Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Health, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have had political interference with parliamentary signings on drug patent legislation. We have had political editing of an independent audit of drug research and now we have a political whitewash of scientific findings that show dangerously high levels of lead in children's toys.

Whatever his agenda, will the Minister of Health at least agree to put children first and will he pull off the market any children's toys and plastic products that exceed his department's own standards for lead content and that could create irreversible neurological damage among children?

[Child Benefit, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the child benefit. It is an issue that is very important for children and families in this country. I would like to congratulate the member for Shefford on her decision to move this motion. On behalf of all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I would like to indicate our support for the motion as amended by the Bloc Quebecois.

This motion is clearly an important one for all of us to be debating in this House. It calls for a review of the indexing of the child tax benefit. It is a very important initiative that should be part—and I add, a part—of a number of changes to the child tax benefit and to a whole range of initiatives dealing with children's needs and children's poverty in this country.

It is clear that the child tax benefit will erode over time if it remains partially indexed. A portion of its gains will be lost to inflation each year. The inflation over 3% formula, in operation for more than a decade, means that the value of child benefit declines in real terms by 3% each year as well.

As the member for the Reform just mentioned, it is in fact “social policy by stealth”, as so aptly put by Ken Battle of the Caledon Institute. As my colleague from the Bloc pointed out, the origin of this problem does rest with the Progressive Conservatives. Let us keep in mind that the Tories introduced this negative feature into federal benefits, into the personal income tax system and the refundable GST credit, and it is the Liberals who have continued this policy.

Without a doubt in our mind, this government, the Liberal government today, must move quickly to reindex benefits to inflation to stop this decline.

As I said at the outset, this is about one benefit, one initiative important to our goal, a goal I believe we all hold in common: to reduce child poverty, but it should be recognized as only a beginning. We must have in this country a comprehensive strategy to reduce child poverty that includes specifically setting targets for reducing unemployment.

How can we have a strategy to reduce child poverty unless we reduce unemployment? In fact, no strategy to reduce child poverty can be complete without a real target for reducing unemployment and a will to meet those targets.

Statistically speaking, it should be noted that for every 1% drop in the unemployment rate, 72,000 children can be lifted out of poverty.

There is another element that must be part of any strategy to address child poverty in this country today. That initiative is something that has been promised so many times over by Progressive Conservatives and Liberals in this country in election after election after election and then put on the back burner. That must be raised again to the forefront of our political agenda, and that of course is affordable child care.

The child tax benefit is structured to impel low income mothers into the workforce without providing funding for quality child care options.

The federal government should be ashamed of its decision time and time again to keep this issue on the back burner despite clear commitments, especially in the 1993 election, to ensure that this country would have a national child care plan to provide quality, affordable, accessible spaces for families right across this country.

There is no discussion initiated at present by the federal government around this issue at all. There is no hint of any plans from the Liberal government to strengthen child care as a complement to the child benefit.

How can we address child poverty? How can we assist families cope in these very difficult times unless we make very serious inroads in the provision of such a valuable service for this country?

The statistics speak for themselves. For all the time the Liberals have been in power and failed to keep their promise on a national child care plan, failed in providing a meaningful social assistance program in this country and failed in so many other respects, in that time 200,000 more children have fallen below the poverty line.

More and more families, especially single parent families headed by women with small children, are struggling on a day to day basis and falling further and further behind.

It is absolutely imperative for this House, for this Parliament to look at the child benefit in a much bigger context. The $600 million in new federal spending announced in the 1997 budget is only a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars the federal government spends on other programs, the additional billions the federal government hands out in tax expenditures and the $7 billion Ottawa has cut from federal social transfers to the provinces under the CHST.

The national child benefit, however important, does not really offer any new gains. It merely substitutes ground already lost. As a result of a decision in the late 1980s to partly remove inflation protection from the existing child tax benefit, its value has been eroding by up to $150 million a year.

The government's announcement of $850 million down payment or $600 million in the new federal spending will only serve to bring poor families closer to where they were when the Liberals took power in 1993.

Many of the provinces today are pushing for a further commitment of $2.5 billion into the fund by the year 2000. Certainly it is our hope and I hope the hope of many other members in this House that this government, the Liberal government, will move ahead with such a commitment.

Without a commitment to a comprehensive anti-poverty agenda, the child benefit is but a band-aid solution that actually acts to depress wages and further marginalize poor people.

Children are poor because their parents are poor. Eliminating child and family poverty will require a concerted effort on all our parts. It will require and demand a comprehensive strategy from the federal Liberal government that would include many essentials, that would include job creation, housing, child care, training and post-secondary education.

We have no hesitation in supporting the motion today, particularly as amended by the Bloc to ensure full indexation of the national child benefit. However, we want to register our concerns about the absence of a comprehensive strategy from the Liberal government and use this opportunity to call on the government to come forward with a meaningful comprehensive strategy.

We must act now in order to put Canada back on track to meeting the all-party goal, members will remember, introduced in this House in 1989 by the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent, a goal that said we must end child poverty by the year 2000.

Well, we are awfully close to the year 2000 and we have only seen child poverty worsen in this country. It is getting more serious with each day that passes because of a failure on the part of our national government to take up this issue and put in place a comprehensive strategy that gets at the roots of the problem.

Let us use this opportunity today to recommit ourselves to that goal to eliminate child poverty from this country as quickly as we can.

[Petitions, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased and proud to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Winnipeg North Centre and on behalf of other concerned Manitobans.

They petition this government with their concerns regarding current and proposed changes to Canada's retirement system. In specific terms, they petition this government to rescind Bill C-2 because it imposes such serious massive premiums hikes while reducing benefits and because of concerns for the establishment of an investment fund which will mean a loss of dollars in this country and benefit to stockholders and bond dealers.

They also petition that this government call for and put in place a national review of the retirement income system in Canada in order to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today and tomorrow.

[Drug Prices, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, skyrocketing drug costs are threatening the future of medicare and putting an impossible burden on Canadians who need medically necessary drugs.

Liberal policies are to blame. Instead of a responsible program, what do we have, a complete flip-flop on Bill C-91 and 20-year patent protection for big brand name drug companies, a whitewash of last spring's review of Bill C-91, the elimination of the drug research bureau and now evidence that Industry Canada edited the Ernst & Young audit of research commitments made by PMAC.

Who is in charge? Why is the big brand name drug company running this country? Today, on behalf of seniors everywhere and Canadians who are concerned about the future of medicare, we call on this government to ensure need, not greed, is the basis of drug pricing policy in Canada.

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in pointing to the number of organizations in terms of the industry, the health activist community and the interest groups that there was inadequate consultation if any.

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises the important issue of privatization that is happening at this level of government. He may not be aware of the number of steps that his own Minister of Health and other government officials have taken in that direction.

I would ask him to review the whole situation with respect to the elimination of the drug research bureau which costs taxpayers $2 million to $3 million and which means the loss of any independent research capacity when it comes to drugs and for which the minister answered by saying that the private drug companies can monitor themselves and do their own research. If that is not privatization what is?

On his second point, there are a number of organizations that felt they were in the process of dialogue with the Minister of Health and were prepared to work on the improvement of standards. They feel Bill C-14 came out of the blue in the middle of that consultation and dialogue.

If they were prepared to do that and were prepared to come forward with an important study about the scientific assessment of risks associated with drinking water and drinking water materials then why could we have not waited to see the results of the study? Why could we not have found ways to achieve these objectives other than a very costly mechanism which by the minister's own admission could cost consumers and taxpayers in the order of $2 million?

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer by asking a question in return to the member, because this goes to the heart of the matter.

Is it proactive in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians to eliminate the drug research bureau as part of the health protection branch? Is it proactive to eliminate a body which costs roughly $2 million to $3 million and lose any independent capacity in this country for ensuring that the drugs people take are safe? Is it proactive to try to dismantle the food research bureau in the health protection branch? Is it proactive to study the lead content of children's toys, identify an acceptable content and then say there is no risk for children? Is it proactive to pursue an approach of privatization, deregulation and reducing the department and the government's liability when it comes to people's health and well-being?

Those are the key issues. How do we put this bill in that context if we have a government not committed to being proactive, to a regulatory approach in terms of the food we eat, the drugs we have to take for medical reasons, the air we breathe, the water we drink? How can we start understanding the need for this legislation at this time when we have organizations saying the standards the minister is talking about they are prepared to co-operate on, they are prepared to implement, they are prepared to enforce without the costs that will result from this bill if it goes forward?

The proactive approach is to demand a strong health protection branch, a strong role by Health Canada and to ensure that this government backs off its right wing agenda of privatization, deregulation and offloading. That is what I would like to hear from this government.

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was commenting on the minister's claim that Bill C-14 is brought to this Chamber as a result of a very serious and thoughtful consultation process.

All the evidence points to the contrary. In fact, we do not have any evidence before us to show that this minister consulted and that there are groups coming forward to say “This bill is important and we want to see you support it”. We have had nothing but individuals and organizations contacting us to say “This is a complete surprise We've been talking to the minister. We've been offering to help to ensure that the standards are up to whatever level the minister wants. We're prepared to do anything”.

In fact, the Water Quality Association had promised to do a serious scientific assessment of the risks associated with drinking water consumption with respect to drinking water material. That study is in its final stages and is about to be released, probably as early as next week.

Why is it that the minister was not prepared to consult fully, to wait for that kind of helpful advice and then make a decision pertaining to legislation that might be in order? Why are we now left with the situation with every group coming to us saying “Bill C-14 is very controversial. Bill C-14 should not be before this Chamber. Bill C-14 is not necessary”.

We do not have any evidence to the contrary. We do not have a shred of evidence from the minister or from any other group to say exactly what this bill is supposed to do, what standards are not now being met and what the problems are. Yet we know that this bill, if applied according to the way it is laid out, will place very hefty fines on those who deviate from these standards or guidelines, very significant costs to the consumers of this country, and yet we do not know the reason.

All of us, at least on this side of the House, are prepared to say that we need strong regulations. Sometimes they cost money, but we have to pay if they are important in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians. However, we are faced with this legislation today and we do not know where all of this money is going to go. What will it accomplish? How will it protect us? What does it mean?

The chair of the Standing Committee on Health said to wait until the standing committee gets the bill, but we are here debating on principle. We are here to try to make a judgment call about whether to support this bill in principle or not. We cannot because all of the evidence suggests that there is not a basis for this legislation and that in fact these high standards that the minister talks about could be achieved in other ways.

As an example, I refer to the fact that the Water Quality Association has pointed out that it is prepared, with the minister, to look at the NSF International standards and to apply those standards here in Canada. As I understand it, one of the intentions of this bill is actually to use those international standards, probably provided by NSF International, which is a private, not for profit U.S. standards agency, which has representation from industry, Health Canada and provincial representation here in Canada as well as representation from the United States.

We have a bill which will supposedly look at those standards and apply them here in Canada. We have a council for water quality. We have a coalition of people concerned about safe drinking water. We have a whole lot of other consumer groups which are prepared to say they will look at those standards, consider those standards and work with us if that is what we think is the best model.

It begs the question why this legislation? What is it for? What is the rush?

On the basis of what we have read to date and on the basis of the input that various community organizations are providing it is not supportable at this time.

What are the priorities of this government? Why are we dealing with this legislation at this point when the government is busy dismantling all those agencies which ensure the health and safety of Canadians is protected?

On the topic of water, it begs the question of what this government is actually doing to ensure safe drinking water in all our communities. Just this morning at the Standing Committee on Health we dealt with issues pertaining to health care for our first nations and Inuit peoples. It was acknowledged that there are many problems which cause ill health, one of them being poor quality of water. Where is that on the priority list? Why are we not dealing with that in this House? Why are we dealing with legislation when we do not know what the risks are? Why do we need to change the standards? What is wrong with working with the groups concerned about safe drinking water?

On the basis of the kind of inadequate consultation process that we believe to be the case, on the basis of the evidence that suggests there may be no risks at present, on the basis of the fact that this government has been so hasty once more in pushing through this legislation without proper dialogue and consultation, we will at this point in time oppose this legislation. We urge the government to go back to the drawing board and come back with a meaningful plan based on proper consultation.

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the drug bureau is gone. This is a very important part of health protection in the country under which the regulation of water standards fall.

We also know how close we came to losing the food research bureau. Under the government's agenda cuts were made and because of pressure from activists in the community, pressures from the House and disclosure in the media the government was forced to back off that issue for now. However, we know the agenda is still alive and well.

What about the water and air research lab of the Health Protection Branch. Where is it and when will it fall? Where is it on the agenda?

How can we talk about standards and about protecting the health and well-being of Canadians and ensuring safe water supplies when the government is busy behind our backs eliminating every regulatory measure and every research capacity we have to ensure the health and safety of Canadians.

That raises a very serious point with respect to this bill as well. So much of what has happened has been done without the benefit of parliamentary debate. It has been done in the most secretive manner possible. It was attempted in the dead of summer, without the benefit of public knowledge and input.

Here we are today with a bill which according to the minister is the result of consultations held with various groups throughout the development of the legislation. He goes on to say “These stakeholders include representatives from industry, public health, consumer groups and standards organizations”.

Why are we now starting to get correspondence and calls from stakeholders in all of those areas questioning where the bill came from, why it is on our agenda and why they were not consulted?

The health critic for the Reform Party has touched on this issue. Let me elaborate. The Safe Drinking Water Coalition attempted to have dialogue with the minister and indicated to him by letter on July 31, 1997 that the coalition was prepared to work with the minister to ensure that standards pertaining to drinking water materials were adequate.

That coalition includes the Canadian Association of Pump Manufacturers, the Canadian Copper and Brass Development Association, the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, the Canadian Water Quality Association and the the Nickel Development Institute. That is a significant number of organizations in the country that tried to dialogue with the minister, were prepared to work with him on the so-called standards that the minister says are necessary. Now they are wondering where this legislation came from.

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the debate on behalf of the New Democratic Party on Bill C-14, known as the drinking water materials safety act.

On first blush and at face value, one would perhaps immediately jump to the opportunity of giving this bill our enthusiastic support. If one looks at and reads through the background material that the Minister of Health has provided on Bill C-14 we read the following:

Some drinking water materials may contaminate drinking water, for example by leaching lead or by failing to destroy or remove micro-organisms. This could put the health of Canadians at risk. Currently, only 30% of product models of components and devices sold in Canada are certified to accepted North American health based standards on a voluntary basis.

There is not a person in this House I am sure who is not interested in this government's assuring all Canadians that the water we drink is safe and free from any toxins, contaminants or poisonings. There is not a person in this House I am sure who would not be interested in this government's guaranteeing every Canadian that the water we drink, the food we eat, the air we breathe and the drugs we must take for medical reasons are safe at all times.

It would be so much easier to address this bill and give it wholehearted support and endorsement if we knew that was the kind of framework from which this government was operating and if we knew that there was a philosophical commitment to providing measures that would guarantee that the products we intake are safe at all times.

There is no question about the need in this country for a very tough regulatory, proactive position on the part of the government on such fundamental issues that pertain to the health and well-being of every Canadian.

In that context, we have a great deal of difficulty trying to place this bill in the broader context and trying to understand its motives, its purpose and what it is attempting to accomplish. On every other front we are seeing the opposite. We are faced with a government that is rapidly moving out of regulatory approaches. It is rapidly seeking ways to privatize areas once assumed to be areas for government intervention. We are seeing a government increasingly tied to the demands of transnational corporations on a global scale.

I only have to go back as far as question period today when we raised a very important issue pertaining to lead poisoning. Lead poisoning is found in a great number of children's toys and vinyl products on the market today.

I remind members in this House of the kind of actions we have seen, or lack thereof, from this government on such an important issue.

Let me put it in context. We had findings previously unveiled by Greenpeace about high lead content and high cadmium content in a number of children's toys and products.

The government, the Minister of Health and Health Canada all agreed that this was an issue worth exploring and proceeded to do their own studies of high lead content in products that end up causing serious neurological disorders when that poisoning enters the body.

The government released its findings a short while ago and verified that there is a very high lead content in a number of those products. In fact, it demonstrated that the lead content and the cadmium content in a good number of those products was even higher than the findings of Greenpeace.

That was acknowledged but the key point to it all and why this is so relevant to a debate on water and the safety of water materials present in our society today is that this government then said “Yes, the levels are high. Yes, they exceed Health Canada's standards but there is no risk to children in our society today”.

What was the reason? Something to do with the fact that unlike the miniblind issue, these products were not necessarily subject to high heat intensity or to sunlight and therefore were not going to release that lead poisoning. Never mind the fact that there was a level of poisoning that far exceeded Health Canada's standards to begin with.

My question today is where does this legislation come from? What is it intending to achieve? What regulatory framework does it fit into? How firm is this government in meeting its current obligations never mind pursuing any other standards or any other regulatory approaches?

Do we not have a critical situation now in Health Canada in all those areas I have mentioned: drugs, food, water and air? We have a government that is in the middle of very quietly moving toward a privatized deregulated approach seeking to reduce its liability. Those are the words right out of the departmental document outlining the full intentions of this government.

What is the result of that approach? We have lost a valuable research bureau on drugs. We no longer have an independent body in this country for assessing the impact of certain drugs allowed into this country and their interaction with other drugs, their interaction with foods, their interaction with environmental toxins.

Come on, a regulatory body of utmost importance has vanished. Costing what? $2 million to $3 million. That is what this government is saving by ridding this country of one of the most important regulatory bodies that we have in the whole drug field.