Debates of April 17th, 1997

National Parole Board

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question on fetal alcohol syndrome by the hon. member for Mississauga South whose interest in the matter is unabated.

Alcohol use during pregnancy is a national health concern. Alcohol can affect the health of the mother, the fetus and the ability of the affected child to lead a healthy life even throughout adulthood. Fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS is a medical diagnosis that refers to a set of alcohol related disabilities associated with the use of alcohol during pregnancy. FAS children may suffer from a wide variety of physical and behavioural problems including learning disabilities. These children tend to have poor school experiences and as adults are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.

The joint statement on prevention of FAS in Canada was developed by 18 national and grassroots health organizations and the Department of Health. The main message in the statements is that women are advised to avoid alcohol during pregnancy. The statement also calls for appropriate family centres and culturally sensitive treatment programs for women addicted to alcohol. These recommendations address primary prevention of FAS, that is preventing the problem from occurring.

There is also the need for accurate diagnosis, treatment of FAS children and support services for their families. In addition, we need a better understanding of the rate of FAS in Canada and further research into the effect of follow up programs for affected children.

Health Canada is working with the co-signatories of the joint statement to continue to identify effective strategies in addressing these needs. The problem of alcohol use during pregnancy is a

challenge to all of us concerned with the health of women, children and their families.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, on March 7 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport whether the minister would implement the Transport Safety Board's recommendations to ensure that tanker car standards are strengthened to protect the public during the transport of dangerous chemical substances.

I thank the parliamentary secretary for his reply to the effect that work was already in progress to upgrade the strength of tanker cars. This is certainly progress on the road to protecting Canadians, their lands and water from toxic chemicals in the event of rail accidents. It also represents an important step in maintaining the confidence of Canadians in rail transport.

While this is a step in the right direction the public interest covers a much broader picture. If we are to have a truly sustainable transportation policy in Canada, not only do we need to have a safe rail system, important as it is. We also need to examine the effects of air pollution caused by increasing car and truck traffic. We also need to tackle the serious problem of carbon dioxide emissions and their contribution to the onset of climate change.

Let me elaborate on one of these items. In a 1995 study by the sectoral task force on transportation of the Ontario Round Table on the Environment and the Economy it was calculated that for every tonne of cargo hauled road transport produced seven times more carbon dioxide than rail. This fact must become a central consideration when making transport decisions in Canada. At present we are unfortunately headed in the wrong direction. The amount of freight being hauled on Canada's roads is greatly increasing while the amount of freight being hauled on rail is decreasing.

For example, road transport has increased its share of surface transport in Canada from 30 per cent in the 1950s to 70 per cent in 1991. At present, subsidies to rail are being cut while road subsidies continue to increase. Today our highways are clogged with trucks when in some regions railway lines are being underutilized or even abandoned.

Then there is the public health component of a sustainable transportation policy which points to the health cost caused by urban smog in Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars between medical and hospital care are being spent. Clearly there is a link between transportation policy and human health. Therefore we need to find ways of reducing automotive transport.

Producing cars and trucks which pollute less is helpful but not sufficient an answer unless accompanied by decrease in vehicles and vehicular use. What is needed is a gradual reversal of the present trend, a movement toward a greater reliance on rail, a movement toward incentives favouring public transit in cities and a movement toward reducing subsidies for road transport.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. When can Canadians expect the federal government to produce a sustainable transportation policy which would address protection of human health through pollution reduction and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by giving greater importance to moving freight by rail and by encouraging and quite possibly facilitating policies aimed at moving people by public transit?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to answer in French a question raised by the hon. member for Davenport on March 7.

At the time he mentioned the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board that additional restrictions be put on the use of Class 111A rail tanker cars for hauling dangerous materials.

I can assure him that safety has always been and will continue to be the first priority of Transport Canada. The department is constantly working on upgrading the safety of the transportation systems used in this country.

Regarding the specific recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board to which the hon. member referred, I can inform him that Transport Canada had carried out a complete review of goods that could be shipped in Class 111A tanker cars well before the Board presented its report.

At the time, there were specific restrictions on the shipping of 80 dangerous goods which may now no longer be carried in this type of tanker car. Recently, two more dangerous goods were added to the list of restricted goods. Transport Canada is continuing its analysis of 14 other dangerous goods.

I may also point out that Class 111A tanker cars are the workhorses of the freight car fleet, with 165,000 cars in service in North America. Although Transport Canada feels that these cars provide a safe method of confinement, the department continues to look for effective ways to improve the safety of all Class 111A cars.

Work is being done on ways to improve aluminum and nickel Class 111A cars. From now on they will require a full protective shield to protect the outside of tanker cars from perforation when used to carry dangerous goods.

Finally, I would like to repeat that safety always has been and always will be the first priority of Transport Canada.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, on February 20 I raised a question in the House for the first time on a subject of great value and importance to many Canadians, that is their right to use herbs and other natural products for health and/or medical reasons.

What these people are suggesting is quite simple. They are saying Health Canada in its health protection branch is being non-consultative to the extent that it ignores the freedom of choice of Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary will suggest as he did on February 20 that products which are sold must be safe and effective. He will talk about Ephedra and how some people out west had a bad reaction to it, but he will not talk about pharmaceutical drugs which each and every day put people into emergency rooms at great cost to the system because they are not safe for the intended user.

This issue is really about miracles of magic when through the wonder of the health protection branch something that grows in the garden or swims in water is no longer a food but becomes a drug, a drug that may be restricted or not accepted at all. What is a dietary supplement south of the border is a drug in Canada. What has been used for hundreds of thousands of years with positive effects is banned in Canada. What is naturally occurring and at worst innocuous is outlawed by nameless faces in the name of good medicine in Canada.

In all of this we have lost sight of the consumer. Regulatory mania and cost recovery are driving this. Health Canada is putting the onus of proof on the individual consumer. Yet who is speaking for the consumer?

It should be noted that British Columbia is investing more than $5 million to found a centre to apply alternative health products and procedures. Because of the influx of people from the Pacific Rim there is a realization that their ways, although we do not know why, are safe and beneficial. We know this to be the case because for thousands of years their methods have in fact worked. Yet the health protection branch says: "This is all news to us. Prove it".

I am suggesting that consumer rights are greater than bureaucratic rights. I am suggesting that bureaucrats should accede to the right of Canadians to access natural products they believe to be of benefit to them.

I am urging the minister to speak for Canadian consumers and not for business interests, rule makers and multinational corporations.

On a parallel point, last Saturday the Globe and Mail carried an article on the apparent power of prayer to improve the condition of the sick. Why this treatment works on a scientific basis, who really knows. Perhaps I could suggest the health protection branch should investigate and regulate this too.

I realize this is really stretching the comparison. Yet why regulate daffodil bulbs, oil from parsley and lily of the valley, all of which grow in my garden? If I believe that consuming these will in a natural way correct a medical problem I might have, what does it matter to the health protection branch if perhaps like prayer they can in fact have a beneficial effect on my particular case?

I have a prescription for Health Canada. Perhaps a dose of sense and sensibility before those two things are regulated would persuade the minister to rethink his department's position.

What is effective such as daffodil bulbs and prayers may not always be scientifically quantifiable.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I guess I should respond since we are in a definite linguistic mode.

I do not want to go back to what I said just a moment ago but the member is pre-empting what he thought I was going to say. I think I am going to surprise him.

I want to respond to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton regarding the implication of herbal products in Canada. The mandate of Health Canada is to ensure that drug products on the Canadian market are safe, effective and of high quality.

It is not our intention to restrict the right of free choice but rather to ensure that choices available can be made without concern for the effectiveness and safety of products. Any herbal product in a form used by the consumer that is intended for medicinal use requires a drug identification number. Canadians can be assured that if a product has a DIN it has been verified as safe and effective by the Canadian government.

It is worth mentioning that it is the importer's responsibility to ensure its products are in compliance. There are thousands of legitimate products on the market. Health Canada is encouraging the herbal medicine industry to come forward with proposals regarding the acceptable use of various herbal products.

In response to numerous requests for lists of herbs and herbal products that might be stopped by Customs from entry into Canada, the department is developing a system by which there can be a greater degree of certainty and transparency in terms of the products that are permitted in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)