Carolyn Bennett

[Leukemia Awareness Month, February 10th, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the month of June as Leukemia Awareness Month.

Mr. Speaker, the results of the vote would indicate that clarity is a good thing, and we also think that awareness is a good thing. Awareness is as much a motherhood issue as is clarity. We find it quite astounding that our colleagues across the way in the Progressive Conservative Party find that clarity could be a bad thing.

There is no question that there has been a proliferation in the use of “the week of”, “the month of” and “the year of” in terms of all kinds of diseases, but particularly those concerning cancer.

The month of April has already been proclaimed cancer awareness month and as all hon. members know, October is breast cancer month. Having proclaimed April as cancer month has benefited all cancer sites. June is already the month for ALS, thyroid and spina bifida.

Although we think the competition among diseases has been uncomfortable when it comes to AIDS versus breast cancer versus prostate cancer, the politicizing of those diseases in terms of fundraising has been problematic sometimes. In times of awareness, more is better. We need to do whatever we can to raise the awareness of Canadians of these diseases in three ways: that of patient and caregiver, that of advocate and that of citizen.

The organizations that deal with health issues find that focusing all their efforts on one month of the year works for them. We therefore support the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada's interest in having June proclaimed leukemia awareness month.

What is interesting when we talk about awareness of leukemia that usually we are talking about an understanding of the disease, which is obviously a good thing. We are trying to develop an understanding of things that reflect early detection. For leukemia it is things such as fatigue and bruising. We are obviously trying to raise the awareness of the public for dollars for research and support which is also an extremely good thing. With this disease more than any other, it is also imperative that Canadians come to understand the importance and effectiveness of becoming a bone marrow transplant donor so that we can move to the next step in terms of the success that already exists in leukemia treatment.

In 1974 I graduated from the University of Toronto medical school. Back then leukemia was a virtual death sentence. Since then treatments have evolved, such as chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation. At the 25th anniversary of our graduation from medical school last June, my classmate, Dr. Mark Minden, made a presentation. He is now the chair of the Leukemia Research Foundation's scientific review panel and one of the most pre-eminent researchers in leukemia and bone marrow transplantation.

His presentation was astonishing to those of us who may not have focused on just how far we have come in the last 25 years. The motto of the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada is “We are getting closer every day”. It was impressively underlined by Dr. Minden as to how close we really are.

Unfortunately well over 3,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with leukemia this year and over 2,000 will die. It is important that Canadians understand that the cure rate is 70% in children and that 50% of adults affected reach disease remission lasting one to five years or more. Leukemia is the only form of human cancer where such advances have been realized. Leukemia research really does save lives.

As an overview, we should note the fact that leukemia is a disease of the white blood cells. Indeed it comes from two Greek words meaning white and blood. It is a cancer of the blood cells or of the blood-forming tissues of the body, the bone marrow, the spleen and the lymph nodes.

Leukemia affects individuals of all ages, of either sex and of every background. It is not contagious nor hereditary, but the more that we understand about the genetic disorders, the better. There is now a Philadelphia chromosome that is implicated with one of the chronic leukemias. We know it is more common with things like Down's syndrome, which is a genetic condition. We know that exposure to certain chemicals and radiation may increase susceptibility. This means that not only can we understand where it comes from genetically but maybe we could find out how it could be prevented by understanding the chemistry and radiation problems.

Chemotherapy, radiation and bone marrow transplants are working, but leukemia continues to cause the death of more children than any other disease.

I would like to highlight one of the most common leukemias in children, acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL. It represents more than three-quarters of leukemias in young people. It develops in the immature lymphoblasts or young lymphocytes. It seems to be caused by immunological factors. In this millennium immunology is probably the area which needs the most work.

There is evidence of a high risk for this disorder in people with immunodeficiency disorders. Apparent clusters of ALL are age specific at two or three years of age. Differences in this sub-type by age suggest that we still do not even know whether this is a disorder in the initial development of the immune system or whether it is an unusual immune response to infectious agents. There is no question that if we came to understand this better, we would be able to treat lots of conditions caused by abnormal immune systems much better.

These young people usually need chemotherapy for at least two to three years. It is a treatment intended to achieve a remission by eliminating all leukemia cells. But as we know, the drugs that are used to kill leukemia cells also kill healthy cells. It means that cells are killed in the hair, the skin, and the linings of the stomach and the intestine. At times this successful drug therapy is devastating even though the disease is cured. The side effects to the child are really difficult. It is sometimes necessary to receive radiation therapy to the brain and the spinal cord and the children are extraordinarily uncomfortable.

Before 1970 few children or teenagers with leukemia were cured. Survival improved when treatments changed from single to many agent chemotherapy. But when leukemia cells are still present around the brain and the spine, they are not able to be reached by chemotherapy.

This treatment has dramatically increased the cure rate of children and 95% of young people with ALL are now reaching remission after their first month of chemotherapy. In Canada an estimated three-quarters of all young people diagnosed with ALL between 1985 and 1988 were alive five years and most were considered cured.

About 30% of these kids experience a relapse or a return of the disease. Then the help of Canadians is needed in terms of bone marrow transplantation. This has been shown to improve survival and is offered to many children with ALL in their second or subsequent relapses.

We need Canadians to sign up as bone marrow donors. Because we need to match donors on all six of the immunological markers, siblings have a one in four chance of being a perfect match. If they do not match, the sometimes dying patients must turn quickly to other blood relations, bone marrow registries and pleas through the media. In about 40% of cases these searches fail.

Scientists have discovered a new method to transplant bone marrow from a mismatched donor, meaning almost anybody can have the potentially life-saving procedure.

It has been almost five years since our family's best friend, Phillip Borsos, died of leukemia. Phillip had had Hodgkin's disease and his leukemia was caused by the treatment he received for the Hodgkin's, an unfortunate and rare side effect but one nonetheless that happened. His wife Barret, and his two sons Angus and Silas whom I had the privilege of delivering, are now hoping that we in Canada will not take away other fathers when we are so close to the cure.

Phillip Borsos was one of Canada's finest filmmakers. He made amazing documentaries: Cooperage ; Spartree , and received an Oscar nomination for his documentary Nails . He then went on to direct The Grey Fox and Mean Season , One Magic Christmas , Bethune and Yellow Dog and then he died at 40 years of age.

Already the Leukemia Research Foundation has made huge progress and it is continuing the ongoing struggle to develop greater awareness. Last June during leukemia awareness month Leukemia Research Fund of Canada flags were flying over the city halls in major cities across Canada.

We are asking for the month to be designated by the House which would make it even more important. More awareness would be raised. The purpose of the awareness strategy is to spread the message that leukemia must be eradicated and that the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada exists for that purpose.

It is extraordinarily important that we have good messages like the national campaign entitled “We are getting closer every day”. We have a vehicle with which to inspire Canadians to do all of those things, to understand the gravity and how prevalent leukemia is, to understand that donating to leukemia research is extraordinarily important, and to sign up as a bone marrow donor.

In Canada health care is so important to people. Canadians are always reassured in the three roles they can play, that of patient and caregiver, that of advocate for the diseases, and that of citizen. For us to designate the month of June as leukemia awareness month would go a long way to that end. I hope there is support for this.

[Conference Of Women In The Francophonie, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was represented at the first conference of women in the Francophonie in Luxembourg. Could the Secretary of State responsible for Francophonie tell us what commitments were made at this initial meeting?

[Homelessness, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as winter is approaching, and this is the last day, we hope, that the House will be sitting this year and this millennium, I would like to know what the Government of Canada is doing to help with the homelessness crisis in this country. Do we have to wait until the next millennium?

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to affirm to the hon. member that the increase of $2,000, I believe, having attended a great number of the finance committee meetings, was in addition to the already scheduled increases. I think he will be relieved to hear that.

In terms of smart spending in health care, I was extremely interested in the brief of the Canadian Healthcare Association, which said that putting more money into the health care system, even if were available, would not be the answer.

We are extremely worried that accountability in the health care system is not there. As we know from some of the briefs, 60% of the things that are being done in health care, as we speak, have never been subjected to any sort of evidence based practice. As was recommended in the finance committee report, we have to make sure that there is money for information technology and the ability to practise evidence based medicine as well as research into health care delivery. We need proper data in terms of how we deliver health care.

A lot of us were very impressed by the University of Ottawa and Queen's University study of the sustainability of the health care system. It showed that if we actually moved to best practices, or moved people to the right level of care, there would be $7 billion in savings annually in Canada. Many briefs said that this was not about dollars, it was about mismanagement. We need a real system instead of this patchwork quilt of non-systems.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to talk about the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

First I would like to talk about the process because the content of the report is only as good as the process that preceded it. Coming from Women's College Hospital in Toronto where the motto was non quo sed quomodo, it is not what we do but how, I would like to celebrate the fact that this is a process by which our Liberal government can be extraordinarily proud.

No longer, as with previous governments, does the budget get written in secret after a series of one on one meetings with the finance minister, clearly influenced only by those who were able to secure such a meeting, largely because of their elevated positions in society.

With all the committee hearings and submissions and the town hall meetings held by 62 of our members of parliament, we feel that Canadians have been properly consulted. It is not surprising therefore that the Minister of Finance's budgets are so well received when people can see their own advice in the budgets as they are tabled.

As the member of parliament for St. Paul's I believe that the best antidote to the cynicism and apathy that really threatens our democracy is a commitment to real consultation and the participation of citizens in the policy process. Citizen engagement must be genuine and it is not good enough that governments and parliamentarians consult. Citizens must feel that they are being given the opportunity to actually shape public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oak Ridges.

Peter Newman said that politics in Canada has always been the art of making the necessary possible. Therefore deciding what is necessary must be a political decision. Deciding what is necessary must be done by politicians in true partnership with the citizens.

The prebudget consultation is an excellent example of a process whereby all Canadians have the opportunity to provide input into the priorities that define our country. The budget making process is where we receive input into the tools we have at our disposal to help ensure that the necessary becomes possible: debt retirement, taxation as well as tax relief, and strategic investments in program spending.

This year I had the opportunity to chair four consultations on the budget; a town hall in St. Paul's, an invitational round table in St. Paul's, a special meeting of the Liberal women's caucus with the finance minister, as well as yesterday's round table of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities on the tax treatment of persons with disabilities and families with children with disabilities.

The first such consultation which was submitted to the finance committee was held in St. Paul's on November 8. The clear consensus in the room was that affordable housing was extraordinarily important to all issues around the true disposable income of Canadians, and that all levels of government must do whatever they can to make shelter possible for all Canadians.

There was also a clear consensus on the need for proper tax relief, that the amount of disposable income families have is for snowsuits and snow boots for kids. Families, in particular low and middle income families, need to have money to spend, and this year as we focus on children it should be for their children.

There is no question that in terms of our economy the need for a vibrant and accountable health care system was agreed upon by everyone in the room, as well as employment strategies and a focus on the environment.

While affordable housing and tax relief topped the list of budgetary suggestions at the meeting, it was clear there were underlying issues to be addressed. The constituents of St. Paul's wanted to know that they were receiving good quality social services for their tax investments. They were asking the federal government to take the initiative in protecting the things they value most as Canadians: access to shelter, a quality health care system, employment, and protection of the environment for future generations.

In this new age of surplus, constituents would like to see measurable outcomes that demonstrate that their taxes are being well spent. They would like to have confidence that we will ensure that basic needs of all Canadians are met. They understand that good social spending is also good economic spending and economic policy and will result in a secure future for all Canadians.

At our prebudget round table, it was interesting that a consensus emerged on the need for the federal government to articulate a clear, long term economic and social vision based on Canadian values. Like the finance committee, they felt that we should be rolling out a vision over more than one year. Their issues of greatest concern were tax relief, debt reduction, poverty, homelessness and the children's agenda.

All in attendance felt that the government must lead the way in long term planning, setting outcomes and filling the gaps within a framework that reflects Canadian values. They wanted to ensure that good social policy was viewed as good economic policy. The consensus was that in order for us to maintain a decent social infrastructure, growing the pie and the economic strength of our country are extraordinarily important in reaching that goal.

At the round table, they felt we must ensure that productivity in the growth of the country occurs. It must be addressed in a long term, systemic way. If the government were to articulate long term plans, people would see their needs as being met. The feeling was that the government must not expect to run every aspect of life, but it must recognize clearly where it has a long term impact and harmonize its actions with other levels and partners to ensure its long term success. They wanted frequent reviews of government programs to see how effective they have been upon implementation to ensure that outcomes are being met.

We felt extremely heartened by the new efforts and initiatives of the treasury board to look at outcomes and the performance indicators of those outcomes in terms of the future of smart spending in the country and in knowing that we will fund programs only if they are shown to be, as we used to call in medicine, evidence based practice.

At their meeting the Liberal women's caucus reflected what they had been hearing in their constituencies. It was a very similar shopping list in terms of the budget. A lot of those things have been reflected in the finance committee report.

What was not in the finance committee report but the women's caucus feels strongly about, is that all aspects of public policy, in particular budget items, require a gender based analysis. We must make sure that there is no discrimination of gender by all policies and it must be done before things come to the point of being a budget allocation. We were heartened by the commitment of the Minister of Finance to meet with the Secretary of State for the Status of Women and the President of the Treasury Board to actually look at how that could be articulated.

Yesterday it was extremely interesting to receive the experts on the issue of tax and families with disabilities. I would like to draw members' attention to some of the things that were articulated at yesterday's meeting. I am thrilled that a lot of these things were in the finance committee report, but I would like to underline the things that we feel most strongly about or that there would seem to be consensus at the round table about.

Defending the child tax deduction for parents of children with disabilities would clearly benefit both low and middle income earners. The experts wanted to see an index or an adjustment to the various credits and deductions claimed by persons with disabilities and their families to deal with the increasing cost to them due to the lack of indexation. They wanted more technical aids and services added to the list of expenses for the medical expense tax credit. Clearly there was a consensus to broaden the definition of eligibility in the disability tax credit.

We are particularly concerned about people with cystic fibrosis. For some reason in the current definition of disability, in activities related to daily living, breathing has been left out. People who have a great deal of difficulty breathing are not included in the disability tax credit. We feel that is a modest expansion that would seriously help the 600 to 900 adults with cystic fibrosis to participate as full citizens.

We are requesting that the Canada study grants received by persons with disabilities be not treated as taxable income.

There was interest in a new savings vehicle modelled on the registered retirement savings plan that would encourage private savings to support individuals with mental and physical disabilities.

We think there should be more generous and consistent tax treatment of the costs of attendant care and that the income tax guide should be clarified so that taxpayers with disabilities and their families can more clearly understand the applicable tax measures and act accordingly.

We were thrilled to see in the finance committee report strong support for the renewal of the opportunities fund, and we are hoping for accessibility standards that would become benchmarks in the national children's agenda.

It is extremely heartening to see so many of the social infrastructure programs clearly identified in the finance committee report.

[Violence, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was 10 years ago that Canada was stunned by the senseless, violent murder of 14 of our most promising young women.

My question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. What has the government done since then to prevent tragedies such as the Montreal massacre and the ongoing violence in women's daily lives here in Canada?

[World Aids Day, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on World AIDS Day to bring attention to an important initiative by Health Canada to promote AIDS awareness.

Last month the Minister of Health taped a segment with the popular music band, Wide Mouth Mason, to raise youth awareness of this disease and how it can be prevented. This initiative marks an important awareness of the necessity of targeting messages to youth in ways they can best relate.

The minister said earlier today at the release of his second annual report to Canadians on the progress made on the Canadian strategy on HIV/AIDS, “We must reach out to Canada's young people and listen and learn with them, as the future path of this disease is in their hands”.

The segment will continue to air on MuchMusic and will help to ensure that we will be able to provide meaningful information to our youth on the importance of safe sex or abstinence in preventing AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to understand the difference between health research and medical research. What is very clear is that medical research in the old biomedical model was not satisfying all our needs in understanding all the determinants of health.

The Social Science Research Council was doing the work on poverty, violence and the environment. The Medical Research Council was merely looking at biomedical kinds of research.

It is imperative as we move forward that we have an integrated way of looking at all these issues because we know that poor people do not live as long. What are we to do to sort that out and figure out what we can do about it?

The National Forum on Health was very clear about the social determinants of health and how we have to move in these trends from hospital to community care, from doctor to multidisciplinary and to patient as a full partner in care, and from traditional to complementary medicine.

There was no place in the old Medical Research Council for these kinds of questions to be answered and they are the questions that Canadians want answered. We now have a solution as to how to do that without compromising the extraordinarily important biomedical research that needs to be done. In so many issues we just really want a cure.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I reassure the hon. member that the research community has been extraordinarily consulted in the setting up of these institutes.

The interim governing council of the institutes has had subcommittees working on all matters from programs to peer review ethics, to knowledge management, to institute design, partnerships and commercialization. The subcommittees will be reporting and there will be a process by which there will be public feedback on those matters.

To repeat the letter I received from a researcher at U of T, the legislation is well balanced and enables the governing council to make the necessary decisions. It is important we understand that there will be a scientific advisory capability and a filter by which true scientists will be made heads of the institutes, true scientists will be put in positions of authority. It will be a process that scientists, and particularly the interim governing council, will be extraordinarily comfortable with. It really is important that it work.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oak Ridges.

It seems like a long time ago, our first caucus in Collingwood, where indeed all members of the Liberals caucus were very, very worried about the state of medical research in this country. It was January 1998, and since that time we have come to a day where members of parliament like myself are almost on a daily basis receiving extraordinarily wonderful letters from members of the research community in our country.

I would like to quote Dr. Challis, from the department of physiology, in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto:

The mood of the research community at the University of Toronto has never been so positive. The announcement, in the February budget of more funding for health research and the creation of CIHR, the reference to health research in the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's announcement of the 21st Century Chairs for Research Excellence have contributed immensely to our confidence in performing vital research in Canada.

In my view, the legislation is well balanced and enables the Governing Council to make all decisions necessary in terms of funding programs, creation of institutes, appointment of scientific directors and advisory board members.

He continues with his thanks.

It was shortly after that Collingwood caucus that I had the opportunity to go to Winnipeg to meet with Jon Gerrard, who had previously been the minister for science and technology and who, on a napkin in the local deli, described to me his vision, with that of Dr. Henry Friesen, of what the Canadian Institutes of Health Research could look like.

Today we look at all of the concerns that were expressed and what was not happening in the previous model. There are concerns about a pure medical model in health research. We did not have an evidence based practice. The social determinants of health, poverty, violence and the environment were not being adequately dealt with in our present system. There was just not enough money for even the pure biomedical research that would actually get us a cure. These were huge concerns back in the spring of 1998.

From that day until February 1999 when we signed the health accord and the social union contract there have been commitments to move toward accountability, transparency and best practices.

It means that we get to finally move to the whole issue of what we do to keep the country healthy and how we move to be truly accountable in the outcomes of health care delivery. The solution is clear.

With regard to Canadian institutes of health research, Bill C-13 speaks of health research as the way to the future. A national coalition made up of the industry, the volunteer sector, the scientific community, universities and colleges, governments, hospitals, health care centres, venture capital, the research council and consumers, supports the CIHRs.

It is very important to take this opportunity to transform research, to fragment it into a truly integrated system.

The goal of the CIHRs is very clear. Their mission is excellence in accordance with recognized international standards of scientific excellence in the development of new knowledge and in using it to improve the health of Canadians, provide better health products and services, and strengthen the health care system in this country. The challenge is huge.

It is truly important that we move in a system that is integrated in terms of research. There will clearly be cross-cutting research themes, the basic biomedical science that must be peer reviewed and must be appropriately funded, and the applied clinical research that we must have to know whether what we are actually doing enables better outcomes.

The research in health services and health systems delivery is imperative in the fact that we no longer spend money in a way that does not work. We have to move to true accountability and stop the unnecessary surgery, unnecessary prescribing and unnecessary testing that are costing the government a huge amount of money.

There is the whole idea of society, culture and health of the population which can be a part of any integrated system of research. As well, there is the cross-country processes of peer reviews, knowledge management, ethics and partnerships which are so important.

It is clear to all researchers in the country, to all voluntary health sectors, and particularly to consumers that this is indeed a benefit for Canadians. CIHR will indeed help improve the health of Canadians and their families with new health discoveries, treatments and practices, and a much better understanding of the broad determinants of health.

The improvements to our health system and services will mean the ultimate sustainability of our health care system. It is a made in Canada solution for made in Canada research and products and an amazing opportunity for Canadian research excellence to be put forward on a global frontier.