Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion on anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that occurs very quickly and can be fatal. It typically involves a number of signs and symptoms, affecting one or more systems of the body. It can be brought on by food, medication, insect bites, contact with latex or exercise. The most common cause is food. Eight food items are responsible for 93% of anaphylaxis cases in children, and these products are very commonly used in processed foods. These food allergens include eggs, peanuts, milk, soy, tree nuts, fish, seafood and wheat.

Anaphylactic shock can occur without any forewarning. Any direct or indirect contact with an allergen, usually involuntary, is all it takes. In addition, the reaction does not always occur upon first contact with the substance. It may not happen until the second or third exposure.

I spoke with many people in my riding who are affected by this problem. I am certainly not the only member in this House who knows someone, since 50% of Canadians know at least one person who has a food allergy.

Living with the risk of anaphylactic shock or, even worse, having a child at risk of experiencing anaphylactic shock is an ongoing concern. A number of parents have told me they have a hard time finding daycare for their children because of the risk involved. For people in my riding, this has meant using private, non-subsidized daycare and having to pay more than $7 a day.

Those same people often have to cook meals from scratch to ensure that they do not affect their children's health or their own by doing something as simple as eating.

The new food labelling rules implemented in 2012 were very welcome. It is finally easy for people to know what is in the products they buy. The labels now indicate the content in simple terms. The list of ingredients must include commonly used words. In the case of kamut, for example, the label must now indicate “wheat”. That is much better than listing dozens of names.

However, the fact remains that for people at risk, anaphylaxis is a threat that hangs over their heads. The statement “may contain” is not mandatory, and many companies include it as a preventive measure. The rules and procedures in cases of anaphylactic shock also differ from province to province and even from one establishment to another.

Many provinces have already passed laws or adopted rules to keep children with allergies safe. In Ontario, Sabrina's law requires all school boards in the province and child care providers to meet certain standards in staff training and emergency procedures. Sabrina's law seems to be a benchmark, since a number of groups in Quebec have said to me that they are trying to have similar legislation passed in Quebec, which would be called Megan's law. Other provinces such as Manitoba and British Columbia have already dealt with the matter.

The motion before us speaks for itself. Anaphylaxis is a growing problem, and according to the Allergy, Genes and Environment Network, the true extent of the problem and the number of people affected are probably underestimated. Measures must be taken to ensure that people at risk of anaphylaxis have a good quality of life.

I find this motion disappointing because it does not contain any specific measures.

The member for Niagara West—Glanbrook made some suggestions in his speech, and I would like to thank him for that.

The groups and associations we spoke with support this motion first and foremost because the debate will raise awareness and increase dialogue about anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis Canada definitely supports it. I am not going to argue that.

However, what are the “appropriate measures necessary” that this motion refers to? I have a few suggestions. First, we need drug coverage in Canada.

Every affected person should have an auto-injector. It must be replaced once a year, even if it has not been used. Auto-injectors are not free and are not always covered by insurance, public or private. Each one costs more than $100. Families affected by the economic crisis, who are often part of the middle class and are suffering the consequences of the Conservative budget, must pay at least $100 out of their pockets each year for medication that could save a life. That is a problem. Many families cannot afford it, but they still need to have one. If we had a universal drug plan, the problem would be solved.

Access to our health care system and to primary care services also needs to be improved. Early diagnosis would prevent severe reactions. During an anaphylactic reaction, each minute, even each second, counts. However, that cannot happen because hundreds of thousands of Canadians, including thousands in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, do not have access to a family doctor. The same is true for emergency services.

Despite the inadequacies in our health care system, this government has decided to pull out of this sector. Instead of negotiating with the provinces and territories in order to determine how to make a drug plan work, this government has decided to unilaterally impose a funding formula on the provinces and territories and deprive them of $36 billion in federal health transfers. That was a Conservative promise.

Anaphylaxis is a very serious public health issue. I would like to thank the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook for having brought this debate forward. I hope that it will result in tangible help for Canadian families that have a member living with anaphylaxis.

Djaouida Sellah

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)