House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was yukon.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as NDP MP for Yukon (Yukon)

Won her last election, in 1993, with 43% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Breast Cancer May 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I thank members present today for their interventions.

Today's debate has shown this is not a partisan issue. A commitment to prevention and research for women suffering from breast cancer is something we must always bring forward. This is not just a women's issue as was pointed out by one of the speakers. This is an issue affecting all Canadians and all Canadian families, certainly my own family. I am sure that virtually everyone in the House has experienced something similar.

We must put action behind the words we have spoken today. There is a great need. We have all cited the statistics, but what will really address that need is to acknowledge that we must work with those who are sufferers of the disease, to help them-as I mentioned in my remarks, many people do recover-and to present a hopeful and a positive view. This is an issue that members of Parliament can seriously address.

To the member from the health committee, perhaps this is an issue they might wish to explore further in reviewing the recommendations of 1992 to see what has been accomplished and what yet remains to be accomplished. I thank all members for their comments.

Breast Cancer May 9th, 1995

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide core funding to ensure that all women diagnosed with breast cancer have access, through survivor led support groups, to information on the various treatments available in their community and local counselling services provided by peer support groups and survivors.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the motion today in the House of Commons because I know that all Canadians are concerned about this very serious health issue. However concern is not enough. It is necessary to put action and to put funds behind our desire for increased health resources for women. In particular, around the issue of breast cancer, the statistics are very clear on what is needed.

Mr. Speaker, you may know that two of my colleagues from the previous parliament, the former members for New Westminster and Mission-Coquitlam, worked tirelessly to have this House put research on breast cancer and support services for women with breast cancer on the top of its list of priorities.

They helped convince this House to embark on an important study regarding the issue in 1992. The same year, the Sub-committee on the Status of Women published its conclusions and a list of recommendations in a report entitled "Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions". I have a copy of that report with me.

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that most of the questions raised at the time have remained unanswered. The members of the sub-committee made 49 recommendations, and I think it is important to revisit a few today. The sub-committee recommended that the federal government work with the provinces and territories to give the cancer research centres already in place in each region of the country the designation of centres of excellence.

The centres of excellence would be a sort of one-stop treatment and information centre for women diagnosed with breast cancer.

I cannot tell the House how many women I have spoken with who say they have lacked proper information on treatment and on treatment options. There is confusion even on things such as breast self-examination and the options generally available to women.

We need to concentrate our efforts and to pool our knowledge. The regional centres idea originally proposed by the committee would go a long way in centralizing and co-ordinating information.

The committee of 1992 also recommended that the federal government establish a 1-800 line to provide information to women on various self-examination techniques and on new research and treatment options. Nothing concrete has been done about the plan. I suggest it is worth reviewing and should be seriously considered.

The Ontario Breast Cancer Support and Research Centre currently has an application before the federal Minister of Health requesting that such a pilot for a 1-800 number be established in Ontario. I hope the pilot, proposed to be jointly funded through private funds and public funds, would be seriously considered by the minister. It would be an attempt to work on the recommendations that took a lot of time of parliamentarians and were very clearly thought out. The committee heard a number of witnesses as well.

There is also an outstanding recommendation for a national registry to keep a record of devices implanted in the body. This issue is very strongly linked to the motion we are discussing today since many women have in the past decided on breast reconstruction using silicone implants after they have undergone a mastectomy to remove a breast cancer.

It is also an issue for women who have not had breast cancer. It remains an extremely serious and outstanding issue that breast implants have not been thoroughly researched or thoroughly regulated by the federal government. It is an absolutely crucial area in which work must be done.

I might add there are a number of self-support groups that are trying to work with the government on the issue but receive no financial support. There are a number of civil suits pending against the manufacturers of silicone gel implants. I urge the federal government to play a strong role in support of these women.

In March 1995 I met with a number of women who had experience with their implants. I can assure everyone in the House that their problems are real. These problems, in addition to causing endless pain and suffering and disrupting family life, are a huge cost to the Canada health care system.

We are very fond of saying we have to do something to cut health care costs. By regulation by the Canadian government in the area and by information being available to women about the medical devices we could do much to address that health care cost with a very minimum of support from the federal government.

One of the most important recommendations in the standing committee's report on breast cancer asked that the federal government provide some direct funding for survivor led women's support groups. We cannot underestimate the importance of the recommendation. That is why my motion today deals specifically with it.

One reason survivor led support groups can play such an important role is that women who volunteer their time have been through the process. They are able to empathize with other women, to talk about how they have handled the issue, and to deal with confusion and fear first hand. It is important for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer to have that kind of support. For a very minimal cost we could be saving health care costs down the line in a substantial way.

There is a lot of research to suggest that a positive attitude and a strong support network can actually help people fight diseases. The support groups we now have in Canada have had a tremendously positive effect on the lives of women.

This is important in light of the fact that scientific research has failed to come up with strong links between the causes of breast cancer and the onset of the disease. Despite years of research we still do not know the cause of the majority of breast cancers. Scientists have identified links like a genetic marker, age and a woman's estrogen level, but in 60 per cent to 70 per cent of all cases none of the identified risk factors is at play. It is incredibly important to look at some of the ways we can help women when they are diagnosed.

There is a huge library of research. I have many bibliographies in my own office that I would be happy to share with members of the House which point to the link between self-help groups and improved quality of life in the face of illness. Clearly with a minimum of assistance to help co-ordinate volunteers and disseminate information we can have a positive health outcome. I would suggest it is an economic saving as well.

Recently American researchers, as an example, released their findings from a study of 7,000 people in California. They had monitored the people for nine years to see if there was a link between strong social and family support networks and improved mortality. In every health category people with stronger social ties, people with stronger friendships, for example, had a lower incidence of illness. When they did get sick they stood a better chance of recovery.

When we talk about health care costs and health programs we tend to think of them generally speaking in a very narrow framework. We have to begin to think about how we can enhance existing links that provide support for people in these traumatic instances. In addition, as the research indicates they also work.

Canadian studies have made the same links in breast cancer. There was a study in British Columbia indicating that for women with breast cancer, women's friendships, social network and employment status had a positive impact on survival chances. The link is somewhat stronger for women who have had some form of outside support.

Over 5,400 Canadian women will die of breast cancer this year. An estimated 17,000 Canadian women will be newly diagnosed with the disease. That is one in nine Canadian women. We have made some advances. I know of many people who have successfully fought the disease and have gone on to raise their families and to live happy and productive lives.

Statistics show it is still a very major health issue. Breast cancer is the second most frequently occurring cancer in the country. More shocking still-and I have not really seen research on why it is-Canada's rate of breast cancer is the second highest in the world, second only to the United States. There is much we need to do in the area.

The obvious question is where do we get the money? It is a legitimate one. There are avenues through the health promotion and contribution program at Health Canada which has funded some projects to help breast cancer support groups communicate with one another. As in so many other areas, by assisting groups with a small amount of money we can have a huge benefit. By spending the funds we have well we enhance the links that exist in the community.

Federal support for survivor led support groups could assume a model, for example the one set up for the AIDS secretariat. It is a very good model in terms of looking at how the federal government can co-ordinate funding in an appropriate way. That model of secretariat does two things. It indicates a commitment on the part of government to a serious health issue and provides a central source for promotion of dealing with the issue both within government departments and throughout the country.

As much as anyone, certainly the New Democratic Party knows there is not a lot of money and revenues are tight. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of what we wish to see for the population of the country.

There are some who would refer to spending $60 million on the Senate. I would say save national medicare and sacrifice the Senate. There is still not a single support group in Ontario that has had help from the Canadian government. I might be wrong and could be corrected, but I do not know of any other support group in a province or territory that is assisted by the government.

There is also a related issue which I think is very real because again we are talking about priorities, reduced funding and choices. The social assistance and health transfer proposed under Bill C-76 is now undergoing discussion in committee. Seven billion dollars in cuts will only make it more difficult in this area of health.

As we are looking at priorities in Canada, what it means to be a citizen of Canada, a comprehensive system of national health care must be foremost. Many groups and individuals are very concerned that the bill will simply result in less co-ordination and reduce funding in both provinces and territories for the kind of groups that are needed and the kind of research that is needed.

In the same recently even the United Nations has expressed strong concern about the health and social service transfers, saying they could strip disadvantaged groups of their fundamental rights.

Health Canada is currently funding five pilot projects to improve communication between small support groups. I commend that. It is a good start on the things that need to be done. Funding for these networking groups ends in 1996. I hope by then we can say we have been able to extend a helping hand to many grassroot support groups working with sufferers of breast cancer.

I am not talking about a lot of funding, simply an amount that will help groups co-ordinate and do their work. One group I have become familiar with is the Burlington breast cancer support services. This group was the first survivor directed support organization in Canada. It started out with assistance

from the government but today it does not receive any funding from the government. It is making it on memberships and private donations and was fortunate enough to have office space donated. It was that little bit of funding that got it started that made the difference in the group's being able to continue and establish itself.

The group in Burlington receives 155 calls for support each month; 57 people drop in to its office each month and in 1994, 111 people volunteered over 15,000 hours to provide peer support and keep the organization running. This is a very clear example of how a little assistance can have a very beneficial result for people suffering from this disease.

Every parliamentarian should have the chance to speak to the women who volunteer in these kinds of activities, women who have suffered breast cancer or to their families. Obviously in this instance it affects many more people than the person who has the illness. Parliamentarians would then see the level of commitment and dedication and support they give which is absolutely crucial to others.

Today I presented some of the 2,000 petitions I received from men and women across the country, from every province and territory, asking parliamentarians for the support I have discussed here. I have received over 30,000 signatures, the largest number I have received on any petition. Many women have called and written to me asking for more petitions. Others have written to tell me of their own experiences with breast cancer, suggesting new areas where parliamentarians can help.

The other day I received a completed petition from the member for Calgary Southeast, and I thank her. I believe this is a non-partisan issue. I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues in the House on this issue. I hope it will not simply be addressed here and then forgotten.

The subcommittee of 1992 has not had a lot of action on the recommendations. I encourage all parliamentarians, both men and women, to become involved in supporting the issue and making it a new national priority.

The other day I spoke with members of the Canadian heritage committee, responsible for the status of women, and was told the committee does not have plans to discuss this issue. I believe we should look at this again. I also think we should act on it. Most women will say: "Do not do another study. We have had a lot of studies. Give us action. We have given you the ideas".

Core funding for survivor led breast cancer services is one of the most important, most cost effective ways to address the issue.

One of Ontario's breast cancer activists said recently we cannot ignore the needs of women living with the disease while we are searching for the cure.

Transport May 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport.

The minister will agree there is grave concern about the AWOS. He will know there are two investigations now of crashes where the AWOS is implicated. His department is going ahead with the AWOS. I have been to briefings by Transport Canada on this system. It is unproven technology.

It is time for an independent, public inquiry into this automation system and its commercialization. Will he not do it?

Transport May 9th, 1995

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

Last week the Minister of Transport called some of his department's plans to automate and privatize air navigation systems a mess. I agree with the minister.

There are increasing concerns about the automated weather system, the number of layoffs in 26 airports, emergency fire response, and the Transport Canada project to install automated aircraft and control systems over budget. Surely in the interests of public safety the minister should respond to the airlines, the pilots, the consumers and call an independent public inquiry in his government's policy to privatize and automate air navigation systems.

Petitions May 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions representing all provinces and territories expressing concern that breast cancer has not been taken on as a national issue and a national priority, given that 5,400 Canadian women will die this year from that disease and about 17,000 Canadian women will be diagnosed.

The petitioners have asked that Parliament establish a toll free information and support line. They urge the government to begin consultations to establish parameters for a national registry of drugs and medical devices and various forms of biotechnology.

Petitions May 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions on the same subject, with thousands of signatures. These petitions deal with the serious health issue of breast cancer to which about 5,400 Canadian women lose their lives each year and another 17,000 are diagnosed.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to work with the provinces and the territories to designate one existing cancer research centre per region in Canada. They also call upon Parliament to take action to establish a toll free number for information, support and public awareness of the disease. Finally, they call upon Parliament to urge the government to begin consultations with the provinces and territoriesto establish the parameters for a national registry of drugs,medical devices implanted in the body, and various forms ofbiotechnologies.

Occupational Health And Safety April 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to pay tribute to those workers who have been killed or injured in the performance of their duties.

In February 1991, a private member's bill tabled by my former colleague, Rod Murphy, was passed, designating April 28 as an official day of mourning for those killed or injured at work. There are four workplace fatalities every working day in Canada, while a serious injury occurs every seven seconds of every working day.

Every year, workers develop occupational diseases which, very often, are neither declared nor covered by any compensation plan. Governments here and abroad continue to ignore health and safety standards and their enforcement. We continue to work with our counterparts at the national and international levels to set global health and safety standards.

We have the right to defend workers around the world, especially within the context of free trade agreements. Thank you for giving me your attention and allowing me to speak on this solemn occasion.

Schizophrenia April 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, this week the Schizophrenia Society of Canada has launched an awareness campaign of this very tragic disease. I was pleased to accept this iris I am wearing today as a symbol of hope and faith for a brighter future for sufferers of schizophrenia.

One of every twelve hospital beds is occupied by a sufferer of schizophrenia. The costs of the illness are estimated to be upward of $4 billion per year, not to mention the incalculable toll on individual sufferers and their families. Tragically, schizophrenia most often strikes individuals in their late teens and early twenties and has been called youth's greatest disabler.

Yesterday the Prime Minister also received an iris from the Schizophrenia Society and expressed his support for their work. I would suggest that making money available for research and education and supporting the public awareness initiative must be a priority of this government. I hope the Prime Minister will make good on his promise to do so.

Holocaust Memorial Day April 27th, 1995

Madam Speaker, today we rise in the House to remember. Half a century has not erased the memory of the horror of the six million people who were killed in Nazi concentration camps, nor the horror of World War II, which led to this.

Those who fought for the liberation of camps are also remembered today. We remember the families and individuals whose lives were lost in those camps. We admire the strength of those survivors, many of whom came to this country to help, with courage, determination, and strength, to build this country.

As we remember today, there is truly a lesson for us all, a lesson of courage and a reminder of how quickly prejudices and biases can turn to hate. As Canadians, we must be diligent and we must fight prejudice and racism. However, it is not enough to simply issue statements. We cannot be silent in our communities, in our homes or in our country. Silence and complacency are not options. We cannot rest in the assurance that the horrors of the concentration camps are simply a part of history.

We must be vigilant, because right wing extremism and fascism still exist in every country. We must ensure full application of the laws which prohibit hate, and work together to promote a strong and healthy democracy in Canada.

The Holocaust in many ways is something that happened to all of us. It is a part of our history and it is something we are all responsible for in ensuring that peace, justice, and freedom in every country in this world are more than just words.

Canada will remember. The world will remember.

Health Care April 25th, 1995

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

The Prime Minister will know there is great concern across the country about the transfer of health and social programs, the transfer legislation. There is no doubt, given that federal funding under this legislation will end in 2005, that people are rightly concerned it is the end of a national health care system.

Would the Prime Minister put a moratorium on this transfer and ensure that public hearings are held across the country on this issue?