House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2021, with 60% of the vote.
The Environment June 9th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the government was required to submit two greenhouse gas emissions reports in the last month, one to the UN and one to Parliament.
The government told the UN that its climate change policies are up to 10 times more effective than what it told Parliament. The government is telling the UN one thing, while telling Parliament another.
Will the minister tell us which report is accurate and who ordered the changes?
The Budget June 8th, 2011
Congratulations, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleague across the way.
I know of the member's interest with multiple sclerosis, which affects 55,000 to 75,000 Canadians. I know he is aware of new research that shows that the prevalence of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in MS is about 90%, that there have been over 12,500 procedures performed worldwide now in 50 countries, and that they are showing an improvement in the quality of life for MS patients.
We absolutely need evidence-based medicine in Canada. That means we must collect the evidence.
I would ask him, why the refusal to undertake a nationally-funded, multi-centred clinical trial to determine if treating CCSVI will improve the quality of life for MS patients?
Mr. Speaker, congratulations.
I would like to address something that I know is of interest to my colleague.
Alzheimer's disease and other dementias are among the most significant and critical health care issues in Canada. We cannot ignore them.
Today, 500,000 Canadians suffer from some form of dementia. The impact on those who have the illness and their families is profound, as is the cost to society of $15 billion today and $153 billion in 30 years.
Why does the federal investment in programs, research, and income support and assistance pale in comparison to the health, economic and social impacts of this devastating disease?
Multiple Sclerosis June 7th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, wilful blindness is evident when there are things we could know and should know but somehow we manage not to know. The human capacity to ignore what is in front of us is staggering. A Harvard study asked subjects watching a basketball game to count the number of passes. No one noticed a woman in a gorilla suit standing at centre court for nine seconds.
The government has been made aware that over 12,500 treatment procedures for CCSVI have now been undertaken worldwide in over 50 countries and that some MS patients report improved quality of life, including reduced brain fog and fatigue and improved circulation and motor skills, following the procedure. We need evidence-based medicine in Canada.
Why then is there the refusal to undertake a nationally funded, multi-centre clinical trial to determine if treating CCSVI will improve the quality of life of MS patients?
Multiple treatment trials are under way in the U.S. It is time for Canada to act.
The Environment June 6th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada released its 2011 climate change plan to the United Nations. The plan shows that actions taken by the Conservative government are projected to reduce emissions by only one-quarter of what is needed to meet the 2020 target.
Does the government have a plan to address the other three-quarters beyond deliberately fudging a progress report to the UN?
The Environment June 6th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, climate change was not mentioned even once in the throne speech. Now the Conference Board gives Canada a failing grade for climate policies. These plans are so disorganized and inefficient that Canada will not meet its 2020 target.
After five years of ignoring climate change, will the Conservatives commit to a national plan that addresses the very real challenges?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns March 25th, 2011
With respect to Canadian Forces (CF) members, reservists, and veterans and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and acquired brain injury (ABI): (a) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between military service and (i) ADRD, (ii) MS, (iii) PD, (iv) ABI and, if so, (iv) what is the summary of research findings related to each of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and any of their recommendations and, if not, (v) why not; (b) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between operational stress injuries (OSIs), particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and ADRD and, if so, (i) what are the findings; (c) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between OSIs, particularly PTSD, and initiation of MS or exacerbation of MS and, if so, what are the findings; (d) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between military environmental exposures and (i) ADRD, (ii) PD; (e) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between ABI and PTSD and between ABI and ADRD; (f) what are the Department of National Defense’s (DND) policies with respect to a CF member's or reservist's diagnosis for each of the four identified conditions, specifically what a diagnosis means in terms of (i) current employment, (ii) opportunity for advancement, (iii) honourable discharge, (iv) presumptive illness, (v) pension, (vi) benefits; (g) what happens when someone is diagnosed with each of the four conditions in the CF or reserves; (h) what are Veterans Affairs Canada’s (VAC) policies with respect to a veteran's diagnosis for each of the four identified conditions, specifically what a diagnosis means in terms of (i) any employment, (ii) opportunity for advancement, (iii) presumptive illness, (iv) pension, (v) benefits; (i) what are the benefits for which a CF member and reservist with (i) ADRD, (ii) MS, (iii) PD, (iv) ABI are eligible; (j) how are benefits in (i) calculated and what services and therapies, including but not limited to, aids and maintenance of the aids, disease modifying therapies, medical equipment, medical exams, occupational therapy, physical therapy, etc. for which members and reservists are eligible; (k) how do benefits for ADRD, MS, and PD differ from those available to members of the CF and reservists who suffer from a physical injury or an OSI; (l) what are the benefits for which a veteran with (i) ADRD, (ii) MS, (iii) PD (iv) ABI are eligible; (m) how are benefits in (l) calculated and what services and therapies, including but not limited to, aids and maintenance of aids, disease modifying therapies, medical equipment, medical exams, occupational therapy, physical therapy, etc., for which veterans are be eligible; (n) what, if any, studies of international efforts have been undertaken by DND and VAC regarding military service and each of ADRD, MS, PD, and ABI and, (i) if so, specify what studies, the chief findings, and any recommendations and, (ii) if not, why not; (o) how many members currently serving in the CF and reserves have received a diagnosis of ADRD, MS, PD, or ABI and how many veterans suffer from each of the identified conditions; (p) of the cases identified in (o), (i) how many have been awarded a service-related disability, (ii) what specific criteria were required to award a service-related disability, (iii) how was 'benefit of the doubt' ensured and what was the framework followed to ensure reliability and validity, (iv) how many were denied a service-related disability, and (v) how many people are appealing a decision; (q) how many CF members and reservists with (i) ADRD, (ii) MS, (iii) PD, (iv) ABI were required to leave the military during the last 5 years, 10 years and 20 years; (r) of those CF members and reservists in (q), what was the average time from diagnosis to honourable discharge, what opportunities might have existed for members and reservists to have kept working but in an altered capacity, were opportunities explored, and why or why not, and what was the average impact on pension and benefits; (s) what, if any, tracking was undertaken of the member's or reservist's (i) disease progression, (ii) work status, (iii) family life, (iv) mental health, etc., (v) what recommendations, if any, have been made or could be made to improve the quality of life of former military personnel; (t) how are each of ADRD, MS, PD, and ABI tracked among (i) CF, (ii) reservists, (iii) veterans; and (u) what long-term care is available, if necessary, for modern-day veterans suffering from each of the four identified conditions?
Petitions March 24th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I rise again to present nine petitions regarding chronic cerebral spinal venous insufficiency. We need evidence-based medicine in Canada. That means we must collect evidence. MS patients are calling for clinical trials. After 50 other countries, 12,500 procedures, and country after country in North America, South America and Europe report upwards of 86% of MS patients showing evidence of CCSVI, the petitioners are calling for clinical trials and follow-up in Canada.
Petitions March 22nd, 2011
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present another five petitions today regarding chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency.
MS patients are frustrated with being told to wait for Canadian replication of correlation studies. Since the fall, I have been presenting international studies that show that 80% to 97% of MS patients have one or more venous abnormalities depending on the diagnostic or treatment method used. New data from the conference in Poland earlier this month show that in Bulgaria, Jordan, Poland and the United Kingdom upwards of 93% of MS patients have evidence of CCSVI. New data from the conference in Italy last week showed 700 cases analyzed from multiple international centres with 86% of MS patients having CCSVI.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling for clinical trials with diagnosis, treatment and follow-up here in Canada.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns March 21st, 2011
With respect to cuts in government funding to newcomer settlement organizations: (a) how does this policy reflect Canada’s commitment to cultural diversity; (b) what, if any, needs assessments of newcomers to Canada have been undertaken over the last five years, if none were undertaken, why not, and of those undertaken, (i) when were they undertaken, (ii) by whom, (iii) what were the results, (iv) what were the chief recommendations; (c) what was the detailed process undertaken to examine funding of newcomer settlement programs, which led to the government's cuts; (d) over the past five years, how much money did the government promise to invest in newcomer settlement services, by province and territory, and what amount was actually invested in newcomer settlement services, by province and territory; (e) how was the decision to cut $53 million from newcomer settlement organizations made, (i) what were all the procedural steps in the decision-making process, (ii) what stakeholders were consulted, (iii) which departments were involved in the decision-making process, (iv) what formulas were used, (v) how was it determined that 85 percent of the cuts were necessary in Ontario; (f) what percentage of the Ontario cuts to newcomer settlement organizations were made in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA); (g) how many newcomers arrived in Canada in each of the last five years, (i) how many newcomers arrived in each of the provinces and territories, (ii) how many people settled in each of the provinces, (iii) how many people settled in each of Canada’s ten largest cities; (h) what information does the government have regarding the movement of newcomers from one province to another or from one city to another in the newcomers' first three years after arrival in Canada; (i) from which countries did the newcomers arrive in each of the last five years and, for each country identified, (i) what are the official languages spoken, (ii) is English or French one of the country’s official languages; (j) what services are needed by newcomers to Canada and what services are provided by settlement organizations in Canada, by province and territory; (k) what, if any, research has been undertaken in Canada regarding gaps in services, by province and territory, and (i) when was the gap analysis undertaken and by whom, (ii) what were the results and recommendations, by province and territory, (iii) if no such analysis has been conducted, why not; (l) for each province and territory, (i) how many settlement organizations exist, (ii) what services do they provide, (iii) what populations do they serve, (iv) how many settlement organizations applied for federal funding, and (v) how many organizations that applied had their federal funding increased, decreased, or cut; (m) for each GTA constituency, (i) what percentage of constituency inhabitants are newcomers, (ii) what percentage of constituency inhabitants are not yet citizens, (iii) what percentage of constituency inhabitants are first generation Canadian born, (iv) how do percentages in (i) to (iii) rank nationally amongst the 308 ridings, (v) did any constituency's settlement organizations receive an increase or a decrease in funding and, if so, in what amount; (n) for each group given in (m) (i) to (iii), what major challenges do they face, including, but not limited to, family reunification, and language and job barriers; (o) how were organizations informed of any funding decision, (i) what reasons were given for a denial, (ii) were complete contact details given so that an organization could ask for further feedback, (iii) if so, what were those details, (iv) if not, why not; (p) what programs in the GTA (i) had their funding decreased, (ii) had funding cut entirely, (iii) will have to close down; (q) for each identified program in (p) (i) to (iii), (i) what are the specific reasons for denial, (ii) is the program an essential or unique program; (r) which schools in the GTA provided newcomer services, including, but not limited to, "We Welcome the World Centres", and which schools had their funding increased or decreased and by how much; (s) for each school identified in (r), what percentage of students are (i) newcomers, (ii) newcomers who do not speak English or French as their first language; (t) what, if any, research was undertaken to determine the impact of any decreases or cuts to funding for schools in (r) and what were the projected impacts on (i) student learning, (ii) student test scores, (iii) school performance in relation to other Ontario schools, (iv) socio-economic status of families, (v) tertiary education; (u) what, if any, plans have been developed to absorb the thousands of newcomer families who will be impacted by a loss of newcomer settlement services, by (i) province and territory, (ii) specifically, Canada’s ten largest cities; (v) is there an appeals process to funding-related decisions and (i) if yes, what is it, (ii) if not, why not; (w) what, if any, impact analysis was undertaken to determine the socio-economic impacts of cuts to newcomer settlement services on (i) clients, (ii) their families, and (iii) the economy of the GTA, and Canada, (iv) what were the results and recommendations of any analysis; and (x) by province and territory, as of January 1, 2011, (i) how many organizations had been informed of a funding decision, (ii) how many organizations were under review, (iii) how many were still waiting to hear about funding?