Debates of Nov. 27th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Survivors of Thalidomide

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice, as I said earlier today, to the fact that the House is united on this very important issue. It is an excellent example of how we can come together when we have a cause about which we all feel so passionately.

To respond to the member's question, we all know that this tragic event of the 1960s should not happen again, and we should work together in collaboration with our friends, partners and provinces in this effort.

Certainly, reviewing the proposal put forward by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada is very important for us, and the Minister of Health will be meeting with the association as well very shortly.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was back in the 1990s, under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, that the Conservative government required thalidomide survivors to sign an indemnity form giving up their right to sue in exchange for accepting a small, one-time payment that did not even begin to cover the expenses of a lifetime disability. We see the impact of that decision today, where so many of these survivors are struggling and are facing a bleak future without significant additional assistance.

Does the member opposite agree that Canada has a moral obligation to provide compensation for the thalidomide survivors?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her interest and passion in wanting to see some important relief for folks who have unfortunately been affected by ingesting thalidomide so many years ago.

Health Canada has learned from this tragedy, as we all have. Important improvements have been made to reduce the risk of this kind of terrible event from occurring again, including an overhaul of Canada's drug regulatory framework.

The new law we put in, Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, certainly has strengthened our regulatory tools to ensure that something such as the thalidomide tragedy never occurs again in our country.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to the motion.

There are three pieces to the motion, but the important point of the motion is to protect and respect the rights and dignity of people, and ensure they can live the next number of decades with support and respect.

There is obviously a financial component to the support, but there is also the emotional component as well as support throughout the disabled communities.

I was not around in the fifties of sixties, but we see how technology has changed through the years. There is a wealth of information for young mothers and young families today. Before an individual is even thinking of having a child, there is a wealth of information available. There are unlimited books, but there are obviously online resources available today outlining what individuals should do and not do, what they should take and not take. These resources were not as readily available decades ago, certainly not in the late fifties and early sixties, and it is truly unfortunate they were not.

Young couples in the late fifties, early sixties, thinking about starting families would listen to their families, their family doctors and take their advice. For an expectant mother having morning sickness or trouble sleeping, the doctor would have prescribed thalidomide to try to alleviate the symptoms so being pregnant would be a little more tolerable. That expectant mother would have taken the doctor's advice, which would have been based on the evidence that doctor had at the time to try to alleviate the symptoms of the expectant mother.

These families put their trust in the system over 50 years ago. Unfortunately for over 100 families in our country and thousands around the world, there were some pretty serious consequences. In some cases, the families faced these consequences their entire life.

Victims of thalidomide are now in their fifties and have faced a lifetime of making adjustments. They have spent a lifetime trying to compensate for their disabilities and continue on with their lives.

The Thalidomide Survivors Association of Canada did a study a few years ago. One was commissioned in 2011 and one in 1998. One of the remarkable pieces of the study was how many victims of thalidomide were motivated to have as normal a life as they could in Canada. The rate of employment among these individuals was around 73% in 1998.

However, as I said, I am sure thalidomide victims spent their entire lives trying to compensate for their disabilities and have had to overuse parts of their bodies that an average person would not have to use. Now that they are in their fifties, they are faced with a lot of pain. This report identifies the pain in all the different joints that victims of thalidomide experience.

When the motion talks about support, this is one of the components we need to recognize. The reports that came forward from the study in 2011 also indicated that the employment rate among thalidomide victims was in decline, so we need to recognize that when we talk about support. In addition, we also need to recognize the fact that these people are in physical pain. The report notes this. We can just imagine the rigour they have gone through to have a normal life.

Obviously there are a lot of extra costs associated with being disabled and trying to have a normal life, which a person such as myself may not experience, such as a device to reach something, a device to shower or a device to operate a vehicle. These all cost extra dollars and that needs to be recognized.

When we talk about respect and dignity and allowing people to lead dignified lives, not only in their younger years, but as they age into their fifties, sixties and seventies, that is also what this motion is about. Parliamentarians and Canadians support this.

Another component that is worth mentioning is timeframes. This product was on the West German market in the late 1950s, and went off the market in 1961. In Canada, it was a different story. It was not off the market until late 1962, so there was a bit of a timeframe there. That leads to the next point that I would like to talk about, which is the regulatory monitoring and recall, all the components that are the responsibility of Health Canada.

After this event, Health Canada swept through with changes that would revolutionize Canada and allow it to become one of the leading countries in areas such as this. However, the point of Health Canada's mandate is looking at the regulation and efficacy of drugs, monitoring and recall, all the issues involved in that. It could not just be changed in 1962, 1963, or 1964, and then be forgotten for 100 years; it needed to be continually looked at, changed, and monitored.

That is why I was so proud in November when a bill put forward by my colleague from Oakville, which he had spent many years of his life working on, received royal assent. On November 5, the member for Oakville saw Vanessa's law come into effect.

Aside from components such as monitoring, recall, adverse reactions, fines, and jail times for pharmaceutical companies that fail to do their jobs in performing due diligence, another component is the reporting of adverse reactions. We know that very few adverse reactions are actually reported. It is under 15%. Vanessa's law will ensure that adverse reactions are reported, so that Canadians will know and Health Canada will have a better understanding.

Frances Oldham Kelsey has been in the news recently. She worked with the FDA in the 1960s, and many years prior to that. Her comment was that there was not enough data or research to allow the product to enter the market in the United States. That was one of the failings of almost 50 of the other countries around the world that allowed this product into the market. She is a hero. This may not have been reported in the news, but there were samples distributed throughout the United States. Therefore, in spite of what she was able to accomplish, pharmaceutical companies were still able to give samples to doctors to give to their patients, young mothers.

The motion is timely. People watching at home and members of Parliament recognize that this is a great debate. This is one where all parliamentarians can have a good debate, in a very collegial manner, to benefit the Canadians who have had a lot of tough times in their lives. If we take a look at this report, we can see that they have worked very hard and tried very hard throughout their lives. We should all be proud of them for what they have been able to achieve, considering the options they had starting out.

I am very happy to speak about this today. I thank the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada for continuing to push forward for these people, to bring it to the forefront and get it to the House of Commons for debate, so we can continue to support these people in any way that we can.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all appear to be on the same page with this motion, which is extremely important.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the compensation that the government will give the victims of this drug. However, I have a question for my colleague.

We are talking about fair compensation. What does the government have in mind, to ensure that this compensation is similar to that being offered by other countries?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada would have some of that information. Obviously, I do not have that information. However, the association is going to meet with the minister next week, and I think that will be a starting point at least.

Certainly in any of the material I have read from the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada, it does not list a dollar figure, and I am not necessarily sure that the victims are looking for a specific dollar figure.

We mentioned respect, dignity and support, and when we put all of those things together, I think that is where we start to look at how to support these people as they age in maintaining a meaningful lifestyle that is as independent as possible.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite an honour today to participate in this debate. It is one of the good days in this place when we feel we are making progress to right a wrong, and it is a historic wrong.

I thank my hon. colleague for again mentioning Vanessa's law.

I was quite struck when Bill C-17 was first tabled to realize that even after the thalidomide scandal, the Minister of Health in this country lacked the power to recall a pharmaceutical drug until we passed Vanessa's law in this place. That is decades of inaction against an obvious threat.

We have not yet done enough as a society and as a Parliament to ensure transparency and proper regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. We have further to go, although Vanessa's law represents a significant turning point in being willing to insist on recalling drugs and ensuring that the positive and negative drug trial results are published, to avoid a future thalidomide disaster.

I want to thank my hon. colleague and all MPs in this place for making some progress for both the victims of thalidomide and toward avoiding a future disaster of that order.

We really need to control the pharmaceutical industry.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we would have moved as far as we have with Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, if not for the member for Oakville.

We were elected at the same time, but the member for Oakville was faced with a terrible death in his family. He has made it one of his life's missions to educate Canadians and people around the world on some of the glaring weaknesses in our regulatory regime. I believe that he has raised the level of knowledge in debate in the House of Commons on this topic, and he should be thanked as much as possible. He has done a great job.

Often the pharmaceutical companies' best defence is to pay a fine, and then they are off scot-free in a lot of ways. However, Vanessa's law changed that, and anybody in a company, especially at senior levels, who knows of an issue with a drug and continues to produce it will face severe penalties in fines, which could include jail time. I think that is the most important piece of this legislation. It makes those executives and senior managers responsible for the products they are selling to Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the more important days in the House to be able to stand and speak. It is not only a subject which is extremely important, but one in which, because of co-operation on all sides of the House, we are able to have a serious and full debate without resorting to the extreme partisanship that sometimes takes place in the House.

I am pleased this afternoon to share my time with the hon. member for Churchill.

During my time, I would like to speak first of all about the importance of drug safety and of regulations.

Sometimes governments today, and many people and theoreticians in our society, talk about the value of deregulation, of leaving everything up to the marketplace. Surely, the issue of public health and safety, and something as specific as drug safety, are a very key and important role for government. In the case of thalidomide, the government clearly did not do its job. The government, for whatever reasons at the time, failed to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

The use of the drug thalidomide in Canada has been rightly called one of the most serious drug catastrophes anywhere.

I have met individuals who were affected by thalidomide. They are charming people. They are like normal people everywhere, except they have very serious physical deformities. The people I have met are incredibly courageous and dignified. In spite of the incredible barriers they face, they try to live their lives as fully as possible, and with as much dignity as possible.

It is important that we have a strong regulatory regime to ensure that we have drug safety. It is important for Canadians to count on their government, whether it is in the area of pharmaceuticals, or it is food safety, transportation safety, all areas where people would normally rely on their government to look out for their best interests.

In the case of thalidomide, we had a situation where a drug that was not permitted by other governments was approved and sold in Canada. It was a drug that was designed to reduce nausea in pregnant women. Women rely on their doctors and on public safety laws to ensure their safety, especially during pregnancy. In my own pregnancies, I was hyperconscious of my safety. Pregnant women are always concerned about what they are breathing in, what they are eating and drinking, to make sure that the safety of the fetus is protected. In the case of thalidomide, unlike other governments, the Government of Canada failed.

I want to salute my colleague from Vancouver East for her work in the broad field of health, and also her work with thalidomide survivors. I also want to thank her for bringing forward today's motion. The motion calls on the House to provide full support to the survivors of thalidomide, recognize the urgent need to defend the rights and dignity of those affected, and provide support to survivors in co-operation with the thalidomide survivors task force.

It is important that the relationship be one of collaboration, co-operation, and respect, not of charity. These individuals did nothing wrong. Their parents did nothing wrong. They believed in the government and the regulatory regime of the day, and sadly they were failed.

I have been contacted by many community members about this, all calling for the government to right this wrong, and to support the thalidomide survivors in Canada to ensure they not only get compensation and support, but to ensure that such a public health disaster never happens again.

I have a letter that is particularly moving. It is from a constituent who elaborates on the facts that we now know about thalidomide and its impact throughout the 1960s. She was personally affected by this public health catastrophe because her sister was one of the victims of thalidomide. I was very moved by the letter from this constituent. She wrote to me and my provincial counterpart about her sister, Kim Beeston, the very first thalidomide baby born in Canada, who was delivered in hospital in Toronto on January 20, 1962.

A photo of her with her parents holding their bright-eyed, smiling girl was featured in The Globe and Mail. For years Kim was followed by the media. She became an avid swimmer, competed in wheelchair basketball, and hitchhiked across Canada with her dog Sam. She was an activist, pressing for wheelchair-adapted housing. However, she then began to withdraw because her body began to fail her and she had chronic pain. Sadly, she passed away over a decade ago in a one-bedroom public housing unit in Toronto.

She had a great deal of scarring across her body because of the impacts of thalidomide. She had almost non-existent legs and very deformed feet and toes. She was born with the damage of thalidomide, and her sister said that its shadow trailed her to her death.

The day after she died, her father took his life. He left a note addressed to his daughter. He was apologizing to her, said her younger sister. He felt responsible that he could not be there 24/7 to care for her. Ultimately, he was blaming himself.

This family's story is a lesson about the forgotten fallout of thalidomide. The need to relieve the victims' suffering is evident. The tragedy of the Beeston family began when Kim's late mother swallowed a pill with her doctor's blessing. The ripples of that single act never stopped.

On behalf of Kim and her family, the sister wrote:

It is time the Canadian Government took responsibility for this horrific event in our history, the remaining Thalidomide Survivors deserve no less!

Therefore, I would urge all members in the House to think not only of the Beeston family but of all of the thalidomide survivors. Let us ensure that these survivors are compensated, are supported, are treated with respect, and that their needs are dealt with in terms of support and accommodation for the rest of their days. Let us also reaffirm to Canadians that we must never, ever fall prey to ideological communications that somehow convince us that government does not matter and that everything should be deregulated and left up to the private sector alone, because that indeed was the origin of this tragedy.

I will conclude there. However, I would like to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House for this important debate today. I urge the government and all of us to get this done quickly.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

Clearly, thalidomide victims feel that the government needs to take action, but there is the added challenge of getting the Canadian government to focus on the issue. Unfortunately, the past has shown us that the federal government's focus is often elsewhere, no matter what party is in power.

There are some very troubling aspects to this issue. We learned that the thalidomide survivors task force has been trying since March to get a meeting with the Minister of Health. They have been unsuccessful. In September, the group sent the minister a report. This week, the minister admitted to The Globe and Mail that she had not yet read the report.

I would like to know what the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park thinks about that inaction. Is she confident that thalidomide victims will get justice in the future?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

If we compare the reactions of this and previous governments to the reaction of governments in Germany or the UK, for example, we see that the latter have already compensated thalidomide victims. In fact, they give the victims thousands of dollars every year. In the United Kingdom, for example, each victim receives $98,000 Canadian annually. It is an important recognition of the government's responsibility for having caused this tragedy.

On a side note, it is really unbelievable that the minister did not even read the report from the thalidomide survivors task force.

However, today we have the opportunity to turn that inaction around. We need to take urgent action to support and compensate the survivors.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for bringing this motion forward and for her very eloquent and emotional speech about a very important subject.

Those of us who were young at the time this happened and heard the stories, or were part of some of that debate or at least listened to the debate around thalidomide, were really touched by it. Many of us were very fearful. I remember being very fearful when I was about to have my first child about whether this could happen to my baby. There was a lot of fear instilled at the time because of what we saw and heard.

My question to my colleague is around deregulation and proper oversight. I hear so often of the need to get rid of red tape and let the market explode with free choice and all of those kinds of things. However, I think this kind of thing is a marked reminder of why we need regulations and why government has an important role to play. Could the member expand further on that idea?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that gets to the crux of the question here.

Free, in terms of free the market, sounds very good, but in fact what we saw with thalidomide is that there was a terrible price to pay. It is not free. We all learned as we became adults that rules are usually there for a purpose, and there are some rules that we need to obey because they make for a better society, whether it is a stop sign or not allowing poisons to be ingested by pregnant women.

As I said earlier, sometimes ideology that talks about free this and free that is very seductive, but a society needs to co-operate. We all act more productively, more coherently, and more safely when we act in concert.

Safe regulation and coherent regulation is part of that responsibility. We failed in the past; let us not fail in the future.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House to speak to our opposition day motion. It is truly a historic opposition day motion that serves to realize justice for the victims of the thalidomide scandal and for their families.

We know that in 1961 the Government of Canada approved the sale of thalidomide as a safe drug to treat nausea in pregnant women. The drug had tragic consequences for many families. The government has never apologized for the devastation it caused. After decades of discussing compensation, it provided an inadequate one-time payment to survivors. Our motion calls upon the government to right the wrong and commit to support thalidomide survivors.

What is critical for us is threefold. One, we need the government to right the wrong and support thalidomide survivors in our country. Two, we need to recognize that drug safety is a clear federal responsibility. The federal government approved this drug as safe for use by pregnant women and bears the responsibility for the suffering of innocent Canadian families. Three, victims of thalidomide have waited for over 50 years to get the support they deserve. Canada's thalidomide survivors are considerably worse off than their peers in other countries. They need support and compensation now.

We know that this is truly a global tragedy. Approximately 10,000 thalidomide survivors were born worldwide. We may never know how many Canadian families were ultimately affected by thalidomide, but today fewer than 100 survivors are still alive in Canada.

Decades of dealing with the consequences of thalidomide have left survivors dealing with very severe and debilitating pain. In many cases, their health care needs exceed what provincial health care systems are able to provide. Fifty years of attempting to work around their limitations has taken its toll on them. Many survivors are now suffering from nerve damage and painful wear and tear of their bodies. This has caused enormous challenges for them, including loss of ability to use their limbs to care for themselves; damage to their spines and joints, which severely limits their mobility; limited ability to maintain employment; and dependence upon others for basic tasks, such as using the toilet, dressing, and preparing meals. The deterioration of their health has placed them in a precarious financial situation in which they are dependent upon aging parents, unable to work, and further losing their self-sufficiency.

While the Government of Canada began discussing compensation for families affected in the 1960s, the only support provided to the families to deal with their urgent needs was a small lump sum payment made in 1992.

We recognize today that we were pleased to see the government's support for our opposition day motion; however, in that support, we also expect a true understanding of the concept of righting the wrong. It involves not just an apology but financial compensation.

As the status of women critic, I work with advocates for disabled women and disabled women themselves. I am constantly struck by how disabled women in Canada face some of the highest rates of poverty, some of the highest rates of violence, and some of the highest rates of marginalization.

In fact, we know that as many as 75% of disabled women in Canada are unemployed. The average employment income for women with severe or very severe disabilities was only $17,459 per year in 2006. Obviously thalidomide survivors could relate to that experience. We know that disabled women in particular, but also people with disabilities more broadly, often face extreme housing insecurity. They are either unable to access affordable housing or the affordable housing that may exist is not accessible to people living with disabilities.

I have also come to know through my work that advocating for women, particularly women with disabilities, is particularly challenging, because organizations that represent the disabled are cash-strapped and often have to deal with major restrictions when it comes to applying for funds and grants to be able to continue their advocacy, if it is even allowed, which in many cases it is not, as we have seen under the current government.

There is no doubt that thalidomide survivors have fallen into the category of the severely disabled, but in order to understand what they went through, we need to recognize that their story has everything to do with the federal government having shirked its responsibility decades ago.

We know from other countries, including the U.S., that rigorous work was done to ensure the safety of thalidomide, and it became clear that it was not safe at all. However, in Canada, the same was not done. The same due diligence was not exercised by the federal government at the time.

Many women, who I am sure were very happy to know that they were pregnant, were told by their doctors, people they trusted, who in turn trusted others, that thalidomide would be okay, and they took it to deal with difficult symptoms during pregnancy. However, it is particularly disturbing that this chain of command went through the federal government.

The federal government had, and continues to have, a responsibility to ensure the safety of the pharmaceuticals that Canadians use. However, the government at the time shirked that responsibility. It is a simple, clear pinning of responsibility on the government, which failed to do the due diligence that was required at the time. Sadly, it led to devastating impacts.

This is very much connected to the issue of maternal health, which is an issue I have been very involved with as the Status of Women critic for the NDP. We are pleased to see that the government is supporting this motion, but at the same time on the broader issue of maternal health, we have seen the Conservative government failing many times to take a leadership role.

I will speak for a moment about the importance of supporting pregnant mothers, and mothers after they have had children, making sure that they and their children, whether babies, toddlers or grown children, are healthy.

The reality is that we do not see that kind of leadership and support from the current federal government. In fact, in Manitoba there is a cutting-edge program known as “Strengthening Families”, which focuses on the health of indigenous women, children, and families in 16 first nations in the province. Even though it has received accolades from experts in the field of maternal health and has made a marked difference for first nations in Manitoba, it is devastating to know that the government is willing to cut the program by the end of this fiscal year. Therefore, success, when it comes to maternal health, is clearly not recognized by the Conservative government and not valued, because if it were, the program would be extended.

Maternal health is an integral part of the discussion around thalidomide. It an integral part of the discussion on how we can move our country forward and ensure that women, children, and families are better off across Canada.

As we deal with these broader issues, I am honoured to stand here today with my colleagues. In particular, I want to recognize the leadership of my colleague from Vancouver East, who has stood up for these 95 Canadians and the so many more who, sadly, are not alive to tell their story. They need justice, and ultimately their families need justice, and Canada needs to see that justice as well.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Churchill for her presentation.

I would like to tell her that having been born in the 1960s myself, my first experience with the consequences of thalidomide came when I met classmates in my own classes who unfortunately were affected because their mothers had taken this drug. I became aware of this illness very early. I am very moved to see that this motion is getting unanimous support in the House this afternoon and that everyone wants to move forward on this.

I want to ask my colleague whether she thinks that this wonderful unanimity that we have here today could possibly lead to the creation of a real program, so that this issue could be resolved before the next election, which is 11 months away, and whether it could become in some way a tangible example of the empathy this House has for the people we represent.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his personal experience.

When I was a little younger, we learned in school about the progress that had been made, so that we would know that thalidomide was dangerous, for example. Now the entire House has an opportunity to change the course of history. As Canada's leaders, we have an opportunity to show some leadership.

I hope that the Minister of Health and her government will respect the spirit of this motion, namely the need for urgent, immediate action. We are losing more and more victims every year, and their families are also waiting for us to act as soon as possible. We must do so.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent discussion and for taking this tragic case in Canadian history, which has impacted so many families and so many lives, and through her speech describing not just the role that must be taken by government, but also the consequences if that role is not taken properly and responsibly by government to protect those who, through no knowledge of their own, were being given a drug.

In one of my first years here in Parliament, I moved a private member's bill to ban a form of chemicals in children's toys. The bill passed through the House unanimously and went to the Senate. The reason we banned this chemical was that it would cause great disruptions within children, including cancer, We used for the principle of the legislation a thing called the “precautionary principle”, enshrining for the first time in law the idea that we should be cautious in approving things, particularly if there are early indications of problems.

I am very glad to see the government supporting this, including compensation for the victims who are still alive and with us. The challenge I have with government is around its agenda of deregulation, of handing over the duty to protect the screening of these drugs increasingly to the pharmaceutical companies that are promoting and selling the drugs. To deregulate and allow the so-called fox to watch the henhouse is a troubling pattern.

I do not think right can be made to the victims who suffered by this drug being administered and given to pregnant mothers. That is going back and remains important today, but going forward, how can we have a government that actually protects Canadians and does not ask companies to do something they are ill-equipped to do, which is to be both the promoter and the tester of the safety of the very drugs they are looking to make a profit from?

I wonder if the member could make some comments to those observations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for turning part of the focus of this discussion to the role of the government in regulation. While we are working in good faith on this very issue, the reality is that the current government has an abysmal record when it comes to looking out for the safety of Canadians. We are not just seeing a dangerous path being taken when it comes to pharmaceuticals. As we have seen with our own eyes, communities in this country have paid a high price for deregulation when it comes to rail safety. We have seen it when it comes to environmental safety. We have seen it when it comes to our food supplies.

Regarding this spirit that has taken over and the desire of the government to right wrongs of the past, I hope that same sentiment and precautionary principle will be taken and applied, and that a result the Conservatives will increase regulation and support those who keep us safe, in whatever sector they might be, so that we do not end up here 50 or 60 years later having to find recourse for the deep, tragic mistakes that we have made.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between all parties and if you seek it I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to: (a) examine policy options for addressing complaints of harassment between members of the House of Commons; (b) make recommendations concerning a code of conduct for members for the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace, including a clear definition of harassment; (c) make recommendations concerning a fair, impartial and confidential process, including options for the role of an independent third party, for resolving complaints made under the code; and (d) make recommendations concerning training and education initiatives to ensure compliance with the code; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House with all due haste.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Oxford have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this order to the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

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