Megan Leslie

[Employment, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, moving on to another example of the government just making things up, Conservatives were pretty embarrassed this week when they were forced to admit that they used data from Kijiji instead of Statistics Canada to support their budget.

This information was used to justify regressive attacks on wages and collective bargaining.

[Democratic Reform, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, again, he is selectively quoting to show he is not selectively quoting. Mr. Neufeld testified that our electoral system does need to be modernized, but he said there are ways to fix the problems with vouching. For example, there could be a declaration taken.

Why did the minister refuse to look at practical solutions like this? Why, instead, are the Conservatives choosing to eliminate vouching and therefore disenfranchising thousands of Canadians?

[Democratic Reform, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform keeps using the word “fraud” when talking about the Neufeld report. Yesterday, Mr. Neufeld stated very clearly that he did not find any evidence of fraud.

When will the minister stop distorting what Mr. Neufeld said? Why did he not consult Harry Neufeld to find out what is really going on?

[Food and Drugs Act, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would really look forward to a discussion at committee about just that, hearing from some experts like Joel Lexchin, for example, from York University. That is because the point of fines in this case would be to deter. Companies are making unfathomable amounts of money, so if the fine is not high enough, it is just the cost of doing business. It is much like the cost of doing business is sending their pharmaceutical reps for a cruise after they score a good contract, or down to the south with their families for a couple of weeks. This really happens. It is a gravy train, if one gets a job as a pharmaceutical rep.

Therefore, if a fine is just the cost of doing business and they are still going to make tonnes of money because they have changed one molecule in a drug, then it is not serving the purpose, is it? We will have to ask that at committee.

[Food and Drugs Act, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, of course resources are needed that go hand in hand when it comes to drug safety. I will say, though, that I am really going to fight for changes in legislation here.

I was doing media commentary in 2012, about Alysena 28, the birth control pill. There were about two or three rows of sugar pills in this birth control package, so women were at risk of pregnancy. For some women, it is a very serious medical issue if they get pregnant. People make all kinds of decisions about why they are taking birth control.

I did media for the NDP when that was happening. I was so frustrated because it was actually a pharmacist who disclosed that this was happening; it was not even the government. I wondered where the government was and why it was not doing something about this. The government actually could not say to the company that it had to recall it.

There are some legislative places where we need to give powers to the minister. Of course, then, the next step is making sure there are resources, so the minister has the ability to enforce them. We do need to make those changes to legislation.

[Food and Drugs Act, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan.

Vioxx was touted as an incredible breakthrough in pain relief. Why do we need a breakthrough in pain relief? We have ibuprofen and acetaminophen. Some of these drugs do a bit of wear and tear on our stomachs and can cause internal bleeding, and some people have died even from something as simple as ibuprofen.

The big breakthrough drug, Vioxx, which goes under many other names, but that is probably the most common name, was touted as being a pain reliever that would not cause bleed-outs. It was approved by Health Canada, so people put a lot of faith in that approval. The thing was that there were no published clinical trial reports about this drug. We did not know if it did not cause bleed-outs or if it was a better pain reliever, and yet Health Canada approved it.

When Therapeutics Initiative did an analysis of this new drug, it said it would not recommend it to be covered by B.C.'s pharmacare. Since the clinical data was not published, it was a bit suspicious about what was going on, and it said no. Then the lobbying began, heavy-duty lobbying to government to get the drug on the pharmacare list because a lot of money was at stake.

We have heard of grassroots organizations that are in our communities and work together. In dealing with pharmaceutical industries these groups are termed astroturf groups. Astroturf groups are not grassroots. They seem to be grassroots, but they are actually funded by the drug companies. These astroturf organizations are funded by drug companies, but they are made up of just regular folks, and a lot of them probably really believe what they are being told. For example, if I have constituents calling me and saying they would like to talk about a drug that is not covered, I do not know that they are getting funding to do this from a pharmaceutical company. These groups pop up and, as politicians, we know it is hard to say no to constituents. A lot of pressure was being put to get Vioxx on the list.

Therapeutics Initiative did the right thing, because eventually Vioxx had to be pulled off the market, because it was killing people. It was not any better than ibuprofen or acetaminophen for a headache, and while it may not necessarily have caused internal bleeding, it did cause heart attacks. If I have the choice of living with a migraine for a few days or having a heart attack, I am going to live with the migraine. Many people have come forward and said that because of Therapeutics Initiative, hundreds of lives were saved in British Columbia.

All Canadians deserve these kinds of safety standards, not just British Columbians, because at the very least our federal government is here to protect us, to make sure we are safe, to make sure we are not being sold a drug that is actually going to do more harm than good.

Partway through his speech, the member for Oakville said that he saw today as the beginning of the end for drug companies and the hold they have on us. I hope he is right. I am standing here with my hands clasped and I hope he is right, because they are so big and they make so much money.

The global pharmaceutical industry is one the most profitable industries in the world, if not the most. The industry is worth about $300 billion U.S. a year, and that is expected to rise to $400 billion in the next three years. Only ten drug companies cover one-third of the market; six are in the U.S. and four are in Europe. It is predicted that North America, South America, Europe, and Japan will continue to account for a full 85% of the global pharmaceuticals market well into the 21st century.

The World Health Organization has spoken out about this. It has said there is such pressure to maintain sales that now there is, in its words:

...an inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate business goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of providers and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way.

There is this tension between sales and our lives, our health, and our safety. This is particularly true—and it is the same with the World Health Organization—when we think about where we are getting our information about these drugs. We are getting that information from the companies. They are telling us which drugs are most effective.

We rely on our doctors, but they are busy folks. They are courted by the pharmaceutical companies. They are given pages and pages of information, in which everything is embedded; then there is a little quick piece that says to try Vioxx because it is great for headaches. We do not get the proper information because it is coming from the companies themselves.

This bill is a good step in the right direction, because there are some key things in it. It would allow the minister to order a recall on drugs. That is a really important thing we need to see. It would allow the minister to order a manufacturer or importer to modify the label of a drug to update it on side effects or health risks associated with it. It would allow the minister to order a review of a drug and require that a copy be given to him or her.

It would do some good things. It needs to go further. The House heard my question to the member for Oakville about publishing clinical trial data. That is incredibly important.

I will sum up by saying that, if there is one thing that the federal government is here for, it is to protect us and keep us safe. We need the federal government to fulfill that role. I am encouraged to hear that the minister is open to some amendments. I would also be encouraged to hear if the minister were open to more legislation, because this is incredible, and if we are going to see this as the first step in tackling the pharmaceutical industry, there logically has to be a next step. I look forward to that next step as well.

[Food and Drugs Act, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I am pleased that the bill is in the House.

As I said in my questions to the member for Oakville, that speech took a lot of courage. I do not think my speech will be quite as courageous. The words that the member for Oakville said are exactly the words I wish I had said in this place.

The bill is long overdue and I am glad it is here. I am not going to criticize the delay, because it is here. I do think it needs to go a bit further, but it is a great first step.

When I was the health critic a few years ago, I knew nothing about the pharmaceutical industry. As a critic, people started giving me books and articles and I started talking to experts. I went around Canada and talked to all kinds of folks working on this issue. When we start peeling back the layers of the onion, we realize what a messy, dark world that is. The power and control that pharmaceutical companies have is quite amazing, as is the trust we give them. We hand over our lives in this way because we think they know what is best.

One example I often used when I was talking to people was the therapeutics initiative in British Columbia, which is an arm's-length body, not a government body. There are experts on that panel who make recommendations about what drugs will be covered under British Columbia's pharmacare program. One might wonder why we would have to do that. Can one not just look at the label? Can one not just find out if a drug is worth covering or not?

We are not always told the truth. Drug companies will go to great lengths to ensure that their drugs are on those pharmacare lists because they have a lot of money to make from it. Sometimes they will take a drug and change one molecule and say it is a new breakthrough drug when it is just one molecule different from the old drug that works. Maybe they are not making enough money off it. That one molecule change can do a lot when it comes to having an impact on the people’s health.

I am reminded that I need to seek unanimous consent to split my time. I hope the chamber will allow me that.

[Food and Drugs Act, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oakville and I go back to 2008. We were elected together. I know his passion for this subject. I have read his book. I have had personal conversations with him. I have to say it was pretty thrilling to hear that speech. We do not agree on many things, he and I, but we agree wholeheartedly on this. In many ways, I wish that I had the courage to give a speech like that. It was incredibly powerful. I want to stand here and publicly give him my support and tell him that it takes a lot of courage to say things like that in this place. Everything he said was the truth.

He talked about uncovering dark secrets and, boy, has he ever, and that big pharma does not want patients to know the risks and, boy, does it ever not want that to happen.

I want to talk about next steps. One step that I see coming after this legislation would be to include mandatory registration of clinical trials and public disclosure of those findings. I recognize that is not in the bill right now. I recognize that the bill is a great first step, but I want to keep going on this. He said it is the beginning of the end.

What are his thoughts on next steps? Would that be one of them?

[Employment and Social Development, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, just because they keep repeating it, does not mean it is going to become true.

However, let us move on to the bizarre Conservative comments about their Kijiji economics.

The employment minister is telling economists that they should stop looking at data about the labour market and instead only listen to him. Can the minister tell us why he thinks economists, the PBO, and StatsCan all have it wrong, but that he and Kijiji have it right?

[Democratic Reform, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, he is selectively quoting from a report to show that he is not selectively quoting from a report. I got that one. It makes sense.

Harry Neufeld testified that neither the minister nor his staff ever contacted him. He stated, “I was waiting for that call, and it never came”. He also said that Conservatives are tilting the playing field in their direction.

The minister repeatedly uses Mr. Neufeld's report to support his unfair action, so why did the minister not consult the author of that report?