Debates of Nov. 27th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomide

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member opposite that the minister will be meeting with the Thalidomide Victims Association. I expect the meetings to be productive and very co-operative in nature. Co-operation is the key to ensuring that the meeting is successful and that all options and solutions are put on the table. We are talking about a group of people who have suffered greatly and who have lived a lifetime of perseverance and, in some cases, a lifetime of pain. This tragedy needs to be addressed.

I am particularly proud that this government and that our health minister will be meeting with the victims' association and finding solutions together.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend the NDP for putting this motion forward. I think we all bear a responsibility. Certainly, in the Liberal Party, we support this wholeheartedly. I am delighted to see the government does as well.

One of the very specific things that the remaining 95 people who live with the effects of thalidomide have asked for, and this is following in the vein of my previous colleague's questions, consists of two components. One is a one-time amount of $250,000. The second is an annual payment of $100,000.

My colleague from the Conservative Party has said that this is an exceptional case. We are talking about a group of people who have suffered during their entire lives. This is a various situation. Will the government commit to the specific amounts that have been asked for by the 95 survivors: $250,000 in one shot; and $100,000 per year for the rest of their lives?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for recognizing that this is a non-partisan issue. It is clear that both sides of the House agree that the proposal submitted by the Thalidomide Victims Association must be reviewed. I know the minister is reviewing the proposal. I have no doubt that the meetings will be constructive and thorough, that the minister will be discussing all options to be put on the table and that the commitment is there to provide the respect and dignity to people who have suffered for almost 50 years.

I would like to point out, as well, that in terms of funding for research in initiatives into reproductive, maternal, child, and youth health, this government has put $840 million into research for these initiatives since coming to office in 2006. This shows a commitment to ensuring that the health of Canadians is a priority.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of the committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent, I would ask that the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomide

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thalidomide is a word that resonates in Canadian cultural history. It is one of those words that one only has to hear, say, or read to evoke immediate and strong feelings. It has gone down in our collective national memory as a mark of human suffering. It is a sad symbol of scientific and governmental failure.

Canadians have a profound faith in the capacity of modern science to improve their quality of life, and this faith is justified. Scientists and researchers keep developing new effective medicines to treat and heal disease. Canadians expect their governments to protect them from unsafe drugs, and this is an expectation that has largely been fulfilled. Over the decades, Canada has enjoyed one of the best drug safety systems in the world.

However, science and governments can fail. Thalidomide is one of those failures. From both sides of the House today, we have heard terrible stories of the shattering human toll of the catastrophic failure that was thalidomide. We have also been reminded that while thalidomide is an awful lesson of history for the survivors, it is very much their present and their future.

As a government, we can help the victims of this tragedy, and I am proud today to stand in support of this motion. I am also pleased to hear that the Minister of Health will be meeting with the victims and is actively reviewing the proposal put forward by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada.

Today I want to talk about another aspect of this tragic failure, and the solution so that it does not happen again: transparency and openness. More specifically, I want to talk about the significant steps that the Minister of Health has taken to further enhance the culture of transparency at Health Canada.

The victims of thalidomide never had a chance. Their mothers never had any warning and never saw it coming. Although there was a heated debate at the time within international scientific and regulatory communities about the safety of thalidomide, this concern was never shared with the public. As a result, expectant mothers suffering from morning sickness, and their doctors, were denied the chance to make an informed choice about whether to use thalidomide.

By approving the drug, Canadian regulators took what they viewed at that time as being a justified risk on behalf of potential victims without telling them about it. Many things have changed since thalidomide, but one thing that has not and likely never will is the fact that all drugs come with risks and benefits. The choice that still faces any drug regulator is the determination, based on sound science, of whether the benefits of taking a given drug outweigh the potential health risks to patients.

What has become unacceptable to Canadians, especially post-thalidomide, is for our regulators to restrict the public availability of information about drug risks. It is unacceptable to convey the false impression that such topics are best left to qualified experts in government, industry, and the health professions.

Mr. Speaker, you and I, and most Canadians, may not be scientists, but we have a right to know all that we can about the drugs we are taking, the good and the bad. At the end of the day, it is our lives, our health, and it should be a choice. That means we deserve an informed choice based on best information available to us at the time.

In the years since thalidomide, Health Canada has taken an expectation of transparency to heart. Today the department makes more drug safety information available to Canadians than ever before, so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families. Every year, the department issues hundreds of health product risk communications, by way of public warnings, public advisories, information updates, and foreign product alerts.

This includes product recalls, as well as changes to drug labels that are required to inform Canadians about any new and emerging risks of using a particular drug. These communications are widely disseminated to media and health professionals. Health Canada also requires that drug makers publicly communicate any new drug product risks.

The department now posts the drug product database on the Internet, where Canadians can find the list of risks and benefits of any approved drug or publicly available product. It has also created the Canada vigilance adverse reaction online database. Here, Canadians can find out about adverse reactions that have been reported to the department.

Increasing the availability of information to Canadians is a fundamental pillar of the Minister of Health's openness and transparency framework at Health Canada.

When our government took office, it was clear that the level of transparency at Health Canada had improved significantly from the days of thalidomide, but we felt it could do more and do it better. We particularly felt that information that Health Canada shares with the public needed to be easier to understand and more accessible.

We directed the launch of the recalls and safety alerts database. It provides Canadians with one-stop access to the latest risks information on all food and consumer products, including health products. The framework and action plan shows Canadians the concrete and incremental steps that we are taking to improve their access to timely, useful, and relevant health and safety information.Each year, Health Canada will issue a report on how it has performed against those commitments. This too will be posted online, on Health Canada's transparency page.

Each year, Health Canada performs numerous reviews of the safety of specific approved drugs. These are done when the department receives scientific evidence that a new risk is emerging and needs to be assessed, to see if the approved uses of a drug need to be changed to help protect patients. Sometimes during these reviews, a risk is confirmed and requires additional safety action by the regulator, but this is not often the case.

Before the announcement on the framework, the finding of these studies was typically made available only by way of access to information requests. Under the framework, a commitment was made to post public summaries of drug safety reviews proactively. This has made Canada a world leader in communicating this kind of drug safety information.

This House has heard a good deal today about Bill C-17, known as Vanessa's law. Its passage is a quantum leap forward for drug safety in Canada.

We all know that this bill was inspired by another tragedy, the death of the daughter of our colleague, the member for Oakville. She died while using medication that she did not know was unsafe. I am inspired by the hon. member's example and honoured that he is in our caucus. I am proud that our government has delivered a concrete legislative response to the suffering of his family and other families like his.

To send a message that a government is serious about becoming more transparent and putting the health and safety of Canadians first, there were amendments introduced to Bill C-17 that added transparency provisions. The transparency measures introduced in Vanessa's law will also place an obligation on therapeutic product authorization holders to ensure that information concerning any clinical trials is made public.

I want to close by acknowledging that none of these measures alleviate the current suffering of thalidomide victims. It is only to highlight how our government has taken to heart the lessons that thalidomide has taught about the importance of transparency and openness about drug safety to Canadians.

I look forward to hearing how the Minister of Health is engaging the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada and how we might support the victims in their plight.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was certainly trying to push how his government actually put things in place to protect Canadians. However, I can tell members that it is really on this side of the House that the security of Canadians is the top priority.

When we look at the record of the Conservatives, we see the largest beef recall in Canadian history, drug shortages, rail safety issues, cuts to health care for refugees, and cuts to the HUSAR organization. I think it is very clear that the government is stepping in the wrong direction in a lot of areas.

On this matter, it is evident that the Thalidomide Survivors Task Force had been after the minister for quite some time. It had written to her in March and sent her a report in September, which she said she had not read yet.

Therefore, when we are looking at the impact of this, when people are actually reaching out on such a critical matter that impacts the way they live and their well-being, does the member not think it imperative that as soon as those letters are received, they be responded to and acted on as soon as possible, to make sure that people are not suffering?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue that we are debating here today, but I would like to address two issues the member raised in her remarks.

First, on health care for refugees, Canada is a leader in taking care of refugees from all parts of the world. It has been providing health care for refugees. What the member is talking about is confusing to Canadians, because she is referring to health care for asylum seekers who were not found to be legitimate. These are two different issues and I would ask the member not to confuse them, because health care for refugees is provided in this country and always has been, and the member knows this.

Second, the drug shortages issue was addressed. I serve on the health committee and we did study the issue extensively. The recommendations that were made were implemented. Also, drug shortages are a problem not only in this country but also globally. It is a problem that many countries face.

On the member's last comment and question about the time of response, this is a huge tragedy that happened in the past and we cannot turn the clock back. However, I had a chance to meet some of the victims. One victim, who probably all members know, Tony Meléndez, plays guitar with his feet—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I am sorry, we have run out of time. We are only one question and response into our five minutes and we scarcely have enough time for a second one.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in standing up to talk about the thalidomide issue, which occurred during the 1960s in Canada with very tragic consequences, it is nice to see that we appear to be on the verge of having unanimous support that recognizes the kind of role that Canada has to play in terms of future compensation.

Does the member believe that there is also a role for the provinces, which are responsible for departments of health and outreach programs for individuals who need onsite care? Does the member want to comment on that aspect of what we are talking about today?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that all of these issues will be discussed at the meetings, and the collaboration of everyone will be required. The main thing is that we address the needs of the victims in our countries and help them so they can live with dignity.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the opposition day motion presented by the member for Vancouver East. The motion would ensure that we see a response from the government to the plea made by the surviving victims of the thalidomide drug and the tragedies that occurred in 1960, 1961, which continue to this day for these individuals who survived the approval of this drug for pregnant women suffering from nausea or insomnia. In some cases, even though a single pill was prescribed, it caused birth defects.

The resolution itself calls for full support to be offered to the survivors of thalidomide, that the urgent need to defend the rights and dignity of those affected by thalidomide be recognized, and that the government provide support to survivors and “in co-operation with” the Thalidomide Survivors Task Force, as per the amendment moved.

I do not know what the amendment means, so I will start with it. I hope that the change in the wording from “as requested by” to “in co-operation with” will not mean a lessening of good faith and commitment by the government to support the needs of the surviving victims of the thalidomide tragedy. I would want to see the principles that are spelled out and suggested by the Thalidomide Survivors Task Force to be honoured in any discussions or negotiations. We have precedents in other countries, which have been far more compassionate and responsive to the needs of thalidomide victims in recognizing the responsibility of their governments to look after them.

Let me speak for a moment about the circumstances and the timeline of what happened. We are talking about something that occurred in 1961. As a young boy, I recall the tragedy. It was something that we saw pictures of on television and in the newspapers. It was heartbreaking to see the consequences of the use of this drug on the children who were born at that time. In some cases, they were born with no arms, but had hands protruding from where their arms should have been. Other children were born with organ problems, were blind, or had other severely debilitating conditions that have caused them enormous struggles over many years.

The timelines were very short. I commend The Globe and Mail for bringing the issue to the doorsteps of the nation and its other newspapers and media, and the message that it is time that the government deal with this tragedy. Some of these thalidomide survivors received some sort of settlement in 1991, which has been described by many of them as a take it or leave it offer that did not satisfy their needs in any real way.

The application to allow this drug to be used was made to the Canadian food and drug directorate in September of 1960. The approval was given in November 1960, two months later. A month after that, there were articles in the medical journals warning that thalidomide was the possible cause of nerve damage. Yet in April Canada put thalidomide on the market. Within six months of its approval, it was being sold despite the fact that warnings were already appearing in the journals.

In April 1961, thalidomide was put on the market. By November 1961, the manufacturer took it off the market in Germany as a result of media reports revealing suspicions in the medical community that thalidomide was causing malformations in babies. By December, it was pulled in Britain and in Australia, but it was not until the next year in March that the Canadian food and drug director advised that thalidomide should be removed from the market. However, it remained available in some pharmacies until mid-May. The consequences were horrific for victims who were born with the defects that we have talked about as a result of their mothers having taken this drug.

The article in The Globe and Mail said:

The thalidomide scandal caused a furor in Canada in the early sixties, shocking a nation that trusted in the safety of medications and the federal gatekeepers who were supposed to screen them. The story has been largely forgotten, but its victims have never escaped it. Now almost all in their early 50s, many are exhausted and in pain, unable to work, and struggling to get by.

They need help. They need the help from a country that should be compassionate and caring, the kind of country that we on this side of the House have been struggling to build for many decades.

The needs of these individuals have been spelled out by the Thalidomide Survivors Task Force. It has been seeking, since last March, to get a meeting with the minister to talk about it. Now we have this resolution, as a result of all of the publicity and the public becoming aware of this. It is very timely. I want to congratulate the member for Vancouver East for bringing it forward and to thank the government for responding positively. We hope that this will pass today with unanimous approval of the House, but we are concerned that the principles the victims requested be included in any resolution to this situation.

I will run through what the thalidomide group has told us are the principles they want respected. They want a one-time payment to survivors to help them address their immediate and urgent needs, such as health care and assistive devices for living circumstances, and they also want a monthly payment to survivors, based on the level of disability, to assist with their ongoing care and medical needs.

In the United Kingdom, for example, there is a substantial grant administered by a trust providing payments to survivors based on their level of need. The average payment is approximately $88,000 Canadian, which is a very substantial amount of money. Given that it is based on need, it provides us with an idea of how great the need is of these individuals in dealing with the problems they have encountered. Many are in pain. Many require a tremendous amount of help to be able to carry on with the activities of daily life.

I want to end by saying that it is important to me and my constituents, and I think to all Canadians, that we recognize the need and the situation these individuals find themselves in as the result of a failed system of protection of Canadians that was in place when they were born.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to emphasize the fact that the thalidomide tragedy took place not only in Canada but in other jurisdictions around the world. We have seen some of those countries come up with some semi-permanent ways, if I can put it that way, of trying to resolve it.

Canada has been attempting to do so, but the survivor task force has done a wonderful job in being an advocate. It has come up with some fairly solid recommendations. What is really encouraging is that it appears that the motion that has been brought forward today is going to receive the unanimous support of the House.

To what degree does the member believe it is important that we have unity in the House in recognizing the tragedy that occurred because of a drug that was given the okay at one point? Now, we have individuals having to live with the consequence of a very serious mistake.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I do take issue with one of his comments, which is that Canada has been trying to help. As early as 1962, discussions about compensation began, and it was not until 1991 that some form of compensation was offered. However, clearly it was totally inadequate to provide for the needs of these individuals.

Yes, I agree with the member that it is important to have unity on this issue, because it does express the unanimous feeling of Canadians about this story, which has been hidden for some time. It has been invisible. People remember it, but they were never faced with its consequences and the heartbreaking stories of the individuals who we now know about today who are struggling. Yes, we need to have unity of purpose here, but the real thing that we need is a proper, good faith system based on the models we have seen, such as that in the U.K. and in Germany with a lump sum payment and a substantial monthly payment that provides for the needs they have on an individual basis.

That is what is really needed here today: unity first, good faith solutions second.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my esteemed colleague's speech on this. Given his background in law, it is obvious that he puts much thought into how he delivers his speeches here, and he gets very informed about the situation at hand.

I know that my colleague knows that the safety and security of Canadians is one of the NDP's top priorities, and we will make sure we have safe, accessible, and reliable prescription drugs. That will be an essential aspect of Canada's first New Democratic government.

As we move towards that, and given where we are today, raising this very important question, I think that my colleague may have a few kind words of direction to the Conservative government: that when it comes to an issue that arises, such as this one, it is important to react quickly. My understanding is that the thalidomide survivors reached out to the government in March, and here we are now, almost in December, finally getting some movement for the simple reason that it has been in the media and that the NDP has been raising it in the House.

Maybe my colleague can rise and speak on that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for her question and for her concern about this issue.

Speed is very important. That is why part of my speech was to emphasize that, yes, we appear to have unity today in the House. As my colleague pointed out, it has been more than six months that the group has been trying to meet with the minister and the government. She has agreed to do that and has shown some compassion. We need to move very quickly, because each and every day that goes by, we know that these individuals have needs. Those needs are going to become greater. Two of these individuals have died in the last year, so it is very important that whatever effort can be made be made soon.

It is important that the government act in good faith, meet with the individuals, understand their needs, and provide something that is going to satisfy them

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to follow my colleague from St. John's East and appreciate very much his words today.

This is a very emotional speech for me. Two years ago yesterday, I had the honour of being elected in a byelection to serve the communities of Victoria and Oak Bay. It is, as every member in this place would know, a very proud day when one first comes to this place and speaks for one's community in this chamber.

Today is a proud day as well, because I am so proud that this House appears to be coming together with compassion, reflecting the compassion of this great country in doing the right thing at last for some 100 people, now 95, who are the victims of this terrible tragedy that occurred in 1961 or thereabouts when a drug called thalidomide was first approved for use by pregnant women to treat nausea and the like.

I have never been more proud to stand up here knowing, at least from rumours in the newspapers, that all parties in this place will be giving support to this resolution that the NDP brought forward for its opposition day motion.

We all have our personal stories about this tragedy. The Prime Minister alluded to it yesterday in question period, growing up in the sixties and knowing children who were victims of thalidomide. The mother of a friend of mind was offered this drug and chose not to take it, and he looks back every day with gratitude for the fact that she made that choice. He is living in Calgary today, and I spoke with him this morning about it in a very emotional way.

I want to pay tribute to a number of people. I want to pay tribute first to Natalie Dash and Barry Campbell, who are with Campbell Strategies in Toronto. They called me a few months ago—there were 98 thalidomide survivors on that day—and said we had to do something. They were working pro bono to assist the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada, and they asked if I could help.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver East, is the health critic for the official opposition, and she took it upon herself to do what was required to make this an opposition day motion. I am so proud that the members opposite appear to be in agreement that full support for the thalidomide survivors should be provided. It is a measure of the compassion of this country that 95 people remaining today will be able to live the last years of their lives in dignity.

Many have spoken before about the situation facing the thalidomide survivors. The press conference this week with those people was so moving, and I want to pay tribute to the enormous courage of the people who were present, particularly Mercedes Benegbi, who is the president and CEO of that organization. She showed courage in coming before the Canadian people with all of the cameras on and all of the media there and telling the stories of the poverty in which victims now live, the fact that they cannot get around on their own, and that they are crying out for some sort of assistance. I am so proud of this place, because it appears we are poised to finally do what should have been done so many years ago.

The victims do not have the ability to use their limbs and care for themselves. As has been said, often they were born without legs or, in the case of Marie Olney, one of the victims who lives in Calgary, with only 15-centimetre-long arms and only three fingers. Many have serious internal organ damage. They have been relying all these years on their friends and families. However, that will not happen much longer, because time goes on. Their parents have passed away or are in homes, and the victims are now asking how they will get by.

Most of the victims live in abject poverty. Anyone who read the article that The Globe and Mail published last weekend and saw the abject poverty in which they currently live would be moved, as we all are, by their stories. Some of them have damage to their spines and their joints, and that severely limits their mobility. They do not often have the ability to maintain employment, and they depend on others for basic human tasks. In that context, they come to the people of Canada, they come to the Government of Canada asking for help, because they need help. The 95 of them who are left are crying out for some sort of assistance.

Yes, there was a payment made back in the 1990s, a one-time payment. There was no apology, but an acceptance: that would be it for these people. They have come back to say it was not enough, they cannot live, they need ongoing financial support, a pension to live on, and they need to be able to get by in the last years of their lives if they are to live in dignity. That is what they have asked for, and we ought to address that as an urgent matter in this place.

I am thrilled to be here today with the hope that this opposition day motion will receive the unanimous support of the House.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks, and I thank the NDP for putting forward such a thoughtful motion today. It is deserving of the House's attention and is extremely important, because it speaks to our notion of what a civilized society is. We look out for each other. I am always reminded of my parents' maxim to their 10 children, that if we pulled apart, we would feel like 5, but if we pulled together, we would feel like 20. I think today we are pulling together and feeling like 20.

Maybe the member could expand a bit on some of the remarks he made about why we have this special responsibility to the 95 Canadians who are living today with severe disabilities due to exposure to a drug, thalidomide, taken by their mothers during pregnancy, which at the time was endorsed by Canada's government.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the thoughtful remarks of my colleague from the Liberal Party. I am thankful for the Liberal Party's support throughout this initiative, and for that of the Green Party, and I am hoping as well for the support of the Government of Canada.

I also need to talk about a very brave woman named Dr. Frances Kelsey, who is from Shawnigan Lake. She is 100 years old and was the person who was awarded the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service by John F. Kennedy. Why? It is because she is singularly responsible for thalidomide not being sold in the United States market. She was working with the Food and Drug Administration there.

A school in the riding of my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, in Mill Bay, British Columbia, was named the Frances Kelsey Secondary School in her honour, because she represents what my colleague was saying—namely, the need to show compassion.

We should all be proud of the kinds of things that have happened since in the Canadian regulation of drugs. Great steps have been made, but at the time they were not. She stood up to the drug companies in the United States; our government did not. We are here to do the right thing today to make sure those victims are looked after.

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

Mr. Speaker, given the failings of the drug system in the 1960s, I was wondering if the member opposite could comment on the current state of Canada's drug system and this government's action to strengthen it, and particularly on Vanessa's law that was passed recently in the House.