Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform member in making those kinds of comments is insulting just about every individual and every organization that has played a part in contributing to the quality of life in Canada.

The words I used to define culture come directly from the working group of the Canadian Conference of the Arts and its report on cultural policy for the 21st century. Those organizations together said that Canadian culture is about the expression of our common and diverse experiences, observations and aspirations. It is about building a sense of common purpose, tolerance and respect for the differences among people.

Is the member from the Reform Party suggesting that is not a noble goal? Are we not all here trying to ensure that we are tolerant and respectful of one another and trying to build a sense of common purpose, trying to ensure that public good takes precedence over selfish greed? Is that not what we are all about? Is that not what culture is all about?

The Reform member can insult me all he wants. But what he has just done is insulted the Confederation Centre of the Arts, the Canadian Museums Association, the Canadian Book Publishers Council, the Specialty and Premium TV Association, Simon Fraser University, the Pacific Music Association, the Office for Cultural Affairs in the city of Vancouver and on and on. Every organization involved in this field has been absolutely committed to do the opposite of what the Reform Party is suggesting.

As my colleague from Saskatchewan has just said to me, maybe that is why the Reform Party is at 9% or 10% in the polls. The most important thing for us today is to get beyond where Reform is coming from.

I will quote once more from the Canadian Conference of the Arts paper:

When cultural sovereignty is eroded, lost or subsumed within narrow political or ideological objectives the nation state is deprived of one of the most compelling bonds of nationhood.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

My colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has reminded me that culture and the arts are ranked among the top five contributors to the economic life of this country. There are many spinoff benefits. There is an incredible economic value to this whole sector which we cannot ignore.

If we put together our intrinsic belief in upholding and preserving the culture of the nation with the economic benefit, surely we have a formula that is beyond reproach in terms of support and significance in terms of government action, legislation and policy.

That obviously leads to a strong cultural policy. It is important to note that this country does not have a national cultural policy. For at least 10 years groups like the Canadian Conference of the Arts and many others across this country have been clamouring at the doorsteps of the government for a national cultural policy.

To this day, June 10, 1999, we do not have a national cultural policy. We have seen study after study after study, but no action. Another subcommittee of the heritage committee has just completed another cross-country tour trying to find out what Canadians think about cultural policy. It heard the same message again and again. Yes, we need a cultural policy to give meaning to what it is that we want to preserve as Canadian culture.

Given the fact that we are dealing with Bill C-55, I am beginning to understand why we may not have a national cultural policy. I am beginning to understand that it may have been a lot more difficult for the government to bring in this regressive American legislation on the magazine industry of this country if it had in place a national cultural policy.

I will quote again from the policy paper of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, which was released in June 1998, just one year ago. It makes a very important point. It asks the question:

Why do governments exist? What is the purpose that sustains them and gives them the moral and political grounding necessary to continue to function? The essence of the answer is sovereignty—the right of a nation to take charge of its own destiny and chart its own course through history.

According to the conference, sovereignty has three key components. The first is political sovereignty, a great deal of which we have given up in the course of the last couple of years in terms of how this place functions, how many times the government has brought in closure, how many times it has bypassed parliament, how many times it has said one thing and done another, and the list goes on.

According to the Canadian Conference of the Arts, another key component is economic sovereignty. We do not have to look too far to appreciate just how much we have sold off as a nation, how much we have given away, how much we have thrown to the wind in the interests of the globalized economy, in the interests of large multinational corporations which would like to have access to a completely unfettered marketplace without any barriers in their way, including such things as a national health care plan, which we used to have in this country, including such things as a universal pension plan, reasonable unemployment insurance, and I could go on to mention any number of areas.

There is a third key component of what it means to truly have what we all want and that is cultural sovereignty. The definition applied to that is:

The affirmation of the right of sovereign nations to foster and promote the creation, production, distribution and preservation of the works of the imagination in their many forms, or artifacts and objects of importance to the collective history of the citizenry of the nation state, through direct governmental measures.

I could add, through a proactive government, through a government that has the wherewithal and the political will to ensure that cultural sovereignty is preserved and is a reality.

The Canadian Conference of the Arts provides some very good words around just how important that is. It says in its report at page 8:

Cultural expression reflecting the common and diverse experiences, observations and aspirations of the citizens of a nation state is central to the creation and maintenance of a shared sense of identity and the promotion of understanding among diverse elements resident within the same political boundaries. Cultural expression builds a sense of common purpose and tolerance, and a respect for the differences inherent in peoples who have brought to the nation a wide array of distinctive traditions, values, and perceptions. Cultural expression fosters and expands the fundamental cohesive elements within a state.

I think that just about says it all in terms of why we on this side of the House are so concerned about the preservation and enhancement of Canadian culture and why we are so opposed to Bill C-55. We had an opportunity to use the tools of government to ensure that we create that sense of identity, that sense of tolerance, that expression of appreciation for all the diversity that makes up this nation and we blew it. In that typical scenario of the mouse beside the elephant we allowed ourselves to be squashed. Maybe it is more like the flea on the mouse sitting by the elephant. We allowed ourselves to be squashed, to be stamped out. We could have stood up to our American neighbours to the south.

I want to take us back a few years to 1986, 1987 and 1988. At that time I happened to be the minister of culture and heritage for the province of Manitoba. I, along with my colleagues in the provincial government of Manitoba, as well as many colleagues from different parts of the country, worked day in and day out to express our concerns about the proposed free trade agreement. We identified at that point that the free trade agreement would be dangerous, would be a barrier, would be devastating in our pursuit of the preservation of Canadian culture.

I hope Conservative members are listening. We were told at that time by the Brian Mulroney government of the day not to worry, there was an exemption for culture. We were told that we would never lose anything by way of cultural artistic expression in this country because there was a strong exemption which would prevent any kind of erosion as a result of American actions.

This government had a chance to test the cultural exemption in the free trade agreement and the NAFTA. It could have tested that exemption to stand firm on its earlier commitments and to show clearly that it was prepared to do everything possible to preserve Canadian culture. It caved in.

There was an indication from the WTO that Canada had a strong case. There was certainly all kinds of support from the cultural community in Canada. There were all kinds of legal arguments. There was all kinds of advice. There was all kinds of solid evidence to suggest that the government use that supposed, absolutely rock solid provision which would preserve Canadian identity, that exemption for cultural affairs in this country, and the government chose not to.

The result, as my colleague from Dartmouth said, is a sellout to the Americans. There is no question that Bill C-55, as amended by the Senate, according to the wishes of the Americans, particularly the giant media magazine corporations in the United States, is a sellout. Others have used the term cave in, but it is the same thing because we did have a choice.

In making the deal on magazines this government has shown that it is willing to sacrifice Canadian cultural policy without a fight. When the Americans come back with more threats against other cultural initiatives, whether it is Canadian content, ownership of our broadcasting industries, subsidizing the CBC or even our support for artists through the Canada Council, the precedent is set for us to cave in.

Instead of taking this opportunity, using that supposed wonderful exemption, fighting for and setting a precedent for all aspects of Canadian culture, the arts and creative enterprise, this government chose to cave in, just like we saw it do on the MMT issue. It could have stood and fought. It could have shown leadership and used the provisions that were available to make the case, but because it was threatened, because it was intimidated, because there was a question of retaliation, a question of suits, a question of financial compensation, the government chose to cave in before it had even fought the battle. The precedent is set.

Do members opposite not understand why we are so concerned about this bill? Do they not see where it might lead us? Do they not understand how dangerous this can be for the future?

It does not matter whether we are talking about culture, water or pharmaceuticals. Let us not forget what this government did when it caved in on pharmaceuticals. Liberals stood in the House before they formed the government in 1993 and said that Brian Mulroney was wrong to bring in Bill C-91, which extended patent protection to the pharmaceutical giants, because it would give profits to those big corporations and hurt the poor and the sick in this country. What did it do? It caved in to the giant pharmaceuticals.

Today this government is caving in to the giant American based magazine industry, and we will all pay the price. It is not too late for the government to reconsider, to understand that it is important to stand for Canadian culture. What we are talking about is our very identity, our very traditions around tolerance and acceptance of diversity and appreciation for struggling together for the common collective good.

I urge the government to reconsider. I urge it to stand for Canadian culture.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this important debate on Bill C-55.

To follow the words of many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I remain firmly committed to our objective of preserving and enhancing Canadian culture and see the bill as exactly opposite, an anathema to that objective.

As my colleagues have done, I would also like to acknowledge the work of the hon. member for Dartmouth who has been so vigilant on the issue from the beginning. She brought her personal involvement in the cultural artistic fabric of the nation to the process and the bill, which gives them real meaning and definition. I congratulate her for leading our caucus in preserving a sense of meaning around the debate and doing everything possible to persuade the Liberal government that what it is doing is wrong when it comes to preserving Canadian culture.

I bring us back to what it means when we talk about culture. What does Canadian culture mean? Many others have done the same in this debate. They have tried to talk about how culture is the spirit of a nation. Many others have talked about culture being the mirror which reflects the lives, the history and identities of Canadians.

It is a celebration of everything that is unique, special and important about a nation. It gives expression to our struggles, our history, our values, our beliefs, our troubles and our moments of ecstasy and joy in the development of a nation.

Many have written on this subject. Many have tried to find the words that will impress upon governments everywhere the importance of acknowledging what culture is and how important cultural policy is in the pursuit of adhering to the true definition of culture.

I refer to a couple of writers who have tried to express what we are talking about. I am drawing on a document produced about a year ago by the Canadian Conference of the Arts called the “Final Report of the Working Group on Cultural Policy for the 21st Century”. I will refer to this document on several occasions throughout my speech because it encompasses much of what we are all about today, why the bill is so important, and why we are so concerned about the direction the government is taking us.

That report uses quotes from a well known author, essayist and novelist, Hugh MacLennan, who said in 1978:

We know intuitively that we will become great only when we translate our force and knowledge into spiritual and artistic terms. Then, and only then, will it matter to mankind whether Canada has existed or not.

That is the essence of what we are talking about today. We are talking about the means by which we can translate our past, our present, our hopes and our aspirations into spiritual and artistic terms. Others from all walks of life have tried to express these thoughts as well.

I also want to put on record the quote of a Vancouver businessman, David Lemon, who said in 1993:

The arts are intrinsic to a sense of nation. They are intrinsic to the cultivation of a shared identity. They are intrinsic to a prosperous economy.

This is something that has been overlooked in the debate. We talk about the importance of culture as an expression of our inner most feelings and of our history as a nation. We talk about how it is a mirror and how it gives us some identity, but we sometimes overlook the value of arts and cultural activities in terms of the economy. Certainly it is a message I would hope Reform members are listening to and trying to understand in order to rethink their policies when it comes to culture. We are not short of studies which show that this whole area of the arts and cultural industries is probably one of the most labour intensive aspects of our economy and one of the greatest contributors to our prosperity as a nation.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to present a petition this morning and, in so doing, also to pay tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, and all the table officers, staff and pages for serving the House so well in this past session.

I would like to present a petition signed by citizens of Winnipeg, Manitoba who are very concerned about the sale of Candu nuclear reactors to Turkey. They are concerned that high government subsidies will in fact represent an amount so high as to equal the income tax cuts of the last federal budget. They are also concerned that Turkey will probably use them to produce nuclear weapons of mass destruction and destabilize the eastern Mediterranean, a part of the world which has always been politically unstable.

The petitioners call on the government and parliament to oppose this sale and take all possible measures required to stop it.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the hour is late, but I have to rise today to further discuss a question I raised in the House on April 14. The situation involving the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital is absolutely critical. There is no question that we are dealing with an emergency which the government continues to overlook and refuses to address.

I want to put this in context. On July 2 I wrote to the Minister of Health explaining to him that the situation at the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital was critical. The hospital is supposed to serve 28 first nations communities in northern Ontario, but it was in a critical and dire situation because of the failure of the government to ensure a contract between that hospital and a teaching hospital to provide the adequate staff in terms of both doctors and nurses.

It is no question that we are dealing with a lack of action on the part of the federal government, a mishandling of a serious situation. I have to raise this issue tonight because the government continues to refuse to address this matter.

On April 14 I raised this question in the House. At that point the chiefs of two first nations in northern Ontario had been on a hunger strike for 100 hours over the issue of the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital. They were on a hunger strike to try to get the attention of the government to act and act quickly. At that time the Minister of Health said “Do not worry. We are looking into it. In fact, I am going to visit those communities”.

The Minister of Health went to the region on April 23 and April 24 and promised prompt action. To this day, June 9, 1999, no action has been taken. The hospital is still not open, leaving 16,000 residents without adequate health care.

There is supposed to be a contract between the medical services branch and McMaster University. To this day, McMaster, which has been committed to recruit and retain 16 physicians, has only been able to find two or three physicians to serve at this hospital. Up to 75% of the nurses in northern nursing stations which feed off of this hospital are rumoured to be relief workers. Nursing at the hospital itself has decreased significantly since the hospital closed and now the hospital only has enough nursing staff to keep 25 of its 39 beds open. We are looking at a dire situation.

I am raising this tonight to see if finally the government will act quickly so that the people of this entire region can have some solution to a critical health care situation.

When it comes to northern and remote communities and first nations communities, there is no semblance of adequate quality health care. This situation is absolutely acute. It is desperate to the point where the chiefs for two of the first nations communities went on a hunger strike. They are now back appealing that the government do something immediately.

I want to know tonight, does the government have any plan to ensure that the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital is up and running, has the necessary physician services, is able to equip all the related northern nursing stations and is able to guarantee the people of this region have some direct access to quality health care?

[Hazardous Products Act, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the members who participated in today's discussion on Bill C-482, in particular the support from the members for Surrey Central, Laval East and New Brunswick Southwest.

I also want to put on record my thanks to the organizations that have been vigilant on this topic. They have performed a valuable public service by raising the concerns around children's health and well-being as it relates to access to toys that contain fairly high levels of cadmium, lead and phthalates. I want to acknowledge the work of the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, Greenpeace, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs and the Canadian Child Care Federation.

I listened carefully to the words of the parliamentary secretary. I also listened to the words of advice from the member for New Brunswick Southwest. I will certainly give the amendments serious consideration once I have read them.

At first blush and on hearing the proposed amendments by the parliamentary secretary, I have to express an initial disappointment over the proposals. In my estimation the amendments being proposed drastically gut the purpose of this bill. In fact they allow the government to continue its approach of what I classify as one of inaction, of voluntary regulation, of the waiting for someone to get sick or die approach.

I do not find the suggestions particularly helpful. The reference to changing the levels of lead from 15 to 65 parts per million flies in the face of significant scientific evidence about what is a safe level in terms of toys played with by children. The suggestion of limiting this to children under the age of 12 months and making restrictions in terms of teethers and rattles in my estimation does not take us any further than where we are right now.

I wish one could use props in the House so I could demonstrate just what it means for a child to have access to products that would not fall under the definition as proposed by the parliamentary secretary. I wish I could bring in the backpack which contains 321 parts per million of lead and 654 parts per million of cadmium that would not fall under the minister's definition. The department will tell her that we are not talking about extractable lead.

I wish she could understand that a backpack like that would be out in the hot sun. It could be placed in a hot car. It would always be put in the mouth of a child. I have seen my children do it. I wish I could show the member how my 10 year old son will always put in his mouth the Sega Genesis cable that is part of a toy he plays with which has over 5,000 parts per million of lead.

We are talking about serious incidents of those toxins in toy products that do not but should fall under the minister's definition. We have to adopt a do no harm principle, not allow products on the market and only react if something tragic happens.

The purpose of this bill is to call upon the government to do something far more proactive in the interest of children's health.

I assume from the parliamentary secretary's remarks that she will not support this bill. I urge her to look at it more seriously and to recommend to her government that it be considered in a serious way. I think that Canadians want to see a government play that kind of proactive role.

We are dealing with such a fundamental issue involving the health and well-being of children. Since there is obviously an interest on the part of members in the House and a deep concern from all parties and still a lack of indication from the government that it is willing to act, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to make this bill votable.

[Hazardous Products Act, June 9th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-482, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present a private member's bill before the Chamber. It is the first opportunity I have had to do so since being elected two years ago, almost to the day. It is the first time I have been successful in winning the lottery and being able to propose a course of action for parliament.

Given that it is my first opportunity, I am pleased that I am able to present a bill today which deals with a matter very close to my heart and of grave concern to members on all sides of the House. It is a matter pertaining to the question of children's health and well-being and the question of ensuring that we work now to ensure that our children are healthy today so that they can contribute to society in the future.

Bill C-482 is designed to introduce changes to the Hazardous Products Act with the specific purpose of safeguarding our children from toxic additives in toys and other children's items.

It is a pleasure to introduce a private member's bill that would prohibit the sale of children's toys containing lead, cadmium or phthalate.

We are here today dealing with the matter of children's health. We are also here today dealing with the matter of the fundamental responsibility of our government and, in particular, the fundamental responsibility of the health protection branch.

Over the past number of years we have raised numerous concerns about the very serious question of whether or not this aspect of government is doing its utmost to ensure that the food we eat, the water we drink, the drugs we have to take and the toys we play with are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have raised many concerns about whether or not the health protection branch is fulfilling that fundamental objective. We have also raised many concerns about its apparent readiness to offload that responsibility on to consumers without adequate information and on to industry, which is obviously concerned first and foremost about promoting its products.

We are here once again this evening trying to fill what would appear to be yet another gap in our health protection system created by the government's failure to stand up for children's health.

This is not the first time New Democrats in the House have spoken about toxins in children's products. This is one of the first issues I brought to the attention of the government after being elected to the House and have raised repeatedly since then, particularly as evidence mounted about the dangers to children's health.

About two years ago the member for Acadie—Bathurst introduced a motion that would have required a label so parents could tell which items contained harmful substances. Despite broad support for that motion it was unfortunately defeated by a majority of Liberal members.

The question today is why those members did not want to step in to protect children's health. It used to be that the argument of ignorance could be made. We used to be able to plead ignorance because many did not realize there were toxins in children's products, but for some time now we have become acutely aware of what dangers are in store for children when they play and chew on certain toys and products. We have become acutely aware of three dangerous toxins: lead, cadmium and phthalates, which is a softener used in PVC plastics.

Lead is a well known neurotoxin which scientists have been studying for many years. We know from all the studies that there is no safe level. Cadmium is an even more dangerous neurotoxin. It is also a renal toxin and a carcinogen. Phthalates have been linked in animal testing to liver and kidney damage and to reproductive developmental problems. All these toxins pose a special threat to children and are addressed in the bill.

The devastating effects of these substances on children are well documented. With new information and improved testing, we can no longer plead ignorance. There is no excuse for exposing our children to these risks.

This bill would do what the government has not done to date: protect our children.

Rigorous independent science, truly independent science not paid for by any manufacturer, has found that lead and cadmium are so toxic that even low levels can cause irreparable harm to children's intellectual and behavioural development, including attention levels.

Children are quite obviously smaller than adults and what may be a safe level for adults can be too much for a child. Phthalates as well seep or leach out of products when subjected to normal treatment by young children.

I am not just talking about babies or infants. With infants everything goes into the mouth where it is chewed and sucked on. With older children necklaces and other objects get mouthed more as a habit. In this normal mouthing toxins, and phthalates are particularly vulnerable to this, seep or leach out of the product into the saliva and are consumed and absorbed by the body.

As I said, this is not news any more. Health Canada has actually recognized the danger of these substances. In June 1996 it issued a warning about household vinyl mini-blinds out of concern that children would ingest dust as these products broke down in the sun.

In April 1998 there was another warning of children's jewellery that contained a high 1,002 parts per million of lead. In November last year there was another warning of phthalates in children's items. In that same month the European Union authoritative scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment also warned about phthalates.

There is no secret about toxins, but like virtually any subject there are opposing views. We need only think back to the reams of scientific studies financed by the tobacco industry over the years proving conclusively that there were no links between smoking and cancer.

What do leading children's advocates have to say on this matter? In acknowledging the words and support of some of these organizations, I want to pay a special tribute to individuals and organizations that have been particularly helpful in putting together the necessary research and proposals which led to the bill before us today.

In particular I acknowledge the work of Greenpeace which has certainly been front and centre of the issue. Members will be fully aware of how many times representatives of that organization brought independent scientific advice and information to members of the Chamber about the toxicity of lead, cadmium and phthalates.

I thank the individuals from Greenpeace who have been so helpful, as well as a number of other organizations that have been particularly concerned about the impact of toxins on children and have been active in raising these matters.

Let me acknowledge the Canadian Institute of Child Health which stated as recently as June 9:

Given the demonstrated scientific evidence of damaging effects that phthalates, lead and cadmium have on children's health, products which contain these chemicals must be prohibited and/or regulated as is outlined in the proposed amendments to the Hazardous Products Act.

The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada indicated support for the bill or for any initiative on the part of the government to take action to prohibit the sale of any products containing dangerously high levels of cadmium, phthalates and lead.

The Canadian Child Care Federation has written expressing concern for the safety of Canada's children. It said:

Legislation to protect children from exposure to toxic toys is a necessary first step in providing a safe, healthy environment for our children.

Let me also mention the contribution by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment which expressed support for the legislation and urged us to be vigilant on the matter. I am sure it would like to leave a message with the government to support the bill or take immediate action.

We know the evidence from scientists. We know the concerns from groups involved in ensuring health and well-being for our children. Now it is time for action.

Some people would like us to believe that there are no alternatives, but that is no longer a valid excuse. Alternatives exist. We now know that while 80% of new toys on the market contain plastic, only 4.5% of these use the type containing phthalates. Substitutes are readily available.

Where does all this lead us? It leads us to acting. It leads us to the political will to protect the health and safety of our children. We have a consensus that we want to keep our children as safe as possible. We have the most up to date independent science available and children's advocates telling us that it is time for urgent action. All that remains is for us to act decisively. Is that not why we are here after all?

I want to emphasize to all members that the bill is before the House as a constructive proposal. It is based on the principle of doing no harm. It rejects the notion of allowing products on the market, particularly products that are used and played with by children, on the assumption that they have not been proven to be harmful. We take the view on this side of the House, and I believe members of all parties do the same, that it is incumbent upon us as legislators, as members of the House, to ensure that products which are played with and chewed on by children are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is why I presented to the House a bill which attempts to do just that. Without legislative backup we will continue to muddle along with piecemeal, after the fact voluntary warnings such as the situation last fall when after finally testing selected products Health Canada recognized a danger from phthalates and issued a warning. That warning was so piecemeal and ad hoc that it presented more confusion than actual assistance on this very critical issue.

Other countries have taken action. I do not need to go into great detail about the efforts of Denmark to ban products containing lead or Austria that has banned products containing cadmium. There is a solid record on the international front of countries prepared to say that enough is enough.

It should be noted that even some toy manufacturers have been responsible in many parts of the country and the world for taking action to remove products that contain these toxins and have committed to producing all future toys using reliable and safe alternatives.

Prompt action by our government, as well as protecting children's health, would encourage an opportunity for the fledgling Canadian toy industry to produce safe products that are marketable worldwide to health conscious consumers. Continued inaction risks turning Canada into the dumping ground for the world's supply of toxic toys.

I urge all hon. members to give serious consideration to this bill, to consider it a very constructive proposition for the House, a very realistic way in which we can remove from children any threat of risk pertaining to the very dangerous contact with any kind of toxic carcinogenic material such cadmium, lead and phthalates.

On that note, I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the suggestions and hope that we can move forward.

[Petitions, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today the last in a series of petitions representing some 5,000 Canadians who are very concerned about the present state of our health care system. In so doing, I want to acknowledge the work of the Save Medicare Committee and, in particular, Russ Rak who is with the CAW Local 222, Retired Workers' Chapter.

The signators of this petition come from all over the country. They express grave concerns about the erosion of our health care system and about the slide in this country toward Americanized two tier health care.

The petitioners call upon the government to enshrine in the health care act a set of fundamental principles for this country and to guarantee national standards of quality publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.

[Reproductive Technologies, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today in testimony before the health committee Dr. Patricia Baird, a geneticist who headed up the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, said that young women can earn as much as $50,000 as an egg donor, this despite a voluntary federal moratorium on buying and selling human eggs and sperm.

Will the Minister of Health send a clear message to fertility clinics which are defying his moratorium and say no; no to egg selling, egg buying and egg bartering? Will he give assurances to all Canadians that whenever he reintroduces the long awaited legislation on reproductive technologies it will include a definitive prohibition on commercialization in this area?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue an issue I raised in the House regarding the reuse of disposable medical devices. This matter came to light in February of this year as the result of some excellent investigative work by a reporter with the Winnipeg Free Press .

It was revealed that disposable medical devices were being reused in hospitals in Winnipeg and elsewhere across Canada. Let us be clear. We are talking about medical devices licensed for single use only. We are talking about repeated use of catheters and other devices contrary to manufacturer warnings and despite the real possibility of disease transmission.

It should also be noted that since the time I raised this matter in the House a report has been released by Winnipeg microbiologist Dr. Michelle Alfa confirming there is a danger that surgical devices reused against the advice of manufacturers might transmit infections between patients or break down inside the body.

What has the federal government's response been? The Minister of Health said he would consider calling a meeting of provincial health ministers in order to develop, possibly, a national policy on this issue. Does that not just blow us away? We are at a loss for words in terms of that response.

Here we have a problem of national proportions, a practice that is certainly risky and potentially lethal, and a matter that falls directly under the jurisdiction of the health protection branch. Where is the federal government? In essence nowhere. Even the spokesperson of the manufacturers of medical devices said surely Health Canada has some role as a protector of the public health of Canada.

It is a clear-cut case of federal government negligence and dereliction of duty, reinforced by the fact that the government has sat on a report for five years which warned of widespread concerns about the risk of reusing disposable medical devices.

For five years the government has known that reused disposable devices like catheters and tubes going into the stomach and intestines can cause the transmission of disease and even breakdown in the patient's body. To make matters even worse, for three years the government has had the benefit of a comprehensive set of guidelines done by the Canadian Health Care Association and provided to all health care facilities regarding the reuse of single use medical devices, and still nothing.

Other countries have taken action. France and Sweden forbid the use of disposable medical devices. In the rest of Europe equipment must be certified. Any kind of reused equipment must be clearly certified indicating it continues to meet standards.

Why not in Canada? Why has the government forsaken health protection? Why does it not act on a study that is five years old? Why does it not put in use the recommendations of the Canadian Health Care Association?

Doctors want national policies. Manufacturers want action. Patients clearly want to see the government uphold its responsibilities under the Health Protection Act. Why does the government not act and act now?