Libby Davies

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I note that the member used her time to go after the NDP for, apparently, speaking too long on Bill C-38. I am surprised by that because such a massive bill, which we have correctly named a Trojan horse because it has so many non-financial aspects in it, is something that absolutely has to be investigated and debated in the House of Commons. I was surprised to hear her say that 12 hours or 19 hours of debate is too long.

Having said that, I am curious about her position on this bill, and I wonder if she agrees with one of its main criticisms, which is that it cozies up to some of the big rights holders, like the big movie studios and largely U.S. cultural interests. The idea is that there is balance in the bill, but when we give it a close examination, we see that a lot of artists and small players are left behind.

I wonder how she would respond to the criticism that this is, basically, a sop to the big players who have been lobbying for these changes and that her government has now very nicely responded to them.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's detailed knowledge of the issues involved in the bill. It is a very technical bill, and many of us do not have that level of expertise, but clearly my colleague has a lot of experience in terms of both the European situation and the situation as it relates to Canada.

One of the big issues in the bill is how the digital lock will affect students who are in distance learning or educational facilities. I just wonder what kind of response he has had in his own community to that particular provision. We have heard about all the consultation that took place, but how would it actually impact people and what kind of response did the member get in his own riding?

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague. He would have us believe that this is a very balanced bill and that based on the consultation, the government has weighed in to protect both consumers and artists. However, when one examines the bill, this is not the case.

We could argue quite well that the real winners in Bill C-11 are the recording industry and major movie studios. In fact, this is one explanation why the technological protection measures, or TPMs, provided in the bill virtually trump all other rights to allow record companies and movie studios to strengthen their ability to generate enormous profits.

Would the member respond to that criticism? It is not just us saying this. People who have been very involved in the bill's process are very concerned that it favours these very large players.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the sweeping changes in the Conservatives' budget would negatively impact the lives of Canadians. One of the many disturbing changes would allow the Minister of Health to ignore current regulations and authorize the sale of products that contain harmful substances.

After gutting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and reducing the number of food inspectors, why is the government blatantly refusing to follow regulations that are essential to keeping Canadians and our food safe?

[Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-300. It came from committee and is now at third reading in the House. I would again like to congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward.

The NDP members on the health committee have been very supportive of the bill, as we have in the House at second reading. We will support the bill when it comes to a final vote. However, I want to reflect on the nature of the bill and what more we could possibly have done.

There is another bill in the House, Bill C-297, put forward by the member for Halifax. Although both bills deal with suicide prevention, they bring forward different strategies. Bill C-300, is much more of a limiting bill. It plays down the role of the federal government in establishing suicide prevention strategy and, unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill that pertains to first nations consultation.

I recognize it is difficult to put every single group in a bill and say we should do this and that. However, the statistics show this is a very important health issue and systemic issue around inequality, cultural history and colonialism that does affect first nations in Canada, aboriginal people.

The bill of the member for Halifax speaks to the need to directly engage the federal government with provincial ministers and first nations, and support smaller communities and provinces that might not otherwise have the infrastructure to enact the strategies. She lays out a clear federal role. Bill C-297 outlines the need for first nations, Inuit and Métis groups to be involved in the construction of the strategy. This is very important.

The bill we are debating today calls for defining best practices and promotes collaboration. These are very important and we certainly concur, but it is very disappointing that it does not go beyond that.

Bill C-297 is very comprehensive. It calls for the federal government to carry out 10 different projects, including a study of effective funding, surveillance to identify at-risk groups, establishing national standards and gaining cultural-based knowledge in preventing suicide.

At committee, my colleagues, particularly the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, and I put forward a number of amendments. These were based on the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention blueprint for a Canadian national suicide prevention strategy that came out in September 2009. This organization represents the service providers and the activists on the front line helping people who are in distress, who are at risk, in dealing with suicide and suicide prevention.

We put forward about 15 amendments. They really would have strengthened the bill. For example, one of them called for a distinct national coordinating body for suicide prevention to operate within the appropriate entities in the Government of Canada. Another amendment called for assessing and adopting where appropriate the recommendations and objectives outlined in the blueprint for a national suicide prevention strategy of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention.

I want to put on the record here in the House that we tried very hard at committee to bring some amendments to the bill to strengthen it so it could go beyond an issue of best practices, collaboration and information sharing and take on some more specific objectives that are desperately needed.

We did hear a number of times that we should not worry about this because the Mental Health Commission of Canada would be addressing this in its report. Of course, since dealing with the bill at committee, that report came out last week, entitled “Changing Directions, Changing Lives”.

On page 13 of the report it reads:

...establishing whole-of-government and pan-Canadian mechanisms to oversee mental health-related policies; strengthening data, research, knowledge exchange, standards and human resources related to mental health, mental illness and suicide prevention.

That is not the only reference but , that one speaks strongly to the need for all levels of government l to be involved.

While we are happy that the Mental Health Commission of Canada has included this issue in its new strategy that came out last week, it seems to me that we have missed an opportunity with this bill to look at some concrete specifics around setting up a national coordinating body, looking at better training or, more specifically, working with first nations.

We received a communication from the Assembly of First Nations after we dealt with the bill at committee. It sent some very good information that is very important for us to understand. It is really shocking. It is information that we know but when we speak about this issue it brings to mind how serious it is in the aboriginal community. The AFN points out that suicide now represents the greatest single cause of injury deaths in its population, according to a study done in 2003. It also points out that a closer examination of intentional self-harm or suicide across age groupings shows that the deaths due to suicide, as a proportion of all deaths, was the largest among first nations youth. It also points out that youth suicide is not a tragedy that is visited in equal measure in all native communities. In certain communities, the suicide rate is as much as 800 times their provincial average. These statistics cannot even begin to tell us the stories, the tragedy and the reality of what is happening in many smaller, remote communities and in urban centres.

I was disappointed and concerned that the bill did not reference the particular issues that are taking place in aboriginal communities. Amendments were put forward to include some of this important information and the need to be more specific in the bill but, surprisingly, they were turned down.

It worries me that this is becoming a pattern now. Some of the bills are fine in as far as they go but they are very informational. They are designed to create awareness. We had one just the other day on breast density, a similar kind of bill. I do not want to knock the bills in and of themselves but it is really worrying that when there is a genuine effort to put forward amendments to improve and strengthen these bills, they seem to be automatically shot down. I have to wonder why.

Parliament should be constructive, particularly on private member's business. We should try to be constructive and work together on this bill on suicide prevention because we all agree that work needs to be done on this. There is no question that we all agree. Therefore, it is very concerning that the good faith attempts to strengthen and improve the bill were shut down one hundred per cent. I read out some of the information that came before us and it was basically ignored.

We will support the bill but we will also work very hard to support my colleague's bill, Bill C-297, the member for Halifax, because it is a much broader, comprehensive and very specific strategy that would clearly involve the federal government. That is what we need to do, particularly in light of the new report that just came out from the Mental Health Commission of Canada.

[Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for getting his bill to third reading.

I do not know if he is aware, but we did not have any witnesses from first nations at the health committee where we studied the bill. I know that his bill does not specifically include consultation with first nations, where this is a very major issue.

Could he tell us whether, in working on this bill, in talking to people in the community, he had specific consultation with the first nations community about his bill and about how it possibly needed to be amended?

[Health, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP have called for a mental health strategy for years, but we also know that the government loves to download to the provinces and keep the money. This is just another example of that. The government is starving provinces and territories with its new health care formula that will take away $31 billion, yet it is asking them to bear the brunt of this new strategy.

Why is the minister putting responsibility on the backs of financially strained provinces? Does she truly want this new strategy to work?

[Health, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was full of self-congratulation yesterday about the mental health strategy put forward by the Mental Health Commission, then later in the day admitted there was no new money for this strategy. She is dumping responsibility onto already strained provincial health budgets.

Mental health issues take a great toll on our families and on provincial budgets. Now that we finally have a strategy, we should get down to work. Will the minister show some leadership to make sure that the mental health strategy is implemented?

[Breast Density Awareness Act, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak at report stage, the first hour of debate, to Bill C-314. I would like to congratulate the member for Barrie for bringing forward this bill. I agree that when we bring forward private members' business, whether it is a bill or a motion, it is an opportunity for each of us to show initiative, to bring forward an issue for greater awareness and, hopefully, get support in the House to make an advancement. There are women who live with dense breast tissue and may not be aware of their higher risk. There is still unfortunately too little known about the issue. So we very much appreciate this bill coming forward.

When we were at committee, we heard a number of fantastic witnesses. I agree with my colleague that the witnesses who shared their personal experience with us were very compelling. This tells us where things are and what it is that we need to do. I was struck by the witness who talked about innovation and new technologies. There is technology available that will assist women with dense breast tissue 100%. I am very concerned that even if women are aware of that, they may not be able to access the technology because of where they live. It may be very far to travel or they may not be able to afford the fees. It is a private service. It seems to run contrary to the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act: universality, accessibility, public administration, comprehensiveness and so on.

I want to put on record here at report stage that the NDP supports the bill. However, after we heard from the witnesses, our concern in committee was that the bill was quite limited in its scope. It talks about information and information sharing, best practices and creating better awareness. All of those things are an absolute must, but they are sort of the bottom floor. For us in the NDP, when we heard the witnesses, we felt that we needed to go some extra distance with the bill.

We introduced a number of amendments. The most significant amendment said, “working in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments to establish national standards for systematic breast cancer screening”. Unfortunately, that amendment and all the other amendments were defeated. It was disheartening that all of the amendments put forward in good faith from the opposition parties at the committee were turned down. I do not think they were beyond the scope of the bill. While I concur that information and awareness are very important, we could be doing so much more.

We are now more aware of which women are at risk. I believe this bill will help get a message out, and that is very important. However, we in the NDP believe that there should be a nationwide systematic breast cancer screening program for all women. It should be free of charge and it should be by self-referral. It is quite alarming that, for example, there is no screening program in Nunavut. This seems to be a glaring omission and speaks strongly to the need for a nationwide systematic screening program with standards for screening.

We heard from practitioners at the committee that if a woman has gone beyond a mammogram and is going for an ultrasound, even that can be very problematic. It depends on how experienced the practitioner is doing the ultrasound. It is not about human error, but it is a very delicate procedure in terms of what one is looking for. It did surprise me to hear that even if a woman has an ultrasound, it may not identify the fact she is at risk or may have cancer present.

Similarly, we all think that MRIs are a real window into what is going on. However, we heard that for women with dense breast tissue, even an MRI may not pick up their particular situation. We heard from a witness about the newest technology that involves 360° imaging.

This speaks to a lack of available screening and a lack of national standards to ensure that wherever one is in the country, one can be assured of getting the highest quality screening and care. Under the Canada Health Act, that is very much a part of our health care system.

I do not want to be negative, but the bill is mostly about information and awareness. While it is important, I feel that we missed an opportunity to do a lot more with this bill. Although opportunities were put forward at the committee, unfortunately the government members decided not to vote for those amendments. Now here we are at report stage with a bill that is quite limited in its scope.

We will support the bill because it is a step to providing much better awareness about dense breast tissue. I was not aware of it before I heard about the bill. It is an eye opener for all of us. For that it is commendable.

However, I wish that we had been able to strengthen the bill in the way that we wanted, and that we could have responded to witnesses' suggestions to the committee. Maybe at some point there will be another bill and we will get another opportunity.

When we hear from people at committee we should do our utmost to respond to what they say. We should listen in good faith to their suggestions. Where it is possible for us to incorporate those recommendations in a way that is realistic within a private member's bill, then why on earth would we not do that?

That is my only regret. I certainly appreciate the member putting this bill forward and getting it this far. I am sure that the bill will be approved. Let us all make a commitment in this House today, not only to support this bill but also to advocate for a nationwide breast cancer screening program to ensure that women in Nunavut have access to even the most basic screening.

We need to address the issue of standards for screening to ensure that where there are these unique challenges of detecting cancer in women, particularly women with dense breast tissue, that they are getting the very best they can get so that their risk is lowered and not increased.

[Breast Density Awareness Act, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Barrie for bringing this bill back to the House. As he knows, New Democrats supported it in committee.

I am glad he read some of the testimony from the witnesses, because it was very compelling. I recall that one of the really important pieces of testimony committee members heard was about new technology that is available. We heard that even the existing technology, whether it is mammograms or MRIs, unfortunately, does not capture all situations that women with dense breast tissue are facing. I forget the name of the new technology the committee heard about, but there are only one or two locations in Canada.

I wonder if the member would agree with me that it is very important that we find a way to ensure that technology is made available and accessible and is not just a private for-pay service, because it really does affect women who have dense breast tissue. We heard that very directly from the one organization that has made it its mandate to warn women about this issue and encourage them to take the test, but they have to pay for it. I wonder if the member would comment on that.