Debates of June 2nd, 1999

Health

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier I heard the hon. member for York Centre, the Minister of National Defence, mention in his speech that all parties in the House are supporting this motion except the Reform Party. That is not true. I would like to put it on the record that the statement was supposed to be the other way around.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion which I think, with the unanimous consent of the House, might be acceptable to all sides. The suggestion is that Motion No. 468 be withdrawn and that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think perhaps there may be agreement to proceed in this way at the conclusion of the debate, but I suggest that we wait until the conclusion of the debate. Otherwise there will be no motion left before the House to debate. That would be a disaster from the point of view of the debate.

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona wishes to speak and I suspect that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre might want his five minute reply.

If it is agreeable, perhaps we can simply hold the parliamentary secretary's suggestion in abeyance for a few moments and hear the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak to this motion before it disappears, procedurally speaking, but not before it disappears in terms of the subject matter being a matter of ongoing concern to the Canadian parliament.

Rather than have this motion, which is not votable, simply be debated and disappear, the idea of referring it to the health committee is a good one, providing of course that it does actually lead to some action down the way. However, we cannot know that unless we give it the old college try and so having this referred to the committee is certainly a good idea. I look forward to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre seeking the consent of the House to do that at the appropriate time.

This is a welcome motion because it gives us a chance to talk about something that is a very serious problem for a growing number of Canadians.

I have had the experience of visiting a person who suffers from MCS, multiple chemical sensitivity. She is a person who lives just outside my riding. Her name is Margaret Tatlock. She has educated me, and I hope educated a great many other Manitoba politicians, and not just politicians but others, in the terrible circumstances which people who suffer from MCS live in, the way in which their whole lives are virtually destroyed by this condition.

I know the bill is not just about MCS. It is also about chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. However, I want to talk in a little more detail about MCS because it seems to me that one of the tragedies of this is not just the illness itself, but also the great difficulty that these people experience in getting anybody to take them seriously.

Most of the people who suffer from these things go through a great period of time in which they have various doctors and others tell them it is all in their head, that it is psychological, that it is psychosomatic, et cetera. Even when elements of the medical community become persuaded that there really is something going on that is organic and not just psychological, then they find that they cannot get treatment. Even having crossed over the bridge of recognition, once they get there, there is nothing there for them in terms of treatment.

The person I am talking about has had to make repeated trips to a clinic in Texas, which is a very expensive thing to do, especially if you are not employed, because you cannot hold down a job when you have this kind of thing.

I have had to communicate with this person on occasion through a neighbour because sometimes she cannot even use the phone. These are all very difficult circumstances. I am sure there are peculiarities to every case, but here we have a Canadian having to go to Dallas on as regular a basis as she can to get treatment which alleviates her symptoms for a time. There is a clinic in Nova Scotia that deals with this, but it is only one. I think it is the one that the member from Ottawa was referring to earlier. The waiting list is enormous.

We have a growing number of Canadians who need to have this officially recognized as an illness and have all of our provincial health care systems deal with it.

I have written to ministers of health and to the federal Minister of Health. There seems to be a kind of jurisdictional twilight zone. How do we get a particular illness recognized as something that should be treated under the terms of the Canada Health Act, that falls under the rubric of a medical problem, which is therefore something that Canadians can claim through their medicare system? I have to say that I have not had any success in doing that on this person's behalf, or on anybody else's behalf for that matter.

That is an outstanding problem. Of course the recognition of it would also address, as this motion does, the whole question of disability, of having this recognized for disability purposes so that people can qualify for a disability pension. Surely people who fall into this category and suffer from this are people who are genuinely disabled. A lot of them cannot leave their homes.

This is a genuine disability and we need to cross over. We need to get out of the paradigm we are in. We need to get out of the way of understanding things the way we do now and do a new thing. If in some way the motion leads to that in the health committee, the House will have served Canadians who suffer from these conditions very well and we will have done our job. I hope that will be the outcome of the debate this afternoon.

One of the things that was disappointing this week, with respect to another issue that touches on these things, is the whole question of the environment. Here we are talking about multiple chemical sensitivity. I know the government members have already been on their feet to say what a wonderful job they are doing in instituting this new program to do research on toxic substances, et cetera. However, the fact of the matter is that this week we did not cross over. We did not do a new thing. We did not build a bridge to a new day when it comes to the environment when we had the opportunity. We may be doing that now, I hope, with respect to the recognition of MCS and these other two conditions, but we did not do it yesterday or on Monday when we had all the votes on the Canadian environmental protection act.

By the admission of everyone who knows anything about what happened in the environment committee, the government, in collaboration with the Reform Party, stomped out the more progressive amendments that were brought forward by the committee and by people on the government side who have a reputation with respect to the environment that is second to none. I am thinking of the hon. member for Davenport who has been a recognized expert on the environment in this parliament ever since I arrived and long before I arrived, since 1968, and the member for Lincoln and the member for York North. Here we have three Liberals with a reputation for being concerned about the environment, who were forced to vote against their own government, not just in defence of environmental principles but in defence of parliament.

Here we have another case of a committee that took a piece of government legislation, examined it and improved it, but when it got back to the House the improvements were literally stomped out.

The Reform Party members sometime complain that the work of committees is not respected. I will have to take that with a grain of salt from here on in. I thought they were sincere but not after this week. They not only participated in the ignoring of a committee report, they were active collaborators in the stomping out of the work of a committee.

I dare say there is a certain element of hypocrisy here, even on the part of the hon. member who moved the motion. Had he been up on his feet yesterday and the day before with the members for Davenport, Lincoln and York North then I might be in a bit more of a complimentary mood than I normally am, but he was not. I would urge him to reflect on the fact that one of the ways of dealing with multiple chemical sensitivity is to deal with the fact that our environment is more and more permeated with chemicals and it is going to continue to be more and more permeated with chemicals until we adopt a policy of total phase-out of persistent toxins.

As long as we have a policy that says we have to have balance no matter how bad the stuff is, it is like saying there can be only so much arsenic in our coffee. That is not balance. That is death, destruction and poison. That is negative and destructive. We need a policy of total phase-out of toxins in our environment. Until we get that kind of policy from the government, we will continue to have more and more Canadians suffering from these environmental illnesses.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Listening to the members of the House talk, in particular the minister of defence, the deputy whip of the government and the mover of the motion, there was indication from them that they might like to make this a votable motion. I would therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the motion be made votable?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness to all of my colleagues here, there have been some discussions. If we really want consent for the bill to go to committee, procedurally this is perhaps the most effective way. I do know of at least one or two members who are going to say no. As a result, this is the best possible scenario in a situation where we can still continue to debate the issue at the committee level and have the House dispose of it.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would ask if I could possibly propose a motion at this time or would you rather that I wait until later?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the member for Winnipeg—Transcona for introducing my particular solution to this problem that the member has raised.

I raised it when I did, not to interrupt the member's speech but simply because you were dealing with a point of order on this same matter.

This is a non-votable motion. The member for Ottawa Centre has put a great deal of work into it, as have other members of the House of Commons. Normally on a non-votable motion there is a debate and nothing happens.

The intent of my motion, which I will repeat if needed, is simply to see that it is referred to committee where it can be studied and hopefully come back to the House in a form in which it is not simply a motion but—

[The Deputy Speaker]

It sounds to me as though the parliamentary secretary is making a speech rather than rising on a point of order. While perhaps everyone appreciates the tenor of his remarks, we are using up the time that is available for debate.

The hon. member for Wetaskiwin has put a request to the House. Does he wish me to put that request to the House?

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the motion be made votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I should advise the House that if the hon. member for Ottawa Centre speaks now he will close the debate.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not put on the record my great appreciation for the tremendous amount of leadership that has been provided by the people at the Environmental Illness Society of Canada and, in particular, Judith Spence and her volunteers not only across the country but perhaps around the world. She has been a leading force in trying to bring about awareness of this issue.

I would also like to put on the record a word of appreciation for Kara Thompson who has also been a tremendous supporter of the issues, the Minister of National Defence who has been great inspiration for me on this issue, as well as members on all sides of the House, from the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois. Collectively, the House has come to a level of awareness where something needs to happen. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona has also, on a number of occasions, given me a tremendous amount of support on the motion.

In that spirit, I move:

That Motion No. 468 be withdrawn and the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.25 p.m., is it agreed that we call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a scientist at the Pacific Science Congress in Vancouver in 1974 had the following words to say. “A scientist has as much luck in communicating with the federal bureaucracy as you would have reciting Gaelic poetry to a deaf seagull”.

Recent events have served to prove these words. The government seems to be favouring the narrow, short term, cash interests of a few huge multinational corporations over the health of Canadians.

Canada's scientists have been gagged, muted, silenced and ignored by this Liberal government. They have been pressured to approve drugs and overridden by bureaucrats.

This is a very serious matter, and I believe the health of Canadians to be threatened. The disease is misplaced government priorities. The symptoms include muzzling scientists and heavy-handed government intimidation tactics. The prognosis is a festering, politically motivated plague on health prevention and the prescription is for this Liberal government to clean up its act where the health of Canadians is concerned.

In 1996 senior health protection regulator Dr. Michelle Brill-Edwards resigned, charging that the interests of pharmaceutical companies were being put ahead of those of the public.

Health protection scientists have revealed outside pressure to approve drugs aimed at increasing milk production in cows. The biggest multinational pressuring the Liberal government to approve their drugs for this use is Monsanto who, according to Elections Canada, during the last federal election donated to one candidate, the Liberal member for Mississauga Centre, and to one federal party in 1997, the federal Liberal Party.

The file on rBST, a drug to increase milk production, was placed off limits. A notice was sent out by the then director, Dr. Lachance, stating:

Please be advised that starting immediately, January 11, 1999, the following files cannot be obtained by anyone prior to my approval: rBST,...

The memo went on to list other files. Then gag orders were placed on the scientists not to discuss this issue publicly. One scientist, who testified early in May before the Senate committee on agriculture, said:

There was pressure to pass drugs, not only rBST, but also antibiotics and other hormones. There were serious problems with hormones that could cause cancer.

Another scientist, who testified before the Senate committee about the situation facing health department scientists, said:

—looking after the health of Canadians who are eating food produced from animals that are receiving dangerous drugs, antibiotics and hormones.

Yet another scientists, Dr. Margaret Haydon of Health Canada, testified that after her research she could not recommend support for a drug that affected the thymus gland of young calves which could in turn affect the immune system. Another evaluator agreed and the two acting chiefs of the section concurred.

All of this was overridden by higher powers closer to this Liberal government and hence closer to the corporate interests of Monsanto.

Even the food and drug administration in the U.S. admits that cows injected with these drugs could suffer from increased udder infections known as mastitis, severe reproductive problems, digestive disorders, persistent sores and lacerations.

Canadians do not want to consume pus in their milk. The government has done a real disservice to the health of Canadians, not to mention scientific integrity.

What will the Liberal government do to convince Canadians that it places their health over the greed of multinational corporate giants?

Finally, to what will the government commit in terms of putting in place processes which will protect the integrity of Canada's scientists and ensure that their research into our safety is given the priority it is due?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West on behalf of the Minister of Health regarding allegations about the health department.

These scientists have aired their concerns a number of times: For example, with the Public Service Staff Relations Board, PSSRB in September 1998 and at an October 22, 1998 and May 3, 1999 hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Following two days of testimony and volumes of information, the department found that scientists did not, through their testimony or documents, provide evidence to support their complaints. In fact the PSSRB dismissed all complaints made by Health Canada employees.

The department has gone to every effort to make certain that these scientists' concerns are heard and addressed and in fact, if there are concerns the scientists may have, they should bring them to the department where dispute resolution mechanisms are well in place.

No information on products is kept from scientists doing reviews and they have access to all information submitted and to the world literature on any subject.

Further, the deputy minister appeared before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on May 13. Let me repeat what he told them in the other place. He told the committee that there are 6,000 heroes at Health Canada, dedicated staff who work every day and many nights and weekends to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Let it be perfectly clear that the product at issue, rBST, has been reviewed within Health Canada for more than nine years and has been evaluated internationally. Some countries have approved it and some have not. Health Canada issued a non-compliance for rBST on January 14. For rBST injected animals there were concerns related to animal health and safety.

There is no gag order. This should be obvious from the very fact that the scientists provided hours of testimony to the Senate committee at both hearings. In fact we were advised very clearly by the department that it was its obligation to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.)