Denise Savoie

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member. We have all heard the census figures of recent days showing this widening gap between the rich and the poor. He forgot to mention that the centre is lagging behind. Middle incomes have stagnated.

With the wealth of resources that we have in Canada, how can it be that the middle class is only marginally better off today than it was a generation ago? Why is it that young people entering the labour force today are making less than their parents were a generation ago with more stable jobs? This has not just happened over the past two years.

The answer lies in the detrimental and regressive policies of successive past governments. I wonder if the member would respond to those comments.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

These amendments are being passed off by the government and many in the Liberal Party as simply administrative changes to modernize an obsolete law. However, all Canadians should be very attentive to this legislation. It raises many questions as to who the government is really protecting through it and as to the future of nuclear energy in Canada.

Comments have been made by the government about fearmongering. I was one of those people who many years ago lived in Europe and experienced Chernobyl. I happened to be living in an area of France that received some of the fallout from that meltdown. I was one of those people who was very opposed to the nuclear industry.

Over the years and with climate change, at this point I am open to the idea, but it has to be done following very stringent regulations. This industry cannot be privatized. It cannot follow a financial bottom line. It is out of the concern to protect all Canadians that the NDP has proposed a number of amendments.

The bill, as was suggested, proposes a new compensation limit. The cap has been raised from $75 million to $650 million. It would be reasonable to assume that this limit is based on the risk and the implications to Canadians, but this is not so. The NDP brought forward an amendment to clause 22, which would establish a risk based on the consumer price index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada, financial security requirements under international agreements and other considerations. The limit to the compensation is clearly insufficient and will be even worse in coming years.

Canada has not signed any international agreements on nuclear liability and has consistently resisted taking part in these agreements. The minister needs to take into consideration more issues than the CPI, such as the risk of an accident.

Risk has been defined in the following way, as being equal to the probability of something happening times the consequences. Using this actuarial definition, the probability of a nuclear incident in Canada is, as has been said, very low. However, when one factors in the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear incident, we see that then the risk is very high. It has been estimated that a nuclear accident would cause billions of dollars in damage in personal injuries, death, contamination of the surroundings and so on. The cap is clearly insufficient.

The U.S.A., for example, has a cap of $10 billion. Germany, which has experienced the fallout of the Chernobyl meltdown, has an unlimited amount. Many countries are also moving toward an unlimited amount.

Bill C-5 brings compensation levels up to an absolute international minimum. In the case of a nuclear accident, as remote as that might be, the damage would be catastrophic. That means with the level of compensation proposed in the bill, only a handful of dollars would be offered to Canadians impacted for loss of life, loss of limb, for contaminated property and so on.

In our opinion the legislation represents an almost cavalier attitude toward an energy source with the potential for catastrophic levels of damage and with no consideration of the risk levels as established by actuarial norms. We have proposed amendments to the bill to protect the interests of Canadians.

Earlier the parliamentary secretary said that the NDP wanted to have the compensation limit remain at the very low level in the earlier legislation. I must clarify that misleading statement because it could not be further from the truth. We feel that the cap proposed by the government should be unlimited. If one considers the NDP amendments together, they would have that effect. Following the principle of the polluter pays, nuclear operators should be prepared to cover a larger portion of the liability for their actions.

Canadians need to ask, why such a low limit? I will start by setting the legislation in the context of the recent events at Chalk River.

As with the legislation, it is important to ask whose interests the government was protecting when it fired the nuclear safety inspector for doing her job, or when the natural resources minister mused about having the private sector build a nuclear reactor to power the tar sands.

Last December's crisis at the nuclear plant in Chalk River gave Canadians cause for concern. It certainly has not inspired our confidence that the Conservatives will put safety ahead of profits.

First, for a decade both Liberal and Conservative governments ignored deficiencies in the operations of Atomic Energy of Canada, and that has been well documented by the Auditor General.

Second, Conservatives ran emergency legislation through the House supposedly to settle medical emergencies due to a long-time dispute between AECL and Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission, and that is now questionable.

Finally, the Conservatives continued with their trademark bullying tactics of silencing those who disagreed with them and fired the head of CNSC for stubbornly standing up for the safety of Canadians.

The way in which the Conservatives handled the Chalk River crisis raises concerns about whether safety is paramount to them.

Other worrisome questions have emerged about the Conservative privatization agenda.

The minister commented publicly on this. In the Globe and Mail, of November 2007, the Minister of Natural Resources said:

It is time to consider whether the existing structure of AECL is appropriate in a changing marketplace.

In an interview with Sun Media, the minister said:

It's not a question of if, it's a question of when, in my mind. I think nuclear can play a very significant role in the oil sands.

He admitted that he had been involved in discussions about a two year exclusive deal with Calgary based Energy Alberta Corporation to establish the Candu reactor technology in the oil sands.

The legislation facilitates the government's intention to privatize the nuclear industry. First it fired the safety inspector. Now it wants to set up an insurance plan that would take liability away from the operators, placing it on the backs of Canadians.

The government's drive to privatize all that is government, including the nuclear industry, should be a red flag to those who think money should not be the main driver in nuclear energy. It is too risky to leave it to the whim of the market. We know the Conservatives hands-off approach to government. They look the other way at efforts to privatize our health care system. If there is one other industry where money should not be the main driver, it is the nuclear industry. It cannot be left to the whim of the market nor to its cost cutting patterns for increased efficiency. Government should be subsidizing this industry.

I see my time has run out, but I assume I will be able to continue after question period.

[Housing, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate members of Faith in Action in Victoria for organizing one of 80 silent protests throughout B.C. last Saturday to raise awareness about the crisis of homelessness and inadequate housing in our country. They call for action by all levels of government.

Despite the urgent and critical problems of housing affordability, the 2008 federal budget was virtually silent about extending existing programs.

Churches and other organizations can play a role, but they do not have sufficient resources to solve this crisis. It is clear the marketplace will not house the poor either.

Only the federal government has the ability to make the policy changes to end homelessness and make affordable housing a reality across Canada.

Victoria residents call on the government to establish a national social housing policy in Canada.

[Kamloops Airport, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is getting a bad reputation for promising one thing and delivering another. We just need to ask the people in Kamloops. City officials there were told the new airport was approved. Even though the government committed $6.6 million, one city councillor put it best by saying that the government is really just tap dancing now.

Will the minister stop trying to shuffle the blame onto Kamloops local officials and tell working families in Kamloops when the promised money is coming and that no administration fees will be charged?

[The Economy, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the middle class earns only one dollar more a week than the last generation. Despite strong growth in the past 20 years, it is harder and harder for families to manage. Women, youth and immigrants are affected the most because of unstable and minimum-wage jobs. They simply cannot make ends meet.

Knowing that a recession is on its way, will the government finally choose the real world over big companies?

[Food and Drugs Act, May 1st, 2008]

This is an excellent question and one that, in my opinion, should be raised in committee. Indeed, a lot of the advertising that reaches us comes from the United States. There is advertising in magazines, but when it comes to the Internet, it is an altogether different issue. There are already draconian regulations in every area, but even more so in this one. Therefore, it would be worth our while to review this issue, or at least to raise it.

[Food and Drugs Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think debate is always important. Accurate information is as well. I have indicated my concerns about this bill, but it is important to have all the information about it and important that it be debated openly, as I said, with information from independent researchers as well, not necessarily information or advice from large pharmaceutical companies.

I would like to hear from the Canadian Health Coalition and from drug regulatory experts such as Barbara Mintzes and Alan Cassels, whom I cited earlier. Many of these other experts could come before the standing committee. We could hear from them about what the bill would actually do.

I have heard from literally hundreds of constituents, but many of them seem to be fairly well informed about the bill. Some of the information, I have to say, comes from medical doctors who practice holistic medicine and are interested in achieving and ensuring a proper balance between so-called prescription drugs and so-called natural health products, which is not the case at the moment under what is being proposed here.

[Food and Drugs Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her questions. The two issues she raised are indeed of great concern to me.

First, there is the issue of advertising. We can already see some television ads. Under the current legislation, the reasons behind such ads cannot be discussed. Under Bill C-51, however, exemptions or special permission may be sought.

Earlier, I gave the example of an absolutely appalling ad promoting a certain drug whose name escapes me, but the ad basically gives you a choice between keeping your cholesterol in check with that drug or dying. That is so far-fetched that it makes no sense.

What Canadians need is more awareness-raising, real information provided in a transparent fashion.

Currently, our physicians across the country are provided information by the pharmaceutical companies. Where does the government stand on protecting the health of Canadians? Do doctors have the time to look after that? We are all aware of the shortage of doctors. They are already rushed. Will they have the time to read up on all these new drugs, each new one being advertised as better than the last? Do they have enough time for that?

The proposed amendments should really include an objective way to provide this kind of information first to our doctors, and then to the general public.

As for the second question, I really have not looked into the matter much. Nonetheless, it is important that Parliament, this House, the elected representatives maintain authority over that aspect. From the moment that we forfeit the responsibility we have been given by the people of Canada, we limit the information the minister will take into consideration. So, it is important that, as elected representatives, we continue to ensure that this responsibility is maintained.

[Food and Drugs Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-51, which is being presented in tandem with Bill C-52, which I spoke to earlier.

Bill C-51 seeks to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It has some positive aspects. A bill to better protect consumers is long overdue. Canadians have suffered harm from recalled products and death from drugs that were approved for sale too quickly.

The Food and Drugs Act has been eroded over long years of the former government. Canadians, it seems to me, have lost confidence in the government's ability to protect their health. Perhaps it has to do with the former government's big love affair with large pharmaceutical firms, but whatever the cause, Canadians feel that their health is not being protected, and this is what we must address.

In its present form, the bill is hugely inadequate and there is much that is worrisome about it. I have received literally hundreds of emails and letters about the bill. I would like to read some of them because they provide some interesting insights on how Canadians feel right now.

The official intent of Bill C-51 is to fill in gaps in health protection and to ensure the safety of Canadians. To that end, the bill proposes to implement sweeping changes in how Health Canada will regulate drug products.

As I have said, there are fundamental aspects that are problematic and that will keep the bill from doing what it purports to do, which is protecting Canadians. Instead, some of what is in the bill could likely have an adverse effect on Canadians' health.

I would like to touch on a few subjects that the bill addresses. The first one relates to advertising. In the modification that the bill proposes, it would likely have the effect of providing an opportunity for drug manufacturers to bypass the advertising bans by applying for exemptions. This simple change is disturbing in that it would render the government vulnerable to lobby pressure by large pharmaceutical multinationals.

It is important for Canadians to have clear information about the health product they take. We should not reasonably expect companies to advertise their products and expect that they will do so to educate Canadians.

I want to refer to some testimony that was given at committee by an independent drug policy researcher from my city of Victoria. I stress “independent” because often when presentations are made at committee they are made by people who either have ties to pharmaceutical companies or push for policies that improve the profits of the companies. It is important to mention that this researcher, whose name is Alan Cassels, is an independent researcher. He made the following comments at committee recently:

The pharmaceutical industry spokespeople will tell you that they should be involved in the education of consumers about drugs, but let me show you how they choose to educate consumers. This “toe tag” ad appeared in many magazines and major newspapers across Canada. This one came from the National Post of February 20, 2004. It shows a toe tag hanging off a corpse with the headline, “What would you rather have, a cholesterol test or a final exam?” Here's another example, from Maclean's magazine, of the same ad.

These ads are probably the most egregious example of disease-mongering that this country has ever seen. The ads, which ran in both France and Canada, were the subject of a letter from the World Health Organization to the medical journal The Lancet, complaining that this kind of advertising is undoubtedly driving the inappropriate use of cholesterol-lowering drugs around the world.

This proposed policy would be a policy basically on disease-mongering. It is important to maintain our current ban on direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals but we need to go further than that. We actually need more strict control on the advertising of diseases. The industry might call it disease awareness but it may be closer to the truth to call it disease-mongering.

One place to start would be to ask Health Canada some hard questions. What is our policy around this so-called industry advertising? Do we collect data if this kind of advertising is driving the inappropriate use of pharmaceuticals? What research into this kind of approach has been commissioned? What other steps is Health Canada taking to control it? Instead of trying to deal with patients who may be dying from prescription drugs, how can we stop people from taking drugs they do not need in the first place?

The last question, a question that Mr. Cassels raised in committee, is very important. This is an aspect of proactive health, which we just do not do in Canada, that is inadequately funded and has not received enough resources, energy and thought.

We should not be allowing any shortcuts to advertising. Instead, we should be providing better information for patients. There is a dire need for Canadians to receive approved and regulated information provided by an independent, objective source that is free from profit driven industries that sell drugs. This bill would not do that.

At committee, the NDP will be seeking to ensure that there is no direct to consumer advertising and that it will be completely removed from the bill. We cannot allow that to happen.

Another aspect of the bill that is of concern is that it takes a radically different expedited approach to the drug approval process, which the government calls progressive licensing. Progressive licensing would have the effect of speeding up the process of new drugs to the Canadian marketplace. It sets up an ongoing life cycle approach without any new improvement to the pre-market testing of new drugs.

This is the first time a bill of this sort codifies the trade agreements, like NAFTA, for grounds for refusing to release information about safety and efficacy that companies submit in order to get their products approved. This clause is absolutely objectionable and needs to be removed and replaced by making transparency the default option.

If we want Canadians to take responsibility for their health, they must be able to make better informed decisions and that comes about with more awareness about what particular drugs do and having some choices in the drugs they are allowed to take.

One needs to ask whether this new provision would prevent similar recalls as occurred under Vioxx. Will it prevent another Vioxx type of recall? It appears highly unlikely. Therefore, my colleagues and I will be looking for dramatic changes on this aspect at committee as well.

Bill C-51 also raises the question about the speed with which drugs will be moved through the approval process. This really relates to parliamentary oversight and the kind of parliamentary oversight we should be requiring. The provisions in the bill would make it possible to grant conditional approvals, thereby getting new drugs to market faster than is possible under the current regulations. Pre-market safety requirements may be less stringent or even be bypassed all together according to the stipulations of the bill.

There also is no commitment in the bill to making the results of post-marketing studies public, which is another concern.

Another troubling aspect of the bill is that it would provide the Minister of Health and Health Canada with considerable discretionary authority that falls outside the purview of Parliament. In other words, Bill C-51 could effectively remove democratic oversight, bypassing elected officials in favour of allowing bureaucrats to enforce regulations that fall short of the standards Canadians deserve.

I spoke a little about the kind of information that is really important for Canadians to access in order to make crucial health decisions on the safety of the products they are taking. Perhaps the most onerous change that is being proposed in the bill relating to the Food and Drugs Act involves the provisions regarding natural health products. Many Canadians prefer to look for complementary strategies to stay healthy. I myself benefit from such products and it does help me to stay much healthier.

The provisions in the bill are worrisome because among the modifications proposed by the bill are radical changes to key terminology, for example, replacing the word “drug” with “therapeutic products” throughout the bill and therefore bringing the natural health industry under the scope of the Food and Drugs Act and Health Canada. This far-reaching change would give the Minister of Health broad powers to regulate all natural health and plant derived products and, in the process, restrict access to these products for Canadians.

Up to 60% of the natural health products currently on the market would be outlawed as a direct result of the enactment of Bill C-51. This would remove a lot of choices for Canadians.

From some of the many letters I have received, there is one from a medical doctor who says, “I'm a medical doctor and a doctor of Chinese medicine living and working in Victoria. I'm becoming concerned that the new Bill C-51 introduced by the health minister might affect the public's and my patients' access to natural health products in Canada”.

Indeed, the clauses in this bill would have a serious limiting effect.

It is not by succumbing to the big pharma lobby that we will achieve balance in better regulating natural health products. That is an important piece: we must have a better balance. Perhaps we can do it by creating a third category. This something that the natural health industry has been calling for. Instead of buckling under to the big pharmaceutical lobby, it would simply have its own category, by itself, and regulations that do achieve that balance.

Another comment I have received which has concerned me is the following: “I and my family are opposed to Bill C-51 as it will restrict access and increase prices of natural health products we use regularly”. I think we are all aware that right now Canadians are having a more difficult time. Our economy is in decline. Many people are struggling to make ends meet and are using natural health products to stay healthy. Increasing the prices at this time would certainly not be helpful.

Another comment from one of my constituents states: “Regulations of natural health products should be separate from pharmaceuticals”. This is something that I think we will be asking the committee to look at.

Another comment that has been made is in regard to concern about how quickly this bill is being pushed through the process, disregarding recommendations made by many consumer public forums, health coalitions, and so on.

For the many people who suffer from chronic illnesses of various kinds, I think access to natural health products really keeps them functioning and protects their quality of life. This is what they are asking us to do. I will be asking members of the committee to look at this aspect of the bill very seriously to see if the draconian measures being proposed really warrant what is being asked. Merely selling garlic to someone would make it a drug product under this new definition. Does that make any sense? There are many other examples like that.

I see that I am running out of time, so I will conclude simply by saying that Canadians want to be able to use natural products to keep their families in good health as one of the many ways used to maintain health. Being forced to use a pharmaceutical option is not the way to go. That is something I am going to oppose.

I hope the committee will look at making these much needed amendments while protecting the overall purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that products sold to Canadians are safe.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-52, which proposes changes to the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada.

This bill is long overdue. I say that because of the very high number of product recalls in Canada, so much so that Canadian families no longer know about the safety of the products they are buying. What should be at the forefront of public policy is the safety of Canadians, not the corporate financial bottom line, which has too long been the case. There are trade deals which Canada has signed with other countries which afford no protection for consumers. Not only is there no protection, but protection is being traded for rock bottom prices. We have paid a high price for that.

Recently, the member for Winnipeg North eloquently expressed the years of unsuccessful efforts by members of Parliament to bring real change that would give Canadian consumers confidence in the products they buy. Years of scientific studies have shown that there are many products on the market today that pose unnecessary risks to the health and well-being of our children. Today in the race toward market deregulation, greater access to cheap goods has come at a high price.

I am reminded of the Thomas the Tank Engine wooden railway toys my grandson has been playing with for a number of years. As a young toddler he put them in his mouth and was unnecessarily exposed to a toy contaminated with lead. There are more than 1.5 million of these toys in the United States alone and another 325,000 in other parts of the world, including Canada. I mention these toys to demonstrate that there is currently no uniformity in product standards. By consequence there is no assurance that all these products are safe for use. Although Bill C-52 is a step forward, it does not address the issue of standards in these products.

The risk management approach may target the high risk sources for higher surveillance, but overall, the system depends on reacting to safety problems identified through use after the fact. Some have suggested a stated ban on products containing toxic substances enforced through a pre-entry testing system financed through a service, for example, applied at the border.

I am hoping that at committee we will have the opportunity to invite some researchers and scientists to speak to the real gaps that exist in laboratory testing by many companies. We are going to be looking for an amendment to improve the testing system to improve it. While inspectors have been empowered with greater authority, many of their actions remain optional, even when they believe human health is at risk. We believe this should change.

It is simply not enough for the federal government to say that it will deal decisively with these products that prove toxic and bring forward legislation that states the government may act. There must be both the will and the resources to do so. It is not clear that the Conservative government which preaches deregulation and a hands-off approach to government would put up the resources when it is necessary.

What has been presented in the budget is inadequate to do that job. Any attempt to create legislation around this issue must ensure that we have adequate standards in place and that we are ready to enforce them. Anything less will do very little, if anything, to improve the situation.

Like my colleague from Winnipeg North, I am concerned that the interests of large manufacturers and other companies that may be affected by the legislation are being weighted far more heavily than the health and needs of people around the country.

What is required is a proactive approach from the government and this approach must be both people centred and principled. It seems often to many Canadians that Health Canada has become the handmaiden of industry. In some respects it is losing its reputation as the protector of Canadian health. We must do more to bring about greater scrutiny of imported products as well as greater accountability.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that hazardous materials are not used in the manufacture of products destined for the use of people in our country and to ensure that products are properly tested before they reach the markets.

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is a prime example of a substance that has been in use for many years. It is found in plastic bottles, cans and so on. A recent finding has shown it to have a detrimental effect on health, especially that of babies and children. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are other substances that are ubiquitous in our environment. They are found in common household items and they are known to be toxic to our health and well-being. They have not been regulated by the government. Canadians would expect the government to ensure the safety of these products.

It is alarming that we continue to hear frequent reports of products that contain these and other chemicals that are noxious to our health. I question very seriously whether Bill C-52 has the teeth to seek a ban of products containing chemicals such as those I mentioned.

Bill C-52 certainly represents a step forward but it needs amendment. We cannot fail in our duty to protect the health of Canadians simply to ensure that there are fewer impediments to trade, or because the government is not inclined to introduce new “trade irritants”, as it calls them.

Canadians must be able to count on their government to properly examine and regulate the products that find their way into our stores. For instance, how could we ask parents to ensure that the toys they buy for their children do not contain lead or other toxic substances?

Unfortunately, I do not see anything in this bill that would allow the government to take rapid and decisive action to ban such products that are found to be dangerous. It is even more unfortunate that this lack of commitment on the part of the federal government may mean that more Canadians will suffer as a result of substandards.

We have an opportunity today to act resolutely to reduce the contamination and injuries caused by chemical products in the manufacture of such diverse items as household goods, children’s toys and other consumer products.

In committee, we will be proposing amendments to ensure the safety of products intended for family use. To do that, we need an absolute commitment from the federal government. The government must be ready to take all necessary measures to protect Canadians.

It remains to be seen whether this bill will really regulate the consumer products we see in Canada every day.