Debates of April 28th, 1999

Heroin Prescription Trials

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 454 states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, implement clinical, multi-centre heroin prescription trials for injection to opiate users, including protocols for rigorous scientific assessment and evaluation.

This is a complicated, tongue twisting motion that I am sure no one understands. We are talking about free heroin for addicts. What the NDP is proposing is a recipe for disaster. This is the kind of solution that was adopted in Switzerland. Addicts from all across Europe went to Zurich to live with their addiction and it created a mess. The same thing happened when Denmark tried the heroin trial solution.

It is no secret that there is a terrible drug problem, in particular on the east side of Vancouver. In fact the lower mainland of B.C. has the highest incidence of intravenous drug use in North America. This drug abuse problem is extensive throughout the region and extends to Surrey, Burnaby, North Delta and other suburbs. I have even seen videos demonstrating how easy it is for undercover police officers to purchase heroin.

There is no real government involvement in the solution to the problem. By that I mean that there needs to be an integrated approach which includes the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government.

The motion tries to address problems associated with heroin addiction, including social and family problems, health and crime related issues and high cost.

Many Canadians ruin their lives with heroin use. The problem extends much further in terms of people, the addicts. We need to do something to help these people. These people are our brothers and sisters, our children, our friends and neighbours who want to come home to recover.

We need to be compassionate, to deliver the health care remedy necessary to solve the problem. When addicts finally try to recover and kick their bad habits, they try to return to the suburbs or quiet towns in and around the lower mainland.

This problem needs a two pronged approach. First, we need to deal with the problem of heroin entering Canada. If we could stop the drug from coming into our country we could stop producing addicts. I know our law enforcement agencies are trying to do the best they can with limited resources at their disposal.

Second, we have to help the addicts. They need medical help, all sorts of help. We need to stabilize the addiction and then integrate them back into their families and home environment so that we help them return to the community where they can pursue a healthy life. We need to support the addicts at every stage.

Far from freely giving out heroin to addicts, we need to have them voluntarily return to a stabile environment where they can begin a medical program that will lead to their recovery.

The drug abuse problem affects all surrounding communities in the lower mainland including residents of Surrey Central. I have been made aware of the success we have had dealing with heroin addiction by using methadone in heroin addiction treatment. In Surrey we are leaders in dealing with heroin addiction. The federal government has been of little assistance, not that there is any co-ordination between different levels of government.

Our local medical community is on its own in struggling to save the program and the process. According to my information there are physicians all across the United States who have come to our province to learn about how we use methadone to treat heroin addicts. We teach these physicians what they need to know in order for them to return to their communities and establish methadone treatment programs within their own medical practices.

United States Drug Enforcement Agency members came to Vancouver to study our intravenous drug use problem. They did not go to Chicago, New York or Los Angeles. They came to Vancouver because the IDU problem is so large there.

We need to have the government support our own efforts in this regard. It is a well known fact in our health community that for every dollar spent fighting illicit drug use there is an $11 saving to be realized.

Surrey Methadone Treatment Centre Ltd. and Renaissance Foundation have a successful program in Surrey which I visited last summer. I can cite many examples after talking to patients. One of the patients I talked with said he had seen his daughter after 12 years. Because he was a drug addict he never went to his family, community or home. After receiving successful treatment his family visits him at the clinic. Now he is looking forward to rejoining his family.

Another addict told me he used to snatch purses and steal to support his addiction but now after receiving this successful treatment he is relieved. He is thankful to the organizers and owners of the clinic, those who offered him help. That is what we need in the community.

We in the House should consider expanding this program, sending it across the nation and exporting our expertise to fight this problem around the world.

I am not talking about legalization or decriminalization of drugs. Let me make that clear. The NDP would have us use the concept known as heroin trial that allows physicians to dole out heroin to addicts who are receiving treatment. Support must be provided for the injection drug use addict who chooses recovery instead of active addiction. I have been assured that a heroin trial prescription program is the wrong way to go. Furthermore, the methadone treatment has already been proven to be successful. It is the one that has been drawing the medical community to British Columbia to learn about it.

The free drug program on the other hand presents us with a defeatist attitude. We are beaten before we start, so we give in and give away heroin to those addicts. In my view this is not helping the addicts or the problem.

The Liberal government has a national drug strategy. We know it does not work. It is just full of Liberal rhetoric. A reduction in the illicit drug problem, as we know, is a reduction in our crime problem and a reduction in the drain on our limited health system resources. Therefore we must tackle the roots of the crime and not focus always on the punishment aspect.

As a society we continue to push for these kinds of changes, but the Liberal government on the other side does not listen. The government has cut $23 billion in health care and education since it came to power. One year ago today Canadians witnessed a very important vote in the House on a matter that can only be described as a tragedy. The official opposition forced the House to vote on whether or not to compensate all victims of hepatitis C.

It is the federal government that controlled the Canadian blood supply that infected about 60,000 Canadians. Today, after a year of holding the minister's feet to the fire, he is willing to compensate only about 20,000 of the victims of tainted blood. In the last year 1,200 of these victims died while waiting for compensation.

Since my time is over I emphasize that the Liberal government lacks compassion and vision. Still, the member introduces the motion we are debating today as if there were the remotest possibility that the government would listen to her and take action. How sad.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Motion M-454, introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

The purpose of her motion is to make sensible and regulated treatment options available to health professionals and the injection drug users under their medical supervision.

With Motion M-454, which calls for the implementation of clinical trials of prescription heroin, the hon. member for Vancouver East hopes to get parliamentarians to give serious thought to the extent of the drug addiction problem in Canada, with the ultimate goal of reducing street drug related crime, protecting the community, and saving lives.

As part of its national action plan submitted in May 1997, a expert task force on HIV/AIDS and drug issues gave a status report on the situation in Canada. At present, Canada is experiencing a true public health crisis as far as HIV/AIDS and injection drug use is concerned.

The age of those infected is constantly dropping; the average age of new HIV-positive people has gone from 32 years to 23. Since the penal system has not taken any remedial action, it has become one of the places the virus is being spread. The over-representation of aboriginal people among the groups at risk is of the greatest concern.

Because of this, there are several underlying principles against which the steps to be taken can be assessed. There are several different approaches.

In the past, the favoured approach in treating drug addiction was abstinence, or a total break with the substance being abused. While this approach is perfectly valid, more and more experts recognize that this is not always the best solution.

Abstinence, in the case of drug addiction, is not always a realistic objective achievable in the short term. It would be better, in the interest of public health, to consider other solutions.

There is also the harm reduction approach. This approach neither tolerates nor condemns the use of drugs. In fact, it allows the user to continue to consume, but at the same time encourages the taking of various steps to reduce the harm of consuming. This approach therefore does not rule abstinence out as the ultimate goal of an individual wanting it, but it takes a more progressive approach with the aim primarily of minimizing the negative effects of the use of drugs.

Needle exchange and condom distribution services, instruction on safe injection methods and the provision of locations for injections are part of the harm reduction approach. More and more studies are concluding in its favour. Motion M-451 is right in line with this thinking.

Long term treatment with methadone is used for people with a heroin dependency of over 30 years. With the emergence of the HIV epidemic among intravenous drug users, there is more interest in methadone or other opioid agonist treatment. Long term treatment is associated with a reduction in risky behaviour associated with injection, a reduction in new cases of HIV infection in treated populations, reduced consumption of opiates, lower crime and death rates and rehabilitation in the community.

In the Vancouver area, a health emergency has been declared because of an epidemic of HIV infections among intravenous drug users. This health emergency affects all large urban centres in Canada, particularly those where drug use is on the increase.

Faced with this situation, we must lay all possible options on the table. We must also take a look at what is being done in other countries, such as Switzerland, Germany, England and the Netherlands.

When the Swiss government decided to issue heroin prescriptions on a trial basis throughout the country in 1994, the social advantages of keeping people on heroin were amply demonstrated.

The results were as follows: a 60% reduction in criminal offences; a 60% drop in revenue from illegal or semi-legal activities; a spectacular reduction in heroin and cocaine use; a 14% to 32% increase in the number of participants holding down a steady job; a considerable increase in their physical health and, in most cases, a noticeable drop in links maintained with the drug world; no deaths attributable to overdoses and no prescription drug sold on the black market; a net economic benefit of $30 per patient, per day, largely because of the reduction in costs related to health care and the administration of the criminal justice system.

We cannot remain indifferent to human problems such as drug addiction and to its terrible repercussions, indeed to any human suffering. It is imperative that we open our minds to any possible solutions. Sometimes, this will require thinking differently, exploring new avenues.

That is what Motion M-454 does. And for that, we must thank the member for Vancouver East, who has shown much determination and devotion to the cause of helping the most disadvantaged members of society.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver East for bringing this thought provoking issue to the House. Reading from her backgrounder, I want to remind the House and the Canadian public as to why the member did this. It is a problem all across the country but in her home province it is particularly bad.

I want to go through some of the numbers which the member so thoughtfully provided us with. She says that in her home riding of Vancouver East a health emergency has been declared as a result of an epidemic of HIV infection among injection drug users. She also states that in British Columbia the death toll is staggering. As of November last year a record 371 people died of overdose in 1998 alone, 195 in the Vancouver area. Those are compelling statistics.

Overdose from intravenous drug use has become the leading cause of death for adults in the age range of 30 to 49 years in the province of British Columbia. Over and above that, the leading cause of HIV infection is now IDU. It is estimated there are 15,000 regular or frequent injection drug users in the province of British Columbia alone, the member's home province.

It is estimated that one-quarter of injection drug users are HIV positive and at most 88% have hepatitis C. She also states that HIV infected drug users are showing up in larger numbers in the Kamloops and Kootenay regions. She goes through some of the numbers in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and other Canadian cities.

Those are pretty grim statistics. We have to admire the member for wanting to do something about it. I know the issue is somewhat controversial. Some members on both sides of the House have said there are other examples in other countries and jurisdictions and what has been done.

In short, the intent of the motion is to implement clinical, multi-centre heroin prescription trials and hence the controversy. It is not an easy thing to deal with.

Let us look at what the Canadian Medical Association has to say about it. I am quoting from a document sent to me today:

The CMA recommends to the federal Minister of Health that the investigation of prescription of heroin for opiate-dependent individuals follow the same approval protocol in practice for the use of any therapeutic drug in Canada; and that the CMA recommend that methadone maintenance and counselling programs be more widely available across the country with appropriate education and remuneration of professional delivering such programs. This recommendation applies also to correctional institutions.

The CMA has laid out quite clearly what it thinks of the issue and the proposal before us.

I have done some research on this. I came across what they call rapid opiate detoxification. It is something that could be considered in this case. It is a cleansing therapy that curbs heroin addiction. It is somewhat new and exciting in the treatment of this addiction. It is a treatment widely used throughout the world, but this sophisticated medical procedure has just arrived in Canada.

Thanks go to a couple of individuals, Peter Garber and Mike Greenberg. They tell us it is based on the work of psychiatrists Dr. Karl Loimer and Dr. Colin Brewer who in the late 1980s discovered that two drugs, naloxone and naltrexone, suppressed the addict's desire for heroin and other drugs such as methadone. The treatment does not purport to be a cure for heroin addiction but offers an essential and powerful first step toward achieving that objective.

They step through how this procedure works and talk about reducing withdrawal in five ways. First the process is accelerated so what used to take the body weeks to achieve on its own is now done in about six hours. Second, the body does not crave the missing narcotic because it is replaced by another substance. Third, the entire treatment is performed under anesthesia so the patient is unconscious and unaware. Fourth, unlike most programs, a physician and a nurse attend the patient as the anesthetic wears off. Fifth, short term symptomatic treatment is prescribed to alleviate any mild withdrawal symptoms which may occur in the following couple of days. We are talking about a detoxification system with some amazing results.

It comes down to what can we afford to do and what should we do. Let us go through some of these numbers again. A study done in Toronto says “Deaths from heroin overdose have risen in certain cities, they are also related to HIV infection in some cases. The social cost exceeds millions of dollars, more going to drug enforcement”—and this is an important point—“than to drug treatment”. That is an important thing to consider. It is estimated that some $40,000 per year is spent for every untreated user.

We are going back to some of these new and exciting detoxification programs that have recently appeared. The question is what is the cost and can we afford it? Considering the number of deaths, we cannot afford to sit back and do nothing. I am not sure we can sit back and rely on the old methods of treating addiction. We have to examine anything that comes along which might deal with this in an effective way.

The U.S. drugs are criticized in some of these programs but this is not unusual. We can look at some of the other countries involved. Australia has some major concerns as well. I guess we could take some satisfaction with some of the stats coming out of The Netherlands. Listening to some of the other experts, we wonder whether or not they are accurate and whether or not they are effective. It depends on who the listener is, who the recipient is and whether or not they are interpreting some of those statistics in the same way.

It is a big problem and one we want to see some progress on. The latest procedure which I talked about has to be examined in the context of what has been used in the past. Remember that when heroin first appeared on the scene it was supposed to be the drug that was going to relieve morphine addiction. Look at what is happening with methadone which is an addiction of its own. It is a substitute for another addiction.

I think the jury is still out. But I think the consensus of this House is that this motion has to be examined very carefully by the Minister of Health. We have to encourage more thought provoking motions like this one and consider all options in the treatment of a very serious situation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members who participated in this debate, in particular the member from the Bloc Quebecois and the member from the Conservative Party for their very thoughtful comments. That is what this discussion was about, to talk about this very serious issue and to examine what options and possibilities there are for dealing with the very very serious situation of chronic injection drug users who may be using heroin or cocaine or a combination of drugs.

It was disappointing to hear the response from the government member. To me this debate is about saying we must have a variety of options available. I would certainly agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health that methadone must be improved, it must be expanded. There have been calls for that in all the reports I have read and I would certainly agree with that. Indeed the other options she mentioned need to be brought forward and put on the table as real possibilities that can be used.

My concern is that we not rule out what has been shown to be successful in other countries in terms of a heroin maintenance program that can be viable and beneficial in circumstances where individuals have not been able to get successful treatment using other options.

To characterize the heroin maintenance program in Switzerland or anywhere else as something that is not well established or that is very risky, I would encourage the member to look at some of the material that is available from the very credible organizations that have been monitoring the Swiss program. The evidence shows very clearly that we are not talking about risky situations but about a program that actually produced very amazing results.

To the member from the Reform Party, it is very disappointing that this would be characterized as the NDP wanting to give out free heroin to addicts. Morphine is also a controlled substance. We recognize that it has a legitimate use within our medical system. Nobody here is advocating handing out heroin all over the place to whoever wants it.

This motion talks about setting up a very tightly controlled scientific and medically supervised pilot program in which we can enrol people and make contact with people who otherwise are totally marginalized and seem to be outside of our health care system.

To characterize a very complex health issue by throwing it away and saying that it is about free drugs really does not do service to the complexity and the compassion we need to show for people who are really suffering out there. I was very disappointed to hear the remarks from the Reform Party.

I have heard other members from the Reform Party say they have been to Vancouver's downtown east side in my constituency of Vancouver East and they are very horrified at what they have seen on the streets. If that is the case, I would encourage them to look at this seriously and to seek out information from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Addiction Research Foundation, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, coroners offices, and the list goes on and on.

This motion was brought forward to bring about a debate, to bring about understanding, to encourage the government not to close the door on this matter. It has had a lot of discussion within the health care community and the justice community. This is something that should be taken note of and examined further. We should be working with the medical community to look at the protocols that would be necessary.

From what I have been able to read in articles, even officials from Health Canada believe there is a place to have this kind of program set up. I would encourage the government not to reject this outright as being too controversial and risky but to look at it as an option, as part of a comprehensive harm reduction strategy for dealing with illegal drug use.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek unanimous consent to have the matter sent for further discussion to the Standing Committee on Health.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to refer the matter to the standing committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the government were an individual Canadian, it would have been forced into bankruptcy long ago. If the government were a small business, the shop would have been boarded up for some time now. The government sees fit to waste taxpayer money with seemingly little regard and with even less respect.

On February 16, 1999, I challenged the Minister of National Defence on the issue of Canada's submarine purchase. The price the government has led the Canadian taxpayer to believe it will spend on our new submarines is $750 million, but it appears the actual cost could be closer to $2 billion.

Imagine a Canadian small business underestimating its cost by over two and one-half times the original estimate when it budgeted for new equipment. No respectable business could stand such gross financial mismanagement time and time again. However, that is exactly how the government treats its own books and how it treats taxpayers.

I wish the only problem with this deal was the cost, but the big picture is even worse. The Liberal government's priorities are so far out of whack it is hard to conceive how it must have gone about making decisions.

Let me ask why we are buying four used submarines and how this decision fits into the role our forces will play early in the 21st century.

Two of the suggested roles, drug surveillance and fisheries patrol, are clearly dubious at best. Does the government really think that increased submarine capability would have stopped the turbot war? The proposed third reason for protecting our sovereignty under the ice cap would require an incredibly expensive refit.

What about the cost of technical data and crew training? What about the cost of infrastructure refit and development to be able to house the submarines? What about the need, as I have mentioned, to refit them with air independent propulsion so they can work under the ice without frequent resurfacing?

Furthermore, what will we do when these submarines break down? The production line for these submarines has ended and to get parts must we then cannibalize one of the four submarines we are purchasing? What about the cost of changing the communication suites to be compatible with the Auroras and helicopters?

I will detail my estimates and I trust the government will choose to do the same in its response: acquisition costs of $800 million; shore facilities and modification, $200 million; routine refits over the life of the program, $1 billion; and air independent propulsion system, $1 billion. This totals $3 billion and if we add 30 years of operating costs at approximately $2.7 billion, the grand total is $5.7 billion or over seven times the cost to the taxpayer that the government is touting.

What about the big picture itself? The government needs to answer a question to the people of my riding of Halifax West, to Nova Scotians and to all other Canadians. How does this expenditure stand up against the need for adequate pay and housing conditions for Canadian forces personnel so desperately needed and so terribly missing? It is true there has been some money infused as a result of the recent report of a committee, but yet there is a long way to go.

How does this stand up against the need for immediate attention to finding a substitute for the flying accidents waiting to happen or the Sea Kings and Labrador helicopters? People deserve an answer and they are waiting.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of acquiring the four upholder class submarines and putting them into active service in Canada is still $750 million in the year of 1998-99.

In April 1998 the government approved the acquisition based on this figure and nothing has changed except the names of the vessels. It was announced on March 30 that the vessels would be known as the Victoria class submarines.

The first Victoria class submarine is due to arrive in Canada in the autumn of 2000 and the navy is already preparing for this. Even as we prepare to take possession of the submarines we have already started to plan for the future, precisely because we expect these boats will have a long life in the Canadian navy.

As with any piece of equipment there will be maintenance and upgrade projects involved throughout the life of the vessel. It is unreasonable to think that one can buy any piece of equipment and keep it operating for 30 years without maintenance and upgrades.

For instance, the Victorias will require a mid-life refit to ensure that they meet their expected lifespan. We will also have to keep maintaining all the safety and rescue equipment so that it will be compatible with the newest technology.

Furthermore, as new technologies come available that would require enhanced operational capabilities of the submarines, they will need to be integrated into existing systems whenever possible. It would be unfair and irresponsible to add the costs of such eventual projects to the cost of acquisition because at this point we cannot predict the timing, the cost or the nature of any future projects with 100% accuracy.

When the time comes for any new expenditures I can assure the hon. member that these projects will be subject to the necessary government approval before they can proceed. Planning for the future is the responsible thing to do and it is particularly important in times of tight fiscal restraint.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of children are directly involved in armed conflict as deliberate targets and as child soldiers.

The record of the past decade is grim. Close to two million children have been killed in armed conflict; more than four million children disabled; over one million children orphaned; over 300,000 girls and boys serving in armies and rebel groups as fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies and labourers; 12 million children homeless; and over 10 million children psychologically scarred by the trauma of abduction, detention, sexual assault and witnessing the brutal murder of family members.

The situation of children in armed conflict is worse today than it was 50 years ago when the Declaration of Universal Human Rights was signed. Today 90% of the casualties of war are civilian, mostly women and children, whereas it was only 48% in the second world war and 5% in the first world war.

Children usually become soldiers through coercion, either through mandatory conscription or forced recruitment. Child soldiers overwhelmingly are recruited from the poorest and most marginalized sectors of society. Particularly vulnerable are children without families or with disrupted family backgrounds. Coercion aside, children may join the military for security, food or medical care. The military may offer children the only path to wages to support themselves or their families.

The use of children in armed conflict is global in nature. It is a far greater problem than suggested by the scant attention it has received. The use of child soldiers violates international norms.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed in 1989 and ratified by all but two nations, establishes 15 years as the minimum recruitment age. In fact, most countries have endorsed an optional protocol that boosts the minimum combat age to 18 years. However, in the face of armed conflict, military units in some nations, whether governmental or rebel, often pay little attention to age.

International silence about the abuse of children must change. The welfare of the world's children merits special priority in Canada's human security agenda.

Children are the most vulnerable group. The experience of children during their early years affects them for life. It will affect their families as well as their own future. We simply cannot afford to let the current situation continue if we value our own future.

In February the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the UN security council on the impact of conflict on civilians. He outlined Canada's approach to this very serious issue. In light of this, could the Minister of Foreign Affairs highlight what Canada is doing to protect civilians in armed conflict and in particular children?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I respond to this question on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I would like to acknowledge the important contribution that the member for London West has made to the issue of child soldiers. She really has made a difference in advancing the cause of human safety and security when it comes to the lives that those children will have.

It is true that on February 12 the Minister of Foreign Affairs travelled to New York to preside over a special meeting of the security council sponsored by Canada on the issue of protection of civilians in conflict.

It is a recent innovation of the council to hold its meetings on a thematic focus. This enables the security council to consider cross-cutting security issues in a broader, more integrated context than its usual crisis mode of interaction. We support this practice which also permits the council to hear from outside non-state sources, for example the International Committee of the Red Cross.

This initiative is a key element of Canada's security council human security agenda which we hope to advance during our two year council term. At issue is the rising toll of modern conflict on civilians, particularly vulnerable groups such as women and children who are not only victimized by new forms of aggression but are often directly targeted, as the hon. member who has worked so hard on this difficult issue has noticed, and used as child soldiers, which is a very serious issue. Our goal is to explore new ways for the security council and the international community to address this pressing human safety concern.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs delivered Canada's statement on this theme and reiterated to council members that the ultimate aim of the council's work was to safeguard the security of the world's people, not just the states in which they live. Clearly, with the disproportionate toll modern conflict takes on civilians, the protection of individuals should be a primary consideration in the council's activities. The minister called on the council to meet its responsibilities and to face the challenges of this issue head on.

As a result of the February 12 briefing, the council adopted a presidential statement which condemned all attacks against civilians in conflict situations, including women, children and refugees, and called on the—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of all Atlantic Canadian fishermen, plant workers and their families, and on behalf of those in Quebec and in the territory of Nunavut.

The recent auditor general's report on the failed DFO management policies when it comes to the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Nunavut is one of the most damning reports ever on the policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The auditor general did great work. We in this party want to thank him very much for raising the red flag.

In 1992 devastation hit Newfoundland and many other parts of Atlantic Canada in terms of the groundfish collapse which has now been proven to be solely the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Two levels of government mismanaged that fishery to the death knell of many people.

Unfortunately the auditor general says the exact same management policies that happened in the cod fish crisis is now happening in the shellfish industry. We just cannot allow this to happen. In committee report after committee report the facts are clear. We have studied this issue to death. The DFO cannot properly manage the shellfish industry of Atlantic Canada. It does not have the resources. It does not have the scientific people to do the job. It certainly does not allocate any money.

For example, the lobster industry is a $500 million industry in Atlantic Canada. It spent $330,000 a year on research. That is all it spent on this most important and crucial industry.

The DFO allowed the dragging of a brood stock of scallops in the Bay of Fundy. That was a nursery, for God's sake. It actually allowed a dragger to go through the Bay of Fundy and destroy an entire scallop industry.

The auditor general also pointed out that we have little or no at sea observer coverage on board ships within our own 200 mile limit. It even ignores the observer reports it gets.

In 1997 the Minister of Veterans Affairs who was then the minister of fisheries and oceans ignored the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization's scientific advice. We got this information from court transcripts of the Federal Court in Vancouver. He ignored the advice of the Nunavut wildlife branch. He ignored the advice of the fisheries resource conservation council. Most important, he ignored the advice of his own deputy minister and opened up the turbot fishery two months prior to the federal election. Those are the facts.

Now the auditor general has pointed out that the current minister ignores advice from his own department and ignores the advice from observer reports. We can only come to the conclusion that it is based on political favouritism. It is not issuing quotas or licences, for example, on sound biological or scientific evidence. What it is doing is basing it on political favouritism. It is the same thing that the Liberal government accused the Conservative government of doing.

Unfortunately the people of Atlantic Canada do not have that much time to wait. If the industry collapses, which I suspect it may under the current regime we have, we know very well there will not be a TAGS 3 program.

Where will the answers be from the government then? The auditor general has raised the red flag, has put up a precautionary note, and has given sound advice to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to the government. We are asking on this side of the House that the government of the day, the department and the minister heed his advice very carefully, understand exactly what the problems are, and move forward in the new millennium.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance that there are effective monitoring programs in place. Fisheries enforcement is a priority for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and every effort was made to protect the enforcement program from budget reductions. A number of steps have been taken to improve enforcement effectiveness.

Under a national recruitment strategy over 100 new fishery officers have been hired in the last three years. Physical fitness and competency standards have been developed for fishery officers along with new training courses, including one on forensic auditing.

Operating budgets have been increased and new surveillance equipment, computers and patrol boats have been purchased to augment program effectiveness. In addition, the department is reviewing the mix of enforcement resources and examining ways to better utilize data collected.

Major improvements are being made to dockside monitoring programs in 1999. Dockside monitoring companies will be required to meet standards set by DFO and will be subject to checks and audits.

The at sea observer program will also undergo a major review in 1999 which will include the development of criteria for setting observer coverage levels. We have learned from the groundfish collapse and we are determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Conservation of the resources is the department's first and foremost priority.

Shellfish resources have been healthy and abundant in the 1990s. It is important to note that every shellfish fishery is managed through specific conservation measures such as minimum size, quotas, specific fishing areas and a limited number of licences. DFO's decisions on shellfish allocation are based on established criteria with conservation being the first priority. Where temporary sharing of abundant shellfish resources is authorized, it is done in such a manner that it ensures harvesting capacity does not increase on a permanent basis.

The auditor general has recommended that the department should clearly define its policies. I am happy to tell the member and the House that DFO has already begun a full review of its Atlantic fishery policy.

[The Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to order adopted on Thursday, March 11, 1999.

(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)