CONTENTS
Monday, October 30, 1995
Bill C-284. Motion for second reading 15939
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.56 a.m.) 15947
The House resumed at 12 p.m. 15947
Bill C-7. Report stage (with amendment) 15947
(Motion negatived.) 15950
Motion for concurrence 15950
(Motion agreed to.) 15950
Motion for third reading 15950
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 15963
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 15964
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 15966
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 15966
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15967
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15969
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15970
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15970
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15970
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 15971
Bill C-108. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 15976
Bill C-7. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 15976
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 15979
(Motion agreed to, read the third time and passed.) 15988
(Motion agreed to.) 15988
15939
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 30, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP) moved that Bill
C-284, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (conditions for
contributions) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am in the happy position today of being
able to report to the House that a great deal of progress has been
reached on this issue since I introduced this private member's bill. I
understand that a protocol such as this bill would have provided for
is more than just in the works. There may even be a document
outlining the protocol in circulation for comment, although it is
hard to pin that down.
I thought the best thing I could do at this point is give a bit of a
history of the development of this issue leading up to the present
and a few words about where I think it should go now. I thank the
hon. member for Hamilton West for seconding the motion.
Many members of the House will be aware that firefighters have
been lobbying for a long time for a national contagious diseases
reporting protocol. They have their annual lobby on the Hill and
they meet with many members of Parliament. This is one of the
three or four items they have been stressing for a number of years
now.
Firefighters and other emergency responders have been
concerned about developing a protocol so that they could be
informed if they were likely to have been in contact with a
contagious disease in the course of their work and provided with
the appropriate medical treatment and counselling in the event of
exposure on the job.
In February 1992 NDP labour critic Joy Langan, the former
member for Mission-Coquitlam, introduced a private member's
bill that found an elegant solution to the constitutional problem
which had presented itself with respect to this issue; that this was
regarded as being in the provincial jurisdiction.
(1105)
Her bill would have amended the Canada Health Act to make it
necessary for provinces to set up their own protocol if they were to
receive federal health funding. The idea was to use the federal
spending power in health to establish a contagious diseases
protocol in exactly the same way the federal spending power was
used to establish medicare nationally and to establish other
conditions for the receipt of federal transfer payments for health
care. In effect the establishment of this kind of infectious diseases
protocol would have been another national standard, so to speak.
Although the bill was never debated in Parliament there was
all-party support for the idea among members. After negotiations
the NDP at that time managed to get the matter referred to the
Standing Committee on Health and Welfare.
The committee held hearings in early 1993 and tabled a report in
June of that year. The committee recommended, among other
things, that the federal government ``encourage the provincial and
territorial governments to develop and implement within their
jurisdictions a protocol for post-exposure management and
follow-up of emergency response personnel exposed to airborne
and blood borne diseases''. It asked the government to report back
to the committee in one year on the progress in establishing such a
protocol. This amounted to a substantial endorsement of the
principles of Joy Langan's bill.
Although it was too much to ask that the federal bureaucracy
actually fulfil the one year deadline set up by the committee, in
September 1994 the Liberal government did hold a national
symposium on infectious diseases and emergency responders
which I attended in part as an observer in my new capacity as the
NDP labour critic.
The symposium brought together provincial and federal officials
as well as a wide range of stakeholders among emergency
responders. The symposium heard very good reports on the
development of a protocol in the province of Ontario in which an
NDP provincial government at that time, responding to firefighter
concerns, had taken the initiative. There was a lot of enthusiasm for
its development and application in other provinces and territories.
15940
I say with some pride this was not the first time an NDP
provincial government led the way on such issues. By taking the
initiative and by doing the pilot project it put pressure on other
provinces and the federal government to do likewise. While we
are talking about the Canada Health Act this is how we got our
publicly funded health care system in the first place, medicare,
when the Saskatchewan NDP government of many years ago did
a similar thing in the sixties.
I tried to add to the momentum building for a national protocol
by tabling a private member's bill early in this Parliament. It was
very similar to Joy Langan's but added a section that would have
improved the privacy concerns about the release of private medical
information. That was one of the concern's about Joy Langan's bill
tabled last Parliament.
Even with all this momentum building toward a national
protocol, the two private members' bills by NDP members, reports
by a House committee and a national symposium and the Ontario
protocol, it appeared that in May the government was backing
away from a national protocol. I remember asking the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health about the
government's intentions in this regard. She appeared at that time to
be washing the government's hands of the issue and she answered
me only that health was a provincial responsibility, and that was the
end of the matter.
However, the International Association of Fire Fighters, to its
credit, kept up the pressure and in June of this year a meeting was
held between federal and provincial health officials and other
stakeholders in which a national protocol was agreed upon. I have
yet to see the final version but it is my understanding the
International Association of Fire Fighters was very satisfied with
the results of that meeting.
(1110 )
What I understand to have happened between then and now is the
federal and provincial governments have agreed to a protocol that
would allow emergency workers to learn of any health risks they
may have been exposed to in the case of significant exposure to
blood borne infectious diseases.
I understand the agreement has built-in protections for the
confidentiality of patients' medical records, setting up a procedure
through which emergency response personnel who have had
significant exposure to blood can contact the local medical officer
who in turn seeks information from the hospital on behalf of the
affected emergency personnel.
In June the federal government said it would release a document
by mid-October. I understand from conversations I have had with
the firefighters as recently as Friday that this has not yet been done.
I also heard from officials in the health minister's office that at
least they think there is a document in circulation for comment.
At this point in the development of this issue there seems to be
some confusion. Perhaps whoever is speaking with the knowledge
of what goes on inside the government today can clear this up.
People feel progress has been made. It certainly appears progress
has been made. We had the successful meeting in June, the
agreement on a protocol. Firefighters have an understanding of
what that protocol will be like. However, there is still no document
which outlines the details of that protocol so that firefighters and
others like me would be able to respond with some knowledge of
what has actually been agreed upon and what the details are.
It would have been nice if that document had been released and
in an obvious and available kind of way in mid-October. On the
occasion of debating this bill we would have been able to talk about
the details of the bill. If there were some constructive criticisms to
make they could have been made here or they could have been
responded to here. However, we are not in that position now.
Unfortunately with these kinds of things we will not be in this
position ever again because the bill will be debated only for this
hour; it is not a votable bill. Frankly, given there is this kind of
progress, unless we are all being mislead in some way there is
really no need for the bill to go to committee or for it to proceed.
We do have a protocol but we are not able to comment on the
details at this time. I invite members opposite who may be in the
know to say more about this.
I do not mean to single this out for special praise or
commendation, as there are others, but it is an example of how
through the private member's process an issue can be advanced, an
issue can be pushed, an issue can be kept on the agenda. Eventually
the government finds itself in a position to respond because it feels
it has to or it finally becomes convinced of the need to respond or it
is one of those mysterious political democratic things where at a
certain point something becomes acceptable and doable that
seemed very difficult to accomplish only a short time ago or
yesterday, as one hon. member has said.
I am very glad to see there has been this kind of progress. It is
preferable to have happened in this way. We are in a debate now
about the imposition of national standards and conditions through
the use of federal spending power through the Canada Health Act.
It probably would not have been the preferred route given the
current political and constitutional climate, shall we say, to have
invoked the Canada Health Act as a way of achieving this.
Although if push came to shove that procedure was there and that
was a way to have the federal government seized of the issue and
putting the government in a position where it could not say there
15941
was nothing it could do because this was matter of provincial
jurisdiction.
I think federal spending power ought to be used in areas where it
is important to delineate and to enforce national standards. In that
respect I am sure I have some disagreement with some of my
colleagues in the House.
(1115)
I am attached to the Canada Health Act. I was here in the House
when it was passed in April 1984. I was a member of the health and
welfare standing committee which studied the bill. There are
amendments and phrases in the bill which I moved myself. In my
political judgment, the bill owes its existence in part to the pressure
which we brought to bear on the government between 1980 and
1984. In fact, in her book Medicare in Crisis Monique Bégin
openly credits the NDP for the role it played in pressing the
government to bring in the Canada Health Act.
I raise all of this because now there is a different third party in
the House, our Reform Party colleagues. I often see a stark contrast
between what we called for when we were the third party and there
was a Liberal government and what the Reform Party is calling for.
We said to bring in the Canada Health Act and to eliminate user
fees and extra billing. Now the third party in the House is saying:
``Get rid of the Canada Health Act and let us not have national
standards any more. Let us permit the provinces to do what they
will''. There are two competing visions of what is a national
government.
One of my concerns today as we contemplate the vote in Quebec,
is that regardless of the outcome, if I hear the Prime Minister and
others correctly, even if there is a no vote we are on the verge of
major decentralization. I urge my Liberal colleagues, no matter
what changes may be undertaken in response to a no vote by way of
decentralization, that what we achieved together, the NDP and the
Liberal government at the time, on the Canada Health Act and the
notion that when it comes to health care there are values,
procedures and standards we all hold in common as Canadians
wherever we live from coast to coast to coast, be held up and not
surrendered in the wake of a no vote.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Private Members'
Bill C-284, an act to amend the Canada Health Act.
Let me say at the outset that I am extremely sympathetic and
supportive of the plight and concerns of emergency response
workers. Their devotion to preserving and protecting the lives of
others often puts them unwittingly at risk of injury or exposure to
disease. They are not aware of what the patient is carrying.
I understand and support the motive behind Bill C-284.
Unfortunately, the Canada Health Act is the wrong instrument. The
amendment is not within the scope of the act. The Canada Health
Act sets out the broad principles under which the provinces are
expected to operate medicare. An amendment dealing with the
disclosure of infectious diseases is inconsistent with this purpose.
While the protection of health care workers from contagious
diseases is an extremely worthwhile public health objective, the
Canada Health Act is not the proper vehicle by which to achieve
this. Let me explain.
Our health care insurance system is composed of 12 interlocking
plans which are managed at the provincial and territorial levels.
The federal health insurance legislation, which is what the Canada
Health Act of 1984 is, establishes the criteria provincial plans must
meet in order to qualify for a full share of federal health care
transfers. Federal transfer payments may be reduced or withheld if
a province contravenes the conditions of the act.
I will discuss these criteria, the cornerstones of Canada's health
care system.
There is accessibility, which means access to medically required
services regardless of ability to pay. That translates into no charges
at point of service. There is comprehensiveness, which means a
comprehensive range of medically required services. Universality
means the coverage of all provincial residents must be given
equally regardless of pre-existing conditions or diseases.
Portability ensures that benefits go from province to province and
abroad. Finally, public administration of medicare means that the
plan must operate on a non-profit basis.
(1120)
In addition to those five principles, the Canada Health Act
requires that provinces provide medicare information to the federal
minister when she needs it. In order to qualify for federal cash
contributions, provinces also need to give recognition to the fact
that the federal government does transfer payments.
The Canada Health Act also discourages extra billing or user
fees. If this is broken, there will be automatic dollar for dollar
reductions or withholdings of federal cash contributions to that
province or territory. The threat that user charges and extra billing
would erode accessibility to medicare was a major reason for the
development of the Canada Health Act in the first place. It was
enacted to protect those five fundamental principles of medicare I
just spoke about. Nearly all provinces have committed themselves
to upholding these principles even while making needed reforms to
the system.
Canadians support the five principles and feel that medicare is a
defining Canadian value. Results of a recent poll indicate that
support for these national principles is higher than ever.
15942
The Canada Health Act which defines medicare is close to the
hearts of Canadians. It is something too risky to tamper with. The
amendments to change the Canada Health Act as proposed in Bill
C-284 by my hon. colleague cannot be supported.
The amendments ask that the name and nature of an infectious or
contagious disease be disclosed to emergency response workers
who may have been unknowingly exposed to that disease. While I
support this objective, the amendments themselves affect the
definition of hospital services. This will change the Canada Health
Act criteria which deal only with the principles and funding of
medicare. Rules are are set out concerning the non-compliance
with the Canada Health Act and are part of the act.
In short, Bill C-284 asks that provincial and territorial plans
impose a responsibility on hospitals to disclose to emergency
response employees whether a patient to whom they are providing
service has an infectious or contagious disease which is fine.
However, it seeks to do this by making it a criteria of the Canada
Health Act.
The disclosure of infectious or contagious diseases is a public
health issue. It is not of the same nature as the principles and
funding issues in the Canada Health Act. The protection of
emergency response personnel is not even close to the purpose of
the Canada Health Act.
Moreover, the act deals with the organization and delivery of
health care services at the provincial and territorial levels and not
with the regulation of internal operations of hospitals which falls
under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. It would be intrusive to
ask the federal government to impose on or intrude into the
federal-provincial primary responsibility for hospital management
which is a constitutionally protected right.
Moreover, Bill C-284 raises issues with regard to civil laws and
rights and privacy laws in the provinces and territories. The federal
government cannot really interfere in these issues.
What I am trying to say is that worthwhile though the member's
intent may be, the Canada Health Act is not the proper place to
regulate such matters which constitutionally fall under provincial
jurisdiction and should be better handled at that level. The federal
government cannot dictate to a province or territory how to run its
health care plan, much less tell it how to run institutions. All it can
do under the Canada Health Act is to place conditions on transfer
payments to the provinces and territories.
At a meeting of health ministers in Victoria recently, provincial
and territorial ministers reaffirmed their support for the principles
of the act and agree to continue to collaborate in interpreting and
applying its provisions. Provincial and territorial ministers agreed
with the federal Minister of Health to work together to develop a
vision for the future of medicare.
(1125 )
Contrary to the misunderstanding of certain parties, the Canada
Health Act is not an impediment to the management changes which
are needed to meet medicare's challenges. In fact, the flexibility
inherent in the act has always been one of its strengths.
Since the enactment of the act in 1984, the federal government
has attempted to work with the provinces in order to make the act a
viable piece of legislation. The federal government recognizes that
provinces and territories have primary responsibility for the
management, organization and the delivery of health care services,
including institutions and health care providers. Sufficient
flexibility to operate and administer their health care insurance
plans is obviously necessary if they are to meet the regional and
local needs and conditions.
At the August conference, provincial premiers and territorial
leaders were unanimous in their support of the publicly funded
national health care system and reaffirmed their commitment to the
principles of the Canada Health Act. It would be dangerous
therefore, to tamper with those principles when they have received
such wholehearted support. If we want medicare to survive, we
must be vigilant against seemingly innocuous tampering as against
more blatant threats such as user charges which as we know arise
now and then.
I come back to the point that while the protection of health care
workers is a serious concern and one which I share with the hon.
member, the Canada Health Act is not the vehicle with which to
address it. At the same time, the department has been involved with
the prevention of infectious diseases and the protection of
emergency response personnel for a very long time and is
continuing to work with them on issues of concern. Let me give a
few examples of our recent achievements in this area.
In 1994 a national symposium on risk and prevention of
infectious diseases for emergency response personnel was held to
explore the same question the member is talking about and to look
at implementing where possible preventive and protective actions
for those workers.
In June of this year a consensus conference was held with the
objective of establishing guidelines the provinces and territories
could use to develop and implement an infectious disease
notification protocol for emergency responders. These guidelines
are good examples of how the provinces and territories look to the
federal government to provide a leadership and co-ordinating role
in discussing issues related to health protection.
I have confidence in the ability of emergency response workers
as the ones who are best qualified to seek solutions in conjunction
with their provincial and territorial governments, health
professionals and experts in infectious diseases. They have our
support.
15943
The Canada Health Act which protects our universal and
comprehensive health care system agrees with that commitment.
However, facing the challenges and finding solutions to problems
which arise over the years took commitment as well and the
commitment is still there today.
Today we can look back with pride on our past accomplishments,
but we cannot be satisfied to rest on our laurels. The systems and
the federal provincial relationships face many challenges and the
issue raised by Bill C-284 is such a challenge. To this end, we as a
federal Ministry of Health have taken the appropriate steps to
support the concerns and efforts of the emergency response
workers. At the same time the federal government cannot support
an amendment which has no place in the Canada Health Act.
I encourage all hon. members to participate in the discussion of
this issue with emergency response workers at the constituency
level and to take appropriate steps to assist them in this important
and worthy objective.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-284 today, an act to amend
the Canada Health Act, sponsored by the member for
Winnipeg-Transcona.
The purpose of the bill is ``to incite the provinces to make sure
that the health care insurance plan of a province provides for the
obligation for hospitals to disclose to emergency response
employees who provide emergency medical or rescue services to a
patient, the name and nature of an infectious or contagious disease
that the patient might have transmitted to them''. The essence of
this bill is to ensure the safety of those who work in medical or
rescue operations who are at risk of being exposed by an infectious
or contagious disease.
The dedication of the people to whom this bill is addressed is to
be commended and admired. I have talked with different
emergency response workers and know their dedication and the
risk they face each time they respond to an emergency. These
professionals are police officers, firefighters, emergency medical
technicians and paramedics.
(1130)
I can agree with the intent of the bill. However, I disagree with
the the means by which it seeks to accomplish and implement that
purpose. Specifically, the bill seeks to amend the Canada Health
Act by adding additional criteria to the list.
I must agree with the Liberal parliamentary secretary that the
Canada Health Act is not the vehicle for this. I will go on to explain
why.
Clause 2 of the bill amends section 7 of the Canada Health Act.
Section 7 outlines the principles of the Canada Health Act. These
are public administration, comprehensiveness, universality,
portability and accessibility. The bill would add an additional
criteria to that list and that is the disclosure of infectious or
contagious diseases.
The Reform Party has consistently demonstrated how the
Canada Health Act has allowed the federal government and others
to play a carrot and stick game with the provinces. The carrot is the
money that the federal government transfers to the provinces for
medicare. The stick is the heavy handedness of the Canada Health
Act that allows the federal government to financially penalize the
provinces.
Sections 14 and 15 of the Canada Health Act allow the federal
government and the health minister to financially penalize
provinces if the minister has found that the province is in violation
of sections 8 to 13 of the act. These sections deal with the five
principles, as I have mentioned, of public administration,
comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility and
finally, the conditions for the cash contributions or payments to
those provinces.
The bill adds an additional criteria to a list that Reform members
feel is intrusive already. It adds the disclosure of infectious or
contagious diseases. By adding it to the program criteria of section
7 of the Canada Health Act, it would create another basis for the
federal government to financially penalize these provinces. We
have just gone through a recent example of how the federal
government imposes its will on provinces with the issue, debated in
this House, of private clinics in Alberta and other provinces.
Although the purpose and the intent of the bill is commendable, I
disagree with the way it is designed to legislate that purpose.
Reform has a different and fresh philosophy to approach
medicare in Canada. Our approach, and we call it medicare plus,
contains the following: first, we reaffirm that the value of medicare
is the best health care safety net in the world. Second, we would
define medicare as Canada's comprehensive set of core national
health standards, publicly funded, portable across Canada and
universally accessible to all Canadians, regardless of their ability to
pay. These are essentially the principles that now exist in the
Canada Health Act.
We differ from the Canada Health Act and from the view of the
government and the approach taken in this bill by removing the
restrictions and the ability of the federal government to penalize
provinces within these criteria. That is the plus of medicare plus
and the third of our proposals. We would give provinces greater
flexibility to administer and deliver the health services within their
own respective jurisdiction. That is our general philosophy and our
approach to federal involvement in medicare.
It would apply to Bill C-284 as well. We believe the provinces
should decide whether or not to pass legislation on the disclosure
15944
of infectious or contagious diseases rather than be compelled by a
federal government through the Canada Health Act.
As my colleague mentioned today, in June there was a
federal-provincial notification protocol established in this area.
This dealt with blood borne diseases and took into account the
confidentiality concerns and the procedures that would result. I
commend the government for proceeding in this direction.
One question I have today of the government, as my colleague
also had, is why this was not proceeded with and then the
information given to the people discussing the bill today? Again
this is a reflection of the inactivity in the House or the lack of
proaction on real measures that need to be addressed within this
place. This is unfair to Canadians, specifically to the emergency
response personnel for instance within this very bill.
(1135)
Bill C-284 illustrates once again the failure of the government to
proceed with substantive steps in the proper areas where Canadians
need things addressed.
Generally my philosophy would be that it is grassroots not
Ottawa that must reform an ailing health care system in terms of
the Canada Health Act. Bill C-284 speaks to increased federal
control over a medicare system that is increasingly unaffordable at
the federal level. Ottawa's share of our medicare system was
originally 50 per cent and is now down to approximately 24 per
cent or less. Its share will likely disappear within 10 to 15 years.
The symptoms that we see are bed closures. In my own
provinces hospitals have closed. There are long waiting lists, up to
seven to twelve weeks for procedures. There has been a de-listing
of medical services so that each province may have a different base
from which to work. There is reduced medical coverage for
Canadians travelling abroad. As important as any of the others,
there has been an exodus of some of our expert medical personnel
from our land.
Reform says that the five program criteria should be maintained
but we have to re-examine the definition of those program criteria.
We have to allow room for provinces to exercise administrative
jurisdictions over the funding and delivery of our health care
system. The crisis in our country is not what is done but of federal
government intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.
Today, we think of Canada as a grand old house that has fallen
into a serious state of disrepair. Today I stand with great trepidation
as I see the foundations of that house facing a great test. It is true
that the house of our nation has an unsustainable mortgage. It has a
cracked foundation. It has serious problems with some of the ways
that the walls are fitting together and how the communications
work within that house.
However, within the last few days I have seen many Canadians
speak out with a great love and a newly discovered feeling of the
importance of this country to them. This is all the more reason that
I feel today it is time for the government to recognize that there has
to be a new relationship within this House, new federal-provincial
relationships outside the Constitution. Our own party has suggested
20 ways where we can bring provinces and the federal government
together so that as a nation we can stand together today and
tomorrow in order to make this country work.
Decentralizing those powers includes a medicare system that
works for all Canadians, that is sustainable and that will be here
today and tomorrow. I challenge the government to change at our
medicare system so that it will work. I also challenge the
government to look at many other things, as we have suggested, so
that we have a Canada today and tomorrow.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on
the subject of a private member's bill, C-284, an act to amend the
Canada Health Act.
Under the Canadian Constitution the responsibility for health
care falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the provincial and
territorial governments. In other words, the provinces and the
territories have a primary responsibility for the provision and
delivery of health care services to the people of Canada.
This means that they act as planners, managers and
administrators of their own health care systems. In practical terms,
this includes negotiation of budgets with hospitals, approval of
capital plans and the negotiation of fee agreements with medical
associations. For its part the federal government by law is
responsible for the promotion and preservation of the health of all
Canadians. The Department of Health is responsible for bringing
together parties on health issues of a national and interprovincial
concern.
(1140)
The federal government also assumes a responsibility for setting
national policies and for providing health care services to specific
groups such as treaty Indians as well as the Inuit.
It is appropriate when describing federal responsibilities in
health care to note what the federal government cannot do. It
cannot interfere in provincial and territorial responsibilities as
defined under our Constitution. Nor can it be seen to be infringing
on these responsibilities.
Bill C-284 attempts to require provincial and territorial health
insurance plans to impose a responsibility on hospitals to disclose
to emergency response employees whether a patient to whom they
are providing service has an infectious or a contagious disease. I
sympathize with the concerns of emergency response workers.
They must be commended for accepting the fact that they are at
15945
risk to exposure to diseases that may not be completely
preventable in serving the public.
Indeed my wife and several members of my family are employed
in the health care field as well as in the emergency response field.
Therefore I understand and support the motives behind Bill C-284.
However, it is the provinces and territories that are responsible
for all matters dealing with their hospitals. This represents what
would be perceived as an intrusion on provincial and territorial
responsibilities under our Constitution. It is not an easy solution as
one would think. There is in this country a longstanding partnership
between the federal, provincial and territorial governments with
regard to health care.
The enactment of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
Services Act of 1957 and the Medical Care Act, 1966-67
established a framework for this partnership between governments.
At this time the federal government provides a sharing of the cost
of medically necessary hospital and physician services in return for
the adherence of the provincial and territorial health insurance
plans through the principles of a national program.
Federal legislation, the the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
Services Act and the Medical Care Act recognized the
constitutional position of provincial and territorial governments
and left each with the responsibility of administering its respective
plans.
Concerns over hospital user fees and extra billing by physicians
led to the passage of the Canadian Health Act in 1984. This was
achieved with all-party support. The federal government's aim in
passing the Canada Health Act was to reaffirm its commitment to
the original guiding principles expressed in earlier legislation. It
was also to provide a mechanism to promote the provinces' and
territories' compliance with the act's criteria, conditions and extra
billing and user charge provisions.
In short, the Canada Health Act was intended to encourage
reasonable access to necessary health care services on a prepaid
basis for every resident of Canada. The provinces and territories
have retained their responsibility of administering their health
insurance plans under the Canada Health Act. They continue to be
responsible for negotiations with physicians and hospitals.
Since the introduction of government sponsored health
insurance, physicians have been free of the administrative
constraints of managed care found in the United States and this
continues under the Canada Health Act. Hospitals retain the
freedom to charge for semi-private or private rooms and for meals
and accommodations for chronically ill patients who are more or
less permanently resident in hospitals.
The Canada Health Act's criteria are known to most Canadians
and regarded as the defining principles of medicare. The principles
of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality,
portability and accessibility are valued and cherished by Canadians
who will not accept changes to them. The results of a recent poll
indicate that support for these national principles remain at an
all-time high.
Provincial and territorial ministers of health share this support.
On many occasions the provincial and territorial ministers
reaffirmed their support for the principles of the act and their
agreement to continue co-operation in interpreting and applying its
provisions.
The Canada Health Act's criteria relate to the organization and
delivery of health care services at the level of provincial and
territorial health insurance plans. Bill C-284 proposes to add
disclosure of infectious or contagious diseases to the Canada
Health Act's criteria. However this addition deals with a hospital
requirement, while the Canada Health Act pertains to provincial
and territorial health insurance plans.
If such legislation could be enacted we would be concerned that
it may give false assurances to emergency workers and their
families that if they are not informed they are not infected.
Unfortunately some diseases may not be detectable, at least using
current methods, until some time after the infection. Solutions
must be sought to meet this problem.
(1145 )
Health Canada has been involved with the prevention of
infectious diseases and the protection of emergency response
personnel for a very long time. Let me give a few examples of our
recent achievements in this area. In 1994 a national symposium on
risk and prevention of infectious diseases for emergency response
personnel was held to explore the risks emergency responders face
and the preventive and protective activities presently available.
In June 1995 a consensus conference was held with the objective
of establishing guidelines the provinces and territories could use to
develop and implement an infectious disease notification protocol
for emergency responders. These guidelines are a good example of
how the provinces and territories look to the federal government to
provide a leadership role in issues related to health protection.
I also have confidence in the ability of emergency response
workers themselves, as those who are admirably qualified to find
solutions, to join with us to alleviate the risk of infection along with
the provincial and territorial health departments, along with health
professionals and experts in infectious diseases. Given the large
burden for our health that emergency response workers carry, I am
sure that provincial and territorial governments are sympathetic,
supportive, and eager to co-operatively find solutions. I know I am.
15946
The evolution of federal, provincial, and territorial relations in
health care has maintained a distinction in federal, provincial, and
territorial roles in health care, which is consistent with the
Constitution's definition of jurisdiction. This is clearly stated in
the preamble of the Canada Health Act:
that it is not the intention of the Government of Canada that any of the
powers, rights, privileges or authorities vested in Canada or the Provinces
under the provisions of The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British
North America Act, 1867), or any amendments thereto, or otherwise, be by
reason of this Act abrogated or derogated from or in any way impaired;
Some would argue that to pass Bill C-284 would disrupt this
historical distinction and balance and for this reason it cannot be
supported by the federal government.
I encourage all hon. members to participate in discussions about
this important concern in their communities in order to find a way
to protect the emergency response workers whose job it is to
protect us all. Few would argue the fact that the problem is serious.
It is incumbent on all levels of government to hammer out a
solution. The time is now.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I
wholeheartedly endorse the spirit of Bill C-284, a private
member's initiative moved by my colleague, the hon. member for
Winnipeg Transcona, which I had the privilege of seconding, I
cannot see where we can support his idea to put it through the
Canada Health Act.
Perhaps what we have to do today is not talk about what we
cannot do. I have to agree with the position taken by the
parliamentary secretary. She very eloquently put forward the
reasons we cannot put it through the Canada Health Act, as was
proposed by the member for Winnipeg Transcona; rather, we
should find a mechanism, a way to accomplish our goal.
Since I was elected in 1988, firefighters from Hamilton and
across this great country have been lobbying legislators to set up a
contagious disease protocol. They stress, and all of us who have
heard their lobby agree, that it should be of national importance,
which it is; that it must be co-ordinated nationally, and we agree;
that we should establish national standards and conditions, which
can happen. We need a way to administer the protocol that is being
proposed.
The international association of firefighters has been meeting
with provincial and federal representatives since June. They have
had quite a bit to say about this. There have been some resolutions.
Progress is being made. Maybe the amendments being put forward
by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona are a worthwhile
public health objective and need to be examined.
(1150)
The purpose of Bill C-284 is to incite the provinces to ensure that
the health care insurance plan of a province provides for the
obligation for hospitals to disclose to emergency response
employees who provide emergency medical or rescue services to a
patient the name and nature of an infectious or contagious disease
the patient might have transmitted to them.
As I said at the outset, maybe we have to look at what we can do.
What we can do is search out a central organization that would
work with the hospitals to create that information-sharing proposal.
I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has
considered approaching the Canadian Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety. That particular centre, which is located in my
riding of Hamilton West, receives a government subsidy, although
it has been cut back. To its credit, it has been sharing information
with the private sector and actually selling a product to employees
and companies, both here in Canada and in the United States, to
obtain the money it needs.
I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has
approached the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and
Safety, which has created a database of infectious diseases, of
products different companies across the nation use in their
workplaces, et cetera. For example, the Canadian Centre for
Occupational Health and Safety is there for the major corporations
in product identification. It is also there for an individual
employee, someone who may be working on the shop floor in
Winnipeg when a drum spills over and some glop pours out. The
employee can see that the barrel is marked XT-2000. He is not sure
what XT-2000 is, so he calls the Canadian Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety to find out what the product is and whether it will
be harmful to his health.
I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, in looking
for a way to accomplish a very credible goal, has looked at the
options. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health
made it quite clear today that it is not really in the domain of the
federal government, but rather a central organization. This could
address the opportunities the member spoke of, could satisfy the
needs of the medical emergency personnel and rescue services
people who are responding to the patient who might have an
infectious or contagious disease.
Maybe we could use this opportunity to dovetail with
organizations that by consequence are also today forming
partnerships with the private sector. It is the private sector that
understands that this database is beneficial. If the private sector
finds that it is worth while, then it can share its information with
the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, which can
also share its information with hospitals provincially.
Let us germinate the seed today. This is an option the hon.
member for Winnipeg Transcona can look at. Having seconded the
bill, I would be more than happy to sit down with him and get
together with officials in Hamilton at the CCOHS to try to
accomplish the very worthwhile goal this member and other
15947
members of the House have been trying to achieve since I was
elected in 1988 and even before that time.
I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate.
[Translation]
Since there are no more hon. members left to speak and the
motion has not been selected to be voted on, the time provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the item is dropped from the Order
Paper.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps the Chair
would suspend for about four minutes and then we could proceed to
government orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
intervention of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous
consent to suspend the House until 12 o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.56 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
15947
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-7, an act
respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other
substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic
Control Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-7, in clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15, on page
44, with the following:
``portion of an item, after the governor in council has consulted with those
persons who will be directly affected by the amendment''.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
understand unanimous consent is being sought to debate the
amendment, even though it was not moved previously. I indicate to
the Chair that we do not have any objection to it. We concur, with
the understanding that we will immediately go to third reading
after the amendment is disposed of.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, we are seeking unanimous
support and agree to third reading going ahead with the same
support.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 has been a complex
bill that has taken some time going through the House. There is
some vast improvement in the bill by opening up choice in the
health food industry.
However the power to make regulation is still flawed in relation
to the bill. The particular clause we have zeroed in on is clause 60:
The governor in council may, by order, amend any of schedules I to VI by
adding to them or deleting from them any item or portion of an item, where the
governor in council deems the amendment to be necessary in the public interest.
I have a few words to say about that clause. I believe it is
dictatorial, arbitrary and opaque. Other words that come to mind
are words like behind closed doors. This ability should not rest in
the hands of a few. The particular amendment suggested will
address a significant flaw.
One of my colleagues will speak at length on the issue a little
later.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the third party
amendment to clause 60 of Bill C-7.
I agree with the hon. member the bill is a complex and at times
controversial bill. All parties were eventually unanimous in the
substantive changes and amendments to the bill that improve the
bill a great deal.
However I speak to the specific amendment of the hon. member
to clause 60 that would read:
``portion of an item, after the governor in council has consulted with those
persons who will be directly affected by the amendment''.
The purpose of the amendment is to get the governor in council
to consult with those who would be directly affected by a change in
schedule made by the governor in council.
There is already in place a democratic process within the
machinery of government that answers the particular concern the
hon. member for Macleod brought forward. Government is
required to consult with those who will be affected by the proposal
and the public at large before making any changes.
(1205 )
The only exception to this requirement is where public safety is
concerned and where on an urgent and emergency basis one needs
to make a change to the schedule within 24 hours. Even then there
15948
is a process wherein an emergency scheduling provision in the
interests of safety of the public would allow it to happen.
Turning to the broader process the member is speaking about,
the process provides for the machinery of government.
Government is required to prepublish for a minimum period of 30
days in The Canada Gazette, part I, any proposal to change
scheduling. The prepublication period may vary, depending on the
nature of the proposal.
For example, if the proposal was to have international
implications and would therefore have impact on GATT, there is an
agreement in GATT that there would be a minimum of 75 days of
prepublication to allow other countries to respond.
Not only would interested parties respond if this were done a
national level. Any citizen at all could provide comments or
suggestions about the content of the proposal and about their
concerns on the proposal. Then the government is obliged to report
to the governor in council on those consultations, the feedback or
input from parties directly affected, from concerned citizens or
from the public at large. Also it is to report on the proposed
remedies to be brought forth to address concerns. If this
amendment represents a major shift in the original proposal, and if
the concerned parties that have had input want another shift, there
is a requirement to prepublish once again to discuss the new shift.
All the bells, whistles and hoops have been jumped through in
the process already so I fail to see what the hon. member's
amendment would do to improve the process in any way, shape or
form. It is already public. It is already open to disclosure. If
disclosure requires change there is a requirement for further
disclosure and for a further period of 30 days to discuss it. As I said
before, internationally there is a requirement to prepublish for 75
days.
There is a fail safe mechanism already there to answer the hon.
member's concerns about the issue.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to the amendment to clause 60 of Bill
C-7. It says that the clause should be amended by replacing lines 13
to 15 on page 44 with the following:
``portion of an item, after the governor in council has consulted with those
persons who will be directly affected by the amendment''.
The parliamentary secretary responded to the amendment by
asking why we need it. We already have the proper bells and
whistles in place to deal with the public consultation process.
The parliamentary secretary to the health minister is correct. The
amendment will put in place the requirement for public discussion
and public consultation on changes to the bill.
In many pieces of legislation the Liberals have succeeded in
taking more and more power from the people by putting in place
the ability to make changes to legislation through the governor in
council. This is one such move on the part of the government. The
most important example in Bill C-68, the gun control legislation,
gives incredible power to the governor in council. Bill C-61 deals
with several agricultural acts and gives the minister and the
bureaucrats the power to impose fines of up to $15,000 with the
onus on the people fined to prove their innocence. That is one
negative point about the legislation. Another is the control given
through the governor in council without debate happening in the
House. That is not democratic.
(1210)
Unfortunately the anti-democratic move in the bill that gives
more power and ability to make more decisions through governor
in council is not unusual. The government has shown in many ways
that it does not want to make things more democratic in the House.
We have seen through what has happened to members who dared to
vote against their party line or against the government on bills such
as the gun control bill, Bill C-41. I could name others. These
members have been punished harshly for voting differently than
the party position. They have been thrown off committees and the
Prime Minister publicly threatened to refuse to sign their
nomination papers. What kind of a democracy is that?
The amendment will at least ensure a small amount of
consultation. Liberal consultation is different from the Reform's
version of consultation. Reform believes that when we go to the
people to ask for consultations we really want to hear what they
have to say and to act on it. The Liberals have shown that is not
what they see as consultation. For example, in the gun control bill
the justice minister's idea of consultation was to have meetings to
which people went by invitation only. Other interested people were
not welcome. That was complete and utter nonsense. The
amendment will in a small way give a bit of the power back to the
people by requiring consultation.
I will refer to a couple of other amendments but first I will show
that this amendment has in a small way dealt with the concerns of
some of my constituents. I have found that Bill C-7 and the changes
to the legislation are very important to people in my constituency.
Many people have come to me in public meetings asking questions
about specific clauses of the legislation, and this is one of them.
People have written letters to me that refer to specific clauses of the
legislation.
I will read a letter from one of my constituents. It is a form letter
but personal comments are included with it. It represents the
concerns of a wide number of people, often people who want
access to herbs, spices or other traditional medicines. They do not
want the pharmaceutical companies or the government to be able
15949
to limit access to these products in some way. It is very important
to them.
The letter states:
I'm writing to request that Bill C-7 be withdrawn.
That is what should have happened with the legislation. It should
have been withdrawn, or at least large parts of it should have been
withdrawn. It is an omnibus bill that deals with many parts of the
act. It is so broad or wide ranging that I wonder how the House of
Commons can be asked to vote on the bill. It would be far more
useful to have more specific legislation dealing with similar
concerns.
Not all parts of the legislation should be thrown out. There are
many good parts. However, because it is an omnibus bill and deals
with a wide range of issues, parts of it should certainly be thrown
out. The letter refers to the parts this constituent feels should be
thrown out. A good summary of the legislation is given:
Bill C-7, the Controlled Substances Act, combines the Narcotic Control Act
with the portions of the Food and Drugs Act. Combining criminal law with
regulatory health is inappropriate and puts my right to buy natural health
products in serious jeopardy.
Bill C-7 is a Criminal Code framework which would implicate many common
herbal remedies and natural supplements because of their ``stimulant'' or
``relaxant'' properties. I believe that public safety can be ensured without
Criminal Code restrictions on food supplements-
(1215)
Mr. Szabo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my understanding
of the rules of this place is that a speaker must speak to the subject
matter before the House. We are now dealing at report stage with a
specific amendment. The member is speaking about the whole bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest of respect,
that is a matter of debate and not a point of order.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the continual
interruptions on the part of members opposite when we try to make
a point on behalf of our constituents.
It is was important enough to my constituents to write this letter
to me. That member does not want to let me rise in the House and
read this letter and show how this amendment has at least in some
small way dealt with this concern. That is anti-democratic. It is just
one more thing. It is the Liberal way. It is not democratic and it is
not what we expect in the House. I become upset when I have this
type of an interruption.
The letter goes on to say:
Further, I object that the control of any bioactive components or synthetic
analogues of natural herbs by Bill C-7 it will replace criminal sanctions to the
herbs themselves.
Health Canada should not be allowed to seize, remove or illegalize safe
products from the shelves of distributors or hold them at the border without
clear and convincing evidence of a lack of safety or misbranding. Health
Canada should bear the burden of proof.
I believe that natural herbs and health supplements do not belong in the
Criminal Code. These products should be considered as dietary supplements
and regulated as such. Natural substances should not be considered as drugs.
I expect that you will represent my interests and oppose Bill C-7.
We will of course oppose Bill C-7. If this amendment does pass,
and I would be surprised if it did not, all it does is put in place a
consultation process. There is nothing guaranteeing it will be a
valid consultation process but it is certainly a move forward. The
onus will be on the government to show that it has consulted.
If we as an opposition party ask the government to show us it has
consulted, it will be forced to at least demonstrate that it has had
some consultation with all interested parties.
Other things have happened with this bill; other amendments and
really the deletion of one clause I think has been extremely
important. I credit my colleague, the member for Macleod, for
successfully having clause 3(1) removed. It is certainly an
important change to this legislation.
(1220)
Clause 3(1):
For purposes of this act a substance included in Schedules I, II or III shall be
deemed to include any substance;
(a) that is produced, processed or provided by a person who intends that it be
introduced into the body of another person for the purpose of producing a
stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to or
greater than that of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III, and that, if so
introduced, would produce such a substantially similar or greater effect; or
(b) that is represented or held out to produce, if introduced into a human body, a
stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to or
greater than that of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
Again I congratulate my colleague for successfully having that
clause thrown out. That is a substantial change to this bill and it
will help. Unfortunately there are still so many concerns-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret the member's time
has elapsed at report stage.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
15950
(Motion negatived.)
Hon. David Dingwall (for the Minister of Health, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read
the third time? By unanimous consent now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. David Dingwall (for the Minister of Health, Lib.) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-7.
The revisions to the bill, the changes made since it passed second
reading in the House, combine two quite different approaches to
the control of drugs. The approaches are different but they are
actually complementary.
The first enshrines an attitude of tolerance, compassion and
concern for the drug addicted person. The government believes that
someone convicted of a drug offence, a user who shows genuine
desire to recover from his or her addiction deserves the chance and
opportunity to rebuild and renew their lives on a healthy,
law-abiding basis.
This component speaks therefore of rehabilitation and speaks to
the health aspect of drug use.
(1225 )
The second approach is to reinforce our longstanding
condemnation of violent behaviour or any drug dealing that harms
our youth and other vulnerable citizens.
The government believes drug offences and the negative social
impact of drug offences escalate directly in proportion to the age of
the person, which means the younger the person, the greater the
social and physical harm that occurs as a result of the use of drugs.
These approaches to the control of drugs reflect the spirit of the
red book ``Creating Opportunity''. A principal objective of this
book is to strengthen Canadian society by protecting individuals
from crime and violence on the streets and in the playgrounds.
Bill C-7 works to achieve this end. It clearly identifies a need for
extra protection against crimes around schools where young people
are involved. However, it goes further in creating opportunity. It
creates opportunity for offenders to get treatment. It creates
opportunity for enforcement to be more effective. It creates
opportunity for the justice system to deal more even handedly with
the various substances and offences that are the subject of the bill.
Bill C-7 is more than a housekeeping bill. It achieves a balance
between the need for compassionate health and social components
of drug use and the need to punish and deal with the criminal and
violent aspects of drug use.
True to this purpose, we have brought the Narcotic Control Act
and parts of the Food and Drugs Act together to deal with
controlled substances and narcotic preparations. It modernizes
procedure to a certain extent. It expands control over a wider range
of substances, but it is more comprehensive than that.
In the case of one substance that has caused major concern for
policy makers and the public over many years, it incorporates a
revised and more current understanding of how Canadians want to
deal with marijuana. Cannabis and its derivatives from now on will
have a distinct schedule in the bill, schedule I(i). Cannabis has been
set apart from other hard drugs. It is being treated separately.
As we will see from this amended bill, government has taken
very seriously the concerns expressed by witnesses of committee
hearings and also by members of the House who have come
together to tell us what they think of the bill. I am therefore pleased
to say changes and measures have been instituted in order to reflect
a more Liberal policy with regard to harm reduction, rehabilitation
and the societal aspects of drug use.
Hon. members know the consultative process is inherent and
very important in the parliamentary committee system.
Committees collect the views of people on the street. One of the
strengths of the process is that it brings forward a range of opinions
and perspectives not necessarily obvious to those who prepare the
original drafts of legislation. On this note I congratulate all
members of the subcommittee from all parties and thank all
witnesses who provided testimony on this legislation.
When we start talking about illicit substances such as marijuana
and cocaine people want to broaden the horizons. Many of the
witnesses who came to the subcommittee on health were not really
addressing Bill C-7 specifically. They wanted to put broader issues
on the agenda such as a more socially responsible approach to
dealing with cannabis. It is argued there may be times when people
are guilty of simple possession by aberration. They have been to a
party, accepted a gift and have been caught. In such a circumstance
the criminal mark should not be on record for the rest of their lives.
It cannot be denied that a large number of Canadians are at least
tolerant of soft drug use. They have heard a former Prime Minister
and the President of the United States admit to experimenting with
15951
marijuana. They see courts routinely granting absolute or
conditional discharges for simple possession charges while
imposing fines for simple traffic violations.
Some people in subcommittee were even saying we should
decriminalize marijuana. However, by international law we cannot
decriminalize it. We have to consider it a criminal offence but we
can deal with the consequences associated with marijuana. That is
one of the changes that has come through in this newly amended
bill.
Specifically for possession of marijuana, 30 grams or less, we
have reduced the seriousness of the offence. The negative impact
on someone charged with this offence will be changed. No
fingerprints or photographs will be taken by police officers. No
traceable record will appear in national criminal databases. The law
has been modified.
(1230)
This does not mean that the penalties have been reduced. They
have not. The penalty for possession of 30 grams or less of
cannabis continues to be a $1,000 fine or six months or both. It is
the ancillary impacts that will change. A conviction on this charge
will not curb one's ability to travel internationally, for instance. It
will not interfere with getting a job.
Another concern raised in subcommittee was to put something in
the bill to ask the courts to move toward rehabilitation and
treatment instead of automatically treating all users as hardened
criminals. Therefore, the introduction of section 11, which deals
with sentencing, addresses this concern. Judges are encouraged to
order rehabilitation and treatment in appropriate circumstances.
This said, it was not the government's intention that the bill
would alter or review existing drug policy. It was meant to bring
aspects of administration up to date from existing legislation that
dates back to the 1960s, and it gives effect to Canada's
commitments on the various international agreements dealing with
narcotics and psychotropic substances.
There is a change in penalties for trafficking in three kilograms
of cannabis or less. Here the maximum penalty is lowered from 14
years down to five years less a day. The reason for this is not
because the gravity of the offence has been diminished. In fact, the
subcommittee wanted to deal with trafficking as harshly. However,
the lesser sentence achieves another goal: it leads to a streamlining
of the judicial process. It hastens cases through the courts by
eliminating requirements for preliminary hearings and trials by
jury. It is not expected to change actual sentencing patterns. Even
though the courts have been able to go to 14 years, they have not
really been giving sentences anywhere near that length.
From now on drug charges will represent the true offences. Until
now, when trafficking has been the issue prosecutors would often
reduce it to a possession charge, rather than proceed through a full
pre-trial and trial by jury. Now prosecutors will be more likely to
lay the charges they should have been laying. In fact there is no
intention to give any signal that the penalties that are currently
being given for the offence are not appropriate. This is not getting
soft on traffickers. Streamlining the prosecution of these offences
would be a net gain for the criminal justice process but would not
mean an actual reduction in sentences, given current practice.
I alluded to the approach this bill takes to discouraging violence
and any drug dealings involving youth. The approach is simply the
following. Offences under Bill C-7 have penalties attached to them,
including imprisonment. Judges have discretion in sentencing and
may choose not to impose a prison sentence in any particular case.
However, if an offence is accompanied by violence or the threat of
violence, or if it takes place in or near the grounds of a school, or if
it involves dealing with someone under the age of 18, the court is to
consider any of these circumstances an aggravating factor. If it
decides in such a case not to impose a prison sentence, then the bill
requires that the court give reasons for such a decision.
There are very substantive changes between the current Bill C-7
we are discussing and its original version. I have mentioned the
instructions to the court to consider rehabilitation and treatment at
sentencing and the reduction in the impact of a conviction for
simple possession of cannabis. The following is a representative
sample of a dozen or more other changes to the bill.
The previous subsection 3(1), which dealt with controlling
unlisted substances that have an effect similar to scheduled drugs,
has been completely removed. It has been deleted. It had been
objected that the conduct subject to criminal sanction in this
subsection had not been specified enough and that herbs or natural
extracts might be captured. Removing this subsection should
remove all doubts on that score to those who sell herbs and have
been concerned about this. It is no longer going to affect an
individual even if they thought it might have. Now they need not
worry on that count.
Subsection 30(1) has been amended to ensure that inspectors
have reasonable grounds to believe that a place is used for an illicit
purpose mentioned in the bill before entering the place.
Paragraph 30(1)(c) is amended to exclude the possibility that
inspectors can examine a person's medical record and therefore
infringe on the confidentiality between physician and patient.
(1235 )
Paragraph 54(1)(h) is amended to eliminate any risk that
regulations made under the act could apply to medical practitioners
or other professionals who are not targeted. That was a concern
from those professionals who under the act were licensed to give
prescription drugs. However, the definition of trafficking has been
15952
broadened to include the sale by a licensed practitioner of a
prescription to obtain drugs.
Every one of the concerns raised in subcommittee has been
carefully examined in the reconstruction of this bill. This is not to
say that every concern that was expressed has led to an amendment.
Some were felt to be without foundation, such as the fear that the
bill would threaten the viability of the existing needle exchange
program. It was decided after examination that there was no such
threat and there needed to be no amendment.
Other observations or criticisms will be more properly addressed
in a general drug policy review rather than in Bill C-7. In fact that
was a recommendation from the committee.
It has been suggested by some that this is not a health bill. Many
of the issues that have come up deal with justice and enforcement.
It should be made abundantly clear that controlled substances are
not all bad substances. Many of them indeed are very good when
used as prescribed. They are important to the health of the nation.
They are major tools in the medical kit. Drugs and drug abuse are
basically social and health problems. They find their way, however,
into the criminal justice system not because they naturally and
necessarily belong there, but because we have yet to devise a better
method of control.
Prohibition has had very limited success and very high cost.
Many believe that programs to increase awareness, education, and
treatment would be more successful for less money and less
violence in drug enforcement. In fact the main thrust of Bill C-7 is
that it allows for these controlled substances to be used for medical
and scientific purposes. We need codeine and morphine and similar
drugs to treat patients. Unfortunately, they are also subject to
abuse. Therefore, we need to build into the law how we deal with
their diversion to non-medical purposes and their abuse potential.
That is where most of the justice issues come into play in this bill.
The bill facilitates the placing of safeguards at all levels of
production and distribution of high-risk drugs and allows them to
be used as prescription drugs. This reduces the risk that drugs
produced for legitimate purposes would be diverted into the illegal
street market.
Canadians will have access, as before, to physicians, dentists,
pharmacists, and other licensed health care providers for whatever
drug they need to treat their illnesses. They need not be concerned
about that. Bill C-7 is not a catch-all for pharmaceutical
preparations. It does not affect antibiotics, for example. It names
clearly the drugs it would control, which are generally those used to
treat pain and many psychotrophic or mood-modifying drugs.
By including the concepts of treatment and rehabilitation, this
bill also acknowledges the important health dimensions of drug
abuse. It begins to rebalance that emphasis on substance over user
and coercion over persuasion. It is not a new policy and it is not
even a big change, but it is an important shift in perspective. It
opens the way to alternate approaches and choices in addressing a
disease that afflicts hundreds of thousands of Canadians and the
social well-being of Canada.
Bill C-7 is meant to control dangerous substances. We want to
control these substances because in the wrong hands and used in
the wrong way they can cause great harm to Canadians and to the
social fabric of this country.
I say this even though I recognize that drug use is not a major
concern for Canadians in general. In fact an Environics poll that
focused on justice and crime issues last year found that only two
per cent of respondents said that illicit drug use personally troubled
them far more than other crimes. This was far behind phenomena
such as domestic violence, youth gangs, breaking and entering, and
crimes against children.
There is another reason to control these drugs, and I believe it is
a far more important reason. Many substances we are dealing with
here have strong medical components. This bill aims to make them
available to health professionals and their patients for legitimate
medical purposes. These substances, as I said before, are an
essential part of our armaments against human suffering. We need
painkillers, tranquillizers, and similar drugs to treat patients
suffering from pain, anxiety, stress, depression, and other illnesses
that in fact are born of our age of worry and anxiety. These are
substances for medical use.
(1240)
Because Bill C-7 sharpens the tools we use to control the
production and distribution of high-risk preparations that can be
made available safely for prescription drugs does not mean that we
are condemning those drugs. Patients will continue to have access
to prescriptions through their doctors and pharmacists. Patients
will always have what they need to treat illness and the medical
records of patients will not be violated.
Health Canada's goals and priorities have repeatedly found
support from the Canadian public, who rate the performance of
health care in the current system at the very top of government
activities. This is from Ekos Research.
Side by side with medicare on Health Canada's priority list is the
protection against risks to Canadians' health. Therefore, illegally
obtained and unsafe drugs are among those risks. Drug dependence
is not only a criminal issue, it is very much a health and social
issue. With some of these amendments we have tried to bring a
positive approach to treatment programs for those who are afflicted
by drug addictions. We support the help and appropriate treatment
15953
for those who want to get back their health and resume a normal
life. We will continue to authorize methadone treatment for those
who have a drug dependence. Methadone, as members will know,
is a controlled substance that assists many opiate users to
re-establish a constructive life. I want to assure the House that is
not changing.
The department is also responsible for the national program to
reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS. We will not be affecting the
needle exchange programs, which in many communities have had
massive positive results and have been so successful in curbing the
spread of HIV among intravenous drug users. Medical devices such
as needles were deliberately excluded from criminal sanctions in
Bill C-7. So this effective public health program in fact will
continue its good work.
The bill protects the rational use of some controlled substances
as medicines while acting against the illicit distribution of these
same substances. It recognizes that controlled drugs are
indispensable and that their availability should not be restricted or
compromised. It promotes the judicious use of medications by
indicating ways in which controlled drugs can be handled,
distributed, and used. These substances are included in the
legislation, as I said, to protect the health and safety of the public.
For example, Bill C-7 makes it possible for cancer patients and
those who are terminally ill to obtain pain relief from prescribed
medications such as morphine. In a hospital setting or for
out-patients under strict medical supervision, even heroin is
available for the treatment of pain and suffering. This legislation
ensures that cocaine can be safely used in examination and in
surgical procedures. Other medications aimed at treating less
severe but still incapacitating conditions such as migraines are
contained in the schedule of substances we are dealing with here.
These will continue to be made accessible under this bill.
Some of these drugs are also used on the street and therefore are
subject to trafficking. While these substances all have the
opportunity to create good and help patients who are ill, they have a
strong potential for abuse. It is not surprising that the enforcement
aspect of Bill C-7 has therefore attracted attention. But we must not
forget that access to these substances must be preserved for the
benefit of all those who are afflicted, which may include a majority
of Canadians at some time in their lives. These substances are
powerful. They have the power to do good, but also the power to do
harm. If a drug is prescribed by a physician and if you use it more
than is prescribed by a physician, the addictive properties of these
drugs could be forgotten. We do not want that harm to occur to
patients.
As legislators, our task is to find a balance that will maximize
good and minimize harm. I believe we have struck the appropriate
balance in this legislation. I urge hon. members of the House to
support it, as I will.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, good old Bill C-7
has been with us since my arrival in the House and I have followed
it with fascination. It was of course a Tory bill introduced before
this Parliament sat and was opposed then by my Liberal colleagues.
I watched as it became a Liberal bill and was embraced with some
degree of enthusiasm.
(1245)
I invite people listening today to reflect on the parliamentary
secretary's words during her original speech on this bill. I am sure
they will find that the parliamentary secretary wholeheartedly
supported Bill C-7 in its unmodified form. To be kind, that
wholehearted support was somewhat enthusiastic.
This bill has gone through such a dramatic change in the
committee process. That is what I am going to spend my time on
today. Can the public influence a bill? The general perception in
Canada is that the public cannot influence a bill. The fact is that the
public can influence a bill, not only its tone but its actual final
outcome.
What actually happened during the process of modifying this
bill? I found, as did many people in Canada, that clause 3(1) and (2)
could have significant potential harm to the health food industry.
This clause stated that substances could be deemed to have a
stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect. It was plunked into
the bill. Individuals across the country said it was too broad, too
vague and not specific enough.
I received a host of requests for information. As an opposition
health critic people said to me: ``This seems to us to be a point
where an opposition critic should step up to the plate''. What did
we do? We formed a very specific newsletter, which I have with me
today. It states: ``C-7 threatens choice in health care''. It also
mentioned areas of this bill that could have a profound effect on
health care.
The newsletters went out along with a request for petitions to
health food stores and to individuals who wrote asking for more
information. To me, the outpouring of support for this position of
choice in health care was profound. I wish I could touch that nerve
in other areas. I wish I could touch the nerve of the health food
industry in other areas.
People contacted the subcommittee on health. I am convinced
the committee members could not believe the outpouring. People
contacted the minister, their MPs and me. Did I have a big role in
this? I was only able to provide a small vehicle for the outpouring
of personal sentiment. I do not put myself as a great individual in
this debate at all, but the focus of the input was fascinating to me.
The whole issue was choice in health care. Those individuals said:
``Deny us that choice and you are treading on our toes''.
The result and specific part of the bill I found so offensive was
the ability for legislators to deem substances such as stimulants,
15954
depressants and hallucinogens to be stricken completely. There has
not been a great deal of fanfare about that.
I want to tell the Canadian public that this was a huge victory for
those who wanted to choose what they take. There are those who
say that people could make mistakes in their lives and I agree with
that. However, when should regulators be involved in someone's
personal decision making? When there is proven harm, when there
are potential side effects, and when there is fraud in claims, doses,
source or contents. Otherwise the public tells the legislators to step
aside. No one knows better than the individual how they feel and
what works for them when it comes to things they take into their
body.
(1250 )
There is a price for this freedom. The price for the freedom is to
be informed. The public says: ``Government stand aside; we have
spoken''. I finally say to those who would regulate and legislate in
this area, no one can be better informed than the citizen who has a
need which is not met by bureaucrats and legislators, driven by
internal pain, anxiety or wants. They want to seek out time
honoured remedies. They said loudly and clearly: ``You will never
usurp this right''.
People find that interesting coming from a physician and
surgeon, someone who occasionally is criticized for being too
narrow in focus. I have seen individuals not helped by my
profession. I have seen individuals seek alternative therapies. I
have seen individuals beg for the ability to do that. I believe they
have and need the right to do exactly that.
Why did we bring an amendment to this bill, a bill that frankly
has dramatically improved over the way it first came to this House?
We brought an amendment because there is still a regulatory
mechanism, the power to make regulations which still gives the
government the power it had in clause 3, to deem something to be
included in the bill without broad public debate.
Is the mechanism of public consultation sufficient? In my view it
is not. When something is put into The Canada Gazette for 30 days,
it can be missed. Things have been missed in the past. There needs
to be a greater flag. I would have preferred to have had those
amendments come to the parliamentary committee studying health
related issues. That would have been a better step. My basic
premise is that legislators should at least be involved. It should not
be an almost behind the doors process.
I will strongly state to anyone who will listen that the power to
make regulations can be passed with virtually no public scrutiny.
Powers delegated to the governor in council are broad, vague and
border on dictatorial. Our subcommittee recommended that this be
reviewed. I would like to hark back to the parliamentary secretary's
comments when she said that the public scrutiny which is present
today is just fine. Why would the government which controls this
subcommittee agree to review if those powers are just fine? Those
arguments are inconsistent.
I am also very sceptical of the committee recommendation. I
think that recommendation is going to fall into a black hole. I am
going to give an example of why I think that will happen.
The first duty in the health committee was to look at order in
council appointments. I ask a question in the health committee that
if we were going to review these order in council appointments,
how many of them had been turned down in history. The answer
was that members looked at me as if I were crazy. Surely the
committee would not have the power to turn down an order in
council appointment. I asked: ``Why are we doing it then? Strike a
subcommittee on order in council appointments''.
My premise was that the committee should review appointments
at the appointment stage rather than at the nomination stage. Sure
enough we have gone through a whole host of witnesses and the
recommendation of the subcommittee was that order in council
appointments, if they were to be reviewed by the committee,
should be done at the appointment stage. There would be no power
taken away from the government. If everyone on the list were up to
snuff, there would be a checkmark beside each name. It would be a
good time to review. Then the government could choose which
individuals it wanted from those.
(1255 )
I asked the question in high school class after high school class:
If you were asked to review something, would you want to have
that review be meaningful? The kids nod to me. We would think it
was nonsense to do it any other way. Where has that
recommendation that order in council appointments be referred to
to the health committee gone? It has gone into a black hole
somewhere, into government reorganization.
That indicates to me how cynical the government process
sometimes can be. If a group of high school kids can see that it
makes sense, it surely must make sense to the legislators. I will
watch with profound interest the recommendation from the
committee to review this power to make regulations. If it falls into
the black hole as well, I will be greatly disappointed.
Bill C-7 has come a long way. If the power to make regulations
were righted, I would support it. On the basis it is not righted, I will
not support it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of Bill C-7, an act
respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other
substances, and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic
Control Act in consequence thereof.
15955
This bill received first reading in February 1994 and passed
second reading in April 1994. At that time it was referred to the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Health which in turn
struck an all-party subcommittee. I was appointed as the chair to
study that bill, to receive witnesses from all parts of Canada
representing major interest groups and to receive and consider
submissions from major interest groups and Canadians from all
walks of life. The committee received dozens of submissions and
literally thousands of letters for its consideration.
As a consequence of our consultation and discussions, a number
of questions and concerns were raised. The committee took the
interventions very seriously and requested answers and
explanations from officials. The bill is the responsibility of the
Minister of Health but numerous aspects relating to enforcement
and justice matters necessarily involve the solicitor general's office
and the Ministry of Justice.
Officials from all of the ministries were very actively involved
in the review of this bill after second reading and co-operated fully
throughout the process. I want to give special thanks to them,
particularly to Mr. Bruce Rowsell, director of dangerous drugs,
health protection branch, Health Canada; Carol Langlois, project
manager, bureau of dangerous drugs, health protection branch,
Health Canada; Gérard Normand, counsel, national security group,
Department of Justice; Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, senior counsel,
criminal law policy section, Department of Justice; and Ron
Dykeman, senior policy analyst, policing and law enforcement in
the solicitor general's office.
The role of parliamentarians and their powers of influence as
members of Parliament and members of standing committees of
this House has changed dramatically in this Parliament. The
subcommittee charged with the responsibility to study Bill C-7
demonstrated that the proposed legislation is subject to change.
Indeed Bill C-7 has been changed in many important ways to
address the legitimate concerns of Canadians.
As a result of our work, the committee has sought amendments
on a number of critical elements of the bill. I am pleased to inform
the House that the government through its relevant ministries has
brought forward substantive-I emphasize
substantive-amendments which fully satisfy the concerns raised
by the committee. Some of the areas relate to the whole aspect of
rehabilitation and treatment: the issues raised by practitioners,
particularly by the Canadian Medical Association; the integrity of
needle exchange programs; confidentiality and access to
information; the scheduling and particularly the criteria for
scheduling of products; the aspect of criminal records; the issue of
fortified drug houses.
(1300 )
I could tell members that one of my colleagues from Edmonton
came before the committee and made a plea on behalf of the law
enforcement agencies of Edmonton to advise us of what is called
fortified drug houses.
Very briefly, fortified drug houses are dwellings that have been
altered substantially to ensure that enforcement agencies would not
get ready access in the event that they have determined that there
were illegal or illicit activities transpiring within that dwelling.
Initially, the bill could not address that. Reasons were given but
the committee did not accept them. Thanks to the intervention of
our colleague and member for Edmonton West, this bill now
provides the mechanism necessary for our law enforcement
agencies to deal with the serious problem of fortified drug houses.
We also dealt with some complex matters to do with hybrid
trafficking offences. I can tell members that the bill has changed
significantly since second reading with regard to the amounts and
the penalties.
As has been mentioned, we dealt with the deeming provisions
under section 3.1 which I will speak to more fully a little later. We
also dealt with section 59, the administration procedure for
adjudication, a very important section.
Very briefly, the work of the committee was quite extensive,
quite broad on a number of fronts. I am pleased to inform the
House that the bill, as amended, received the support of all parties.
Some 69 amendments were made to a bill that contains 56 pages,
94 clauses and a large number of schedules listing drugs and
various other aspects. We believe that we have returned to the
House a better piece of legislation which effectively meets the
intended objectives of Bill C-7.
The subcommittee actually went beyond its mandate to address
Bill C-7. Not only did we discharge our responsibilities with regard
to the bill as was directed by the Standing Committee on Health,
but we also made a further report to the Standing Committee on
Health putting forward certain recommendations flowing from the
work we did in considering the provisions of Bill C-7.
In brief, I would like to outline what those additional
recommendations were. The first recommendation was that an
expert task force be formed to devise rational criteria for schedules
1 to 7 of the control of drugs and substances act.
We would like to see this task force include the assistance and
the consultation from organizations such as the Addiction Research
Foundation, the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, the
Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, the Canadian Medical
Association and the Canadian Foundation on Drug Policy, not to
mention the Canadian Medical Association, particularly, and any
other relevant bodies. We would like them to form a special task
force
15956
with a mandate to establish precise criteria for the scheduling of
substances under this act.
As a number of speakers will mention in speaking to the bill
today, it deals with a large number of drugs. As was dealt with in
the report stage motion with regard to governor in council changes
to regulations, as members will see, it is quite an onerous task to
deal with the changes that would have to occur to scheduling if we
have to go through committee every time a certain drug arises.
The second recommendation has to do with Canada's drug
policy. I am going to talk quite a bit about drug policy because I
believe that Canadians should understand more fully the intent and
the rationale for Bill C-7 and how it relates to Canada's drug policy,
indeed the Canadian drug strategy.
The subcommittee on Bill C-7 recommends that the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Health undertake a
comprehensive review of the existing drug policy. I am pleased to
report that the Minister of Health has already informally given her
concurrence that a comprehensive review of our drug policy should
be conducted.
(1305)
The final recommendation has to do with the motion that was
moved at report stage by the member for Macleod. It deals with the
scrutiny of regulations and orders made by governor in council.
This motion, in fact an amendment, was dealt with at
subcommittee. Based on the conversations we had with all
members and the debate that was held, it was clear that the question
being raised was not generally relevant only to Bill C-7, but rather
a matter of principle. A number of the previous speakers have
referred to that principle: what can this place do and what
authorities can it second in terms of amendments to legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health outlined
very clearly that there is a mechanism in place for the exposure of
changes proposed, whether they be regulations or other changes.
More important, those changes are not substantive changes to
the legislation and to the intent of the legislation. It is more
important that those governor in council authorities be available so
that changes can be made which are consequential to other changes
that occur and that things can happen quickly. I will comment a
little later, particularly with regard to section 3.1, the deeming
provision, on new drugs and the reason why we have to pursue
avenues to be able to address new drugs as they come on line. It has
to do with technology and it has to do with the sophistication of
those that produce illicit drugs.
We have asked the Standing Committee on Health to direct a
question to the government House leader whether the House of
Commons standing committees could have the authority to approve
or at least to review all relevant regulations or orders made by the
governor in council prior to coming in force. I believe that
recommendation satisfies the member for Macleod. He withdrew
the amendment at subcommittee and supported the principle of
assessing whether or not governor in council orders are being
abused.
It is a valid question and that is why the committee agreed with
the member for Macleod to pose the question to the government
House leader, so that all members of Parliament could more fully
understand the mechanics and the rationale for governor in council
orders.
We believe that all committees should make appropriate
recommendations consequential to the work they have done in
studying legislation on what they have heard from the people of
Canada. I am very proud that this committee took on itself to
produce a supplementary report to the bill, which I feel is going to
add substantially to the role of parliamentarians.
I wish to move more specifically to the bill. The parliamentary
secretary very eloquently outlined a number of the technical
aspects of the bill. I want to go back to the genesis because I know
that for many members on all sides of the House their first
exposure to this bill was the old Bill C-85 from the former
government. It is a draconian Mulroney bill.
It is time for us to move away from the partisan apprehension
about certain legislation because there are important reasons for
Bill C-7 to be before this place and to be passed by this House.
Bill C-7 forms part of the national drug strategy. It is a
multi-year program set up to combat the illicit drug trade within
our boundaries. The bill consolidates and supplements the
provisions found in the Narcotics Control Act and Parts III and IV
of the Food and Drugs Act.
The supplementary provisions are necessary for a very important
reason and that is because Canada must pass certain changes to its
drug legislation so that we can be in conformity with certain
international obligations to which we are a party.
Those treaties are three. The first is the Convention on Narcotic
Drugs of 1961. That treaty dealt with things such as the cultivation
of the coca bush.
(1310 )
The second treaty was the Convention on Psychotropic
Substances, dated 1971. Among other things, it dealt with the
expanded control over amphetamines.
Finally, the so-called Vienna convention, is the United Nations
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotro-
15957
pic Substances, dated 1988. Among other things, it deals with the
import and export control over precursors.
Why is Bill C-7 so important? That is a question which members
of Parliament must understand for their own edification because of
the concerns which have been raised at second reading and
throughout the genesis of the bill.
Because Bill C-7 provides for the scheduling of drugs which are
controlled or restricted, it attracted substantial attention from
groups and individuals who wanted to address Canada's drug
policy with a view to taking a softer stance on drug possession and
use and to treat it as a health problem rather than a criminal
problem. This was the argument.
Our drug policy is reflected in Canada's drug strategy. Seventy
per cent of our spending is directed at rehabilitation and treatment
alternatives. Bill C-7 is part of Canada's drug strategy and
addresses the enforcement aspects of our drug policy.
Many of the witnesses and interveners were critical of Bill C-7
because they wanted the opportunity to fully debate the overall
drug policy, of which Bill C-7 is simply a part. Their interests were
beyond the purview of our subcommittee but their concerns were
noted in our recommendations which I referred to earlier.
The most important rationale for Bill C-7 was to bring our drug
laws into compliance with the international conventions to which
we are a party. It is this aspect on which I would like to elaborate.
Canada has been in violation of its treaty obligations for many
years. As such, it has increasingly come under criticism by its
treaty partners and the International Narcotics Control Board. This
is the first time that a jurisdictional body has mentioned, so I would
like to highlight the International Narcotics Control Board.
Over the past 80 years a worldwide system to control drugs
subject to abuse has developed gradually through adoption of a
series of international treaties. The key multilateral conventions
concurrently in effect are, as I mentioned: the 1961 single
convention on narcotic drugs which was modified by the 1972
protocol; the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances; and the
United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, which was adopted in 1988. Each of
these treaties has built on regulations already in place and has
advanced international law.
From the beginning the principal objective of drug control
treaties has been to restrict the use of these drugs to medical and
scientific purposes.
The International Narcotics Control Board, known as the INCB,
is an independent and quasi-judiciary body mandated to apply the
United Nations conventions on drugs. It was created in 1968 by the
1961 single convention on narcotic drugs. Its predecessors were
created by previous conventions on drugs, dating back to the
League of Nations. The board is responsible for promoting the
application of drug control treaties by government. These treaties
set out its tasks, which are essentially of two types.
First, with respect to the legal manufacture, trade and sale of
drugs, the board ensures that there are sufficient quantities
available for medical and scientific purposes and that none are
misdirected from legal sources to illegal trafficking. To that end, it
administers a narcotics evaluation system and a system of
voluntary evaluation of psychotropic substances and monitors
international drug trading through a statistical reporting system.
Moreover, it monitors the measures taken by governments to
control chemical products that can be used in illicit manufacture of
drugs, assisting them in preventing their being channelled toward
illicit trafficking.
(1315)
The second area of the mandate is with respect to the illicit
manufacture and trafficking of drugs. In this regard, the board
detects weaknesses in national and international control systems
and helps to improve the situation. As well, it is responsible for
assessing what chemical products used for illicit drug
manufacturing might be placed under international control.
Our failure to comply, particularly in the area of control of
benzodiazepines, was clearly singled out in the 1994 report of the
International Narcotics Control Board presented to the United
Nations on February 27, 1995. I would like to refer to that report of
the International Narcotics Control Board for 1994 to the United
Nations. I want to quote from this report because I want for once
and for all to demonstrate clearly to all members why it is so
important that Bill C-7 is passed by this House.
Paragraph 89 states: ``A few parties to the 1971 convention,
including Canada, Luxembourg, and New Zealand, do not yet
control international trade in all benzodiazepines. This represents a
violation of the treaty obligations under the 1971 convention. The
board has been in communication with those countries for a
number of years, but their response has thus far been insufficient.
The board reiterates its request to those countries to begin
controlling without further delay their imports and exports of all
benzodiazipines listed in the 1971 convention.''
The report further states in paragraph 180: ``Although Canada
ratified the 1971 convention in 1988 and the 1988 conventions in
1990, national legislation is not yet in conformity with some of the
provisions of those conventions and the Canadian authorities have
not been fully implementing those provisions. There are
indications that Canada is a source of benzodiazepines entering the
rest of North America.''
15958
Paragraph 182 states: ``In Canada, organized gangs trafficking
in metamphetimines, PCPs, and lysergic acid diethlamide, known
as LSD, are increasingly becoming involved in illicit trafficking
in precursors and other chemicals.''
The final reference comes in the appending news release issued
in conjunction with the INCB report. It states: ``The black market
in the United States is another main target for diversion and
smuggling of benzodiazepines. Canada, where imports and exports
of these substances are not yet controlled, appears to be the main
source of benzodiazepines diverted in the region. In one such case a
broker company in the Bahamas established as a front by drug
traffickers obtained from 1992 to 1994 large quantities of diazepam
tablets from a Canadian origin to a local wholesaler. The company
claimed that the tablets were to be exported to other countries in the
Caribbean. In fact they were smuggled into the United States.''
There are a number of other references. I think all members
would understand clearly that Canada has been embarrassed in
front of the United Nations, through the World Health
Organization, through the International Narcotics Control Board,
because we have not met our obligations under the international
treaties to which we are a party.
Bill C-7, once passed, will in fact bring Canada's laws up to date
and in fact satisfy all the provisions of those treaties to which we
are a party.
(1320 )
In March 1995 I had an opportunity, along with the
parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Health, to meet with
representatives of the INCB to discuss our deficiencies and to
review the progress of Bill C-7. I am pleased to advise that they
were satisfied that Canada had finally developed a piece of
legislation that was going to address those concerns. We are
looking forward very much to advising our treaty partners that our
laws are now in order with regard to those treaties. That is the most
important reason for this piece of legislation.
Finally, I would like to make some brief comments about certain
issues that attracted substantial attention throughout the
subcommittee's work. The first issue, which I think has been on the
minds of a number of members on all sides of this House, is our
approach to illicit drugs. Many criticized Bill C-7 initially because
they alleged that it reaffirms a criminalization and interdiction
approach to illicit drugs instead of a public health approach.
As I mentioned, Bill C-7 forms only part of Canada's drug
strategy, under which 70 per cent of our efforts are indeed directed
at rehabilitation and treatment as alternatives. Bill C-7 also now
includes, which it did not at second reading, a specific section
addressing and promoting a rehabilitation and treatment approach
to illicit drugs. Bill C-41, the omnibus sentencing bill, also makes
reference and encouragement to the courts and provides that
alternative to the court system to ensure that wherever possible and
appropriate, rehabilitation and treatment are desirable.
Some also argue that a softer approach should be taken on illicit
drugs because they cause fewer health problems than alcohol and
tobacco, which were omitted from the bill. Alcohol and tobacco are
no longer omitted from Bill C-7. If we are to be successful in taking
a hard line on their use under our laws, we cannot get soft on drugs.
Health impacts are not the only consideration. Far too many lives
have been ruined by drugs, which costs our system billions of
dollars annually in health, social, and justice programs. We will
continue to work with our treaty partners in the World Health
Organization, the UN, and the INCB to fight the war on drugs.
An awful lot has been said today with regard to subclause 3(1),
which has to do with a deeming provision. In simple terms, it
basically states that if a drug or a substance is the same as or
similar to an illicit substance, it would be deemed to be covered by
the act. The member for Macleod and some other speakers tended
to paint one picture. I would like to provide a different version of
the realities having to do with subclause 3(1).
The subcommittee and members of Parliament were literally
swamped with letters and petitions from the distributors and users
of natural and herbal remedies, as was stated by the member for
Macleod. Industry leaders were alarmed because the bill referred to
substances that had a similar stimulant or depressant effect to listed
substances but were not themselves listed.
All products sold to the public through natural and herbal
remedy outlets have been approved for use in Canada under our
existing laws and jurisdictional authorities. The effect of these
substances we are talking about is so minuscule relative to the
potency of the drugs covered by this bill that there was never any
interest or intent to even mention herbal remedies and products
such as camomile tea or ma huang. These are very mild stimulants
or depressants, many of which are included in everyday cough
syrup. There was never intent in the bill. In fact, there is a very
important reason why the bill initially attempted to deal with
unnamed or unknown substances.
(1325)
For those who have a need and a desire to use natural and herbal
remedies, I say that if they can be obtained legally before Bill C-7,
they will still be obtainable after Bill C-7 passes. The bill does not
affect those.
I do want to comment on the misinformation that was generated
by certain parties with regard to subclause 3(1). We have received
some 4,000 letters and petitions from people with regard to this. I
saw the trade magazines, which stated and showed very clearly that
if the bill passes stores will be closed and remedies will only be
available from a doctor. They stated that these remedies will all be
illegal and will never be available again. With 4,000 Canadians
being driven to write to the committee, and I do not know how
15959
many wrote to other members of Parliament, imagine the alarm
that was raised because of this misinformation.
I wonder how much the industry had to do with trying to raise
this concern simply for business reasons so that people would go
out and stock up on these products. There was absolutely no basis
for concern. I believe that kind of approach to political
opportunism is totally inappropriate when we are dealing with the
people of Canada on matters that are important to them.
Subclause 3(1) was intended to cover substances that were
chemically very similar to listed substances and produce the same
or similar effect but were not themselves listed. The rapid changes
in the technology of drug production makes it necessary for us to
respond quickly to new drugs. If new drugs are to be developed and
they are chemically very close and not on the schedule, it will take
a long time to get them on the schedule and covered by the
legislation.
Governor in council orders allow at least a period of
approximately 30 days to get something on a schedule. As the
parliamentary secretary pointed out, if there were international
implications or feedback or input had to be received from outside
the country, that I believe would be extended to 75 days. Those are
the reasons we need this.
Although the provisions of subclause 3(1) would have been
helpful, there was sufficient concern within the committee about
the violation of a fundamental legal principle that requires that
conduct that is subject to criminal sanction must be specified
clearly in the act. This is the reason why subclause 3(1) had to be
removed. Deeming a provision and saying it was the same or
similar did not name a substance, and it was potentially going to
cause a problem. The provision was dropped from the current bill,
although I suspect it will have to be reconsidered should problems
arise with new drugs arriving on the streets of Canada.
Very briefly, the commercial production of hemp was raised with
the committee. Substantial lobbying was done to have Bill C-7
permit the commercial production of hemp. Given the time I have,
I would simply indicate to those who are interested that this
particular bill does not at present permit the commercial
production of hemp. There is a window whereby if it were deemed
appropriate a mechanism could be triggered. However, this process
could take years. I would simply say with regard to the commercial
production of hemp that it is a long way off, if indeed it is
appropriate at all.
Finally, I want to comment on the subject of marijuana. Not
surprisingly, a number of Canadians urged the committee to
decriminalize marijuana. They argued that the penalties were too
harsh and did not reflect the attitudes of most Canadians or the
lenient practices of the courts or the police.
(1330)
No evidence was presented to us on the attitudes of Canadians.
Not dealing with the drug policy in our committee, none was asked
for as well.
However, there is no disputing the courts were clogged. This bill
deals with that by changing the process for simple summary
convictions for simple or first time possession. There is fast
tracking for dealing with those offences.
The bill, passed by the House at second reading, included a
provision that simple possession of cannabis was a criminal
offence. As such, any proposal to decriminalize marijuana would
have been ruled out of order.
The committee could not even have dealt with the question
because it was a change in drug policy. This committee had no
mandate to deal with drug policy.
The issue is one of drug policy. More important, under the
provisions of the various international treaties to which Canada is a
party marijuana possession must be a criminal offence. As such it
is very unlikely Canada will consider such a change.
A recent article in the Telegraph Journal in New Brunswick
reported: ``For possession of small amounts of cannabis, the
amended sentence is six months and a $1,000 fine instead of seven
years and a $2,000 fine''. That simply is not true. It is
misinformation and may lead the reader to believe the bill proposes
the law to be more lenient on simple possession.
Under the existing Narcotic Control Act the maximum penalty
for simple possession of marijuana on first offence and by
summary conviction is $1,000 and six months imprisonment. That
is the existing law. Under Bill C-7 the penalty is identical, no
change. We did not deal with drug policy.
Attitudes of many Canadians toward marijuana were developed
many years ago when many failed to realize the technology of
breeding plants has allowed producers to drastically increase the
potency of marijuana by increasing its THC content,
tetrahydrocannabinol.
Marijuana is about 15 times more potent today than it was 10
years ago. Marijuana today is as potent as cocaine was 10 years
ago. Let there be no confusion, marijuana is a dangerous drug
which can have serious health impacts. Its possession or use even
in small amounts continues to constitute a criminal offence in Bill
C-7 and in the laws of Canada.
I thank the members of the subcommittee for their due care and
diligence in addressing Bill C-7. I believe we have made a better
15960
piece of legislation and demonstrated once again that all members
have the opportunity to significantly influence the development of
effective legislation for Canada, which as we all know includes
Quebec.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now proceed to the
next stage of debate in which members will be entitled to a
20-minute maximum subject to 10 minutes of questions or
comments.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill. Like its
predecessor, Bill C-85, this bill is intended to improve and
modernize the drug abuse provisions currently contained in the
Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
I believe all of us here recognize the need for some reform in this
area. Parts of the legislation are more than three decades old. It is
obvious we cannot fight the drug problems of the 1990s with
30-year old legislation.
Some members have raised concerns about various aspects of
the bill, particularly the health provisions which constitute the
major part of the bill. Maybe those members are not aware that
many of the concerns they have expressed have already been
addressed by changes incorporated in Bill C-85 last year.
Although it is for the Minister of Health to respond to those
concerns which have not yet been addressed, it is necessary to
emphasize two points regarding the health provisions before I turn
to the smaller but important law enforcement component of this
bill.
This bill must not be looked at in isolation. It is not a standalone
piece of legislation. It is the last and most important in a series of
pieces of legislation designed to support the Canada drug strategy.
(1335)
This federal program is a ten-year, $480 million campaign
launched back in 1987 to fight substance abuse and drug trafficking
in Canada. As part of that strategy Bill C-7 is an important element
of the government's overall campaign to curb substance abuse.
Some members have raised alarming images of innocent doctors
and pharmacists unable to practise their professions, of violations
of doctor-patient confidentiality and of the potential for law
abiding citizens to be prosecuted for the use of everyday substances
such as caffeine. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe that even the members who mouth that kind of fear know
they are engaging more in fear mongering than in fact
dissemination.
The initial health regulations to be proposed under this new bill
will be identical in effect to those which currently exist under the
Narcotic Control Act and parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs
Act. Further, all of these existing regulations were developed in
close co-operation with the people they most affect, the doctors, the
pharmacists and the veterinarians. We are not reinventing the
wheel, we are simply building on a solid and proven foundation
with the advice of the people most directly concerned.
The bill would eliminate ambiguity and broaden the scope of
existing legislation so that governments and police services can
respond effectively to the Canadian drug scene of the nineties.
Undoubtedly new health regulations will eventually be
promulgated but not before they have been developed in full
consultation with the people most directly involved. That can
hardly be described as acting in haste or with lack of forethought.
This is simply acting with common sense.
The same common sense has been applied to the police
enforcement aspect of the bill. Any police officer on the street will
tell us that drug traffickers today use increasingly sophisticated
methods to evade police efforts aimed at halting their deadly trade.
To keep up with the traffickers the police need equally
sophisticated investigative techniques such as reverse sting or
sell-bust operations.
I hope my friend from Edmonton is getting all of this.
Mr. Hanrahan: You are going slow enough, Roger.
Mr. Simmons: Good to see you. We meet here every day at the
same time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I certainly do not want to
diminish the friendliness that arises in the Chamber through debate
but I urge members to please direct their interventions through the
Chair.
Mr. Simmons: I thought I had done so, Mr. Speaker. If I did not,
I apologize. I believe I was referring to my friend from Edmonton
in the third person.
During this type of sting operation it is frequently necessary for
the police to sell small quantities of drugs to traffickers to establish
credibility and further investigations. These techniques already
exist but at present have no specific legislative basis and
consequently are open to legal challenge. The bill would ensure the
police have an appropriate statutory basis on which to mount
operations against drug traffickers in a manner consistent with the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I know an hon. member has argued such authority already exists
for all police services under section 18 of the RCMP act and he
asked why we need this new provision. The answer is simple. First,
section 18 of the RCMP act applies only to the RCMP and not to
any other police service. Second, section 18 of the act does not
provide a clear statutory authority to the RCMP for mounting
undercover drug operations.
(1340)
It only imposes a duty on the RCMP alone to enforce the law
using powers that already exist under other statutes such as the
Narcotic Control Act. Clearly there is a world of difference
15961
between this broad statutory obligation and similar obligations in
provincial police acts and the specific authority needed by all
police services, federal, provincial and municipal, to carry out sting
operations, an authority provided for in this bill.
It is also important to note that the police enforcement
regulations contemplated in this bill build on the existing narcotic
control regulations and the food and drugs regulations. Both sets of
regulations authorize police officers to possess narcotic and
restricted drugs when directly related to police work.
What is new is that the bill removes ambiguity that exists in the
current legislation and gives police services a firm and clear
statutory base for carrying out undercover drug operations.
Again, we are not acting in haste here. The text of new police
enforcement regulations have been published in the Canada
Gazette, part I, to allow time for consultation and comment from
all interested parties. Consistent with this, I am also pleased to
announce that the solicitor general has provided to his provincial
and territorial colleagues a discussion paper on the enforcement
provisions of Bill C-7. This paper was also made public to
members of the House and to the public. The paper outlines the
policy underlying the new police enforcement regulations that will
be made pursuant to this act.
Again, this is an example of a government committed to
consultation and the careful and methodical development of
legislation that answers the needs and concerns of all stakeholders.
That is how the government does business and how it should do
business.
There have also been concerns that Bill C-7 may permit an
unwarranted intrusion by the federal government into provincial
areas of jurisdiction, in this case the conduct of provincial and
municipal police anti-drug operations. That concern is without
foundation. Bill C-7 expressly recognizes that both the federal and
provincial governments have clearly defined jurisdictions in the
area of drug enforcement. The authority of the provincial ministers
responsible for policing over provincial and municipal police
services is expressly stated in the bill.
Domestic issues aside, the bill is also important in that it will
allow us to fulfil our international obligations. Canada is, after all,
a signatory to three UN international conventions designed to
counter substance abuse and drug trafficking: the single convention
on narcotics drugs, a convention on psychotropic substances and
the convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs substances.
These international conventions are crucial in the fight against drug
traffickers.
Drug trafficking is an international problem requiring
international action. We need only look at reports such as the
RCMP national drug intelligence estimate to realize how true that
statement is. Money laundering through international banking
systems, illegal drug routes criss-crossing the entire world and
drug production centres ranging from South America to the Middle
East all emphasize that international co-operation and
co-ordination are necessary to effectively fight drug trafficking.
That is why it is important Canada fulfil its international
obligations to the best of its ability.
The bill will give our police services the tools they need to do
their jobs properly and to ensure they are at least as effective in
their anti-drug operations as their counterparts in other countries.
Aside from providing the police with a statutory basis for
carrying out undercover drug operations, the bill also provides
three other measures that will assist the police in their anti-drug
activities. First, the bill will provide for controls on the import,
export, production and distribution of controlled substances while
at the same time allowing for the use of substances for medical,
scientific and industrial purposes.
(1345 )
Second, the bill will provide a control on the import and export
of precursors, which are chemical substances used to produce
controlled substances.
Third, the bill will provide for the forfeiture of any property used
to commit such offences and for a comprehensive search and
seizure mechanism consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
I hope in my remarks during the past few minutes that I have
made it clear the police enforcement provisions of Bill C-7 are a
carefully considered set of measures designed to give police the
powers they need to do their job properly. The provisions do not
embody any new and exceptional powers, contrary to what has
been suggested in the Chamber. The provisions do not infringe on
provincial jurisdiction, contrary to what has been suggested during
the course of the debate. The provisions are subject to consultation
and review. They balance the needs of the police against the
interest of the community as a whole.
In short, it is modern legislation designed to respond to the
demands of a modern world. Our police services deserve all the
support we can give them, particularly when it comes to fighting
drug traffickers. In the past we have shown our support through the
passage of the proceeds of crime amendment and the Seized and
Restrained Assets Management Act. Speedy passage of Bill C-7,
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, would both complement
the previous two pieces of legislation I have mentioned and be a
further demonstration of our commitment to support the police in
their fight against the drug trade.
Therefore I have much pleasure in inviting my colleagues on all
sides of the Chamber to give their unfettered support to this
excellent piece of legislation as expeditiously as possible.
15962
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to address Bill C-7. The
problem of addiction and those who profit from addiction troubles
the nation, my constituents in Lambton-Middlesex and people
throughout Canada. Speaking as one who was elected to represent
the same constituents, it troubles me.
The illicit drug trade and those who live off its avail exact a
heavy toll, especially on that segment of our population at the
greatest risk: our youngsters, a prime and favourite target of those
dealing in illicit drugs. Drugs destroy families. They destroy
careers and they destroy futures. They also destroy young lives.
Perhaps most of all, whilst doing so they put cash into the hands of
criminals.
In the early eighties there were more casual drug users among
young people. While we see today a steady decline of casual drug
use, there remains a hard core group of heavy drug users. What is
worse is that those who make up the majority of the group are the
youngsters hardest to reach.
Street youth today are consuming far more drugs than frequent
drug users who are still in school. The battle against illicit drug use
is being waged in our cities, where the problem is most visible,
through programs and high profile media campaigns. It has also
been carried out in smaller communities across the country.
Do we need more compelling reasons to advance the case against
drug abuse? These people, the young, the abused, school dropouts,
street kids, the unemployed and off reserve aboriginal youth are
hard to reach.
(1350 )
It therefore follows that the critical path to addressing the issues
of substance abuse lies in education, prevention, treatment and
rehabilitation. We must also strike at the root of the problem. We
must equip law enforcement professionals with the tools needed to
deal effectively with those who prey on the addicted. This bill
provides the tool. We must promote sound law enforcement if we
are ever to advance in the broader social goal of maintaining safe
and peaceful communities. The bill provides the means of
accomplishing this goal.
We have also heard how the bill looks to the future. First, it
provides for flexible framework for controlling the import, export,
production, distribution and use of controlled substances.
Second, it provides a mechanism that will allow us to implement
our international obligations and to restrict the production or trade
of regulated substances to the medical, scientific and industrial
purposes.
Third, it enhances enforcement of the law by the police and the
courts as it provides the police with the necessary tools to enforce
the law and provides for the seizure and forfeiture of property used
in offences involving controlled substances.
Additionally, by reaching a broader range of controlled
substances, the new legislation will help make it more difficult for
drug dealers to reach children and will strengthen sentences handed
down by the courts. It will make it easier for the police to arrest
people who deal in illegal drugs.
Drug dealing in and around schools and in or near public places
usually frequented by minors will constitute an aggravated factor at
the time of sentencing. This means that judges will have to justify
their decision when not imposing a jail sentence.
The new bill also places safeguards at all levels of production
and distribution of controlled substances. This should ensure that
they are not diverted from medical, scientific and industrial
channels to the illegal street market.
Right now as we debate the bill designer drugs are being
produced in some clandestine laboratory and cannot be subjected to
prosecution until they are included in the schedules. These designer
drugs have the same basic properties as more familiar substances
such as stimulants, tranquillizers and painkillers. However their
chemical properties have been slightly altered. The result is that
these substances are not covered by existing legislation and can be
sold with impunity.
Under the bill law enforcement officials will no longer have to
wait for the drugs to appear on statutory schedules to stop criminals
from selling them. So-called precursors, legal substances used in
the manufacture of illicit substances, can also be obtained in large
enough quantities through devious means.
The bill contains enhanced controls for anabolic steroids.
Studies in the United States and Canada have shown clearly that the
problem of steroids is not confined to the high stake arenas of
international competition. This was confirmed by Justice Dubin's
findings. High school and college athletes use steroids in hopes of
winning athletic scholarships or to shape up more quickly.
Recreational athletes, adolescents and adults alike use steroids to
improve their physique.
It is no secret that even taken in limited doses for legitimate
medical purposes steroids can cause serious side effects.
Information from law enforcement agencies suggest that most
steroids used by athletes are not prescribed by physicians. The
mixture sold on the street may be of inferior quality or could pose
unknown health risks.
Under the proposed act not only will it be easier to arrest and
convict traffickers but it will enable governments to seize and
forfeit the proceeds of crime and property used or intended for the
purpose of committing a drug related crime.
15963
It is only through the adoption of the measures of education,
prevention and law enforcement that we will have the necessary
means to foster healthy communities free of addiction,
degradation and criminal oppression.
Children are entitled to grow up and develop in a supportive and
caring environment, one which spawns honest, healthy and
productive lifestyles. The bill before us is one way we can help to
promote such a climate for the children of Canada.
(1355)
At this point I stress three particular concerns brought to the
attention of the subcommittee during its study of Bill C-7 with
respect to the definition of practitioner. A number of witnesses
appearing before the subcommittee, in particular the Canadian
Medical Association, had grave concerns. We have addressed those
concerns by setting out the definition of practitioner in clause 2 and
by specifying that a practitioner be a registered and licensed
individual. We have removed any possibility of the regulated
activities of professionals being equated with trafficking.
The next issue is subclause 3(1) as originally drafted in the bill
that deals with the effect similarity of substances not covered in
any of the bill's schedules. Concerns over the particular subclause
were raised by many groups and individuals. Their perception was
that certain herbal products might be inadvertently covered by it.
Because of these concerns the subcommittee agreed to delete
subclauses 3(1)(a) and (b) entirely. Essentially the effect similarity
provisions have disappeared and we believe this would definitely
erase all concerns regarding herbal products.
I will respond to some criticisms raised by members of the
opposition during debate at second reading. Both the official
opposition and Reform members identified the absence of
regulations as a fundamental impediment to obtaining a full
understanding of the impact of the legislation. The activities of
pharmacists, physicians, dentists and veterinarians are currently
subject to the regulations under the Narcotic Control Act and parts
III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act.
The Speaker: The member will have time left in the debate after
question period. However, it being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
15963
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the last 128 years Canadians have built a country that
is the envy of the world. We have built a land that is prosperous
and a country based on shared values such as peace, compassion
and tolerance.
We are also a nation profoundly attached to remaining a united
country, a nation that includes Quebec. The mutual social,
economic and political benefits of a united country or a united
Canada have been clearly stated by the leaders of the no campaign.
All Canadians from coast to coast have spoken from their hearts.
They have reached out to say loud and clear that we want Quebec to
stay. Now is the time for Quebec to look at the facts. When it does
so, I believe Quebec will reject confusion, uncertainty and
separation.
On this important day I believe Quebec will clearly express its
intention to remain in a united Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the people of Quebec are making a decision that
will affect not only Canadians living in Quebec but all Canadians.
Our country will be profoundly changed regardless of the outcome
of the Quebec referendum.
There are two ways to confront change: first, to resist at every
opportunity, drawing comfort from that which is familiar; and,
second and more difficult but potentially much more rewarding, to
accept the inevitability of change, to embrace change and thereby
have the opportunity to manage it.
Our country is poised at the precipice of such change. We have
an opportunity to put aside past partisanship, past bias, and to look
to the future with an open mind.
We have an historic opportunity to fashion a new federation that
is flexible enough to accommodate our different visions, strong
enough to weather life's storms, and gentle enough to be a beacon
of hope to the world.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the health minister has repeatedly stated her
government's commitment to maintain the quality of health care.
However, with federal government programs cut by a staggering $7
billion over three years and more to come after, the government's
commitment to equal and quality health care for all Canadians is
simply unbelievable.
The Reform Party wants a two-tier health system, a good one for
the rich and a poor one for everyone else. Both will lead to the end
of the health care system we all treasure.
15964
The minister should show some leadership on the question of
health promotion, which the World Health Organization defines
as the process of enabling people to increase control over and to
improve their health.
The province of Saskatchewan leads the field in Canada on the
front of health promotion and health prevention. Even American
insurance companies are more committed to health prevention than
the minister is. It is not anything new; we have been hearing this for
years.
With the continuing federal cuts, the challenge to continue to
provide equal access to quality health care is a serious one. It is
surely time for the government to begin looking at concrete
methods of saving money and improving health care through a
concerted initiative toward preventative health care.
It is time for the minister to show some real leadership and work
with provincial ministers, health care professionals and-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to provide an example of how much
constituents in my riding believe in maintaining the unity of
Canada.
Last week in the Parry Sound council chamber, the Canadian
flag, flanked by the flags of Ontario and Quebec joined that of the
town of Parry Sound. Mayor Cunningham pointed out the inclusion
of the Quebec flag, noting its special significance at this point in
history. She went on to say: ``It represents our tie to Quebec and our
wish and hope that Quebec remain a part of Canada, our
appreciation of its differences and what it adds to the nation''.
The mayor went on to quote a local columnist who had noted that
many individuals would feel as if they had lost a substantial part of
their identity and their sense of Canadianism if Quebec were to
separate.
Mayor Cunningham reflects the vast majority of constituents in
my riding who believe in the unity of Canada. They know that
Confederation has worked for all parts of our nation and recognize
that our unity and prosperity depends on a no vote today.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is referendum day in Quebec. All Canadians await
anxiously the results of this vote.
I have received many letters and phone calls on this subject. I
would like to share one such letter from the Canadian city of
Montreal.
Canada is a nation made up of numerous nationalities besides French and
English, people who left their native countries to contribute their intelligence,
energy and talent to their new nation, Canada, to build a better life in peace for
themselves and for their children.
When they were separated from their homelands they had in mind a new
project of integration because they believed that unity is a strength and to live in
a united and strong Canada would bring them both strength and prosperity.
After years of contributing to the growth and success of la belle province, it is
heartbreaking to see those who would destroy our nation Canada.
As we have built this nation together we must vote to keep this country
united.
The letter is signed by the Assadourian family.
I urge all Quebecers to reflect on these thoughts.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
Canadians are watching and hoping for a strong no vote in Quebec.
Reformers believe that no means not only no to the separatists, but
no to the status quo as well.
We must all acknowledge the problems that have led us to this
point, starting with the top down style of federalism that dictates to
provinces and people, instead of bottom up grassroots democracy.
The problems of ever increasing taxes, the enormous debt,
unacceptable levels of unemployment and a failing criminal justice
system are the result of failed policies of the past.
Reform has recently published 20 proposals for a renewed
Canada. Without constitutional change, we would give power back
to the provinces in language and culture, in natural resources and
manpower training.
We would give Canadians direct democracy through recall,
referendum and free votes in this House.
I urge my fellow Canadians in Quebec to vote no today and in
doing so, say yes to a renewed Canada.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday and Tuesday of last week I had the
opportunity to meet with 50 students from Collingwood Collegiate
Institute and to be part of their demonstration for national unity.
These students took it upon themselves to show their deep
commitment to the people of Quebec by coming here to
Ottawa-Hull to talk with and to share their concern and love for
this great country with students from Quebec. They implore the
people of
15965
Quebec to vote no today and to share their dream of a united
Canada that is respectful of their language and traditions, as well as
being judged one of the best countries in the world in which to live.
I have with me today a petition from 359 students from
Collingwood Collegiate Institute asking Quebecers to keep their
faith in Canada and Canadians.
* * *
(1405 )
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, people from all over Canada, including my riding of
Lambton-Middlesex, gathered by the thousands last Friday in
Montreal to show their support for Canadian unity.
The future of this country is for our children. In that vein I am
happy to report that some children in my riding have sent a
message of support to our Prime Minister and to Canada. It consists
of a huge 10-foot unity poster which was put together by the grade
5 and 6 class of Caradoc North Public School in Caradoc township
near Strathroy, Ontario.
The idea for this poster which consists of 400 pairs of hands and
400 accompanying signatures came from the children. Its theme of
course is unity among Canadians, all Canadians and its message is
heartfelt and sincere. Over the top of the 400 pairs of clasped hands
is a message in French and English: Ne separez pas. Don't let go.
For the sake of our children, let us keep this wonderful country,
our Canada, together.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we Canadians are lucky. Our country's political and
democratic institutions are sound and have the confidence of the
people. They have served us well in a long history. They were used
to resolve some of the most fundamental conflicts any society can
face, the role of government in private lives and the power of
centralist institutions in conflict with regional aspirations.
The resolution to these and many other conflicts were never
supported by all Canadians. Before votes, they were discussed
widely and heatedly. They divided families, friends and regions.
But after the votes were counted, the democratic decision was
accepted. Losers licked their wounds and resolved to fight again by
the same rules.
This democratic tradition will be tested severely when the votes
are counted today, when the stakes are higher than they have ever
been before, when many fear the end of Canada.
I pray that all Canadians and especially we in these chambers
continue to follow our successful democratic tradition and accept
the people's-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
anniversary of the Liberal government of course has now come and
gone. Increasingly in the provinces and territories people are very
concerned about the future. I wonder why.
The Prime Minister stated that he would tear up the FTA and
would only sign NAFTA if major changes were made. No changes
were made and the Prime Minister has become the strongest
cheerleader of the NAFTA program down south.
The Liberals promised a new Bank of Canada policy. When they
assumed office the rate was 4.3 per cent and today it is closer to 7
per cent. Canadians thought that the new policy meant lower
interest rates, not higher ones.
The Liberals promised a national child care program. Instead
they have cut funding for the existing child care programs across
the country.
The Liberals promised to abolish the hated GST. Today the GST
continues to be collected and the government now is thinking of
only changing the name of the GST.
Looking at the future we see reduced UI payments, we see
reduced pension coverage, we see reduced-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today in the House to pay
honour to my city of Estevan, Saskatchewan. Estevan has wrapped
up its United Way campaign with a telethon which generated
$139,000. This year they reached their objective faster than any
other city in Canada. And this is not the first time; they have done
the same eighteen times in the last nineteen years.
Estevan was the first city in the country to reach its United Way
objective. Estevan is a perfect example of the values that are
important to both Canada and the United Way: compassion and
15966
generosity to all Canadians. Let us tip our hats in honour of
Estevan, the most generous city in all of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today as a Newfoundland MP and a proud Canadian. I speak on
behalf of my constituents of St. John's East and the majority of
Newfoundlanders. My message is to the people of Quebec and it
comes from our hearts:
Today you will vote in a referendum to separate from Canada
and the outcome affects us all. It was not that long ago that the
people of Newfoundland voted to join Canada. You welcomed us
and we have lived together in one peaceful nation.
We may come from different regions and face different
circumstances but we share many of the same values and
principles.
(1410 )
Like you, I want the best for my family and for my children. I
want them to be able to find good jobs, to have the service and
programs they need and to live in a generous and compassionate
country. These goals are possible in a united Canada. Anything is
possible in a united Canada. Let your children inherit the best
country in the world, Canada. Vote no.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after 128
years of nationhood we find ourselves on the brink of massive
change. Today millions of Quebecers will be asked to decide
whether they want to stay and build Canada or to leave and
construct a nation of their own.
Regardless of the outcome of this vote, regardless of whether
Quebecers choose to stay or to go, one thing is clear: This country
will never be the same again. If nothing else, the referendum has
demonstrated the bankruptcy of the status quo.
A narrow victory for the no will not change the fact that millions
of Quebecers have voted for fundamental change. Whether to stay
or to go is for Quebecers to decide, but on behalf of my Reform
colleagues I send the following message to Quebec: If you choose
to remain Canadian, you will not be alone. There are millions of
reform minded people like you in every province of this country.
Join with us. Together we can build a renewed federation which
addresses our concerns. Vote no for sovereignty and yes to the new
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Quebec referendum debate will have had the side
effect of encouraging the people of other Canadian provinces to
express the heartfelt feelings they harbour toward Quebec.
For more than a week now, hearts in all of Canada beat in time
with those in Quebec. This harmony of thoughts and feelings
reached its peak with the monster rally last Friday in Montreal.
There was only one message to be delivered at that rally, and I
believe that it was: our brothers and sisters in the other provinces
understand and love us. They do not want to see their country
broken apart, and they cannot imagine a Canada without Quebec.
By voting no this evening, the men and women of Quebec will
allow us to continue this great adventure of tolerance and openness.
My wish on this October 30, 1995 is: long life to Quebec, long life
to Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
China is now in the process of applying for membership in the
World Trade Organization, an application which the Liberal
government supports in spite of China's appalling record on human
rights and labour rights.
The WTO does not have any rules regarding labour rights,
despite the efforts of the NDP working alongside many labour
movements, social democratic parties and others around the world.
To join, China must therefore prove it will respect foreign
investors' intellectual property rights but not the rights of many
child labourers, prison labourers and conscript labourers who
suffer in China's unregulated labour market.
Trade will improve human rights in countries like China if and
only if international trade rules offer the same protection for the
human rights of citizens and workers as they do for the rights of
investors.
I call on the government to take the lead internationally in
making China's membership in the WTO conditional on the respect
for basic labour rights.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have good news and bad news today.
15967
The good news is that Bounjan Inthavong, that bad guy from
Laos who participated in the murder of young Kirby Martin by
beating him with a baseball bat has been deported. The minister
of immigration assisted me in that deportation and I thank him
for that. I hope the next time it will not take a year and a half
to get his act in gear.
The bad news is that there are many more to deport, like Karel
Kral and Hector Lopez. Standing in the way of these deportations is
an inept, incompetent refugee board.
Most Canadians do not know this but these refugee boards are
not required to look at criminal convictions of non-Canadians at
refugee hearings, only the consequences of sending them back to
the receiving countries-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my statement today is that of millions of
Canadians across this country. It is as follows:
(1415)
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
15967
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, regardless of the outcome of the Quebec referendum,
Canada must go on with important changes in the federal system.
The priorities of the Canadian people must be met. The federal debt
has risen to over $560 billion. Canadians are staggering under an
oppressive tax burden. Our health care system is on the critical list.
Canadians are increasingly concerned about their public safety.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is
the government willing to make changes, real changes, in these
important areas to prepare Canada for the 21st century?
[Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Manning, for this vote of
confidence in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we saw on Friday and again throughout the weekend the
power that Canadians can exert when they work together. Tens of
thousands of Canadians joined together in a common cause and
voiced a common concern. They want a united country and a
Canada that is open to change. On that point I think I can speak for
every member of this House when I say that we love this country
and we will fight for change within a united Canada.
Is the government prepared to invite greater public input and
greater public participation, like we saw on the weekend, in
developing and implementing a Canadian agenda for change?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly we can agree with
the Reform Party on one point. The show of strength of Canadians
from across the country who converged on the city of Montreal to
show their solidarity with Quebecers and to show Quebecers that
not only is Canada good for Quebec, but Quebec is a very key part
of Canada, with that we can certainly agree.
We look for the continued support of the leader of the Reform
Party to implement an agenda where Canadians can feel at home in
any part of their country, in any language.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in order to address many of the concerns on the Canadian
agenda there needs to be a realignment of responsibilities between
the federal and provincial governments.
Canadians want the control of the financing of services, like
social services that affect their daily lives, to be in the hands of the
level of government which is closest to them. They want the federal
government to play a co-ordinating role in the establishment of
national standards and a stronger role in the area of international
trade on which so many jobs and incomes depend.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In
the days following the referendum is the government prepared to
fundamentally rethink its relationship with the provinces and
realign important federal and provincial responsibilities?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was one message
which came out very loud and clear from the people who gathered
in Montreal from every corner of the country. The message was
that they were tired of political fights. This was not a discussion
among politicians. It was a heart to heart talk among the people of
Canada. I personally spoke to a lady in a wheelchair who came
15968
from Peace River, Alberta with her husband. She met me in the
elevator and she said:
(1420)
[Translation]
``Ms. Copps, I do not speak French, but if you could tell Quebecers
their being part of this country is important, tell them, because their
Canada is my Canada''. And that is the message we must give
Quebecers today, not the message that Canada does not work.
Canada can change. Canada will change. And it will change with
the heart of Canada inside it: Quebec.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, whatever the outcome of the referendum today, Canada's
deficit crisis remains. The difference between the government's
spending and revenues is nearly $100 million every 24 hours of
every week, of every month, at least for this year.
Can the Minister of Finance assure the people of Canada that
whatever the outcome of the referendum, he has decisive plans for
the prompt elimination of the deficit?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has a
clear plan to reduce the deficit and to move from 3 per cent of GDP
to a balanced budget. We have followed our plan.
Despite the changes in the economic environment, as the finance
minister says, come hell or high water we are going to meet our
targets in reducing the deficit. The best way of doing that is what
we have done, to keep our feet to the fire with rolling two year
targets. We have done that and we are going to continue doing it.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, whatever the outcome of the referendum today, Canada's
debt will still be $560 billion. Our generation imposes an
irresponsibly high burden on young Canadians.
Can the minister assure young Canadians that he has decisive
plans to deal with the burden of the debt on young Canadians?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Reform Party were
really interested in the financial state of the country, instead of
using question period on this very important day to score cheap
political points, it would be working with the Government of
Canada to keep Canada together which is the best message for the
Canadian dollar that we can expect.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I think it is fair to say that citizens in all provinces and territories
today are concerned about what they hear of the government's
plans to reduce the unemployment insurance program, reduce
pension coverage, reduce health care funding, reduce
post-secondary education funding, reduce support for all social
programs and last, high interest rates and high unemployment
levels.
Knowing that this is in place and these are the trends, why should
Canadians in any province and territory today be hopeful about the
future?
[Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his question, because it gives me a chance to repeat the
message I sounded loud and clear in the Gaspé on Saturday.
It was that Gérald Larose, who for 25 years has worked for the
sole cause of separation, is spreading false versions of the federal
government's policies on unemployment insurance. I can assure
the hon. member, as I did in the Magdalen Islands yesterday, that
the documents prepared by Gérald Larose and the CSN are pure
separatist propaganda and of no value in the current debate.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister and
concerns integrity in government and particularly in this
government.
The Deputy Prime Minister promised Canadians that if the hated
GST was not abolished immediately that she would resign her seat.
Why has the Deputy Prime Minister not resigned her seat?
(1425 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I hear a member of
the New Democratic Party from British Columbia talking about
integrity, I want to say ``bingo''.
An hon. member: Under the ``N'' for New Democrats.
Ms. Copps: I will say that during the election campaign I gave
my word to the people of my riding that if we did not scrap the GST
before the next election, I would resign and I intend to respect that
promise.
15969
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, regardless
of the outcome tonight, the government should proceed with
important, positive and constructive changes in the area of
taxation.
The Liberal red book clearly states that fairness, simplicity and
harmonization should be the key objectives of Liberal tax policies.
If they want to meet this promise, when will the Minister of
Finance commit his government to full parliamentary review of our
convoluted, complicated, confusing income tax system?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, compared to some
other tax systems, ours is model of simplicity. We review it
every-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peters: Have a pack of yahoos taken over the seats over
there?
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me try
again.
The charter of rights and freedoms has 7,000 words, the Bible
773,000 words, the Income Tax Act has 1,200,000 words. Our
current system of taxation has become an enormous social
experiment which can no longer be understood, much less justified.
Given that the United States is looking at flat tax reforms being
brought forward by almost every Republican candidate for the next
presidential election and this parliamentary secretary jokes about
simplicity, when will the government follow suit and offer
Canadians some hope in the form of tax reform and tax relief?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every time someone
proposes the flat tax, I ask them: Are you going to pay more taxes
or less taxes under a flat tax system? They always answer one way.
They are going to pay less. I do not know who is going to pay the
taxes under a flat tax system if that is the case.
I know under the Reform Party plan who will pay more taxes.
The poor and the middle class are going to pay more and the
wealthy are going to pay less because that is the Reform Party
platform.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday, the first Canadian Forces flight to leave Bosnia
arrived in Quebec City. A second flight will arrive today. These
members of the peacekeeping force have worked under very
difficult conditions in an extremely difficult situation.
Could the minister tell the House about the role these Canadians
have played in saving the lives of civilians and opening the door to
peace in a region torn by war?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the hon. member for his question. I wish to commend all members
of the Canadian Forces who worked in the former Yugoslavia
during the past four years.
They served with great distinction, and we are proud of all
members of the Canadian Forces.
(1430)
[English]
It is not very well known that Canada now has joining among its
citizens upon the return of members from the armed forces more
veterans from armed conflict at any time since the Korean war. The
men and women who have served in Bosnia and Croatia have seen
terrible hostility. They have seen a society that has been ravaged.
They have brought the best principles of civility, tolerance and
compassion of a united Canada to bear upon their service in that
area.
[Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary for the minister.
Could the minister tell us of the prospects for the future
deployment of Canadian peacekeeping forces in Bosnia?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime
Minister has said, Canada would consider participating in any force
set up to help keep the peace in Bosnia after the appropriate peace
settlement is negotiated. That is an option we are keeping open and
one that we will consider.
Canadians appreciate that we have worked very hard in that area
for the last three or four years and that we have contributed much.
That does not mean to say we would not be prepared to continue
our co-operation with any new force.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
Reformers and as Canadian we sincerely believe in a strong and
15970
united Canada both today and for the future. I know the Liberals
share our vision for a more decentralized federation.
Regardless of today's vote, to indicate an end to the status quo
what specific powers and changes is the Minister of Human
Resources Development prepared to offer to the provinces in the
area of social programs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the opening
question of the leader of the third party asking us to engage
Canadians in a major debate.
Up to now the Reform Party has opposed the major public
participation that we encourage in looking at the changes to social
programs. I am glad to see there has been a change in attitude on
the part of the Reform Party.
One of the most important lessons out of the dialogue that has
taken place with hundreds of thousands of Canadians is when they
are talking about decentralization there is much talk about giving
the individual more choice, providing more resources in the hands
of individual Canadians and local communities to allow them to
help shape, design and customize employment programs and social
programs to meet the requirements of their own local communities.
As the hon. member will know, we have already taken a major
step to fundamentally decentralize the operation of the Department
of Human Resources Development which serves 11 million
Canadians. It is the largest service delivery organization in the
country. We have already announced those steps to bring the locus
of responsibility, accountability and decision making to the local
level so that we can work in partnership at the local level with
individuals.
That is an indication of the kind of changes we want to make.
[Translation]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
French, please.
The Reform Party would like to offer more hope to Canada and
all the provinces, including Quebec. We believe we must
decentralize control over social programs. Canadians are calling
for it and so are the provinces. We want the provinces to have the
final say over training, education and social assistance programs.
Will the minister of human resources be consulting in this
regard?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for
Calgary Southeast knows, we have, in the past year, offered all of
the provinces the option of full responsibility for training so they
would have all the flexibility they need to manage this area of
jurisdiction. I set up a negotiating process with all the provinces
and many agreements have been reached.
(1435)
As far as unemployment insurance is concerned, I hope that,
with the reform, there will be a new system, a new network for
Canadian jobs. There will be a lot of opportunity to continue
negotiating with the provinces, the unions, businesses and social
groups in order to come up with a new approach to developing an
employment system for all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific.
Jaswant Khalra, a human rights activist who appeared before
Canadian parliamentarians in March, was abducted from his home
in Amritsar, Punjab, India on September 6 by unknown persons. He
has not been heard from since and police investigations in India
have revealed no information as to his whereabouts.
Mr. Khalra's abduction is of great concern to many Canadians as
well as to the international human rights community. What action
has Canada taken regarding the abduction of Mr. Khalra?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after my department learned of Mr. Khalra's
abduction our high commission in New Delhi made immediate
approaches to the Indian authorities regarding this case.
We have contacted the human rights person in the Punjab state
regarding his abduction. I raised the case of Mr. Khalra with the
foreign affairs minister of India in New York when I attended the
United Nations conference earlier this month.
The Prime Minister and I will be travelling next week to New
Zealand for the Commonwealth conference. At that time we will
continue to follow up with the Indian government regarding this
matter.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
regardless of the outcome of today's referendum, Canadians
continue to be extremely concerned about their safety. The early
release of violent offenders is one issue that will not go away.
Can the solicitor general explain to Canadians why a first degree
murderer is allowed to appeal his parole eligibility after serving
only 15 years of a life sentence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, section 745 has been part of the
Criminal Code for almost 20 years. The debates which
accompanied its introduction those many years ago disclose a will
on the
15971
part of Parliament to provide the possibility after 15 years for
persons to go in front of a jury to ask for permission to apply for
parole in certain circumstances.
What must be borne in mind is this is not the right to parole. This
is simply a provision permitting a prisoner to go before a jury
drawn from the community to test the question of whether they
should be permitted to apply for parole to the Parole Board.
That was the will of Parliament when that provision was adopted
15 years ago.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
murderers Jim Peters and Robert Brown raped, stabbed to death
and burned the bodies of their victims Laurie Boyd and Debbie
Stevens. The Boyd and Stevens families are outraged to think that
Peters could be eligible for a parole or even for parole review after
serving only 15 years.
Since the solicitor general says he cannot intervene in the
decision making process, will he support the repeal of section 745
of the Criminal Code and ask his party to support it as well?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last two years I have met
with dozens of victims of violent crime, women whose husbands
have been killed, children left without parents, men and women
whose children have been lost to violence.
I have listened to the message those Canadians have expressed.
As part of Bill C-41 we changed section 745 to ensure that the
courts on application for permission to apply for early parole will
be obligated to hear from the families of victims as a factor to be
taken into account in making that decision.
(1440 )
There are those who say that is not enough. Let me respond to
the hon. member further. When the private members' bill to repeal
section 745 came before the House there was in essence a free vote
on that subject. That bill has has now gone to committee. I have
encouraged the committee to look broadly at the whole subject and
make recommendations. We shall pay close attention to those
recommendations once they are made.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians everywhere well remember the members of the present
government's forceful opposition to the previous Conservative
government's cutbacks on health care, post-secondary education
and social programs when in opposition.
Yet since moving from the opposition benches to the government
side there has been a change of heart. This government's cuts to
health care, post-secondary and social programs are the deepest in
the last 50 years. While implementing an 8 per cent cut across the
board, there is a full 25 per cent cut in these three areas.
Does she feel that tearing down the very institutions which
define us as Canadians and which we hold dear is the way to build a
strong, unified country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. On a day that all
Canadians should be rallying to support Canada, on the eve of a
very critical vote for all of us, I am rather surprised the NDP has
joined the chorus of nay sayers on the Reform side of the House.
I can only hope that between now and the time the polls close
tonight in Quebec the message will not be coming out-the one
that seems to be coming from the opposition benches-that Canada
is in a mess and that it does not work.
The people of Canada have stated loud and clear they want
universal health care available to everyone. The government has
taken that suggestion against the opposition of certain premiers and
certain political parties. We will fight to ensure that every single
Canadian has access to health care because that too is part of the
Canadian dream.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to an article in
La Presse last Saturday, a large
quantity of oil is leaking from the
Irving Whale. Could the Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment give us some
information on the subject and reassure fishermen in the gulf?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to give hon.
members my assurances, as I did yesterday when I met with
representatives of the RCM in the Magdalen Islands, that Canada
will be there to take its responsibilities as soon as possible. It is too
bad the Bloc Quebecois is trying to obstruct the refloating of the
Irving Whale, but as soon as we can, and in fact this spring, despite
the crushing opposition of the Bloc Quebecois, we will refloat the
Irving Whale. And the fact that oil is leaking now goes to show how
important it is to do this as soon as possible, and we will do it in
Canada.
15972
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, regardless of
today's vote Canadians know changes to our social programs are
essential. The Department of Health recently spent $2.5 million on
public opinion polling. With all that money the minister must know
what changes Canadians want. Would she tell us?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the hon. member speaks about polling and the money that
was spent, the majority of the money was spent on tobacco. It was
for a number of surveys including the study on plain packaging.
As a result of the Supreme Court decision, before any actions are
taken, any pieces of legislation brought forward, we need to have
evidence on which to base that legislation. It is necessary to have
these surveys. I am a very careful with money but there are times
when we have to spend those dollars.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is
fond of saying we want a U.S. style health care system.
An hon. member: No she isn't.
An hon. member: Wrong party.
(1445)
Mr. Hill (Macleod): It has very little to recommend it, frankly.
Canadians are looking at a system much more like that in Europe.
There they have a public system complemented by the private
system. The costs go down and the access goes up.
Is the minister polling to improve medicare or simply to protect
her legislation?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
medicare in this country is about more than money. It is about more
than cheap politics. It is even about more than health care.
Medicare concerns our self-understanding as a people and as a
country. It concerns our identity as a fair, just, compassionate, and
pragmatic people. It is an identity that was fashioned by our
commitment to shared fundamental values. It is an identity that is
cherished by every Canadian.
Medicare recognizes the very best of what we are as Canadians.
Without the medicare system we have now, Canadians would lose a
very important mirror on themselves. We will not allow that.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Last February an American senator assured us that a plan to
impose a fee on Canadians crossing into the States was ``as dead as
Elvis''. Elvis may be dead, but I think he has been appearing in
Washington before a Senate committee, because they are talking
about moving ahead with this plan.
Will the minister please tell us what the government is doing to
persuade the Americans not to tax Canadians entering their fair
country?
An hon. member: We want Elvis.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade): Mr.
Speaker, I believe there have been a few sightings recently. In fact
the House leader, who is something of an expert in these matters,
has reported one such sighting.
The United States Senate judiciary subcommittee did indeed
agree to a dollar tax on people entering the United States, but when
it goes to full committee it is unlikely to carry. We are quite
confident that when the full committee reviews the
recommendation it will not go forward.
In any event, I would add that we have consistently pursued our
point of view with the United States government, which is that, as
the member suggests, such a measure would be in conflict with the
United States commitments under NAFTA, a point that my
colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, made when he visited
Washington recently.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no matter what happens with the vote in
Quebec tonight, Canada must proceed with important constructive
change.
Four years ago the Canada-Quebec accord was signed, which
gave Quebec a significant voice and federal funding for
immigration matters in that province. I ask the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration if this government is prepared to sign
similar agreements with the other provinces.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, it really does
matter what happens tonight.
Some hon. members: Right on.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
15973
Mr. Tobin: Bravo. The Reform Party might have to learn to
live with a no. That will be tough.
Mr. Marchi: Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has made it
abundantly clear that change has been a defining characteristic of
this government.
With respect to immigration, we have not only talked about
change, we have actually gone out there and done it. There happen
to be seven provincial agreements with the federal government on
immigration. We are actively negotiating with the three other
provinces that do not have an agreement. British Columbia and
Manitoba are already well entrained and Ontario is advancing very
nicely.
(1450)
We also talked to the provinces about renewing the way we
integrate, so we will be moving from a position of not only Ottawa
knows best, but going local, because if it does not happen locally it
does not work nationally.
We have talked to the provinces and we are working with the
provinces on promotion and recruitment from abroad and also with
respect to giving additional powers to the provinces.
We will have more to say when we announce the levels on
Wednesday afternoon.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration is willing to let the provinces have
more control in immigration.
I would like to know if the minister, when he announces the
immigration projections for the new year on Wednesday, is going
to allow the provinces to have input in the immigration levels of
their provinces.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only will they have input
from Wednesday on, I have actually discussed with and written to
every one of my provincial counterparts to consult with them as to
what the numbers ought to be and, beyond the numbers, what
categories there should be in this country and what kind of latitude
the provinces should have.
For instance, with Manitoba, along with the Minister of Human
Resources Development, we have been discussing very intensely in
the last number of days and weeks its need for garment workers.
That is not solely an immigration matter, not solely an HRD matter,
and not only a matter for the province; it is a matter for
governments in general to get their collective acts together.
We are moving in the right direction. We recognize that it is a
shared jurisdiction. I would hope the hon. member would stand up
and applaud our efforts.
Mr. Janko
Peric
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been an
evaluation done on Youth Service Canada. Can the Secretary of
State for Training and Youth provide us with some of the highlights
of this report?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, normally I would want the
secretary of state to give the answer because she has done yeoman's
service in ensuring that the young people of this country have been
provided with new opportunities for employment. However, in her
absence, as it comes under my general responsibilities, I would like
to answer.
At this time we have over 200 projects operating in the country
in which young people have been given an opportunity for
community experience as well as being able to earn a stipend so
they can return to school. Over 80 per cent of the young people
involved in the first year have indicated that they will be using the
experience they have gained plus the honorarium they have earned
to return to school, to start their own businesses, or to gain further
employment.
It shows that when we give young people a chance in this
country, they are not the problem; they are the solution.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to polls the number one issue in British
Columbia is aboriginal issues. Among the provincial political
parties there is a growing divergence of views on aboriginal issues.
With the current lame duck NDP administration in the waning
days of its mandate, will the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development assure the House that he will not entertain
completion of any comprehensive agreements, such as the Nisga'a
claim, until there is a new administration with a fresh mandate?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is prepared to
entertain anything on which there has been consultation, which
looks feasible, which will result in something better than when we
started, and which takes into consideration the history of the
aboriginal people. I see nothing in the proposal of the Reform Party
that suggests that it has adhered to any of those four criteria.
The Nisga'a have been waiting almost 80 years for justice, and
now the Reform member is saying do not do anything until the
non-Nisga'a government changes in British Columbia. To do the
honourable thing, we should move ahead.
15974
(1455)
I want to point out that the native people in this country have
expressed their love for Canada in the last week by the Montagnais
voting 99 per cent no, the Inuit voting 95 per cent no, and the Cree
voting 96.3 per cent no. Do we treat them and their sense of feeling
for this country by saying do not deal with them, but wait for the
next provincial election? My answer to the hon. member is no,
absolutely not.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this month the B.C. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs
publicly stated that settling B.C. land claims will cost $10 billion.
The federal minister's department this month estimated costs of $5
billion. My numbers tally with those of the provincial minister.
When there are radically different estimates on such a critical
issue, does the minister not agree that the public deserves financial
transparency and a cost-benefit analysis on this issue?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the public needs is some
straight talk from the Reform Party.
The member for Athabasca, who sits on the Reform Party's
policy committee, said: ``The Europeans came to this country 300
years ago, opened it up and settled it. Because we did not kill the
Indians and have Indian wars does not mean we did not conquer
these people. If they were not in fact conquered then why did the
aboriginal people allow themselves to be herded into little reserves
in the most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of this country?''
That is what has happened in B.C., Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member now says we should not do anything. Well now
is not the time to take that position. I wish the Reform Party would
support the BCTC legislation, which they may, so we can start
negotiating and doing the job we were elected for: to support the
very people the Reform Party represents. This hon. member has
half a dozen to a dozen First Nations in his riding. It is about time
he realized that they are Canadians and voters and they have
grievances that we must begin to resolve.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister talked earlier about fighting for
medicare. I do not doubt the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment
to medicare. However, I would like to ask her a question. Do she
and the government not see that if this government continues the
trend toward unilateral withdrawal of the federal government from
the fiscal partnership that medicare also was-it was not just a
partnership with respect to standards and services-they will be
unable to maintain national standards because they will lose the
critical moral edge they need and the Reform Party will win by
default?
We have to fund medicare as well as fight for it. When will this
government start funding medicare so that we can save it?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have stated unequivocally that we would continue to fund
medicare in this country with stable, ongoing funding.
There are many myths out there, and one has to do with the
decrease in funding by the federal government. Since we have been
in power, we have not decreased the funding at all.
Let me give the member an example of what is happening in
Alberta in terms of our share of funding for health care
expenditures. When we took office, the level of federal funding in
Alberta was 33 per cent of their health care expenditures. The
following year it rose to 37 per cent of their health care
expenditures. This year federal funding for health care in Alberta,
as our share of their spending, will be 40.6 per cent.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is on the environment. On Friday we were
assured in the House that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment draft environmental framework would be released for
public discussion.
(1500)
Can the government inform us of this discussion schedule and
the implementation time frame that will make this agreement a
reality instead of another paper proposal?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ministers agreed
unanimously at the meeting in Whitehorse to release the document.
We are ready at the federal level. We are speaking with our
provincial colleagues and hope it will be released within a few
days.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions.
Ninety per cent of the neediest senior citizens in this country are
women. Because of their traditional roles and the fact they were
15975
usually paid lower salaries, many women can expect to receive
little or nothing in the way of pensions in their old age.
What does the minister intend to do to enforce the principle of
equity between men and women with respect to pension reform?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
the hon. member for Ottawa West for raising the issue.
Canada is world renowned for having one of the best retirement
systems in the world yet one disadvantaged group in our country is
single, elderly women. In recognition of that fact, Liberal
governments have, in successive years, improved the security of
low income elderly women. The result is that retirement incomes
for elderly women have been drastically improving over the last 10
or 20 years. The proportion of low income elderly women has
declined significantly.
That is in contrast to the proposal on pensions from the Reform
Party which would have the opposite effect of making the single,
elderly woman less well off.
The Speaker: My colleagues, this brings this question period to
a close.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to
the presence in the gallery of Dr. Antje Vollmer, Vice-President of
the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I raise a point of order to seek the consent of the House for
a small amendment to the Standing Orders which I think every
patriotic member will support.
All of us participated enthusiastically today in the singing of ``O
Canada''. Many of us, if not all of us, would like that to become a
regular feature of the House just like the flag.
Eighteen months ago an amendment to this effect was referred to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs but
nothing came of it.
I, therefore, seek the unanimous consent of the House for the
following motion:
That Standing Order 30(1) be amended by adding immediately after the word
``upon'', the following:
On Wednesdays, immediately after Prayers, the Speaker shall cause Canada's
national anthem to be played or sung in the House.
That Standing Order 30(2) be amended by deleting all the words after the
word ``prayers'' and substituting the following:
Or on Wednesdays after Canada's national anthem has been sung or played,
the business of the House shall commence.
And that the clerk be authorized to make any consequential amendments to
the Standing Orders in this regard.
If this was the only piece of business we did on this particular
day, I think it would be a good piece of business for Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate the hon. member on his very helpful
suggestion.
I can indicate to him that having given me some notice this
morning of the fact that he intended to raise the matter, although I
did not have the specifics of the motion he had planned I spoke
with the chief government whip who, as he knows, is a member of
the procedure and House affairs committee which I have the
honour to chair. The chief government whip indicated to me his
enthusiasm for the suggestion and he is quite prepared to consider
it in committee. While I am happy to take the hon. member's
motion under advisement, it would be inappropriate to make
changes to the standing orders of the House here on the floor
without notice.
(1505)
Normally notice is given of these motions if they come at all
through other than the committee. I think it appropriate that the
committee take the matter under advisement and report to the
House and I will undertake to see that the committee does study it
at an early date.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I asked the House if we had
unanimous consent to proceed with the motion. The House has
refused it. Therefore this particular matter is set to one side.
If the hon. member has another point of order, I will gladly hear
it but if it is on the same subject the House has decided.
The hon. member, for clarification.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
the very same motion I brought to the procedure and House affairs
committee a year and a half ago.
15976
Can we have two motions the same? It seems ludicrous to me
that it was already sent there. How could we then send the very
same motion back again? Let us just do it.
The Speaker: My colleague, you ask for clarification. What the
committee does is the committee's business until there is a report
to the House. I do not recall a report coming to the House.
To go back, we had a request for unanimous consent and the
unanimous consent was turned down by the House.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a question of privilege. Perhaps the false impression has been left
with my constituents that the Liberal Party opposes the singing of
the national anthem in the House of Commons.
The fact that unanimous consent was denied does not mean that
the Liberal Party is opposed to the merits of the resolution. The fact
that unanimous consent was denied only means that it was denied
with respect to the process that the Reform Party is following to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: That is enough now on this. The point has been
made and I have heard interventions. We asked for the unanimous
consent of the House and it was denied. I permitted two
interventions which perhaps in hindsight might have been done at
another time.
We are going to proceed now to the tabling of documents.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say on behalf of my
constituents from Nova Scotia that those who came to Montreal on
Friday and sang ``O Canada'' loud and clear-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Tabling of documents, the hon. parliamentary
secretary.
_____________________________________________
15976
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
a very important day for Canada which we all know includes
Quebec.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. The petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the chronically ill, the disabled
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
15976
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, an
act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and
15977
other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the
Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, be read the third time
and passed.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex has
about 10 minutes left in her speech.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the regulations made initially under the new legislation
will not differ substantially from those that currently apply to such
activities under the existing legislation.
One of the purposes of the regulation making power is to enable
the government to respond quickly to changing professional
practices. The flexibility provided by regulations will ensure the
availability of such drugs for appropriate medical and scientific
purposes while complying with international drug control
conventions.
Any changes in the regulations will only be made following full
consultation with all affected parties using a regulatory
consultation process that has been used for years by the
Department of Health. Both the official opposition and the Reform
Party member suggested there would be inconsistencies between
various provisions of the bill and the charter of rights and
freedoms.
One of the aspects of the bill identified as giving rise to charter
challenges relates to the powers of inspectors under part IV.
Reference was made to the interim order provisions of section 34
which permit the Minister of Health to act to limit professional
drug distribution activities where there is substantial risk of
immediate danger to the health and safety of Canadians. In addition
the requirement to answer an inspector's questions was equated
with self-incrimination in a criminal context.
In reply the solicitor general pointed out to members that the
Minister of Justice must examine every bill for compliance with
the charter before it is tabled.
Inspections that we are referring to here are inspections
conducted to determine whether regulated persons are complying
with the requirements under which they carry on their business or
their profession. There are many acts, both federal and provincial,
which confer broad powers of entry on inspectors in the interest of
ensuring public health and safety.
(1515)
These provisions are not criminal law in the true sense, but
administrative provisions that either have an independent existence
or are incidental to criminal law. The applicable charter principles
are not those that apply to criminal law provisions, but those that
apply to administrative inspection regimens.
These types of provisions have been in force in Canada under
federal drug control legislation for over 80 years. They effectively
establish a federal regulatory scheme that governs the distribution
and use of scheduled drugs in Canada in a manner consistent with
limiting their diversion to the illicit drug market and consistent
with Canada's international obligations under the United Nations
drug control conventions currently in force in Canada.
Contraventions of designated regulations give rise to a hearing
before an adjudicator as indicated in part V of the bill. It may result
in a ministerial order which should effectively prevent a
reoccurrence. No penalty of fine or imprisonment applies to a
breach of these provisions of the regulations. Charter principles
that would apply if imprisonment were available as a penalty are
not applicable here.
Another area of criticism relates to the impact of the bill on
physician-patient and pharmacist-patient confidentiality. Both
members identified access to confidential files of patients as an
unacceptable interference in the private lives of honest citizens.
There is very little new here.
For over 30 years, under the narcotic control regulations the
Minister of Health has exercised legislative authority to require a
practitioner to provide any information concerning a patient treated
with narcotics to the bureau of dangerous drugs, including the
diagnosis, history and prescribing information relevant to the
patient. This is the very information inspectors are being
authorized to copy. Similarly, pharmacists are required to report
prescriptions every two months to the bureau of dangerous drugs.
Approximately 4.2 million prescriptions are reported to the bureau
each year.
Subject to legitimate program activities required under the
current and proposed legislation to protect public health and safety,
physician-patient and pharmacist-patient confidentiality is and will
be fully maintained. This information currently obtained is also
subject to the Privacy Act, which prohibits its use or disclosure by
any official except in accordance with that act. The Privacy Act
ensures that all information collected by the federal government for
program purposes is treated confidentially.
Concerning the so-called doctor shopping or double doctoring
offence, the official opposition member cited evidence given by the
Canadian Medical Association before the legislative committee
which examined Bill C-85. It was argued that Bill C-7 would be
unsatisfactory to doctors as they would be included within the
ambit of clause 5(2). The Reform member asserted that this
provision would mean that seeking help for an addiction would be a
crime.
In fact, the criticism was accepted by the committee and it was
proposed that the provision be changed to essentially return to the
existing section found in the Narcotic Control Act. As a result, the
provision now refers only to persons who receive prescriptions
from doctors.
15978
The Reform member's comments are difficult to understand.
Clause 5(2) of Bill C-7 as it now stands could not be applied to
a person who goes in any one month to only one doctor for his
medical requirements. This provision deals not with dependent
persons seeking help, but rather with dependent persons who are
seeking drugs from many doctors but help from none.
We all understand that control of controlled substances is a
complex matter which requires a carefully constructed legal basis
in order to be effective, judicious and fair. I believe this bill is a
most appropriate instrument for the administration of the laws and
regulations we need.
We are dealing with an aspect of society which demands proper
protection of the innocent, the inexperienced and the vulnerable. It
also demands forceful prosecution of the exploitive, the criminal
and the ruthless.
I believe this bill strikes just the right balance between these two
requirements.
(1520 )
While we continue to minimize harm through education and
prevention, and while we continue to show compassion for victims
through treatment and rehabilitation, we must also strike at the
criminal heart of this problem. In passing this bill, we will be
making contributions to successful battles against drug abuse now
and well into the future.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to speak on this bill today. This bill concerns
controlling drugs and substances and addresses one of the most
compelling issues with which society is faced today, the issue of
drug abuse. Constituents in Erie riding have demanded action and
this government has responded.
As each member of the House is only too aware, drug abuse and
the untold suffering it causes knows no geography, no
socioeconomic class, no social graces. The problem is widespread.
It strikes hard and with devastation. It destroys families, careers
and lives. We must stop this waste.
According to a United Nations survey, trade in illegal drugs is
second only to world trade in arms. This is a very sobering fact.
The incidence of drug abuse rises considerably among teenagers
and young adults who are school drop outs, unemployed, or
homeless. Do not be fooled. This disease, this cancer is in our
schools as well. Ask your children. Ask your grandchildren. It is
truly frightening.
While recognizing that there is a need to emphasize demand
reduction, it is important that the Government of Canada
complement these efforts with drug law enforcement and crime
prevention.
This bill is intended to consolidate, modernize, enhance and
streamline the government's drug control policy underlying two
current acts of Parliament and to fulfil Canada's obligations under
three international conventions.
In 1961 the government of the day enacted the Narcotic Control
Act as a follow-up to the single convention on narcotic drugs. In
anticipation of the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances, in
1961 and 1969, Parliament passed parts III and IV respectively of
the Food and Drug Act. In essence, much of our existing legislation
framework is now more than 30 years old and must be reviewed. It
is for this reason among others that this legislation is necessary.
Furthermore, as a signatory to three international agreements on
the illegal drug trade, Canada is obligated to the terms of the single
convention on narcotic drugs of 1961, the 1971 convention on
psychotropic substances and the relevant parts of the 1988 United
Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychoactive substances.
Consequently, the controlled drugs and substances bill is
designed to achieve three prime objectives. First is to provide the
government with the flexibility required to better control the
import, production, export, distribution and use of controlled
substances. Second is to provide the mechanisms needed to
implement our obligations under international agreements. This
relates to the restricted production or trade of internationally
regulated substances destined for medical, scientific and/or
industrial purposes. Third is to enhance the ability of the police and
the courts to enforce our laws.
The bill provides for the seizure and forfeiture of property used
in offences involving controlled substances. It also allows for the
restraint and forfeiture of fortified drug houses. The use of fortified
drug houses for the purposes of drug trafficking is an increasing
problem.
The houses are generally family dwellings that have been
modified for use as centres for drug trafficking. They are veritable
fortresses of crime. The houses are fortified by adding steel doors,
boarding up windows and adding cement walls. In some instances,
trap doors are used to exchange money and drugs so that there is no
contact between the trafficker and the purchaser. The purpose for
building such houses is to delay or prevent entry by police. During
the extra time it takes the police to gain entry, any evidence of drug
dealing is destroyed.
The existing Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act
do not effectively deal with emerging trends in drug abuse. We
must be able to adapt to rapidly changing criminal activity. These
trends see the appearance of new illicit or new designer drugs
which can escape effective control under current law. Their
methods, their tactics and their products are forever undergoing
change. We must respond and quickly. We need flexible legislation
which
15979
allows those on the front lines of enforcement to adapt quickly to
these new developments as they occur.
(1525)
For example, one of the more recent developments in the drug
underworld is the production and illicit sale of so-called designer
drugs. Designer drugs are potent substances with chemical
structures slightly different from substances presently controlled
by the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act,
substances such as stimulants, tranquillizers and pain killers. Yet
these drugs affect abusers in similar ways and can lead to the same
health and social problems produced by more conventional drugs.
Much harm can result from the abuse of these drugs. Primary
targets are often school age children.
The manufacture and sale of the designer drugs can be a very
profitable business. Under the current Food and Drugs Act and the
Narcotic Control Act drugs must first be listed on a schedule to the
act. This regulates the conditions for the sale of that particular
substance in Canada.
Only once a given substance is listed can it become an offence to
sell it. To correct this deficiency the controlled drugs and
substances bill proposes the inclusion of analogues to cover these
substances. Analogues are non-listed substances that have highly
similar chemical structures to those of listed substances. Under the
proposed act new illicit drugs appearing on the street which fit this
description will be covered automatically.
The bill also permits the control of precursors. Precursors are
chemical substances used to produce controlled substances. New
provisions contained in the bill will enable authorities to regulate
the import and export of these substances.
Other sources of drugs sold on the street are substances intended
for medical or scientific use. They may be stolen from a hospital,
obtained through illegal prescriptions, secured by obtaining
numerous prescriptions from different doctors for the same ailment
or via a forged prescription.
People who deal in diverted pharmaceutical drugs are collecting
very large profits. This bill enhances present controls that deal with
this issue. Under this bill the monitoring of the distribution of
drugs will continue.
We know there exists a criminal element which is using more
and more sophisticated networks to illegally produce, sell, export
and import controlled substances in Canada. These people buy
property and consumer goods to further their criminal activities
and bolster their personal wealth. As I see it such people should be
prevented from retaining illegally obtained capital and goods.
The bill before us today in tandem with the proceeds of crime
legislation strikes at the heart of criminal enterprises. Together the
legislation will enable the courts to strip criminals of profits and
property illegally amassed through drug dealing. Traffickers will
no longer be able to flaunt their Rolex watches, fancy cars and
mansions, flashy boats and planes, and rightfully so.
Trends in illegal production, distribution and use of controlled
substances change frequently and quickly. This bill is designed to
deal with current problems and to anticipate future needs. This bill
proposes a significant strengthening of our current legislative
framework.
Nonetheless I believe this bill merits the support of all members
on all sides of the House. Given what is at stake, I submit
Canadians expect no less of us.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to speak on Bill C-7, the controlled drugs and
substances bill. I would like to discuss for a few moments the
rationale for this legislation, in effect why Canada needs this bill
and why the government is appealing to members of this House to
support it.
The current situation the world faces regarding illicit drugs is
unsettling. The problem of addiction and those who profit by
addiction troubles the nation. It troubles my constituents and
speaking as one who is elected to represent those same
constituents, it troubles me. The bill is a major contribution to
effective law enforcement and prosecution of offenders as it
consolidates, enhances and modernizes current drug legislation.
(1530)
It is true in many communities that there has been some decline
in drug abuse among the general population, but there are also
some distressing trends. Some abusers are taking much more
potent drugs and the results are very harmful. Others are using
drugs in very dangerous combinations.
There has been continuing inclination by youngsters to adopt the
dangerous practice of taking anabolic steroids to try to build up
their bodies. Unfortunately, prompted by constant and uncritical
coverage in the media, uninformed people have come to abuse the
drug without thinking of the consequences and equally
unfortunately dealers have responded to this new demand.
Abuse has now spread to gymnasiums and high schools, putting
at risk the health of young men and women. As is common in drug
dealing, the anabolic steroids may be adulterated, raising the risk
even higher.
The bill is designed to provide the government with improved
means to prosecute people who deal illegally in anabolic steroids.
It furnishes a framework to target purveyors of poison, the drug
dealers who are the instruments of destruction of too many young
citizens.
15980
Despite a gradual decline in the abuse of most drugs, there are
several alarming trends emerging on the horizon. Many drugs
which are abused today are extremely potent with more potentially
damaging consequences. Abusers are consuming drugs by much
more dangerous means and they are using drugs in more
dangerous combinations.
There is a growing frustration among law enforcement officials,
community leaders from across the nation and Canadians in
general. They are calling on provincial governments and the
Government of Canada to assign a higher priority to dealing with
drug abuse and its costly impact. Demands are being made for
more severe sentences, a streamlining of the judicial system and
assignment of the proceeds of drug crimes to help finance
education and enforcement programs.
Court delays and complexities of administering the law have
only helped to fuel the public's growing concern. Some law
enforcement agencies have declared that the costs of enforcing the
law against drug dealers have become high.
The government recognizes that these concerns require
deliberate and sustained action, including combating the evil of
addiction on three fronts: education and prevention, treatment and
rehabilitation, and enforcement and control.
Bill C-7 corrects the deficiencies of existing drug control
legislation. It encompasses all listed substances and declares them
illegal for other than legitimate medical, scientific or industrial
use.
In conjunction with the proceeds of crime legislation adopted in
1988 and proclaimed on January 1, 1989, the bill will empower the
courts with the right to confiscate all property and capital
accumulated as a result of or used in the commission of drug
related crimes. This will provide police forces and the judiciary
with the tools they need in a manner consistent with the charter of
rights.
With the bill Canada will fulfil its international obligations
found under the 1961 single convention on narcotic drugs, the 1971
convention of psychotropic substances and an international treaty
governing the trade of illicit drugs.
The proposed bill can become an effective instrument in
enforcing the law and controlling the import, export, production,
sale, distribution and possession of illegal drugs. The bill seeks to
update, enhance and consolidate a section of the Food and Drug
Act and the Narcotic Control Act, both passed long ago in the
sixties.
While the whims and wants of society have become more and
more sophisticated since that time, unfortunately so has the
network of drug producers and dealers.
(1535 )
The bill is designed to correct certain anomalies and
shortcomings in our current law. In so doing it will enable law
enforcement agencies to deal more effectively with a cunning,
determined and resourceful adversary, the dealer in illicit drugs.
The new main provisions of the bill include controls on the
import and export of precursor chemicals used by drug
manufacturers. These chemicals include substances, usually not
themselves psychoactive, which criminals can change easily into
illicit drugs.
The bill also provides for provisions to control the production,
sale, distribution, import and export of androgenic-anabolic
steroids; provisions to control the possession, production,
distribution, sale, import and export of designer drugs developed
by dealers for the purpose of evading current laws; provisions to
search, seize and have forfeited property used or intended for the
purpose of committing drug offences, also known as offence
related property including fortified drug houses.
The bill also includes a complete scheme for obtaining search
and seizure warrants; the expansion of offences concepts relating to
trafficking and production; the enhancement of control over
disposal of controlled substances including forfeiture; new
provisions to control the possession, production, distribution, sale,
import and export of designer drugs; provisions which will
facilitate Canada's commitments under the international
conventions; and treatment by the courts of drug dealing in and
around schools and other public places frequented by children and
dealing drugs to minors as aggravating factors at the time of
sentencing.
The principal purposes of the bill are to provide one
comprehensive act for the drug control policy of the government
and to provide for the enforcement and control aspects of Canada's
drug strategy.
I will review briefly the seven principal parts of the bill as well
as the introduction. Part I sets out the offences and punishment
commensurate with breaking the proposed new law. The particular
offences may include possession, trafficking, importing and
exporting, production, possession of property obtained as a result
of certain offences, and the laundering of proceeds obtained as a
result of certain offences.
Part I also sets out specific aggravating factors to be considered
by the court at the time of sentencing. These are directed
particularly at drug dealers who target children, those who use
weapons and violence, as well as those who have previous drug
related convictions. This part also included a purpose clause
dealing with sentences and, more particular, encouraging
rehabilitation and treatment in appropriate circumstances.
Part II deals with enforcement of the proposed act by police.
This includes provisions relating to search, seizure and detention
of property or illegal substances, forfeiture of offence related
15981
property, as well as a complete scheme for protecting innocent
third party rights over such property and forfeiture of proceeds of
drug related crimes.
Part III outlines procedures for disposal of controlled
substances. Part IV covers administration and compliance.
There are seven parts to the bill and its most important provision
is that it moves Canada 30 years in time from the sixties to the
nineties. It codifies and empowers police while at the same time it
protects citizens. It gives us a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
that has merit and is enforceable.
The Speaker: Notice was given to another Speaker and I was
just given a paper indicating that the member for Oakville-Milton
is splitting her time with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Prime Minister. The parliamentary secretary has approximately 9.5
minutes.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-7, a bill in
which many in Etobicoke-Lakeshore have an interest. I am
talking about individuals who work in the areas of education,
prevention, rehabilitation, treatment, enforcement and control.
Those individuals are very interested in the general types of control
substances outlined in Bill C-7.
(1540)
Narcotics are covered under the Narcotic Control Act, as well as
some from the 1961 single convention. Examples of drugs in this
group are cocaine, opium, codeine, morphine and marijuana.
Controlled drugs, as defined under the Food and Drugs Act, are
stimulants such as amphetamines and sedatives such as barbituric
acid. Restricted drugs come under the Food and Drugs Act, the
so-called designer drugs, as well as the anabolic steroids, the
precursors and the drugs from the 1971 convention on psychotropic
substances.
The majority of the substances are diverted from legitimate
manufacturers and then illegally imported and sold. Until recently
dealers have been able to sell the steroids at up to 20 times their
prescription value with little risk of getting caught.
The amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and its appended
regulations contained in the bill have resulted in 42
androgenic-anabolic steroids and their derivatives being classified
as controlled drugs.
In the grim world of the effects of illicit drugs on the lives of
abusers can be severe. This is the crux of my argument. If the
effects on the lives of the abusers can be severe, the penalties
proposed for convicted dealers in the most dangerous drugs should
be severe. Sentences for the most serious offences of trafficking,
importing or exporting narcotics remain life imprisonment in the
bill.
We know that the specific provisions of the bill have been given
the close scrutiny they deserve by a subcommittee on Bill C-7 of
the Standing Committee on Health. I will comment on the work of
that committee. Members heard from many national groups and
associations representing a community of thousands of people, as
well as officials from the departments of health and justice.
I will quickly list some of the groups that made representations
before the committee: the Canadian Medical Association, the
Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the Department of Public
Health, the city of Toronto, the Addiction Research Foundation, the
Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy, Lambton Families in Action for Drug Education, the
Quebec Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers Association, et
cetera. Many groups appeared before the subcommittee.
The subcommittee fully addressed each and every concern with
the intent of improving the bill before us today. Several
amendments were made at committee stage. Some particular issues
of discussion resulted in amendment. The main amendments to Bill
C-7 are the ones in which my constituents are interested.
The amendments create a new offence for possession of
marijuana and hashish involving certain quantities. They create a
new offence for trafficking in marijuana and hashish in certain
quantities. They provide for a purpose clause dealing with
sentences and, more particular, they encourage rehabilitation and
treatment in appropriate circumstances.
The aggravated circumstances section has been expanded to
cover in or near public places usually frequented by minors. This
means that when an offender has been convicted in those
circumstances a judge will have to give reasons for not imposing a
jail term.
The amendments will delete subsection 3(1), which was meant
to cover non-scheduled substances having or presented as having
the same effect as scheduled substances. There were some
apprehensions among other things that it might cover herbal
products.
At the same time there is a limit on the ability of inspectors to
examine the records so that they may not examine the records
pertaining to the medical condition of patients.
(1545 )
The bill clarifies those situations where a practitioner would be
considered to be trafficking by providing that unless authorized by
the regulations it will be illegal to sell a prescription to obtain a
scheduled substance. Several things have been done and several
amendments have been made to the original Bill C-7.
15982
I am confident that the current situation facing Canada today
as it relates to drug abuse will prompt each member of this place
to consider the facts in his or her own constituency, to reflect on
the implications for the future, and to respond accordingly by
supporting this bill.
Through education and prevention we must continue to inform
our young people, alerting them to the seductive snares of
addiction. Through rehabilitation and treatment we must reach out
and free those already trapped in the nightmare of dependence and
desolation. Through enforcement and control we must strive to
disinter the roots of those criminal enterprises that prey on the
young and defenceless, those who otherwise risk being enticed into
a never-ending cycle of addiction and deprivation.
The bill gives the police new authority without giving them
sweeping authority. It gives us greater power to prevent dangerous
substances from entering the country. It gives us the tools to help
ensure that justly prosecuted criminals do not benefit from their
crimes.
I submit that passage of the controlled drugs and substances bill
is but one step toward a healthier and safer tomorrow. It is
nonetheless a very important step in the right direction. I urge all
members from all sides of this House to give this bill the scrutiny it
richly deserves. Anything less would be an abdication of our
responsibility.
Let us pass this bill so the government can get on with its
mandate to protect and promote the health of Canadians in a way
consistent with what we have a right to expect. I call on everyone to
support this.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened to some excellent presentations today on Bill C-7, an act
respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors, and other
substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic
Control Act in consequence thereof.
On balance, I find myself in support of all the concerns raised.
Members have pointed out some of the highlights of this legislation
and its attractiveness. As the previous speaker has just mentioned,
it is one step toward a healthier and safer tomorrow. On that there is
no question.
However, it does pose a more fundamental issue. Yes, this bill
takes some steps to fight drug dealers in their pushing of illicit
drugs and illicit substances of all kinds. Some time or other we
have to have a debate that asks why so many people, particularly
young people, are attracted by these illicit substances. What is it
about their lives and the way they view the world that makes
abusive substances such an attractive option? What are the causes
of drug abuse? What are the causes that enable drug dealers and
drug pushers to make such lucrative incomes in our country? That
is the debate that is absent here.
If we believe that passing legislation and getting tougher on drug
dealers is going to solve this problem, we have to admit that it will
not. Yes, indeed it is a step closer. Yes, we have to get tougher. I
particularly like the section of the bill that refers to those
traffickers and so on who are trafficking illicit substances in or near
a school, on or near school grounds, or in or near any other public
place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years.
To say that those convicted who have been pushing their illicit
drugs in and around schools will obviously receive a harsher
sentence is an excellent start. However, I do have to say that until
we as a Parliament start addressing the fundamental causes of drug
abuse we are not going to solve the problem. I do not think we want
to feel too good about ourselves, that passing this legislation is
going to be a major step toward the elimination or reduction of the
use of illicit drugs. As the previous speaker said, and I think very
accurately, it is a small step in the right direction.
(1550)
I have two concerns about this legislation. One is the fact that
once again we missed the opportunity to deal more effectively with
marijuana and the use of marijuana. We all appreciate that this
legislation began under the previous Mulroney administration and
was brought forward by this administration with very few
amendments at that point.
At that point one of the hopes a lot of people had, particularly
those involved with the court system and with the real world of
illicit drugs and substances on our streets, was the possibility that
marijuana would not be listed in the same penalty class as heroin
and cocaine, that perhaps now was the time to follow the call from
the police and so on in terms of the decriminalization of this
substance. I am not saying the legalization; I am talking about the
decriminalization.
Alas, Bill C-7 continues the tradition of treating marijuana
possession as a criminal offence. All of us have known probably on
a personal basis friends and constituents who now possess criminal
records for having had in their possession a small amount of
marijuana. They are lumped into the same category in many cases
with cocaine dealers and that problem element in our society. This
was a missed opportunity.
I want to make a few comments about the herbal remedies that
were once a major part of this legislation. It is fair to say that
increasingly Canadians are turning away from traditional medical
systems and sources to more natural ways. The herbalists are
coming into their element and coming into their time. People
realize that many of the substances we use in the traditional
pharmaceutical way are in fact derivatives of natural substances.
Increasingly today physicians will say that many Canadians are
taking advantage of natural herbs to solve some of their medical
problems.
15983
The lobbying that went on by those involved in herbal medicine
was quite astounding. I suspect all of us received numerous
petitions and letters and visits from people who were concerned
that this legislation in its previous state would have eliminated a
whole set of possibilities that herbalists were using. I particularly
refer as an example to Natural Way Herbs, headed up by Mr. Jim
Strauss and his son, who led a tremendous campaign from the
western part of Canada to point out to parliamentarians that many
of the substances that were being eliminated under this legislation
were in fact being used very successfully today to resolve people's
medical problems.
I can say that I am aware in a personal way of dozens and dozens
of people who found the traditional, if you like, medical approach
to their illnesses and physical problems were failing and yet found
the solution in the use of natural herbs. I thank Mr. Jim Strauss and
his son, seventh generation herbalists, for the contribution they
make to their community and their patients. As a result of much of
this positive lobbying, the herbal remedies continue to be regulated
by the Food and Drugs Act. That was a good change in this
legislation.
I will leave it at that. It is appropriate that we get on with this
legislation. For those two reasons, I will oppose the legislation.
That is not to say that there are not a whole set of very positive
elements in the legislation. I want to acknowledge that. But the
hassle the natural herbalists experience today is partly as a result of
lobbying by the traditional health care system and the international
pharmaceutical companies. We have to be aware that there is a
holistic approach to solving medical problems and that the natural
way, the use of natural herbs, is one way. We ought to be taking
more steps to encourage that, as opposed to hindering it.
(1555 )
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to the
two very important points the hon. member just made. One had to
do with herbal remedies. It was the last one, so I will deal with it
first. I will be very quick.
There never was in Bill C-7 anything that impacted on the use of
herbal remedies in health food stores. That was disinformation and
misinformation, whichever way we want to look at it. The sale of
herbal remedies in health food stores is dealt with in parts I and II
of the Food and Drugs Act. This bill only deals with parts III and
IV, so it never was going to impact on it. We removed that whole
section because of so much disinformation and so much concern.
We thought if we struck that whole clause it would in fact allay
these fears.
The second point the hon. member made was regarding the cause
of young people using drugs. That is such a multifactorial question.
It deals with so many other issues. As a result of that and as as
result of looking toward that kind of broader prevention and
long-term strategy, the hon. member should know that a
recommendation came out of subcommittee to the Minister of
Health asking that Canada's complete drug strategy be reviewed.
This is obviously going to deal with some of those issues.
I would be distressed if I thought the hon. member would
withhold voting on what is a very important and a very creative and
progressive bill for two reasons that actually I hope I have
answered to his satisfaction, one of which will be dealt with and the
other of which never existed at all.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's response to my
latter issue and I accept what she says as being accurate.
Disinformation was prevalent across the country and caused undue
alarm to a lot people unnecessarily. I am pleased she has pointed
out how that was dealt with. However, I do not accept quite so
easily her latter comments that there has been a recommendation to
have a broader approach to combating drug abuse in our country.
Perhaps the record will show that this is the crucible where
critical debate takes place in Canada. This is the centre where
government and on occasion opposition members through
opposition days and perhaps even private members' initiatives
bring forward the issues we feel are important. By and large, we
acknowledge that the government sets the agenda for most of what
goes on in this House. But I do not recall in all my years in
Parliament ever having a debate on the fundamental causes of
substance abuse in our country. In other words, yes, debate takes
place on specific pieces of legislation, but I am talking about the
fundamental causes of drug abuse, like poor housing opportunities,
poor educational opportunities. We all know the causes, as opposed
to the symptoms.
I appreciate what my hon. friend is saying. I do look forward to a
time when we say to ourselves in this country that passing
legislation, imposing stiffer sentences, and getting tough on drug
dealers is only a small step to resolving the growing substance
abuse in our country.
I was disturbed recently when I was attending a number of junior
high schools in the constituency of Kamloops. After the formal
talks and presentations I arranged a lunch get-together with
students who were interested in talking about issues. In every high
school concerned students raised the matter of drug abuse in their
schools. These were junior high schools, not senior high schools.
Their views were that large percentages of the students were
becoming regular drug users, and of course cigarette use was
leading this initiative.
As parliamentarians, all of us are concerned about this issue. Are
we doing anything to come to grips with the fundamental causes of
this growing use of drugs in our society? I think not. As a matter of
fact, if I were going to be truthful with myself today I would say
that we are taking a number of steps that will enhance drug abuse in
the future, will make life more miserable for more Canadians,
tougher for more Canadians, and will abandon more young people
15984
as a result of policies that are being considered or brought forward
in these times.
(1600)
I appreciate the minister's intervention but perhaps in six months
we will look at the record of Parliament and ask ourselves how
much time we spent as elected representatives dealing with the
fundamental causes of drug abuse in our country.
That is the way we will measure whether we are taking this
seriously.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary answered the first two items. I simply
advise the member that under the three international conventions to
which Canada is a party and to which Bill C-7 addresses the
problem we have with, for instance, benzodiazepines, it is required
that simple possession and use of marijuana remain a criminal
offence. This is not an option for Canada in terms of opting out, as
the member might suggest.
We did not miss an opportunity. What we did was bring our
legislation into line with the requirements of the international
conventions to which Canada is a party.
With regard to the attitude, I agree with the member. There is no
question we have to look for every opportunity. Our national drug
strategy spends 70 per cent of the moneys available to it on
rehabilitation, treatment and prevention programs, most of which,
as with regard to tobacco, directed at our young people, those most
susceptible to these problems.
I agree with the member that there should be a review. Our
subcommittee of which I was the chair has recommended to the
Standing Committee on Health and to the minister that a
comprehensive review of Canada's drug policy and our overall
drug strategy be conducted.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my hon.
friend. I accept gratefully the comments he has made.
A number of major initiatives have been taken as a result of our
relatively comprehensive drug strategy. Let us also acknowledge
that as a result of the transfer payment reductions now being
imposed on the provinces, many of the programs they have in place
will have to be curtailed or abandoned as a result.
On one hand we might be expanding and on the other hand we
are making it more difficult for provincial jurisdictions to continue
their programs.
I quote the Prime Minister when he was the justice minister in
Pierre Trudeau's government in 1980, referring to marijuana
decriminalization: ``It is our intention to bring about changes
which will serve to lessen the severity of penalties for possession
of this substance''.
Granted my friend has said what is true, but in 1980. This
legislation does not do that. It continues with the same penalties we
have had in the past.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am distressed to hear the hon.
member make the statements he did because I agree in every way
with what he has said with regard to young people and the use of
drugs.
As a family physician, I can tell members that nothing has been
of greater concern and has caused me more pain over my 25 years
of practice. Voting against this bill would serve neither of the hon.
member's objectives. It will really be throwing the baby out with
the bath water.
See this bill as a scaffold. See the recommendation the
committee made to review this strategy as an open door to make
very important changes that will be necessary. This is a
springboard. It may not be all that he does, but voting against the
bill will certainly throw away the opportunity.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a few years and I
have heard the same comments time and again that in dealing with
major problems facing our country this is a tiny baby step in the
right direction.
This issue inflicts so much pain for so many people, for so many
families, that not to do whatever possible to combat this is perhaps
questionable in terms of our work here.
I do not take these slight steps in the right direction with much
enthusiasm but I accept that what she is saying is accurate.
(1605 )
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak today on Bill C-7, the controlled drugs
and substances act.
Bill C-7 consolidates and supplements the Narcotics Control Act
and parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act. It combines a
regulatory scheme for drugs used in medicine with the criminal law
regime for illicit substances.
The bill is a reintroduction of Bill C-85, the Psychoactive
Substance Control Act, introduced by the Conservative
government in the previous Parliament. Bill C-85 died on the Order
Paper in the last Parliament due to the election call. While it was
reintroduced into this Parliament by the Minister of Health, aspects
of it fall under the concerns of the Department of Justice and the
Solicitor General of Canada.
One main object of the bill as originally conceived was to bring
our drug laws into conformity with provisions in certain
international agreements we had signed. These agreements include
the
15985
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, the Convention on
Psychotropic Substances, 1971, and the relevant portions of the
United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, 1988.
In keeping with the spirit of these instruments, Bill C-7 adopted
an interdiction and criminalization approach to the production,
traffic and the possession and use of illicit substances.
The legislation was also supposed to cohere with Canada's drug
strategy which had been unveiled in May 1987. The key object of
the drug strategy is to reduce harm to individuals, families and
communities caused by alcohol and other drugs. Canada's drug
strategy was designed to place greater emphasis on reducing
demand for illicit substances through prevention, education and
drug treatment programs instead of relying solely on the
interdiction efforts of police and penal institutions for the reduction
of the supply of illicit drugs.
In contrast to these methods, harm reduction seeks to reduce the
harm caused by those who have a problem with substance abuse,
including harm done to themselves, to their families and to other
persons. It takes a public health approach to the problem of drug
abuse rather than a moralistic, punitive one which views such abuse
as criminal in and of itself.
The bill passed second reading and was sent to a subcommittee
of the Standing Committee of Health in April last year. As
members will recall, the red book promised us that MPs would be
given a greater role in drafting legislation through their work on
House of Commons committees. The work done on Bill C-7 by the
subcommittee chaired by the member for Mississauga South and
the participation of other parliamentarians in making significant
changes to the bill despite its having passed second reading is a
perfect example of this commitment put into action.
Officials from the departments of health and justice have
explained that the bill was a consolidation of existing legislation
and that the changes it contained were required to fulfil the
international agreements we had signed. They emphasized that our
international partners were exerting pressure on us to pass this
legislation.
As the subcommittee analyzed the bill more closely and listened
to the arguments of witnesses a variety of issues began to emerge.
Although there was not a single unanimous view, nonetheless
members of each of the three parties expressed similar concerns
about the substance of the bill, as did other parliamentarians
including me.
As many Liberals see it, Canada's approach to illegal drugs has
required adjustment for some time. At different times the Liberal
Party of Canada has in non-binding party resolutions advocated
certain fundamental changes to our drug policies. To simply
consolidate and thereby reaffirm existing approaches to drugs
would be to miss an important opportunity to effect modern
rational policies on drugs.
What were the concerns some had with the original Bill C-7?
Bill C-7 is a complex piece of legislation. In my view the following
were among the most important concerns. First, the bill lacked
provisions for rehabilitation and treatment options for sentencing
as an alternative to incarceration or fines. Second, the bill
categorized illicit substances according to outdated schedules.
Third, the bill reaffirmed lengthy maximum prison terms and
increased the fines for the simple possession of cannabis in contrast
to current court practices and evolved societal attitudes.
Fourth, Bill C-7 included a deeming provision for illicit
substances which seemed to us to contradict the fundamental legal
principle that conduct subject to criminal sanction should be
specified clearly in acts.
Let us deal with these concerns. First, the bill lacked provisions
for rehabilitation and treatment options for sentencing as an
alternative to incarceration and fines. Many members felt Bill C-7,
drafted under the lead of the Department of Health, did not
squarely address the public health dimensions of the illicit drug
problem. Among experts in public health and addiction research,
the consensus has emerged in recent years which emphasizes a
strategy called harm reduction. It emphasizes the broader reduction
of harms to society caused by illegal drug use, as well as by
inappropriate institutional responses to drug problems.
(1610)
As the experts know, a harm reduction approach seeks to reduce
the harm caused by those who have a problem with substance
abuse, including harm done to themselves, to their families and to
other persons. It evaluates strategies for dealing with illicit
substances in part by situating them within the context of substance
abuse generally, including that of alcohol and tobacco. A less
ideological perspective on the problem begins with honest
epidemiological comparisons to strategies for dealing with such
legal and potentially very dangerous substances.
Harm reduction initiatives include needle exchange programs,
methadone treatment, counselling and rehabilitation efforts.
Education efforts which stress the health risks associated with legal
and illegal drug use are also important in the prevention of drug
dependencies or addictions.
I contrast this approach with what I would call prohibitionism.
One treats the consumption of drugs as a moral evil where criminal
sanction is seen as the only appropriate response. Rather than
recognizing the users of illicit substances as endangering their
health and taking appropriate steps to help them, the prohibitionist
perspective would treat them solely as criminals who require the
15986
threat of criminal penalties and a criminal record to deter them
from such behaviour.
Were this an effective approach, the United States with its heavy
emphasis on interdiction and punishment would be nearly drug free
by now. As we know, the number of prisoners in jail for drug
offences in that country continues to grow with little sign of any
stemming of the insidious drug trade or the use of illegal drugs.
Despite being part of Canada's drug strategy which emphasizes
harm reduction as its primary goal, Bill C-7 in its original form did
not mention or encourage judges to consider rehabilitation or
treatment as alternatives to fines or incarceration for those
convicted of possession of illicit substances. This was a concern
now remedied.
Criminal sanctions should not be our only tool for dealing with
illicit drugs or for changing the habits of persons who are addicted
or at risk of drug addiction. Prohibitionism toward drug users on its
own arguably inflicts greater harms on individuals and families
than the harms it purports to prevent. We should also bear in mind
the far greater number of deaths and amounts of disease associated
each year with the use of such legal drugs as tobacco and alcohol.
In my opinion the sums and energies we expend in fighting the use
of illicit drugs should be allocated with due regard for their overall
impact on population health.
Wisely and responsibly, the government has amended Bill C-7 to
include a clause that addresses rehabilitation. Clause 11(1)
declares: ``The fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence
arising under part I is to contribute to respect for law and the
maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, while encouraging
rehabilitation and treatment in appropriate circumstances of
offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the
community''.
The second concern I raised was that the bill categorized illicit
substances according to outdated schedules. No one would dispute
our drug policy must be reflective of current scientific knowledge.
The parliamentary committee repeatedly stressed the schedules
proposed in Bill C-7 are outdated. This was put forward by
witnesses. While they are housed in the 1971 UN convention, their
arrangement derives from public policies of the 1920s when policy
makers knew relatively little science about the nature, the effects
and the potential for societal harm posed by these drugs.
The most serious example of the lack of pharmacology reflected
in the schedules was the placement of cannabis in the schedule I of
the UN convention. Schedule I is supposed to be reserved for the
most socially harmful drugs such as morphine, heroin and opium.
Heavy regular use of cannabis can certainly sap motivation and
affect short term memory. Many will contend that while it may be
carcinogenic, the risks of the light use of cannabis do not appear to
be significantly worse than those associated with moderate use of
legal substances like alcohol. While we have heard calls from some
for decriminalization, in my opinion dependency on marijuana
should be strongly discouraged. Nonetheless, the drug schedules
used in Canada should reflect the best scientific knowledge we
possess. We should not be obligated to accept outdated schedules.
In response to the concerns raised, the bill has been amended to
incorporate an additional schedule, I(i), which deals exclusively
with cannabis and its derivatives. Read together with the new
penalty provisions which I shall discuss next, this amendment takes
cannabis out of the company of far more deleterious drugs like
heroin and cocaine while keeping it within the realm of the
Criminal Code. In a minute I will also discuss the international
schedules and our response to that issue.
(1615)
The third concern with the original Bill C-7 was it reaffirmed
maximum prison terms and increased the fines for the simple
possession of cannabis, in contrast to current court practices and
involved societal attitudes.
Should pot smokers have the threat of a lengthy jail term
hanging over their heads? Is this the best way to discourage use?
Does it make Canada safer? Does it make it healthier?
As originally drafted, Bill C-7 retained a maximum penalty of
seven years for simple possession of cannabis. It doubled the fine
for a first offence and more than doubled it for a second offence.
These maximum penalties contrasted with what is generally now
meted out by Canadian courts for a first time offence, which is
usually a small fine and sometimes an absolute discharge.
It is estimated that we charge over 40,000 people a year with
simple possession of cannabis, a costly burden on the court and the
police systems. This represents approximately 3 per cent of the
estimated over one million regular cannabis users in Canada.
Further, while 3 per cent of those charged will face incarceration,
over half a million Canadians have criminal records because of
cannabis convictions. These people can apply for pardons in due
course, since the convictions that they have can be a serious
hindrance for employability and for travel. Penalties tend to vary
with different police officers, the judges, the regions of the country
and the socioeconomic status of the accused. Would that it were not
so, but it is true.
In many communities across Canada, the courts, the legal
profession, the police on the beat and the average person do not
appear to view cannabis possession as meriting the severe penalties
set out for it in existing law. Reaffirming these penalties would
effectively express our legislator's faith in the existing penalty
structure. What signals should such reaffirmations send to our
courts? When law lags behind court practices and societal attitudes
15987
and such laws come up for review, the laws must be adjusted, not
reaffirmed.
Penalties for offences under the act should be proportionate to
the social and personal harm they entail. In keeping with this
principle, the bill has been amended to incorporate a new schedule
which establishes threshold amounts of cannabis for the offence of
simple possession. Persons charged with possession of lesser
amounts will be subject only to summary conviction proceedings,
with a correspondingly lower range of penalties. This is still a
criminal conviction and I stress this. However, in those cases
involving the lesser amounts with simple possession charges, there
will not be fingerprinting, there will not be photography or entering
into a CPIC system for tracing purposes.
By reducing penalties and recommending treatment and
rehabilitation alternatives in Bill C-7, we send a clear signal to the
courts encouraging them to pursue the available harm reduction
avenues.
The fourth concern I originally mentioned, that the bill as
originally drafted included a deeming provision for illicit
substances which appears to contradict the fundamental legal
principle that conduct subject to criminal sanction should be
specified clearly in acts.
The deeming provision in Bill C-7 allowed new, previously
unscheduled substances to be deemed by regulators to belong to a
particular schedule and the attached penalty provisions to come
into force at that point. The bill would have extended a definition of
controlled substances and their analogues beyond drugs cited in the
schedules, to such drugs as were deemed by regulators to have an
effect substantially similar to, or greater than, schedule substances.
Using this provision, the government would thus have been able
to adopt regulations to control, govern and limit the use of as yet
undesignated substances. This would be a significant departure
from current provisions of the Narcotic Control Act and the Food
and Drugs Act, the offences and associated punishments set out in
these acts would apply only to such drugs as are specifically cited
in the attached schedules. The purpose of this provision would be
to allow regulators to respond quickly to the introduction of new
so-called look alike drugs on our streets.
While this purpose is laudable, it has yet to be shown that this
problem of undesignated drugs is out of control and in guarding
against it, we must be careful not to trample on other fundamental
legal principles. Citizens must know what the law is beforehand, so
that they can govern their behaviour accordingly. If something is
illegal, then there must be a law saying so unambiguously. To
declare x a crime after the fact is unacceptable.
Further, many consumers and vendors of natural health remedies
expressed concern that this provision could allow regulators to
declare these products included in restricted or banned schedules.
This provision, in fact, only dealt with parts III and IV of the Food
and Drugs Act and herbs have historically been covered by parts I
and II. Accordingly, this provision has been deleted now as the
amended act Bill C-7 by the government.
(1620 )
I have dwelt at some length on the substantial improvements that
members were able to bring to this bill after second reading.
Most of my remarks have concerned the demand side of the drug
equation. There is also the supply side to consider. Bill C-7
introduces three important measures to combat drug trafficking.
First, it includes a provision whereby judges are required to take
aggravating factors into account when sentencing. Written reasons
will now be required of a judge who fails to impose a prison term in
the presence of any one of a list of aggravating factors.
The court will be required to regard as aggravating factors: first,
use of a weapon or use of threat of violence; second, trafficking on
school grounds or to a minor or in or near public places frequented
by minors; third, any previous convictions of a drug offence and
fourth, using the services of a minor in the perpetration of a
designated substance offence. It is anticipated and hoped these
provisions will deter drug dealers from using weapons, threatening
violence, selling to young people or recruiting their services.
Second, schedule V in Bill C-7 introduces the notion of
precursor substances, adding them to the list of controlled
substances. This innovation keeps us in line with our international
obligations under the single convention on narcotic drugs, 1961
and the 1988 Vienna convention.
Precursors do not by themselves produce any psychotropics or
psychoactive effect but can be converted or used to produce
designer drugs, look alike drugs or scheduled substances.
Regulations enacted to control the import and export of precursors
would attempt thereby to thwart the production of psychoactive
substances in Canada and elsewhere. Canada has become a conduit
for these and we owe it to our international partners to put a stop to
this.
Finally, Bill C-7 allows police to use reverse sting measures, that
is selling quantities of drugs to dealers for the sake of making
arrests. Under the regulations of the Narcotic Control Act police
officers have been permitted to possess drugs as part of their
undercover work but without legislative authority to sell. Quite
reasonably they wish to have clarified that they are so permitted by
including a clause exempting them from the criminal provisions of
the new act. That has been done.
Legislation is an evolutionary process as it should be. I believe
that Bill C-7, as amended, has come a long way. The subcommittee
has also recommended that a comprehensive drug policy review be
undertaken by a parliamentary committee. Further, there has also
been a recommendation that a task force of experts be established
to examine and redefine the criteria for the the scheduling of drugs.
Thus Canada could be a leading force in the modernization of
international drug scheduling.
15988
Although I admit to not being an expert in these matters, I do
know that it is the time to look forward to a drug policy appropriate
to the 21st century, one that incorporates criminal law,
enforcement, public health and modern societal attitudes.
I publicly commend our ministers, the subcommittee members
and our colleagues in the House of all parties in the development of
the bill as deliberated today and I will support it.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
listening to the remarks of the member for London West we see the
excellence that is brought to the work of this Chamber.
I want to speak very briefly on the process rather than the
substance of this bill. For me the bill personifies and represents
everything that is good about what we said we would do when we
came to this House.
The very low number it has, Bill C-7, should indicate to
members that a considerable amount of time has elapsed between
the time this bill was introduced and today. The reason for that is
quite simple. We said when we campaigned in the election in 1993
that we would introduce processes that allowed backbench
members to get involved in a hands on way with the drafting of
important legislation, which is exactly what happened with this
bill.
The members for Vancouver East, Beaches-Woodbine,
Oakville-Milton, Fredericton-York-Sunbury, London West,
Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Saint-Denis, Lachine-Lac Saint-Louis
and many others spent hundreds of hours arguing through the
articles of this bill. They were concerned. This bill is a holdover
from the previous government. As many members have said, when
they first heard the testimony they thought something was wrong,
that the bill did not meet the test that we campaigned on.
Members of this House worked exceptionally hard with the full
support of three ministers, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor
General of Canada and the Minister of Health. They struggled to
improve the bill and have it reflect the principles and the values
which our party brings to this House.
In so doing, we received tremendous support from staff in the
various ministries. I want to single out an individual, Mr. Paul
Genest, from our research bureau who put in all of those hours with
each of these members as they thought through, argued through and
worried about the details. It is not easy being a backbencher and
approaching legislation in the face of a cadre of experts, lobbyists
and in this case people from other countries who come in and say
that the legislation must be written in a particular way to meet their
particular needs. It took a long time. It took much thought. It took
very hard work.
I believe we have produced legislation that will, as the member
for London West has suggested, put Canada in the forefront of
leading the war on drugs from a perspective of harm reduction and
not simply following the U.S. model that was established earlier in
the eighties under Ronald Reagan.
This whole process has been an exercise in excellence and one in
which our caucus should be very proud. I want to thank those
members on the staff and in this caucus who worked so hard to do
what we said we would do when we came here and that is allow
every member of this House a hand in drafting important
legislation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, read the third time and passed.)
[English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: Under our standing orders, the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 4.28 p.m.)