Audrey McLaughlin

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the third petition regards BST. The petitioners from different communities in the Yukon suggest that Parliament desist from passing legislation legalizing the use of BST or rbGH in Canada.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from a number of residents of the Yukon who are concerned that the harvest levels of Yukon forests are not economically or environmentally sustainable. They petition Parliament to mandate an immediate return to traditional timber harvest levels in the Yukon.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have several petitions here.

The first petition is from residents of Faro, Yukon, who did not receive vacation pay, severance pay, or pay in lieu of notice when the firm Curragh Resources was declared bankrupt.

Therefore, the petitioners request that the Minister of Human Resources Development investigate the situation and take the necessary steps to ensure that this worker and other workers who are laid off do not have severance packages, including earnings in the final calculation of UI benefits.

[National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical Devices, June 21st, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should begin consultations with the provinces and territories to establish the parameters for a national registry of drugs, medical devices (implanted in the body for more than one year) and various forms of biotechnology.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move this private members' motion today calling for a national registry of drugs and implanted medical devices.

Many Canadians assume that any such drugs or medical devices that are used are safe and have been well tested. I am sure that in the majority of cases this is true, but there are some glaring exceptions which I will discuss later in my speech.

The motion under discussion today is taken directly from a 1992 report by a House of Commons subcommittee on the status of women entitled: "Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions". While at the time the motion was meant to address the problems associated only with breast implants, the subcommittee recognized that a registry of many other medical devices would be a great step forward in protecting Canadian consumers. L'Association coopérative d'économie familiale du centre de Montréal made a call for a similar type of registry at that time.

I would like to say at the beginning that a national registration system would have to be voluntary and that privacy laws would have to be respected. At this point, we would be looking at something that both physicians and patients would have the choice to participate in.

Why do we need to consider such a national registry? What would it do for Canadian consumers? There are two issues. The first is that a national registry of medical devices would allow men and women who experience problems to notify a central data bank and document their complaints. The 1992 subcommittee suggested that Statistics Canada might be used to house such a registry.

The second value of such a registry is for those who might have some complaints about a drug or device to simply note who is on such a registry and do not necessarily have complaints. That would increase the long term safety of consumers by putting in place mechanisms to notify patients of potential problems or complications that arose or knowledge that came forward after the use of such drugs or devices.

As well, a registry could assist physicians in tracking those patients who may have experienced problems. It would open the door to more expansive research studies that could help to protect consumers.

At the moment, one of the problems is that there is no central data bank for researchers to collate information on people who may have had either devices or drugs. This kind of information is extremely important to consumers. It is an opportunity also for physicians to pass on new information to patients that may come to light and to better access long term risks and advantages of such medical practices. A national registry could certainly help Canadians to make more informed choices about their medical treatment and the options available to them.

If we look at the Canadian experience with medical devices and compare that to other consumer practices, it is clear that the Canadian system for medical devices lacks some basic resources. Canadian consumers can register complaints about automobiles, business transactions and the houses they buy. However, there is still no comprehensive and central system in place for things like breast implants, heart valves, pacemakers or other medical devices and drugs people use.

With new technologies and new drug products coming on the market all of the time, it is increasingly important that consumers have an opportunity to access information on the possible complications and risk factors associated with these new devices and drugs. As it now stands the monitoring of medical devices in this country is based on the notion of voluntary compliance by the manufacturer. In other words the manufacturers will comply voluntarily with both health and welfare regulations and the parameters of their own health standards.

Ultimate responsibility for the safety and efficacy of medical devices rests on the assurances that manufacturers provide to Health and Welfare Canada. The role of Health and Welfare Canada is still largely an auditing role to ensure that market tests and studies have been carried out by the manufacturers.

Many Canadians probably assume and not necessarily correctly, that there are independent studies done by Health and Welfare Canada on the whole range of medical technology, but on the whole its role has been to monitor and to assess. It is the role of Health and Welfare Canada to ensure the safety of Canadians. The government obviously has to have responsibility for giving Canadians confidence in the kinds of medical devices and medications they take.

Although there are many successes in the Canadian system for monitoring such medical procedures, there are some instances and some very serious ones that clearly indicate how the system has broken down. One issue that is currently in the news is that of breast implants which has been discussed in the House many times.

Members will know that just yesterday a settlement against the American manufacturer of the Meme implant was reached on behalf of Quebec and Ontario women through a class action suit. It has been a long time in coming and of course it is still one more step in the battle of Canadian women for compensation. What is important in both the Dow Corning decision in the United States and the Bristol Myers decision is the fact that settlements have been made. This indicates that the manufacturer is accepting some responsibility and admits that these medical devices did cause problems to some of the women who used them.

My office spoke to a lawyer involved in the case just recently settled. He pointed out that one problem is that only the women involved in the class action suit benefited. There is no way of knowing if other women in Ontario or Quebec might have benefited who might have been a part of that case if there had been some way to contact them and make the resources available to them.

It is estimated, and it is just an estimation, that there are about 150,000 women across Canada who have received a breast implant since their introduction in the mid-1970s. They made that choice on the advice of physicians, governments and manufacturers that the implants were safe. Women were routinely told not only that they were safe, and I am talking now specifically about the silicone gel implants, but that they would also last a lifetime and there would be no problems.

I might also add that there are now options to those silicone gel implants. The same assurances are being given and with the same lack of real data on the health risks associated with these implants.

For many women unfortunately the safety factor has not met the reassurances given by the manufacturer. For many it has been a nightmare. If members had been at many of the meetings I attended, they would have heard about women who had suffered a number of medical problems from outright rejection of implants causing massive infections to scarring. In some cases, women are reporting a variety of physical symptoms from chronic fatigue to autoimmune diseases. Even more, women are having difficulty in having their symptoms recognized as being legitimate symptoms. Many women were referred for psychiatric and psychological services. Their complaints were not taken seriously.

It was only when women came together that they began to realize their experience was not unique. Finding out there were other women who had similar experiences, they were able to approach physicians to tell them that there was a common thread and a problem. However, as in many areas of women's health, often the symptoms women present are not taken seriously. Looking at this simply in financial terms, the cost of multiple operations, the psychiatric and psychological counselling, apart from the personal devastation to these women who have had problems with the implants, is phenomenal to the health care system.

As the research has continued it is clear there are many symptoms including fatigue, skin lesions and neurological dysfunction that many women have experienced.

Just last month an Alberta study of 2,500 women with silicone gel implants reported preliminary findings showing a link between the implants and the way that a woman's body processes fat. I believe later this summer a report is expected on the association of implants and autoimmune diseases.

There clearly is a demonstrable connection between the implants and the complications reported by women. These court cases which we have seen successfully settled in favour of the women underline that there clearly was a problem. Long before we had to prove a problem this is where we come to the importance of adequate research being done, adequate data being kept and the responsibility of the federal government's health protection branch to ensure that Canadians are adequately protected in these areas.

In the case of the breast implants, there are still a lot of outstanding questions. There certainly is some dispute among physicians and researchers as to exactly what the effects have been. Of course there are women who have not had any symptoms. Having said that, I think this is one of the reasons that a national registry is so important. It could be useful in helping women to answer some of the questions they have about this issue.

Despite all the evidence women have had countless symptoms. Those symptoms while being increasingly recognized are still by no means accepted by all physicians and all of those involved in the field. To the personal and family lives of those women, the trauma they have suffered both psychologically and physically is very real.

We do not really know how many people have experienced complications because adequate mechanisms are not in place to monitor complications or long term effects of these and other implanted devices. Consequently, there is no way to adequately and specifically identify the number of implants done and those that are in use at this time, the possible range of problems or indeed the level of satisfaction associated with these devices.

A national registry such as is proposed in this motion would go a long way to helping women assess their risks not only for silicone gel implants but also for the new versions, such as the saline implants now on the market.

Today I have used the example of the breast implant to highlight the importance of a national registry system. Clearly the system would be a great benefit for consumers in other instances as well. It would help researchers track patients over a long period of time in order to provide for a clearer database for better research. It would give Canadian men and women a greater opportunity to access information and to be aware of potential problems.

There has been much written on the issue of health care in Canada, specifically about the increasing lack of confidence people have in the ability of the federal government to ensure the safety of drugs and products routinely used. The breast implant issue came to the House only as a result of certain members' raising the issue; they made it an issue. The Minister of Health at the time finally after much discussion and a lot of pressure did put in place a moratorium.

All this took place after the federal drug administration in the United States had made its findings. Most people may agree we are very reliant on the research of other countries to determine the level of safety for products used in Canada.

I do not want to suggest for a moment the health protection branch and its members are in some way at fault for this. Funding cutbacks to the system have affected the testing of new devices and drugs on the market with a greater reliance on secondary research as opposed to primary research by the department.

There is no doubt in the minds of Canadians they rely on the federal government, the department of health and welfare, the health promotion branch and the health protection branch to ensure certain standards. Most Canadians probably assume any product in this area which they take or is implanted has gone through a rigorous set of tests and is safe without question. It would be naive to assume anything can be safe without question since it is not a perfect science.

I urge support support for this motion. It is not a panacea to all the things that need to be done to ensure greater safety for the Canadian consumer in health related areas but it would be a positive step toward the protection of consumers, access to information and providing and assisting the maintenance of a database which would assist in the research of long term consequences.

I hope all parliamentarians will seriously consider this issue. I hope the Minister of Health will seriously consider this issue. It would be in the interest of all Canadians, men and women, and would provide Canadians with greater faith in our medical system.

[Drug Enforcement, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

It is clear that current drug enforcement policies need to be reviewed in this country. The B.C. coroner last week raised the issue again, as law enforcement officials and many other people have done recently, suggesting that a radically different legislative approach needs to be taken for the possession and use of hard and soft drugs.

In Canada the last comprehensive public review was in 1970 with the Le Dain commission. Has the minister's department taken any steps to initiate a comprehensive review of Canada's drug enforcement policy?

[Stanley Knowles, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Knowles was first elected to the House of Commons in a byelection on November 30, 1942. In his more than 50 years of political life he has served as a member of Parliament and as a vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. He has received the Order of Canada and is a member of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada.

In 1984 a motion supported by all members of this House appointed Mr. Knowles the unprecedented status of honorary officer of the House of Commons, a post which he continues to fulfil.

His work in Parliament, especially on behalf of pensioners and veterans, and his many contributions to political life are appreciated by us all.

On a personal note, whenever I have spoken to Mr. Knowles about political life and the role of politicians, he has one word of advice, which I think applies to us all: "If we are not here for the people, we should not be here". Mr. Knowles has always been here for the people.

[Stanley Knowles, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I invite members of this House to join me today in congratulating the Hon. Stanley Knowles, who yesterday turned 87 years of age.

[Cuba, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister.

Canada has maintained broken diplomatic relations with Cuba for 50 years and has established very important trade and investment links. In contrast, the United States has maintained an inhumane embargo that has had disastrous implications for the people of Cuba.

Today American politicians are once again threatening Canadian companies with trade links to Cuba with blacklisting. I ask the acting Prime Minister if he can tell this House whether the Prime Minister will be raising this issue at the G-7 meeting this week and condemning the U.S. blockade of Cuba and condemning the bullying of Canadians and Canadian business by the United States.

[Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of France has just announced that it plans to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific, ending a moratorium on testing that has held since 1992.

The statement of principles from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed in May of this year commits all nuclear weapons states to exercise utmost restraint on nuclear testing pending the signing of a comprehensive test ban treaty. The French announcement is clearly a step in the opposite direction.

The Canadian government was one of the many nations that pushed to make this treaty binding and permanent. Now, just one month after that signing, the spirit of the agreement is threatened.

I call on the Canadian government to show that it means what it says by protesting France's decision and to restate this country's commitment to a ban on all nuclear testing.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the Yukon territory, from Dawson City, Yukon, who draw to the attention of the House that the use of firearms by criminals cannot be affected by a computerized firearms control system.

The petitioners request that Parliament support only that legislation which severely punishes any violent criminal who uses a weapon and protects the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding recreational firearms community.