Jean Crowder

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new to the House and it was interesting to me to watch how the witnesses at the committee divided. On the one hand, many of the advocates in the health care community and the addictions and substance abuse community, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Motherisk, a whole series of advocacy groups and health professionals talked about the importance of labelling as part of a comprehensive strategy.

On the other side of the coin, industry representatives talked about the fact that labelling would actually impact on their economic benefits and impact on jobs in the community. I would argue that we need to take both of those pieces and come together, so that we are looking at how jobs might be affected, but also taking seriously into consideration the health and welfare of citizens in our country.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting point because the member for Mississauga South brought examples of some of the labelling in the United States to the committee and challenged us to find the label. We could not find it. It was placed vertically; the colour was the same as the bottle. It was virtually unreadable. So of course the industry was going to say the labelling was effective because it was effective in its view of not reducing any alcohol consumption.

We really want Canadians to understand the potential for risk. One of the witnesses that came before the committee, Tim Stockwell who was the director and professor for the centre for addictions research of B.C. at the University of Victoria, specifically talked about how we could make labels effective. He talked about the fact that tobacco packages have essays written on them about quite simple health effects of tobacco in huge detail.

However, he also talked about how else we could make those messages effective and this is what we really wanted to see. The message could be rotated and be illustrated with pictures. He went on to talk about the low risk drinking guidelines that were developed in Australia with which he had been involved. A whole series of punchy messages were developed that the alcohol industry actually climbed on board with.

Initially there was a huge resistance; the world was going to end if labels had to be put on bottles. However, eventually the industry came on board and has actively supported a very proactive campaign in Australia. It would be a model that we could look at in Canada for effective labelling.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for his dedication, commitment and perseverance in raising the issues around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and about the impact of drinking, for example, underage drinking. It shows a tremendous amount of commitment to a cause. He has been very passionate about it.

The member for Hochelaga suggested that members of the NDP might occasionally resort to tippling. He is absolutely correct. I do enjoy a glass of wine on occasion, and as any responsible drinker, I am sure to use it in a responsible fashion.

In talking about the issue of labelling alcoholic beverages, many people who came before the committee said that this was absolutely not to be seen as a strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise you and the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

When we were talking about labelling, many people saw labelling as one tool in a tool box. Many people saw labelling as a way to signal the government's intention to develop a full, comprehensive strategy around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Many people saw labelling as that critical first step, a signal that people were committed to ensuring that this issue stayed front and centre on the health agenda.

It was with great disappointment that I saw the bill killed at committee. It was with great disappointment I recognized that this is the third time this matter has come before the House.

Much has been made around the fact that there have not been any substantive studies to point to the fact that labelling would decrease alcohol consumption. The question that should have been put to people was whether labelling would increase awareness around the risks. It troubles me that we would not agree that labelling would increase awareness around the risks. We label many other products. Alcohol is one of the products that can have risks for a population and which does not carry a warning label. Much has also been made around the validity of studies.

It is interesting to me that hot off the press today a headline in the Saint John Telegraph Journal reads, “Few drinks a day may not protect against strokes, heart attacks”.

Much has been made about the benefits of alcohol but the article states:

The U.S. government warned Tuesday that a few drinks a day may not protect against strokes and heart attacks after all.

Some studies in recent years have touted the health benefits of moderate drinking. Some have even said that up to four drinks a day can significantly reduce the risk of heart disease in people 40 and older.

But researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysed data from 250,000 Americans who participated in a 2003 telephone survey. They found that the non-drinkers had many more risks for heart disease -- such as being overweight, inactive, high blood pressure and diabetes -- than the moderate drinkers.

Based on those results, the agency could not say that moderate drinking actually was a factor in reducing the risk of heart disease.

The findings were published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine

“We're feeling the pendulum has swung way too far and Americans are getting sort of the wrong idea” on alcohol, said the study's lead author, Dr. Tim Naimi of the CDC's chronic diseases division. “The science around moderate drinking is very murky.”

The CDC has long worried about alcohol abuse in the United States. Studies have shown that drinking excessively - five or more drinks daily - can increase the risk of heart disease. The CDC says nearly one in three Americans drinks too much.

The agency said people should follow dietary guidelines that limit daily consumption to two drinks for men and a single drink for women.

Other groups -- such as the American Heart Association -- say drinking alcohol increases the dangers of alcoholism, high blood pressure, obesity, stroke, breast cancer, suicide and accidents.

There have been several studies, but it is very interesting that now there is a study which is saying wait a minute, maybe moderate drinking is not so great for us after all.

The only reason I have brought forward this study is that throughout the discussion at committee, people consistently said there was no conclusive evidence that labelling would affect drinking behaviour.

The committee heard evidence from a variety of sources. One of the groups that came forward was the Canadian Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. In April 2001 it indicated, “Warning labels must not be considered in isolation, since knowledge alone rarely results in changed behaviour. Warning labels reinforce rather than replace other forms of education. Labelling should be seen as just one part of a broader public health effort to reduce alcohol related harm. That effort should also include ongoing public education, responsive public policy and availability of effective treatment services”.

That was just one of many witnesses who said that labelling in their view was an essential part of a comprehensive strategy.

The position statement of the Australian Drug Foundation in March 2003 stated that labelling provides a counterweight to alcohol marketing which promotes that alcohol is safe. It said that labelling also protects the fundamental right of the consumer to know the risks of the product.This is a critical point which seems to have often escaped the discussion. We are talking about the fundamental right of consumers to know the risks of a product.

The Motherisk program at the Hospital for Sick Children also saw labelling as a critical part of the strategy. It said, “The alcohol industry first denied the existence of FAS and later did very little to prevent it. The main reason that they oppose warning labels is their fear of losing revenue. They claim that they oppose warning labels because they are not an effective method of FAS prevention. That contradicts their lack of effort to find other means. Warning labels are an effective way in changing the culture of drinking, similar to the change in attitude toward smoking, or drinking and driving. In the implementation of the alcohol warning label, nothing can be lost, only gained”.

Another issue which often was not discussed was that people talked about labelling being ineffective. The industry spends a substantial amount of money designing labelling to encourage drinking of their particular product. If labelling is not effective, why would the industry spend so much money labelling bottles?

That issue came up in a study at the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in the U.S. in February 2003. This study was done in the U.S. so I am not suggesting that Canadian industry does the same thing.

The study said, “They saw action as being urgent. The decline in alcohol consumption among minors over the past 20 years appears to have promoted campaigns such as the increase in marketing malternatives and gelatin shots, Zippers, both appealing to children, and the efforts of the liquor industry to mount major advertising campaigns on television”.

We have also seen all kinds of different labelling. Some of the samples we saw at committee really encouraged some behaviour that many of us thought was highly questionable.

A number of people went before the CDC, including three surgeons general. Those three surgeons general called on the alcohol industry to include in its advertising and product labels “clear warnings of the dangers of underage drinking and adult excessive drinking”. They also called for “endowing an independent foundation with no ties to the alcohol industry to work exclusively to curb underage drinking”.

The Betty Ford Foundation said that the findings demonstrated that the alcohol industry had an inherent conflict of interest between public health and industry profit.

I could go on with quotations at length. In 1992 the subcommittee on health in “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Preventable Tragedy” said that government warning labels on containers of beverage alcohol sold in the country had been done since 1989. It was referring to the United States. It said that labelling had been happening in the United States since 1989 and the wheels of industry had not ground to a halt, despite the fact that the industry had to put labels on bottles.

It is ironic that Canadian brewers are shipping alcohol with labels to the United States. If it is good enough for the U.S., it should be good enough for Canada.

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that sounds like another non-answer. It is just another example of lip service to equality.

Let me get this straight. When a Liberal member criticizes George Bush and says sorry, the member is booted from the party. When a Liberal member offends women, gays and lesbians, the member gets a secret deal and a handshake.

Why did the Prime Minister not see that an assault on the charter was wrong? Why does he keep an MP in the Liberal caucus who thinks it is a good idea to overrule the courts and invade the private lives of Canadians?

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 20th anniversary of section 15 of the charter that guarantees equality rights for all Canadians. The Prime Minister celebrated by making a backroom deal with a Liberal MP who wanted to use the notwithstanding clause to prevent same sex couples from marrying.

Why did the Prime Minister choose this time to tolerate behaviour that demeans and disrespects others and why did he not ask the MP to leave the Liberal caucus?

[Health, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian women were angry this week when they learned that Health Canada conducted secret meetings with breast implant manufacturers to discuss returning silicone breast implants to the Canadian market.

This incident highlights a problem with the way Health Canada conducts drug approvals. Canadians are often kept in the dark about safety concerns, the true effectiveness of a product, and even how a product is tested.

Clinical tests on silicone implants were often too short and followed too few women to be effective. It was only over time that Canadian women reported leaking implants and increased complications with arthritis, vascular problems and autoimmune disorders.

Offering a public comment period after a report is filed will not protect the health and safety of Canadian women. This is yet another example of how women are not a priority for this government.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the issue regarding residential schools has been around for many decades. To think that we can exclude people who participated in the residential school process, whether it is first nations people or churches, is really narrowing the scope of coming toward a productive and meaningful solution.

It would seem only right and just that this matter be returned to the committee and that other people be involved in this discussion, and that we have the Assembly of First Nations actively involved in this discussion to ensure that the solution that comes forward is actually going to meet the needs and interests of aboriginal people.

It is essential that aboriginal people are involved in this discussion. It is essential that the people who were involved in residential schools are at the table. Otherwise, how could healing ever happen in a meaningful way?

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's questions raise a number of other issues.

At the present time a team of young individuals is walking across Canada raising the level of awareness around suicide prevention in aboriginal communities. This is just one element. We have not even mentioned the abysmal rate of youth suicide in aboriginal communities.

There is a significant number of young people under the age of 25 living in many of our aboriginal communities. They are the future of these communities. If we do not find a way to institute a truth and reconciliation process that would allow for broad based community healing, then not only our aboriginal communities but the whole of Canada will lose out on an enormous resource.

Nearly one-third of Manitoba's young people under the age of 25 are first nations people. If we do not find a way to work with first nations communities and allow this healing process to happen, then we are going to lose another generation. It would be absolutely shameful if we allowed that to happen.

First nations communities bring so much to the face of Canada in terms of industry, culture, language and arts. They can provide much for our communities. We must find a way to work with them to ensure that they reach their full potential on their own terms.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose the motion.

A number of aboriginal people who live in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan are asking for justice to be done. They want justice done today in an even-handed, fair and open manner. Part of what we are talking about is the fact that we have seen millions of dollars spent with very little money going to the survivors of residential schools. This is an absolutely shameful condition in this day and age.

One of the bands from my riding is the Penelakut people who live on Kuper Island. The website is vancouverisland.com. The website talks about some of the experiences of the people from Kuper. The website says:

Kuper Island has a rather dark side, with a sobering history of oppression at the hands of church and state in Canada. For almost a century, hundreds of Coast Salish children were sent to the Kuper Island Indian Residential School. The school opened in 1890, operated by Roman Catholic missionaries and funded by the Department of Indian Affairs.

Between 1863 and 1984, at least 14 residential schools and 10 boarding schools operated in British Columbia, more than any other Canadian province. For almost a century, all school-aged First Nations children in the province were targeted by government agents for removal from their homes to these schools to assimilate them into the European and Christian cultures.

Children who went to residential school suffered a loss of culture, identity, language, family and more.

This speaks to the ongoing tragedy that continues to play out in our communities today. Aboriginal peoples are asking us to come to the table and settle this shameful affair in an honest, upright and forthright manner.

We also have a number of aboriginal communities that have worked with the aboriginal healing fund. This fund, unfortunately, has been off again, on again and currently there is some additional money in the aboriginal healing fund but the process by which aboriginal communities could actually access it has not always been entirely clear to the aboriginal communities.

If we are truly committed to a healing process in our communities, it is absolutely essential that we ensure not only that survivors of residential schools have access to just compensation but we also ensure that the community as a whole can continue with that healing process. It is not only the children who went to residential schools who are suffering. It is their brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, and it is their grandchildren who are continuing to suffer as a result of the residential school system.

The Cowichan people in my riding who speak the Hul'qumi'num language are struggling to keep their language intact. They are struggling to ensure that the elders have the support that they need to pass on that language which is directly tied to their cultural identity. It is absolutely critical that we not only do this compensation package but that we also continue to support aboriginal peoples in maintaining their culture and their language because it is very much a part of their identity.

The member for Winnipeg Centre pointed out that there were a number of things that needed to be in place to ensure appropriate compensation. One of the key factors in the discussion is the fact that the AFN has specifically put forward a proposal and it is absolutely essential that the AFN is at the table as a meaningful partner in determining how compensation will be determined and paid out. The AFN is the elected representative of aboriginal peoples and if it is calling on us to implement a particular process then I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we are not only consulting but actively listening to and engaging the AFN in how this is unrolled.

The AFN is asking us to take a look at fair and reasonable compensation in an expedited process, which includes lump sum payments.

When the AFN asks the Canadian government to stand up with a heartfelt apology to the aboriginal people and asks for a truth and reconciliation process which will allow for healing, it is absolutely essential that we honour its request.

This healing is not only for aboriginal communities but also for those of us who live side by side with aboriginal communities, so that we can work together and live together in a way that is productive and healthy for all members of the community.

Far too many aboriginal people live in desperate and dire poverty. Too many aboriginal people struggle with not only poverty but education, alcohol and drug abuse. We need to ensure the healing process is in place, so aboriginal people can take their rightful place in Canada as partners in our communities.

I urge the House to defeat the motion. I urge the House to send this back to committee and support the motion put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre and supported by the AFN. Let us carry on this conversation in partnership with the AFN. Let us ensure that aboriginal people in Canada are here as rightful participating citizens. I encourage the House to defeat the motion.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, April 11th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Windsor for his very articulate statement around addressing some of the issues in the current Standing Orders.

He talked about the first ever parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The committee came about as a result of the minority government. We have noticed around the committee that we are engaged in a very active process with women's organizations across the country to identify the issues that are really important to women. One of the things that has come forward is the issue around core funding, which has been decimated over the last several years.

The member for Windsor talked about the fact that the good work of committees in the past has often been ignored and how, with the new Standing Order, there is an opportunity for committee work to come to the House and be voted upon.

I would like the member to specifically comment on the fact that oftentimes, even though issues do come to the House for a vote, we still need the political will to implement things like gender based analysis, reinstituting core funding for women's groups and doing a detailed policy and legislative analysis with a gender lens.