Rose-Marie Ur

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Perhaps his judgment is that ethanol is not the only alternative. In my speech I offered other alternatives. It is one of the alternatives that can be offered to this program.

Health is not the issue at the present time. We are looking at the air pollution issue as well. He says we do not take studies into consideration. In the United States they filed with the EPA four times as to qualifications for MMT. Three times they filed under section 211(c) and were denied. This section deals with matters concerning public health in relation to MMT as well the effect of MMT on the performance of emission control devices. They were turned down.

In their good wisdom they looked at section 211(f)(1) within the clean air act. The application was denied because it only related to the health aspects. We must consider what section they applied and when it was accepted or turned down.

There have been other studies conducted. I believe some Reform Party members said NOx emissions would be reduced by 20 per cent. However, these data were collected by Ethyl corporation. Environment Canada has said NOx would be reduced by 5 per cent. We must get our data straight on the issue.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.

The primary purpose of the bill which is to be known as the manganese based fuel additives act is to ban the use of MMT, a manganese based compound used as an octane enhancer in Canadian gasolines.

MMT is widely recognized as having an adverse effect on the operation of vehicle emission control components, including sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems, commonly known as OBDS. OBDS are slated to be introduced in virtually all 1996 vehicle models. They will help to control vehicle pollution by monitoring emission system performance and alerting drivers to a malfunction. Several car manufacturers around the world including Ford, Chrysler, General Motors and Toyota have all come to the conclusion after extensive scientific testing that MMT adversely affects onboard diagnostic systems. Many of these corporations have billions of dollars invested in Canada and directly employ tens of thousands of Canadians in manufacturing plants.

To continue using MMT in Canadian gasoline would compromise the ability of Canada's auto industry to design cars that achieve important pollution reductions. Surely it goes without saying that Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to the best emission control technology available. Presently Canada is one of the last countries in the world in which MMT is

used in unleaded gasoline. That is a distinction we should not be particularly proud of.

While MMT has been in use in Canada since 1977 as a replacement for lead in unleaded gasoline, it has been banned in the United States since 1977 because of concerns over health effects. I find it ironical that one country, ours, adopted a product at the precisely the same time its neighbour bans it.

Environment Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and virtually every single automobile company around the world all agree that MMT impairs the performance of pollution control equipment found in today's cars and trucks. Study after study shows that MMT adversely affects the onboard diagnostic systems where the pollution control equipment is found. These systems are extremely important for the environment because they ensure the cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed.

Understandably the vehicle industry has indicated it will not accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs associated with MMT in gasoline and would take preventive actions, including disconnecting the OBD systems in whole or in part and possibly reducing vehicle warranty coverage with 1996 vehicles if MMT continues to be used.

The passage of Bill C-94 into law will bring about a successful resolution of the MMT issue in Canada and will ensure that vehicle emission standards remain harmonized in the North American automotive market.

I will now speak on the health hazards associated with manganese based compounds like MMT. AT 1990 hearings of the U.S. environmental protection agency into a waiver application submitted by Ethyl Corporation to reallow MMT in unleaded gasoline, a number of experts testified on the toxic effects of manganese compounds.

Ms. Ellen Silbergeld of the environmental defense fund testified at the EPA hearings: "Manganese, like lead, is a toxin in that both its absorption and retention as well as its toxicity increase with time. At present there are insufficient data on the low level chronic effects of the manganese exposure similar to the case that was made for lead in 1925".

The environmental defense fund in its written submission to the EPA states: "We know that manganese at high dose is a demonstrated human neurotoxin with persistent and irreversible pathological effects on brain structure and resulting severe impairments in movement and mental state. We do not know what the long term chronic low dose consequences of human exposure to manganese are. We do not know a safe level of manganese exposure, particularly for those subgroups that may be at increased risk for neurotoxity, the young and the aged".

Dr. John Donaldson is one of Canada's top neurotoxologists. He has conducted ground breaking research in this area. Dr. Donaldson told the EPA in Washington: "One of the major theories in leading edge neuroscience which relate to the environment today is that there are agents, neurotoxins, insidious neurotoxins like manganese, which are age accelerating neurotoxins. I believe that manganese is such an age accelerating neurotoxin and I believe this is the answer to manganese's ability to produce biochemically, pathologically and clinically the picture which is very similar, very similar but not identical, to Parkinson's disease".

On May 1, 1994 Dr. Donaldson wrote to me with an overview of more recent scientific studies that should give us all pause. I put on the record the following examples of recent research provided to me by Dr. Donaldson:

An increasing body of evidence from Sweden, the centre of excellence and occupational health and safety, has demonstrated that chronic exposure to manganese at very low levels can produce impairment of mental function. The evidence suggesting that low levels over a prolonged period can impair memory has strong implications not only for occupational health but perhaps more especially to child mental health, and firmly places manganese in the category of behavioural psychotoxin as well as neurotoxin.

This newly emerging recognition of the low dose effects of manganese is a most effective club with which to stifle industrial critics which argue that manganese is only toxic at enormous levels rarely attained.

Recent evidence by Dr. Donald Calne of the University of British Columbia, a distinguished and internationally acclaimed researcher in Parkinson's disease, considers that manganese in humans is progressive and even a short exposure can lead ultimately to brain damage. Of especial importance was his observations that even a short exposure was as effective as a prolonged one in causing irreparable brain damage. This should dispel claims by critics that at moderate doses manganese has no health risk.

Dr. Calne has also noted that the initial toxicity of manganese can remain masked for several decades following exposure although causing brain cell death at an increased rate which is only detectable by brain imaging techniques. The disease may not appear for periods as long as four decades. A silent killer indeed.

There are a number of options to replace the octane provided by MMT. Available substances include MTBE, ETBE, methanol and ethanol. Ethanol, which is produced from Canadian grains, is an ideal octane enhancer for unleaded gasoline. Since it is manufactured from renewal feedstock it is especially valuable as a non-petroleum fuel component in times of restricted supply. Ethanol and its derivative, ETBE, are the only gasoline additives which are renewable and offer the further security of reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies.

The primary environmental benefit of ethanol is its high content of oxygen. Gasoline contains no oxygen. Adding oxygen has the effect of creating a more favourable air-fuel ratio, which results in a cleaner combustion of the fuel, thereby reducing such harmful emissions as carbon dioxide.

On December 21, 1994 the government announced a new program to encourage the development of biomass derived fuels. It is obvious that the banning of MMT as contained in Bill C-94 dovetails perfectly with this program. In addition to helping improve the environment, the government's support of ethanol investment will benefit agricultural producers and create industrial development. There is no doubt in my mind that the banning of MMT will boost demand for ethanol and help to create new long term markets for corn and grain as feedstock to the ethanol process.

I heartily support Bill C-94 and I strongly encourage all members to do likewise.

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my hon. colleague with whom I had the pleasure of working on the health committee. I know his question is most sincere.

With respect to that individual, I believe it was freedom of choice. It was his choice to seek medical help elsewhere. I can also relate a story. My husband had a heart attack five years ago. I did not have to go south; I was able to deliver my husband to an emergency room. He was having a heart attack and they did not ask me what my bank account was. I was able to go in there with my only concern being to make sure my husband had the best health care service. I knew he had it because that is Canada's health care system.

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be one of the members on the subcommittee for HIV-AIDS. It certainly has been a learning experience to say the least, to sit on that committee and hear witnesses.

The ministry has been allocating dollars proportionately to research regarding HIV-AIDS. Many issues have been addressed. This disease certainly is not under control by any means, judging from the stats that come by our desks daily. The dollars that have been funded through the minister have been allocated most effectively. I hope that in the not too distant future we will see positive ramifications from those dollars. There has been very good ongoing research.

Again, sitting on that committee has been a learning experience. I am sure its work will be most valuable to the House.

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. We have worked hard at health committee meetings and I understand her sincere question.

There has been sufficient research and involvement within Health Canada to make this diversity within the ministry as to who best can allocate for all Canadians. I believe the right choice has been made by looking at the ministry and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs working in conjunction with Health Canada. It is going to be more productive because of the avenues taken and it will be beneficial to all Canadians.

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. To reassure the member, I indeed was listening. I had my earphone in and I did understand his question.

I can certainly vouch for the efficiencies within Health Canada as a health care professional. Dollars are being cut and a lot of Canadians are going to suffer.

The member can rest assured that with efficiencies within Health Canada, new technologies and research and development, they enable us to work more efficiently with less dollars and to look at eliminating duplication and look at where services can be done differently. This is the direction we are headed. It does not mean that Canadians will be getting less health care, but that they will get health care that all Canadians can afford, rich or poor. I can attest to that avenue in the health care system or any other department.

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House in support of Bill C-95, an act respecting the Department of Health.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister who proposes this bill for the efforts she has made over the past year to defend and strengthen the principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act that underpin Canada's magnificent medicare system. I might add, it is a system of which I was proud to be a part in my previous position as a health care professional.

The department this bill deals with is an essential part of the fabric of this nation. The minister has said that it touches the life of every Canadian every day. Medicare in Canada transcends medicine. It is both a service for Canadians and a critical bond with Canadian federalism. Without it we would suffer as individuals and as a country.

It is essential that medicare be sustained and strengthened and that it remain as a bond within the country. This is the challenge and the responsibility of this department. This is the reason for Health Canada, and the reason I will support Bill C-95 without reservation.

It is true that the provinces have primary responsibility for the design and delivery of health care services. This is as it should be. Health care is a local responsibility. Doctors and hospitals work in communities. Provincial control of health care is not a weakness of the system, it is a considerable strength. The values, beliefs, wants and aspirations that define Canada and the Canadian identity are not unique to any sector of the Canadian population or to any region of this great country of ours. But the circumstances in which health care is delivered differ across regions, and the health care needs and priorities of these regions will differ. What we have is an opportunity system, where 12 variations on a common set of principles all going at medical problems in slightly different ways provide administrators and practitioners in different parts of the country with the opportunity to learn from each other.

The provinces plan, manage, and operate the health care system, but through the exercise of the federal role and through its transfers to the province, a national health system is the reality in Canada.

There are clearly many important health matters that require national leadership and co-ordination. There would be little to be gained, for example, if the work of the federal laboratory for disease control were duplicated in each province.

Many federal initiatives in the areas of health promotion and disease prevention have stimulated provinces, public health authorities, and non-governmental organizations to work to improve the health of all Canadians. Health Canada also has a special role to play with respect to the delivery of certain health services to First Nations, which will continue until the process of devolving responsibility for self-government has been completed.

After World War II ended, our forefathers and our predecessors, federal and provincial, looked down the road and asked what kind of nation we wanted to have. What kind of health care system do we want to have? What kinds of values do we have? As a country, as a people, and as the Liberal Party, we concluded that top-flight medical care was of paramount importance. We also recognized certain principles of fairness, equity, and efficiency that reflect the ideal of Canadians. Out of all this, our system of medicare was assembled just over a decade ago. It was anchored by the Canada Health Act.

If I may remind hon. members, the Canada Health Act came into being in order to defend the principles that were the foundation of medicare, principles of equal and universal access, principles that were even then under attack by various schemes that allowed extra billing and user fees.

In 1983, extra billing in various provinces amounted to $100 million, a total that had doubled over the previous five years. An erosion of medicare was taking place. The erosion was stopped by the minister in 1984. When there were signs of it restarting in 1994 under the guise of private clinics, it was stopped again by this minister, who has insisted that the federal government will ensure that the fundamental principles of the health care act are maintained.

The minister has said that it is not her intention to preclude the use of private clinics, which are often a cost-effective way to deliver services. She has said though that they have the potential to create a two-tiered system of health care: one level of service for the wealthy and another for the rest of Canadians. This is unacceptable today, just as it has been unacceptable through all the years we have been building and defending Canada's medicare system.

There is no mistaking where Canadians stand on this issue. Canadians want effective federal leadership in the health field. This is evident from the favourable reaction to the minister's announcement regarding user fees at private clinics.

Hon. members who have concerned themselves with the evolution of the health care system will be familiar with the work ofDr. Michael Rachlis. He was co-author of Second Opinion , an influential book that examined the Canadian system. Dr. Rachlis recently criticized the combining of public and private medicare, saying ``it entails a wrong prescription for what is wrong with our health care system and then issues a wrong diagnosis''.

Frank Maynard, former Deputy Minister of Health for Manitoba, warned:

We already have the beginnings of a two-tier system; we should not enlarge it. Health care is not a commodity, so it is not a valid choice to offer the rich faster access to required medical service.

Wendy Armstrong, president of the Alberta chapter of the Consumers' Association of Canada, wrote:

What happens is private clinics choose to treat things with the least risk of complication, least overhead cost and with potentially high volume. It's skimming the cream.

I could multiply these quotations by the hundreds, but I will conclude with only one. This segment is from a letter to the editor published by the Calgary Herald on October 16, 1995:

It is time for Albertans to stand behind the federal government and demand universality of health care. This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation. It has everything to do with preserving a cornerstone of what makes Canada the best country in the world.

That just about sums it up. We are all in it together. For the most part we are all delighted to be in it, because there is no better system to be in, anywhere in the world.

The role of the Department of Health is to sustain and improve Canada's health system, to keep it intact. That is why I support the department, and that is why I support this bill.

[Wilkesport Community Centre, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate a success story in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex, based not on government handouts but on true community spirit.

I am referring to the recent facelift of Wilkesport Community Centre in Sombra township. The hall was built 17 years ago by holding various fundraising events in the community. The community centre consists of of a 500-seat hall and three ball diamonds, which incidentally have brought Sombra township two Ontario championship teams and seven runners up.

Volunteers have given their time and effort to keep this hall successful by providing the township with a focal point for a wide variety of community events. Seventeen years later, this community is still strong and vibrant. The hall needed a facelift, and the community provided it.

My congratulations to all the residents of Wilkesport and area, whose hard work and dedication exemplify a united community spirit.

[Intervenor Funding Act, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on private member's Bill C-339, the intervenor funding act, sponsored by my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford.

The purpose of the bill is to require any person proposing a project that would affect the public interest or the environment, and that is required by law to be reviewed by a public process before being approved by government or an agency of the government, to provide funding to assist organizations that represent a relevant public interest and that wish to intervene in the review process to represent that interest.

Intervenor funding is certainly not a new concept in our country. The province of Ontario currently has the intervenor funding project act and serves as a model for Bill C-339. The Ontario act was in turn modelled upon the funding provided for intervenors before the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry known as the Berger commission in the mid-1970s.

The commission charged with the duty of investigating the appropriateness of a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories determined that the many diverse interests in the region should be represented in the hearings. In order to level the playing field to compete with the finances available to the proponents of the pipeline, it was deemed necessary to provide money for citizens' groups so that they could properly research their intervention.

While funding for the Berger commission was provided by the federal government, Bill C-339 does not call upon the Canadian

taxpayer to provide funding for intervenors. Instead the proponent of the project would have to provide the funding.

This is an interesting and unique proposal. It is based upon the contention that if the proponent is required to bear the cost of intervention, it would motivate the sponsor of the project to work with the potential intervenors in finding solutions before submitting the proposal before the relevant board or agency. The Ontario experience has already shown the effectiveness of the funding.

After witnessing the recent proceedings of the National Energy Board hearing that involved a bid to convert an unused oil pipeline running from Sarnia through my riding of Lambton-Middlesex to Milton, Ontario, I am more convinced than ever that a system of intervenor funding should also be available when federal boards or agencies are involved.

Since this converted pipeline would have run through prime agricultural land in southwestern Ontario the landowners of the region were understandably concerned with the proposal. After several months of hearings the National Energy Board sided with the landowners, clearly taking the interest of the public safety to heart. While happy with the decision, the landowners also spent over $300,000 of their own money participating in the hearings process which had come under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board.

Had the companies involved in the proposal been registered as Ontario businesses, the hearings would have fallen under the provincial jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board and the legal costs associated with participating in the hearings would have been covered by the applicant company. Unfortunately for the intervening land owners the applicant company was from Alberta. Therefore the intervenors did not qualify under the Ontario act.

I certainly agree with the landowners' spokesman who correctly stated that the state of affairs was prohibitive for landowners or anyone else to defend their rights and interests in an application that falls under federal jurisdiction.

On a number of occasions over the past year my southwestern Ontario colleagues and I have been in touch with the particular landowners association. Collectively we have searched for solutions and we have all come to the same conclusion, that there must be changes to the National Energy Board Act whereby landowners or other parties intervening in NEB hearings and acting in the public interest should be granted intervenor funding prior to NEB hearings.

We have also concluded that the granting by the proponents of intervenor funding at the federal level would yield at least three favourable results. Intervenor funding would, first, allow for equal treatment of all interested parties; second, ensure greater public safety by opening up the process to the public; and, third, save public money in the long run.

The more than $300,000 spent by the landowners' association would be minimal compared to the current practice of maintaining a much larger government agency to scrutinize pipeline proposals.

While the National Energy Board Act presently allows for limited intervenor funding for detailed route hearings, certain technicalities in the act preclude intervenors from receiving funding for natural gas pipeline matters. Unfortunately for the landowners in southwestern Ontario, the Alberta company had proposed a conversion of the unused oil pipeline to natural gas. Therefore the landowners were out of luck under the terms of the NEB act.

In communications with the Minister of Natural Resources I have been informed that the department is currently engaged in an exercise with the NEB to review a variety of NEB functions and to address a number of deficiencies in the NEB act. I have been assured by the minister that the issue of intervenor funding has been included in the exercise. At the same time I have been informed by the Minister of Natural Resources that the government's fiscal situation strongly suggests that any intervenor funding would likely be on a proponent pay system.

This is precisely where Bill C-330 could fill a void in federal policy. It would dovetail nicely with the current review of the National Energy Board.

The bill is designed to assist those with bona fide concerns. It is certainly not meant to provide funding for special interest groups. The bottom line is that it would improve the way in which the federal government and its agencies and boards make decisions that affect all of us. Perhaps best of all, by calling for the proponent of a particular project to provide funding for the intervenor it would take the onus off the government to empty its pockets every time there is a hearing. Instead the government board or agency would devote 100 per cent of its efforts into judging the soundness of the proposal at hand.

Bill C-339 calls for the relevant authority to appoint a funding panel to determine who will benefit from the project. It would hear applications for funding from intervenors and the panel would determine who should be funded. Before receiving funding the intervenor would have to satisfy a number of important criteria.

The intervenor would have to represent a clearly ascertainable interest that is relevant to the issue before the review authority and that should be represented at the hearing. It would have to be established that the intervenor does not have sufficient financial resources to make the representation without funding. There would have to be reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other sources. The intervenor would have an established record of concern for and commitment to the interest in question. Reasonable efforts would have to be made to co-operate with other intervenors that represent similar interests. It would be incumbent upon the intervenor to demonstrate the existence of a proposal that specifies the use to which funding would be put and to submit to an examination of all records by the panel to verify the intervenor's accounting.

These are more than ample safeguards to ensure that no application for intervenor status would be made on frivolous grounds.

I am deeply impressed with the bill. Not only would it allow for a responsible means by which intervenors could put forward their perspective in a way that would allow the board or agency to make a decision with the best information available, but it would do so without making onerous financial claims on the government.

I can certainly understand why the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs decided to make this private member's bill a votable item. It is because it fills a void in federal government policy and offers a unique means to address a pressing public interest issue without extending a hand for more government dollars.

I urge all members of this House to give this bill the support it deserves.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, October 30th, 1995]

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.

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.

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.

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.