Through their selfless service, service that has until now gone unrecognized, these veterans spared their comrades in arms the horrors of chemical warfare. More than that, they have provided the foundation for Canada's response to the very threat of chemical warfare, a threat that continues to this day.

From all accounts, these experiments were secret for a long time and, as a result, some veterans felt that they could not share their experiences with their family and friends. Others have brought to light that they felt that they could not access veterans' benefits as it meant disclosing the trials.

We are particularly thankful to Mr. Harvey Friesen and Mr. William Tanner for bringing these concerns to the attention of the government and we find the difficulties that these veterans encountered over the last several years very regrettable.

That is why we have established a program to provide payments to these individuals, payments that will total $24,000 for each eligible veteran or the beneficiaries of their wills.

We hope that today's announcement of this payment and recognition program will allow these veterans who have served Canada with pride and distinction to move forward with the respect and admiration they so richly deserve.

I would also like to take this brief opportunity as well to thank the current Minister of Veterans Affairs, the previous Minister of Veterans Affairs and the DND ombudsman, Mr. André Marin, for their contribution to this recognition program.

VeteransRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian soldiers used as guinea pigs in chemical warfare testing from the early 1940s to the mid-1970s never gave up the fight. They displayed great courage and stamina in their decades-long search for recognition and compensation from the government for horrible experiments that should never have happened.

Canadians can only imagine the unspeakable frustration of the 3,500 chemical test veterans as they endured respiratory problems, skin conditions and cancer in the years following exposure to mustard, phosgene and lewisite gases.

Though a welcome relief, it is unfortunate that it took so long for the Canadian government to acknowledge its responsibility and liability. I am particularly struck that, though they would have been justified in feeling abandoned and betrayed by the government throughout their long wait, many of these vets remained reluctant to divulge the secret chemical tests out of a sense of duty to their country. Duty always came first.

No amount of money can make up for the years of frustration, illness and suffering these veterans and their families faced. It is heart-wrenching that so many died before this issue was resolved. I sincerely hope that this compensation and government admission will bring some peace to the veterans, their widows and their families.

The government's responsibility is this matter is not over. It must now act to restore faith among those currently serving in the Canadian Forces that the Government of Canada views their health and their well-being as the most valuable military asset.

I call upon the government to demonstrate transparency and an improved willingness to quickly resolve the medical concerns of our soldiers and veterans. We must ensure that no other Canadian soldiers face such a long battle for justice.

VeteransRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the unthinkable occurred during that period, when 3,500 soldiers volunteered to test chemical weapons that could be used on the battlefield.

Today, about 2,000 of these soldiers remain. The promised program will cost the government about $50 million.

The Bloc Quebecois has a number of questions however, and does not think that the statement today by the minister will put an end to this matter.

Among other things, we continue to wonder why this government reacts just when a parliamentary watchdog is about to table a report. This happened with the Auditor General. Now it is happening again, with the government reacting to a report by Ombudsman André Marin.

Why did this government not react sooner and say, “We will consider these people and we will take care of them”?

When talking about compensation, the minister mentioned Harvey Friesen. Mr. Friesen does not feel it is enough. We fully agree with giving the $24,000, but is this amount sufficient? We reserve the right to appeal this decision.

Now, National Defence should be much more proactive too. It should track down all these individuals, contact them and do its best to speed up this process, because these people have waited far too long already.

What we find clearly unsatisfactory is the government apologizing and highlighting the dedication of these individuals. More must be done. The government must apologize for conducting tests on them.

To this end, fact sheets—there is currently one on the department's website about mustard gas—must be circulated, and we must be told exactly what kinds of chemical agents were used so we can help all these people.

This is a first step but, in our opinion, it is not enough.

VeteransRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank the government for admitting the error of its ways in recognizing that some form of compensation needs to be forwarded to these brave individuals who served their country so well in terms of experiments back in 1941.

This Thursday marks the 61st anniversary of the internment of the Japanese. It is funny how it was a Liberal government back then that did the mustard tests on our soldiers. It also interned the Japanese. Some people would say that was wartime and different actions had to be taken; however, what was scandalous about that was that the government was warned in those days. If we go back to Hansard and other articles, the government was told not to do these types of experiments and not to intern the Japanese.

It has taken very long for these brave men, many of them who suffered for many years along with their families, to finally get recognition from the government by saying it is sorry and to offer them compensation. As previous colleagues have said, no amount of money is enough to satisfy their concerns.

We cannot help but notice there is a string going along here. The merchant mariners and aboriginal veterans received about the same amount. It seems that every time soldiers and veterans come up for compensation, it is around the $20,000 to $25,000 mark. We believe that some of these soldiers may have a valid option when it comes to fighting this debate in the courts, if need be.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to acknowledge what the government has done. Our party also wants to salute and honour those brave men and women who took part in those tests and their families who fought so long and so hard. We would wish now that those veterans who are suffering from mental disabilities would also have those rights and not have to go to the courts, as they did just recently.

The government took these disabled veterans, those who were mentally challenged, took their money and said they were not capable of looking after it, so it would do it for them. These veterans and their families had to fight year after year, and in the end lost their case in the Supreme Court of Canada.

This government did that. We would like it to ensure that no other veterans' group or any other group in this country must fight so hard and so long to get what is rightfully theirs.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

If the House gives its consent, I move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House, be concurred in.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present eight petitions, with a total of 256 signatures, adding to the thousands that have been introduced in the House already, a significant number by myself.

These petitioners are asking Parliament to take all necessary steps to preserve the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, as we approach March, which is kidney month, I am pleased to present another petition from the now tens of thousands of people in the Peterborough area who have signed a petition in support of people suffering from kidney disease.

They point out that kidney disease is a huge and growing problem in Canada. Real progress is being made in the various ways of preventing and coping with this disease. The petitioners wish to thank those who are involved in making progress with the disease and for the work they do.

They call upon Parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in the system to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from the people of the Peterborough area who point out that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children. They call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Sarnia—Lambton Ontario

Liberal

Roger Gallaway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by eight minutes.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This is an extremely important bill. There are quite a number of aspects to the bill, but one of the most important components of it is the national drug strategy itself. It would put in place the funding for a lot of education and getting information to the general public, especially young people who may be interested in trying marijuana.

First and foremost, this is not about legalizing marijuana. Those in the opposition and others across Canada often say that it is about legalizing marijuana. That is not what it is about at all. It is about changing the penalties. It would still be illegal to use marijuana in Canada should this bill carry.

The time has come to deal with this issue. The current system is not working. Unless we put in place the strong components of this bill, the current system will cause young people and families, and many Canadians continued hardship through the use of marijuana and through the continuation marijuana grow operations.

I have had the opportunity to talk to a lot of police associations across Canada. Yes, it is true, there is some opposition to this in some ranks. But people who say the current system is working are fooling no one but themselves because the current penalities are not being applied uniformly across the country.

Let me give an example. If an individual in my home province was caught smoking a small amount of marijuana or in possession of a small amount of marijuana, that individual would be charged and would have a criminal record. We know what a criminal record would do to individuals. These individuals may be truck drivers. They would not be able to get across the border to do their job, and participate in the economy of country and provide for their family. In that situation, individuals caught with possession of a small amount of marijuana would face the full wrath of the law.

In other areas of the country, say in Toronto, one would just get a slap on the wrist in many cases. There is no penalty in that case, other than maybe a talking to by a police officer.

The current law is not working because it is not being applied uniformly across the country. We might as well recognize that up front. This bill is attempting to change the penalties in order that there would be a fine for small amounts of marijuana less than 15 grams. In fact, the bill states:

--in an amount that is not more than fifteen grams, guilty of an offencepunishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than the amount referred to in item 2 of Schedule VIII.

The bill clearly lays out the penalties, in terms of an individual caught with no more than 15 grams. There would be a penalty. It would still be illegal and there would be a fine.

Some people will argue that the fines are not high enough, and that is their right . That is a debatable question. I myself believe that the fines should be increased; however, at least this bill would certainly be a good start.

I have had the opportunity to go to the Vancouver downtown east side which, for about a three block area, is devastated by the drug problem. I had the opportunity, in my previous responsibilities, of meeting many groups of police officers of both jurisdictions, local and RCMP. I had the opportunity to sit down and discuss with them the marijuana grow operations.

Marijuana grow operations are a terrible problem in many areas of the country, especially in the Vancouver and Toronto areas. Marijuana grow operations must be dealt with and dealt with severely.

I know we are not supposed to criticize the courts, but in the province of B.C., in terms of individuals caught with marijuana grow operations, I do not believe the courts are imposing the penalties that were intended by the law. This bill sets out some aggravating factors and the courts must justify in writing if they are not imposing the penalties fully intended by the law.

When I hear police officers tell me that they put their lives at risk when they go in to take down a marijuana grow operation and before they come back to work the next morning those individuals are back out on the street again, that tells me that the current system is not working. The bill moves some distance to ensure that the penalties intended by the law are imposed by the courts. That is as it should be.

There are some who have argued that we should not bring in this bill without having a roadside test for driving while drug impaired. It would be nice if there was one, but there is not.

However, the national drug strategy puts in place, first, the funding for the training of police officers in order for them to see the physical characteristics of individuals to determine whether or not they believe they are drug impaired. Second, it puts in place some moneys for research to find something that is similar to a breathalyzer, only related to drug issues. It moves the issue forward. It is an important step. It is one that is spelled out concretely in terms of the national drug strategy itself and it moves us ahead in addressing the problem of those who may be driving while drug impaired.

One of the most important aspects of the bill is the whole aspect of education. As I indicated earlier, the current system is not working. In some areas offenders get a slap on the wrist and in other areas they end up with a criminal record. Individuals out there, young people, do not believe that it is really against the law to be using marijuana or to be in possession of it.

Within the national drug strategy, there is funding in place to go out on a fairly major campaign to educate people, to tell them about the harmful effects of marijuana, to tell them about some of the situations that can be seen in downtown Vancouver's east side, and to tell them about the harmful effects, that it is illegal, and that they should not be using it.

There is some talk about how the Americans are strongly opposed to Bill C-10 and the changes in the penalties on marijuana. I have had the opportunity to meet with Attorney General Ashcroft as well as the drug czar in the United States. When appropriately explained to them--rather than the rhetoric by some on the other side of the House--what the intent of the bill is and how it will accomplish a reduction in marijuana use over time, and how it will put in place penalties to shut down marijuana grow operations, the U.S. political players will in fact come on side.

In conclusion, it is very important for the House to pass Bill C-10. We must pass it now because the longer we wait, the greater problems that will occur for many young people and many families in the country. Let us get it done and pass the bill.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to speak to the bill on the decriminalization of marijuana. It is important to me and all members of the House because it is an issue to which Canadians have really paid attention. Sometimes when we amend the Criminal Code it happens without much input but this is one issue in which all sectors of society have been interested.

The first meeting I went to where people had asked me to speak about this issue was quite some time ago. It was in a seniors centre. Some ladies had come to my office to talk about the bill. They were very concerned that any steps would be taken to decriminalize marijuana. When I thought about it afterward, they had probably raised teenagers right in the middle of the 1960s and it had been a big concern to them at that time. It still is now. They have been watching this with interest, as have others.

I spent some time with the local law enforcement people in my riding not too long ago and asked them about some of the issues that Canadians are facing. The marijuana issue was brought up. They are dead set against any decriminalization. They feel that it leads right into harder drugs and more pain for our society.

The non-medicinal use of drugs in our society is an absolutely huge issue. It affects many more people than we realize. It gets into society at all levels. It is not only in the lower end of town, the east side of Vancouver or some of the skid row areas where we see this. It is everywhere. If there is anything that we as a government and as a country can do to stop the availability of or the use of drugs, we need to do it. We need to enact laws that make it harder, not easier, to use these types of drugs.

One thing that was mentioned to me when I was discussing some of these issues was the aspect of organized crime as it creeps into the entire area of marijuana.

As has been mentioned many time here today, across the country we have seen the increase in the number of grow ops. There was one in an old brewery in Ontario not too long ago. The size of the operation and the investment put into it were huge. The amount of illegal drugs cranked out of that place was unbelievable. This goes on and on.

Now people are buying and using residential homes in the upper level areas of cities and towns and not in places where one would associate this type of activity. They are harder and harder to detect. The amount of damage being done to real estate across the country by these grow ops is huge.

Something that needs to be addressed is the involvement of organized crime. Those people who think that organized crime is not involved in the growing of marijuana and its distribution should give their heads a shake because it is involved.

The moneys created by trafficking in these drugs are used to purchase harder drugs and to infiltrate more and more of society. The more people who get hooked on this stuff and the more people who become involved, the better it is for the organized crime rings in Canada. They certainly are using this as a means of funding the rest of their activities. That is a huge issue.

The former solicitor general mentioned the issue of driving under the influence and the inability to have roadside checks. This is important.

It seems that we are trying to put the cart before the horse. We should address some of these other issues before we make any attempts to increase the availability of this drug. Certainly the level of the amount, whether it is 5 grams, 15 grams or 30 grams, is something that is up for debate. The amount that the government has put in the bill is far too much and if it is going to be looked at, it should be far less. There are things that need to be done before we do that.

The whole idea of a national drug strategy is to deal with the whole issue of drugs. Marijuana is part of that culture and part of that circle. We need to have something in place that would allow our police officers and other people in law enforcement to deal with the whole drug issue.

There is also the proceeds of crime. This is something that I dealt with some time ago in connection with child pornography and the equipment used to create and distribute child pornography. There was nothing in the code that allowed for the confiscation of that equipment. That is there now. The same should apply in this instance.

These are the issues that need to be dealt with before we make any move to change what we are doing, in decriminalizing or legalizing this drug.

We talked about fines in great detail and the subsequent fines for people who go back to this activity. It was mentioned that police have shut down a grow op and by the next day the people are out on the streets again. For people who reoffend, the fines and penalties should increase on a very steep ramp. We have to make sure that there is an increasing deterrent for those people who want to be involved in this activity.

One thing that is always remarkable to me is the value of the drugs that are seized in these marijuana grow ops. It does not seem that one has to cover a whole lot of area with plants in order for it to be worth a substantial amount of money on the street. In order to stop people from taking the gamble and breaking the law, we have to make sure that the penalties are such that they are deterred from taking part in these activities. The subsequent fines and penalties for people who reoffend have to a true deterrent and of a nature that would make them think twice before they went back into it.

The other issue is the difference in the penalties depending on the age of the person. The government is proposing in the bill that a younger person would be penalized less severely than an older person. That absolutely sends the wrong message. If the laws are different according to the age of a person, that says to young people that they can get away with this activity because they will not be penalized as severely as adults, so why not take a chance on it.

We have to really be careful that the message we are sending, particularly to our young people, remains that this drug is dangerous. We should not be proceeding down the line that the government has proposed.

Before any steps are made to change the existing laws, we have to deal with some of the other issues. How are we going to decriminalize something that is illegal to purchase or illegal to grow? There are so many aspects of it that just do not add up. It needs a lot more work, a lot more effort and a lot more change before the bill will become acceptable to Canadians.

In closing, I want to register my opposition to what the government has proposed. It is a step in the wrong direction. The use of drugs in this country will increase if we proceed with this bill. We should make every effort to make the needed changes before we take that step.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among all parties with regard to the bill that was introduced today, and I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent for the following:

That this bill be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported without amendments from the committee, concurred in at report stage and read the third time and passed.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is there unanimous consent to move the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, referred to committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)