9865 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 150 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, November 27, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 27, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 150 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 150 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 150 (Version officielle) 147 150 27 11 2014 2014/11/27 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Committees of the House Finance Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendment.

[ Translation ] Environment and Sustainable Development Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to supplementary estimates (B) 2014-15.

[ English ] Criminal Code Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) Bill C-637. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-637,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce my private member's bill,

an act to amend the Criminal Code, firearms storage and transportation, for first reading this morning. The bill would amend certain provisions of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act in order to better define low-velocity barrelled weapons, which are not firearms. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 750 will be answered today. [ Text ] Question No. 750-- Hon. Ralph Goodale : With regard to the Minister of Transport’s commitment on April 23, 2014 to “immediately remov[e] the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service by directing the phase-out of tank cars that have no continuous reinforcement of their bottom shell”: (

a) how many of these tank cars remained in service in each month since last April; (

b) when does the government expect this phase-out to be complete; (

c) what constraints limit the government’s ability to complete the phase-out; and (

d) have any of these tank cars been involved in accidents since last April, and if so, where and when? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on April 23, 2014, under the authority of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, Transport Canada issued protective direction 34, requiring the immediate phase-out of the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service. These are the tank cars that are not equipped with continuous bottom reinforcement, posing a much higher risk of failure in a derailment.

Some tank cars in North America do not enter Canada and are therefore not subject to protective direction 34. Some 2,879 tank cars were reported to Transport Canada as having been removed from dangerous goods service in Canada, and the phase-out is now complete. With regard to (b), industry was given 30 days in which to remove these cars from dangerous goods service in Canada, and the phase-out is now complete.

Thirty-one empty cars, which were unable to clean and purge residue product within the 30 days, have been given “Notices to remedy Non-compliance” and directed to a location for cleaning and purging prior to being repurposed, or removal to the US. With regard to (c), phase-out of service is complete/not applicable.

With regard to (d), none of these DOT-111 tank cars that have no continuous reinforcement of their bottom shell, whose reporting marks are on file with Transport Canada, has been identified as being involved in any TDG incident since April. All owners of these affected tank cars have identified their cars, using the unique reporting mark in the North American database of railway cars, UMLER. Rail carriers use this database to identify cars that cannot be used in dangerous goods service. Further, transport of dangerous goods inspectors verify at the scene of an incident that any cars involved are not subject to the protective direction.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 747 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 747-- Ms. Chrystia Freeland : With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Toronto Centre, providing for each (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (

v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomide Motion Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved: That, in the opinion of the House: (

a) full support should be offered to survivors of thalidomide; (

b) the urgent need to defend the rights and dignity of those affected by thalidomide should be recognized; and (

c) the government should provide support to survivors, as requested by the Thalidomide Survivors Taskforce. She said: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert . I am very honoured to rise in the House today to speak to this very important and historic motion from the NDP. The motion before us calls on the government to right the wrong of the tragic consequences that took place, when, in 1961, the Government of Canada approved the sale of thalidomide as a safe drug for the treatment of morning sickness for pregnant women.

It is so important today that we speak out collectively and with one voice, as Parliament, to understand and to address this urgent and tragic issue. I would like to thank the member for Outremont , the leader of the official opposition, for agreeing to and giving his full support to this motion being brought forward today. I would also like to thank members from all sides because we now know that the government will be supporting this motion with a slight amendment. I am very thankful for that. We have had a lot of discussion.

It is historic and important that today we will be speaking in this debate, and we will be bringing forward the visibility of this issue. I hope that on Monday we will be voting on this motion and that it will be a unanimous vote. On Tuesday, I had the honour to be joined, with my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert , by two members of the thalidomide survivors task force. Mercédes Benegbi and Josée Lake came from Montreal to join us in a press conference, where they spoke and shared some of their experiences of what it has been like, over more than 50 years, to be a thalidomide survivor.

It was very moving to hear their words and to hear them speak about their deeply personal experience, and of the experience of 95 survivors in Canada. Hearing what they had to say is a day that I will not forget. I am also very thankful that the people at The Globe and Mail decided to focus on this issue. We saw the original story that they did last Saturday, which was a very comprehensive piece. It gave us the history and background, and brought us to the current situation today, with so many survivors living in pain and suffering and with great financial hardship.

To me, it was one of those moments when a whole bunch of things came together. We have to recognize that the thalidomide survivors have for 50-plus years been living in a way that has been quite invisible. It is a story that we are aware of. I remember when we debated Bill C-17 in the House, on drug safety, a bill that we supported. I remember that when I debated that bill in the House, I mentioned the history of thalidomide. I did not know then that a few months later we would actually be debating the issue of thalidomide. There is some continuity here, and some historical importance to what we are doing.

Of course, drug safety in this country is critically important, and although we would have liked to see some improvements to it, the bill that was passed a few months ago was a very important bill. When we look at history and see what has taken place in this country around drug safety, and we look at this terrible tragic situation that took place in the early 1960s, it is so compelling. It speaks to the core of why we are here. As parliamentarians and legislators, we need to pay attention and ensure that there is proper regulatory oversight for drug safety.

(1010) When this drug was first brought on to the market in the early sixties, it was deemed to be safe. The tragedy is that when the story began to unfold and the consequences began to be known about women who had miscarriages and babies being born with terrible deformities, Canada was very slow to react. It took decades, right up until 1991, for there to be even some discussion around compensation. If we look at the amount of compensation that was given in 1991, we can see how terribly inadequate the small settlements were to the survivors. It really did nothing to help them.

They even had to sign gag orders that they would not speak out afterward. The small settlements they got in no way dealt with the long-term effects of what they were dealing with. We know today that the consequences of thalidomide have left people dealing with very severe and debilitating pain. It has taken 50 years of work, which has taken a toll on them, not only emotionally and financially, but of course physically. Many of the survivors are now suffering from nerve damage and painful wear and tear on their bodies.

It has caused enormous challenges for them, including the loss of the ability to use their limbs to care for themselves, and damage to their spines and joints, which severely limits their mobility. It has impacted on their ability to gain employment. It means that they have often had to depend on others for very basic tasks, such as using the toilet, dressing, preparing meals, doing all of the daily things we take for granted. Fifty years later, with this group of people who are aging, the health consequences of what they face have become even more serious. It is critical that we not lose more time.

There are only 95 thalidomide survivors left in Canada. I believe there were originally about 120 people; some have already died. As these survivors age, their health and financial needs will only grow. Time is of the essence, and it is very important that we take a stand today and that Parliament speak out. New Democrats call on the government to right the wrong and immediately sit down with the survivors task force to begin the work to arrive at a just settlement for the survivors. That is what this motion would accomplish if it is passed. I want to stress that time is of the essence.

We cannot lose another day, week, or year. There are some precedents in terms of what other countries have done. For example, the government in the United Kingdom is providing regular payments to survivors. Germany offered a one-time lump sum payment. The thalidomide survivors task force is asking the government to sit down and work with it in creating a program that would provide a one-time payment to address people's immediate needs, as well as ongoing payments that would assist individuals based on their own individual circumstances. It is something that needs to be done based on individual needs.

I have had a lot emails over the last couple of days, and I want to refer to one from a former colleague, Penny Priddy, who was a member of Parliament for Surrey. She wrote: It was the summer of 1963 and I was working at HSC/Sick Kids in Toronto. Her name was “Maria”. She was about a year old. [...] “Maria” was born without arms. [...] Her legs were not able to support any weight.

Her mother had taken thalidomide. [...] Given what we know, I expect her life was filled with challenges and barriers that required a strength that many of us cannot begin to imagine. [...] Thank you...for listening to the voices of all of the Marias' who were victims of a system that was so rushed to get a questionable drug to market that they did not consider the unthinkable legacy that they were creating for its smallest citizens. Today, with this motion, we have an opportunity to right that wrong, and I thank all members of the House who will be supporting it.

(1015) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's health critic has actually been fairly clear on the issue. We support what is before us today. We recognize that, as has been pointed out, there are a couple of other countries in the world that attempted to deal with this and have come up with some form of resolution. We also need to recognize that it is a very sad story. This is a medication that was actually deemed safe for use.

Unfortunately, sadly, it literally destroyed the lives of not only the individuals directly affiliated with the drug itself but also the family members and so forth. It has caused a great deal of harm. It is only natural that we look at the survivor task force, meet, and have discussions to see what we can do to come up some sort of a resolution for further justice on the issue. Could the member provide more comment with respect to the impact this drug, thalidomide, has had on families and communities that were directly affected? Ms. Libby Davies : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague is entirely correct that, of course, when we look at this issue, we are looking at an impact on a great number of people. There are the thalidomide survivors themselves, but there are also their families. We know that one of the issues is that, as the survivors age, they are facing the prospect of their parents, who may have cared for them, passing away. They are being left in circumstances that can be isolated and difficult. We can imagine the burden of worrying about caregiving and who will be there to assist. The burden on the families has been enormous.

We even have to think of the families in which maybe the victim who took thalidomide has already passed away, and what those families went through over 50-plus years now. We can begin to dig into this issue and think about it. While we all live active lives and those of us who are members of Parliament live in a very privileged position, by and large, these thalidomide survivors and their families, through no fault of their own, have lived in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, medically and financially and emotionally. It compels us to take this responsibility, collectively, to right the wrong.

I know that is what we are here to do today.

(1020) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to support the motion by the hon. member, the NDP health critic, my dear friend, who has brought this issue forward. Yesterday at the press conference she said this is a non-partisan issue, and I could not agree more. It is made even more non-partisan by the fact that we now know, from comments on the front page of The Globe and Mail , that the Prime Minister recognizes that a wrong has been done and that we, collectively, in this place want to right the wrong.

Children suffered the effects of thalidomide, which never should have been registered in Canada. A Canadian-born public health authority, Dr. Kelsey, stopped its registration in the U.S. The idea that these victims of thalidomide, one of the iconic horror stories of the pharmaceutical industry, still lack compensation was a surprise to me. I have to say that I feel I am up to date on the wrongs of this land, but in this case I found out through The Globe and Mail , which I think is unusual.

We should give credit to journalism, credit to the official opposition, and credit to the Prime Minister and to the spirit of non-partisanship that will today see us right that wrong. Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, the member was at the press conference on Tuesday. I certainly appreciate her support and her words here today. The story in The Globe and Mail , when it came out, was terribly important. As I said earlier, this is an issue that we have all heard about.

We have even mentioned it in debate, in different circumstances To actually examine the details and the history of what took place is something that is very revealing. It is something that we actually need to learn from, in terms of not only drug safety but how we treat people in our society. I do think the other element of this motion today is that it is an expression that we cannot leave people in such desperate circumstances. We have to show compassion. We live in a society that should stand for social justice and should stand for ending discrimination and pain and suffering.

For many reasons, on many levels, this motion today is very important. I thank the member for her support. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 1961, the largest drug-related scandal the world had ever known erupted. It was learned that thalidomide, a drug prescribed to expectant mothers to treat morning sickness, had tragic side effects. Thalidomide was responsible for birth defects and killed thousands of newborns. In 1961, the drug was taken off the market in Germany and Great Britain.

Despite those revelations and the fact that the drug was pulled off shelves in some countries, it was sold in Canada until May 1962, six months after it was taken off the market elsewhere. Today, there are 95 survivors in Canada. The survivors have lived for decades with the consequences of thalidomide, experiencing acute, debilitating pain. In many cases, their health care needs surpass the capacities of the provincial health care systems. It is sad to see that, after 50 years of fighting, these victims of botched legislation are still having to fight alone to cover the very high costs of their disability.

It is in that context that the hon. member for Vancouver East moved this motion calling on the government to make restitution and commit to supporting the thalidomide survivors. I am honoured to rise today to participate in this debate and support my colleague's motion. I know she does amazing work. Yesterday, we had an opportunity to meet two incredible people who live with the challenges of thalidomide side effects every day. I found their stories so touching. As a doctor, I cannot stand knowing that patients are living with pain and do not even have the help they need to find comfort and feel supported.

Thalidomide survivors in Canada have fared less well than their counterparts in other countries. Thalidomide victims have been forced to fend for themselves, family by family. Not one has benefited from a court ruling. Families have had to make do with an out-of-court settlement that required them to submit to a gag provision prohibiting them from discussing the amount of the settlement. Widely varying amounts were offered as compensation, and people with the same degree of disability received settlements that differed by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That is scandalous considering that in Germany, the United Kingdom and even Spain, subsidy programs are in place to provide financial support to sick people. The government will say that in 1991, through the extraordinary assistance plan, the Minister of Health granted lump sum payments. However, the amounts were so paltry that they were quickly used up to cover some of the very high costs incurred by survivors. What are Canada's 95 thalidomide survivors getting today? Nothing. They are getting nothing. While we are giving victims nothing, the United Kingdom gives $80,000 a year.

It is up to the government to roll up its sleeves and have a closer look at some programs that could be introduced. Survivors need support and compensation, and they need it now. The NDP believes that the federal government needs to show leadership when it comes to health.

(1025) We know that this Conservative government does not view Canadians' health as a priority, but it has an opportunity here in the House today to do the right thing and help a group of Canadians in need.

Given that this is not a partisan issue and it directly affects the quality of life and daily suffering of nearly 100 survivors of the side effects of thalidomide, I move, seconded by the member for Laval—Les Îles : That the motion be amended by replacing the words “as requested by” with the words “in partnership with”. [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Vancouver East if she consents to this amendment being moved.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

(1030) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I agree. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her very wonderful comments today and also for moving the amendment. The amendment is important. We have held some discussions with the government, and I think the wording that is now being presented as an amendment would allow a better opportunity for the government to respond to the thalidomide survivors task force. I thank the hon. member for moving the amendment today in the House. I have a comment and a question for the hon. member.

It seems to me that, for thalidomide survivors, the issue of daily living is critically important. There are clearly medical challenges, and the member pointed out in her speech that some of these medical challenges might even be beyond the regular nature of the health care system. It may well be that we will need to have special interventions. I wonder if the member could speak a little more about some of the daily issues and concerns that have emerged for thalidomide survivors who are finding is so difficult to cope on a daily basis. I think the

article in The Globe and Mail laid this out very carefully, and I wonder if the member could comment on that. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the incredible work she has done for the survivors of the tragedy due to the side effects of thalidomide and the delay in taking this drug off the shelves here in Canada. As the hon. member just said in her question, this is a tragedy. I am well aware of the side effects.

I want to apologize to the sensitive among us and to those watching, but I can mention one side effect in particular that I saw among the survivors who came to our press conference yesterday. One woman had what is referred to as phocomelia. The root of the word phocomelia is “phoco” from the Greek for “seal”. A person with phocomelia might have their hands attached at their shoulders or their feet attached at their hips. That is just one example. Some were born without arms or without upper limbs or lower limbs, or with just one lung.

Imagine the pain and suffering these people experience and how tough it is for them to perform daily tasks such as getting dressed, eating or getting around. What is more, the tragedy now is that the average age of the survivors is 50. They used to get help from their parents, but those parents are now dead or quite old. The survivors therefore have no quality of life and they are suffering. Today, the Canadian government must compensate these people and give them the financial means to live in dignity. [ English ] Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to say that the government will be supporting the motion today. It is certainly a very emotional issue. No incident has had a greater impact on the drug safety system in this country than the authorization of thalidomide in the 1960s. The terrible consequences for the pregnant women who used the drug and the children who were born to them sparked major changes in the way Canada approaches drug approvals and surveillance. The modern system that protects Canadians so well today is one of the enduring legacies of this dark

chapter in drug regulation. What we can never forget, and what we have heard loudly and clearly, is that the past is not over for the victims. Thalidomide survivors are still coping with daily struggles that most of us will never fully understand or have to go through. As their physical struggles grow greater and the mental strain of an uncertain future weighs even heavier upon them, the dedication and perseverance these individuals demonstrate every single day of their lives is incredibly moving.

The number of challenges they have to face day in, day out from the moment they wake up to the time they go to bed is unimaginable. The physical, mental, and spiritual toll is immense and tiring. Individually they have shown so much strength, and the fact that they have come together to form an association that does so much good work and helps so many people is admirable. The government recognizes that the hardships they face are now growing. The physical toll that aging takes on all of us is greatly magnified for them.

For instance, simple things like standing up for extended periods or walking for a few minutes have become a real challenge for the majority of thalidomide victims. These activities cause them extreme pain. Many are also now at an age when their parents, often their primary caregivers, have either passed on or can no longer look after them. The struggles victims face every day have become greater than they have ever been before.

According to the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada, everyday chores and simple tasks that we take for granted, such as eating, getting dressed, cleaning homes, or brushing teeth, have all become daily challenges. The majority of victims require modifications to their vehicles and to their homes and clothing to allow them to have a decent quality of life. This costs money, and every one of us can understand how quickly these expenses can add up. Let us think about how costly it is to renovate a standard kitchen.

Now let us think about how much more expensive it would be if the kitchen would have to be customized in proportion so that the cupboards and counters could be reached to perform daily tasks. In order to help victims overcome the many limitations they face every day, the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada has developed an accommodation program tailored to each member's needs. This leadership deserves to be recognized.

According to the association, the objective of this program is to ensure that every Canadian thalidomide victim is able to maintain and develop their autonomy in performing various daily activities and to enable them to participate in community activities. Thalidomide victims have continuously shown determination, strength, and perseverance by having jobs and raising families of their own, but they are worried about their future. They want to talk about their needs, and we are here to listen.

My colleague, the Minister of Health , told the House on Tuesday that she is committed to having that discussion with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada in person and to reviewing the association's proposal. This will be an opportunity to listen, to share, and to explore what has been done in other jurisdictions also facing these types of challenges. For members' reference, the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada was founded by Randolph Warren in the late 1980s. It was formed to help coordinate the advocacy of thalidomide victims in securing compensation for the tragedy in the 1960s.

The association worked closely with the War Amputees of Canada to lobby for a compensation package for victims, a package that was provided in 1991. Over the last few years, we have seen more and more countries compensate thalidomide victims. For many countries, this is the first step they have offered to survivors.

(1035) In 1991, Canada provided what was presented at the time as a one-time compensation package to victims. This government recognizes that the needs of thalidomide survivors then were markedly different from what they are today. We as a government are ready to discuss what more can be done to meet the very specialized ongoing needs of these victims. Members of the House will know that thalidomide was originally sold in the early 1960s in Canada to treat morning sickness in pregnant women.

What emerged were thousands of tragic stories in Canada and worldwide that sparked a sea change in the way we approach the approval of new drugs in Canada. It is impossible to tell how many pregnancies ended in miscarriage because of the complications caused by the drug. Many other children died soon after birth, causing emotional devastation to parents and families. Those children who survived faced, and are still facing, difficult lives because of the birth abnormalities associated with the drug. Indeed, nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering that has been inflicted.

Canada was not the only country affected by this tragedy. Around the world, 12,000 children in 46 countries were born with birth defects caused by thalidomide. It is estimated that only 8,000 survived past their first birthday, which is truly a tragic outcome, and the number of survivors in Canada today is less than 100. Our country is not alone in needing to find ways to address the needs of thalidomide survivors. We can learn from what other countries have done to address the ongoing needs of their citizens facing similar growing health concerns.

As the Minister of Health indicated this week, our government will have that conversation with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada. While it is difficult to fully understand the daily challenges of thalidomide victims, it is all too easy to comprehend how this group of people has more reasons to be distrustful of the drug safety system than anyone else.

They and their families have paid a terrible price for a system that failed to do the job it was supposed to do, and yet thalidomide survivors have done something truly incredible: they have worked to make current drug approval systems even better, and they have persevered. The Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada played an extraordinary and unprecedented role many years ago in the review and approval of the thalidomide product in the United States as a treatment for multiple forms of cancer.

At various times over the years, the group has shared its experience in participating in that process with Canadian regulators. The group was also consulted before Health Canada's decision in 2010 to approve thalidomide for multiple myeloma. Their involvement in the approval of thalidomide in the face of the tragedy in their lives and in the lives of their families must have been incredibly difficult, but as they have done throughout their lives, they persevered. Their participation in the process has helped ensure that all possible precautions are taken and that drugs are used safety.

That includes physicians being trained to prescribe the drug appropriately and patients being properly informed of the risk. It is an incredible part of the legacy being left by the victims of thalidomide that patients with multiple myeloma now have access to this very important treatment. From great tragedy can come positive change. Thalidomide victims know this and have been active participants in improving the drug safety system so that Canadians are better protected. Our colleague, the hon. member for Oakville , also understands this.

His daughter Vanessa tragically died of heart attack while taking a prescription drug that was later deemed not safe and removed from the market. Bill C-17 , which was recently passed with all-party support in the House and Senate, was named Vanessa's law in her honour. The act gives the Minister of Health new tools with which to identify potential safety risks related to medications and stronger powers to make sure the problems that are identified are dealt with quickly and effectively.

Before their products are authorized for sale in Canada, drug manufacturers are required to do extensive research and provide substantial evidence to Health Canada in their application, demonstrating that the drug is safe and effective. In spite of this, once medications are being used by a wide range of actual patients, we know that new safety risks can emerge. Although clinical trial groups are structured to represent as broad a range of patients as possible, they can never truly capture every variable imaginable and every vulnerable group.

Even with our best efforts and the best research available, there will always be some factors that will only emerge once the drugs are being used by actual patients, perhaps those coping with other conditions at the same time.

(1040) That is where the life-cycle approach to drug safety comes into effect. The life-cycle approach means that Health Canada's role as a regulator is ongoing. Vanessa's law gives the Minister of Health new powers and tools that will make that ongoing regulatory role more effective. Since most serious adverse reactions to drugs result in hospitalization, a new adverse reaction reporting requirement for health care institutions will give the minister new insight into these events.

Regulations are being developed to support this requirement, which will allow the regulator to reach into the health care system and extract data to provide a better window on what is happening in the real world with patients. Other powers under Vanessa's law that have come into force immediately have given the minister the ability to take action promptly if and when new risks to health are identified. Vanessa's law gives the Minister of Health greater power over the removal of therapeutic products from the marketplace when they present imminent or serious risks to the health and safety of Canadians.

Until now, Health Canada has worked within the restrictions of the older Food and Drugs Act to persuade companies to remove drugs from the market if they are found to be unsafe. Most of the time this approach has been successful, although it sometimes takes longer than any of us would like. On a few rare occasions it has not worked and the minister did not have the power to force or withdraw these products.

With the passage of this new law, if the force of law is needed, the minister now has the power to act without having to undertake any negotiations with pharmaceutical companies while potentially dangerous drugs remain on the market. Vanessa's law also gives the government new tools to ensure that risks associated with drugs are well-communicated. Many risk situations are better addressed through improved labelling rather than complete market withdrawal. Previously, Health Canada only had the ability to negotiate label changes with manufacturers.

With the new law, manufacturers will be required to comply, and to do so within prescribed timelines. If Health Canada does not have all of the information it needs to assess the safety of a drug on the market, the minister now has the power to compel anyone holding that information to share it with her in order to protect the health of Canadians. In the event that the information simply does not yet exist, Health Canada can also require new studies to be conducted. All of these things together will vastly improve Health Canada's ability to assess and take targeted action where it is needed the most.

Vanessa's law will also help to improve the ability of Canadians to make decisions about their health by ensuring that information about authorized drug clinical trials is made public to all Canadians in a consistent and timely manner. This will also be achieved through new regulations that are currently being developed. I also want to highlight that this government's commitment to an open government is long-standing.

It is part of the overall efforts to foster greater accountability, to provide Canadians with more opportunities to learn and participate in government, and to drive innovation and economic opportunities. I am pleased to say that our Minister of Health has made transparency and openness a key priority during her mandate. The decisions taken by this government impact the day-to-day lives of Canadians and we acknowledge they have the right to understand how and why we make those decisions. All Canadian families want that level of discussion.

Canadians want to feel meaningfully involved and consulted within the decision-making process. We have listened to Canadians and have provided what we believe are the right tools to ensure fairness, openness and transparency. Health Canada plays an important role in being open and transparent, and continues to prioritize the protection of health and safety among Canadians. Greater transparency and openness with Canadians strengthens the trust in our regulatory decisions. Canadians can see for themselves that Health Canada continues to make regulatory decisions based on valid evidence.

The credible, timely information Health Canada provides is absolutely vital in helping Canadians to make informed choices for themselves and their families. Since the thalidomide tragedy, Canada and other countries have also invested in research. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada both actively support research related to improving health of mothers and babies, as members will hear later today.

(1045) Today, we are focusing our discussion on a tragic event that took place over 50 years ago but has never been forgotten. It is a tragic event that has terribly affected the lives of thalidomide victims and their families. I would like to reiterate that our Conservative government recognizes the challenges that thalidomide victims face each and every day. We are already reviewing their proposal and we look forward to meeting with them very soon. The health and safety of all Canadians is a priority for our government.

That commitment, of course, includes the victims of thalidomide, who have already suffered far too much. We are ready to listen and to ensure that everyone is heard and included. (1050) [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for her eloquent speech. I noticed that we agree on a lot of points. We know that these survivors spent years seeking assistance from the successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

However, it is only now that all of the parties—I am assuming—will agree to help these survivors. Will the government commit to compensating them right away so that they do not have to suffer any longer? [ English ] Ms. Eve Adams : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health reached out a couple of weeks ago to speak with the association. We are eagerly looking to review its proposal, and it will be done with all due haste. Nothing will ever undo the pain and suffering that was caused some 50 years ago, but the onus is upon us as Parliament to move forward and help these victims. Hon.

Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary support this motion, because it is worthwhile. I echo my colleague from the NDP's position that it should be timely and as soon as possible. I noticed in her speech that the parliamentary secretary discussed Vanessa's law and the openness, transparency, and evidence based decision-making of the Conservative government. That is an appropriate thing to talk about, because it was as a result of thalidomide that we moved to a very strong drug regulation system.

However, I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary 's speech means that things will change and that evidence based decisions will be made. As she well knows, at public hearings in committee, the government has tended not to listen to evidence by specialists and experts but continued along without any making changes to any of its legislation. Can I ask the parliamentary secretary if this signals a new era? Ms. Eve Adams : Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the victims of thalidomide. It is not a time for partisan sniping.

If I might just address the member's question, we have always looked at evidence during our committee hearings and every recommendation that we have ever brought forward was evidence-based. Under Vanessa's law, a new era of transparency has come in with our drug safety approvals. We are now posting clinical trial information online, and the Minister of Health will now have the ability to compel drug companies to remove unsafe drugs from shelves, instead of simply negotiating. I would like to ensure that the debate today reverts to the victims of thalidomide, instead of this type of partisanship. Mrs.

Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated, we are happy that the government has indicated that it will support this NDP motion. It has taken this long for the little bit of compensation the victims of thalidomide have received. They were in fact coerced into basically signing an indemnity form in the 1990s. The little bit of compensation they have received certainly does not address the critical health issues they continue to face. Now that we see that the government is going to support the motion, could it please let us know how quickly it is going to act?

Could it tell us what the compensation and assistance will actually look like?

(1055) Ms. Eve Adams : Mr. Speaker, in fact, as I indicated in my speech, in the 1990s the War Amps of Canada worked with the survivors and victims of thalidomide to advocate for compensation. I believe it was a Conservative government that provided funding at the time based on all available knowledge and the needs of the victims at the time. The War Amps of Canada is an outstanding advocate and does wonderful service across this country. I can say that when my father's leg was amputated, it provided the artificial limb. I would like to pay tribute to the work that it undertook back in the 1980s and 1990s.

The government is moving with all due haste to ensure that these victims are assisted. Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's address to the House with regard to thalidomide victims and what our government intends to do with and for them. The parliamentary secretary asked something that I think is very reasonable. She asked that we try to refrain from partisan sniping, because we all agree that something needs to be done and that we should work with the victims.

Let us make today a day that we talk about the issues surrounding those living with the terrible results of taking this drug. We cannot undo the past. We cannot make right something that occurred some 50-some years ago. However, in the House today, with regard to what the parliamentary secretary asked, we can talk to each other, make some suggestions, say how we really feel about those victims, and make a commitment that this should not happen again.

With that in mind, and because we can never be 100% sure of anything in this world, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could once again tell us some of the things the government has done to help ensure that we try as hard as we can and that we do not approve drugs that end up being worse than the illness or disease they are intended to ameliorate. Ms. Eve Adams : Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question by my hon. colleague. It is true that nothing can undo the tragic events of the 1960s and that we need to assist those victims.

Today, through Vanessa's law, Canada now has one of the safest drug safety systems in the world. As I have indicated, the Minister of Health now has the authority to compel drug companies to remove drugs from the shelves. Previously, she was in the untenable situation where she would sometimes have to negotiate with drug companies as to whether or not drugs could be removed from the shelves, all the while Canadians might be purchasing those very drugs. It was a very unfortunate situation. Now there are mandatory recall powers. There is mandatory reporting of adverse conditions.

Usually when there is a significant adverse reaction, a person will show up at a hospital. Hospitals will now need to report any adverse reactions so that the Minister of Health will be aware and immediate action can be undertaken, if necessary. There is also transparency now for drug approvals and clinical trials, and on this front Canada is now a world leader in providing this level of transparency. We want to do right by these victims. We want to ensure that these victims are assisted, but we also want to make sure that, moving forward, these types of tragedies never take place again.

I was a child in the 1980s and whenever I had a health class, one of the first things my teachers would tell me was to be especially cautious about anything prescribed to me when I become pregnant one day. They would all cite the thalidomide example, or Love Canal down in Buffalo. I am sure many Ontarians recall that. These are outrageous tragedies that transpired at a time when people thought it was all very reasonable. I want to assure the House that Canada now has one of the strongest drug safety systems in the world. We are incredibly conscientious with this issue.

(1100) Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion before us. I wholeheartedly support the survivors of thalidomide and the work they have been doing to bring this issue to the public's attention. I also want to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Vancouver East , for bringing this issue forward and for her support. The government has agreed to support the survivors' request. I congratulate the Minister of Health and thank her for taking this position. We all know the story of what happened with thalidomide in the 1950s.

In 1954, the drug was created by a German company and was sent out to other countries. With the exception of the United States, most clinical trials showed that this was a safe drug at the time. However, in 1961, issues of deformities and very drastic side-effects from the drug began to show up in women who were pregnant. Therefore, in 1961, most countries removed the drug from the market. However, the drug continued to remain in Canada for a few extra months. As a result of pregnant women taking that drug, 2,000 children died.

As we know, if a child or fetus is unsustainable because of severe malformation, it does not necessarily exist. There were miscarriages very early in pregnancies or mid-pregnancies due to these kinds of deformities. There were 10,000 children born with serious defects, and that does not include the thousands of fetuses that never came to fruition as a result of severe malformations. It is important that we look back at this story. As a result of this, Canada began to develop, and has developed, a very strong and vigorous drug reporting system. We always need to learn from our mistakes.

Hindsight is 20/20, and we tend to think that we could have done different things at the time. However, at that time, I do not think people understood or knew that drugs could cause many of these issues, such as the defects from the use of this drug. However, we need to bear responsibility for what happened in those days. One of the things we feel is important to remember is that, and it does not matter what party is in government, the federal government made decisions that caused this problem. Therefore, the federal government has a responsibility and a duty to right that wrong.

There are also ethical and moral aspects, and we need to ensure we have compassion, that justice is served and that we care for Canadians who are harmed or suffer, as this group has, from any kind of side effect. I wanted to speak to the motion, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health brought up this issue, and it is worth discussing. It is extremely relevant for us to talk about the drug approval system in Canada. We do have a strong drug approval system and, indeed, it was because of thalidomide. Vanessa's law is a good law, but we believe it could have gone further.

We have heard recently that in the last seven years, the number of faulty drugs that have gone on the market have tripled. One of the things that could have been strengthened in Vanessa's law is not merely that the minister can pull a drug off the shelf if he or she finds it is either faulty or there are adverse effects being reported from the use of the drug, but ensure that it is truly open and that the public is aware of that. The Food and Drug Administration in the United States has public reporting of clinical trials and public reporting immediately when there are adverse effects of faulty drugs.

We have seen that over and over. However, we have a tendency not to let the public know, and we need to do that. It is important that the health care professionals who prescribe drugs and the pharmacists who dispense them, in many instances off the counter, are aware, as soon as possible, when there is some adverse effect or when there is a faulty drug. This is something we need to talk about, and I am not being partisan. I think we all feel it is important to speak to the issue of drug safety.

(1105) I also am pleased the minister has decided to support the motion, but I would like to ensure that the details, and the devil is always in the details, of what the thalidomide survivors have asked for will be taken into consideration. We know that in 1991 a simple one-time-only payout was made to many of the thalidomide survivors of about $52,000 to $82,000, depending on the severity of their disabilities. However, to be cynical, I do not think most people at that time felt that anyone with such severe disabilities would survive into their fifties.

That it is a tribute to the resilience and the powerful will of the survivors of thalidomide. They have spent a lot of time learning how to live with these disabilities, how to work with them and find meaningful jobs, how to move on and live some sort of meaningful life. However, because they have reached their fifties and many of their family members have passed on, or maybe their parents are no longer able to support them, they are suffering probably sooner than most of us from chronic disabilities, such as arthritis and diseases.

We well know that many of them only have one lung, sometimes one kidney or have severe limb deformities because of the effect of this drug. It is really important now for these survivors to get the help they need. I hope that when the government says it will support the motion and it will support the survivors, that we do not go back to the old “Let's give them a lump sum.” We have seen what Germany and the United Kingdom have done. They have given yearly stipends and financial living assistance to many of their survivors, which totals somewhere around $88,000 to $110,000 per year.

I hope the government will give the survivors what they have asked for. We know they will need to have an annual living stipend, as they have asked for, which will allow them to get the adaptations they need for their cars, their homes and their workplaces. They will need the technical assistance to help them to do the things that we take for granted, such as washing their hair, brushing their teeth, basic daily living needs. They will need help such as home care or someone living with them full time or part time to assist them.

That requires an annual stipend and financial living assistance for as long as these survivors live. We know clearly what they have asked for. They have said that they want a $250,000 lump sum payment immediately and $100,000 a year for as long as they live. This will allow them to live meaningful, pain-free lives, have basic living care, and continue to work, if they work. I repeat that I hope the minister will give these survivors exactly what they have asked for and not water it down. We can all learn from this lesson. I want to thank the War Amps.

In 1991, it pushed for that stipend when it was told very clearly by the government of the day, in late 1989, early 1990, that there would be no money because that would create a precedent for those who were infected by tainted blood. As members know, the Liberals, when they formed government, spent a great deal of money on recompense and on living expenses for people who had been infected by tainted blood, following a major inquiry into the tainted blood issue. The bottom line is that government has a responsibility, regardless of its strip, to look at these mistakes, redress them, and learn from them.

That is very important. Thalidomide has taught us a very important lesson. As I said, we have a strong regulatory system, one of the best in world, and that has come about as a result of this problem.

(1110) I hope we are really open about the public's need to know. As we saw with birth control pills about a year ago, the government knew about the faulty pills. Women were taking these pills and health professionals were dispensing them, without knowing about the faultiness of those prescription drugs. Of course, we know what the result of taking a faulty birth control pill is. That could be a huge problem for many women who did not wish to become pregnant. Over and over, we have seen the need for openness to the public. The Food and Drug Administration in the United States has done this very well.

We can take a page from its book and learn that the more people know and understand, the better the caveat emptor, the better they can understand what they take so they can make rational decisions on over-the-counter drugs and on the health care professionals who prescribe them. This piece needs to be put into Vanessa's law. I know many of us, the official opposition and our party, brought this up during the hearings on that bill. We felt this still was missing. This is not, as the parliamentary secretary said, being partisan.

If we all care and we are all in agreement, we can talk about the things we need to do to improve our system. I wish to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for bringing this forward. I hope the government will in fact listen to the victims, and be very generous and open with that compensation. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's speech and I would like to thank her. She is a doctor, so she is probably very familiar with the side effects that were caused by the use of thalidomide in the 1960s.

We recognize that compensation or assistance should have been given to thalidomide survivors a long time ago. Why did the Conservative and Liberal governments fail to take action until today, when we moved a motion to discuss these tragic events? I would like to know why Canada did not offer these survivors any support, even if it was only moral support. Why did we not listen to these survivors? Why did we not help them? [ English ] Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. My colleague is also a physician. She knows that one can look back. It was in the 1950s and 1960s when this occurred.

We can ask why, but that is something I cannot answer. I was not around. I was not in government at the time. I was not privy to the discussions around the table. I know the then minister of health under the Conservative government decided he would not provide compensation. The excuse he gave was that the government would then have to provide compensation for the many people who had been infected by tainted blood. The issue is not what happened and why, it is where do we go from here. How do we right those wrongs? How do we move forward now?

We have to learn from this so it never happens again, so the people who are harmed as a result of decisions made by governments will know that the government will do the right thing and come up solutions. I cannot account for what happened then, but we need to move on and learn so that in the future this does not recur. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to talk to a number of the individuals directly affected, people who were subjected to this horrible drug and lived with the consequences all their lives.

As well, I spoke with some of the people doing the legal work around this issue. One of the questions I had as was why compensation had not been asked for in as direct a way as presented today. The response I received was that they had now organized as a group. There are 95 remaining victims. With aging presenting new problems, this is why they have come forward in a very focused effort to renegotiate compensation that was once offered back in the early 1990s, but has not been revisited since.

Now that we know aging is the specific problem, what concerns do we have that unforeseen problems may not be anticipated by the committee? How will we ensure that the committee goes forward on a consistent basis and not only generously addresses the issues in front of us now, but sets up a process by which new issues that emerge as this community ages are also dealt with?

(1115) Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very good point when he said that at the time the lump sum was given—and this is why hindsight is 20/20—no one expected that thalidomide survivors would live to become 50 years of age. Nobody understood how medicine worked to help people like that. New technologies and all sorts of things have helped thalidomide victims to survive to this time. Now that they are in their 50s, all of the problems of aging have occurred earlier in this group than they would for many of us.

Hopefully, we can wait until we are well into our 80s before we get some of these problems, but the thalidomide victims have the problems now. The lump sum the thalidomide victims are asking for may give them the ability to renovate their homes and have an appropriate environment in which to live. It is the yearly stipend that they are asking for that would bring forward the question of what they need on a yearly basis to get assisted living if they need it and to get the technical assistance and the equipment they need to help them live in their homes, work, and have meaningful and normal lives in the community.

If other illnesses happen to come with chronic aging, for most of us there is a health care system that will pick that up, and the thalidomide victims will get the health care they need if it is an acute problem. However, this is about being able, every day and every month, to address their needs on an ongoing basis until they no longer survive and no longer need that money. That is why I want the government to ensure that it will continue this yearly stipend and not just give another one-time lump sum payment. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and all of the parties, which, if I understand correctly, plan to support the NDP's motion. I would like to know one thing: should every government not ask itself these moral questions when it learns, for example, that we continued to offer a drug that another country in Europe or elsewhere in the world took off the market, as was the case with thalidomide? Should the government not pay more attention to drugs that are causing problems in other countries? Why would our children be less likely to be affected?

Knowing that the drug has been withdrawn from the market, should every government not show some moral character and protect the public, children and even adults who could one day take drugs that would make them very sick? [ English ] Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a very important point to make, but I cannot speak for what happened with the governments in those days. I was not here. I was not a member of Parliament. However, I do believe that the obligation of government is moral. There is a moral obligation for basic human justice.

As well, there is an obligation for compensation for mistakes that were made. We now have to say that we saw what the results were and that we think we must now, as a government if ever we form government, and as a House, move forward to ensure that this does not happen again. We have to learn from mistakes. We have to ensure that we recognize our moral obligation to Canadians, not simply to address past or present wrongs but also to treat people in a fair and just manner and empower our citizens to have a quality of life that enables them to be productive and have a meaningful existence.

There is indeed a moral and ethical obligation, and there is a compensatory obligation as well.

(1120) Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague and the comments she made. She understands this issue very well and certainly continues to fight for all of us, in particular on behalf of health issues.

On this particular issue on thalidomide and the terrible things that have happened, my concern is that although the Conservatives say they are going to sit down and talk with the individuals, on many previous occasions they indicated they would do something and have a conversation, but when it came to actually putting that kind of money and help on the table, it did not seem to be there. I am concerned about whether the government is going to actually do that. I want to know what my colleague thinks about that aspect. Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr.

Speaker, if the minister meets with the thalidomide survivors, as she said she would, she should be prepared to grant them exactly what they ask for. She should also keep an ongoing watch to ensure that if new symptoms or new problems arise under the compensation on an annual basis and the lump sum compensation does not work, the annual compensation could be increased to meet the specific needs that may or may not arise. It is clear what the survivors are asking for.

They want a $250,000 lump sum payment and $100,000 per year to provide them with the technical and the living assistance that they will need on a day-to-day basis. That is pretty clear. There was no obfuscation on the minister's part, I hope, when she said she would listen to them and do what they ask. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Laval . I would like to take this opportunity to speak to this motion on behalf of my constituents in Surrey North.

This very important motion was put forward by the NDP member for Vancouver East , who has been advocating on this terrible Canadian tragedy to ensure that the victims of thalidomide are properly compensated. I would like to thank the member for Vancouver East for bringing this particular issue to the floor of the House to have a proper and long overdue hearing for the victims of the thalidomide tragedy. In 1961, a drug was prescribed to pregnant women for morning sickness. The results were tragic. A number of babies had to be aborted. A number of babies were killed. A number of babies became disabled.

There are about 91 survivors currently living in Canada. The Government of Canada approved thalidomide as a safe drug to treat nausea in pregnant women in 1961, although sample tablets were available in 1959. In 1961, thalidomide was withdrawn from the West German and United Kingdom markets, but it remained legally available in Canada until March of 1962, a full three months later. Some groups are saying that it was still available even after it was taken off of the market by Health Canada. In some pharmacies, it was available until May of 1962. The government has never apologized for the devastation it caused.

After decades of discussing compensation, it provided an inadequate one-time payment to survivors. The motion calls on the government to right the wrong and commit to supporting thalidomide survivors. It makes me proud to speak on issues such as this in the House, especially when we get approval from all parties in support of the NDP motion to support thalidomide victims. Days like today give me a reason to come to the House to work on behalf of Canadians who need our help. Today, with the approval of the House, we will see action that is long overdue.

This action should have been taken many years ago, but it was not, and the victims have suffered for far too long. Thalidomide was a drug marketed in the early 1960s as a safe treatment for nausea during pregnancy, as I pointed out. Instead, the drug caused miscarriages and severe birth defects, including missing limbs, organs, deafness, and blindness. In 1961, as we know, it was approved by Canada. Again, there are about 100 survivors who are still here. Decades of dealing with the consequences of thalidomide have left survivors dealing with very severe and debilitating pain.

In many cases, the health care needs exceed what provincial health care systems are able to provide. Some 50 years of attempting to work around their limitations have taken a toll on survivors. Many are now suffering from nerve damage and painful wear and tear on their bodies. This has created enormous challenges for them, including spine and joint damage that severely limits their mobility and many other things.

(1125) The victims were born back in the 1960s. They would be in their 50s now, and they may have had care provided by their parents, who may have passed away. Although compensation or help should have been provided a long time ago, now is the time that they need that help, because they may no longer be receiving care from their parents. There was a one-time lump sum payment provided by the federal government to the victims back in the 1990s. However, it was inadequate. It was a small amount that could not possibly allow them to live life with dignity.

With respect to the history of compensation for thalidomide victims not only in Canada but also across the world, there were lawsuits launched in Germany, Britain, the United Kingdom, and also in Canada in the late 1960s and 1970s. The victims in Germany and the United Kingdom were able to settle with the pharmaceutical company, and the government also pitched in to ensure that there was long-term funding available. It was awarded on a monthly or yearly basis as compensation based on the severity of the damage that was done by thalidomide. However, there was no such settlement in the courts in Canada.

Most of the settlements were done outside of the courts. There was no class action lawsuit. The payments the victims received were small and only one-time payments. That has been the issue. There have been court settlements and government-assisted settlements, but they have always been one-time, small payments. These could not possibly provide all of the help these individuals need to live a healthy life and to do what we are able to do on a daily basis, something we sometimes take for granted.

Therefore, the call from victims and victims organizations is with respect to the inadequate compensation, which should have been based on long-term monthly or yearly funding that would provide care for them on an ongoing basis, so that they can live a dignified life. Germany and the United Kingdom provided funding on a monthly or regular basis,

whereas the funding we provided was a lump sum, which has been inadequate. I could talk about this for a few more minutes, but I know my time is short. I am proud to be in this House to support this motion. I want to also thank the other parties who are supporting this motion to provide adequate compensation for the victims of thalidomide, so that they can live life with dignity and be provided the things they need on a daily basis.

I urge the government to support the will of this House, which it has indicated it would, and negotiate fairly and in good faith with the victims so they can live the rest of their lives in dignity. (1130) [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for his sensitivity to this issue, which now affects only 95 surviving Canadians, unfortunately.

There is no real way to count the number of stillborns, miscarriages or people who were born with disabilities and who died well before the age of 50, which is the average age of survivors. Daily activities include getting dressed, eating and getting around, and even simple acts such as brushing your teeth or sleeping. That does not even include working or being mobile. How does my colleague think we could compensate these people who have suffered for more than 50 years? [ English ] Mr. Jasbir Sandhu : Mr.

Speaker, in 1987, the thalidomide task force was formed and it made a number of recommendations with regard to how we could work together with the victims in order to provide adequate compensation. My colleague talked about the daily challenges of people with effects of the thalidomide drug. The daily challenges are enormous. To provide proper help that will allow them to lead normal lives, they need assistance. They need money, compensation. I believe the Canadian government is morally responsible to ensure that victims are adequately compensated.

The motion says the government should provide support to survivors in co-operation with the thalidomide survivors task force. Again, let us work with victims and have the government negotiate in good faith so that victims who have been damaged by this tragedy are helped properly. (1135) [ Translation ] Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the initiative of my colleague from Vancouver East , who moved this motion. She has raised an important issue that should be acknowledged and that the government should follow up on immediately. That is why our caucus strongly supports this motion.

I also want to thank my colleague from Surrey North , who gave us some background on this calamity and this medical drug. This drug was originally developed in 1952, in West Germany. At the time, it passed a series of tests. Even in 1956, there were no indications that this drug was toxic, and it had been tested a number of times on animals and human beings. After 1957, this drug was primarily marketed to people diagnosed with leprosy and digestive problems. This kind of medication was also prescribed for pregnant women with morning sickness, even though its effects were not well known.

After reading quite a bit on the history of this drug, I was somewhat troubled to learn that the Canadian government approved the drug for sale in 1961. At that time, there was a Progressive Conservative government in place that, one might say, did not bother to push for more research—perhaps because of its policies—before approving this drug for sale and before authorizing physicians to prescribe it. It is fairly natural for pregnant women to experience morning sickness at various stages of their pregnancy.

At times, it is advisable to use natural medicine and old-fashioned methods, as our grandparents would have done, to alleviate this natural inconvenience. I would also like to point out that according to the report approving the sale and prescription of this drug, the drug was found to be fairly safe, meaning that it did not cause any apparent harm to people. I think it was more likely a lack of research or the fact that the information was not adequately analyzed.

The problem with all this is that here we are, 50 years later, addressing the issue of compensation for these victims, when it has long been a concern.

(1140) In 1961, when many people complained about being subjected to this unfair treatment, the Conservative government of the day refused to listen to them and grant them fair compensation. That really bothers me. Now, it is thanks to an effective official opposition that we are putting forward a motion to have the government recognize these people's right to compensation. This bothers me so much that I think we need to open the government's eyes. We have to be vigilant and ask questions about everything that the organizations responsible for this kind of thing do, including the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration. According to my information on that organization, the drug is still available for sale, but is used to treat other maladies. It is good to know that the government is finally paying attention to the people affected by this medical catastrophe and that compensation that should have been paid long ago is on its way. I truly believe that this is great timing for the motion moved by my colleague from Vancouver East .

Any government hoping for re-election or seeking to repair the damage it caused by not listening and by imposing time allocation over and over to push through bills it supports will probably want to project an image of a government that listens and does the right thing. We support this motion and we hope it really will pass so that we can make up for the damage done to so many people who are even now living with the consequences. As I said, when I found out some of that information about thalidomide from so long ago, it really bothered me because human rights and consumer rights are so important to me.

People receiving treatment, be it from a doctor or other health care specialist, need to know their rights before agreeing to follow the doctor's instructions. In addition, doctors are responsible for informing patients of the risks related to the treatments they agree to. Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval for his speech. We all know the harm and suffering caused by thalidomide, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. We are already behind when it comes to compensation.

Other countries have already taken the lead and paid compensation to people. I wonder whether my colleague could talk about such efforts being made around the world. I am thinking of the United Kingdom and Germany, which have already taken the lead and compensated victims, providing their families with the support they need to take care of them.

(1145) Mr. José Nunez-Melo : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. The government needs to take action as soon as possible and clean up this mess. The member is quite right. From what I have read, the United Kingdom, Germany and some other countries have already taken concrete action to prescribe that drug in the case of specific illnesses or ailments that carry less risk. I also learned that this drug was used to treat AIDS in the United States. It remains to be seen whether they achieved the desired results.

Has compensation for patients in the case of abnormalities or medical constraints been proposed? No. Yes, we are lagging behind, but it is time to take action and adopt this motion. [ English ] Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in our health care system, as patients we have our responsibility, physicians have responsibility and, of course, governments and regulators have responsibilities.

I think everyone in the House is aware of the important things we do, working together, to make sure that Canada's health care system is one of the best in the world. Given the failings of the drug system in the 1960s, can the member opposite comment on the current state of Canada's drug system and this government's action to strengthen it? Mr. José Nunez-Melo : In fact, Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is trying to cut $36 billion from the budget for the health system all over Canada.

I think the Conservatives should review and really take care of improving and controlling the research in a proper manner. That is what the government should be aware of and be taking care of for all the citizens of this magnificent country. I do not have any particular comment on how the Conservatives are now working on it, but it is a matter of the budget, because we know that the research and funds for it have lately been in very bad standing in the government. After 2015 we will repair all those malfeasances and problems that the Conservatives have been carrying out year after year.

(1150) Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie . I am pleased to have the opportunity today to take

part in this very important discussion about thalidomide and to pay tribute to the 12,000 babies in 46 countries who were born with malformations. Like all Canadians, I am saddened to know that only some 8,000 of these babies made it past their first birthday. Let me assure the House, as has already been expressed by other members on this side of the House, that we will be supporting the motion today. Many of my colleagues are contributing to this debate by bringing forward varying perspectives, sometimes their own personal stories or experiences, to this very important issue.

However, if the best predictor of future behaviour is indeed past behaviour, it is important to consider the historical perspective of the regulatory framework in our country. It is important to consider what was in place in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, and how this framework has evolved since then. The thalidomide experience caused the government to overhaul the Canadian drug regulatory framework. As a result, Canada has one of the safest and most rigorous drug approval systems in the entire world.

The system is continuously evolving and improving as we find new ways to better protect the health of all Canadians. These changes include the very recent improvements brought forward through Bill C-17, known as Vanessa's law. This bill, brought forward by the Minister of Health received royal assent earlier this month. Canadians can rest assured that I am fully conscious of the fact that whatever improvements have been made since the thalidomide tragedy, they are of no relief whatsoever to the victims, their families, and friends. Nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering inflicted.

That being said, I feel it is very important to look back at the history of our regulatory framework. The history of federal oversight of foods and drugs in Canada started some 150 years ago and predates Confederation. Oversight was initially confined to ensuring that food and drugs were not adulterated. The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act of 1909 was the first legislation to register medicines. Although limited in scope, that act was the beginning of this country's legislative protection of the public against drugs administered without medical supervision.

This regime prevailed until 1920, at which time the Food and Drugs Act was introduced. This followed the establishment of a federal Department of Health the previous year. By the late 1920s, regulations developed under the Food and Drugs Act established specific requirements for the licensing of drugs. At that time, the Minister of Health had the authority to cancel or suspend a licence if these requirements were violated. A significant reworking of the food and drugs regulations did not begin until 1947, but it laid the foundation for the regulations that are in place today.

By 1951, and as is still the case today, manufacturers were required to file new drug submissions prior to marketing their drugs. As I said, that has not changed. However, the required content of these submissions has since changed significantly. It is under that regulatory regime that thalidomide was first approved for sale in Canada to treat sleeplessness and morning sickness. More specifically, it was approved in November 1960 under the brand name, Kevadon, and again in October 1961 as Talimol.

In 1962, the drug was withdrawn from the Canadian market when it was discovered that it caused birth defects when taken during pregnancy. However, by then a lot of damage had already been done. As I said previously, approximately 12,000 babies in 46 countries were born with malformations. In Canada, it is estimated that more than 100 Canadian families were impacted. The tragic circumstances surrounding thalidomide's removal from the market in the 1960s prompted a complete revision of the Food and Drugs Act and the food and drug regulations.

These revisions were made to strengthen Health Canada's regulatory oversight and data requirements for new drug submissions.

(1155) The government asked the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons to appoint a special committee to review new drug procedures under the Food and Drugs Act. The intent was to critically review the act and associated regulatory powers in order for Health Canada to more effectively carry out its purpose and to protect the public. In December 1962, new legislation was introduced that substantially broadened Health Canada's powers.

For the first time, Health Canada was given the authority to enact regulations respecting the distribution or conditions of distribution of drug samples; the prohibition of sale of certain drugs; the methods of preparation, manufacture, preservation, packing, labelling, storing, and testing of new drugs; and the sale or conditions of sale of any new drug. In January 1963, a complete revision of the Food and Drug Regulations concerning the sale and distribution of new drugs was finalized, and new regulations were arrived at in October 1963. These revisions imposed strict safety requirements.

For the first time, manufacturers were required to produce “substantial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the new drug”, including clinical case reports and in vitro studies, in addition to the previous safety requirements. At the time that thalidomide was initially authorized, the package of information related to the drug was limited, contained in only a small binder of data. Now the volume of data received by Health Canada for the review of a new drug can fill several hundred binders, with safety, efficacy, and quality-related data.

Given the observations noted by the special committee in the 1960s, drug distribution was also an important issue to be addressed in revising the Food and Drug Regulations. The situation was brought into focus when it was disclosed that the greatest distribution of thalidomide was to the medical profession, as free samples to give to patients. Reports also surfaced that individuals were taking delivery of these unsolicited samples and selling them to wholesalers, pharmacists, and others.

The Food and Drug Regulations were therefore amended to discourage excessive and unsolicited sampling, through maintenance of complete distribution records by manufacturers. Today, the post-thalidomide 1960s revisions of the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations regarding Health Canada's regulatory responsibilities, the new drug submission requirements, as well as the distribution and sampling of prescription medicines, remain substantially the same. As science has evolved, the revised framework has allowed Health Canada to require appropriate and through studies to support drug approvals.

Through the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations, Health Canada regulates the safety, efficacy, and quality of pharmaceutical drugs. The pharmaceutical drugs program involves pre-market review, post-market surveillance and compliance, and, of course, enforcement. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the most recent substantive revision to the Food and Drugs Act, completed earlier this month, is the recently adopted Bill C-17 , Vanessa's law.

This legislation enables Health Canada to better respond to drug safety issues and improve patient safety related to prescription and over-the-counter drugs, vaccines, gene therapies, cell tissues and organs, and medical devices. It includes new measures to strengthen safety oversight of therapeutic products over their life cycle. These measures are intended to improve Health Canada's ability to collect post-market safety information, take appropriate action when a serious health risk is identified, and help ensure that drug safety information is available to Canadians.

As well, these measures serve to promote greater confidence in the oversight of therapeutic products by increasing transparency and improving safety of their use. In Canada, manufacturers must now file a submission with Health Canada and receive authorization before a new drug can be marketed. These submissions contain substantial information and data about a drug's safety, effectiveness, and quality, as well as side effects, warnings, precautions, and contraindications. Health Canada also continues to enhance its post-marketing surveillance and assessment of programs for health products.

Comprehensive evaluations include information from post-marketing surveillance, on a global scale, to determine whether the benefits of a marketed drug continue to outweigh its risks.

(1200) The 1960s thalidomide tragedy highlighted the need to reform Canada's drug approval process, and prompted a modernization of the Food and Drugs Act and underlying regulations, which has shaped today's drug regulation standards in Canada. The drug review process continues to evolve and improve, but five decades after the thalidomide tragedy, the initial legislative reforms brought about by the result of this sad

chapter in our history continues to underpin Health Canada's legislation and practices. I look forward to hearing about the minister's constructive meeting with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada and what support we can offer these victims. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the member opposite. He gave us the quite the background on Health Canada's regulations from the 1960s to today. I would like to provide some clarification on that background.

Thalidomide is a German sedative that was marketed in Canada in 1959 by the U.S. company William S. Merrell, which had the rights to distribute the drug. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, rejected this drug because they deemed that evidence supporting the safety of this drug was inadequate. Nevertheless, this product was marketed here in Canada. Does my colleague think that drug safety is the federal government's responsibility? [ English ] Mr. Colin Carrie : Mr.

Speaker, I believe everyone in this House can state that these tragic events in the 1960s reminds us that we all need to take drug safety seriously. As I said in my speech, nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering that was inflicted on these patients and their families. We did address this issue in a settlement in the 1990s, but I think Canadians need to know that Canada now has one of the safest drug systems in the world. It was recently strengthened further by the passage of Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, which my colleague from Oakville did so much work on.

We now have mandatory recall powers so that we will not to have to negotiate with big pharma. We have mandatory reporting of serious adverse drug reactions. We have tough new fines and jail time for companies who put Canadians at risk. Very importantly, we have transparency for drug approvals and clinical trials. As I said, nothing can undo the pain and suffering that was inflicted by this medication in the 1960s. It reminds us that we all have to take an important role in managing drug safety. Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the member for his interesting history of the evolution of our current drug policy system. As he so rightly said, in 50 years, science has allowed us to evolve in order to understand drugs, their adverse effects and how they impact people, and to therefore create better clinical trials, and those other things that have brought us to today. The tragedy of thalidomide had one good thing about it, in that it brought everyone to a point of wanting to have drug safety and to use science to evolve to this point.

However, the motion today on the floor, which the government supports, speaks to compensation for the victims and to some ongoing support on an annual basis. I ask the member whether his government will commit to providing exactly what the thalidomide survivors task force has asked for. It speaks very clearly to $250,000 in a lump sum, and then $100,000 per year after that. Will the government commit to this?

(1205) Mr. Colin Carrie : Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague for her question. I had the pleasure of working with her on the health committee for a number of years. As a physician, she has likely had the personal experience of dealing with patients who have had serious reactions and consequences from taking different drugs. It is important that everyone in the House understands that these victims have health issues and that we are reviewing the proposal put forth by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada.

As the minister has stated, she will be meeting with them shortly to discuss their proposals. Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for Oshawa on his very thoughtful remarks. We are certainly fortunate to have a parliamentary secretary who is so engaged on the topic. It is impossible to stand today to speak about the thalidomide tragedy and not be moved. It is a story of an unspeakable tragedy of distraught parents, and children born with challenges that most of us cannot begin to comprehend.

This is a tragic event from the 1960s that reminds us of why we need to take drug safety so seriously. Nothing could ever undo the pain and suffering that was inflicted. It is a story that changed the way we regulate drugs in Canada. It opened our eyes to the fact that while drugs can bring many benefits, by curing diseases, reducing symptoms, and prolonging lives, they can also carry tremendous risks. It also serves as a constant reminder that we as parliamentarians must do all that we can to strengthen patient safety in Canada.

That is why I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Health will be meeting with thalidomide victims and working co-operatively with them to determine what government can do to support them. Canada now has one of the safest drug systems in the world, and our government recently strengthened that even further, giving royal assent to Bill C-17 , Vanessa's law.

Protecting patients is a shared responsibility, one that also rests with fellow legislators in the provinces and with provincial health departments, individual health care professionals and administrators, the colleges that regulate medical practice and other professional organizations, key partners like the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, and last, of course, the manufacturers of drugs. The thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s, like no other event before or since, has impressed upon us what a truly enormous responsibility that is.

While the quest for new cures is vital, it is equally important that we do everything in our power to ensure that drugs that reach the market do not cause harms that outweigh their benefits. That is why all parties in the House and in the other place united to unanimously support Vanessa's law, and why so many stakeholders and individuals endorsed that legislation.

Although many steps have been taken previously to strengthen Canada's drug safety system, we all recognize that the Minister of Health and Health Canada did not have adequate powers to protect patients from drugs that were found to be unsafe once they were on the market We, as legislators, acted decisively to provide the new tools to address this gap.

I would like to take some time today to focus on how Vanessa's law will enhance patient safety, how it will reduce the risk of tragic events like those associated with thalidomide, and how it will help Canadians to make informed decisions about the drugs they are taking. Vanessa's law will ensure that knowledge about approved drugs and medical devices continues to be gathered and shared with the public once products enter the market. This is important because clinical trials can only tell us about how a drug will affect a particular population, the population it was tested on.

They do not tell us how the drug will affect everyone who might take it once it is on the market. When a company submits an application for market authorization to Health Canada, reviewers analyze the results of all tests and studies that are submitted. If the product is safe, effective, and of high quality, the department will give the company a licence to market a drug in Canada for a particular use. However, once products reach the market, Health Canada's ability to gather knowledge about them has traditionally been limited, and its ability to take action when problems arise has also been limited.

That is why there are new provisions in Vanessa's law that represent a game changer. Let me take a moment to describe some of them and why Vanessa's law is so crucial. One important new provision is that Vanessa's law will give the Minister of Health the ability to set the terms and conditions on an authorization and to make those terms and conditions publicly available.

What this means is that, as part of the authorization, Health Canada will be able to ask a pharmaceutical company to continue to gather information in the real world, after the product reaches the market, and to make the results of the information gathering public so that Canadians and their health care providers have easy access to them. For example, Health Canada may require the company to gather information about the impacts of a drug on patients with multiple medical conditions. Health Canada could require a company to monitor and assess the effects of drugs on patients with impaired kidney function.

This may or may not have been studied in the initial clinical trial, and the approved label would indicate that.

(1210) However, this information may prove to be important as we gather real-world experience and see some patients with impaired kidney function and how the drug affects them. It may become apparent that there is no difference in the benefits and harms experienced by patients with impaired kidney function. However, should it become clear that there may be a cause for concern, Health Canada will be able to compel the manufacturer to conduct active safety surveillance or conduct a new study specifically to address the issue.

The information about what activities the manufacturers are being compelled to undertake will be made public. It will be a transparent system so that prescribers and patients will know what actions are being taken. Vanessa's law also provides the Minister of Health with the power to compel a label change for a drug and to make that information publicly available to Canadians. In the past, most companies have agreed on a voluntary basis to undertake a label change. Sometimes, however, protracted negotiations have been required, and sometimes, those negotiations were not successful.

The new powers provided by Vanessa's law have changed that, so if adults or children are taking a drug, they will be able to access this new information. This will allow us, as Canadians, to make informed decisions in consultation with our health care providers. However, not all new information comes from tests, studies, or the ongoing proactive monitoring of a drug. Sometimes, adverse events are completely unexpected and only identified through a rigorous adverse drug reaction reporting system. This reflects the reality I mentioned before, that patient safety is a shared responsibility.

That is why Vanessa's law included mandatory reporting of serious adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents by health care institutions. Simply put, serious adverse drug reaction reports from manufacturers, health care institutions, health care professionals, and the public often provide the first clue about an emerging drug safety issue. To date, adverse drug reactions have been under-reported in Canada. It has only been mandatory for companies to report adverse drug reactions related to their products.

It was recognized that it is critical that we increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions so that Health Canada could take quick action when a problem is detected and share the knowledge rapidly with health care professionals and, most importantly, the public, in order to prevent further harm. Sometimes, it may be necessary to remove a drug or particular batch of the drug from the market. Other times, it may be appropriate to change the label of a drug so that health care practitioners are aware of the new information when they make their prescribing decisions.

In other situations, it may be most appropriate to require the company to conduct some active monitoring to gather further information. I mentioned earlier the important work done by the Canadian Patient Safety Institute and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute works with governments, health organizations, leaders, and health care providers to inspire improvements in patient safety and quality care. It acts as an advocate and catalyst for improvements in patient safety, and it invests in and brokers policy and system changes to protect the health of Canadian patients.

As Health Canada works to roll out the new authorities provided in Vanessa's law, either immediately or through developing regulations, these organizations will be able to provide advice. Nothing can undo the pain and suffering endured by the thalidomide survivors and their families, and it is truly tragic. However, with the passing of Vanessa's law, federal regulators have important new tools to enhance on-market drug safety.

The legislation is a very real step to reducing the risk that similar tragedies will occur in the future, and it represents a very important federal contribution to the shared goal of patient safety in Canada.

(1215) Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate the fact that the Conservative government has indicated it will be supporting this motion. The thalidomide victims have been waiting for this for a long time. Looking at the information that is before us, we have to also consider not only the impact this has had on the victims because of their deformities but the impact it has had on their whole lives and that it will continue to have as they are aging.

I asked this question before, but I did not get an answer to it from the member's colleague, so I hope that the member can enlighten us, given that he sits on the health committee. Can he tell us, now that they have finally agreed to support this, how quickly they will be acting? Can he elaborate on the steps that will be taken so that these victims can be comforted and know what is coming before them? Mr. Patrick Brown : Mr. Speaker, I did sit on the health committee for several years but have not been on the committee for the last two years.

I do have a keen interest in health care, and obviously this tragedy shocked all of us. It is an issue about which we all have endless concern. The member mentioned that she is pleased that we are supporting this motion and I am glad to hear that. There is no partisanship when it comes to standing united in the face of this tragedy. I am so pleased that the Minister of Health has announced she will be meeting with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada. It is important to state that it is going to happen. The government will be here to provide whatever support it can in the wake of this tragedy.

Health Canada has learned from this tragedy and has made improvements that have reduced the risk of this kind of terrible event from occurring again, including an overhaul of Canada's drug and regulatory framework. That is important. We recognize the pain and suffering of the victims and we are here to support them. At the same time, we want to make sure that we learn from what happened and that Health Canada has the framework and the regulatory ability to ensure we can prevent something like this from ever happening again. Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened to the submission made by my friend from Barrie with regard to the government's support of the victims of thalidomide and the terrible tragedy that occurred some 50 years ago. It does not seem so long ago that we were viewing on our televisions and reading in our newspapers about the terrible effects of this drug. My friend also made note of Vanessa's law. This legislation was introduced in the House by our caucus mate from Oakville and was passed in the House. It builds on this government's record of ensuring drug safety across Canada.

Canada has one of the strictest and strongest regimes of drug oversight in the world. I wonder if my friend might continue to inform the House that this is a non-partisan issue. All of us in the House have agreed to work together to make sure that these things, to the best extent possible, do not happen again. Perhaps he could refresh our memory with regard to Vanessa's law and some of the steps that our government has taken to ensure, as best it can, that we have the strongest regime possible concerning drugs. I wonder if he would comment on these issues. Mr. Patrick Brown : Mr.

Speaker, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West has made his life in public safety, and this falls into that category. This is all about public safety. I want to touch on Bill C-17 , Vanessa's law, which was raised by my colleague. It is important to recognize what this legislation will do. It is a step forward for patient safety and for public safety.

Bill C-17 will bring in mandatory recall powers, so that we will not have to negotiate with big pharma companies; mandatory reporting of serious adverse drug reactions; tough new fines and jail time for companies that put Canadians at risk; and transparency for drug approvals and clinical trials. These are all critically important steps forward. Obviously the tragic events in the 1960s remind us of why we need to take drug safety seriously. Let us be clear. Nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering inflicted on these individuals. That is why it is so important that we get it right, so this never happens again.

That is why it is important that we use every power and tool within government's regulatory powers to make sure we have the proper framework in place to protect patients.

(1220) Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and speak to this important issue. [ Translation ] I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River . Allow me to give you an overview. In 1961, the Government of Canada approved the sale of thalidomide as a safe drug for alleviating nausea among pregnant women. However, it was observed that this drug caused miscarriages and serious birth defects, such as missing limbs and organs, deafness and blindness.

This drug had adverse effects and disastrous consequences for many families. For the past 50 years, the survivors have been living with their limitations. Many survivors are now suffering from nerve damage and painful wear and tear on their bodies. It has caused enormous challenges for them, including the loss of the ability to use their limbs to care for themselves and damage to their spines and joints, which severely limits their mobility.

It has limited their ability to gain employment and it means they have often had to depend on others for very basic tasks, such as using the toilet, dressing and preparing meals. [ English ] As we see, there has been a wide range of impacts, and those are not limited to what I have mentioned, actually. There certainly are a lot of things happening to these victims—the survivors, actually, because as I have indicated I believe, and as many have indicated before, approximately 10,000 thalidomide victims were born worldwide and there are about only 100 of them who are actually still alive here in Canada.

We can see that their lives are being affected very deeply, at this point. I am going to quote a few articles from the newspapers because I think it is important to hear these victims' personal stories. This is a report from the CBC news, entitled “Thalidomide victim calls on Canadian government for compensation”. The story is from Marie Olney, whose arms are only about 15 centimetres long and each has only three fingers. We can see how challenging it has been for her.

She states that, “The disabilities we have were caused as a direct result of a decision by Health Canada to approve the drug without further testing.” She goes on to say that it is very difficult for her to prepare meals. To even shovel her walk is actually quite impossible for her to do.

She stated that “On a daily basis there are many things I have to do using my legs, my feet, my mouth, my chin.” Then, “What I'm garnering from my work is a lot less because of all the money I'm having to pay out for these services.” We see a person who has been so severely affected trying to make ends meet and is unable to do that because the services have either been cut back or are just not there, and we have to understand that, certainly, the federal government's cuts to health care do not help. At the end of the day, the money that she does make does not go far enough.

She certainly is needing more and more services as she ages and, unfortunately, the money is just not going far enough. Also, Mercedes Benegbi, who is from Montreal, states, “Many of us still rely on our parents, our friends. We can't live like that anymore,” and of course a lot of them have aging parents and we know that they are not able to care for them the way they would like to care for them. She goes on to say, “Without funding from the federal government, we are living in a state of never-ending crisis—one that is not only physical, but also financial and emotional.”

(1225) Other countries have already provided yearly support to thalidomide victims. We are pleased to see that the government will support the NDP motion on this. I want to go back to Ms. Olney, who basically said that she is disheartened that the government has taken so long to step up but is happy that it has. She went on to say: They promised in 1963 and, but for a very small compassionate amount in 1991, they've not delivered on that promise at all. It's money that we need to survive in dignity and to stay as independent for as long as we can.

It is incumbent upon us as legislators and policy-makers to ensure that when we have legislation or situations in Canada that affect people, especially when it impacts their health, the proper resources and supports are there for them to live in dignity. I have a sister with Alzheimer's and I know how important it is for her to get the services and to ensure that she has the support she needs to continue to live a dignified life. We need to tip our hats to Dr. Kelsey, a Canadian-born doctor who held the position of medical officer at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in Washington in the early 1960s.

She almost single-handedly averted a public disaster in the U.S. with respect to this specific medication, because she would not allow the department to approve it. Although the drug companies kept pushing her, they were not providing the proper information needed to ensure that she would be confident that it would be a good decision to make with respect to the protection and health of U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, at the same time those applications were put in, the federal government of the day in Canada rushed it through and passed it.

Although it felt like an eternity, it was not long afterward that babies were born with flipper-like arms or limbs. There were some who were born abroad to Canadian families because women had been prescribed thalidomide. There were at least 15 wives of Canadian soldiers who were posted in Germany who had given birth to children with severe limb deformities between 1959 and 1961. That had to be swept under the carpet because at that time the women were not supposed to be with the men overseas, and some of those children were left behind because of their disabilities.

As members well know, in the older days a lot of these children were put in asylums or perished. Therefore, we must look at the impact this is having on not only the survivors but also the families who had children affected by thalidomide who may not be alive today and who still live with that. As my time is coming to an end, I think it is extremely important to raise a couple of issues with respect to what needs to happen here. Not only should the survivors be compensated, but it is also imperative that a thalidomide survivors' fund, consisting of two components, be put in place.

They are asking for the following: a one-time payment for survivors to help them address their immediate and urgent needs; a monthly payment to the survivors based on the level of disability to assist with ongoing care and medical needs; the creation of an independent board to oversee the implementation and administration of the fund; the appointment of a program administrator responsible for assessing the degree of disability of each survivor based on a simplified three-point scale, and for issuing monthly payments; and the creation of a monitoring and reporting program for the outcomes of grants to be executed by an independent body.

It is an opportunity for us not only to do the right thing but also to ensure that we get it right and learn from these lessons. On that note, I await questions and answers.

(1230) Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing could give us her thoughts on the Minister of Health 's comments yesterday about co-operation and meeting with the thalidomide victims association. Does the member think this is a positive step in the right direction? What are the kinds of items that she would like to see discussed in those very co-operative meetings? Mrs. Carol Hughes : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member was listening to my speech, but I do appreciate her question.

I did say that the survivors have indicated that they have been waiting for a long time. There had been some asks for quite some time for the government to meet, so of course we are very happy that the minister made that statement yesterday, that there were finally some meetings and some headway on this, and that we are going to see approval of this. I have mentioned what needs to happen, so I do not think that I need to reiterate the five points. Obviously, there are other countries that have already moved on that.

This is certainly a step in the right direction and, as I have mentioned, the survivors are very happy that this is going to move forward. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the issue of thalidomide. There are lessons to be learned from the tragic story of this drug's approval and the suffering it caused to so many families. It teaches us a lot about the need to broadly apply the precautionary principle. We often disregard this principle because, in our society, we always want to do things quickly.

The precautionary principle seeks to ensure that any new product, whether it be a food or drug, will not cause any harm, before putting it on the market. Today, the precautionary principle is often replaced with risk management. The profitability of certain foods or drugs could lead us to take greater risks and repeat the tragic mistakes that were made with thalidomide. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of the precautionary principle in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly in this case. Mrs. Carol Hughes : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question because I think it is very important to take precautions, conduct research and wait to obtain positive results before approving such drugs. The thalidomide survivors are aging. Their families are unable to continue giving them the help they need. It is therefore important to find a solution, as the survivors' association is calling for. We really appreciate the government's support. We are moving in the right direction.

(1235) Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is clear that most parliamentarians are happy that we are discussing an injustice that has gone on for decades. Strangely enough, I knew two people affected by thalidomide rather well. They were full of spirit and optimism in their quest for autonomy, despite the situation they were in as a result of this medical and pharmaceutical error. We are happy to hear that the government will support this motion, but could my colleague identify the key reasons why we have been able to agree so quickly on this?

There is obviously no shortage of injustices in the world. I am thinking of her own constituents. Mrs. Carol Hughes : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great question. We have seen the adverse effects and the health problems caused by this medication. As I mentioned earlier, survivors are asking for the services they need to live with dignity. That is what is bringing us together and allowing us to work together and fix this situation. The government is now prepared to repair the damage and commit to supporting thalidomide survivors. We are very happy about that. [ English ] Ms.

Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we stand as a Parliament to call for support for the survivors of thalidomide and to work with people on the ground and the Thalidomide Survivors Task Force. For people who might be watching at home or on YouTube later, I will give a quick background on what it is and what happened. Thalidomide is a drug that was marketed as a safe treatment for nausea during pregnancy in the early 1960s.

While it was a sedative, the drug, instead of being helpful, caused miscarriages and severe birth defects, including missing limbs, organs, and deafness and blindness. Approximately 10,000 thalidomide survivors were born worldwide. We cannot really be sure how many people were affected in Canada, but we know that approximately 100 survivors are still living in Canada. According to the Thalidomide Victims Association, 62% of the survivors are women and 38% are men. They live across our country: 19% in western Canada, 20% in Ontario, 58% in Quebec, and 3% in eastern Canada.

Therefore, Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been affected by this drug, which was thought safe in Canada in the early 1960s. I will spend most of my speech on the current situation of the survivors. After about 50 years of attempting to work around their limitations, it has really taken a toll on many of the survivors, who are now suffering from nerve damage and painful wear and tear to their bodies. This has caused enormous challenges for them, including the loss of the ability to use their limbs and to care for themselves, and damage to their spines and joints, which severely limits their ability.

They have a limited ability to maintain employment and are dependent upon others for basic tasks, such as using the toilet, and dressing and preparing themselves. This deterioration of the survivors' health has placed them in a very precarious situation, whether financial or emotional, and quite a few of them suffer from mental health issues as well. I will provide some examples from people who have been courageous in sharing their experiences with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada, and I will read excerpts from a report from the association. In 1992, there was a lump-sum payment.

A deal was negotiated and compensation was given to the survivors who were affected by thalidomide in the 1960s. Lump sum payments were made in order to deal with the urgent needs of the survivors, but speaking with people I know, as well as reading reports by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada, we know that the lump-sum payments did not help with long-term investments for these families. Many suffered socio-economically because of the fact that they could not afford to pursue post-secondary education, and they continue to be affected in the workplace today because of that.

I will speak about the education aspect, including about primary school and undergraduate-level education. Fewer than 5% of thalidomide victims were able to achieve their primary level of education, compared to more than 15% of the Canadian population at the time. At the undergraduate level, significantly fewer thalidomide survivors pursue a post-secondary education. Only 25% were able to complete their post-secondary education at the undergraduate level, compared to 35% of the Canadian population on average. Another angle to look at is financial security and employment.

Today, 31% of thalidomide survivors are afraid to quit or lose their jobs because of the pain and treatment they have to deal with.

(1240) As well, 17% cannot work anymore and are now dependent on their pensions, if they have been able to accrue pensions, or are dependent on disability benefits or on family members to take c