Hedy Fry

[National Immunization Month, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I gave a flu shot to Bob Marks, director of the Canadian Lung Association. With that one shot Bob got protection for the whole winter. However Bob alone does not benefit from that shot; all of society does.

Over 2,000 Canadians a year die from pneumonia and influenza. The number of work days lost due to flu and the cost to business and the health care system are exorbitant. Yet only 33 per cent of at risk Canadians take advantage of this protection.

During October, National Immunization Month, we are changing that. We are asking Canadians to do themselves a favour by getting a flu shot.

Polio used to paralyse our children. Not any more. Diphtheria and whooping cough caused death among our young. Not any more. National immunization programs put an end to those days. Now we are on guard against influenza. In every province thousands of at risk seniors, the chronically ill, children and HIV positive patients can get free flu shots because it is good preventive medicine.

As a physician I ask every member of the House to recognize National Immunization Month by getting a flu shot. I will give it to them personally. Let us all say no to the flu.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth United Nations world conference on women concluded recently. I was there as a delegate. I learned that many developed and developing countries look to Canada for leadership in issues of justice, equality and human rights.

I want to place Bill C-64 in that same international context. I want to look at our international obligations and how Bill C-64 will help us meet them. I want to consider some relevant international experiences with employment equity. I want to show the bill puts teeth in our commitment to equality and shows a leadership badly needed around the world.

First I will discuss recent landmarks in understanding this issue. On August 17 the United Nations development program released its sixth human development report. Apart from the overall assessment, the report focuses on the situation facing women around the world.

I am certain every member of the House took pride when once again Canada earned the highest ranking on the human development index. It is the third year running. It told the world what Canadians already know, that this country offers a quality of life that is second to none.

I know each one of us also saw that we placed ninth on the gender related development index. Our track record on the place of women in society is not so good. Why that low? One of the factors is the economic gap between men and women. Money talks, and in Canada right now that means men shout while women whisper. Some in the House say there are very good reasons for this gap. They say we should just stand aside while the market works its mysterious forces. This is not what the authors of the United Nations human development report say. They point out that trickle down theories and laissez-faire approaches do not work particularly well to raise the economic status of women:

The free workings of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver equality of opportunity because of prevailing inequities in power structures. When such structural barriers exist, government intervention is necessary both through comprehensive policy reforms and through a series of affirmative actions.

The government understands the need for real action. This bill addresses that need by making markets work better. It will help women enter occupations that traditionally have excluded them. It will help women make their way from lower wage occupational ghettos.

In 1993 in British Columbia women in full time occupations earned 67 per cent less than men. In 1993 in British Columbia women who had post-secondary education earned less than men with a grade 10 education. In 1993 in British Columbia, 99 per cent

of secretaries and stenographers were women, but they still earned 79 per cent less than male stenographers and secretaries.

We need this bill to remove the glass ceiling that still restricts women in many workplaces. It will do the same for aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

Bill C-64 is consistent with our international obligations. For many years Canada has been a signatory to international agreements on discrimination, human rights, women's rights, and labour force issues. Let me touch on a few of these.

The United Nations has a number of conventions that cover equality issues. The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women commits us to pursue the equality of the sexes. Article 24 reads:

States Parties undertake to adopt all necessary measures at the national level aimed at achieving the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

This includes modifying, and I quote again from the United Nations:

-the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.

Bill C-64 begins to take those steps.

A similar commitment exists as a result of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 7 touches on that. It says that states parties to the covenant recognize the right to "equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no consideration other than those of seniority and competence".

Thirty-eight per cent of Canadian persons with disabilities find it difficult to achieve promotion in the workplace.

This bill is about finding and removing the barriers that prevent designated members from realizing their legitimate aspirations in the workplace of this country. Equal opportunity means removing barriers so people can get to the starting gate equally.

There are many conventions I can talk about: the international covenant on civil and political rights; the international covenant on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; and a number of international labour organization conventions.

Article 2 of the international labour convention says:

Members must undertake to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote equality of opportunity in respect of employment and occupation.

It says that each member must undertake to enact such legislation as may be calculated to secure acceptance and observance of the policy. This is what we are doing here with this bill.

Canada must take its international commitments seriously. We negotiate, we sign, we lead, we ratify these agreements with the intention of living up to them, or else why do we do it? It is certainly true with conventions on human rights and workplace issues.

We can and we do point with pride to Bill C-64 and the existing Employment Equity Act, because as a predecessor it is an example of how this government wants to work to make equality of opportunity a real goal, not just something that is airy-fairy that we just talk about.

Canada is not alone in this process. Other countries have signed these conventions and many are dealing with the same issues we are dealing with here today.

For example, Australia is a country with which we have much in common. We are both senior members of the Commonwealth. We share similar constitutional and legal traditions. We both have significant aboriginal and visible minority populations. Persons with disabilities have become prominent advocates for their own cause. Women are taking a lead in society. Like Canada, Australia has an employment equity act too. Like us, they recognize an obligation to break down barriers, and they are doing so.

Let us look at The Netherlands. The celebration of the 50th anniversary of its liberation by Canadian soldiers has reminded us of our close ties with The Netherlands. When the Dutch government looked for a legislated approach to promote the full integration of their immigrants into the labour force, where do you think they turned? Which country do you think provided a model of effective and appropriate legislation? Canada.

Examples such as that show why Canada can attend international conferences with real pride. Regardless of the issue, we can point to initiatives we have taken at home, co-operation with other countries, and a commitment to results. This is true on workplace issues as well as human rights issues. We have much to do in Canada, however. This country has consistently tried to do more than meet a minimum standard. We have been motivated by the caring and tolerance of our society to do better.

We realize that equality of opportunity means much more than the absence of formal discrimination. It means building a climate that encourages everyone to participate in our society and our economy. That is becoming a lesson to the world. Many countries are coming to grips with equality issues. We are leaders. They look to us for leadership.

Canada has a distinguished history in human rights in the rest of the world. Countries that are looking for effective ways to improve human rights within their own borders are also looking to Canada. Countries that want to recognize their growing multicultural nature are looking to Canada. I saw over and over in Beijing how everyone turned to Canada for leadership. Everyone felt that Canada is the country in the world they all want to aspire to become.

The Canadian approach to employment equity is a real contribution to the international community. It starts with the idea that all Canadians share a commitment to opportunity and a willingness to find solutions. It speaks to the finest qualities in our national spirit. Passing this bill will send an important message to a world that needs more of this spirit and looks to Canada to lead the way.

[National Grandparents Day, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of creating a grandparents day for Canada to honour grandparents for their significant contributions to both our individual and collective lives. We have a mother's day, a father's day and a year of the child, yet we have been reluctant to similarly recognize and honour grandparents who have contributed so much to our attitudes and values as citizens.

Grandparents would have been invented if nature had not already seen to create them in the hierarchial structure. Grandparents come in various sizes and shapes, not to mention ages. In fact traditionally one had to be a senior to be a grandparent. Today grandparents may be in their forties or fifties. In fact I have a friend who is a 35-year old grandmother. Even though I am no longer so young, I confess the thought of being a grandparent has begun to enter my fantasy and beckon seductively. Alas my sons have no wish to comply just yet.

My only grandparent who I can remember-all others died before I was born-was my grandmother. She was my mentor and she was my heroine. She taught me early about advocacy, feminism and politics. She had a more profound effect on the path I chose in life than my parents. She taught me to be strong and to be outspoken, to be independent and to tilt at windmills. She taught me more by her example than by dictum. I am the woman I am today mostly because of my grandmother.

Grandparents are not only mentors. They are nurturers. They come to the rescue of their grandchildren. They spoil them. They do things for them they would never have done for their own children, and so it should be. The grandparent is a grandchild's greatest defender and advocate, caretaker, surrogate babysitter, money lender, chauffeur and cookie baker. Grandparents are so important to our society that where nature did not provide them humans have indeed invented them.

In B.C. there is an organization of volunteer grandparents who take the place of grandparents especially in urban settings. This association adopts children the same way as the Big Sister and Big Brother organizations, bringing a new and important relationship into the lives of lonely young children and young people. They become part of the extended family, eventually creating mutually beneficial lifelong bonds.

My own sons, born in a land far away from their own biological grandparents, were deprived of that special relationship with a grandparent, and they recognize that loss even now that they are men.

As late 20th century family trends continue and global travel creates distances between natural families, grandparents will live lonely existences separated from their biological families either by divorce or distance, as too will their grandchildren. For many children, grandparents may be the only stable caregiver they know.

True, the new blended family may create new opportunities for multiple grandparents and that is a plus. But whatever the scenarios, for those of us who remember or still have grandparents, we know that their work is indisputable, their wisdom invaluable, and their experience as story tellers unmatchable. They link the past to the future, bringing a sense of continuity, tradition and belonging to this fragmented world of ours.

Grandparents have built and shaped our world of today and with our gratitude and will as parliamentarians we can make them an integral part of the world of tomorrow. I suggest we honour the immeasurable contribution of grandparents to our lives by creating a grandparent's day.

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

Madam Speaker, the motion placed before the House by the member for Yukon is certainly worth considering. Any proposal that would contribute to maintaining and improving the health and safety of Canadians deserves thoughtful discussion.

There is some ambiguity in the member's motion. Does the hon. member want a national registry of drugs and devices or a national registry of patient profiles and adverse reactions to those drugs and devices or both?

The fundamental question regardless of what the member means is would setting up a national registry of drugs, medical devices and various forms of biotechnology protect the health of Canadians better than the system we have in place? Before we review that system we should consider the context of the motion.

In 1992 a resolution by the subcommittee on the status of women called for such a registry. In its report, "Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions", the subcommittee said one of the problems with breast implants in particular and medical devices in general is adequate mechanisms are not in place to monitor the complications and long term effects of implanted devices. The resolution called for a national patient adverse reaction registry through which patients would be able to register any problems, complications or ill effects.

No one disputes this but the resolution on which the motion is based was conceived in response to a specific problem, the need for women to have accurate information regarding the use of breast implants.

The subcommittee had heard wrenching testimony by women who said they had been scarred and made ill as a result of breast implant surgery. In its report the subcommittee concluded a crucial factor for women facing these decisions was the need for accurate information regarding the risks and possible complications associated with the use of implants, hence the idea of a national registry.

The report says: "We see the lack of such a registry as a major inadequacy in our current system. Without such a mechanism physicians and surgeons can easily lose track of patients who have breast or other implants. This complicates their ability to pass the new or emerging information on possible problems with implants".

This specific resolution and the motion go well beyond implants to take in drugs and various forms of biotechnology. Whatever the merits of a registry for breast implants, Canadian women and Canadians in general are at present well served when it comes to the safety and efficacy of medical drugs and devices.

Many Canadians and the hon. member may be unfamiliar with the co-operative system administered by federal, provincial and territorial governments which ensures medical drugs available in Canada are safe, effective and of high quality. I will limit my remarks to mostly drugs, and my hon. colleague will discuss devices.

The department's health protection branch through its drugs directorate not only approves all drugs offered for sale in Canada before they go on the market but monitors their use after they are on the market so that any drugs sold in Canada must meet the requirements of the food and drugs regulations.

Once a drug has met these requirements the department issues a notice of compliance, an NOC, and assigns a drug identification number, a DIN, to the drug. The drug directorate maintains a database that includes information on all the drug products assigned and the identification number. This database now contains information on approximately 22,000 drug products sold in Canada.

In addition, Health Canada makes information on drug products sold in Canada available to the public in a variety of ways, including the drug directorate's electronic bulletin board system which we can access through modem. The building blocks of a national drug registry are already in place through the co-operation of all three levels of government.

In addition to registering drugs and giving public information, the drugs directorate through its bureau of drug surveillance promotes and supports the safe and rational use of drugs after they enter the market and are in the public domain. This bureau ensures drugs are manufactured according to regulations and internationally recognized good manufacturing practices and standards, ensuring the safety of market drugs.

An important part of the bureau of drug surveillance is the adverse drug reaction monitoring program. Canada has had a system to gather information on adverse drug reactions since 1965. Under this program health professionals report adverse drug reactions voluntarily. Reporting by pharmaceutical manufacturers is subject to control by the Food and Drugs Act and regulations.

To enhance the value of spontaneous reporting in Canada the adverse drug reaction program has established a series of regional reporting centres across the country, serving as a front line for this reporting program.

There are four centres fully operational right now: the B.C. adverse reporting centre located at the drug and poison information centre at St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver; the Saskatchewan adverse drug reporting centre located at the drug information centre at the University of Saskatchewan's college of pharmacy; the regional drug information service for the Atlantic region at Camp Hill hospital in Halifax; the Quebec regional adverse drug reaction centre located at the Centre d'information pharmaceutique at Hôpital du Sacré Coeur de Montréal.

However, in my experience as a physician I believe voluntary reporting may not be as accurate as it should be. There should be mandatory reporting by physicians of adverse drug reactions.

What I am really trying to say is this building block will provide the basis for future evolution of national drug programs.

The initiatives involve the federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as industry and a number of professional health organizations, including the Canadian Co-Ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, CCOHTA, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Patented Medicines Review Board. CCOHTA is an excellent example of the way the federal, provincial and territorial ministries of health work together and jointly fund it. CCOHTA collects, analyses, creates and disseminates information concerning the effectiveness and cost of technology and its impact on health.

Currently CCOHTA is conducting pharmaceutical evaluations to provide information on the relative therapeutic and economic value of medicines and alternatives.

Referring back to the original resolution on which the motion is based, we can safely say that when it comes to medical drugs we do have national mechanisms in place to ensure our medical drugs are safe and effective. Patients and physicians are educated about the side effects and use, and adverse effects are reported, albeit voluntarily, which is the weak link in a very strong national chain.

Would mandatory reporting by physicians of adverse drug reactions instead of the current voluntary system be the only step needed to put in place a complete system of drug and medical device safety? If so, the question to be asked of the hon. member is whether this motion is redundant.

[Seniors Month, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the House that June is seniors month.

Seniors month offers an opportunity for Canadians to acknowledge the contributions seniors make to their families, their communities, and to society at large. It is also a time to reflect on the diversity of Canada's seniors.

The majority of seniors are healthy, physically and mentally active, involved in their communities, and are very satisfied with their lives. There are, however, seniors who are frail, who need support for daily living, or live in situations that put them at risk for depression, loneliness, and dependence. These seniors, who are most vulnerable for social, health, or economic reasons, need to know that our society will support them in their efforts to remain independent and contributing members of society.

As Canada is experiencing a dramatic growth in elders, the oldest seniors who require the most care and support are the fastest growing. It is in this context that I invite all Canadians and those seniors of tomorrow and today to take up the challenge-

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Does she fully understand why hate crimes should have aggravating factors? Hate crimes do not only hurt physically. Nor do they only hurt psychologically. Hate crimes leave a lasting effect on the individual. Hate crimes cause the continuing erosion of the self-esteem of a group that feels rejected by society. Members of that group have no sense of self-worth. It haunts them throughout the rest of their lives.

Does the hon. member fully understand that aspect of hate crime?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member personally addressed me in her speech I think I should not only respond but ask her a question.

The hon. member said that I was not present at all the hours and hours of committee meetings and I did not listen to the witnesses. One does not have to be there to comprehend, to be able to read the bill from cover to cover. That is very simple to do. It is also quite easy to get transcripts of the committees and understand them.

I did not only deal with them to get my knowledge. As a family practitioner for 23 years I have knowledge of what hate crimes do to people. I worked in emergency rooms and know about people who had come in beaten up because of their sexual orientation or because of their race in the city of Vancouver. I have a very valid reason for speaking the way I did.

If you discuss the abstracts of the bill, look at the fine points of clause by clause consideration and dot the i 's and cross the t 's but fail to understand the principles behind the bill or the very real part of the bill that will affect Canadians where they live, that will affect their lives in a very real and meaningful way, you have missed the whole issue completely.

Does the member understand the principles?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wondered for a while whether it was a question or a speech. The member asked how would I know it was an indiscriminate beating. My son has gone with girlfriends down those same streets at that same time in the city of Vancouver and has never been touched. He was called a faggot. That was the word used. That is a term used by the people who cruise. Its called going into town to gay bash. That is hate directed at a group.

I do not know if the member knows what he means by special interest groups. The bill deals with women, children, elders and victims. Now we are being told by members of the third party that women are a special interest group. Actually they have said that already. Now children are special interests and victims are special interests. Everyone is a special interest as far as members of the third party are concerned. They do not speak for Canadians. I do not know who they speak for.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. I am glad of the opportunity to speak to this bill. I am excited about what Bill C-41 means and seeks to accomplish for all Canadians.

This follows years of law reform commissions that have spoken clearly on the need to find a purpose and principle for sentencing. This justice minister and this government is finally doing something about it.

I do not understand why it is that third party members of the House oppose the bill with such vitriol and emotion. What do they disagree with? That is what I would like to know. Do they disagree that sentences should denounce unlawful conduct and deter others? Do they disagree that sentencing where appropriate should separate the offender and safeguard society? Do they disagree with rehabilitation and accepting responsibility for one's crime?

Surely they must agree that reparation to the victim as a first priority is important. What is there to disagree with? Is it that the punishment must be proportional to the severity of the crime and to the degree of responsibility of the offender? Would the third party have us give generic sentencing regardless of age of offender or gravity of crime?

Should a nine-year old be as culpable as a 25-year old? Should traffic violations be punished in the same way as second degree murder?

Excuse me if I wax sarcastic here but the purpose and principle of sentencing in the bill are so logical, so common sense, that I have a hard time understanding what the opposition is about.

There are three other provisions of the bill that I would like to address today: first, the section of the bill which provides for measures that are alternative to incarceration; second, those aspects that address victim's rights in the sentencing process; and third and most important, I will speak to section 718 of the bill that lists among other things aggravating factors that would lead to an increase in the severity of the sentence.

Alternative to incarceration is logical. It is sensible and it says in a nutshell in language that even I, who am not a lawyer, can understand that one ties sentencing to the severity of the crime.

It simply says that people who present no threat to society should not be incarcerated and should be offered an option for conditional sentencing, that they should pay their dues within the community with due supervision, to do community and victim restitution.

If a fine is involved-one-third of people in provincial jails are there purely because they could not afford to pay their fines-and they cannot pay, the provinces can revoke licences or permits or they can set up a formula for repaying the fine in hours of restitution to the community.

If third party members do not believe in the common sense and fairness of this, surely they must agree with the economic logic. It saves the taxpayer the expense of incarceration.

The second part of the bill that I want to talk about, section 745, deals with the victim and sentencing. The impact of crime on the victim, the family and the caregiver is going to be important and it is going to be held and taken into consideration in sentencing.

It helps the offender to see the real effects that the impact of the crime had on real people. Surely that fulfils the principle of responsibility of the offender because it makes an offender directly responsible to the victim, to pay restitution to the victim or family. It places this as a priority above all else.

I do not understand what it is that a third party whose members sit in the House and tout themselves as the advocates of the victim over and over could disagree with this part of the bill.

Finally, I want to speak to section 718.2 of the bill. It is the most controversial part and the third party members really oppose it if we want to get down to brass tacks. It takes into account the aggravating factors in sentencing. These are simple and clear. They are: crimes of abuse, of position, of trust or authority. These would be seen as an aggravating factor. I will read this. "Evidence of the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor".

I want to pick up on two terms: evidence, and any other similar factor. I have heard it said in the House by third party members that we are on a witch hunt. We are paranoid. We are going to charge anyone who beats up on anyone because we are going to think it is done because of hate. However there has to be evidence after the person has been found guilty that it was done because of hate. That is clear.

We just heard the previous speaker mention the fact that he felt we were setting up separate lists of people and giving certain people special status over others. He mentioned fat people. There is a part of section 718.2 which says similar factor. Similar factor takes into consideration anything which is missing from the list. The hon. member should really wonder about the whole thing. I wonder if he has read the complete bill.

I want to talk about why the members of the third party are concerned about this. If we want to take away the red herring of whether we include everybody or whether we do not include everybody, the clear fact is that what hon. members opposite oppose is the inclusion of sexual orientation. That is what they oppose. I want them to know that I applaud the inclusion of that term.

When I was a physician I saw many young men come into the emergency room with injuries from beatings inflicted because they were gay. Gay bashing in my riding is a favourite Friday and Saturday night sport when brave, macho males drive into town and identify men who are gay, or even worse, who they think are gay, and in bullying, frightened, drunken bravado afflict brutal harm on these people.

My son, when he was 17 years old, was coming home one night with a friend. He was waiting at a bus stop. Because he was with a male colleague who was in his class they were beaten badly. They were called faggots. Were it not for the fact that six people came down the street and stopped it, my son and his friend would have probably been brought into the emergency room dead. That is what I talk about when I talk about crimes inflicted on people because of hate. When a person commits a crime on another because of who they think they are, they inflict it on all the people who fit into that group.

I am sorry if I am getting a little emotional. This stuff happens. It is real. We can talk in the House about what the law says, about the fine points, about dotting the i 's and crossing the t 's and fiddling around with every word. But in real life, in the real world, that is happening every single day.

It is not limited to men in my riding. Lesbians have been the target of these night time cruises purely because of their sexual orientation, purely for that reason and for no other.

Have we learned nothing from history? In the very beginning the crusades were religious wars. More recently in Nazi Germany people were targeted and beaten because they were Jews. Those acts of violence, which were sanctioned by governments, did not begin as a war; they began as individual acts of violence, which escalated to group violence, which finally reached genocide.

Have we learned absolutely nothing from the past? Do we sit here in these seats in the House of Commons confident that because we are living in a diverse and tolerant society, because we have people in the House who are of different colours and religions, that we have progressed?

I sat here and I listened to the member who spoke very piously about setting up special status for people and giving them special rights. The gays, the lesbians and the bisexuals in my riding and in Canada have special rights all right. They have the right to be beaten up every Friday and Saturday night, to be denied the right to work, the right to live, the right to walk down a street, to go to a movie and to enjoy the things which members in the House take for granted.

What does the member who spoke so glibly know about hate and prejudice? The member is one person of a majority group in the House. He has status. He does not ever have to know what it is like to be vilified or discriminated against. I know what it is like. Just because my group is now accepted does not mean that I cannot speak for the groups that are not accepted.

Every day members of the third party get up in the House and bleat about how they are advocates for victims across Canada and how they speak for the rights of victims. Well shame on them for not supporting the bill. In doing so, they have abandoned the gays and lesbians of the country who are the daily victims of violence.

[Petitions, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 777 people of British Columbia. I concur with the petition.

The petition states that we the undersigned residents of the province of British Columbia draw the attention of the House to the following: that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a real and hurtful form of discrimination in this country; that all forms of families in this country, those based on financial and emotional interdependency, are equally meaningful and important to the social well-being of Canada; and that both protection against discrimination and recognition of relationships based on financial and emotional interdependency are necessary to ensure the equal treatment of gays, lesbians and bisexuals under the law.

Therefore your petitioners request that the Parliament of Canada amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a basis for protection against discrimination and to include recognition of relationships based on financial and emotional interdependency.