House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gpt.
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the attitude the hon. member referred to is certainly troubling. This is why I have already said that I want to make sure the Minister of Justice is aware of this case so we can give it full attention in the review of the Young Offenders Act which I know is under way at this time.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The government has announced an indefinite moratorium to the effect that no new post office will be closed in the rural areas of Canada.
In view of this moratorium, does the government intend to rectify the past errors and re-open some post offices, such as the one in Saint-Clément, which was criticized by the Liberal Party when it was sitting in the Opposition?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Public Works had been able to make his comments yesterday, he would have told you that the decision only applies to post offices that are not now closed.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
I made available two letters to the minister yesterday, one from the former leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister, and the other from the former environment critic, the present Minister of Finance. These letters relate to the environmental assessment review panel's report on the Oldman dam project.
Would the minister please clarify the government's current position on these letters?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for advance notice of his question. I have already been in touch with my colleague, the minister of fisheries, to ensure that the requirements of the environmental assessment review panel are respected.
I am very happy to hear environmental concerns about the Oldman dam expressed by the members of the Reform Party also.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
My colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Niels Helveg Petersen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to you, to the hon. member for Mackenzie and to all hon. members that my refusal yesterday to permit the minister's statement was based solely on an ongoing matter of giving prior and proper notice of statements as agreed on by House leaders.
To suggest that either I or my party is not in support of ministers-
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. The hon. member probably has a very good point of debate, but it would not be a point of order at this time.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the House prayer.
I would like to advise Your Honour and members of the House that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has come to a unanimous recommendation in respect of the prayers of the House. It recommends that the following form of prayer be adopted for usage by the House of Commons to supersede previous ones and with the leave of the Chair and the House I would propose reading the brief prayer we have recommended so members may hear it.
The prayer reads: "Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as members
of Parliament and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. Amen".
There will follow a moment of silence for private reflection and meditation with another "Amen" at the end.
Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to move concurrence in this report later on this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which is a list of changes in the membership of committees of the House. I would ask that the House dispense with the reading of the report.
I wish to advise the House that if there is unanimous consent I will move adoption of this seventh report on motions in a few minutes.
Private Members' BillsRoutine Proceedings
February 18th, 1994 / 12:05 p.m.
Ottawa Centre Ontario
Liberal
Mac Harb LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, some time last week I gave notice to the House that I would be introducing three private member's bills Nos. 7, 8, and 9.
I would like the consent of the House to withdraw those notices for the time being.
Private Members' BillsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Notices Nos. 7, 8, and 9 withdrawn.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the member for Elgin-Norfolk, that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled in the House today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents asking the government to bring in changes to the Young Offenders Act to make it tougher in how it deals with dangerous young offenders.
This petition is presented in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis. I support it and hope that the government will respond to it favourably.
Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of Petitions on behalf of many concerned constituents of Nanaimo-Cowichan and surrounding areas.
The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum binding on Parliament to accept or reject two official languages. Given Canada's current fiscal restraints, the petitioners feel the existing official languages law is very expensive and is actually more divisive than cohesive.
I suggest our colleagues listen carefully to the speeches we will be making next week on that issue.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Shall the questions stand?
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent I would also propose that the items standing as Motions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 under government business on today's Order Paper be withdrawn. The three motions are those that are take note motions that have already been debated in the House and it is not intended to extend those debates. To save printing costs we propose removing them from the Order Paper at this time.
Government BusinessRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 withdrawn.)
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Health
moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-7 today. This bill, the controlled drugs and substances bill, addresses one of the most compelling issues with which society is faced today, the issue of drug abuse.
Members will no doubt recall that Canada's drug strategy launched in 1987 created a comprehensive co-ordinated effort to reduce the harm caused by alcohol and other drugs to individuals, families and communities.
The harm caused by substance abuse includes, among other things, sickness, death, social misery, crime, violence and economic cost to all levels of government.
My department plays a leading role in Canada's drug strategy but we have many partners who co-operate in its implementation. These partners include other federal departments, the provinces, businesses, law enforcement agencies, labour and professional and volunteer organizations.
The strategy responds to four areas of need: prevention; treatment and rehabilitation; information and research; and enforcement and control.
As each member of this House is only too aware, drug abuse and the untold suffering it causes knows no geography, no socio-economic class, no social graces. I would think that every one of us has met constituents who have experienced the anguish of a son or a daughter, a sister or a brother, a friend or a neighbour consumed by the ravages of drug addiction.
The problem is widespread. According to a United Nations survey, trade in illegal drugs is second only to world trade in arms. Such is the clout of the global industry that we are up against in our efforts to control drug abuse in Canada.
Recent statistics reveal that within a single year almost 15 per cent of young Canadians ages 15 to 19 have admitted to using cannabis.
Moreover, the incidence of drug abuse rises considerably among teenagers and young adults who are school drop-outs, unemployed or homeless. Further evidence shows that over a one year period 2 per cent of Canadians claim to have used cocaine.
These are formidable figures. What do they mean? Just what is their significance? They mean heartache; they mean suffering. They mean a toll of crippling misery being exacted on those caught in that seamless web called addiction. The real importance of these figures goes well beyond their statistical relevance. They translate into many millions of dollars spent on health care, family welfare, unemployment benefits and disability pensions.
As a further response to this ongoing challenge, the government announced two years ago its renewed commitment to Canada's drug strategy.
On March 31, 1992, Canada's drug strategy was allocated $270 million over a five year period. Seventy per cent of these funds are directed to reducing demand for drugs through prevention, education and treatment programs. This new bill is one element of the other 30 per cent that is dedicated to law enforcement.
The bill now before us, along with the Proceeds of Crime legislation passed by this House in 1989, are fully consistent with the strategy's objectives relating to enforcement and control.
It takes direct aim at those who seek to profit from exploiting the young and the vulnerable. The 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. In 1961 and 1969, Parliament passed Parts III and IV in essence, much of our existing legislative framework is now more than 30 years old.
Furthermore, as 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 Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances of 1988.
Consequently, the controlled drugs and substances bill is designed to achieve three prime objectives: to provide the government with the flexibility required to better control the import, production, export, distribution and use of controlled
substances; 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-and to enhance the ability of the police and the courts to enforce our laws. The bill actually provides for the seizure and forfeiture of property used in offences involving controlled substances.
The existing Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act do not deal effectively with emerging trends in drug abuse. These trends point to the increasing availability of new illicit or new designer drugs which, under current law, can escape effective control.
Under the aegis of the drug strategy, the government remains committed to a working partnership whose "raison d'être" is the reduction of drug abuse in Canada.
The controlled drugs and substances bill is an integral part of the strategy. It consolidates, modernizes, enhances and streamlines drug abuse provisions contained in the two current laws. Simply put, it builds on the government's current policy on drug abuse.
Those who profit from this are undeniably resourceful, determined and cunning. Their methods, their tactics and their products are forever undergoing change. We need flexible legislation which allows those on the front lines of enforcement to adapt quickly to these new developments as they occur.
For example, one of the more recent developments in the drug underworld is the production and illicit sale of so-called designer drugs and look alike drugs. Designer drugs are potent substances with slightly different chemical structures than substances presently controlled by the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, substances like stimulants, tranquillizers and pain killers. These drugs affect abusers in similar ways and can lead to the same health and social problems produced by more conventional drugs.
Look alike drugs, on the other hand, are substances made to resemble illegal drugs. The manufacturers of these malicious offerings can mimic the more powerful drugs. Much harm can result from the abuse of these drugs and primary targets of these merchants of misery are often school-age children.
The manufacture and sale of designer drugs and look alike drugs can be a very profitable business. Sadly, it is a business with terrible consequences for hundreds of thousands of customers, many of them young people.
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 interpretive clauses to include these substances.
Under this 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 this 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.
The bill enhances present controls that deal with this issue. Under this bill the monitoring of the distribution of drugs will continue.
To ensure compliance with the law and prevent diversion, inspectors, in close co-operation with law enforcement authorities would continue to visit pharmacies, hospitals, licensed dealers, dispensing practitioners, researchers and laboratory analysts.
We know there exists a criminal element which is using more and more sophisticated networks to illegally produce, sell, export or 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, together with the proceeds of crime legislation, strikes at the heart of criminal enterprise.
Together, these enactments will enable the courts to strip criminals of profits and property illegally amassed through drug dealing.
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. There is no doubt that there is a very real problem of drug abuse in Canada.
It causes death, injury and illness; leads to lost productivity in the workplace; is a burden on our health care system; and, increasingly, puts a strain on our courts and police forces.
In spite of these glaring facts, some people still doubt that drug abuse is a real concern for the majority of Canadians. They imagine that it is a local problem, affecting relatively few teenagers, primarily among low-income groups in large cities. It is true that it is not possible to measure accurately the full scope of drug abuse in Canada.
What the statistics fail to show are the personal and social costs-in a word the real costs. We can only guess what the real costs of abuse are: the loss of the potentiel achievements of our youth; the crippling of promising professional careers; the painful destruction of homes and families; the costly disruption of productive communities. These are the disturbing facts of life in virtually every corner of the nation.
Fifteen per cent of teenagers using cannabis. The total number of Canadians using cocaine-500,000 persons. These facts, as unsettling as they are, deserve our attention. They deserve our attention as legislators.
More important, they deserve our attention as parents, family, friends, colleagues and neighbours to those in need, for nobody is immune. I believe the bill proposes a significant strengthening of our current legislative framework.
At the present time three levels of government spend millions of dollars each year on drug law enforcement. In spite of these enormous expenditures, the fact is that police forces and the courts are hampered by outdated provisions in the laws they seek to uphold.
I welcome debate on the bill. While there are bound to be differences of opinion, I believe this bill merits, nonetheless, the support of members on all sides of the House. In bringing the bill forward I am asking on behalf of the crown that we as members of this place do our part to help equip the government with a new set of tools that will allow us to get on with the job at hand.
It may well be that striving for a drug free society is an unrealistic if laudable goal. Given what is at stake I submit that Canadians expect us to act.