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.