Sadia Groguhé

[Social Development, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, people with terminal cancer, people who have had organ transplants, people with severe depression and people who are in debt are among the 14,000 Canadians who are still waiting for their case to be heard by the Social Security Tribunal, which has an ever-growing backlog.

Does the minister think it is acceptable that thousands of Canadians have been waiting for years to get the disability benefits to which they are entitled? What is he going to do to rectify the situation?

[Business of Supply, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is requesting that the division be deferred until Monday, December 1, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Business of Supply, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for her question.

Decades have passed, of course, since the consequences that have marked the lives of the victims and their families first arose; there are roughly a hundred of them left today. I believe it is more than time to take action, and to do so quickly.

There is no doubt that we will be vigilant in every way to ensure that following adoption of the motion before us today, follow-up action is actually taken as urgently as possible. That is really not negotiable.

The unanimous consent to the motion that we are seeking today must be followed by practical measures, and we will naturally be there to ensure that there is follow-up and that real change finally takes place in the lives of the victims and their families.

[Business of Supply, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his question.

Quite obviously, it is essential to ensure that the right to reparations is limited by the response from the government resulting from this motion.

There have been precedents, of course. I mentioned the United Kingdom, as well as Germany. I believe we have some very concrete examples from which we can take our cue. Above all, we must listen to the requests from the families and victims, making them our own in a positive and constructive way so that the help they receive will truly cover all their needs.

[Business of Supply, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Joliette.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this motion, which was introduced by my colleague from Vancouver East. Before continuing, I would like to highlight the remarkable work my colleague has done in her riding and in Parliament for many years to develop our public health policy.

I am therefore very pleased today to contribute to her efforts by supporting this motion, which seeks to right an historical wrong. The motion that has been introduced in the House seeks to expand the federal government's support to victims of thalidomide, to recognize their rights and to defend their dignity, which has been too long forgotten.

I would like to review the facts and the history of these events. In 1961, the government of Canada approved the sale of thalidomide. This drug was deemed not to be dangerous, and it was prescribed to treat the nausea experienced by pregnant women. In fact, thalidomide led to a large number of miscarriages and serious congenital defects. The birth defects we are talking about are particularly disabling: deafness, blindness and missing limbs and organs.

In the 1960s, about 10,000 children affected by thalidomide were born in the world. The devastating effects of this drug on their health were quickly apparent. However, thalidomide continued to be sold in Canada until August 1962, even though it had been withdrawn from sale in September 1961 in the other countries where it had been marketed. We will never know the exact number of Canadian families who were affected by this terrible disaster, but we know that there are still about 100 survivors today.

Although the use of this drug had tragic consequences for many families, the government has never apologized for the harm caused. I would remind the House that this drug was approved for market by the federal government of the day. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for the government to acknowledge the consequences of its actions and fulfill its obligations in this regard.

We are asking, first, that the government symbolically acknowledge the mistake it made and offer an official apology to the victims and their families. While that is a modest gesture, I think it is essential to help restore their dignity. However, merely acknowledging the government’s responsibility will not erase the extent of the harm done. That can be measured only in terms of the survivor's current health status.

It is absolutely crucial that the House be informed of the victims' terrible health conditions, so it can grasp the absolute necessity of assisting them. Decades of dealing with the consequences of thalidomide have left survivors dealing with very severe and debilitating pain. Most survivors have to cope with the loss of the ability to use their limbs to care for themselves and damage to their spine and joints, which severely reduces their mobility.

Their situation means that they depend on someone else, very often family caregivers, for tasks as basic as dressing or eating. These functional limitations prevent them from participating in ordinary social activities and, in particular, from holding employment. Their health puts them in a socially vulnerable situation and leaves them financially dependent on their aging parents.

In view of their circumstances, the government initiated talks about compensating the affected families in the 1960s, but the only support provided consisted of a very small lump sum paid out in 1992, to respond to crisis situations. Their health needs greatly exceed that lump sum and even the capacity of provincial health care systems.

It is therefore absolutely essential, in the name of our humanity, for the government to provide them with assistance without delay and leaving aside all partisan labels. I am therefore very happy that the Minister of Health announced yesterday that she intends to support the motion. That support shows that when it comes to public health, the proposals made are sound and appropriate, and it shows the importance of listening to the families and the survivors.

Our approach, as in all areas, is responsible and carefully thought out. We work hand in hand with the public and our partner groups, and this enables us to identify social needs, assess their urgency, evaluate their impact and look for constructive solutions that will advance social justice in co-operation with the people affected and the provinces.

We can then put in place what is an essential plan for compensation.

The foreign examples show that this is possible. In the United Kingdom, the government recently established an annual subsidy for survivors’ health care. The funds are administered by a trust and come from the government and the distributor of thalidomide. I believe it is fair, based on the principle that no one should profit from the harm done to others, that the companies that may have profited from the distribution of this drug should pay to meet the needs of the victims.

In the United Kingdom, that system provides for average annual payments of approximately $88,000 to the victims, who can use the funds according to their needs, to improve their quality of life. We should draw on that example.

I am therefore asking the Minister of Health to work with the Thalidomide Survivors Task Force to negotiate the creation of an assistance program. The purpose of the program would be, as it was in Britain, to set up a fund for thalidomide survivors consisting of two components. First, there would be a one-time payment to survivors to help them meet their immediate, urgent needs, particularly with respect to health care, assistive devices and everyday living. Second, there would be a monthly payment for survivors based on their level of disability, to help them meet their medical needs and provide routine care.

The program should also set up an independent body to oversee the establishment of the fund and its administration. Lastly, it would have to provide for a monitoring, oversight and assessment system that will be entrusted to an independent agency.

Let us reach out to fellow Canadians who seek our help. Let us help them regain their dignity. The survivors are aging, and their families are not able to provide the care they require. We must now find a solution that will allow them to live in dignity and get the support they need.

Today we are facing up to reality, and with the support of all parties for this motion, we are about to put together a humane, fair and constructive solution for the victims and their families.

[Business of Supply, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we all appear to be on the same page with this motion, which is extremely important.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the compensation that the government will give the victims of this drug. However, I have a question for my colleague.

We are talking about fair compensation. What does the government have in mind, to ensure that this compensation is similar to that being offered by other countries?

[Veterans Hiring Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

There is no doubt that with Bill C-27, the government has once again created a huge gap between the reality my colleague mentioned, that is, the many cuts to the public service where our veterans should have been able to find work, and this bill, which suggests that these veterans can go work in the public service.

My colleague talked about that during his speech, but he did not mention the fact that the government did not include the RCMP in this bill. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Veterans Hiring Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

As she pointed out—as we all pointed out—we cannot do enough for our veterans to honour their service to the nation.

There is a major problem with how this bill treats veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Specifically, there is a problem with the administrative delay in responding to veterans who have experienced such trauma, and this bill does very little about it.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Veterans Hiring Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the outstanding work he has done on this issue and as part of the committee.

In drafting this bill, the government did not consider putting the entitlement period on hold while the veteran is going through the appeal process.

What kinds of problems will that pose for our veterans?

[Child Poverty, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on this day 25 years ago, Ed Broadbent—the leader of the NDP at the time—moved a motion to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. That motion was unanimously adopted. Nearly 15 years after the failure to achieve that goal, the situation remains troubling.

It is especially troubling that the Prime Minister does not seem to care at all about this issue. On top of having described that motion as the height of stupidity, he also would rather save money at the expense of our veterans and first nations peoples by diverting money that was meant for them.

Veterans Affairs has returned $1.1 billion to the public treasury and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has returned $712 million, all while the Prime Minister enjoys an expensive trip to the far north, which cost taxpayers $768,000. Now we can clearly see the Prime Minister's real priorities.

In 2015, the first NDP government will commit to honouring the 1989 resolution to eliminate child poverty.