Mr. Tilson.
Evidence of meeting #2 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #2 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I feel comfortable with all of the topics that are being suggested. They're all good topics. The superbug issue, of course, is something that I think has just happened. We don't seem to know what to do with it, or at least the medical people don't know what to do with it. I guess as legislators, because it's scaring the heck out of us, we should put it high on our list.
I'm the one who put forward the idea of the study of the natural health products. There's always an issue between the medical profession and the people who sell these things. A lot of it should be a matter of education, I suppose, but these stores are popping up all over the place. I know the act was passed in 2004, so I'd like that to be on the list.
Quite frankly, I congratulate all the members on the topics that have been put forward. I could live with any of them, but superbugs would be at the top of my list.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Over the summer and for several years, many drugs have been put out on the market. Some of them present a certain degree of danger for people's health. There are even drugs that have been withdrawn from the market.
I would like to do a study on what should be done to better support research, for example. We always say that research is not done independently, that it is done by pharmaceutical companies. As far as the follow-up of the marketing of the drug is concerned, there is no independent research. Perhaps we could review all of the steps involved in this process, right up to the consumption of these drugs by patients.
A disturbing film came out in Quebec. It shows that we have an interest in wanting to market drugs. But there is also the issue of people's health to consider. I think that it is the committee's role to study this kind of behaviour.
There are also natural products and their registration. Do we have the necessary resources to deliver the goods? We had said that natural products should be monitored and controlled. The necessary staff must be in place to do so. There is a 10-year backlog before we get to all of the products on the waiting list for registration. There are even some companies that cannot export drugs because they have not yet been registered. We could perhaps study the impact of that on the industry.
We should also perhaps have one meeting on silicone implants. In the United States, an action was commenced by a female Democratic senator. I think this product is dangerous for women, and perhaps we dismissed the whole issue a little too quickly here in Canada.
Finally, the Liberal Party talked about the labelling of alcoholic beverages. I think we will have to develop strategies before deciding that all bottles coming from overseas must be labelled.
Should we not study first nations communities that are deeply affected by fetal alcohol syndrome? We could look into the various strategies used by the government, even by past governments, to see if any local programs have been successful or have had a positive impact. In Quebec, we have such programs in place, and for the past two years they have produced results, either in terms of curbing drinking and driving or improving people's health.
Therefore, I think we do indeed have interesting issues to study over the course of our meetings.
Thank you.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Post-market surveillance has been raised a few times now, and I'm glad that both sides around this table agree that it's something we should study. I like the idea that we combine it with the mandatory adverse event planning.
It looks as though that's something we have a consensus on.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
It seems that five years can pass and the issues raised are exactly the same. We stand still in terms of progress. When I was here last, the whole issue of post-market surveillance of drugs was a big issue, and it still is a big issue. I would certainly support a major look at that issue.
When I was first elected, in 1997, I can remember that the very first issue I dealt with was the federal government's elimination at the time of the only independent federal drug research laboratory in the federal government. We've been struggling ever since, trying to figure out how to do post-market surveillance--how to study side effects between drugs, drugs and foods, and drugs and natural health products. We had a bureau that did that, and it was closed in 1997. Since then there have been attempts to farm it out to external agencies and to have drug companies themselves do it, which would seem to be a bit of a conflict of interest. We have research being delegated to universities that say they haven't got the wherewithal to do more.
It is a big issue, and I certainly would support that as a study.
I also like the issue of infectious diseases and the question of the superbugs and what's happening in some of our hospitals.
I have two other very small suggestions that I think could be tacked on as one- or two-session studies of issues that might have been dealt with by this committee in the past, but are still not resolved.
One has to do with diabetes. I know the committee did a study in 2003 on the lack of access to the appropriate insulin and other drugs for people with diabetes. There was a study and there were recommendations, but nothing has happened since then. We still have a problem of people who need animal insulins but are not able to access those insulins, and who have to go outside the country and smuggle them in or pay exorbitant prices for drugs and alternatives that are not covered under formularies.
It seems to me we need to revisit that issue, look at the study the health committee did, get the officials before the committee in terms of what the problems are, and then try to come up with another way to get at the problem. It's maybe a small group of people--not so small; it's a lot of people who just don't have access to what they need to lead a healthy, decent lifestyle.
The second issue is one we've dealt with in the past. It pertains to an Auditor General's report on national disease surveillance. I'm not sure what year it was; it was either 1999, 2000, or 2001 that the Auditor General reported to us that we're one of the few countries in the world lacking a national surveillance system for chronic diseases. Apparently it's still the case in some areas. It seems progress has been made with respect to cancer, but with respect to heart and stroke, our government still cannot answer the question of how many heart attacks happen on an annual basis. We don't know, because we have no method of asking for that information to be collected and pooled and formed into a database so that we can then decide what an appropriate solution would be or what would help prevent the problem.
Those are my two suggestions.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
On what the honourable member has just mentioned, you will be pleased to know that Brian Peckford is reviewing the national diabetes strategy. I believe that announcement was made a couple of weeks ago.
We also have a cardiovascular strategy working group that the minister announced about a year ago would provide recommendations. Perhaps that will be one of their recommendations, I don't know, but that steering committee is due to finish its work sometime in the spring.
I'm sure the government would be happy to highlight all the great things we're doing in those areas. Are you sure you would like that to happen?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I have quite a few topics I'd like to look at that are of interest to Canadians, I believe.
First is prescription pirating. We've heard about prescriptions being pirated or of pills that have substitutes in them and where they're coming from, and so on. That's one.
Second is the toy imports from China that were found to be unhealthy for children. I think we should do a study on that, on the importing of goods, any goods. What standards do they go through? What are the Canadian requirements for importing goods?
Third, I think all the parties have been talking about wait-time reductions in the past and have made that a platform of theirs. We should have a review of those wait-time procedures and measurements. How are they measured and what are the processes they go through?
Fourth would be interprovincial differences in listing health products. We understand that there are some health products that are available in one province and not another, so I would be interested in finding out about the interprovincial barriers or differences when it comes to Canadians not receiving the health care they deserve.
Fifth would be youth dental assessment. There's discussion in my riding about youth not having sufficient dental prevention while they're young, and therefore they don't learn to have dental hygiene and care and they become adults with difficulties with their teeth, which amounts to a lot of problems later on.
I think that will be enough for now from me.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Well, I congratulate you. Your topics are very well thought out. They're different. We haven't had those brought forward. Thank you very much for your time.
Now, is there any other discussion around the table in terms of any other topics?
The analysts have put down all the topics that have been discussed today. In discussion with the clerk, what I'm going to do is give you until Tuesday, November 27, to submit your list to the clerk. She felt that would be a correct amount of time. It'll give you some time. We then will discuss them on November 29 and get a work plan put out.
Is that acceptable to the committee? Can we reach a consensus?
9:50 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, if there is no other business, we have come to the conclusion of our business for today. Is there anything else?
Go ahead, Mr. Thibault.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Just for clarification, we don't have to resubmit what we've said here.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
So you have that.
Before the meeting of the steering committee to look at these priorities, it would be good if we could each have a copy of the list that's been submitted by each member so we can talk to our rep on that committee and give suggestions based on the priorities of each individual party.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Perhaps I could just make a comment on that. We haven't talked about a steering committee as of yet....
Mr. Tilson, you had your hand up.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Madam Chair, I just want to be clear on the procedure of how we're going to come up with topics. Some of them will last a day, some will last a month, and some will last forever, I suppose.
I want to be clear on how you or the committee is suggesting a consensus be reached. Presumably the clerk, after an appropriate period of time, will provide each member with a list of topics that have been given today—perhaps in the next few days. Then when we have the list, what happens?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm going to have the analyst speak on the time it will take.
Perhaps you could speak to Mr. Tilson.
9:55 a.m.
Nancy Miller Chenier Committee Researcher
You've already given us some indication of the length of time you think your particular studies might take. A lot of people have suggested one meeting.
What we'll do is we'll organize them according to your indication of whether you think it's a one-meeting process or a longer-term study. We could get to you the list you've given us today, certainly by the 27th, which is your final date for submitting any additional ideas. In fact, you could probably set up some of your one-day meetings very quickly, once you've agreed you want to go ahead with them.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Last time, if memory serves me well, we discussed the way in which we would reach a consensus. We were asked to give our priority choices. Each member from every party would decide on their first priority. For example, if seven or eight members of the committee had given priority to the study on the safety of drugs, that would be the subject of the first study. That is how we made the first, second and third choices. I don't know if that would suit everyone, but that is what we did last time. We agreed that the greatest number of votes would win. In the end, it is rather like taking a vote.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative