Bonnie Brown

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the second report of the Standing Committee on Health.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has completed its study on the draft legislation on assisted human reproduction and now tables its report. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Health, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health.

Canadians are concerned about the recent reports of anthrax exposure in the United States. Just yesterday parliamentarians and our staff members were concerned when we heard about a suspicious material on Parliament Hill.

Could the minister please tell the House what stockpiling of supplies has been done to respond to the heightened public concern about anthrax?

[Adverse Drug Reactions, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Winnipeg North Centre on her initiative in bringing forward this motion. All Canadians want to know that the prescribed medications they take are safe. They place tremendous confidence in the ability of Health Canada to provide health care professionals with up to date drug safety information. Health Canada is open to suggestions or new activities that could increase its capacity to detect drug safety problems and thereby avoid serious adverse reactions to drugs taken by Canadians.

The government welcomes the motion by the NDP health critic that it should immediately, in consultation with provincial and territorial governments, establish a system for mandatory reporting of adverse drug reactions. Such a system should address not only the quantity but the quality of reports received.

This follows up on one of the 59 recommendations that came out of the coroner's inquest into the death of Vanessa Young who died at the age of 15 while taking the prescribed drug prepulsid. Her death was a sad event in my home riding of Oakville. I was fortunate enough to have known Vanessa Young and her parents. I saw the community grieving at her death. It was a tragedy.

Evidence presented at the inquest showed that the current system for reporting adverse drug reaction in Canada is not organized to its full potential. The inquest identified the need to implement improvements that would enable Health Canada to compile information on drug safety more quickly and thereby act faster on potentially dangerous situations once they are identified.

The jury recommended that it be mandatory for health care professionals to forward information to Health Canada on all serious adverse drug reactions within 48 hours. The inquest used the same definition of serious adverse reaction that is currently found in our food and drug regulations.

Before discussing the many issues pertaining to mandatory reporting I will give a bit of background on the approval and post-market surveillance programs of Health Canada.

First, no drug is authorized for sale in our country before it has gone through a rigorous review process. Once a drug is on the market Health Canada continues to monitor it for adverse reactions, investigate complaints or reported problems and update conditions of its use via changes to the product monograph. If necessary it can remove a drug from the market.

As well, the product licensing framework that will soon be implemented has defined mandatory reporting requirements regarding emerging safety issues in other countries.

Another current initiative is the collaboration between Canada and the U.S. in a shared adverse events reporting system. Once implemented such a database would enable earlier detection of drug safety problems than is currently possible.

A mandatory system for adverse drug reaction reporting has great potential as an improvement to the current system. However all aspects of such reporting must be carefully weighed.

For example, if mandatory reporting generated a higher number of quality reports of drug safety problems it would increase the ability of Health Canada to determine such problems. However at present Health Canada has no clear evidence that mandatory reporting would result in the submission of quality information and thereby substantially increase its capacity to detect drug safety issues.

Other countries have reported success with mandatory reporting. France has mandatory reporting yet does not seem to have a significantly higher number of reports than countries without it. Nor does it detect drug safety signals at a higher rate than countries that do not have mandatory reporting. France has also found it problematic to enforce mandatory reporting. Because of issues of patient confidentiality it is difficult to gain access to physicians' offices where much of the reporting is done.

I support the motion as a means of strengthening Health Canada's ability to generate drug safety signals. However there are aspects of it that require further clarification and discussion.

First, who is expected to report? Should it only be doctors or should pharmacists, nurses or other health care professionals report? What about the time frame for reporting? In addition, what about issues of patient confidentiality? The implications of mandatory reporting need to be thought out and its scope and expectations clearly defined so that informed decisions can be made in moving this motion forward into action.

Some of the other initiatives aimed at strengthening the post-market surveillance capacity of Health Canada are the adverse event reporting system currently used by the United States and the plans of Health Canada to partner with the U.S. in this system. It is among one the largest databases of its kind in the world and is specifically designated to assess the risks associated with drugs that are approved for sale. The U.S. has several years of experience using it. It contains close to three million adverse drug reaction reports. Each year about 300,000 new adverse reactions are entered. We think that partnering with the FDA and the use of this database will provide a powerful tool to enable Health Canada to detect potential drug safety issues in a more timely manner than is currently possible.

Another initiative is the creation of a joint committee between Health Canada and provincial and territorial health professional groups to examine the effectiveness of the risk information delivery system among all concerned parties.

In addition to their input to the issue of mandatory adverse drug reaction reporting, this joint committee will be asked to evaluate risk communication tools and techniques used to inform health care professionals and the general public with a view to improving their effectiveness. Ultimately this committee will report its findings, including any recommendations for improvement, to the coroner within one year of the date of the Vanessa Young verdict, which will be April 24, 2002.

Health Canada has also had discussions with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Canadian College of Family Medicine as to their interest in incorporating new drug risk information into their maintenance of competency programs for physicians. This initiative will help ensure that physicians keep current on drug risk information disseminated by Health Canada or other reputable information sources.

I wish to assure members of the House and all Canadians that Health Canada is actively seeking more effective ways to identify drug safety problems and to manage them in a timely manner. Health Canada values the health and well-being of Canadians above everything else. Our country has a good safety record with respect to drugs.

The motion to establish a mandatory reporting system is one potential step toward improving the availability of drug safety information and in identifying risks that could pose life threatening situations.

Identifying risks posed by drugs and communicating such risks in a timely manner is what Canadians want. I know I can call on the members of the House to support our future initiatives to improve the post-market surveillance activities of Health Canada among which mandatory reporting is one.

[Committees Of The House, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Health.

Pursuant to order of reference of February 27, the committee has considered Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 under health in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 and reports the same.

[Literacy, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the January Speech from the Throne the government committed to improving Canadians' literacy skills and to reinforcing life long learning. This is a cornerstone of our skills and learning agenda.

That is why I welcome the government's announcement that Alberta Senator Joyce Fairbairn is being reappointed as the special adviser for literacy to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

This decision coincides with the government preparing to invite provincial and territorial governments, as well as the private and voluntary sectors, to launch a new national literacy initiative. There will be a series of round table discussions with representatives from business, labour and academic communities on issues relating to literacy and skills development.

Raising literacy levels is critical to our future economic growth. The government's commitment to literacy is evidence of our commitment to a better quality of life for all Canadians.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

I am sure we were all equally dismayed at the powerful television images we saw of children in Labrador sniffing gas.

In December the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health committed to do all they could to help these Inuit children from Davis Inlet and Sheshatsui.

Would the parliamentary secretary please inform the House how Health Canada is fulfilling these commitments?

[Health, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. Quality care at the end of life is a frequently overlooked element of Canada's health care system. The Senate report on the subject points out that Canadians are still dying in needless pain and without adequate palliative care.

Could the parliamentary secretary inform the House what action the government is taking to ensure that dying Canadians have access to adequate palliative care?

[Job Creation, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday Statistics Canada released its latest labour force survey. The numbers again confirm our government's successful job creation record. Over two million new jobs have been created since the Liberal government took office in 1993.

In the last year our job creation record is particularly remarkable when it comes to women and youth. Compared with a year ago, employment among women is up by 154,000 or 2.7%. This increase is more than twice the increase for men. As for youth, their employment grew by more than 70,000 jobs in the last five months.

What has been the strongest sector for job creation in the last 12 months? It has been trade. Employment in the trade sector rose by 4.9% in the last year, a rate more than double that of all other industries.

We will continue to establish policies that ensure all Canadians can participate in a future where Canada is one of the most innovative, inclusive and entrepreneurial nations in the world.

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question. The minister did not forget to tell the House. The minister first heard about the problem on November 17, ordered a stronger action plan than the department had brought forth, and on January 19, I believe, announced these things to Canadians. The minister did not forget to tell anybody. The minister has been the most open and clear minister that probably this House has ever seen.

When the hon. member talks about cases that were troublesome and referred to the RCMP, he forgets to mention that there are but a few of them. Out of 17,000 there are a few. We are not happy about it. We have referred cases where there was any evidence of mishandling of money. We have required receipts. We have done everything we can to make sure that everything is up and above board.

Again, I am surprised that the member opposite, who believes in grants and contributions, is also insisting on emphasizing the negative instead of emphasizing the positive good that these programs have done for the thousands and thousands of files touching the lives of millions and millions of Canadians.

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

First, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question. He calls HRDC an infamous department. It is not infamous. Rather, it is famous to all those senior citizens who get old age security cheques every month and to all the unemployed who get employment insurance cheques. It is helping people to keep the wolf from the door. Millions and millions of Canadians have been the recipients. To those people, when the cheque comes, HRDC is their best friend. It is not infamous at all.

If it is infamous in anybody's eyes, it is because the hon. member's party has been irresponsible in blowing up 1/60 of this department's budget into what it incorrectly calls a billion dollar boondoggle, despite proof that has been put forward in the House day after day that a billion dollars is not missing and that there is no boondoggle. Even tonight, on the last night of the House, those members disgrace themselves by reiterating that discredited phrase that no one else in the House believes.

I find it odd that the hon. member suggests that my speech, which had one paragraph pointing out what that party has been doing, was a long diatribe against another party. Actually, I find it odd that he said that because his party is the expert on long diatribes. We have been exposed in the House and the Canadian public on television to a five month long diatribe from that party which was filled with incorrect information, personal attacks on the minister and the lowest possible form of unintellectual debate that the House has ever witnessed.

Canadians have to know whom they can trust. We are the ones who care about those in need. We are the ones with programs and they are the ones who would cut those programs and stick to policemen, jail guards and the army.