House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was drugs.

Topics

Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made before Question Period. In her remarks, she repeatedly provided assurances to the effect that provisions not included in the legislation, which were to be covered by the regulation, would be appropriately covered. I am not quite sure that I am satisfied with that, but at least I had the pleasure of hearing her say that, in her mind, a solution may be found in precedents created in previous pieces of legislation.

More specifically, I would like the hon. member to assure me that one way or another, the courts can, while not being legally bound to do so, induce people charged with possession or use of narcotics to seek rehabilitation and detoxification therapy.

At present, as we know, the law does not require a judge to deal with a youth, for example, in such a way as to get him or her rehabilitated or detoxified. It is left entirely to the discretion of the judge. Unfortunately, judges all too often put behind bars young offenders who really need treatment instead.

Finally, is it not unfortunate that mistakes of youth cause young offenders, children, and teenagers to have criminal records following them for the rest of their lives, when it would be so much simpler to set them back on the straight and narrow by decriminalizing offenses which are, by and large, minor and fight the big-time drug lords instead.

I will conclude on this note. In the hearings on Bill C-85, the ancestor of Bill C-7, members of the police forces themselves expressed concern about the fact that the bill did not deal with drug lords, but only small-time dealers.

I would appreciate it if the hon. member could comment on this.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

I listened when he spoke to the bill in the House. He made some very clear points which I tried to address in my speech today.

For over a decade it has been almost a precedent within jurisprudence that it has been a notion of the law that people would be sent for rehabilitation.

However, one of the key things about rehabilitation that we must remember is that you cannot force people to have treatment. They must be assessed first and that does not require a judge. All the judge needs to do is have the person assessed by a health professional who then decides whether the person is ready for rehabilitation or not.

That has always been done in jurisprudence over the last 10 years with regard to issues like this. I hope we will continue to do it because then the person would be assessed properly and treated if they so desire. As members well know, motivation and acceptance of addiction is an essential part of treatment.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could make a comparison between Bill C-85 and Bill C-7. Could she comment on how similar these two bills are?

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, the two bills are similar in that they have the same principle. However since that last bill we have talked with people like the Canadian Medical Association and some of the groups who found some problems with some of the clauses in this bill. As a result, we have dealt with some of the issues, as I said in my speech, that the CMA had found difficulty with, especially with regard to things like what you use as drug paraphernalia and the difference between drug paraphernalia and what is an essential part of some of our preventive programs for HIV. For instance a needle is now considered to be accepted and will therefore not be included in drug paraphernalia but would be accepted as a prevention. Those kinds of things are now eliminated from the old bill.

Another thing that has been eliminated is the fact that physicians are not going to be considered to be traffickers if they are using a drug which they have been designated as being allowed to use if they are using it appropriately. Some of these things have been clarified in the bill. Therefore, some changes have been made in the bill to satisfy old questions that have been asked in the past.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest before question period to the member for Dartmouth. I must compliment him. I believe the member is an accomplished orator and some of the words and phrases he used I found a little stinging. My ears are still stinging with the rebuke of the hon. member.

I was particularly interested when he spoke of the partisan nature of the House, partisan in the sense that we should look at the intent and purpose of legislation and be able to look well beyond narrow party bounds.

I found this fascinating in regard to this bill. I would like to state categorically that where Bill C-7 speaks of controlling drugs and substances it gets the wholehearted support of the Reform Party. For the member for Dartmouth, I cannot say that strongly enough.

I want to go on from that statement but have it remembered through this discourse. Not so long ago Bill C-85 was in the House and the member and his colleagues were sitting on the other side. I would like hon. members to judge the partisanship that was registered about Bill C-85 at that time.

The member said that the present bill is simply codifying regulations. What did the member and his colleagues say about it not yet a year ago? I have gone back to the committee minutes and have a few of them here.

The member from Winnipeg, a colleague that I value, said the following: "The subject has not been given any media attention yet. I understand it was given first reading almost a year ago in June 1992. To rush through it within a couple of months will not speak well of Parliament at the least".

The same member said: "I do not want us to give any wrong impressions to the Canadian public about this very serious bill. It needs serious study". That is not partisan apparently when spoken by member of the opposition who was a Liberal.

I go on. This comment was not made by a Liberal but another member of the committee and in response to a specific question. "My understanding was that the bill would be passed to second reading on the understanding that we give it a thorough examination in committee. I agreed to that with one speaker and we agreed to that within our party. Then it gets into the committee and we are rushing through it to beat-" and there the member used an unparliamentary word, "-and for what, so Madam Sparrow can take on the Reform Party, is that it? I don't understand. We'd be nowhere?".

These comments go on, comments made by my colleagues on the other side of the House now. I cannot say this strongly enough. If the bill is flawed enough to cause them to create a great stir in committee, surely the bill is flawed enough today to listen to constructive-I say this loudly to the member-criticism of this bill.

Maybe the member will look down at his feet and say constructive criticism cannot come from a member on this side. Surely it can come from a member on this side. It went on. Members spoke about really getting worried. Here is a commit-

tee with the government side trying to ram through the legislation. It even talked about putting closure on.

This bill took months and months in the previous Parliament. Surely it should not hurt to take a few hours of debate in this House that would be listened to. I am almost at a loss of words to listen to how partisanship could only happen on this side of the House.

I wanted to go over other comments made by people who appeared in front of the House. They were by S.J. Usprich and J.R.M. Solomon when reviewing this bill. These are not parliamentarians. They are individuals commenting on this bill. They said that this was a poorly drafted, intentionally over broad and vaguely worded piece of legislation. I agree.

I wanted to talk about some things in this bill that are good. It is traditionally suitable to only complain. I wanted to say what things I agreed with from the specific aspects that I am going to talk about. These are the medical aspects.

With the attempts to curb abuse of designer drugs and look alike drugs I agree. Stimulants, depressants, hallucinogenics, these drugs have proliferated in the laboratories of our country and our laws do not and have not kept up with those problems.

There is legislation in this act to prevent double doctoring. There is a huge black market in prescription medications. One of the easiest things for people to do is shop from doctor to doctor, getting the same prescription filled over and over again. The only way we have of preventing that is for our pharmacists to have access to the computers and to be able to catch that.

Double doctoring is a significant problem, an issue that I agree with fully. There are other things that would help this. Triplicate prescriptions will help. The use of computers at all pharmacies will also help but there are very specific provisions in this bill that are very vague and broad.

I heard a member from the Bloc speak about the things that an individual could inspect as they came into the practitioner's office; for example, open and examine any receptacle or package, examine anything found in that place, examine any label, take records, books or other documents, seize and detain, reproduce any document.

It was not so long ago that I had one of my colleagues say to me that patient confidentiality was being eroded in our country. Patient confidentiality is very important. Concerning the woman coming in to speak with her physician about sexual abuse when she was young, asking if these records are confidential, will anybody be able to look at them, the answer if this act is brought in will be no, your records are not confidential. That is a problem.

I thought I would take a light hearted look at a bit of the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo in this bill. We talk about bureaucratise. The governor in council may, by regulation, designate any regulation made under this act as a regulation. In other words, we can make regulations about regulations to regulate whatever we want, including regulations. That is nonsense.

The act is also full of very specific definitions of the subjects and the substances covered in this bill and then goes on to say the governor in council may amend any of the schedules by adding to them or deleting from them any item or portion of an item. That does not fit with the exactitude that an act like this requires.

In our country I believe criminal justice needs a thorough review. This bill should be part of that review. Gun control issues need a thorough review. The Young Offenders Act needs a thorough review. Victims' impact statements need a thorough review. Let us listen to the Liberal members who sat on committee a year ago and said that this act needs a very thorough review before it goes to second reading.

Whether or not the government is willing to take this to the justice committee or the health committee, I personally feel that it should be in the justice committee. I listened to the Solicitor General in this House agree to that. I also heard one of the justice committee members saying he felt that this should go to justice.

I would ask the members to recollect again my comment that in terms of the criminal justice issue with this act we are in total agreement. The bill is poorly crafted, poorly worded and has flaws in it that are almost too great to address in committee. I would ask the government to review very carefully this aspect of this act and to put it to the justice committee as we suggested.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron MacDonald Liberal Dartmouth, NS

Madam Speaker, I am glad I am still here because the hon. member raised a number of issues and I am pleased that he clarified his own position and I suspect of his party. I am not sure if he speaks for himself or his party on this issue.

This bill was before the previous Parliament and Liberals had some difficulty with it. We believe there were some things that were flawed. The context in which the previous government pursued legislation was a closed shop. Conservative government members went in to the committee like lambs with rings in their noses and were led by the parliamentary secretaries at the time. Even the worst bill, even the most obviously flawed bill would not be changed once the minister rose in his or her place and tabled it in the House.

We have given a commitment that we will not do that. We have seen this on a number of issues that committees have already started to examine. It was a different place and a different time and the government was committed when Bill C-85 was put in the last Parliament not to listen to any substantive suggestions for change in the bill. That was clear from the outset.

I believe the member is sincere in what he said here today. This is second reading debate. This is where parties and individuals agree or disagree to approve the bill in its principle, in its direction. Then it goes on to committee where we then have report stage. I would urge the member opposite if he is trying to make this place work better that if he agrees in principle with the bill to vote in favour of the bill, refer it to the committee with the concerns he has, which are legitimate, about whether there are flaws that can be fixed, and work at the committee level.

I can give a commitment from this side that our government is quite prepared to listen to any reasonable suggestions as to how legislation such as this can be made better. We are committed to making this Parliament and its committee system work.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Madam Speaker, the rhetoric is great and I do hope the member is telling it exactly as it is. However, I feel and I sense that there is an ownership taken of a bill as soon as the member switched to the other side. I wish that were not the case. It does not seem fair to me that the bill can have changed so much in this short period of time.

I read both of them, they are not significantly changed. My sincere hope would be that this is in fact the way this Parliament would work. I cannot say this any stronger than I have already. When it went to the committee stage when those members were in opposition there was a howl and a scream of it being rammed through. I am not at all comfortable as I sit over here to see that same process take place. I am speaking of this loudly and I will watch with great interest.

I would also refer back to the member. If this is to be a co-operative Parliament would the member not look very carefully at the proposal to take this to justice? This is not, and I cannot say this strongly enough, a health bill. This is a justice bill.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Vancouver Centre B.C.

Liberal

Hedy Fry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the things that the hon. member said.

There are some differences in this bill. It is not the exact bill that was brought to the House last time around.

The word "provide" now in definition is changed so that it specifically says traffic. That means that a physician or a pharmacist's providing a drug to a patient is no longer in danger of being considered trafficking. That was one of the very poor things in the last bill that had to be changed.

There are a couple of other things. The fact that a patient goes to a physician or a pharmacist and takes away and possesses drugs also has been specifically defined in the bill so that we now know that is allowable and that is not considered to be a criminal offence.

There is one other thing I want to say to the member. It has to do with the fact that he was talking about physician-patient confidentiality. There is a great misunderstanding out there in the real world about physician-patient confidentiality.

What the member should know is that there is no such thing in reality; in no court or group or insurance company. In British Columbia, for instance, the insurance company of British Columbia that deals with traffic accidents can subpoena all of the clinical records of the patient regardless of whether they have to do with the accident. This is allowable and the physician and the patient have no recourse.

There is a precedent already here that the information between a physician and a patient is not that privileged as one would expect. It is not like the information between a lawyer and a client. Lots of laws so far have allowed for ministers of health to look at records if they believe, and this is what this bill says, that the physician and the patient were in agreement to use drugs for purposes other than therapy and other than appropriate physician-patient use.

This is going to be done by health professionals who are governed by the Privacy Act and by confidentiality so that no one should be able to see this but the particular minister and the particular inspector.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to rise today and speak on Bill C-11. At the outset I would like to point out that I am certainly not opposed entirely to Bill C-ll. There are some very good things in it.

I agree that we must educate the public as far as smoking hazards are concerned. I further agree that we should be placing an export tobacco tax on-

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I am sorry, is the hon. member aware that we are speaking on Bill C-7 right now? You are debating on Bill C-11.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

I am on Bill C-11, Madam Speaker.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

We are not yet at Bill C-11. We are still debating on Bill C-7. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear all the different members in the House speaking on this legislation. It is interesting to hear that there is consensus on many points and disagreement on some.

Everyone, it appears, agrees that there is need for legislation for the control of drugs and that this be put into one statute. To date we have two statutes that govern this. It is important to have this in one statute; important for the public so that the public can from this point on refer to one statute and know what is allowed and what is not allowed and how the controls take effect.

It is also important that our children be protected from the parasites of society. The legislation in question takes that into effect. We all have the goal of having legislation that will control what many people consider to be a profession, a profession at the price and at the cost of our young people in society. We cannot have young people destroyed. We must not allow it. Apart from educating the public we still need legislation controlling, as I have indicated, these parasites in society.

We cannot take legislation such as the legislation that has been proposed and rubber stamp it. Perhaps we have consensus on that as well. The legislation is so different. It is not just amending legislation but is new legislation which has been drafted, trying to foresee all the problems that may arise. By trying to foresee problems one tends either to overlook certain matters or give it too great a scope.

We must be vigilant that we do not throw out human rights. When we are dealing with legislation such as this innocent people will also be involved. We must not trample on their rights. In enforcing rights against individuals who breach the law we sometimes come into contact with people who are innocent and their rights are trampled upon. We must look at the legislation in this light.

In other words we generally have to balance the rights of the innocent people with the objectives of the statute itself. What better way to do this but in committee. It appears all people in the Chamber favour the legislation and its goals. We must be careful as we look at the legislation not to get to the stage where we in fact trample on the rights of individual people, innocent people.

Let me just give an example in this respect. We must be careful with the definition of trafficking. I am not saying the definition in the statute is adequate or inadequate, but let us just take a look at it. The definition of trafficking deals with selling. Traffic means to sell, administer, provide, transport, send or deliver.

Is that a definition we wish to have? Do we want people who simply send or deliver an item or provide an item to be trafficking? Then we have the definition of provide which means to give, transfer or otherwise provide in any manner. Do we want such a definition?

The problems we run into with such a definition of provide is that we could have too many people covered. We could have innocent people covered. We could have people who simply give medication to others within a home, people who have a proper prescription to a controlled substance, being guilty of trafficking.

Let me give an example. An individual, a spouse, may have a prescription for a controlled substance. The other spouse may be requested to fetch that particular item. By giving that substance to a child to bring to the other spouse the initial spouse is guilty of trafficking. We do not want that. We cannot have that. We must be vigilant that innocent people are not covered by the legislation in this manner. In other words we have to balance here again. The balance requires that the innocent people be protected against the objectives of the statute.

We must also look at the provisions of the statute in certain procedural matters where preliminary inquiries are taken away from certain individuals.

The summary convictions portion of the statute is expanded thus eliminating preliminary inquiries. This may not be something suitable for the public. This may not be something we require or desire in the administration of justice. Depending on discussions in this area, discussions as to disclosure by the crown to the defence, this may be reasonable but it may not be reasonable. What better place to deal with it but in a committee.

We have to look at what the controlled substances are. What are we looking at? Part of the definitions in the schedules refer to derivatives and similar synthetic preparations.

One has to look at the objectives of the legislation again which are to prevent the designer drugs, slight alteration to drugs and in that way getting around the legislation. We also have to look at the innocent people who can possess these particular items and not know that it is an offence.

Unless we have specific items indicated in the statute that we know are offences or not offences, it is difficult to function in society. We have to balance again. What better way to balance but to discuss it in committee. Let the committee take a look at it and thus be able to protect the innocent who may come into contact with the statute and also see to it that those who are trying to circumvent the legislation are duly dealt with.

One area that may create some problems is the area of possessing property or proceeds of any property knowing that all or part was obtained or derived directly or indirectly. I look at this matter and I have problems. The problems that arise are that individuals may have property they received. Store owners may receive money from people who they believe may be selling drugs but also have legitimate jobs. Those store owners are not protected if they sell products to that individual. This particular legislation might be too broad.

As well we have a problem with respect to legislation that deals with the Governor General being able to exempt police from the statute. Exempting police from the statute allows police in the investigation of offences under the statute to traffic. If police can traffic they can instigate offences. If they can instigate offences and if it is allowed we may have a problem in our criminal justice system with individuals who are too vigilant or too aggressive in attempting to protect society, and

by trying to protect society may in fact be pulling innocent people into the web. I see that my time has run out.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Bethel Liberal Edmonton East, AB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion of Bill C-7 today, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In the long term it will be one of the most important pieces of legislation considered by this assembly. Canada needs a comprehensive drug strategy and Bill C-7 provides it.

If we talk with community leaders in any of our cities we will soon hear that our current laws are not effective in dealing with the drug problems they face. Police forces across the country have pointed out that new laws are needed to deal with the techniques now used by drug offenders.

Neighbourhood groups are really frustrated because the law seems powerless to do anything even when they and the police know about drug dealings on their streets. Community workers who are trying to help young people choose a healthy lifestyle are discouraged because the law is not a partner in their cause. Often it is a detriment. Ineffective laws also bring disrespect for the law in general, and this is certainly true of current drug laws.

For all these reasons I welcome and support Bill C-7. It provides important new tools for the police and communities to use in fighting the drug problem in the country. This law will make it easier for police to prosecute drug dealers and it provides stronger penalties. It will allow the courts to consider aggravating factors in sentencing such as the involvement of children and the sale of drugs in school yards.

Bill C-7 is a comprehensive drug strategy and a major improvement from existing laws. There is, however, one aspect of the modern drug trade that is not covered. I would like to see the bill amended to close this loophole. I am talking about the use of fortified drug houses to avoid police prosecution. This is already a significant problem in Edmonton and many other cities. It will become an even greater problem as police forces begin to use other features of the new law.

I will briefly describe the problems and propose possible amendments for consideration by the committee in its review of the legislation.

The first fortified drug house in Edmonton was appropriately called the Fortress, and that is exactly what it was. The plan is simple. Drug dealers rent an old house and fortify it through the addition of cement walls, steel doors, false entrances, trap doors and other obstacles. This delays police entry long enough to destroy any evidence of drug trade. The element of surprise, an important element in effective enforcement, is gone. These houses also allow for the exchange of money and drugs through trap doors. There is no human contact between the dealer and the purchaser, eliminating other ways of catching dealers.

Over the years the Edmonton police service employed a number of tactics against the Fortress with little success. An appeal was made to the absentee landlord but he did not care as long he got his rent. In fact he legally challenged any moves by the city to close the place down.

The neighbourhood became very upset because the Fortress became a centre of undesirable activity. It ruined all their hard work to clean up their neighbourhood. Used syringes were discarded in nearby playgrounds where children could pick them up. Traffic noise and frequent street fights made the area unsafe. Older residents and families were forced to move away, adding to the cycle and the significant costs of inner city decay.

In response to the community the Edmonton city council tried applying every possible law relating to property and land use but ran into legal barriers at every turn. The fact is that there is no legislation to deal with this situation effectively. Drug dealers know it and openly flaunt the law.

I am told by the Edmonton police service there are now 12 fortified drug houses in operation in our city; some are sporadic operations and some are permanent. All of them present a major cost to communities and lead to more disrespect for the law.

In the United States the problem with fortified drug houses had to be dealt with through specific legislation. Some states like California have been successful. However we need to address this problem in Canada.

In order to make Bill C-7 a truly comprehensive drug strategy, I am proposing that it be amended to deal with the problem of fortified drug houses. There are three possibilities for amending the legislation to cover fortified drug houses. One is to include real estate in the definition of offence related property. Bill C-7 allows for the confiscation of property used in drug trafficking, but the definition specifically excludes real estate. Removing this exemption would be one way of addressing the problem.

A second approach is an amendment to create a new offence. The amendment would prohibit an owner, landlord or tenant from knowingly permitting a place to be used for the primary purpose of trafficking in illegal drugs. The Edmonton police service has drafted a proposed amendment which I will be pleased to provide the committee.

A third option is to establish a mechanism by which drug houses could be confiscated by the crown under specific conditions. Again the Edmonton police service has provided some suggestions which I will provide in writing to the committee.

Any of these amendments are consistent with the intent and the spirit of the legislation. They will address the significant problem of fortified drug houses which is not adequately

covered at this time. If we do not address the problem now fortified houses will spread as the way to avoid prosecution under provisions of the act.

This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. Bill C-7 is a comprehensive drug strategy. Let us cover all the loopholes and give communities the tools they need to deal with the problem that creates untold damage in human lives and safety in our communities.

I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-7 and to support an amendment that will address the problem of fortified drug houses at the same time.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I will be commenting on Bill C-7 in my capacity as Official Opposition health critic.

The Minister of Health has introduced on behalf of the government Bill C-7, An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances.

After reviewing this bill carefully and mindful of the seriousness of the health issues at stake here, I have to say that the bill misses the mark because of the underlying push to criminalize certain activities and that it is a failed attempt to modernize our approach to combatting this costly scourge on society.

At the outset, I wish to point out to this House that I, along with the Bloc Quebecois, support the move to criminalize the sale of illegal drugs. Adequate and effective measures and pertinent legislation are needed to control mood-altering substances. Not just any legislation, mind you and, from my perspective as health critic, especially not legislation that focuses only on the repressive aspects of the issue and overshadows basic public health considerations. Such considerations must be a key component of any legislation, initiative or regulation aimed at combatting drug abuse.

In this respect, Bill C-7 needs to be radically amended. Although this bill was introduced by the Minister of Health, it does not contain any provisions designed to improve public health or the health of the many people who abuse drugs. In short, this bill proposes to fight one of society's ills through coercion and relentless legal efforts.

In the next few minutes, I will show how illegal drug use is much more of a health problem than a crime problem.

There are many reasons why a person turns to drugs. A person may be searching for a high or a feeling of euphoria or seeking temporary respite from the problems associated with depression or stress. Others who may find it difficult to keep up with the demands of our consumer-driven society see drugs as a way of overcoming fatigue or increasing their productivity. Teenagers in search of an identity often try drugs to defy established authority or simply to conform to standards of behaviour dictated by their environment. An unhealthy family environment and pervasive poverty, violence and despair are often a one-way ticket to drug abuse.

The one common denominator in all of this is that drug abusers experienced health, emotional or social problems before they actually started using drugs. The criminal activity, that is obtaining and using the drugs, is secondary to their illness or social failure.

Canada's Drug Strategy was adopted to spearhead the fight against drug abuse.

A total budget of $270 million over five years has been earmarked for the CDS. This works out to an average annual budget of $54 million. So, to fight drugs, we will invest about $1.98 per person per year. Yet, according to the revenue department, drug trafficking in Canada generates some $4.6 billion, which represents $168.52 per Canadian per year. If you invest $1.98 to fight an activity which generates $168.52, you are going to look like David against Goliath.

In 1984, the Addiction Research Foundation estimated that drug use led to additional medical care totalling $2.728 billion, which is almost $100 per Canadian per year, while the monies allocated for treatment and rehabilitation only represent $0.75 per person, or 38 per cent of the CDS budget, and the funds for education and prevention are equivalent to $0.63 per person per year, or 32 per cent of that same budget.

Every year, reduced productivity linked to drug use costs each Quebecer and Canadian the equivalent of $37.54, while the costs of implementing the law amount to $31.10. These figures are self-explanatory.

The amount of money spent to fight drugs is nowhere near the health, social and economic costs generated by this plague, or the profits generated by this traffic.

The bill which is before us has no long-term vision regarding the fight against drugs, which is something we had to include as parliamentarians. On the contrary, this legislation proposes or suggests old and archaic recipes as an easy way out.

There is an explanation to that. By merely revamping the old Bill C-85 tabled by the previous government, this government is sending the message that initiative and new ideas are not its forte when dealing with such important issues.

Personally, I deeply deplore the fact that a bill from the Department of Health gives so little consideration to its own field of responsibility, namely public health in Canada. Instead of seeking to treat and rehabilitate innocent victims, this legislation provides for criminalization and incarceration.

What will our society, which claims to have the best health care program in the world, do to an innocent young person, who could be my child or yours and who is influenced by others into using soft drugs? Our society will give that young person a criminal record and give him a jail sentence. So much for our social ethic and our value system.

Whereas enforcement measures must be maintained and even strengthened to fight drug traffickers-those merchants of dreams who make such fortunes-victims of these despicable people must be helped, and that means being lenient and offering education, prevention and rehabilitation programs, as well as health care.

Is imprisonment an adequate solution, considering that 70 per cent of federal penitentiaries inmates use illicit drugs? Is making our laws more stringent a good idea, considering that numerous studies have repeatedly shown that fear of punishment or harshness is an insignificant deterrent among drug users?

When comparing risks of punishment with risks to health for drug users, concerns for health clearly win out.

I believe that Canadians are asking us to take effective drug control measures. To do so properly, we must reduce both the demand for and the supply of illicit drugs in a balanced way. A good approach will combine health, prevention and rehabilitation measures, and legal sanctions, too. Bill C-7, the amounts spent on the Canada Drug Strategy and their allocation do not effectively provide this balanced control.

That is why we must reject Bill C-7, review the Canada Drug Strategy and use the results of recent research to update our approach. Above all, we must give priority to values and concepts that emphasize a better quality of life through better public health.

You know, Madam Speaker, it is more mature to admit one's mistakes than to stubbornly repeat them. Therefore I call on the Hon. Minister of Health and the government to withdraw Bill C-7 and start all over. I assure them of my full co-operation in this.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Vancouver Centre B.C.

Liberal

Hedy Fry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for a very eloquent speech. She made some very strong points.

However, the member should know that the drug strategy is also tied in with this bill and that 70 per cent of the money we now spend on looking at drugs is spent on the drug strategy which is the health component. It is the part that looks at prevention and ways of treating and rehabilitating people who are addicted.

I agree with many of the things the hon. member said about public policy and understanding the root causes of addiction and of people using drugs.

One must also be aware of the number of people who prey on the vulnerable in our society. We have to find a way of dealing with the people who traffic in drugs, who prey on our young people and make them use drugs, knowing full well what they are doing by bringing them into an addiction that is very difficult for them to get out of.

This bill is aimed at some of those people. I wondered if the hon. member felt that that was also needed as well as rehabilitation and treatment.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that I have no intention of not criminalizing drug traffickers; it was not what I meant. Where I do not agree with this bill is that the 500,000 young people arrested so far for possession of drugs were given criminal records, fines and jail sentences and are now being turned into users and criminals.

What I ask from this bill is that this policy be reviewed to make it more helpful to young people, who are not criminals but users. We should bring in policies to encourage them to get treated for their addictions, to rehabilitate themselves and to become good citizens. I condemn Bill C-7 because it does not put forward such policies. What I find strange is that this bill comes from the Minister of Health and yet deals only with criminal offences.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I see no one rising for debate. Is the House ready for the question?

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

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

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.