Charlie Angus

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when OxyContin was first prescribed in Ontario. At the time it was supposed to be a miracle drug because it was not supposed to be addictive. We found that it was heavily over-prescribed, leading to all manner of problems in the general community. In my region, people who would never become addicted to opiates or that were given OxyContin without explanation of the effects. It raises the question of optimal prescribing practices and the need to work with the medical community to ensure that when doctors are given new medicines on the market that the issue of side effects and the implications of those drugs are properly explained.

The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health currently operates the optimal use program. It produces clinical guidelines and disseminates them to physicians, but it seems that there is an insufficient relationship between the impact of drugs and how this is being explained to physicians.

Given my hon. colleague's experience in the medical community, what does she think we need to do to ensure that when drugs are brought onto the market the issue of side effects and implications of those drugs are properly given to physicians on the front line?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 26th, 2014]

With regard to the use of the government-owned fleet of Challenger jets since September 2009: for each use of the aircraft, (a) what are the names and titles of the passengers present on the flight manifest; (b) what were all the departure and arrival points of the aircraft; (c) who requested access to the fleet; and (d) who authorized the flight?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 26th, 2014]

With regard to unauthorized attempts to access government networks, for each year from 2003 to 2013: (a) how many incidents occurred in total, broken down by (i) department, institution, or agency, (ii) how many were successful, (iii) whether sensitive, classified, private, or proprietary information was stolen, (iv) the number of occasions where departments were forced offline, (v) the number of occasions on which it was determined where the attempt originated and, of those determined, what was the country of origin; (b) of those hacks identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, broken down by (i) department, institution or agency, (ii) the number of individuals affected by the breach; and (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft, broken down by department, institution or agency?

[Government Appointments, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, does the man not read judges' reports? This is what the judge said. He said of this case that there “could not have been a softer landing for a former political staffer”. He found that senior ACOA officials bent the rules to protect the friend of the minister.

The translation is that while hard-working Canadians and senior citizens are being told the cupboard is bare, Conservatives are stuffing the trough with their Tory friends. Will they do the right thing, clean up this mess, and actually fire him?

[Government Appointments, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the Minister of Justice.

His buddy and former staff writer Kevin MacAdam was given a plum patronage position at ACOA to the tune of $130,000 a year, but he never showed up for work for three full years. Did he get fired? No, they tried to promote him to director of general operations for ACOA.

Let me get this straight. Is their criterion for patronage promotion hiring people who never actually show up for work? If that is the case, then who is next, the leader of the Liberal Party?

[Ethics, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, like I said, let us talk about real criminal acts to see how proud those members are.

The Prime Minister hired a convicted fraud artist, swept him through all the security checks and made him his chief adviser. Mr. Carson then used his cushy insider status with his friends in the Liberal Party and the Conservatives to engage in lobbying. This is not about a private individual; this is about a Conservative insider.

When was the Prime Minister informed that his former chief adviser was involved in a potentially illegal lobbying scheme? Why can the Conservatives not just answer that simple question?

[Ethics, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us move on, then, from their imaginary bogeyman—

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration publicly calls out a professional consultant as a fraudster, which is not true, and then when he is forced to retract he says that it is up to him to rebuild his own reputation. Political character assassination of their enemies is the hallmark of the Prime Minister's government.

What is the minister going to do about taking responsibility and making it up to this man whom he has unfairly attacked?

[Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your excellent work tonight. I would like to thank my colleagues who spoke, from the other parties, for their support for this motion.

Once again, this is a moment in the House when we need to move beyond partisan games and say that we recognize the importance of this common sense solution. We need to get a national discussion on palliative care. I again reference the excellent work the committee did before me.

It has been amazing on this journey that it is not an issue that seems to exist within the Ottawa media bubble. It is not something that is perceived as perhaps hot enough or interesting enough. However, when we have gone out into communities and talked with the faith groups and the people who are dealing with it in their communities in rural and urban Canada, we have seen the same conversations in downtown Toronto as we have seen in rural areas. They are about the importance of supporting families and having the measures in place that help families, not just individuals, deal with pain and the heavy psychological and medical issues in facing life-threatening illnesses. They are about the need to support families in those moments so that they can have that period when their loved one can be taken through and the family can be taken through in a manner that allows them come out whole on the other side.

This is bigger than any of us individually. It is bigger than any of our individual parties. It is a moment when we have to try to work together. I would like to think that we will stand in the House and do that.

I would like to thank my colleagues who have done the work. We have gone back and forth on language and what the language means. Certainly, as someone who considers himself a wordsmith, I understand the importance of language. I also understand that there is a moment when the motion has to be put, when people have to stand and say that in the Parliament of Canada in 2014, we recognize this important, fundamental fact.

Simply making a palliative care strategy and/or framework motion will not be the solution. The solution will come from all the civil society groups that will look to Parliament and say that we made that commitment to the Canadian people, and now it is time to follow through. They are the same groups that will go to the provinces and regional health bodies and say that the Parliament of Canada spoke on the vision of comprehensive, supportive, palliative care that respects the familial, spiritual, and cultural needs of Canadians. It will be those people who then will put the pressure back on us so that we deliver on this promise.

Today is the first part of that commitment to Canadians to say that we get it. We understand that we need to start pushing out and speaking about the importance of the common sense solution. It maybe is not seen as a hot button issue or a sexy issue, but it is an issue that touches all of us. Civil society, faith communities, and rural and urban people will then come back to us and say, “this is what it looks like”.

Within our role in the federal government, we do not deliver the health services on the ground, nor should we, but we have a role to play to say that these models and options work. By working together with the provinces and territories and respecting their jurisdictions, we can actually establish frameworks that will help ensure that all Canadians are able to really and truly, when they need it, die with dignity, and families will be able to move forward in healing.

I am asking my hon. colleagues for their support on Motion No. 456.

[Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in this House, having been given the honour to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay who put their trust in me.

I want to thank my colleague from Guelph for his support for our motion, my motion, Motion No. 456, but also thank the New Democratic Party for its push to establish a national palliative care strategy.

This is an issue that transcends partisanship because it touches each one of us, and it touches us in our most personal and sacred space, which is the moment between life and death and the moment when a family deals with the loss of a loved one.

I would be remiss if I did not thank for their excellent work all the parliamentarians of all political parties in this House who have worked on the issue of palliative care.

Certainly, the language of the motion comes from the work of the all-party committee, with my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga, my colleague from Guelph, and my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh.

My colleague from Guelph talks about the need for a conversation. I think this is what a motion is. A motion is a statement of principle and a statement of intent by the Parliament of Canada. It can be a very profound moment when parliamentarians are asked to say what it is that we need in order to move forward as a country. Certainly, we recognize, in this federal House, that the delivery of health services in this country is better served at the provincial level. We understand the jurisdictional divisions in the country, and they make sense because, as we move health care closer to the ground level, we can certainly see more proactive and better results.

However, in terms of palliative care, we are faced with a problem because there is a patchwork response right now. All too often, on the issue of palliative care, we see it is considered some form of charity or it is volunteer work, as opposed to an essential, fundamental principle, in terms of where we need that health care in the 21st century. Particularly as we deal with an aging population, as my colleague from Vancouver East has pointed out again and again, the future of health care will be moving more and more out of the hospitals and into the need to have an understanding of ongoing care to ensure that all Canadians have the quality of life they need, particularly when they are faced with a traumatic illness.

Therefore, the mission statement that we are asking for, as all parliamentarians here, is to say that in this House, this federal House, we have a role to play in talking about what palliative care should look like. It is not to dictate how it will be delivered, but we can play an essential role, a powerful role, as a federal government in saying there are models that work.

We see in various parts of the country that the delivery of palliative services is done in an integrated fashion, and where the services are integrated, families are able to receive the care and the support they want and need. However, where the services are not integrated, this money is still being spent. In fact, I would argue, and medical doctors would agree, that we are spending more money, yet people are still falling through the cracks.

The palliative solution is the common-sense solution staring politicians in the face. They just need to say at this time that we need a political will to talk about end-of-life care.

I would like to say that when we mention “palliative” to Canadians, they suddenly think, “Oh, God. Why are you talking about death?” It will do us good, I think, to look at some of the fundamental definitions, for example, used by the Canadian Medical Association.

When it talks about palliative care, the word “death” is not there. It is about life. It is:

...an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other symptoms, physical, psychosocial and spiritual.

I would also point out the definition of “dying with dignity”, which has been a term that we see often in the media. The Canadian Medical Association says:

“Dying with dignity” indicates a death that occurs within the broad parameters set forth by the patient with respect to how they wish to be cared for.... It is NOT synonymous with euthanasia or physician assisted death.

This is a very powerful statement that the Canadian Medical Association has brought forward for us.

I would like to speak a little bit about the amendment that was brought forward by my colleague from Vancouver East, who has been so committed to the issue of ongoing care and has done much more work on the issue of palliative care than I have over the years. In her amending language to this, she would clarify:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy by working with provinces and territories on a flexible, integrated model of palliative care that: (a) takes into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada as well as Canada’s First Nation, Inuit and Métis people; (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of all Canadians; and (c) has the goal of (i) ensuring all Canadians have access to high quality home-based and hospice palliative end-of-life care, (ii) providing more support for caregivers, (iii) improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice palliative end-of-life care in Canada, (iv) encouraging Canadians to discuss and plan for end-of-life care.

Tonight, I would just like to focus for a second on the importance that we recognize in the House the cultural, spiritual, and familial needs of families. This is not just about the individual. The death of a loved one and the passage through to that other place is one of the defining moments in the life of a family. When there is palliative care and support, it can be a very transformative moment. When the support is not there, it can be a moment of crisis that families sometimes never recover from.

I would like to say that this motion, as I said at the beginning, is not about the partisanship in the House. This has been a very bitter and toxic Parliament, but we all need to say that we are going to put some of our own political agenda aside.

I know that some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party are made nervous by the word “strategy”. The strategy is the language that came from the all-party committee, and I certainly believe that the notion of strategy is important. Some of our Conservative colleagues would prefer to use the word “framework”. It does not matter to me if it is a strategy and/or framework. What matters is that we stand in this House and say that we will support this.

I would like to try to find a way that, tonight, we can make an agreement. I would like for us to find the language that makes everyone comfortable so that we will all stand in the House. No matter what happens with this motion, we have to show Canadians that we understand this.

The simplest way to do this is to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the amendment to Motion No. 456 standing in the name of Ms. Davies of Vancouver East be deemed adopted, and that the main motion as amended be further amended by adding after the word “Strategy” the words “and/or Framework”.