House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senate.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent to revert to tabling of reports from interparliamentary delegations.
René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC
Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but I missed the interpretation on this motion.
PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
This is a motion to revert to tabling of reports from interparliamentary delegations.
Jim Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the 37th annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group. The meeting was held in Alaska from May 10 to May 13.
The Canada-U.S. relationship is the most significant in the world. Daily two-way trade exceeds $1 billion and makes the Canada-U.S. trade relationship the largest in the world. Eighty-two per cent of all Canadian merchandise exports go south of the border and into the United States. The trade in goods and services between the two countries supports more than 1.5 million jobs in Canada and directly generates 25 per cent of Canada's GDP.
Even with our strong and friendly relationship, there are still some irritants between our two countries. The Pacific salmon agreement, the Helms-Burton legislation, the split run magazines are just a few examples of where we differ in opinion and approach. Nevertheless, our annual meetings go a long way in helping both sides understand each other's point of view and may therefore lead to mutually acceptable resolutions.
The 37th annual meeting was held with 55 delegates from the U.S. Congress and the Parliament of Canada. Twelve per cent of the U.S. Senate was represented at the meeting. However, we cannot take our relationship for granted. We must continue to build on our successes and strive to resolve our differences.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Perth—Wellington—Waterloo Ontario
Liberal
John Richardson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 31 will be answered today.
Question No. 31-
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC
Pursuant to the act amending the Department of National Revenue Act and other acts in consequence thereof, which organizations or associations of maple syrup producers received early payments for maple syrup production in 1994 and 1995 and: ( a ) what amount of money was used for each of these payments; ( b ) on what date were they paid, and ( c ) under what conditions?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Maple syrup producer organizations received early payments under the Advance Payments for Crop Act, APCA, for maple syrup and not the Department of National Revenue Act.
For 1994, no applications for maple syrup were made under the APCA.
In 1995, three organizations applied for and received guarantees under APCA: les Producteurs de sucre d'érable du Québec; la Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec; and la Coopérative des producteurs de sirop d'érable du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Les Producteurs de sucre d'érable du Québec was the only organization of the three to issue advances under the program. Its 1995 guarantee on maple syrup was $6,000,000; to date advances for maple syrup have been issued only in Quebec.
a) 1995 Interest payments under the cash flow enhancement program total $163,548.28
b) Dates of Payments Amount of Interest
04-07-95 $21,435.95 27-07-95 $32,441.44 07-09-95 $27,741.44 26-09-95 $30,739.73 27-10-95 $26,198.63 24-11-95 $24,991.09
$163,548.28
c) The APCA provides a loan guarantee to producer organizations to facilitate a loan from a financial institution for the purpose of making advance payments to individual producers for their crop in storage. This provides the producer with cash for the loan negotiated by the producer organization with the financial institution soon after harvest on the basis of crop in storage to allow the producer flexibility in marketing. The advances are repaid from sales as the crop is sold. There is no federal program expenditures under the act.
The cash flow enhancement program is a non-statutory program that pays the interest on the first $50,000 of advances made to each producer under the act.
John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Is that agreed?
Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC
Mr. Speaker, over three months ago, on March 4, I submitted a question to the Order Paper. I wonder when the government would be able to answer my question. It is Question No. 15.
John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's sense of frustration. A large number of questions have gone into the departments. They consume many people's time and require many detailed answers because they want to be correct.
I was looking at that delay before I came into the House today, anticipating there would be some concerns. I would like to allay those. We are trying to catch up as fast as we can.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, a little earlier today I indicated to the House that I would be back with another travel motion.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint-Jean and Halifax between September 30 and October 25, 1996, in order to hold hearings as part of its review of Bill C-44, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, and its study on transport, trade and tourism, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
This motion is aimed at allowing six parliamentarians to travel.
(Motion agreed to.)
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the motions agreed to earlier today, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with all stages of Bill C-45. The purpose of this bill, which has just been brought back from a parliamentary committee, is to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code, an issue that is very important to all Canadians.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Do I have the unanimous consent of the House?
Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders
Vancouver Centre B.C.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberalfor the Minister of Health
moved:
That the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill C-8, 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 concurred in.
Joe Volpe LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-8, the controlled drugs and substances act.
This legislation was first introduced into the House of Commons in February 1994 with a view to respond to the need for consolidation and modernization of the existing drug control legislation, the Narcotics Control Act and parts III and IV of the Food and Drug Act.
Bill C-8 will allow for better controls over drugs covered under these acts while listing new drugs and substances that are required under the three international conventions of the United Nations.
Bill C-8 is an important component of Canada's drug strategy, a strategy based on the recognition that we must favour a balanced approach of both demand and supply reduction when dealing with substance abuse and misuse. In fact, 70 per cent of the funding under this drug strategy is dedicated toward education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. The remaining 30 per cent goes to law enforcement.
The drug strategy aims to reduce the harm caused by drugs to individuals, to families and to communities. It is an effort by many partners to co-operate in dealing with Canada's problems of substance abuse. These partners include all levels of government, law enforcement agencies, professionals, voluntary organizations and community groups. Health Canada plays a leading role in the strategy.
There is no simple solution to Canada's substance abuse problem. There are many programs in place, both inside and outside of government. Communities, provinces and territories have been working hard for a long time to reduce the demand on drugs and for drugs.
Many professional and volunteer groups have played an important role in helping people learn about drugs. They also help people cope with problems caused by drugs and abuse thereof.
Federal programs have also begun to stress even more the new drug law enforcement and crime prevention. A balance between reducing both demand for drugs and their supply in this regard is crucial.
When Bill C-8 was referred to the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health all members of the subcommittee worked closely together to ensure the views of all were carefully considered. The subcommittee heard many witnesses and clearly examined the complexities of the legislation. There were representations from a broad spectrum of groups, organizations and individuals having an interest in the controlled drugs issues and legislation.
The Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs also took the necessary time to listen to a wide diversity of views.
The government has taken very seriously the concerns expressed by witnesses at the hearings of the subcommittee of the House of Commons on the bill, as well as those put forward by hon. members from all parties in the House.
Hon. members knows the consultative process is inherent in the parliamentary system. One of the strengths of that process is that it brings forward a range of opinions and perspectives.
Some witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons committee were not only addressing the proposed legislation specifically but wanted to put broader issues on the agenda. That is why the subcommittee recommended in a separate report that the Standing Committee on Health undertake a comprehensive review of Canada's drug policy to examine those broader issues. This review will no doubt give members an opportunity to explore the many facets of drug issues, namely scientific, political, social, legal and economic influences of drug use and abuse.
At the committee's hearings members of the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs also took note of the opportunities for the commercial cultivation of hemp in Canada. Hemp can be cultivated from varieties of cannabis sativa that contain a very low level of THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive active ingredient in the plant.
The committee was of the opinion that this plant should be considered by government for its potential commercial applications. For example, it noted that hemp can be used in textiles, paper production or sometimes as a wood substitute. Research authorizations have been granted in recent years to examine the issue of the viable commercial cultivation of hemp. The research is still ongoing. The analysis, as well, is continuing.
Canada is learning more and more about hemp. One might conclude that Bill C-8 opens the door for future products such as commercial hemp because it allows the government to create regulations for scientific, medical and industrial applications of listed controlled substances.
The Senate committee made important amendments which will pave the way for the commercial activities involving hemp by facilitating its handling. Consequently, Schedule II to Bill C-8 has been amended to exclude cannabis stalks and fibre derived from such stalks from the application of the act. Although a licence will still be required to cultivate hemp, once harvested the stalks and fibre will not be subject to any form of control under the act.
I will come back to the general aim of Bill C-8. We have to keep in mind the overall intent of Bill C-8 is the protection of Canadians against risks to their health. Illegally obtained and unsafe drugs are among the greatest risks to health. Substance abuse too often contributes to isolate an important segment of our population. We must equip law enforcement professionals with the tools and techniques needed to deal effectively with those who prey on the addicted. This bill, I believe, provides those tools. We must promote sound law enforcement if we are ever to advance the broader social goal of maintaining safe and peaceful communities. This bill provides the means for accomplishing that goal.
As Canadians we believe children are entitled to grow up and to develop in a supportive and caring environment, one that spawns honest, healthy and productive lifestyles. The bill before us and the amendments with it in one way can help us to create such a climate for the children of Canada.
Drug dependence is a complex issue requiring comprehensive medical, psychological and sociological approaches. There is clear benefit in treatment. However, the element of motivation on the part of the patient is essential successful treatment.
Bill C-8 recognizes that drug dependence is also a health and social issue. It recognizes a positive approach to treatment programs for those affected by drug addiction. It supports the availability of help and appropriate treatment for those who want to get back their health and to resume a productive lifestyle.
Many people, at one time or another, develop a serious dependency on medication or drugs sold illegally. Moreover, many run the risk of becoming victims of drug-related crimes, such as break-ins or gangland violence. This situation does little to help the plight of individuals in general. It is unfortunately the cause of tremendous suffering. Many are likely to become frequent users of medication designed to treat or to temporarily alleviate anxiety attacks or some condition. There is no doubt that the efforts made
by the government to fight the abuse or ill-advised use of drugs must be maintained.
Another aspect which must be pointed out is that the bill promotes the rational use, for medical purposes, of several controlled substances, while prohibiting their illicit distribution. It recognizes that these controlled drugs are indispensable for medical purposes. Doctors, pharmacists and authorized distributors are all allowed to handle such substances, or to use them in the fulfilment of their duties. These substances must not be unduly restricted. They must be available when required, given the medical condition of patients, so that these patients do not suffer a drastic change in their quality of life.
Bill C-8 advocates the judicious use of medication by indicating how controlled substances can be handled, distributed and used. These substances are mentioned in the act to protect the health and safety of the public, by striking a fair balance between people's needs and the dangers of illicit use.
Bill C-8 covers other situations as well. It allows cancer patients, people suffering from debilitating diseases and those who have reached terminal phase to relieve their pain with prescription drugs such as morphine. A patient who is hospitalized, or who is under strict medical supervision, can even be prescribed heroin to relieve the pain.
The bill means that preparations containing cocaine can safely be used during examinations and surgery. It also gives access to many other products for the treatment of less serious, but nonetheless debilitating, ailments, such as migraine. Medications containing codeine are regularly prescribed; their usefulness is not in question.
This bill also mentions substances used to treat addictions. Methadone, for example, a substance covered by this legislation, is used to relieve pain, but also to treat heroin addicts. A number of treatment centres and hospitals use it. For a large number of patients, methadone maintenance therapy means that they can continue their regular activities and lead a constructive life. Some have jobs, others decide to pursue their education. They can thus lead a healthy family life and benefit from a stimulating social environment.
I believe that, in this bill, we have found the balance necessary to the well-being of all Canadians. It is for this reason that I urge all members, and even our senator colleagues, to give it their support, as I myself am doing today.
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have just listened attentively to the speech by the member of the government party. In the bulk of his speech, he has indicated that the legitimate and normal use of drugs would continue to be possible in this country.
That, however, was not the issue being addressed by Bill C-8, which replaced C-7, which in turn, I would remind you, replaced a Conservative government bill, Bill C-85.
My hon. colleague made no mention of the work of the other place, which has confirmed the concerns I expressed on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois in this House in February 1994. In those first debates, on February 18 to be precise, the Bloc Quebecois acknowledged the obvious necessity of passing legislation in the drug field. The Bloc also expressed regrets, however, that Bill C-7 had several significant flaws and not only ignored the parameters to be defined in effective drug control strategy, but also opened the door to some major adverse effects. Quoting from my speech at that time, the flaws could be grouped under four questions. First, are legitimate activities of physicians, pharmacists, vets and dentists properly protected against abusive application of the legislation and especially against regulations the scope of which we do not know at the moment?
Second, would the significant powers granted to inspectors, to be designated directly by the minister, not possibly lead to some errors which could unduly penalize health professionals and their patients?
Third, how would the confidentiality of medical records be ensured when the bill allows absolutely anyone designated as an inspector by the minister to reproduce documents found in a physician's office or in a pharmacy and to seize electronic data?
Fourth and foremost, why are drug-dependent persons who need to be treated and not jailed considered criminals in this bill?
What we are talking about here is the fact that the bill now before us, which has already been before us and which was before us at the time of the Conservative Party, talks of controlling supply and totally neglects the elements of controlling demand. Controlling supply involves cracking down on those involved in trafficking. Controlling demand involves prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation.
This is why the Bloc voted against Bill C-7 at second reading on April 19, 1994 in this House. Subsequently, you will remember, the bill was sent to a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Health, which met many times over a number of years. Most of the witnesses before the sub-committee, with the exception of federal officials, need I mention, opposed the bill, because they felt it would likely compound problems relating to drugs, rather than contribute to reducing them.
As a result of the concerns expressed by the Bloc Quebecois, other members of the sub-committee were made aware and they in
turn made the members of their caucus aware. A period of reflection then followed, between June 1994 and June 1995, during which the committee did not meet.
In October 1995, the Bloc Quebecois proposed 14 amendments. Five were accepted by the sub-committee, four were rejected following explanation and five were similarly withdrawn. Furthermore, there were six amendments the Bloc Quebecois deliberately chose not to introduce, because the government tabled equivalent amendments, which had clearly been borrowed.
Before the other House considered this bill, it was amended, thanks to the initiatives of the Bloc Quebecois, in order to reduce if not eliminate most of the major irritants I mentioned earlier. So, now a judge will have to take clause 11.1 into account. With your permission, I will read it, because it makes Bill C-8 much more sensitive to the interests of those affected by the consumption of drugs.
This clause reads as follows: "The fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community".
This short clause in the bill is the only provision dealing with rehabilitation and detoxification but not, as you can see, with prevention. It is very little in a bill as comprehensive as the one before us today.
In addition, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in having the penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana reduced. We also succeeded in having medical records protected. Search and seizure will now be allowed only on reasonable grounds. The inspectors and analysts appointed by the minister must show that they have the necessary qualifications or they must acquire them.
Finally, on a related topic, the definition of practitioner has been sufficiently broadened to prevent people involved in the legitimate performance of their duties from being sued under the Criminal Code.
As our distinguished colleague pointed out earlier, the subcommittee was also told by many witnesses that the debate should be broadened and include concerns that Bill C-8 does not address.
In fact, the subcommittee submitted three recommendations to the Standing Committee on Health, which included them in its report. First, that a task force be set up to define the relevant criteria in determining which substances should be listed in schedules I to VII of the bill. Second, Canada's drug policy should be implemented. Third, the regulations and orders issued under this bill should be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Health. I should point out that the last two recommendations resulted from the comments made by the Bloc Quebecois.
I also want to thank the members of the subcommittee, who considered these issues and debated the validity of Bill C-8 with open-mindedness and honesty, before finally approving and drafting the recommendations I referred to.
On October 25, 1995, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health tabled the report on Bill C-7 in this House. On October 30, 1995-need I remind the House that it was the day of the Quebec referendum and that, as a result, all the members of the Bloc Quebecois were away-the House passed Bill C-7 at third reading in the absence of Bloc members. The other place, which undertook the consideration of this bill on December 13 and 14, has recently submitted the amendments it wants this House to incorporate in the bill. In fact, that is the purpose of the motion before us. But I must tell you that these are only minors changes that the other place is requesting.
Still, it is interesting to note that, following on remarks made first by Bloc Quebecois members, and then by government members, the other place is also recommending that the Canadian drug strategy be reviewed.
This leads me to conclude that this bill still falls short of resolving the drug problem adequately. While the bill deals with the supply aspect, it fails miserably to address the demand aspect by providing for prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation. But the worst bugs of the bill had been ironed out before it was referred to the other place.
I must say that, unless provisions pertaining to prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation are included, the bill before us will never have any real positive effect. In this respect, I should remind the House that the other place was told by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy that it was a shame that the legislators in this House and in the other place did not dare put in place a modern drug strategy.
As a matter of fact, this foundation recommended that the other place not approve Bill C-8, but the other place realizes that defeating the bill would mean going back to square one and starting all over the debate on repression while sorely neglecting the real issues of prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation.
To introduce legislation reflecting a modern approach to managing the drug problem, the legislator must feel he has public opinion behind him. It is precisely to allow the public to form an informed opinion on the issue that it becomes essential to have a national debate. Had the other place refused to approve Bill C-8, we would have faced a dead end.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports this motion. But our support must be construed as a very strong expression of our demand that the government act on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health by opening as soon as possible a national debate on the drug issue.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 has been a complex and long lived bill in this House. It was the first bill I was the watchdog for, so I have watched the process very carefully.
Reformers had one big concern with this bill in that the bill gave very broad powers to the minister and to the bureaucracy that would have affected the health food industry. The clause that caused us the most concern said that the minister could deem any depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic and include those in the schedules.
I am proud of Canadians on that issue. Canadians with a little bit of help decided that was not suitable. The health food industry has stimulants, depressants and hallucinogenics. Our office was a bit of a focus for what I consider to be a campaign against that clause in Bill C-8. There were petitions, faxes and a huge amount of interest on the bill and we were able to get that clause kicked out. Our efforts were rewarded.
There is still a problem in the bill in that the regulatory powers of the governor in council still allow anything that is deemed to be in the public interest to be inserted in the bill. Although that is better than the minister deeming, it is not what I consider to be an open and democratic way to include things in a bill.
I looked over the amendments. I found them to be pretty standard amendments, crossing t s and small changes, until I found a very significant amendment to the bill, an amendment that was spoken of in a press release yesterday. I received these amendments at 10 o'clock last night. It is difficult to look at amendments when one does not have the bill and the amendments, but there was something brand new in the bill which had not been debated in public.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that hemp is now being facilitated by Bill C-8. I listened in the committee to testimony about whether or not hemp should be included. There were witnesses who talked about hemp as a product for agriculture in Canada. There was no significant approval at that point in time for this direction to be undertaken. A senator, along with other members of the other place, has inserted one very, very tiny sentence in the bill, that "mature cannabis stocks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches and fibre derived from such stocks are not included in the schedule".
I always thought that if we in Canada were going to have a change in direction it should have public scrutiny. This change in direction has not had public scrutiny. What possible problem would there be for a brand new agricultural product to come on the scene in Canada?
Why do the people concerned with marijuana legalization want so badly to have hemp included? I have never had anybody admit this to me, but I believe and will state on the public record, the reason for this is that the normal cannabis plant can be hidden very easily with the hemp plant early on in the growth stage. Detection at the early stages of cannabis sativa of the inadmissible cannabis plant is very, very difficult. As mature plants they are very distinguishable, but the young plants are not.
I have listened and discussed with those individuals who argue strenuously for hemp. I have tried to figure out whether their only motive was to have another good agricultural product in Canada. I do not find that argument persuasive, but if the argument were persuasive I would have loved to have had this debate publicly.
I believe this was an attempt to sneak this clause past the Canadian public and I use the word sneak advisedly. I go back to my original opposition to the bill, which is that the regulators could very easily include things in the bill that might not get broad public Canadian support. There is no public scrutiny of possible problems.
For the Canadian public who are watching, I say this amendment should have come before the health committee with broader public debate rather than the very quiet press release yesterday and presentation by the parliamentary secretary today. I am not happy at all.
With that issue on the table, I want to mention one other very significant inconsistency in the government's policies. I am going to use a health product as an example of how inconsistent the policy is. Melatonin is the health product.
Melatonin in the past few years has been used for a number of things. It was touted as a fabulous drug for aging, to keep us all young, the fountain of youth. It was touted as being very useful for jet lag, something parliamentarians have some problems with. Because melatonin is a natural product, it has not had the usual number of clinical trials.
Our Department of Health determined that melatonin did not have proof of safety and so it should be banned in Canada. I am fine with that. If there is no proof of safety, do not use it. But then we allow the private individual in Canada to purchase a three months supply in the United States and bring it into the country which seems totally inconsistent to me. Melatonin, if it is not good for us should be banned. If it is okay for us, we should be able to buy it in Canada.
The health food business is going to be impacted by Bill C-8. I am still opposed to the bill because of these broad regulatory powers. I am disappointed in the sneaky issue on hemp. I will now be quiet.