Debates of Sept. 28th, 2017

Oceans Act

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

Mr. Speaker, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is so beautiful that the member's sister left Scarborough—Guildwood to come up and live with us. I do not think she regrets it one bit. She actually lived in the township where I was married before I came to this place.

On a serious note, I think the member knows where I am coming from on this. When the government enacts something with a lack of scientific evidence, it is not actually doing something based on science. It is pretty self-explanatory.

That is all we are trying to point out. I pointed it out. I believe a number of other members have pointed it out. Let us do it based on science and not on a lack thereof. The government would have a chance to get a much better bill and would probably have broader support than first thought.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is new to the fisheries committee, and he has done a great job getting up to speed on this file. We have been studying MPAs for a number of months.

We heard testimony just today from Dan Edwards, executive director of the Area A Crab Association, B.C. He said that MPAs are oversold as a conservation process. He talked about rockfish conservation areas that have been in place in B.C. They are not considered MPAs, yet they have been doing an incredible job of restoring those rockfish areas off the west coast of B.C.

Could the member elaborate a little more on that testimony we heard today about the consultation and the consideration of other opportunities for conservation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I meant to mention in my comments what one of our witnesses said today about MPAs being oversold. I want to point out that while the witness clearly said that, it is obvious that the witness, whose family has depended on the oceans for their livelihood for generations, wants the water quality and the fish and aquatic life to be healthy as well. All he was saying when he said “oversold” is that creating an MPA just for the sake of creating an MPA is not the way to do it.

There needs to be consultation with everyone involved, all the communities, aboriginal and otherwise. Hopefully the government sees its way to doing the right thing on this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and a number of the concerns he has spoken of today. I must admit that I am a little surprised. I had anticipated that the Conservatives would be more sympathetic to the legislation. I do not quite understand why they would oppose something that advances what all Canadians are concerned about. Our oceans affect us all, the entire country from sea to sea to sea, in a real and tangible way.

The bill would move Canada forward not only in terms of our taking a progressive step forward internally but also in terms of continuing that international point of view. It clearly demonstrates that part of our Canadian values is to better understand and appreciate what takes place in our oceans. It is a part of our very fabric as Canadians.

The oceans have provided economic and social leisure, and all sorts of other benefits to us as a society. We all understand and appreciate their humongous economic impact. If one wants to get a better understanding, one should talk to the Atlantic caucus, where concern for our oceans and making sure that we are moving forward are hot topics all of the time. That is not to take anything away from our B.C. caucus, which is also a very strong advocate and supporter of the legislation. Of course, being from Manitoba, some might think it is landlocked, but it is not because we go right up north to Churchill. Even in Yukon and our other territories we have been fortunate as a nation to have what I believe is the longest ocean coastline of any country in the world. Given that background, one would expect to see something positive from the government.

I often talk about the many different accomplishments of this government, and we always highlight the middle class because that is our first priority. However, the number of things we have accomplished in these past two years is noteworthy. This particular piece of legislation will also make a difference. Therefore, I would encourage the members of the Conservative caucus to revisit their position on Bill C-55, because it does provide some tangible benefits.

The Government of Canada is committed to increasing the proportion of Canada's marine and coastal areas that are protected to 5% this year, and 10% by 2020. That is a significant amount of territory. It demonstrates very clearly that the government is truly interested in what is taking place in our oceans and wants to protect them wherever it can.

We talked about achieving these targets, and the members across the way made reference to the issue of science. This is a government that generally believes in science, unlike the former Harper government, which at times was challenged on that issue. Rest assured that we will use the sound science that is out there to at least provide us with the necessary guidance, and also to support very transparent decision-making by this government. Those are the types of things we are very much committed to.

The act clarifies the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to establish a national network of protected areas. That is something of substance, yet the Conservatives do not seem to think that the bill is moving us forward.

It would empower the minister to designate marine protected areas by an order prohibiting certain activities in those areas. I do not quite understand why the Conservatives would oppose that outright. If they looked at the principles in the legislation, they would find that it is good, sound legislation that would in fact make a difference. They should support it and then look at ways to enhance or change it when it goes to committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The next time this matter is before the House, the member will have 14 and a half minutes remaining to finish his speech.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Federally Funded Health Research

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

Madam Speaker, I am both honoured and humbled to have the privilege of rising today to discuss my motion, Motion No. 132. This motion calls upon the health committee to undertake a study that would explore how Parliament can improve outcomes and increase the public benefits from federally funded health research.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank my friend and colleague, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, for her strength, wisdom, and courage. Her story is a testament to how far cancer research has come in Canada, but it also stands as an example of how much further we have to go. I wish her and her entire family the very best going forward.

The government has been investing in future research leaders and supporting the scientists whose innovative work is vital both for furthering medical knowledge and for providing the necessary evidence to make sound policy decisions for the future of our health and society. As a matter of fact, earlier this week, the Prime Minister reaffirmed our government's commitment to science with his introduction of Dr. Mona Nemer, a medical researcher, as Canada's new chief science advisor.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, is Canada's main funder of health research and one of the top funder organizations for health research in the world. This Canadian effort to seek health solutions and combat disease is something we should all be extremely proud of.

However, as Canada invests in health research, we need to be informed and aware that there is room for improvement. We need to make sure that taxpayer dollars devoted to this research are being put to work in ways that achieve the greatest benefit and that will foster innovation while producing results. Canada is a world leader in health innovation, and it is imperative that we continue to lead by example.

We must ensure that our research investments are effective and that the results of our research are sufficiently accessible. According to the Institute of Medicine, there is currently an average lag time of 17 years between the generation of evidence from randomized controlled trials and its subsequent implementation into the health system. I believe that we can do better. Canada cannot afford to leave any of its brain power on the sidelines, and the world cannot afford that our discoveries be abandoned in patent offices or lost to the depths of forgotten academic journals in old libraries.

In the larger scale of human history, it has not been long since the top medical care of the time was delivered in the form of leeches and blood-lettings. Modernity, particularly since the start of the 20th century, has brought rapid change, new ideas, better technology, and significantly improved research methods to the field of medicine.

Standing here today, I am happy to live in a world in which the global polio eradication initiative has reduced polio by 99%, in which smallpox has been declared globally eradicated for more than 25 years, and which a record 979 million people in 2015 benefited from large-scale treatment of at least one neglected tropical disease.

Here at home, Canadian research has led to the development of insulin; the discovery of the hematopoietic stem cell, which forms the basis of bone marrow transplantation; and the discovery of T cell receptors, a vital element of the immune system. These strides come from hard work, late nights, and a lot of experimentation. These breakthroughs have come from research. It is the responsibility of governments like ours to support these researchers as best we can, as we foster the innovation that will find better treatments and more cures.

There is no shortage of public health issues that need to be tackled. As a pharmacist by profession, I am well acquainted with the need for better treatments and continued research. Multiple sclerosis, Lyme disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart conditions, mental illness, asthma, allergies, and osteoporosis are just a few of the many ailments that Canadians face on a daily basis.

As Canadians work in research and combat these illnesses, it is vital for us to have the most effective and efficient system to prioritize the results of federally funded health research. In a time of limited resources, we need to make sure there is a strong, comprehensive strategy in place. It is imperative we know how to use research dollars to a maximum advantage, and guide researchers into areas of national and international priority.

A clearer focus and a better articulation of our priorities would also make it easier for us to work with international counterparts to have a more meaningful impact on the global health crisis. This holds true whether we are discussing efforts to combat neglected tropical diseases, or examining our role in global collaborations to combat cancer. Canada is carrying out some tremendous work on the international stage with our new international development policy. We are helping to strengthen health systems to ensure that medicines and interventions reach the most vulnerable and the hardest to reach.

We are building on our success in immunization, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. We are working closely with international organizations such as the Global Fund, Gavi, Nutrition International, and the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, Grand Challenges Canada is helping to fund innovators who bring successful innovation to scale, catalyze sustainability, and impact.

Our efforts to ensure the health and well-being of citizens of all countries are essential to poverty eradication efforts and achieving sustainable development. These are laudable goals, but as we work toward them, we also need to work with our allies and partners to implement best practices to increase access to medicines, and to make sure we are creating the conditions that will allow us to achieve both our international objectives, and ensure we provide good value for our tax dollars.

The future of Canadian health research is bright. In the last decade, Canadians discovered a synthetic compound that binds to and inhibits a key enzyme the malaria parasite needs to reproduce and survive, decoded the genome of a metastatic breast cancer tumour, and began phases two and three of clinical trials for a preventive vaccine for HIV.

Proving that breakthroughs sometimes come from new eyes that re-examine old tools, in 2009, a Canada-U.S. research team discovered that the diabetes drug metformin appears to make vaccines in cancer treatments more effective.

Meanwhile, in a modern reconsideration of accepted practices, in 2008, Drs. P.J. Devereaux and Homer Yang discovered that the common practice of giving beta blockers to surgery patients actually increases risk of major stroke and death.

Medicine is not static and discoveries like these demonstrate the extent to which research as well as the tools and paradigms which support it are updated constantly. Human progress means there will always be value in reviewing, renewing, and improving upon existing practices. This truth applies not only to medical research but to the bureaucratic frameworks which support it.

Medical breakthroughs are happening all over the world everyday. Earlier this month, a team at MIT announced a technological breakthrough that would revolutionize the way childhood vaccines are dispensed. They have invented a microparticle that can be filled with vaccines and is designed to break down and release the dose at specific times. This could free up the precious time of doctors and nurses. Where this has the potential to truly be transformative, however, is in our international development efforts.

Vaccination programs are incredibly effective, and have made a tremendous impact on the ground, but access to booster shots, and ensuring properly timed programs have always been barriers to the effective implementation of vaccination campaigns.

This recent breakthrough has the potential to be especially useful in responding to acute outbreaks of diseases, where several doses of a vaccine might be required over weeks and months before immunity is sufficiently built up. This technology has the potential to be put into practice much sooner than it might otherwise have been, thanks to MIT's commitment to the equitable dissemination of medical technologies, and its active participation in patent pools.

Research universities around the world, including MIT and some schools in Canada, have been early adopters of the belief that health research is most effective when supported by policies designed with the primary goal of directly and positively impacting patient care out outcomes in a timely manner.

Research policies that support efficient, effective transition periods from research to development to product deployment will lead to the curing of more diseases, administering of more vaccines, and the saving of more lives.

As Canada recommits to being a world leader in innovation, we need to figure out what we want out of our health research. What are our national goals and desired outcomes, our target priorities, our values, and how can we best empower both researchers and those communities that researcher's efforts seek to help?

We know there is further room for improvement within our national frameworks. Just yesterday, a team from the O'Brien Institute for Public Health publicly called for further integration of patient and public involvement in health research policy as a means to improve patient care. If we want to improve health care outcomes in Canada, we need to create opportunities to listen to health researchers like these.

Meanwhile, many here may be familiar with Canada's tremendous role in the development of an ebola vaccine used with great success in combatting a devastating ebola outbreak in west Africa. The researchers who developed that vaccine made Canada proud. However, what those here may not know is that this ebola vaccine sat for far too long in a laboratory rather than being dispensed where it was needed most. This was due to an intellectual property dispute with an American company that purchased the vaccine commercialization licence from the Canadian government.

We spend money on research in order to develop products and techniques we can use to make a difference in people's lives. If we are not able to use these things when they matter the most, then we are doing ourselves and taxpayers a huge disservice. Governments and academic labs seldom have the specific expertise, and enormous resources necessary to scale a production of a product like a vaccine.

Agreements with corporations are important and necessary partnerships. In some cases, they are the only way that research can be supported and injected with the necessary resources, and funding to turn development into a final product.

However, the intellectual property dispute over the ebola vaccine proves there are problems with Canada's current approach to these partnerships. I believe there are ways to maximize benefits of federally funded research without negatively impacting the commercialization of products that stem from health research.

Other jurisdictions, such as Sao Paolo in Brazil, and individual institutions such as UBC, the University of Exeter, and Johns Hopkins University have put in place innovative licensing regimes designed to maximize the benefits the institutions receive, but also advances the ability to advance their research agenda.

Should this motion pass, I hope these examples, and the licensing regimes put in place between Canadian researchers and corporations will be one element of our federally funded health research framework that the committee will explore in more depth. This represents one of the best ways of increasing access to medicines all over the world.

We have the opportunity to really make a difference. We have the desire, and the means to help combat some of the most devastating diseases here at home and around the world. We owe it to our constituents, as taxpayers, and also to all those in need of medical relief around the world to get this right.

I urge all my colleagues to support this motion, and help ensure that our world class health researchers are best equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of Motion No. 132 and Canadian health research. As a former health research coordinator, I was very interested to hear my hon. colleague speak about advancements in research in diabetes care. Canada has the proud honour of being the home of Sir Frederick Banting, the researcher who discovered insulin as a treatment for diabetes.

This year I had a chance to visit Banting House and to learn about Dr. Banting's discovery. Outside Banting House is a burning flame that will only be extinguished when a cure is found. I know that Canadian medical research will find a way to reach that goal.

Could my hon. colleague please describe how we can help increase access to new medicine that will advance our cause of defeating diabetes?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished friend for her role on the health committee and for being the chair of the diabetes caucus. I know how hard she works in that role.

If we look at the evolution of medicine and health, insulin was discovered many, many years ago. That discovery has helped both Canadians and the rest of the world. Right now type 2 diabetes is proliferating in the world. Now is the time when Canada can lead in the research and invest the proper health care dollars to make sure that our researchers are well equipped and that we work with decision-makers and governments and private companies to create an ecosystem that can help with the disease my hon. friend mentioned, and other chronic diseases as well. I know as a pharmacist and someone who has studied science that in this country we have the best researchers in the world. If we can encourage and empower them and give them the necessary resources, I am sure that we can make a difference with diabetes and with all of those diseases that have been neglected for too long.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member opposite for his efforts for medical research, especially when it comes to diabetes and some of the very common diseases we face every day.

Is the hon. member aware of the efforts made in my hometown of Edmonton by Edmonton protocol and by the University of Alberta, which has been a leader for a long time? Is the member aware of the efforts and how those using the Edmonton protocol and other researchers will work within this private member's bill?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, western Canada has always been very progressive when it comes to health care. In particular, it has started a program that I believe has been very advantageous to health researchers, namely the inclusion of patients in the process of figuring out a protocol. This is very important, because for far too long, the patient has been ignored. Researchers in the west and throughout other parts of Canada at other research centres are now making sure that when research is done, when a protocol is being developed, the patient is at the centre of it. As the O'Brien Institute for Public Health has recommended, from now on any research that is done should include not only the researchers and decision-makers, but also the patients.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's statement and his initiative. I come from Montreal, so we often fight over what is the high-tech capital of Canada. I would like to give him an opportunity to clear the record and speak about some of the amazing initiatives in his riding on the motion in question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has 40 seconds.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will just say that it is a tie right now, that Montreal and Kitchener Centre are about equal.

The unique thing about my riding is that we have created an ecosystem where we have the Centre for Family Medicine, which is part of the family medicine protocol from McMaster University, and a pharmacy school. Even in Kitchener, we have developed an ecosystem in which we are including patients, researchers, and municipal politicians to make sure that we can further health research in Canada.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to further discuss Motion No. 132, put forward by the member for Kitchener Centre. If passed, Motion No. 132 would result in the Standing Committee on Health undertaking a study on ways of increasing benefits from federally funded health research with the goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally.

Researching the various ways to lower costs of drugs for Canadians as well as researching the level of access to medications by different societal groups could drastically improve the well-being of all Canadians. I agree with the intent of this motion, and thank the member for bringing it forward.

As the official opposition deputy shadow minister for health, it would be an extremely valuable study for the members on the health committee to undertake. We should be examining how federally funded health research can assist to lower costs for prescription medications. In fact, as a Conservative, I think we should always be considering how to get the most value from taxpayers' dollars.

I was very fortunate to work for a short time at Merck and Company pharmaceuticals, and I have a great appreciation for the drug development process. Drug companies are working hard to provide Canadians with the necessary medications to keep them healthy, and I recognize the high cost of discovering new and effective pharmaceutical products.

However, Canada's costs for prescription medications are currently the second-highest in the world, and drugs have been the fastest growing expenditure in Canadian health care, surpassing even the cost of hiring doctors. When people or their loved ones become sick, the last thing they want is to be thinking about the cost of their medications.

Approximately one in four Canadians, who do not have drug insurance, will not take the medications prescribed to them by a doctor, solely due to cost. That number is just too high. Individuals who do not fully comply with the directions set out by doctors could be putting their health in serious jeopardy, and thereby potentially costing our health care system even more over the long-term.

The high cost of medications forces those who have difficulty affording medication to split pills, skip medication, and maybe even go into debt. Some may even die as a result of the high cost of prescription medication, making it unaffordable.

The rising price for prescribed drugs is due in part to the more frequent use of pharmaceuticals in general, and the use of newer and more expensive medications. Currently, Health Canada regulates the prices of patented drugs to ensure they remain moderate.

One of the key problems, however, is that these regulations have not been substantively changed in the last 20 years, and therefore have not been able to accommodate the significant changes in the pharmaceutical market. Because these current price regulations are only applied to patented medications, the price of generic medications in Canada can be as much as 90% higher than in other countries.

We need to stop Canadians from potentially putting unnecessary money into prescription medications and high drug-dispensing fees, when there are potentially cheaper options. Doctors also only receive much of their information on new drugs from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. This leads to a situation where companies may promote just their products, which are not necessarily going to be the best or the cheapest option for patients.

I want to just briefly point out as well that having falsely high prices for medications can ultimately have adverse effects on the private sector. Because these medications can be crucial for survival, patients will do what they can to afford them, especially when family members are at risk.

When Canadians spend more than they should have to on pharmaceuticals, that money is gone, and they are unable to invest in other areas of the economy. If drug costs continue to rise, the private sector may not have the necessary resources to cope.

Seniors in my home province of Alberta are very fortunate that the cost of their prescription medications is covered by the provincial government. However, seniors in other regions of Canada are not so lucky. We need to understand the impacts the growing costs of drugs can have on aging Canadians, as they will be the demographic that stands to gain the most from this research.

I think we all know that the high costs of prescription medications are also putting immense stress on governments in Canada at all levels. One of the areas we can make a real difference as legislators would be to figure out how to lower the cost of drugs. The more of our health care dollars that could be directed to strengthen patient care and services, the better. We should be investigating the ability to lower costs so we can improve the well-being of all Canadians.

Another aspect that Motion No. 132 would have the health committee investigate is whether access to pharmaceuticals in Canada can be improved by federal research. Very little has been studied in terms of even knowing if there is equal access of medication to individuals based on province, urban versus rural groups, aboriginals, gender, and income. By knowing this, we could then work toward more equitable access to medicine.

Although the provinces take the lead in terms of actually administering health care, federal funding may be able to provide insight into inefficiencies or inequalities across Canada. It is only logical to find out if there are variations of access to medicine across provinces, and whether federally funded health research would be able to assist in minimizing any discrepancies. Have-not provinces, as well as the territories in the far north, may be especially vulnerable to reduced access, and research would be needed to address that.

Life for Canadians in urban versus rural areas is also very different. We know health care in cities can handle a great diversity of treatment for medical situations, and we need to ensure that those in rural areas have equal access to medications. We also need to do what we can to ensure that individuals in rural areas do not have to travel great distances to get simple medications, because that may not be possible for individuals with any kind of restrictions on their mobility. It would also be challenging for low-income Canadians. Research needs to be done on whether access is substantially different and, if it is, on ways in which it can be improved.

We need to make sure any study includes the most vulnerable populations, such as aboriginals. Research is required to determine if aboriginals are receiving equitable access to medications. This should not be limited to those living on reserves, either. The government needs the information provided through studies to determine if aboriginals are receiving equitable access, especially in the areas of mental health and addiction.

Gender variations in drug access is another area where more information is needed. Men and women have very diverse needs in terms of access to medications, and it would be beneficial to examine any possible inconsistencies. Differences may be in the medications frequently available in local pharmacies, as well as differences in the ability to afford the cost of medications.

Again, I spoke a little about this at the start of my speech today, but we really do need to have a better feel for the impact of income on access to prescription drugs. This may be considering the private insurance plans available as well as public plans for those who qualify. Research needs to be done on where costs can be lowered to assist low-income individuals in accessing their medications.

It is essential that the Standing Committee on Health study the ways of increasing benefits from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally. Canadians and their families are concerned about keeping their families healthy, and increased access to medications at a lower cost will certainly go a long way to doing exactly that.

To conclude, I agree with Motion No. 132. We should be investigating the ability to lower costs so we can improve the well-being of all Canadians. I urge all members of Parliament to support this motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, what happened with the Qs and As?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is private members' business, so the Qs and As are only for the first speaker.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre for today's motion. His knowledge and his passion for health clearly came through in his remarks, and in his professional capacity as a pharmacist he is certainly well suited to bringing a motion of this sort to us.

There is one thing I want to mention parenthetically. It is just a comment and it is not directly on the motion, so the hon. member has nothing to worry about. It is just an observation in terms of how we are doing our business here.

It seems to me that to an increasing extent, we are passing private members' motions that give direction to committees. That is all well and fine, because the House is the boss of all committees, but we also live under a rule that states that committees are masters of their own destiny, and it is hard for committees to have that kind of control if the House is forever sending things from here that tell a committee what its next priority is. I am just mentioning that in passing. There is no easy solution, but it is something we may want to keep an eye on as we continue to go forward.

I will certainly be supporting the motion, especially since it talks about funding and coordinating health research. The examples that the member gave were instructive and helpful, and I appreciate that.

The motion talks about increased benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research with the goal of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines. It is interesting to note that this motion has come forward on the very day that the parliamentary budget officer has brought out a report talking about the benefits to Canada, her citizens, and the financial bottom line if we implemented a national pharmacare program. I have no doubt that as this idea continues to be looked at, more evidence will show how many Canadians are not taking their drugs because they cannot afford them.

I just make the point that doing research is really good and coming up with new treatments is fantastic, but at the end of the day, much of that treatment is pharmaceuticals. That is the reality. I am no health care professional, but it seems to me that if all this research that the public has paid for shows, for example, that a certain kind of treatment along with a certain pharmaceutical could improve a life, cure a problem, and make people well, but a growing number of Canadians cannot afford those drugs, then of what benefit is the research to them? Of what benefit is the research if they cannot use the final product, with the final product being the drugs that go with the treatment? In my humble opinion, moving at lightning speed to get a national pharmacare program is at least as important as increasing the funding for health research.

I would remind my hon. colleagues that Tommy Douglas was voted the greatest Canadian in large part because of his vision of universal health care, but Tommy is the one who also said that universal health care is not complete until we deal with pharmacare and ultimately dental care. That was the vision. Our greatest citizen, who made such a profound difference in our quality of life through our universal health care system, said “Keep in mind, my fellow Canadians, that this is only part of the job.”

Then we link that with this fantastic report that was just tabled today from the parliamentary budget officer. It says:

The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances, the Government’s estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and, upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

The executive summary states:

In September 2016, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to provide a cost estimate of implementing a national Pharmacare program...This paper estimates the cost to the federal government of implementing this particular framework for Pharmacare. It incorporates PBO’s assumptions of the potential savings resulting from a stronger position for drug price negotiations, consumption or behavioural responses of providing coverage, and potential changes in the drug market composition.

Under the executive summary, the PBO goes on to say:

After accounting for pricing and consumption changes, PBO estimates total drug spending under a national Pharmacare program would amount to $20.4 billion, if implemented in 2015-16. This represents savings of roughly $4.2 billion.

We have a world-class analysis from the parliamentary budget office, who is accepted by all of us as being non-partisan. It has said that Canadians would have access to the drugs and pharmaceuticals they need for their health. Access was part of the motion. It says access right in there.

This would be for everyone, all the time. There would be no one sitting down at the kitchen table anymore deciding if they are going to have to cut the pills in half, because that is the only way they can also afford food. That is gone. If they need drugs, they would be provided, the same way we approach health care. If they need hospital services, they go to the hospital and get the services. No one asks for a credit card. No one checks their bank account. If they are a Canadian, and need the health service, that is why the hospital is there.

Under Tommy Douglas's vision, and from the PBO report, every Canadian could have access to the drugs and pharmaceuticals they need, and we would save over $4 billion. That is a motion I could get behind, to bring in national pharmacare. There is no longer a good argument of any sort to not do this.

As much as I support what the hon. member is doing, on the federal funding, if we do not have access to the drugs that are needed, that research will go to waste for those individuals who do not take the drugs they need.

I thank the member for the motion. I will be voting for it. However, a national pharmacare program is the answer to many of the issues the member is raising, and it is the priority for the health care of Canadians.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague and friend the hon. member for Kitchener Centre for introducing Motion No. 132, requesting a parliamentary committee to study the use of federally funded research to lower drugs costs and increase access to medicines in Canada and around the world.

I am very pleased to speak about how the Government of Canada's investments have contributed to create new medicines and other innovations that have the potential to improve the lives of Canadians. As members may know, the Government of Canada is supporting health research, primarily through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, as we mostly know it. Each year, CIHR invests approximately $1 billion to support more than 13,000 researchers across Canada and trainees from across the country working in all areas of health. Using a rigorous peer review system, CIHR is committed to investing and supporting the very best Canadian health research. CIHR plays a leading role in supporting new scientific knowledge and enabling its translation into improved health and more effective health services and products as well.

CIHR supports ideas across the spectrum of research and captures ideas with the greatest potential to advance health research, health care, health systems, and health outcomes. Specifically, the CIHR's project grant program supports projects with a specific purpose and a defined end point. Project grants also encourage the inclusion of partners, where appropriate, to help facilitate bringing discoveries to the Canadian public. Commercialization projects funded by CIHR are designed to advance discoveries toward technologies that would attract new investment, create new science-based business, organizations, and initiatives, and ultimately improve the health outcomes of Canadians.

Through CIHR, the Government of Canada is committed to facilitating the advancement of health research in our country and bringing academic research to a stage that becomes accessible to the Canadian public. For example, the Government of Canada, through these institutes, supports the research of Dr. Cheryl Arrowsmith at the University of Toronto, who is helping to develop new drug targets. Starting in 2003-04, Dr. Arrowsmith received $2.8 million through the Canada research chairs program. This is a federal program that invests approximately $265 million each year to attract and retain some of the world's most accomplished and promising minds.

As part of her research program, Dr. Arrowsmith studies special proteins that regulate which genes in the body are active during a cell's growth, which can cause certain diseases. The action of these proteins is reversible, making them excellent potential drug targets. However, in order for drug development to occur, it is necessary to identify ways to alter the action of these proteins. This is exactly where Dr. Arrowsmith's lab is a world leader.

Her research involves special imaging techniques to determine the precise 3-D structure of these proteins. With this information, pharmaceutical industry researchers are then able to develop drug-like chemical probes, which will bind to the protein to slow or accelerate its actions. Through its collaboration, Dr. Arrowsmith's lab has helped create potential new treatments for certain forms of cancer.

In my riding, CIHR has funded professors Elizabeth McGibbon, Elsa Arbuthnot, and Agnes Calliste, making it the very first time in Canada that researchers are going to be able to scope out the state of Canadian knowledge about inequities in access to health services for indigenous and African Canadians living in rural areas.

A parliamentary committee study related to using federally funded research to improve access to medicines would help us understand the ways in which we could take research like this from bench to bedside at a lower cost to Canadians. Oftentimes, new discoveries are too expensive for Canadians to afford when they go market and are available for purchase.

For example, research conducted by Canada research chair Dr. Nabil Seidah and his team from l'Université de Montréal led to the development of a powerful but expensive new drug to treat high cholesterol. From 2003 to 2010, Dr. Seidah received $1.4 million from CIHR through the Canada research chair program. During this time, his team discovered a new enzyme that plays a key role in regulating receptors of low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, commonly known as bad cholesterol. I am going back to my human kinetics degree. This was an important discovery in the fight against cardiovascular disease, because this particular enzyme inactivates the receptors on the liver cell surface that transport bad cholesterol for breakdown. Without these receptors, more bad cholesterol remains in the blood, which could lead to an increased risk of developing heart disease or having a heart attack.

Thanks to this important work, a new drug was created that reduces the activity of this enzyme, which helps the liver clean out bad cholesterol from the bloodstream. This new drug reduces bad cholesterol levels by 60% for those who have high cholesterol. What is especially important about this discovery is that everyone responds well to this new drug, even people who do not usually tolerate the common drugs that are used to treat high cholesterol.

This new drug has potential life-saving benefits for Canadians. It was approved for use in 2015. However, the drug costs $7,500 a year. This cost makes it very difficult for Canadians who are at risk of developing cardiovascular disease to afford the medication that might save their lives.

This is why Motion No. 132 is such an important tool. It will help us examine the delicate balance between the economic gain of new discoveries and advancing federally funded innovations, and making them more accessible to Canadians in improving their health. In this regard, it is very important to note that advancements are made possible through widespread and barrier-free access to cutting-edge research and knowledge. Policies that facilitate access to the results of this research enable researchers, scholars, clinicians, policy-makers, private sector and not-for-profit organizations, and the public to use and build on this knowledge.

For example, numerous agencies and institutions are implementing open access policies. In Canada, CIHR has been working closely with two federal research granting agencies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, NSERC, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, SSHRC. For instance, the three federal agencies do not retain or claim any ownership of intellectual property, and no copyright or investments developed resulting from the research supported by its agency funds either. This gives academic institutions the opportunity to commercialize research results to make them more readily available to the public.

Moreover, the three agencies have a number of policies in place to ensure that the knowledge gained from federally funded research is made accessible. For example, in February 2015, CIHR along with NSERC and SSHRC released their tri-agency open access policy on publications, under which “Grant recipients are required to ensure that any peer-reviewed journal publications arising from Agency-supported research are freely accessible [online] within 12 months of publication.”

The objective of this important policy is to improve access to the results of federally funded research and increase dissemination and exchange of research results. In addition, in June 2016, the three federal research granting agencies released their tri-agency statement of principles on digital data management as an important step toward strengthening research data management in Canada and maintaining our country's research excellence.

When properly managed and responsibly shared, digital research data enables researchers to ask new questions, pursue novel research programs, and test alternative hypotheses. It has the potential to advance science and support innovative solutions in Canada. The agencies believe that research data collected with the use of public funds belong, to the fullest extent possible, in the public domain and available for reuse by others. Therefore, the statement outlines the agency's overarching expectations for research data management and the roles of researchers, research institutions, research communities, and research funders in supporting data management.

I have highlighted a few examples of innovations funded by the Government of Canada that can improve the lives of Canadians living in our communities. I will also emphasize that these discoveries are often commercialized for profit and may be financially inaccessible to many Canadians. While policies are in place to ensure open access to innovations funded by the federal government, it is still important to study new ways in which research investments can deliver returns for Canadians.

As I previously mentioned, it is essential to strike a balance between the economic gains of new discoveries and the accessibility of federally funded research. A parliamentary study to improve access to medicines through federally funded programs would help shed light on how new health research discoveries can be affordable and make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That is why I am so pleased that the Government of Canada will be supporting Motion No. 132.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for tabling Motion No. 132 so that we are able to have this debate.

I have had the honour of serving with the member on the foreign affairs committee. We have had conversations on the side, mostly related to foreign affairs, but he did bring up his past as a pharmacist many times.

Unfortunately, the member talked about physicians and not about pharmacists, but I have a Yiddish proverb: Time is the best physician. However, time is actually not the best physician. This Yiddish proverb is wrong, because it says that if someone with an ailment or disease just waits, eventually it will get better. Mostly this proverb is used for something like tripping stubbing a toe, and in that sense it is true that it will pass without medication or a physician's help.

A proverb that applies much better to this situation is “Health comes before making a livelihood.” We have seen it in the House before, and we just heard a member today speak about her health. Health comes first. It comes before everything else. It is the most important matter in our lives, both the health of our families and our personal health. It is the greatest determinant of whether we can pursue our dreams and our careers and take care of our families.

Time is also something that patients do not have. When we talk about health care, we are not talking about buildings or research; we are talking about patients, people with an illness or disease for which they need healing, treatment, or some type of therapy so that they can extend their lives or have a better quality of life.

The motion speaks about increasing benefits to the public from federally funded research, which is a laudable goal. As a Conservative, I like to think that we get value for our money, a bang for our buck. We should always try to maximize the return on investment. Therefore, absolutely, I support the motion, and the principle and the wording of it. Having to report back within a year with some solutions for Canadians is especially valuable.

I remember serving on the Kidney Foundation of Canada Southern Alberta Branch. Value for money is what the Kidney Foundation is all about, with 60% of the dollars raised going toward private sector research, and there it is always about what the best thing is for the patient. What do patients want? What can be achieved for patients with the dollars raised? This is how I feel and what federal government research should be about. It should not be about building a research empire or clusters or superclusters or hiring new university adjunct professors. It is really about what can be done for patients. This is what it should be all about. The goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines are all for patients, for their families. It is for a better quality of life and to extend lives.

I would like to focus most of my comments on rare diseases and the orphan drug framework, which was supposed to have been introduced and in action about two years ago. We are still waiting to see it.

I bring up rare diseases because this is one of the fastest-growing fields in medical research. There are many new rare diseases. Diseases that used to be considered one disease have been split into two or three or four as our knowledge has improved.

I say this as a father with kids and a wife who have a rare disease. My family has Alport syndrome. I do not have it, but all three of my kids do. There are 40,000 patients with Alport syndrome globally. However, out of six and a half or seven billion people, 40,000 is not very many. This is something that I have mentioned in the House before. There is no known cure for it, and eventually it leads to terminal failure of the kidneys. There are six other families in Calgary who have exactly the same condition as my kids and wife, but there are hundreds of Canadians—one in 12, and now they say it may be as high as one in 10—who have some type of rare disease, which varies between terminally lethal to something that might be more benign or something in between.

Sometimes there are therapies available to improve people's quality of life. Other times, there is simply nothing, because there is not enough knowledge, although public research is being directed toward discovering a better therapy or that first stepping stone toward creating an opportunity for a drug that might relieve or improve the condition of a patient.

Clinical trials, as I have come to learn over the past two years in learning about how the health system works, take a long time, and the length of time is getting longer. Every physician I have spoken to who is in the field of public and even private medical research say it is being delayed by longer clinical trials in phase I, II, and III.

Phase I, often called the “first-in-man studies”, is where healthy volunteers are used to determine the maximum dosage of a potential new drug or new therapy. It is a very expensive initial phase.

Phase II, consisting of a small number of patients over an extended period of time, is used to see whether there are health improvements and any safety issues.

Phase III, consisting of a larger group of patients with a control group, investigates whether there is some type of worth for clinical practice.

It is taking longer and longer as we try to develop therapies and to develop new drugs or to have a secondary use for a current drug that could find some new use in treating a condition that might not have been thought about before.

The private sector is pursuing all of those opportunities, but there is a very high cost. What the government brings with public funding, typically, is the opportunity to provide a large amount of financing to focus people on a very specific goal. Curing cancer has typically been one. Curing diabetes is another. It can pool resources.

All members of Parliament have the power to convene. Government has the power to convene resources and people to focus on a specific issue. We should be getting bang for our buck.

In the case of Alport syndrome, there is a private sector company, Reata Pharmaceuticals, that is developing a second-generation drug with bardoxolone methyl, which they are now testing to see whether it could provide some type of relief for sufferers of Alport syndrome.

There are many other rare diseases that could use public sector financing and/or private sector financing.

One thing I want to point out is that when we talk about national goals, do we want to be world leaders and do we want to have a supercluster of health research? National goals should be synonymous with patient goals, not with meeting some percentage or having Canada come first in an international ranking of G7 countries, or the OECD, or versus the European Union. I could not care less whether we are at the bottom or top of a list. If we are meeting the goals of patients in Canada, if we are actually developing real therapies and new drugs and new opportunities for people to get better or to extend their lives, that is what we should be doing. If we happen to wind up at the bottom of the list, then so be it. Therefore, when we talk about national goals, we should be talking about patient goals. The terms should be inverted.

All of this research has to be for patients. If it not for patients, then it is not meeting its goal. In this regard, I have gone through the websites of CIHR and a lot of public sector bodies, and they do a lot of good research. A lot of that research, though, is basic research, trying to understand the basic functioning of the human body, the basic functioning of different drugs that are being developed, and the secondary uses of drugs. Sometimes what is missing is that patient focus.

Have they actually gone to the patient community with that particular condition, with that particular illness, to ask them if that would be something they want pursued, if it is something that would be helpful, and how they could be reached to better understand what the families are going through.

I recognize that it is very difficult with rare diseases. Some rare diseases in Canada could have as few as 60 sufferers. That is one of the reasons the company that developed Soliris is facing so much opposition and anger, both from patients and provincial governments that are attempting to negotiate an agreement with them. That effort has failed so far. It is because there is a very particular drug that treats a very particular autoimmune disease.

Advancing the frontiers of knowledge is fine, but we have to do it for people, kids, and families. I feel that this motion is reaching that goal. We are trying to reach for the goal, trying to find an opportunity.

I will be supporting this motion. I think its intent is in the right place. Let us invert the terminology and never talk about national goals, but patient goals.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

The Environment

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 2014, the Mikisew Cree First Nation submitted a petition to the World Heritage Committee requesting a monitoring mission to assess the state of conservation in Wood Buffalo National Park and the Peace-Athabasca Delta. The Mikisew Cree, like many Canadians, were concerned by the impacts of the Site C hydroelectric dam in British Columbia and the Alberta oil sands on this environmentally sensitive region.

From September 25 to October 4 last year, UNESCO's World Heritage Centre undertook a monitoring mission at the site. What it found was extremely disturbing, which is why I asked the minister this important question regarding this issue last April.

First and foremost, the centre found there is a poor relationship between the federal government and the first nations and Métis who reside in the area. In particular, the local knowledge and culture have been ignored as have the concerns of residents about the impacts of development on their traditional territories.

The centre also found that conservation has been a low priority in the area, and that Parks Canada's legal obligation to maintain and restore the ecological integrity of Wood Buffalo National Park has not been met. Regarding the Alberta oil sands, there has been a lack of environmental assessment or risk assessment in developing facilities, such as mines and tailings ponds. In fact, overall, the lack of understanding of the flows of the rivers, the hydrological conditions, the complexity of the area, and the impacts of development is quite shocking.

This brings us to the Site C dam, a major British Columbia project that would have tremendous impacts on the Peace-Athabasca Delta and the people, flora, and fauna that reside there, and which received federal and provincial approvals without adequate assessments, according to international standards.

The new NDP B.C. government is taking steps to review Site C by sending it to the B.C. Utilities Commission. We have hope that future projects of this magnitude will be developed with appropriate environmental assessments and first nations consultation before receiving a green light.

UNESCO is treating the federal government's neglect of Wood Buffalo National Park very seriously. It offered Canada one chance, and only one chance, to correct the deficiencies in how we treat this incredible treasure.

Let me talk a little bit about this treasure. Wood Buffalo National Park is the largest park in Canada and the second largest national park in the world. It is the 13th largest protected area in the world. It was established in 1922 to protect the world's largest herd of free roaming wood bison, and it is one of two known nesting sites for whooping cranes. It is also considered the world's largest dark sky preserve, leading to significant populations of bats, nighthawks, and owls.

This amazing area was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1983 for the biological diversity of the Peace-Athabasca Delta and for the population of wild bison. It is a tragedy that the diversity of the area, the ecological integrity of the park, and the livelihoods of those who live there are all at risk, as is the park's UNESCO designation because of the neglect of successive governments.

Last April 13, I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, what action will she take to protect Wood Buffalo National Park and when will she take it? A year after the study was conducted, and more than six months since the report was released, we have still heard nothing from the Liberals on any actions to protect wood buffalo, other than the work of the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the member's four minutes are up, so I have to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change a chance to respond. The member has another minute after that.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I know the member is passionate about parks, ecological integrity, and other associated issues, and I am pleased to provide him with a response.

As the federal agency responsible for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in Canada, Parks Canada is committed to protecting and presenting Wood Buffalo National Park of Canada to Canadians and the world. The Government of Canada is committed to the ongoing protection of Wood Buffalo National Park as one of the treasures of Canada's national park system and as a UNESCO world heritage site.

The agency is working closely with 11 indigenous communities with an interest in the management of Wood Buffalo National Park through its co-operative management committee and also directly with these indigenous groups. Parks Canada also collaborates with other federal departments and with the governments of Alberta, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories on conservation issues related to Wood Buffalo National Park.

The Government of Canada welcomed, and continues to welcome, the UNESCO mission report as well as the World Heritage Committee's recent decision this past July requesting that Canada develop an action plan for the site. The government will duly consider the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee in its ongoing efforts to improve its practices and to remain a global leader in conservation.

The Government of Canada is committed to working with its federal, provincial, and territorial counterparts, indigenous partners, and other stakeholders to develop and implement an action plan that addresses the mission report's recommendations. A true response to this report requires collaboration, and that means time, at all levels with federal, provincial and territorial governments, our indigenous partners, and industry and other stakeholders.

By taking a unified and very collaborative approach, we will ensure that Wood Buffalo National Park remains a treasured place with outstanding universal value for generations to come.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, on July 5, 2017, just a few months ago, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee issued a decision giving Canada until the end of 2018, which is only 15 months away, to demonstrate that it has taken major new steps to protect the park. All 17 recommendations in that report must be met. I would like to know from my colleague across the floor whether a time frame has been established, whether discussions have begun, and whether he thinks the government is on track to meet that deadline at the end of 2018.