hope that no members of any faith community in Canada are compelled to defend the beliefs of their communities in the future. Freedom of religion and conscience are fundamental freedoms in Canada. Bigotry cloaked in defence of science is as intolerable and repugnant as bigotry from any other source. It is contrary to our multiracial, multicultural, and multi-faith character and the tolerance for diversity that defines us as Canadians.

I know that members on all sides of the House are concerned about bullying in general and cyberbullying in particular. The government has brought in new legislative measures to address some aspects of this brutal phenomenon, and there are many social actions that seek to shield the vulnerable, like the pink shirt initiative. We are living in an era where knowledge is increasing at an astounding pace. There are many technical advances, and it is hard to keep up with what we refer to in general as science. It has been parsed into more and more diverse pursuits of knowledge.

I know that time in the House is precious and there are some constraints on time, but I have been in the House for 15 years and am known to most in the House. With the support of my colleagues, I hope you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, the time to express my concerns to my colleagues here in the House, with the co-operation of my colleagues of course.

The question I want to ask is this. Is prevailing science always right, therefore? I want to give an example from my own life experience and that of a brilliant Canadian scientist about how wrong and how long science can be wrong. Dr. Robert Salter, one of Canada's most distinguished medical men of science, is one of my personal heroes. He pioneered innovative surgical procedures and left a legacy that has impacted millions around the world in the management of joint injuries. A tribute to this great man of science on the Hospital for Sick Children—SickKids—website said the following:

For 22 centuries, the traditionally accepted and enforced treatment for diseased and injured joints was immobilization.

Robert Salter determined this strategy was doing immense harm to cartilage and joints. His pioneering work on continuous passive motion is now used in more than 15,000 hospitals in 50 countries. His textbook, Textbook of Disorders and Injuries of the Musculoskeletal System has been translated into six languages.

Dr. Salter impacted my own life and practice in a remarkable way. It was 1986. He gave a keynote address to 500 doctors of chiropractic gathered in Toronto at our annual convention. He summed up his work this way: There are three phases we go through when we introduce a model of care that does not fit the current medical thinking. The first is universal rejection: Who do we think we are? The second is equivocation: Well, maybe. The third is universal acceptance: Of course, it is obvious.

He went on to say, “My work is now in the third phase. I'll leave it to you”—

[Telecommunications, March 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government continues to stand up for hard-working Canadians. We have always believed that consumers should have more choice in choosing television channel, and that Canadians should only have to pay for channels they actually want to watch Last week, we fulfilled this commitment.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell the House more about this good news?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the act would provide is a framework for that discussion to take place so that local law enforcement, municipal leaders, and residents would actually have a say when someone wanted to establish a facility that, after all, would be dealing with illegal drugs being provided for a safe or legal injection. The drugs themselves are illegal. They could become, in fact, magnets for criminal activity in the region. I think people need to have a discussion. They need to consider the impact of the facility on crime rates, et cetera.

Vancouver, a few years ago, after Insite, was branded the bank robbery capital of North America. That is not the kind of branding we want in our community. Yes, many of the robberies were for small amounts of money, but the same guy would be coming in, time and again, robbing banks, trying to get money to support the addiction.

Would it not be better, colleagues, to exhaust the mechanisms for helping people be delivered from these addictions and going on with productive lives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his intervention.

I think there is a lot of discussion about harm reduction. I had a whole career as a health care professional, and the focus of my career was always on helping people have productive lives, restored lives. I think we have not exhausted the possibilities of actually delivering people from these addictions.

In fact, I would point the member, as I know he is interested in solutions to these vexing problems, to some promising work being done with low-grade, non-invasive treatments, such as magnetic therapies, so-called transcranial magnetic stimulation, for PTSD victims. There is a former army sergeant discussing PTSD treatment at a brain treatment centre in the Washington Post. Here is another report from the Canadian Press, from November 2014. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto is treating depression with transcranial magnetic stimulation. This is a low-cost, low-risk intervention that helps people with addictions and with depression.

Rather than reinforcing someone's addiction and keeping a person in that state, although there is a measure of harm reduction there, would we not want to exhaust opportunities to help people be delivered, be restored, live full and productive lives, be restored to their families, and join the rest of the human family on a path to a better future?

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

Mr. Speaker, for anyone who is just tuning in now, before question period we were discussing Bill C-2, the respect for communities act, and I was raising the point in the debate that the health committee had heard extensively on these issues from a large number of expert witnesses.

The committee recently completed studies on both prescription drug abuse and the health risk of marijuana use. During these studies, a number of witnesses called for increased action by the government in order to raise awareness of the health problems associated with drug abuse. It is costing us an enormous amount in society in the form of non-productive citizens. People are developing increasing health complications and leading non-productive lives, and it is placing a real burden on the health care system. There is also the terrible destruction of their own lives and families and all of those who love and care for them.

Given the committee's work in this area, I was very pleased that in October of 2014, the Minister of Health launched a preventing drug abuse media campaign. That campaign's purpose was to equip parents with the information tools needed to talk with their teenagers about the harmful effects of prescription drug abuse and marijuana use.

That program is part of our prevention plan that we are working toward. Bill C-2 would provide a framework for communities to discuss so-called safe injection sites before they are implemented. It would give law enforcement, municipal leaders, and residents an opportunity to address the circumstances in the neighbourhood before such a program could be considered by the minister.

I thank the members for the opportunity to speak to this bill and I look forward to questions.