Debates of March 4th, 1999

Supply

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Yes, I did.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Well, this is the time that he is going to have to start splitting.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your splitting of hairs. The hon. member is well aware of how hairs get split in the Chamber.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. The member for Vancouver Kingsway said that they had difficulty with the provinces establishing a day care to fulfil the Liberal promise of 1993. I have the 1993 promise right here and I should remind the House that provincial leaders do not run for federal politics. Only governments do and the five political parties.

This Liberal government ran in 1993. Its promise was to create 50,000 child care spaces in each year following a year of 3% economic growth, to a total of 150,000 over three years. It also said that for families which need two incomes to survive and for single parents who want to get off welfare and other social assistance and get jobs, access to quality child care was a must.

Nowhere in the promise of 1993 does it say that the government would co-operate with or even discuss with the provinces. This was a federal Liberal promise which was broken by this government.

Once again I ask this member of the Liberal Party why they made the promise and why they broke it.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, any initiative in this area, any amendments to the Income Tax Act or any separate freestanding act with respect to this issue, has to be done in conjunction with the provinces. If we cannot get provincial co-operation we simply cannot succeed in that area.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the discrimination of the Liberal government's tax policy as an anomaly. He would prefer if we would use the word anomaly. I bet he would prefer for us to use the word anomaly because it does not sound near as bad as the tax discrimination of the government against families that have one of their members remaining at home to look after the children.

On Monday a caller in Vancouver asked the finance minister this very question. In response the finance minister used the same terminology of an anomaly. The caller said that her family was being penalized by the regressive tax policies of the federal government and the finance minister, and the minister said that she was right.

The finance minister admitted this was a regressive taxation policy that clearly discriminated against families. He would like us to believe that it just kind of happened, that it was an anomaly which has built up over the years. The finance minister has been here for five years and has done nothing to change the law to address this discrimination.

Does my hon. colleague on the other side not agree with the finance minister? If this is an anomaly, as he likes to say, rather than blatant discrimination, why has the finance minister done nothing over five years to address these serious inequities?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing whether this is an anomaly or an inequity. The issue is that it is acknowledged by the finance minister that it is an inequity, an anomaly.

If the member were listening, and I know he was listening to everything the minister was saying, he would have heard the finance minister's answer in the House today that it was being referred to the finance committee. It is an issue that has been circulating in this caucus a great deal. I do not see that the finance minister has been anything other than straightforward with the House in terms of addressing that issue.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would just like to ask a short question.

The Liberals opposite have a policy of helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I do not understand my colleague when he says that they are sympathetic. Why could this not be resolved quickly? Everyone agrees that it makes no sense, that it is discriminatory, but they have done nothing about it. My colleague said earlier that they have been in office for five years, more even, and have done nothing about it.

Why could this not be resolved quickly?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member has been doing in the House for the past number of years, but if we look at the initiatives on the part of the government with respect to children, I do not think we need to stand down to anyone. Two billion dollars as a Canada child tax benefit is a huge amount of money by anyone's standards.

To speak to the member's issue with respect to child care, the money was put on the table for the provinces to pick up and the provinces chose not to pick the money up. Those are initiatives in extreme circumstances that the government was experiencing with respect to its financial position.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually delighted to take part in this debate because I have been waiting for it for a very long time.

My connection with this problem goes back to my beginnings as a politician. I ran for the first time as a politician in 1993. One of the platform planks of the Liberals in 1993 was the creation of 150,000 day care spaces.

Both before and after I won the nomination I made it very clear to the press and to all members of the Liberal Party in my riding that I did not support the creation of 150,000 day care spaces. That resulted in a telephone call out of the blue from Ottawa. I picked up the phone. I had never met the man before but he introduced himself on the other side of the phone as Mr. Martin. It turned out that this Mr. Martin was one of the architects of the Liberal platform for 1993. He said on the phone to me “I understand that you don't agree with the Liberal platform”.

I said “No, no, Mr. Martin. That is not it at all. My problem is that I do not believe that the creation of 150,000 day care spaces is the best way to spend money in comparison to possibly finding a better way, a tax break for stay at home spouses”. I also said “Mr. Martin, when I win I expect to convince you of the rightness of what I am saying”, and he said “Well, fair enough. See you in Ottawa”.

That is just a little illustration that the Liberal Party is an inclusive party. It permits and encourages dissent on key issues, but one has to be able to persuade, to convince the leadership that the suggestion is the right suggestion and should be given priority.

I was very fortunate after 1993 because I did not have to aggressively pursue this issue. The member for Mississauga South took up the issue with a great deal of eloquence. He was constantly arguing that we should do something to give better tax breaks to stay at home spouses. He was very good on that issue.

A year ago he became sick when we were in caucus out west and debating this budget. Because the member for Mississauga South was unable to attend that caucus, I rose and there was the finance minister taking suggestions from members of caucus.

I said to the finance minister that I thought in this upcoming budget it would be a very appropriate and very effective way of spending money, with such surpluses we might have, to give better equity to those families that choose to have a spouse stay at home to look after their children.

I do not need statistics to know that there is merit in the motion that has been proposed, quite apart from my long history with the issue. In my riding I have frequent fall and summer fairs at which I have a booth. It gives me an opportunity to meet thousands of my constituents.

There is one young couple who always comes to these events. The first they came they had two children; the last time they had three. They ask me when I will persuade the finance minister to adjust the Income Tax Act so that there is at least fairness for those who choose to stay home to look after their children rather than go out to work. There is merit on that side of the issue.

The other side of the issue we heard at various times today is that the government has been very aggressive in addressing the needs of children, although I have not won so far on the issue of getting tax breaks for stay at home spouses.

As we have heard today, there have been all kinds of government programs since the government came to power to try to address the problem of children in need and to try to give them the best opportunity in life, including the child tax benefit and various other programs.

Where it has been difficult to convey the logic and and where there is some genuine disagreement is on the idea that a stay at home spouse actually has real monetary value to the state and that there is justification for supporting a stay at home spouse through the tax system.

It is clear that we can address money to specific problems, but it is not so clear to some people, though it is clear to me, that it is in the state's interest to encourage through expenditure, which is what a tax incentive is, that some spouses at least have the choice to stay home if they so desire. That is the other side.

I can understand why some members on my side will disagree with the motion and why I have had difficulty in persuading the finance minister that this is indeed something we should be doing.

One of the reasons I welcome the motion that has come before us today is that as a backbench government MP I do not have the opportunity the opposition has to bring this kind of motion before us for public debate, so the whole country can debate it. If I could have put the motion forward years ago, I would have done it. The problem is that the only option I have is a private member's motion, which is a lottery and the chances of actually getting the motion on the floor is very remote.

We heard earlier one Reform member opposite explain that the reason the Reform Party did not bring the motion before the House earlier in the five years it has had to do it was that it had other priorities like chasing pedophiles and dealing with hepatitis C. It also made choices.

More power to the finance minister. If he did not move on the issue as fast as I would have liked and as fast as the member for Mississauga South would have liked, at least the reason he did not move as fast was that his priorities were looking after children, providing benefits for children and looking after low income families rather than trying to bring various criminals to justice. It is a matter of choice. The priorities demonstrated by the finance minister are the kinds of priorities I would prefer to follow.

We have accomplished much by this debate. Regardless of how members on either side vote on the motion, the finance minister today in question period said that he felt this was an important issue and that he would send directions to his parliamentary secretary to get it on the agenda and hopefully debated in the finance committee. Finally, the member for Mississauga South and I will see the initiative to give equality and opportunity to stay at home spouses come to pass.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In so far as there is enormous interest in this debate, I would seek unanimous consent to move that the debate be extended for another hour. I would seek unanimous consent to put that motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast has requested unanimous consent that the time for the debate be extended by one hour. We will do this in two stages.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if we could reduce that time period to the five minutes of questions and comments for our hon. colleague who had an opportunity to make a most eloquent speech.

I am asking for unanimous consent that we allow our Liberal colleague five minutes to extend his comments through questions and comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a technical problem. I had already started to put the question to dispose of the business pursuant to order made earlier today. Unless we undo all that we have finished.

Therefore pursuant to order made earlier today all questions on the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 9 at the expiry of time provided for Government Orders.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5.30 p.m. and that we proceed to Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the first elected member of the House of Commons to speak, not just today in this debate, but in the history of the House of Commons, on this vital matter of the legalization of marijuana for health and medical purposes.

Marijuana has been used medicinally throughout the world for thousands of years. Today many patients, particularly those suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and other diseases, testify to the marked relief they obtain from inhaling marijuana.

The therapeutic use of marijuana is, however, still banned by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and users are liable to a six-month prison sentence and a $1000 fine.

With a view to changing this unacceptable situation, I introduced a motion one year ago in favour of the legalization of marijuana for health and medical purposes. For me, this is a matter of compassion toward sick people suffering from nausea, loss of appetite, vomiting, and other major discomforts which accompany a number of chronic diseases.

My motion is simple and unequivocal. It reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical purposes.

In my opinion, it is unacceptable for a person with a chronic condition, or a terminally ill AIDS patient, to be liable for six months in prison and a $10,000 fine for using a medical treatment recommended by his or her physician.

In this connection, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is totally devoid of understanding and compassion toward the chronically ill, who want nothing more than to live in dignity. This act must be changed as soon as possible, in order to allow the medical use of marijuana by those who need it.

The Ontario court has already found part of the Narcotic Control Act to be unconstitutional. Clearly, the ball is now in our court here in the House of Commons.

We have been elected to fulfil a role as legislators. We have no right to let the courts decided in our stead. We must now assume our responsibility as elected representatives by inviting the federal government to pass concrete measures without delay that will allow the therapeutic use of marijuana.

At the present time, the only parliamentary approach that can achieve this is to give solid support to Motion M-381, which we are debating here today for the first time, and which calls upon the government to “undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical purposes”. The situation is urgent. For those who suffer, every day counts.

My position in favour of the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic purposes was not formed yesterday. I was first made aware of this injustice by my constituents, who urged me to take a public position in favour of legalizing marijuana for health and medical purposes.

Last March 6, I publicly supported a proposal along these lines by young delegates to the Bloc Quebecois youth forum. I am happy that this proposal was passed unanimously at the time by forum delegates. The proposal called on the Bloc Quebecois to take a stand in favour of the therapeutic use of marijuana and urged its parliamentary wing to follow up.

Delegates were very happy to hear our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, support their proposal in his closing address to the conference. Two weeks later, I followed up with the motion we are debating for the first time today.

This is not a new debate. The media and the courts have been looking at this issue for some time now. Doctors are discussing it with each other, and criminologists and patient advocacy groups are giving it thought. It is a topic that has been of interest to many people except, until today, members of the House of Commons. Now, since this debate will be followed by a vote, each of us here in the House will have an opportunity to take a clear stand on the issue. This is, in our view, a simple issue of transparency.

Until now, every time the issue of legalizing the therapeutic use of marijuana came up, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Justice tried to duck it. Their answer was always that they were open to the issue, their officials were studying it, and they hoped to be able to announce a plan or something more specific in a few months' time, all the while hoping that the issue would go away.

They say the same thing the next time the question comes up. This was what they did last year when an Ontario court judge ruled that a section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was unconstitutional.

It was what they said when an AIDS sufferer from the Outaouais and his physician asked the government to take action on this issue. It is also what the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice told me when I put the question to them here in the House one year ago on March 10 and 23, 1998.

Yesterday, it was the usual scenario. On the eve of the first day of debate on the motion that marijuana be legalized for medical purposes, the Minister of Health suddenly feels a need to demonstrate compassion towards the chronically ill.

What does he do to help? He announces that he will ask his officials to prepare a plan to draw up guidelines for eventual legalization of marijuana for medical use. I repeat: he announces that he will once again ask his officials to prepare a plan to draw up guidelines for eventual legalization of marijuana for medical use.

What have the officials the minister asked to look into this issue last year been doing? What do they have to show for their research? Only the minister knows.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health took a step in the right direction, and I said so yesterday. He deserves credit. He has announced that he will be asking these same departmental employees to draw up an action plan with a view to legalizing the therapeutic use of marijuana. Hence we now know the mandate he claims to have given to his staff.

How can we have any faith in his words when, in the past, the minister's actions did not fall in line with his commitments? Why did the minister announce a policy of openness but still no precise timeframe or concrete measures to achieve the legal use of marijuana for health and therapeutic purposes? Once again, his actions denote a lack of transparency. What is more, this new policy smacks of last-minute improvization by the minister. He rushed to give his people a mandate just as the issue was about to be debated.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Not true.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

I hear the parliamentary secretary over there taking the liberty to react to what I am saying.

The parliamentary secretary ought to be familiar with the demands by the Canadian AIDS Society. She ought to be familiar with the position of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which has been tabled today. She ought to be familiar with the positions of Donald Kilby, director of the University of Ottawa Health Services. And of Réjean Thomas, a leading figure in the treatment of AIDS. And she ought to be familiar with the case of James Wakeford, who has made a request under the special access program. With the cases of Jean-Charles Parizeau and Terry Parker. But no, the parliamentary secretary does not want to know.

The minister's new policy smacks of improvization, as I have said.

He has given a hasty mandate to his departmental employees on the eve of a debate on the matter, but is unable to give any details on his policy. In fact, the minister cannot even say whether his announcement means that he is taking the necessary steps to legalize the health and medical use of marijuana.

That is exactly what today's motion is calling for. The minister is still refusing to say whether he will vote for or against the motion. I hope that we can clarify his intentions in the course of debate.

If the minister said yesterday that he was prepared to take steps towards legalization, the only course open to him in June is to vote in favour. Any move by the government to vote against this motion will be interpreted by those favouring the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes as unwillingness to keep this promise.

I repeat, the government and the minister must demonstrate in good faith. I grant that he has taken a step in the right direction, but his actions must suit his words, and he must vote in favour of the motion.

In fact, the minister is certainly not yet able to tell us what stand he will take. We are still waiting, and would have liked an announcement yesterday as to where he stood. But instead we must wait.

I was in touch by phone as recently as yesterday with patients, doctors, and associations asking me to continue the fight, because nothing is a given, because although there was an announcement yesterday, no timeframe was mentioned. There was no research protocol. We know that there is no indication whatsoever that the minister listens to patients, for instance those who have made applications under the Health Canada special access program, which is the minister's own responsibility.

I therefore wish to assure everyone, not only in this House, but everyone involved in the campaign, the physicians, the patients, that I will continue the awareness campaign I launched this morning.

I wish to assure them that this lack of transparency can only make me step up the pressure so that a majority of MPs here in this House will be able to vote in favour of this motion. The government has no excuse whatsoever for taking refuge behind inaction, as it has so far.

No one disputes the therapeutic effectiveness of THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal active ingredient in marijuana. Moreover, physicians can already prescribe Marinol tablets, and have been doing so for some years now. This authorized medication contains synthetic THC and is already available in pharmacies. It is prescribed mainly to relieve nausea in terminally ill patients and to stimulate appetite.

However, taking synthetic marijuana pills is not as effective as inhalation. According to the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine , swallowing pills cannot be compared to inhalation, which rapidly raises blood THC levels and greatly enhances the sought-after medical efficacy.

What is more, many patients who would be candidates for the medical use of marijuana are already required to take huge numbers of pills daily. We are talking of numbers even in excess of 30. One can imagine what taking more pills in the form of Marinol means, then. The precise purpose of marijuana is to help make the taking of so many pills bearable by relieving nausea.

Obviously, it is better to administer THC for nausea by the pulmonary route than the digestive route. Many physicians are therefore campaigning for the possibility of prescribing THC in the form best suited to their patients. They argue that they are in the best position to determine what suits their patients best.

The Canadian Medical Association represents the medical community in Canada and ensures that the health care system provides doctors with what they need to deliver quality health care to their patients. Since 1981, this association has been arguing that the simple possession of marijuana should be decriminalized, but it deplores the absence of more systematic scientific research on the topic.

In 1995, the American Medical Association pointed out the need to review American legislation on the therapeutic use of marijuana. The British Medical Association goes even further: it has called on the British government to take all necessary steps to authorize the therapeutic use of marijuana, while respecting all established scientific criteria.

The British Medical Association has also publicly encouraged the police and the courts to tolerate use of marijuana for therapeutic purposes. In its report, it says, and I quote:

Some patients are forced to use an illegal drug to relieve symptoms that are not controlled by existing medication.

The report also says:

—and that there is sufficient evidence that marijuana can help in certain circumstances.

These were quotes from a report by the British Medical Association.

As a result, following a major scientific research study by the British House of Lords, the British government decided to go ahead and authorize the first official trials to evaluate the therapeutic effects of marijuana. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is confident that, three years from now, cannabis will be a prescription drug in Great Britain.

In Quebec and in Canada, well known physicians such as Réjean Thomas and Donald Kilby have already come down unambiguously in favour of legalization for medical and therapeutic purposes, as have some major dailies. So have the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which wrote me another letter this morning, and the Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida. All these organizations are calling on the government and members of parliament to vote in favour of Motion M-381.

Today, I ask the men and women fighting for this legalization to be patient, because I am very confident that they will have all the support they need in June. Therefore—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.