Debates of June 14th, 2010

Multiple Sclerosis

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Chair, I greatly appreciate the comments that the hon. member made. Obviously, his sister is open-minded and if she could access this, she certainly would.

The issue here is with regard to the studies. There are only going to be about 40 to 50 studies done a year and it takes a very long time. Meanwhile, people's lives are being lost. Dr. Sandy McDonald did indicate that he sees this as a plumbing problem. This procedure has been done for years for the same type of problem, but because a person has MS, they are being denied, so what he is saying is that we do not wait for the electrician to fix the plumbing.

Does the member not agree that we should be treating CCSVI differently, as a separate illness from MS?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, CCSVI is a treatment, not a disease, so the member is kind of confusing the two issues. It is a treatment procedure, as she well knows, that has been used in Europe and it appears to have great potential. I personally believe, and I do not think I am being over hopeful, that down the road it has great potential to be common practice, but at the same time, I want to ensure that whether it is my sister or a neighbour or a friend, whatever procedure they get to help their MS is safe.

Again, the key to that is research and expediting that process as quickly as possible.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, around Christmas time I received a phone call from a friend of mine, Kent Kirkpatrick. Kent is the chief administrative officer for the city of Ottawa and he has MS. I came to know him before I became an MP and he has done very well as chief administrative officer for the city of Ottawa with fairly serious responsibilities. He is a very intelligent and serious fellow. He was calling to arrange a meeting with Mr. Katz, another MS patient, who wanted to meet with me and perhaps two or three other people. We arranged that meeting early in January.

Mr. Katz introduced me to a doctor who is a Fellow at McMaster. He is an American but he is a Fellow at McMaster. He introduced me to this notion, which I admit was fairly new to me, this chronic cerebral spinal venous insufficiency and the possible treatment of it which is basically angioplasty that Dr. Zamboni had done in Italy. The results of some treatments had been released a couple of months before in November. I must admit to being impressed with that information, but what impressed me most was the feeling of hope expressed by the four or five folks I was meeting with. They were afflicted with MS, but the feeling of hope was so obvious in their voices, their body posture and in their eyes. I resolved to try to find out more about this to see where it was headed because it was new to me.

With some effort from my colleagues, in February we had a round table on neurological diseases that my colleague from Etobicoke North helped organize. I talked to her and my colleague from St. Paul's to get a sense of where this was going. After reading a bit I discovered there was some fairly blatant tensions in the MS Society between the traditional approach taken to treating MS and the people who thought that the treatment applied to CCSVI could be a solution to at the very least alleviate some of the symptoms.

I gather from what I have heard here tonight that it is fairly well accepted, if not fully scientifically yet, branded, but a fairly accepted hypothesis with some growing anecdotal evidence that it does indeed provide alleviation of symptoms and some hope. So much so, that two constituents paid $10,000 each to go to Poland to have it done. They are back and are feeling quite better, so this just feeds on itself. We now have a situation where the tension has grown beyond the MS Society. We have seen it a bit here in the House tonight, but it has also grown in the medical society.

I read today a letter to the editor of Maclean's magazine, June 21 edition. It is from Dr. Bradley Dibble, a cardiologist in Barrie, Ontario. He writes, “The resistance to CCSVI treatment for MS from the neurological community surprises me because they aren't even consistent when it comes to this kind of problem. As a cardiologist I am asked by neurologists on a daily basis to investigate patients with unexplained strokes to see if they have a small hole in their heart called the patent foramen ovale, PFO, and if I find one to have it closed with an invasive procedure. This is despite the fact that there are no clinical trials to show us that this is the right thing to do for these patients. There does appear to be a slightly higher incidence of PFO in unexplained strokes although they are present in about 25% of everyone on the planet and some observational information showing that this reasonably safe and not too costly invasive procedure appears helpful. To me, this sounds a lot like CCSVI, an association that has identified the procedure that can address the abnormality and some early observations that suggest a benefit. My neurology colleagues need to start moving forward and offer this procedure to MS patients and see how they respond”.

I think that pretty well sums up the debate that I am hearing here tonight.

I do not like to participate, and I will not, in any blame game. I am here to try to make things progress, make things better for my fellow citizens, those of Ottawa—Vanier and beyond.

Yes, there is some movement on the research side and I applaud that. It is the way to go. And that is definitely a responsibility of the federal authorities. But it does not stop there. There are also other authorities. One should never underestimate the power to convene. I was on the government side, at one time. I was in the cabinet and the power to convene is a very potent force. I would encourage the Minister of Health to use that power to convene.

There is a convention being called for the summer. That is fine. But there is also the power to convene federal-provincial meetings and those can be quite successful in provoking things to happen. It seems to me that is the stage we are at, so there might be a usefulness to having a federal-provincial meeting on that. I would certainly encourage the minister to consider that. I think it would be highly desirable. It is highly desirable on the part of the 55,000 to 75,000 Canadians who suffer from MS and who would love to be able to see if indeed, through a diagnostic, the CCSVI treatment, the angioplasty, could help alleviate their symptoms. I think we owe them that. We owe them the benefit of exploring whether or not we should be doing that, and quickly.

There seems to be a consensus tonight that there is a parallel track here between the research and the scientific affirmation of what is CCSVI vis-à-vis MS. Is it a cause, or is it a side effect, and can indeed angioplasty really alleviate the symptoms? It seems to be able to. We all know angioplasty is a fairly established procedure in this country. It is done regularly to tens of thousands of patients who have heart surgery. It is not as though we are inventing angioplasty here. It is done. It is a common thing.

So, if indeed, performing angioplasty on a venal insufficiency for people who suffer from MS can alleviate those symptoms, for heaven's sake, let us get there.

I accept the comments that we should be pressuring provincial colleagues as well. I have talked to my provincial counterpart and I will do so again. I will even formalize it in letters if need be because that is where we are at. We have a responsibility to our fellow citizens. We have over 50,000 people who suffer from MS in this country. They have a ray of hope projected for the first time in a long time.

They need to know whether or not, through a diagnostic, they have CCSVI and therefore could be afforded a treatment which is not, by all accounts, something that we would be reinventing here. I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound that we should not be reinventing the wheel. Well, angioplasty exists. We do not need to reinvent it. However, we need to apply it if, indeed, it can alleviate the symptoms that MS sufferers are experiencing.

I would hope that the government, through goodwill, and my colleagues from all opposition parties, through goodwill, could come together on this and cause something positive to happen for our fellow Canadians who suffer from this awful disease.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Chair, I come from a province that has one of the highest instances of MS in the country. At least at one time we were awarded that title. I think it probably still holds true because in my own community there is a high incidence of it.

Referring to the point the member had made about the fact that he was in government and in cabinet, he would understand why the minister would want to work with the provinces a little more closely.

In my province of Saskatchewan, where the incidence is high, there will be a lot of pressure on our minister of health to address this issue. The minister, Don McMorris, said that this treatment had created a lot of excitement but added that more work needed to be done to prove its efficacy.

Many of the experts, scientists and provincial ministers of health have testified that although the experimental treatment offers much hope, more research and technique needs to be done.

The minister is working as quickly as she can with the provincial ministers, but I think the member would want to advise us to work closely with the provincial ministers and not circumvent what might be necessary as far as more research and identifying whether this research works. Would the member agree with that?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I am not too sure of the question, Mr. Chair. If it is a matter of working co-operatively with the provincial authorities, absolutely. There are jurisdictions and we have to respect them. However, the fact that the administration of health is essentially a provincial jurisdiction does not detract from the fact that federal-provincial co-operation is everywhere. The Canada Health Act speaks to that.

There are insured procedures for instance and I believe angioplasty is one of them. Therefore, why is it being offered to some patients who have a venal insufficiency related to their heart, but not offered to patients who have MS and they have a venal insufficiency related to MS. Is there a discrimination here? Could it even be a case that we could end up in front of the tribunal?

Those are the types of debate I believe must be addressed in federal-provincial relations. Whether it is through a federal-provincial conference, or a meeting of ministers of health, or of the deputies or the heads of whatever departments on that, therein lies the power to convene and the usefulness of that power.

If the Minister of Health of Canada says that we have a situation where we have 75,000 Canadians who have seen a ray of hope and now expect us to do something about it and that they should get together and see what they can do, I think they would applaud her.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chair, there were some thoughts I heard earlier that need to be addressed.

First, this is a real condition. CCSVI refers to narrowed veins. It is recognized by 47 countries. We know how to diagnose and treat it. We know that between 80% and 97% of MS patients have this condition. We know that 1,000 people have been diagnosed and treated around the world. I am so encouraged tonight to hear that there seems to be consensus on all sides of the House that we need to move forward.

I want to point out that right now there is no research with a treatment arm being undertaken in Canada.

The question I have for my hon. colleague is this. Canadians today are having CCSVI treated in Bulgaria. Why do they have to travel to Europe when the facilities for treatment are available in Canada?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is the essence of the take note debate we are having tonight, so those listening, and certainly the Minister of Health of Canada, but hopefully ministers of health and officials in departments of health across the country, realize there is a real situation that needs to be addressed quickly.

There are people who will not wait. If one has a degenerative disease that progresses and sometimes progresses rapidly, one does not want to wait for four years for the results to test something that has already been demonstrated, in a limited number granted, to seem to work and knowing also the procedure that makes it work is an established and usual and not that costly procedure.

If people need to spend $10,000 to get themselves to Bulgaria or to Poland in order to have the procedure done, instead of waiting for four years, I understand those people. I also understand that we as parliamentarians, whether here or in provincial assemblies, have a responsibility toward our fellow citizens and we had better get on with it.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member is bang on. We do have to get a move on and we do have to ensure people have access to the procedure. Again, the procedure is angioplasty. I will correct my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CCSVI is the illness, is the disease and I am well aware of that.

When I looked at the testimony of Dr. Sandy McDonald, he indicated that the angioplasty procedure had been done since 1984. This is not a new procedure. It is not like a new drug where we have to do a double-blinded study. We know that the procedure works to unplug these veins. We are saying that CCSVI is the illness and yes, people with MS seem to have that illness, but we should still be treating CCSVI.

Maybe my colleague could speak a little more on the need to ensure that process takes place as soon as possible.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It is as simple as that, Mr. Chair. Let us get on with it. After tonight, the government will take notes. I would hope that the minister would see to it that there a usefulness to bringing her provincial counterparts together, or their representatives, to address this on a national basis very quickly. It is important we do so and that we been seen to do so. That is part of our responsibility as elected representatives. If it involves, as it has been suggested, that we do the same by pushing on our old provincial colleagues, I am quite prepared to do that as well.

Our fellow citizens who have MS and who have seen this ray of hope expect no less from us, and we should do no less for them.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Ottawa—Vanier for his balanced comments tonight. I appreciate his recognition of the leadership we have seen on research by our health minister, even in the midst of recession, of increases to CIHR.

I want to know his perspectives on whether there should be a federal role in the technical advisory committees for provincial health ministries and whether he believes there should be a national role. He talked about the role of convening. The Minister of Health is showing that with the conference. Having the top academics and researchers at provincial levels, academic levels involved in that conference will really probe this discussion.

In terms of authorization of treatment, I am curious whether the hon. member would support the perspectives of Aileen Carroll, for example, one of his former colleagues in cabinet. She suggests that the Ontario government should immediately authorize that treatment. Does he believe that is the case and should there be a federal role in the technical advisory committee?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I certainly do support Aileen, my colleague and friend. I am glad that she has stepped up and has written to her minister of health, and perhaps her premier as well, to get the Ontario government on side. There are no problems there.

The beauty of a federation is that we have 10 provincial partners and three territorial partners. Not all of them will do things the same and not all of them will come to the same conclusions. There will be best practices.

The power of convening, which I have talked about, rests in the fact that these 10 or 13 players can be brought together and learn from each other, bounce ideas and practices off each other, all of this to the benefit of our fellow citizens. In that sense, the responsibility of the Government of Canada goes beyond just the research. It goes into ensuring that the federation works for the benefit of its citizens, Canadians.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am proud to stand this evening to contribute and participate in this important discussion about multiple sclerosis.

I want to thank all my colleagues from all sides of the House for participating in this important discussion this evening, for contributing their very thoughtful comments and, in many cases, their personal stories. I also want to thank the Minister of Health for initiating this take note debate and for her leadership on this file.

I know multiple sclerosis is a devastating disease and that it has a major impact on those who suffer from MS, as well as their families.

My wife, Annette, was diagnosed with MS 10 years ago. Although she is more fortunate than many because she is still able to work part-time, she, however, must still deal every day with the very real symptoms of pain and fatigue. Like many with relapsing-remitting MS, some days are better than others. On days when her pain or fatigue is more pronounced, it takes a real effort for her to climb through the day.

Our health care system is a point of pride for Canadians. In fact, it helps to define us. It is a partnership that helps Canadians maintain and improve their health, making our country's population among the healthiest in the world. In collaboration with the provincial and territorial governments, we are giving Canadians, including those living with MS, access to the best possible health care.

The organization of Canada's health care system is set out by the Canadian Constitution. All governments share the responsibility for the health of Canadians and collaborate to ensure that Canada's health care system is strong and vibrant.

The Constitution gives the provincial and territorial governments primary responsibility, as we know, for the administration and delivery of health care services in their respective jurisdictions. They set their own priorities and decide which services and treatments to provide and fund, based on sound research and in consultation with key players and experts.

The federal government plays various roles in this health care partnership. Tonight I would like to speak to three aspects that are of particular relevance to Canadians living with MS: first, funding through the Canada health transfer; second, the administration of the Canada Health Act; and third, scientific research. Let us look at each of these three areas in more detail.

To begin with, the federal government provides significant funding to the provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer to enable them to provide health care services to Canadians. The Canada health transfer is a crucial part of the Canadian health care system. In order for our health care system to be effective and for the needs of those living with MS to be served, there must be significant financial investment.

The Canada health transfer is one of the largest major transfers from the federal government to the provinces and territories. As requested by the provinces and territories, this government is providing long-term predictable funding for health care to ensure that all Canadians have access to excellent health care services.

The funding provided by the federal government in support of the provision of health services in Canada for 2010-11 will reach $25.4 billion, a very substantial amount. This amount will grow 6% annually until 2014, when it will reach over $30 billion.

In supporting the health care systems of the provinces and territories, the Government of Canada helps facilitate the on the ground delivery of health care services to Canadians, including those living with MS.

Next, the Government of Canada plays a crucial role in administering the Canada Health Act, ensuring that all Canadians have access to a robust, publicly-funded, universal health care system. This act was passed in the House in 1984 and even today, more than 25 years later, Canadians continue to attach vital importance to each of its five principles. These five principles: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration, form the basis of our national health care system.

In addition to fulfilling its other roles in health care, the Government of Canada is committed to upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act and the values that have inspired Canada's single-payer, publicly-financed health care system.

Finally, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or the CIHR, the Government of Canada supports research that contributes to the body of knowledge about health services and treatments in our health care system. By funding research studies, the Government of Canada is ensuring that the evidence base is there to make decisions about the effectiveness and efficacy of various treatment options. This research is especially important when the quality of life of Canadians is at stake, as it is with people living with MS.

As is appropriate, the federal government will continue to fund MS research so that the provinces and territories can make informed decisions that will benefit Canadians. Indeed, the Government of Canada's role in supporting health research is particularly evident when considering MS and other neurological diseases. In 2008 and 2009, investments in neurosciences research totalled over $120 million. So far, through the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Government of Canada has invested over $45 million into MS research. Through investments like these and continuing support for research in this very important area, our government is working to find safe and effective treatments for MS.

While this funding is important, we must also have the flexibility and adaptability to pursue new and innovative options. In my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, innovation is a central theme. From our post-secondary institutions to our cutting-edge high tech companies, research is part of our local culture.

However, the value lies not in research for its own sake but in our ability to apply that research for the betterment of society. Just as technological research leads to innovative new products and methods to increase productivity and grow our economy, the goal of medical research is ultimately to improve the health and quality of life of all Canadians. We would do well to remember that core responsibility.

We must ensure that the right investments are made in science and innovation and that research focuses on the right priorities at the right time.

Around the world, scientists, doctors and MS patients have witnessed the promise of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency treatments, or CCSVI. This is the right time to focus our efforts on the potential of this procedure which appears to be one of the most hopeful and positive developments to occur in the treatment of MS.

While health policies must clearly be based on sound science, we need to strike the right balance between research and treatment and between science and compassion.

Let us move forward with our collaborative partners from across the country and around the world and provide MS patients with the information they need to support their decisions for treatment. They deserve nothing less.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, the fact is that there was no action plan mentioned at all in the member's speech. I think people watching television and those in the gallery tonight want an action plan from the government. They want to hear that the minister will take an aggressive stance and position, call the provincial ministers to a meeting and establish a plan to proceed, not let this whole issue carry on for another six months or year, which is what will happen.

We will be having this debate a year from now with all kinds of excuses from the minister and the government as to why they could not do this or that. If they could run a successful H1N1 program, show some direction and get the job done with the provinces, why can they not do the same thing with MS?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, indeed, there is an action plan. We are, of course, having this very important discussion this evening. The Minister of Health has indicated that she will be convening a meeting of leading scientists and researchers, not only from across Canada but from around the world to advance and fast-track this important process and procedure.

The Minister of Health has also indicated that there is funding available for research in this important area and that groups need to apply.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Kitchener—Waterloo for his intervention and, indeed, all members who participated in this take note debate tonight. I think it was done, for the most part, with respect and passion. Everyone is willing to ensure that we find a solution, not just a treatment but the cure to MS.

I appreciate the situations that so many members have, including the member for Kitchener—Waterloo and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who have immediate family members who are impacted by multiple sclerosis. I have an aunt, some very close friends and a cousin who suffer from MS and I know they are hopeful that CCSVI will be all that it has been made out to be.

The member alluded to the need to ensure that the treatment is effective and that we do our diligence in an expedited manner to do that research. I want him to comment on the hope that is out there with patients.

I know his own personal experience is an emotional case. He said that his wife can still work part time. Could he talk about what she hopes and what other patients are hoping will be accomplished with the new research and the leadership that is being shown by the Minister of Health to get all provinces co-operating so that we can get this implemented across the country from coast to coast to coast?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is clear from the attention that CCSVI treatment has received in the media, from the debate this evening and from the interventions by my colleagues on all sides of the House that this treatment does provide hope. It has provided more hope than I have seen in the 10 years that I have been familiar with this disease.

That is why we do need to move and why the Minister of Health has committed to mobilizing resources. That is why we are having this discussion tonight and that is why we need to continue to apply pressure, both federally and provincially, to ensure that we continue to make progress in this very important area.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the money for CIHR must be allocated to research that includes a treatment arm. Again, the MS Society has asked for $10 million. It would be terrific to hear that the $10 million is coming, but again, it must include a treatment arm.

The MS societies in Canada and the U.S. did not give any money to studies with a treatment arm of the $2.4 million announced last week. How will we know if it is effective if we do not have a treatment arm? We are encouraged that there will be this conference. I would like to know if Dr. Zamboni has been invited from Italy.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am not aware of whether Dr. Zamboni has been invited to participate in this important meeting in a few weeks' time. I understand the importance of providing treatment options as we advance this important discussion. Clearly, because of the hope that exists around this new treatment, Canadians are counting on us to make progress as quickly as we possibly can, which is why we need to mobilize resources. We need to gather the best and most capable minds and we need to work collaboratively with our provincial counterparts to advance this very important issue.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, the member for Kitchener—Waterloo mentioned the importance of facts. At the end of the night, one of the things I would like to see achieved is misinformation put aside because we are all on the same team here.

We have heard that $5.2 million are already on the table and that over $10 million are on the table if researchers want to submit applications for research.

There are things out there called levels of evidence. We have heard Canada being compared to Bulgaria. I am proud to say that there is a different level of evidence between Canada and western democracies. People and patients expect it. I believe Dr. Zamboni has only done about 121 patients. I would love to see research on some treatments. Angioplasty has been mentioned. It has been done for over 20 years but it is a brand new procedure for veins. There is so much more that we need to know.

With the Minister of Health taking this leadership role in getting the facts so that provinces know which treatments they should be funding, insurance companies and patients would be aware of the facts, how important is it to have those levels of evidence and the facts out there so patients and doctors can make these decisions?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned in my remarks, it is important for us to find a balance between research and treatment and between science and compassion. It is important that we know the facts. It is important that we advance our research in this area as quickly as we possibly can so that those facts can be known.

As I indicated in a previous response, people who suffer from MS are counting on all of us to move as quickly as we possibly can. This government and all governments also have a responsibility to all citizens to ensure that treatments are safe and effective. We need to find the right balance between those two very important public policy goals and proceed down this track as quickly as we possibly can.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for saying that we need to get there as quickly as possible. One hundred patients have had the treatment in Bulgaria and they have all had improvement in their symptoms. Their disability score has improved by 1.5 points on average.

We need a compassionate route to treatment for patients who have no other options. It is really important to point out that this is not a new procedure for veins. Venoplasty is done for venous stenosis in dialysis patients all the time and it has been done for several years. If a patient had a venous problem in the liver or the leg it would be diagnosed and treated. We know how to do this.

We do have to move this along as quickly as possible--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must stop the member there because her time has expired. I will allow the member for Kitchener--Waterloo a very brief moment to respond before I go on to the next speaker.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am aware that venous treatments for other conditions for other parts of the body are well established. We need to continue to keep that in mind, as does the medical establishment, as we continue to push this important public policy issue along as quickly as we possibly can.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, members from all four corners of this House have referenced members of their families and friends who are victims of multiple sclerosis, and I am no exception. I am speaking in memory tonight of Julie Serle and the Lillos family.

She was my cousin. She was born in 1949. In her mid-twenties, after starting a successful career as a master teacher for the Vancouver School Board, she became ill with multiple sclerosis. She never plateaued at any time. Very quickly over the subsequent 10 years, she lost her motor control and her ability to work, although her colleagues helped her for a time, as there was not access to the classroom, by carrying her up her classroom to teach her students. She was a phenomenal teacher.

She eventually had to give up teaching and ended her days in a convalescent home. At that point she was blind and speechless. I remember visiting her in the final stages, as did members of my family and the Lillos family throughout her illness. She died in October 1985.

Every member who has spoken tonight has referenced loved ones, family members and friends who have been victims of multiple sclerosis. I have no doubt in the sincerity of anyone who has spoken tonight. There is no doubt that we are talking about an epidemic, an illness that kills and one that afflicts 75,000 Canadians as we speak. It is nothing less than a crisis. That is the fundamental issue we are trying to grapple with and deal with. Seventy-five thousand Canadians are living through a crisis, an emergency situation. As parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to go in with all means possible and with all due diligence and assist those 75,000 Canadians and their families.

If there were a flood or a fire tonight, none of us would say that we will put in partial funding and partially address the issue, that we will try to provide some funding in order to quell the fire, in order to save the homes from the flood. The Canadian tradition has been that we go in with all means possible. We resolve the crisis. We provide the resources necessary to get the job done.

That is what we have to do in the case of MS sufferers. Given the breakthrough, the potential around angioplasty as a treatment for CCSVI and the correlation between CCSVI and multiple sclerosis, I believe we have the responsibility to move forward as quickly as possible, to fast-track funding and ensure that while we are doing it in the most professional way possible, we leave no stone unturned to resolve this crisis.

The reality is that because of the amplitude of this crisis, there are Canadians tonight who are flying out to eastern Europe, to Poland and Bulgaria, because they cannot get that treatment here at home. If that does not show the size and scope of the impacts that multiple sclerosis sufferers and their families are having to deal with, I do not know what does.

We have a crisis on our hands. We need resources now. Although I have been listening attentively, as we all have, I must say that I do not believe the government is addressing the issue as quickly as possible and with the resources that are needed at this time in order to go through the stages, to ensure the treatment is available, to ensure that the due diligence is performed. It has to be done in such a way, fast-tracked so that Canada can turn from being one of the countries in the world with the highest rate of MS to the country in the world that provides the greatest support for victims of multiple sclerosis.

We have to do that immediately. I do not accept the idea that the resources are not available, that we have to accept partial funding and that partial funding is adequate. We have seen the amount of money and resources that are being allocated for the G8 and G20 summits.

What people are talking about, the MS sufferers who cannot be in the House tonight, in terms of funding and fast-tracking is half of 1% of what we are providing in the G20 in Toronto, so the resources are there very clearly. When we talk about the money that is allocated to corporate tax cuts, the hours that we have spent tonight debating this important question that members from all parties have spoken to and all members have spoken with sincerity and conviction, the amount of money that we provide in corporate tax cuts just over this four hour period that we have had the debate, would address that need for fast-tracking of funding. The funding is very clearly there; it is just being allocated in the wrong place and it needs to be allocated to provide that support to MS sufferers.

Those who are victims of MS cannot be in the House tonight, but we have all been receiving the letters that talk about the size and scope of this crisis and the importance of dealing with it with full resources, with full funding immediately. I wanted to read a few of the letters that I have received from right across the country. We have received letters from Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, the Prairies, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. I want to read briefly some of the letters I have received.

One letter is from Domingos Fernandez who lives in Inwood, Ontario. He talked about his symptoms and said, “Before all this happened with MS, I was a short-order cook, a cab driver and a general labourer. Now having MS I am forced to rely on an Ontario disability support as an income. It is very hard. I used to be able to cook, bathe and dress myself. None of this I can do now”.

We heard from Tesha Rushton of Calgary, Alberta, who said very simply, “What we are asking for is justice. We are asking to be treated as equals, not as untouchables. We are asking for help”.

These are the voices that all of us are hearing from MS sufferers and their families and supporters across the country. These are letters that we must respond to. We have to respond tonight with that allocation of resources that addresses the crisis. Nothing less will do. All members are speaking with conviction. We seem to have unanimous agreement tonight that this is a crisis that must be met with the resources that Canadians traditionally provide. To address crises we provide the resources necessary. That has not happened yet. It has to happen following this debate.

If we are to properly address the memories of those who died from MS and those who are suffering now and those who may suffer if we do not move to put in place the best treatment programs and the best supports possible, if we do not do that, then tonight's debate does not have the impact that MS sufferers and their families across the country would like to see. They hope to see this issue addressed substantively and fully. That is what we have to have coming out of the debate this evening.

In closing, I want to mention the motion that we put before the House, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take immediate action to: (a) accelerate a greater and broader participation of multiple sclerosis (MS) sufferers in pilot testing and treatment programs by providing fast-track funding for surveillance, research and dissemination of findings, including providing urgent prescreening imaging services of MS sufferers; (b) work with the provinces and territories through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to obtain advice and evidence-based information about the effectiveness of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency treatment without delay; and (c) take a leading role, on the basis of this evidence, in encouraging the swift adoption of the procedure in territories and provinces.

That is what I think all members of Parliament, those particularly who have members of their family or close friends who have suffered from MS would want to see happen.

Let us, coming out of this debate, put in place that funding, pass this type of support and direction to the government. Let us ensure that the government does by all means necessary and with the appropriate due diligence bring new hope to those who suffer from MS across this country. Nothing less will do. Their voices have spoken through all of us tonight. We must meet the challenge. We must provide the support so that Canada leads the world in addressing MS and providing support and therapies for MS sufferers.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his speech. I do want to correct him, though. The resources are available. Actually, there is more money available than the take-up for research.

With that, I would like to ask him a question with regard to the research in his own community. According to UBC's MRI Research Centre, in order to determine whether CCSVI is beneficial, treated patients would need to be followed over time. In addition to proving that the treatment is safe, there are important questions that need to be asked. First, does the treatment improve symptoms such as fatigue in memory and how long does it last? Second, does the treatment stop MS over time? Third, how does the treatment of CCSVI affect iron deposits in the brain?

A treatment for CCSVI requires vigorous testing and research to prove it is safe and beneficial for Canadians suffering with MS.

I would ask the member, does he think that this is logical, or does the member disagree with the advice from UBC's MRI Research Centre?