Nicole Demers

[Old Age Security Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss Bill C-301 concerning seniors who have been disappointed by this government. They thought they would be getting the Guaranteed Income Supplement in its entirety with the full retroactivity they were entitled to.

Since the end of 2000, we have discovered how many people were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. Just look at how many people my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain was able to inform about their right to the supplement. Unfortunately, they are entitled to a mere 11 months of retroactivity when they should be entitled to full and complete retroactivity.

The government boasted about wanting to give seniors an additional $18 a month in the guaranteed income supplement effective January 2006 and another $18 a month effective January 2007. For the next five years, this government will invest $2.7 billion for this additional money, while it currently owes $3.2 billion to the seniors we found who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement.

Despite the fact that the government would currently have people believe that if there is an election, if the government falls, seniors will not be entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement, we all know that is not true. It is their most fundamental right. Bill C-43 has already been passed, confirmed and is already in effect. I do not see why we would want to start up the fear campaigns again and upset seniors, who have already suffered enough and are still suffering because of this government.

The suicide rate in seniors 65 and older has gone up by 85.4%. It is unimaginable not to acknowledge those who fed us, fed our bodies, spirits and souls during the depression, during unbelievable crises, people who sent children to the war of 1939-45, people who went to that war, to the war of 1914-18, the Korean War, people who fought for this country, veterans' spouses, women who are now 85, 90 or 95 years old. Today, we do not acknowledge them, yet they were the ones who gave us the system, the wealth and the opportunities we have today.

I find it very hard to believe that, with the surpluses mentioned earlier this week, which the government is promising for the next five years, it does not have money to correct the situation and give back to these people what is owed to them, before they die. Will it take as long as it did with the hepatitis C issue? All of a sudden, on the eve of an election campaign, the government decided to sign the papers, after we had been discussing the matter for a year in the House.

Enough is enough. Seniors need that money now, not in five or ten years. They need it right away. Currently, some of them are living in their home or apartment, and they have nothing to eat. Some must choose between buying their medication at the end of the month or paying their rent, between heating their apartment or paying their rent, between eating or getting their medication.

In a former life, I was a community activist. As members probably know, I worked with seniors' organizations. As part of my work, I often had to visit elderly people in their homes. If only hon. members knew about the distress of many of them, if only they understood how important it is to help these people, perhaps we might get the government to reverse its decision and act more responsibly.

When I visited seniors to see how they were doing and assess their needs, I would open the pantry—where dry food is kept—and find only crackers and cans of pet food.

But these elderly persons had no dog or cat. When a person must feed on dog or cat food because it costs 99¢ a can, we know that our society has a major problem.

In fact, this government had an opportunity to show that it wants to be fair and decent with seniors before we introduced a bill, before my colleague had to rise to present a bill to ensure that the rights of these people are respected. Instead, the government chose to invest in provincial jurisdictions, in armament and in goodies for companies, while letting down seniors.

I have no idea of what my colleagues can buy with an additional $18 per month under the guaranteed income supplement, but I personally cannot buy anything. I cannot pay any bill with that amount. It is appalling.

Let us not forget the fact that, these days, seniors have to spend over 30% of their income on housing and pay much of the cost of their prescriptions. They are no longer able to travel by bus or other public transit, but rather have to take cabs, a service they can hardly afford. When they need to go to the hospital or any other appointment, they have dig into their wallets yet again. They are denied the paltry amount that would make a difference in their lives. This government is denying seniors a sense of security and serenity in their golden years. I find this abhorrent.

I want to read an excerpt from a letter I got from a senior citizen about the GIS:

As a senior, I fail to understand the federal government's attitude in this regard. This week, the Minister of Finance announced a series of election goodies, each better than the last.

Clearly, seniors are no longer fooled; they know the truth. The letter continues as follows:

Given the billions announced, I had hoped that the government would take this opportunity to right an egregious wrong done to seniors who should have received the GIS for a number of years. But no, nothing, not one dime.

I received another statement. However, since I only have one minute left, I will read a beautiful poem entitled The Grasshopper and the Minister :

Her endless round of work complete,Madame was much dismayed When, on retirement, it appearedThat she would not get paid.Although she much deserved some help,And all her life had worked,Her pleas upon deaf ears did fallAnd she was truly hurt.The freshly minted ministerIgnored all she had done,And though they were her rightful due,Of payments there were none.“But what about my kids,” she cried.“Is no allowance made?Without them you would all be lost, And others would need aid.”“What did you do all day at homeWhen others were out earning?We can't support the likes of youWith economy downturning.”Those who held the purse strings were a heartless lot it's clear“You never filed the form”, they said.“You're on your own, my dear”.

[Old Age Security Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks in support of Bill C-301, which was introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, I must say that I was deeply offended and saddened by the present attitude of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Until now, even though she is an adversary, I had some respect for her. However, I was very upset by her attitude earlier and by how she phrased her attacks and told shameless lies.

[Seniors, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, rather than interfering increasingly in areas belonging to Quebec and the provinces, the Minister of Finance should invest his huge surplus in areas under his own jurisdiction.

Why has the Minister of Finance not used his huge surplus to treat seniors fairly by paying them the billions of dollars it owes them in guaranteed income supplement benefits?

[Seniors, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week focussed on seniors' safety. This year's theme was “It's easy to make your home a safer place”. Seniors whose eyesight is failing or who are becoming less independent are most likely to have an accident at home, such as a fall.

Falls account for nearly two thirds of the injuries requiring hospitalization in persons aged 65 and older and more than 40% of admissions to nursing homes. They are the main cause of fatal injuries among the elderly.

Most falls occur at home. We must therefore pay particular attention to stairs and bathrooms, the two most dangerous locations.

Let us work to keep our seniors healthy so they will remain active in our society.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I do not question the good faith of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. I have had the opportunity to work with him on the Standing Committee on Health, and I do not doubt his good faith.

However, as he says, we need to be responsible, to show respect for our fellow citizens and to tell them the truth. It is a matter of respect, to support democracy and restore people's confidence in it. In fact, he should do so himself. He should stand and tell us the names of those who received money from Marc-Yvan Côté and who should not be here today. This would really respect democracy and restore people's confidence in democracy, because they have lost faith in it.

My colleague should have the courage to blow the whistle. I am sure that many Quebeckers and Canadians would be very proud of him.

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may say and claim he did not know anything about the sponsorship scandal, he has zero credibility.

Even Jean Chrétien confirmed that the former Minister of Finance was aware, as he himself was aware and as the other ministers were aware.

Moreover, Jean Chrétien confirmed that the sponsorship program was approved by cabinet, and that the $50 million allocated annually, in an attempt to buy Quebec, were included in the budget by the Minister of Finance.

The evidence is damning. Not only was the current Prime Minister aware, he was also at the very centre of the strategy that led to the sponsorship scandal. The Prime Minister has been unmasked. Quebec is outraged. This Prime Minister no longer has the moral authority to govern.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Madam Chair, I think my colleague for his question. I have listened to him most carefully. I have relatives in that part of the country, so it is important for me to be sure that my Canadian family members are as well treated as my Quebec ones.

I believe that my colleague is right to be concerned. Moreover, some in the U.S. and Canadian media have suggested that the drug companies might limit the supply of drugs to Canadians if Canada did not stop pharmacies from selling to U.S. citizens. This is particularly significant because there are only a few grounds on which imports and exports can be restricted, among them protection of public health.

Under article XI of GATT, export restrictions are allowed to avoid shortages. In the event of a shortage, the federal government could stop drug exports, bulk shipments or others, so that Canada would have sufficient stocks to ensure public safety.

Moreover, in all of its actions, the federal government should consult Quebec and the provinces, since they have jurisdiction over health. They must stop trying to always encroach on areas under others' jurisdiction. Let them keep to their own side of the fence.

I have been greatly disturbed lately by the fact that the situation in Kashechewan has been going on for over 10 years. This was a real opportunity for the government to take action to help people, but it has not done so in 10 years. Let it stop encroaching on other people's yards. Let it stay inside its own property line and use its own tools to build what it is supposed to be building.

Being a woman of passion, I can easily get carried away, but I just want to tell my colleague in closing that he is justified in being concerned and that I too am concerned. I hope that, for once, the minister will take the proper steps to consult the others before making a decision.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague. As members of the Standing Committee on Health, we do not always see eye to eye, but we greatly enjoy working together.

As I said earlier, at the start of my remarks, the federal government is responsible for legislating Internet sales and transactions. However, it is not the federal government's responsibility to determine how pharmacists or medical practitioners will address the various problems that may arise in conjunction with Internet drug sales.

In Quebec, in accordance with the Pharmacy Act, a pharmacist may only sell drugs to patients whose prescriptions have been written by an individual authorized under Quebec legislation or legislation from a Canadian province that would authorize that individual to prescribe medication if they practised in Quebec. I do not think that we can draw any comparisons with the United States.

Also, the physicians' code of ethics stipulates that, in order to issue a prescription to a patient, a Quebec physician must have examined that patient, formulated a diagnosis and a treatment plan, in addition to providing information to that patient and obtaining his or her consent. I do not think that this is applicable to customers living in the United States, unless they live in a state bordering the jurisdiction in which the Internet pharmacy is located. If so, such individuals could cross the border to obtain the various services they need. Otherwise, I do not believe that this is sufficient.

Based on what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said, I think that the minister wants to adopt a very conservative approach to Internet pharmacies and I congratulate him on this. I want to reiterate what I said earlier, and I hope that his approach to breast implants will be equally cautious.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Madam Chair, as a Bloc Québécois member, I am going to have to put another fly in the ointment: the on-line sale of drugs in Canada is not exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

On the contrary. While the federal government has the power to legislate on e-business, Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over legislation governing medical practices and the supervision of professions.

As hon. members are certainly aware, when it comes to child care, parental leave and a number of other areas, Quebec has a big head start. This is also the case with our measures to control drug sales, and we have taken steps to prevent on-line drugs sales to Americans. There was a good reason for these measures. It is very important, because the most vulnerable members of society are involved, such as the elderly, who generally suffer from chronic conditions, and these are the ones most likely to make use of Internet pharmacies. They have no way of knowing that the medication prescribed to them is appropriate when combined with something they might be prescribed later on.

I did a quick survey to see what we were talking about. In March or April, the Standing Committee on Health met with pharmacists filling prescriptions online who spoke highly of their profession and their products. They said that, according to their estimates, they get about three million orders per year. This means that, every year, three million people get their prescriptions filled online by Internet pharmacies. So, for fun, I did the math.

According to a study on this subject, Canadian medical practitioners signing prescriptions, such as physicians in Manitoba or British Columbia where Internet pharmacies are currently operating, get $10 per prescription they co-sign. These physicians are licensed to work in Quebec, the provinces and across Canada. So they are part of the health care system.

So, for fun, I calculated what co-signing, signing and verifying 3 million prescriptions work out to. At only five minutes per prescription, that works out to 15 million minutes. If we divide that figure by 20 minutes, which is the approximate time it takes a physician to examine each patient, how many more patients could practitioners see? The answer is an additional 83,333 patients per year. That is a lot of patients at a time when waiting lists are a serious issue.

We complain about the waiting lists and the fact that we cannot meet much of the demand. Yet, we allow physicians to sign prescriptions for people they have never seen or met and about whose true physical condition they have no idea. Is this what we want? I cannot understand this. In this day and age of globalization, clearly, some things need to be considered with regard to the Internet.

Yet if we need to be extra cautious about anything, it is health care and prescriptions. Only physicians are qualified to make a diagnosis. They still need to see the patient to do that. Otherwise, how can they make a proper diagnosis?

Once in my life I went to see a doctor. I was taken aback to find the doctor was a woman. I went into her office and described my symptoms. She did not examine me. She decided that I had something and she was way off the mark. I left her office insulted and angry that she had considered me a number and had paid no attention to my fears.

If we accept the principle of Internet pharmacies we accept fewer services to the public and agree to lowering the quality of interaction among doctors, pharmacies and patients.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Most people with chronic disease are old, defenceless, alone and isolated and with no one to depend on. So they trust their doctor or pharmacist. How can they count on them when they are Americans on the other side of the border and have never seen them?

I do not want to be mean to our fellow citizens on the other side of the border, but we know that, in the United States, the slightest thing leads to court proceedings if rights are deemed infringed. I do not think the Canadian health care system can afford such proceedings simply because care was not taken and the system was implemented without the appropriate precautions. It is too dangerous.

In the Standing Committee on Health, we were told that some people sent their prescription to Canada, regardless of where the Internet site is located—Manitoba, I think—and the Internet pharmacy gets it countersigned by a physician. Then, if the drug is not sold in this country, they send the prescription to another country over which we have no control as far as drug manufacturing, packaging and quality are concerned. That country sends the person's drugs to him or her. So the party responsible throughout is the Internet distributor. This is alarming to me as a woman, and as someone whose mother might one day have access to such services.

I do not think that we want to subscribe to a system with so many loopholes, one that is so lax and does not care about the people it serves. They are the ones who should always be the focus of our concerns. Increasingly, we are realizing that it is not the individual that counts, but profits. As a woman and as an MP, this angers me a great deal. As legislators, we need to focus primarily on the needs of our fellow citizens, of those whom we serve and represent. Those citizens are not across the U.S. border, they are Quebeckers and Canadians who need services and need our attention.

I hope the minister will take the necessary decisions on this matter and will use extreme caution before making any decisions.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Madam Chair, I hope the minister does not consider all of the questions from the Standing Committee on Health to be without importance. I can assure hon.members that the matters we debate in the Standing Committee on Health are generally very important, for the health of the women of Quebec and of the women of Canada.

I hope that the minister will agree to take as many precautions on the matter we are addressing at present, Internet drug sales, as he will on the reintroduction of silicone gel breast implants.