Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2010

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address this question not only because it is an important issue but because I am a very proud Métis woman, the only Métis woman in the House of Commons.

I find it very rich that the member, who has brought this forward today, stands here and pretends to care about aboriginal survival. We just had a vote that was intricately important to the survival of the aboriginal people. We are going to protect their languages and I am going to tell her how our government is doing that because I am proud to be part of a government that actually does something and does not just talk about it.

If we are going to protect the languages of aboriginal people, we must protect their traditions and way of life, which includes using long guns to hunt and provide for their families. Unfortunately, the NDP cares nothing about what the aboriginal people want. It cares only about making political points in the House.

Unfortunately, I find it very rich today that I am answering the member who voted against the traditions of aboriginal people of hunting and providing for their families by voting against our bill, the bill sponsored by the member for Portage—Lisgar, to abolish the long gun registry.

Let us get into the facts of the matter because it is this government that has six aboriginals in its caucus. There are none in the New Democratic Party. Let us discuss some of the facts about aboriginal languages.

UNESCO identifies 86 aboriginal languages that are still spoken in Canada and many, of course, are in danger of disappearing. Ten languages have become extinct in the past century and only one in five aboriginal peoples say that they can speak their first language. Only three aboriginal languages are currently considered viable and account for over half of all aboriginal first-language speakers in Canada.

What kind of funding exists? Funding from the aboriginal peoples program consists of $5 million a year through the aboriginal languages initiative for community language projects, $8 million a year through northern aboriginal broadcasting for the production and broadcasting of aboriginal programming, and $3 million through territorial language accords with territorial governments.

The Government of Canada introduced the aboriginal languages initiative in 1998 and it supports 200 to 250 community-based projects for the preservation and revitalization of first nations, Inuit and Métis languages. Projects include: language nests for preschool children, master apprentice programs, the documenting and archiving of languages, community language classes offered outside regular K to 12 schooling, development and production of language learning materials and resources, and culture and language immersion camps where language is learned within the context of traditional on-the-land activities such as music and storytelling.

Support is provided to northern aboriginal communication societies for television and radio programming in aboriginal languages with a further $2.5 million to the Canadian Television Fund to support aboriginal language television programming. Territorial language accords with territorial governments provide government services available in aboriginal languages and for community initiatives.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada supports a network of Inuit and reserve-based first nations cultural educational centres, which provide community-based language and cultural services to a majority of first nations in Canada and Inuit organizations across the north.

We are going to get another minute in a moment and I will tell everyone about some more efforts that this government has made that most of the time the NDP votes against.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, clearly, in the parliamentary secretary's own words, with the declining language speakers in this country what we are doing is simply not enough. In fact, the $5 million that are currently allocated are divided up among 10 provinces and thousands of communities. The money going into these communities simply is not enough to ensure the stability of these languages and, in fact, the Department of Canadian Heritage takes a 10% administration fee off the top of that money.

I would like to know, when is the government going to reinstate the $160 million that was actually allocated 10 years ago and build on some of the successes that are already happening in those communities? Less than 5.1% of the speakers in B.C. are fluent. We are watching as the elders pass on that the language fluency is being lost.

When will the government commit stable, long-term, adequate, and I emphasize adequate, funding to ensure that we can build on the successes and support the language speakers who are still alive?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, once again, we hear from a member of the NDP, asking for things that I am not sure its members are willing to even vote for, because every time we put forward measures that will help aboriginal people, they continue to vote against them.

Here is another example of how we are trying our very best to move forward to protect languages for aboriginal peoples. Under Health Canada, the aboriginal head start program enhances the development and school readiness of first nations, Inuit and Métis children living in urban centres, large northern communities and on reserves. One of aboriginal head start's six program components addresses culture and language needs and prepares young aboriginal children for their school years.

I trust the information that I have brought here today to help protect these aboriginal languages. Absolutely this is a priority. That is why our government has invested in protecting these languages, but we will invest in more than just language for aboriginal people. We will invest in their safety, in their security. We will invest in making sure they can hunt with their traditional hunting rights, and unfortunately, the NDP chooses every time to vote against our efforts to protect those.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians living with multiple sclerosis are fighting their disease and fighting for clinical trials for the new liberation procedure for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, or CCSVI.

We had a parliamentary subcommittee on neurological disease that heard four hours of testimony from the leading researchers in the world on CCSVI, including Dr. Zamboni, who pioneered the liberation procedure, and Dr. Simka, who has undertaken the most procedures globally. These researchers indicated that, according to their initial studies, both the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI were deemed to be safe and have resulted in significant improvements in the quality of life of many MS patients.

Instead of listening to the leading researchers internationally, the government chose to accept the recommendations of a panel, held behind closed doors with no minutes. Why were only nine papers reviewed? Why were no leading experts called for their expertise? Where was the scientific rigour in making sure panellists were not biased?

At the end of July, I travelled to New York to learn the latest science at an international symposium for CCSVI. Researchers from Bulgaria, Italy, Kuwait and the United States were all presenting similar results, namely that 87% to 90% of MS patients show venous abnormality. Of the 400 cases reviewed by Canada's Dr. McDonald, 90% show a venous problem.

We need evidence-based medicine in Canada. The question I have is why have we not been collecting it? There are two ways to collect evidence and we have been calling for both: clinical trials and a registry. When I spoke to a high-ranking official in July, I was told a registry was not possible because “we have no idea what is being done overseas”. I explained that it was not exactly true. For example, in Poland, each patient is seen by a neurologist and has an MRV, a Doppler scan, and an eye test. Before-and-after liberation photos are taken, and during the actual procedure there is video. Finally, a long, complicated form is filled out, including EDSS scores.

It seems to me as a scientist that there is data to be collected.

I would like to identify some incongruities. Over the last four decades, only 7% to 20% of surgeries performed in hospitals have ever been double-blind tested, yet detractors of the liberation theory are insisting on sham surgeries in some of society's most vulnerable.

Often in medicine, when a treatment shows promise, it is fast-tracked. A recent example is a new device that can suck out stroke-causing blood clots. Very quickly, 27 patients across 10 hospitals were rescued from strokes by the device.

Over 1,500 liberation procedures have been performed worldwide, yet we are told there is not enough evidence for clinical trials in Canada.

As an example from MS, a few years ago a drug that was known to cause a fatal brain infection was fast-tracked, and 68 people have acquired the infection and 14 have died. Yet there is the hesitation to undertake clinical trials for angioplasty, a procedure undertaken daily in hospitals across this country.

I am in touch with over 1,000 MS patients across this country. I have a list of over 150 people who have been liberated. One toddler said, “My mommy's not broken anymore”. One woman who was a quadriplegic is now writing.

I am also in contact with physicians who themselves have been liberated. As one explained, “My province allowed me to practise for decades, but after liberation, I cannot even get a hearing”. He questions, “If we had collected the evidence in a registry for the last many months, would we still be calling this anecdotal stories?”

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge as well that MS is a devastating condition. It affects young adults in their prime and it causes disability and distress. My heart truly goes out to all those who suffer from MS.

Our government does recognize the importance of better understanding neurological conditions, such as MS, and how they affect Canadians. Reliable information is the basis for effective programs and policies that will meet the needs of people with MS, their families and caregivers.

In June 2009 the Minister of Health announced an investment of $15 million over four years to support a national study on neurological diseases. This study will fill gaps in information on the extent of neurological diseases and their impact on Canadians and is being co-led by the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Neurological Health Charities of Canada.

The Neurological Health Charities of Canada is a collective of 18 charities, including the MS Society of Canada, coming together to improve the quality of life for all persons with chronic brain disorders and their caregivers. Health Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research are also partners in this important work.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is committed to advancing our knowledge of multiple sclerosis and accelerating relevant research on innovation to prevent, diagnose and treat this devastating disease. A few months ago, the minister asked Dr. Alain Beaudet, the president of CIHR, to provide advice on how to advance research in this important area.

On August 26, CIHR, in collaboration with the MS Society of Canada, convened a meeting of leading North American experts to review evidence, including current international efforts and knowledge gaps. An emphasis was placed on the potential links between chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and MS.

There was unanimous agreement from the scientific experts that it would be premature at this time to support pan-Canadian clinical trials on the Zamboni procedure. As such, Dr. Beaudet recommended that we wait for the results of seven clinical diagnostic trials, which are currently underway, co-funded by the Canadian and U.S. MS Societies. That is what they would like to do before making a decision on whether to support therapeutic clinical trials on the Zamboni procedure. Of the seven studies, four are Canadian and three are being conducted in the U.S.

If these seven studies show a link between blocked veins and MS, we then can ethically justify the risks involved with further investigating the procedure itself. We expect preliminary reports from these studies in less than a year. In the meantime, CIHR is bringing together experts to start looking at designing a clinical trial.

As the House knows, in helping Canadians maintain and improve their health, the federal government must work closely with the provinces and territories which are responsible for the delivery of health care in their jurisdictions.

The Minister of Health remains in close contact with her counterparts in the territories and provinces on a wide range of critical health issues. In fact, she just returned from the annual health ministers' meeting on September 14 in St. John's where she asked Dr. Alain Beaudet, president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to provide an update on current MS research in Canada.

Canada is a world leader in MS research and will continue to lead the way. Anyone who has heard a first account of what an MS patient goes through on a day-to-day basis understands the urgency of moving forward. We will continue to give this important issue the attention it deserves.

We are all committed to a health care system that is evidence-based and, as such, we must allow this research to progress so that physician associations, medical experts and provinces and territories have the necessary evidence so they can form decisions that are educated.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no treatment arm to those clinical trials.

It is becoming increasingly evident that liberation can alleviate some symptoms. MS patients who have had the liberation procedure seem to experience an improvement in brain fog, fatigue and circulation and, over time, some report a marked improvement in the quality of life.

Time is brain. Any delay in clinical trials possibly means more damage. The earlier MS is caught the better the prognosis. For some patients a delay of a matter of months may mean the difference between working and not working, walking and not walking, living on their own or in care, or living and not. This past week we lost another MS patient, 34 years old, with a five-year-old child.

Why the refusal to listen to CCSVI experts? Why the refusal to collect evidence? Why the refusal to lead when five provinces were calling for clinical trials? Why the delay?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to thank my colleague opposite for addressing this. It is an important issue on which we all agree here in the House.

The federal government and the provinces and territories are speaking with one voice on MS. The media has been reporting different things, but let us be clear. We all agree that clinical trial will happen in Canada if and when the research supports it, and if the research supports it, funding will be available as well.

We are moving as quickly as possible, based upon the best available science. If the experts advise in favour of clinical trials, our government, working with the MS Society and the provinces and territories, will ensure that they are funded.

Once again, my heart goes out to all those who suffer from this disabling disease. We are going to continue to talk about this. It is a priority.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:41 p.m.)