Luc Malo

[Multiple Sclerosis, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I will say it again, and Health Canada was very clear in its response: it is not up to this Parliament to determine whether or not treatment can be made available. It is up to the scientific community and particularly the provinces and territories, because they are responsible for providing the public with quality health care.

[Multiple Sclerosis, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for his question. It is true that when we hear the testimony, we realize how urgent this situation is. We met with witnesses and people suffering from MS who believed their condition could deteriorate rapidly. Action is urgently needed, and research is therefore urgently needed.

But it is clear to the Bloc Québécois that research funding should be allocated primarily to universities under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. That is how we would like research to be focused.

My colleague will recall that when the CIHR was created, we had some concerns about respect for jurisdictions. I hope that these jurisdictions will be respected when research funding is allocated. My colleague was quite right when he said this research will have to be done quickly.

I was also glad to hear the minister say that research funding will be released very soon.

[Multiple Sclerosis, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, we are holding a take note debate on multiple sclerosis and the results of a clinical study by Dr. Paolo Zamboni, which has turned the MS world on its head. This is especially true in Quebec and Canada, which have one of the highest rates of the illness with approximately 1,000 new cases diagnosed every year.

First, it is my understanding that since 1868, when multiple sclerosis was first diagnosed by Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot, researchers and doctors have considered MS to be a neurological disorder where the immune system targeted myelin, the protective sheathing on the cells of the central nervous system. This is being called into question by an Italian researcher who now considers MS to be a vascular disease that can be treated with angioplasty surgery. This procedure may lead to a reduction of symptoms in those with the disease.

Dr. Zamboni, of the University of Ferrara in Italy, says that the illness is a disturbance of blood circulation characterized by the inability of the venous system to properly drain blood from the central nervous system. It is known as chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, or CCSVI.

In April 2009, he published his first article on the prevalence of venous stenosis in patients with multiple sclerosis. He carried out angioplasties on 65 patients with various forms of multiple sclerosis whose veins were deformed or blocked. The procedure consists of removing blockages from the jugular veins, which are located on either side of the neck.

The news spread so quickly that in May 2009, Dr. Robert Zivadinov of the Jacobs Neurological Institute in Buffalo, New York, began a study of 500 individuals to verify the Italian group's results. His study showed that 56% of individuals with multiple sclerosis had venous stenosis, and 22% of those in the control group without MS had venous stenosis.

In order to understand the hope that such a discovery—even the rumour of it—can arouse, one must understand the reality of life with multiple sclerosis. The clock is ticking for these people. Their health could deteriorate anytime.

In response to pressure from patients, many doctors, neurologists and Dr. Zamboni himself recommended caution because the research involved only clinical trials. The MS Society also expressed doubts about the procedure and called for further research.

The main criticisms are that the technique is new, that the criteria require further confirmation, that the importance of the human element in carrying out the technique must be established and that it is important for these observations to be confirmed by other groups with larger numbers of patients with the disease.

This discovery was the focus of several sessions of the Health Subcommittee on Neurological Disease.

Every year, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada holds meetings on the Hill to let parliamentarians know what the organization wants from the government. They were the committee's first witnesses.

The session dealt with issues that went beyond CCSVI. Then further sessions focused only on that aspect. For the past several weeks, several experts have testified, but people with MS have also delivered very emotional and hopeful testimony.

One critical player was conspicuous by its absence: Health Canada. Not a single Health Canada representative appeared before the committee, despite the fact that many of the witnesses were turning to the department. Members will surely agree that the situation is disturbing. I spoke to members of the subcommittee about this on May 11. I said:

Patients, a doctor and specialists have told us that we should focus on treating CCSVI. Others have said that the current state of science is not advanced enough to do that. Both sides are turning to Health Canada.

However, no Health Canada representatives could join us today to explain why the treatment is not currently offered.

Showing a complete lack of sensitivity, the department finally sent an email last Thursday to the clerk of the committee. I want to read it so that everyone can get a good idea of the challenges with this issue:

Decisions regarding new treatment procedures are medical questions that fall under the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments and administrations, health care professionals and health care institutions.

The federal government supports health research, which includes clinical research aimed at discovering and assessing new diagnostic treatment procedures. It does not make decisions or offer opinions on the relevance of new treatments that could be integrated into the provincial and territorial health care systems, and does not suggest any conditions that should be set. Questions regarding accessibility, delivery and funding of clinical services should be addressed to the appropriate health care authorities and professionals at the provincial and territorial levels.

It is of course rather disappointing for many people who are listening to the debate tonight to hear that response from Health Canada. However, that is exactly what it should be saying, given the existing constitutional framework. It is not up to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health or to the Government of Canada to determine whether this treatment should be made available to patients.

So why are people who want to receive a diagnosis and treatment putting so much hope in an answer—hopefully positive—from this Parliament?

Is it because this Parliament—with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, which has always clearly stated that Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over health—has been inconsistent in its decision-making and is encroaching on this area of jurisdiction, sometimes using its so-called “spending power” and sometimes saying that if the provinces do not like it, they can take the matter to court?

Is it because Health Canada also uses this modus operandi, which, I would remind the House, is inconsistent, while taking its time in stating its intentions regarding this issue?

Is it also because the Subcommittee on Neurological Disease of the Standing Committee on Health scheduled a series of meetings without clearly defining its mandate and without assessing the repercussions of its work? We are not working in isolation. As parliamentarians, we must avoid disappointing people unnecessarily.

And so I am calling on the chair of the Standing Committee on Health to ensure that our work is more clearly defined in the future. I just hope that these brave and determined men and women—at a point where many have undergone or will undergo this surgical procedure overseas—who have come to speak with us will not feel that it was a waste of their time. I figure, and this is but a small consolation if there can be any at all, that these testimonies, including the one Dr. Zamboni will give tomorrow morning, are public and that the health professionals who will be making this decision can refer to them.

Perhaps there is still a solution at the federal level: research. For the Bloc Québécois, research is one of the most promising routes and it must be funded. Because of that, we are asking the federal government to substantially increase the budgets allocated to various research chairs in Quebec universities. That would allow for clinical teams to be established quickly and they could submit their application for the necessary funding.

What is more, in its response, Health Canada recognized the importance of health research, including clinical research, in establishing innovative procedures.

To conclude, in light of the context in which we are evolving, we invite those who have taken a stand during the debate to present their arguments to stakeholders in Quebec and the provinces. It is the provinces and only the provinces that can authorize this treatment. It is not up to us, and it would be disrespectful of people and of institutions to pretend otherwise.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, not all that long ago, we in the Bloc Québécois were showing Quebeckers that the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Conservative Party had of course two views, but one and the same vision. The President of the Treasury Board has demonstrated this once again this afternoon by saying that in 2005, the Liberals had included all kinds of measures that had nothing to do with the budget in their budget implementation bill and that he has no problem doing the same thing today, because the Liberals did it in the past.

Even though it was wrong in the past, does that mean it can be justified here today? That seems to be what the President of the Treasury Board is saying. What he is also saying is that we have had 70 days to debate it and that he thinks that is long enough. As a minister of the Crown, he believes that parliamentarians in the House of Commons have debated it long enough. Based on his elevated status as a minister, he can declare that Parliament has discussed a bill long enough, and an omnibus bill at that.

I have a question for the minister. Instead of trying to blame everyone else, and since he knows very well why the bill does not have the support of Parliament—because all kinds of other measures have been thrown into this budget bill—did he listen to any of the arguments made during all these debates and did he find, or try to find, other solutions to break the impasse, instead of trying to shut down Parliament?

[Denis Gougeon, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in celebration of the world expo, the Presences Festival International Composition Competition held the final concert in its three-year international competition in Shanghai, China. Granby native Denis Gougeon won first prize with his piece entitled Toy (Music Box). Mr. Gougeon is a composer and an associate professor of instrumental composition at University of Montreal.

The competition required that the composer interpret a folk melody with traditional Chinese instruments. Candidates were judged on their ability to blend these elements into a new piece of music. A Chinese melody, Wuxi jing, performed on bamboo flutes, was woven into Mr. Gougeon's composition.

I am pleased to congratulate Mr. Gougeon for his composition, which won the international prize on May 4. The Bloc is proud to highlight amazing artistic performances by Quebeckers on the international scene.

[Pharmaceutical Industry, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister a second chance. I would ask her to listen carefully to my question. The Government of Quebec is trying to attract biotech investment and make the sector a stronger component of our industrial development, but the Canadian government is discouraging that kind of investment.

When will federal ministers implement a plan to support Quebec's biotech industry?

[Pharmaceutical Industry, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week, drug manufacturer sanofi-aventis announced that it was laying off 70 workers. The company lamented the fact that the federal government provides inadequate support for innovative companies' research activities. It also noted that, unlike generic drug companies, innovative companies have no meaningful right of appeal when their intellectual property is challenged.

When will the minister provide the kind of balanced intellectual property protection that is critical to Quebec's economic development?

[National Patriotes Museum, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Maison nationale des Patriotes in Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu is currently displaying one of its greatest private collections, which pertains to an important time in our history: the 1837-38 rebellion.

This new exhibition, which was made possible by an agreement between the museum and area collector Denis St-Martin, includes a number of authentic objects and papers from the time, some of which have never been seen before. They will be exhibited in stages for visitors over the next three years.

Thanks to this invaluable addition and the recent updating of its permanent exhibition, the Maison nationale des Patriotes, which is run by dedicated employees and volunteers, is doing its part to preserve our heritage and help people better understand this pivotal point in our history, because it is important that every generation know about the events that shaped the world in which we live.

[Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, May of every year is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. This neurodegenerative disease affects three times as many women as men. These women are often mothers and that is why every year the carnation campaign takes place over Mother's Day weekend.

This campaign, whose goal is to collect funds to find a cure for multiple sclerosis, begins tomorrow. That is why we are wearing carnations on our lapels. These flowers represent the hope that one day a treatment will be found.

Although research has improved the lives of people affected by this disease, the fight is not yet over and it is important that Quebeckers give generously. It is still the most commonly diagnosed disease for people aged 15 to 40, and our society has one of the highest number of cases in the world.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues join with me to acknowledge the courage of those with the disease and to express the hope we have that, one day, the research will bring them the results they are hoping for.

[Firearms Registry, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, because of the support of 8 Liberal and 12 NDP members, the Conservative Bill C-391, which provides for the dismantling of the firearms registry, has not yet been defeated. Quebec Liberals are now trying to save face by attacking the Bloc Québécois, whose membership voted in favour of keeping the registry intact.

Rather than falling prey to partisanship, if they wished to act responsibly, the Quebec Liberal members should attempt to convince the dissenting Liberal members so that these eight members will support maintaining the gun registry at the next vote.

Until then, the different points of view should be heard in committee. When it comes time to vote, we shall see who the true supporters of the registry are. We hope that all Liberal and NDP members will join the Bloc Québécois in defeating the Conservative Bill C-391.