James Lunney

[Health, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, under the new natural health products directorate, the minister has committed a mere $1 million a year for research on non-patentable NHPs, products which could greatly improve the health outcomes of Canadians. That is a whopping one-tenth of one per cent of what the government commits to medical research through the CIHR and other agencies.

Does the Minister of Health really think that $1 million is sufficient funding to advance health care avenues that hold such great promise? Does she really believe that such research should only be done by medical doctors and dentists?

[Petitions, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today I have three petitions here on the same subject. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to defend the traditional definition of marriage as a bond between one man and one woman; it is a serious moral good. They call marriage a lasting union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others and say that it cannot and should not be modified by a court of law. The petitioners would like Parliament to defend that traditional definition of marriage.

[Fisheries, October 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to be first to stand up and congratulate the hon. member, my colleague from St. John's West, for bringing this motion before the House. It is an extremely important issue. I know it is important for Newfoundland, but I believe this issue is important for all Canadians.

Having served on the fisheries committee when we were looking into the issue of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, I was among those who heard from the mayors of communities like Trepassey and Burgeo, who came to tell us about the devastation of their stocks. We heard the stories about the lack of enforcement under NAFO on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We know that there is overfishing going on and the resources are stressed.

We feel that the government needs to muscle up and protect what belongs to Canada. It is not a problem that Newfoundlanders should have to face alone. It is a problem on which Canadians need to stand with our neighbours in Newfoundland. We need to defend what is ours. This is our continental shelf.

I want to ask the member about enforcement. He mentioned that little Iceland muscled up and managed to defend its fisheries from overfishing and foreign fishing. We know that there are observers on board these vessels. We know that many times the observers report infractions but there is no enforcement.

I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on Canada's ability to respond, be it via Coast Guard or via armed forces surveillance. How would Canada need to respond in order to implement custodial management of the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks, which is a Canadian resource, a part of our heritage that needs to be defended?

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

--and for young men as well, from criminals and violence.

Because we fail to take action we are paying a high price in society in that we put bars on our windows and security systems in our homes. We are all paying a big price for our attitude when we do not want to say no and we do not want to punish people for committing crimes and being violent. We all suffer as a consequence.

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a problem in society. Some people call it a permissive society. A very nasty trend has developed in society where we do not want to say no to anybody about anything. It reflects an undermining of authority where parents are not allowed to discipline their children. It is a question of discipline. Even spanking a child is now brought into question. Parental authority is undermined. It affects the authority of the principals and the teachers in schools who are not allowed to touch a child. This is very pervasive in society and it seems that we do not want to say no to anything.

It is the role of government to provide laws that protect society. That means there are some issues and some times where we must say no. Frankly, it seems it is a problem with what my colleagues refer to as the Liberal philosophy. I know not all members on that side would share that extreme a philosophy that we cannot say no to people, that we cannot punish people. Yet increasingly our courts seem to have taken this up, that we cannot punish people for crimes, that we have to look at the excuses and why they did something wrong.

The proper role of government is to protect society and to establish a stable society, to establish laws that provide protection for children, for women when they are walking on the streets at night--

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are addressing a very difficult subject this afternoon, but it is a very important one. I would like to congratulate my colleague from Wild Rose who has a passion for this issue. He has been the one leading the charge in the House of Commons and in our caucus. He wants to see the government do something to protect our children.

We have heard discussions today about Bill C-20. The hon. member for York West said that members on that side of the House have worked hard to make Bill C-20 as tight as possible in order to protect children. However, we have some real problems with the efforts that the government side has made and with the justice minister's defence of the glaring loopholes in Bill C-20.

I live on Vancouver Island and represent 114,000 constituents. Robin Sharpe was in our area in Vancouver, 35 kilometres across the strait from Nanaimo. Judges in British Columbia refused to prosecute cases of child pornography for some months because of the constitutionality of the artistic merit defence in the John Robin Sharpe case.

The outrage in our community was palpable. People in my community, who I am sure are not that different from most Canadians, felt a sense of outrage that someone would justify the most vile depictions of sexual activity with children as being some form of artistic merit. People found it incomprehensible that these vile acts would go unchallenged by our courts. For months to follow, no cases of child pornography were prosecuted because of the glaring loophole of artistic merit in our law.

Bill C-20, which is supposed to protect our children, simply takes the artistic merit defence and replaces it with something the public was not familiar with, something called public good. This was done because the public was sensitized to artistic merit and was outraged by that term.

It is not good enough to simply have smoke and mirrors. It is not good enough when we are talking about protecting our children from abuse that will scar them for life. With counselling and with help, they may overcome these horrors and may live successfully. Many have, thank God, been able to overcome the horrors of abuse as children. Many carry those scars for life and many, sadly, carry them into their relationships in the future.

The consequences of seeing our children being abused costs society greatly. We on this side of the House are very concerned about it. I know members on the other side have genuine hearts of compassion and are concerned about this issue as well.

Unfortunately, we have not seen a response from the executive branch of government giving law enforcement the teeth that are needed to address this vile and degrading aspect of abuse that happens in our society.

Representatives of the Toronto police department came to the House a year or so ago. The member for Wild Rose was there as well as a number of our members. These representatives were apologetic for the material they had to present. Even their toughened officers that are trained in enforcement in criminal matters had a hard time dealing with the content of what is available today in the trafficking of pornography and the vile images of children being abused.

They apologized in advance and told us that some of us may have a hard time relating to the subject material. Many members had to leave the room as the presentation started because it was the kind of thing normal people do not want to imagine. The activities that are going on today and things that are being distributed throughout our society are so vile that the average citizen is really not aware of how evil they really are. These police officers were crying out to us as members of Parliament to do something.

With the volume of material they had to go through, these seasoned officers sometimes had to excuse themselves from the file. Sadly, some of them even had to take leave because they were so disturbed after spending hours going through that kind of stuff in order to build a case to see those people prosecuted.

On this side of the House we do not believe that a public good defence is good enough. We do not believe there should be any defence for feeding on this kind of vile material.

There is an ancient proverb, and one which I think is reliable, that as long as this world remains, seed time will follow harvest and harvest will follow seed time. I believe that principle to be a very sound one. A farmer might plant oats and get partway through the season and decide he should have planted wheat because it has a better price. He cannot just change in mid-season; he has to wait for that crop to come in.

I am concerned as to where this crop that is being sown in society is taking us, and it will bring a crop. We need to do some crop eradication here. This is not the kind of thing that leads to a healthy society. It does not lead to healthy individuals.

The people who feed on this kind of vile material will act on it eventually. It is not good enough to think it is for their personal use and it keeps them from acting something out. People who feed on this kind of thing will bring a crop, sadly on the people on whom they act out their vile intentions.

The public good defence is simply not good enough. It is not good enough for Canadian society. It is not good enough for our children. It should be stricken down. It should be stricken from the law as a defence for child pornography.

There are other concerns. The government is touting that it has toughened things up because it has increased the maximum penalties for criminals who are involved in this type of activity. I do not know that Canadians can continue to be misled by this toughening up because the courts hardly ever impose maximum sentences. What is the point of having maximum sentences if the courts never impose them?

That is fundamentally misleading. It gives an impression that we are actually toughening things up, that we are doing something to protect society from perpetrators of this type of evil but we really are not. When we look at the implementation, many of the sentences are conditional sentences served at home, in spite of the tough maximum sentences that appear to be there. There are minimum sentences and many of them turn out to be simply conditional sentences. That is not good enough.

All of us probably know people who have been through situations of abuse. I know some personally. I know the tragedy it causes in their lives and the difficulty they have, sometimes for many years, in recovering.

In my riding I have had quite a response over time to this issue. I have presented numerous petitions in the House. At least two of them had over 1,000 signatures. I have had a lot of letters from constituents.

Hilda Higgs of Lantzville wrote that she is appalled that someone would see anything artistic when it comes to child pornography. Members opposite would say that we do not have an artistic merit defence any more, but we do have the public good defence which amounts to the same argument for the lawyers.

Gerald Hall of Lantzville wrote that the minds of our children are too precious to allow misguided individuals like Mr. Sharpe to overturn perfectly common sense laws that are in place to protect society.

Marilyn Burrows of Port Alberni wrote expressing her concern that the decision would set a dangerous precedent for our children.

I do not believe that the concerns of these constituents have been adequately met.

Dr. Maureen Keane of Qualicum Beach wrote and asked that the age of consent be raised and that the artistic merit defence be removed. Dr. Keane raised a point about the age of consent. I know other members have addressed it as well. We have one of the lowest ages of consent in developed countries at age 14.

We feel that for an adult to subject a girl or a boy of that age to enticement, perhaps with money, perhaps with goods, perhaps with lifestyle benefits, is not good enough. The age of consent should be raised. There are other jurisdictions that have dealt with this issue, such as the U.K., Australia and most U.S. states, which have a close in age exemption. We are not talking about teenagers that might be involved, whether we approve of that or not. We are talking about adults who abuse children, to make the point clear.

The point about the age of consent is one which I think has to be recognized. There are many serious concerns about children being abused. It is time for the House to take action.

Madam Speaker, I should have mentioned at the beginning that I was sharing my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

It is a serious issue. I hope all members of the House will want to take action on it.

[Petitions, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which is again in two parts, contains about 350 signatures, largely from my riding and the communities I just mentioned, but also some from Alberta and Ontario, including Fonthill, Welland, Burlington, Port Colborne and other communities, and it concerns Bill C-420.

They are calling for changes in enhancing freedom of choice in health care. They want Parliament to recognize that herbs, dietary supplements and other traditional natural products should be classified as food, not drugs, and that scientific evidence now confirms that many diseases and disorders listed in schedule A can in fact be mitigated through the judicious use of natural health products. They are calling for the changes recommended by Bill C-420 that was debated this morning.

[Petitions, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition, which is in two parts, was signed by about 170 people from my riding of Nanaimo, Nanoose, Lantzville, Parksville and Qualicum Beach who are concerned with animal cruelty.

People are concerned about the frequent incidents of cruelty to animals and declare that these incidents undermine Canadian values of compassion. They are calling upon Parliament to take action to introduce and enforce stronger legislation prohibiting cruelty to animals that would protect those that cannot protect themselves.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues who spoke this morning to Bill C-420, and especially for granting me the extra couple of minutes.

I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, who was the first to speak from the government side to the issue, and for the support from my colleagues from Edmonton North and from Macleod. I know my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan would have been happy to speak as well.

Referring to my colleague's remarks about a third category between food and drugs, in fact, after all the debate that went through the House in 1997 and 1998 with the health committee, the health committee and the transition team made that recommendation. Canadians were led to believe they would be getting a third category, not food, not drugs, but it would be in the middle; physiologically active nutrients that have a health benefit, whether it is identified by tradition, hundreds of years of use with no apparent harm, whether it is identified by scientific investigation or whether it is absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, as are many health products.

The unfortunate thing is that Health Canada reneged on the legislative renewal that would have created the third category. It simply said that it would have a new health products directorate. The Office of Natural Health Products was set up and NHPs were placed squarely as a subclass of drugs.

Unfortunately, the legislative renewal that was promised to accompany the regulations, which will come into effect in January 2004, has been scrubbed. I see, and I believe many Canadians see, that as a betrayal of the confidence and trust that Canadians put into the process. The legislative renewal would have required addressing the antiquated subsections 3(1) and 3(2) that say one shall not label and advertise that a vitamin, mineral, herbal or natural health product will influence a whole schedule of diseases; schedule A that has been discussed this morning.

If it were only the labelling and advertising issue, I do not think it would be as serious. It is the consequence of that section that is so serious. The consequence is that Health Canada says that as soon as a health claim is made the product is then taken off the market unless it goes through a multi-million dollar drug approval process, which simply is inappropriate for a natural health product that is not patentable.

The point that I have been trying to get across is that natural health products are not patentable. Drug companies make huge investments into products for which they hope to receive profits. The health committee is now looking at this. The industry committee was looking at the patent extensions of 20 years and now, with ever-greening multiple years beyond that, for profits on a patented drug. However natural health products have no such patents. Therefore, the pharma world is not interested, it seems, in promoting that kind of research. It seems to me it is fundamentally wrong for Health Canada to force a natural product through that kind of approval regime.

There has been some confusion about what Bill C-420 would actually do. Bill C-420 would not gut the whole Office of Natural Health Products directorate. It would simply move it from under a drug style directorate to under a food style directorate. We could still have the good manufacturing practices and the inspections. We could still make sure that what is on the bottle is in the bottle. We could still provide assurance of health claims. We could review them to determine whether a health claim is traditional without evidence of harm. We could provide Canadians with assurances that the health claim has some scientific validity.

The question of safety is not really an issue. Where there is an issue of safety we would all be in agreement. Evidence should be brought forth and if it were dangerous then we would address it in a public manner.

What is outrageous is that Health Canada would take products that might improve the health of Canadians off the market. Frankly, I think Canadians would find that unacceptable. A simple mineral supplement like chromium picolinate is absolutely essential for blood sugar metabolism. That is true for all members of the House. We cannot metabolize sugar without chromium. We excrete it when we metabolize sugar. The fact that Health Canada would take that most physiologically effective form off the market seems to be fundamentally perverse and contrary to the public interest.

A mineral supplement, which was developed in Alberta, called E.M.Power+, has been helping Canadians with a mental illness known as bipolar disease or manic depression. There is a tremendous cost to the individuals and there is a high risk of suicide.

We actually have people in the House today who are here because they are concerned. They are watching the debate and many are watching across the country because they are concerned. They feel their lives are being threatened because Health Canada is taking the products off the market simply because people begin to tell others that this could help them with their mental illness. There are over 3,000 Canadians receiving help from this product and yet Health Canada would move to take it off the market. They want to know, why would Health Canada do this when there is evidence of benefit?

I would like to give an example. There was a lady from Ontario who had been on psychiatric drugs for 18 years. Her husband had been on suicide watch for many years. She has been taking this vitamin and mineral product for about two and a half years and she is off her psychiatric drugs. She is not trying to kill herself or her husband any more. She is holding down a job, paying taxes and she is volunteering. She wants to know, why would Health Canada take this away from her? Frankly, so do I.

Folic acid is well known as the best defence against heart attack and stroke. Health Canada knows that and it is reported in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology . If a simple vitamin, folic acid, is a better defence than anything else we know of, would Canadians not want to know about it?

Like the statement from Shakespeare, I feel that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, with no reference to any member on the other side. But there is something wrong with the way Health Canada manages natural health products. The new Natural Health Products Directorate is maintaining antiquated subsections 3(1) and 3(2), and will continue to take products with a health claim off the market. Health Canada sent the police to raid the computers of a little company in Raymond, Alberta, and has obstructed delivery of the product.

In times when health costs are spiralling, Canadians would expect Health Canada to have an interest in a product that might lower the cost, lower the morbidity of a serious disease, and improve clinical outcomes. That was the approach of the Province of Alberta when it heard about the effect that E.M.Power+ was having on Albertans, it asked to look into this. There are huge costs associated with it. A $544,000 study was set up at the University of Calgary under the leadership of Dr. Bonnie Kaplan. Canadians feel betrayed and certainly the people taking the product who have their lives back feel betrayed when Health Canada hears about this and moves in to shut down the study.

Is there no room for science to progress the treatment of disease? There in an excellent article in the September issue of Saturday Night called “A Prescription for Profit” which talked about the attitude of the drug companies looking at sickness as a marketing opportunity.

Frankly, it is known that mental illness is expected to increase in Canada by about 25% over the next 10 years. It seems that the drug companies are positioning themselves to capture the market. Many of the drug companies mistakenly take a patent on a product that is being used to treat an illness and consider it a patent on the illness itself. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

That is made even worse if Health Canada is complicit in maintaining that which is contrary to the public interest. It seems to me that Health Canada ought to be on the forefront of advancing opportunities to advance health care in Canada. If a natural health product can do that, Canadians have a right to know and have a right to access low risk products.

I encourage members to think about this issue seriously. I would be quite in favour of a third category. It would mean opening the act. The reason I put it as a subclass of food is because of the response of Health Canada. Under the food directorate we can still have the good manufacturing practices, inspections, and the safety that people require without having the bureaucratic and heavy-handed response of a drug style directorate.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to use the seven minutes, with unanimous consent.