Megan Leslie

[Health, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, according to a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, drugs account for the second-largest share of health care expenditures. That is why the provinces recently reached an agreement to join forces in order to achieve economies of scale.

The provinces, territories and first nations are all calling for a pan-Canadian strategy for prescription drugs. What is the government waiting for to introduce such a strategy?

[Alzheimer's Disease, October 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 574, a motion respecting Alzheimer's, from the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

This debate offers us the chance to look at the specific challenges facing individuals with Alzheimer's as well as the family and friends who love and care for them. It also gives us the opportunity to open up the debate and discuss larger challenges that exist within Canada with respect to long-term community care and home care, disease prevention, healthy living, health education, and poverty, just to name a few. They are all connected.

The challenges that Alzheimer's brings to so many lives are really a microcosm of the challenges throughout our entire system, like the rising cost of medication, the need for national standards for access to care, the need for processes that allow for the sharing of best practices, and the need to help families with the emotional and financial weight of caregiving.

I have experienced this weight myself. My mother was a psychiatric nurse at a nursing home and also a single mother. I spent a good deal of my childhood in a nursing home. I have seen families deal with Alzheimer's and dementia first-hand. I have seen the different ways it affects families as well as the people with Alzheimer's and dementia. And I have seen the range of responses to what was happening to them and their loved ones.

Moreover, my grandmother had Alzheimer's. In the early stages of her disease, I was the primary caregiver living with her. It is only recently that I have come to an understanding of the stress that I was under, and that my mother and uncle were under. This stress we did not fully understand at the time.

This greater understanding that we now have of our own health very much includes brain diseases like Alzheimer's. These diseases were traditionally stigmatized and hidden from view. With this motion, we have the chance to rid ourselves of our fear of discussing aging and the way that it affects our minds and bodies. The motion also gives us the opportunity to confront the difficulties that come with caring for people who are losing control over their minds, their memories, their freedom, and their relationships.

I think this motion calls for some important things. It calls for the recognition of the patient's right to dignity, the emotional and psychological toll that Alzheimer's takes on family members, and the increasing cost pressure on the health systems providing treatment and care. It also draws attention to the roles of societal organizations that are tackling Alzheimer's head-on. Alzheimer's is a serious and devastating disease that puts an incredible strain on families, relationships, and a patient's sense of self.

The statistics are staggering and there is a gender lens we need to consider. One in six women and one in ten men who reach the age of 55 can expect to develop Alzheimer's in their lifetime. This was a staggering number for me when I read that statistic.

These numbers mean that we need swift and comprehensive action to address Alzheimer's in Canada, especially with our aging population, which some call the “grey tsunami”. We need to have a pan-Canadian framework that brings together all levels of government: federal, provincial, territorial, and first nations. Bring all levels together with a common goal of improving the responsiveness of our system with respect to diagnosis, provision of services, long-term care strategies, and the sharing of best practices.

Federal leadership is needed. The government is obligated under the Canada Health Act to ensure the universality of care, national standards, and best practices across the country for all areas of health care. We need to address not only Alzheimer's, but all the brain diseases that affect so many people in every corner of Canada.

While I support this motion's focus on Alzheimer's, we need to expand the scope to include other brain-related diseases. Alzheimer's is just one of a number of brain diseases. There are others, like ALS and Parkinson's. All of these diseases have similar effects on the lives of patients and their families: increased emotional and psychological burdens, increased financial burdens, the loss of mobility, and the loss of freedom.

Because of these similarities, I think that brain diseases can be addressed as a group, with allowances made for the differences among them. I am sure that differences exist, but we have a common goal to better the lives of Canadians.

While this is a private member's motion brought forward by the member for Edmonton—Leduc to address a problem that he recognizes in his community, that we recognize in our communities, I think that this motion showcases the Conservatives' piecemeal approach to health. We need action. We need a national strategy to deal with the issue of Alzheimer's and other brain diseases.

Alzheimer's cannot be discussed in a vacuum. Adequately addressing the inherent issues necessitates a larger discussion of our system as a tool for caring for our friends, families, and neighbours. As long as economic and social injustices are permitted to exist in Canada, the health of Canadians will continue to suffer and families will continue to tread on difficult financial and emotional ground.

Providing dignity for patients, as this motion calls for, will not happen as long as the government continues to work against true universality of care across the country. Dignity will not come if they abdicate their role under the Canada Health Act.

We will see true dignity established only when we have pan-Canadian standards for care, including long-term care, home care, community care, and palliative care. A suite a care options that individuals and families can take advantage of will recognize issues of dignity, differences in circumstance, and various familial capabilities.

By creating stability and fluidity of care and service, a comprehensive strategy would address the emotional and psychological toll that brain diseases take on family members .

A care strategy would also reduce cost pressure on the system. More long-term care beds would mean fewer people taking up acute care beds: many of them could be in long-term care at a quarter of the cost. A national strategy for addressing brain diseases would lead to cost savings and would better the lives of Canadians.

Alzheimer's affects families generally, but it is important to mention that Alzheimer's exacts a particularly large toll on women. Women are statistically more likely to develop Alzheimer's, and women are more often tasked with taking care of relatives who need living assistance because of Alzheimer's and other health conditions. If we took gender equality seriously in this House, we would already have a strong caregiving strategy and a strong Alzheimer's strategy.

This motion is well-intentioned and I support it. It is respectful of the issues facing families affected by Alzheimer's. Nevertheless, I would like to see action by the government to address the daily needs of those living with Alzheimer's and those caring for loved ones with Alzheimer's and other brain diseases.

We need to bring together the different levels of government. While I continue to hope for real government action on brain diseases, I will be happy to vote in favour of this motion on Alzheimer's, and I look forward to its being brought forward in the House for a vote.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, October 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation at second reading.

My colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes mentioned that this was the third time he was able to speak to this bill in the House. I have to say I am just so happy to be able to speak to a bill that is not about locking people up and putting them in jail for crimes that have been unreported.

We have been waiting a long time for this bill, as we have heard. As we have also heard, previous versions of this bill have been killed twice by prorogation. Frankly there has been an inordinate delay getting it through first and second reading here in the House since we returned from prorogation in March.

Considering it is the government's own legislation, one has to ask why we have waited so long. Again this week, yet again, we saw another recall of children's products, this time a recall of 11 million toys by Mattel. This follows recalls on children's drugs, cribs and drinking glasses, and the list goes on and on.

Each time this happens, consumer advocates call for reliable product safety information and a law that gets these unsafe products off the shelves. Ideally, dangerous products would not actually get on the shelves in the first place.

My colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes mentioned that the minister has been silent on this issue, not even speaking about this issue in the House until October, but actually I would like to correct that record because we have been asking questions in question period, waiting, asking when this will happen, asking when we will get to actually move this forward to committee. She has answered those questions, although I do not think she said the words “Bill C-36”.

We are happy we are here. Finally we are here. I do think it also needs mentioning that the Liberals have been asleep at the switch for 12 years on this issue. By 2005-06, at the end of the Liberals' decade of missed opportunity to improve product safety in Canada, more than 40% of recalls were ordered as a direct result not of us but of U.S.-initiated action. The Liberals were happy to promote and applaud corporate trade but not to police it.

The legislation this bill replaces is part I of the Hazardous Products Act that was enacted in 1969. I will say that again, 1969. To say that this bill is a long time in coming is an understatement. In 41 years technologies have of course changed. The nature of business has changed. The ethics of production have advanced. We need legislation that reflects the realties of a globalized world, which aims to be health conscious and also to establish a more equitable society.

It goes without saying that dangerous products touch the lives of people who are socio-economically disadvantaged more than the rest of society. Cheap products rely on cheaper manufacturing processes, and they are wreaking havoc in the lives of people who cannot afford to make better choices, who are poorly positioned to deal with the health consequences and potentially the lost wages that are due to time off work to care for loved ones who are hurt.

Product safety should not be the right of the rich. It goes very much to equality principles and it is a central piece of moving towards economic justice.

Unsurprisingly, plans to revamp product safety legislation have developed some resistance from industry and from importers due to high costs and the perceived intrusion into their design and manufacturing processes. However, the onus should be on them. Consumer product safety is the cost of doing business in Canada.

The safety of Canadians and particularly the safety of children cannot be balanced against corporate costs. Manufacturers and importers must prove that their products are safe. It is unacceptable to allow products to be negligently introduced onto the market in the absence of much-needed and precise enforcement tools.

We cannot allow tort law to be the enforcement tool, because court remedies may come too late, as consumers or their family members will have already been injured. There may not be an adequate compensation system through tort law that is available for the injuries suffered, and certainly not for the emotional trauma that arises in the worst case scenarios.

We need to catch things before they happen. In reality, strong product safety laws are good for companies because they dissuade them from going down a path that may have widespread consequences to them later.

Product safety laws protect both the health of the nation and the economy. Therefore, I am happy to note that Bill C-36 in its current form contains many of the amendments the NDP pushed for in its predecessor, Bill C-6. For example, the bill would exempt natural health products from its purview. The NDP was proud to support the natural health product industry by advocating for an exemption with Bill C-6. Natural health products contribute to the health and well-being of Canadians and play an important role in Canada's health care system.

I note that other NDP concerns have been addressed. For example, a clause that indicated inspectors were not liable for entering private property has been removed and the inspectors can no longer order a person to take measures for non-compliance. Only the minister can do that.

There are some improvements that can be made to this bill and the NDP looks forward to addressing these concerns at committee. The NDP consumer advocate, the member for Sudbury, has been working hard to identify potential improvements to product safety in Canada and I will outline some of these proposals for the House.

It is worth mentioning that protection is given to tobacco products under Bill C-36. These products have been given a permanent statutory exemption and only the propensity for ignition is included in the act's regulatory framework.

Many stakeholders, including the Canadian Cancer Society and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, have pointed out that this is a major failing in the legislation. In April 2009, when the bill was known as Bill C-6, the Canadian Cancer Society submitted a formal request that the permanent exclusion of tobacco products from the act be deleted in order to improve the overall health of Canadians.

There is also an issue of whether there will be adequate resources to enforce the legislation. We cannot allow the bill to exist without the adequate tools for enforcement. The bill implies a more proactive and aggressive approach to product safety, which is completely out of character with past government performance. Therefore, the NDP is considering an amendment to the bill to hold the government responsible for maintaining an adequate inspection capacity and staff to process, investigate and respond to complaints.

Tied to this is the need for stiffer punitive financial penalties. Industry monitoring shows that stiffer penalties improve product safety. Unfortunately, while the Hazardous Products Safety Act already contains fines of up to $1 million for violating its provisions, these fines are rarely imposed, something that we really need to work on at the enforcement end. It is essential that the government change this trend and adequately and consistently enforce the act.

The government also has to get serious about establishing clear and consistent rules for what constitutes a danger. This cannot be allowed to remain as a subjective judgment. We really need a test about what is a danger and how we will decide what is a danger. It is important not just for consumers, but for the industry as well. We need to ensure that industry understands what its obligations are.

Also in the world of enforcement, we need a better system for filing public complaints and the creation of a database that will track product safety issues. This is what the U.S. is moving toward and we need to follow suit. We have an opportunity now not just to make the Hazardous Products Safety Act better, but to be bold, visionary and move forward, not just catch up to our friends around world but maybe even surpass them when it comes to product safety. Right now a product can sometimes be on the market for more than 10 years before a recall happens.

As an example of that kind of delay, the most recent Fisher-Price recall involves products that were on the market for five years. The longer the delay, the less these products will be able to be recalled. In fact, only 10% to 15% of recalled products are ever recovered. That is a shockingly low statistic. This means we need to ensure that the public gets the information when a product poses a danger to people's health through regular announcements that a recall is in effect and to the widest possible audience.

Bill C-36 also focuses on the back end of production, mostly manufacturing, but the vast majority of product safety issues are at the front end with design. Product safety issues result because of design flaws. We need the tools that will catch these flaws before a product goes to a manufacturing plant. Design is so important. Better design leads to fewer accidents and fewer injuries. One way to improve the entire production process is to ensure that third party testing is mandatory, that it is consistent and that it is utilized throughout the entire production process.

We have also heard concerns that Bill C-36 lacks a formal independent review board. An appeal to the board of review under the hazardous products safety act is like an appeal to court. Bill C-36 does not have a review board and these kinds of procedural safeguards.

Currently the wording of the act suggests that reviews of decisions would be made by other Health Canada officers who were not part of the original investigation. Frankly, that is not quite far enough removed. There needs to be some indication of independence. The reviews really need to be done by third parties when a property owner asks for a review of an inspector's order. However, that review is not conducted by a board of review with court powers to ensure a fair hearing. It is only fair to think about it that way and to have those sorts of arm's-length procedures put in place.

In summary, we are pleased that the government has finally introduced this bill. I am getting some smiles from my colleagues on this side of the House. We are pleased that it has been moved for debate, I will note finally. We are also very happy to support it so it gets to committee. The NDP is very much looking forward to discussion of the bill at committee.

[Petitions, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in which the petitioners note that the prorogation of Parliament is becoming an ever-increasing event used in the House. They also note that each occasion of prorogation creates a delay in parliamentary activity and that there is a potential for prorogation to be used to avoid the expression of parliamentary will.

The petitioners ask that Parliament enact legislation to prevent the use of prorogation unless deemed necessary by the majority of the members of Parliament. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's answer.

[Mental Illness Awareness Week, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Mental Illness Awareness Week happening right now across Canada.

Established almost 20 years ago, this week is an opportunity to draw attention to the struggles and achievements of those living with mental illness, a group that includes more than one out of every five Canadians. It is also an opportunity to join the growing call for the government to show real leadership in tackling an issue whose mismanagement has cost the Canadian economy more than $14 billion a year.

In 2003, health organizations across Canada signed onto a call for a national action plan on mental health. That was almost eight years ago and we still have woefully little to show for it.

So. during this Mental Illness Awareness Week, I would call on the government to demonstrate the commitment and dedication that Canadians with mental illness, their doctors and their families deserve, and craft a comprehensive and effective mental illness action plan.

[Product Safety, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today's recall of 11 million toys by Mattel is another reminder of the Conservatives' failure on product safety. Twice they killed their own legislation and now it is nowhere on the legislative radar.

Parents have to rely on companies' cost-benefit analyses to see dangerous products taken off the shelves. It is totally unacceptable.

Would the health minister tell us when her government will move forward product safety legislation?

[Petitions, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions regarding Bill C-304, an act for affordable housing in Canada.

The petitioners, some from Nova Scotia and some from Newfoundland and Labrador, are calling for an increased federal role in housing through investments in not for profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for people with different needs and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards.

The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.

[Petitions, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in which the petitioners state that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation is making a difference in the lives of residential school survivors and that the healing from the impacts of residential schools is far from complete after 10 years.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to leave a true legacy of action to residential school survivors and support the process of healing through an extension of funding for the Aboriginal Healing Founding.

[September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, contrary what the parliamentary secretary would have us believe, there is a federal role in health. Let us look at the tools the federal government has at its disposal to help eliminate poverty. We have the Canada social transfer. We have old age security, income security programs, employment insurance, and the working income tax benefit. There is a federal role.

Further, let us take a look at the recent decision of the federal government to scrap the long form census. Health organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and health units across the country all rely on the long form census to do their jobs addressing health and the social determinants of health in our country.

Maintaining the long form census is integral to any poverty strategy, and it is integral to any serious effort to better the health of Canadians. When the government has no poverty reduction strategy and is scrapping the census, which is an important tool for public policy, how does it explain these failures to Canadians?

[September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the poverty that exists in Canada is staggering. In fact, 3.4 million Canadians live in poverty, which is equal to one in ten Canadians. This poverty is making people sick. It is having long-lasting effects on our economy and on our education and health systems.

The Canada Health Act guarantees universal access to health care, but that universal access does not actually exist for people living in poverty in Canada. This is also an issue of equality rights. Poverty disproportionately affects women, as well as children, seniors, first nations, aboriginals, people with disabilities and newcomers.

Food bank use in Canada is skyrocketing, pharmaceutical costs are rising and 30% of Canadians live in inadequate or unaffordable housing. This situation is untenable for our health outcomes.

Before being elected the member of Parliament for Halifax, I worked as a community legal worker and poverty activist in Halifax. I worked with people whose health outcomes were negatively impacted every day by the fact that they lived in poverty. I cannot tell members the number of times my clients would say to me that they wanted to eat good food and nutritious food like fruits and vegetables or drink milk. However, the reality was that pop was less expensive and that was what people were forced to buy.

It is shocking to me that in 2010 the federal government still does not have a poverty reduction or a poverty elimination strategy. The Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, have failed. We need a poverty reduction strategy now.

After the last recession, it took eight years for the job rate to bounce back, but it took fourteen years for the poverty rate to come back to where it was. We need to act quickly to help people living in poverty to recover from this recession.

We cannot just keep reacting in the short term, when the government's hand is forced. We need a long-term, consistent approach to poverty reduction. This is why the NDP, led by our poverty critic, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, has introduced a comprehensive national poverty elimination strategy. I commend the member for Sault Ste. Marie for bringing this bill forward and for the fact that he worked so closely with community groups and people living in poverty and poverty advocates to ensure that he got the bill right, to ensure that it was strong and comprehensive as possible.

The bill would address many of the root causes of poverty by taking income security, housing and social exclusion and unique responses for urban and rural communities and making them core priorities.

The bill recognizes that rural poverty exists, something that we often forget about in Ottawa. The bill includes a strong human rights framework and addresses gender-based inequalities and the poverty experienced by seniors and those living with disabilities.

Not addressing poverty would be more costly for our country in the long run. Eliminating poverty would make our communities and our economy stronger through a healthier and more equal workforce.

Will the government recognize the link between poverty and health, live up to the principles of the Canada Health Act and support the NDP's proposal for a national poverty elimination bill?