Debates of May 17th, 2001

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

Now that the parliamentary secretary has raised the prospect of whether or not he will split his time, I am in a bit of a dilemma. Either he will split, and there is very little time left, or he will not, the difference being that at that time I would recognize someone across the floor should someone wish to speak.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue speaking.

One of the reasons I will continue speaking is that this is an issue that I brought with me to the House when I was first elected in 1988. I believe that this is the first occasion I as a member have ever had, as a result of the motion being moved today, to address the entire package of the issue of the illegal use of drugs. It has been a long wait.

I think it is fair to say that when I first arrived here the political context was not right in the country to look at new approaches. I found significant political impediments in suggesting new approaches. People were well-meaning, but perhaps 12 or 15 years ago we did not grasp the significance of all of the evil and the costs involved.

Now I think our Canadian society has changed and the country may be ready. We are not sure. Therefore I am not going to suggest that we legalize anything. We do not have to legalize all illegal drug use. I am not even suggesting decriminalization.

The problem is much more serious than could be addressed by simple legalization or simple decriminalization. The reason it is more complex is that we are dealing with the business of organized crime. Whatever move society makes on the chessboard, organized crime will make a countermove. If we legalize, it will work with that. If we decriminalize, it will work with that.

As I look at this, it is my view that we should maintain our strict laws and enforcement of the illegal black marketing of drugs, the importation of them and the conspiracies to do that. I am not advocating any change in that.

What I advocate is what I call medicalization, not legalization, not decriminalization but medicalization. The principal aim is to remove the potential customer from organized crime. Society will get its best bang for the buck by doing this.

The main way we can do that is to recognize when individuals have become addicted and dependant on illegal drugs and as soon as they interface with our justice system or any of our institutions, medical or otherwise, divert them into a medically supervised program. I am not putting parameters on it or being specific about it. What I am saying is when people have become addicted to a drug and are dependent on it, they should be given that drug under medical supervision. At the same time they should also have access to whatever programming is available to get them off the drug and give them back their life. However they must have access to the drug. In some cases if they do get it they die or they do not make it very far. Those are difficult times. I will give a little comparison.

The average Canadian bears the costs of illegal drug use. We have the costs associated with home break-ins, stolen cars, medical costs of needle sharing and the spread of HIV-AIDS and hepatitis. There is also the heartbreak associated with individuals who have to steal and cheat to sustain an illegal drug habit. We could give them the drug for $5, a drug that would cost them $1,000 or $2,000. In other words, medicalize it and bring them into the system.

I recall a friend of mine in the United States took a slightly more liberal view. He said that we should give them a barrel of the drug, then the person would be satisfied. We have to go further than that. We have to realize that an addicted person is essentially a sick person. A drug dependant person needs continuing medical care.

The essential part of this solution, and I hope it is a solution, is to divert the customer of the organized criminal into the medical system and make the drug easily available to the person through a medical doctor's supervision. Maybe the medical doctor could switch the drug from A to B to C, but the doctor's goal would be to service the person's addiction, while at the same time moving that person off the drug dependency.

We are all aware of the methadone treatment programs. Some of these programs work and some do not. However there are many other ways to approach the challenge of moving people away from addiction. We are still experimenting. Federal tax dollars are supporting pilot projects now. Huge dollars are being spent by provincial governments for the same thing. I am not so sure we have added up all the money, as I said earlier, but that is now going on across Canadian society.

We must take away the customer from organized crime. We could ascribe a societal dollar cost to every person who is dependent on illegal drug use, let us say $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000 a year because the costs are huge. We could medicalize the addiction which would stop them from purchasing drugs from organized crime. We would then greatly reduce the direct or indirect costs. I point out that in many cases the medicalization would be there anyway, but it would be done in a much more targeted way for the individual.

I will reiterate the term that I used which is medicalization. It is absolutely essential for Canadians through their government to compete against the ugly, evil organized crime. We have to take away its customers and profits. That will reduce the cost to our society.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions that have to do with the medicalization and the treatment of drug addicts. There is some merit in the suggestions that he made.

However the assumption underlying the treatment of addicts and the medicalization of drugs starts somewhere. If we help these people get off the addiction that is useful. However what about creating a program that would help them not to get started in the first place. It seems to me we are dealing with a symptom of a deeper problem. Could he address that problem?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. Prevention is a heck of a lot easier and a whole lot cheaper than the cure. We have ongoing drug education programs in schools and various other fora across the country. We spend taxpayer money now doing that. However we are failing. It is not working.

The hon. member would not be far off if he is saying that we should spend more money on it and put more resources into it. I would agree with him 100%. More resources for drug education and a preventative initiative would help a lot.

There has been some drug education since I was a kid in grade school up to now, but we could do more. However we are failing and I do not want to fail any more.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I know this is an issue that he and all members of the House take very seriously.

My question for him though deals with the issue of priorities. He spoke of his own personal view of this issue as it being something that necessitates government attention, that necessitates the focus of all the stakeholders, such as health and justice officials.

Not to sound too partisan but why has it taken opposition motions to get the government to recognize some of these priorities? Whether it be issues of foot and mouth disease, agricultural, water safety or justice, why is it that it takes the opposition to motivate the government to take the initiative to address some of these issues that appear to be so apparent and so obvious? Welcome to the bandwagon.

Why has his government not taken the initiative on something like this in the past? It is going on in the other place, but the opposition appears to be the only one able to raise these issues in the House of Commons to the extent that the government is prepared to take notice and more important, take action.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member of the opposition who moved this motion. I congratulate members of all parties for participating in the debate. Government members will speak to this issue from various perspectives.

As a member on the government side, I have to acknowledge that governments tend to get stuck in the status quo. I mentioned earlier the obstacles of changing attitudes in relation to fighting the problem of illegal drugs. The government is locked into treaties and the current drug enforcement initiatives. Things are going on. The government is working at it.

Who in the government or in the House has been charged with the challenge of finding a new way to deal with it? Who is going to admit that we are failing? That does not happen often. We are unlikely to find a minister who will stand in the House or anywhere and say that the government is failing at something. Our marks are low and we can do more. I am reasonably confident we will do more.

I have been in the House for 12 years and this is the first time I have had an opportunity to address this issue head on and as comprehensively. I sat in opposition for five of those twelve years.

Not one member of the House, not one opposition party nor not necessarily the governing party, but the whole House will have an opportunity to deal with this issue by way of a vote. This may move the yardsticks in a way that we have not moved them before. I am grateful for that opportunity.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks. I know that this is something that is very dear to him.

He made a comment about the marijuana problem being infinitesimal, that it was a trivial part of this whole issue. I am not sure if he was referring to the medicinal use of marijuana or the recreational use.

If he was to make a trip out to my part of the country on the west coast he could take a look at the grow ops. We have one grow op pop up every day in my city of Surrey alone. One pound of marijuana goes south across the border and comes back as a pound of cocaine. Marijuana is a monstrous issue out there because of the involvement of organized crime. The cash involved fuels organized crime. It is anything but a trivial issue when it comes to that.

Would he care to clarify his comments?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not underestimate for a moment the amount of money involved in illegal marijuana growing and trafficking. However we cannot convert marijuana to cocaine.

I understand the member's analogy about what goes out and what comes back. However people who use marijuana do not inject the drug. The basic marijuana usage we are thinking about in this issue does not involve addiction or injection drugs.

I am wildly speculating, but if marijuana is for recreational use and not addictive then people are paying for it with their spare change and are paying for it on the black market. However they are not stealing to support their recreational use of marijuana. I am making assumptions that I cannot back up.

When I talk about all of the costs of illegal drug use, I was talking about billions of dollars of direct and indirect costs. The marijuana component of growing and selling on the black market may be part of the big organized crime picture, but in terms of its actual total piece of the whole, in my view it is small.

We may learn more if this committee is put in place. I may learn a great deal. I respect the views that the hon. member has indicated, that the organized crime element of marijuana is big, because it is illegal, because it has been criminalized. If we were to decriminalize it, if it had no addictive properties, if it were treated like tobacco, it would not even be criminalized. It would not show up on the Richter scale. It would be a cash crop.

I will leave it there. I may say too much. The phone may be ringing, as I said.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to enter this debate because I think this is a very significant subject. The honour of it really is to have the support of the Minister of Health, to have the support of the hon. secretary and to recognize that virtually everyone in the House is on the same page on this one. I find that very rewarding and very significant.

At the same time, however, it seems to me to be a rather interesting phenomenon that this problem has been talked about since at least 1986, when a set of policies was created by the then Conservative government. There was a further policy development by the Liberal government following that. We have been talking about it for 15 or 20 years and nothing seems to have been done about it. It seems to me that we need to look at this a little differently and ask why not.

The hon. member from the Conservative Party just raised the question: why is it that if the problem is so significant the only way it gets to see the light of day is through an opposition party raising it on a supply day motion? If it is so important, why is that the case?

It seems to me there are several reasons. First, I think as a society we need to recognize that in order to really deal with the problem we have to analyze the dynamics of a social change, because what we are dealing with here is a social change, a lifestyle change.

My hon. colleague from Surrey North mentioned this marijuana business and said that it is an infinitesimal part of the drug trade. It is not. It is very significant. In British Columbia, of course, we grow very high quality marijuana. In fact it is so good that a pound of marijuana goes south into the United States and there is exchanged pound for pound for cocaine. Cocaine is far more addictive than marijuana, but the marijuana has that kind of life.

I am not an advocate of drug use in one way or another. In fact I despise tobacco. I think it is a terrible addiction that we have, but we have it. In order to change that, we have to change our society. It used to be socially unacceptable to smoke. It is not any more and we have accepted that. It is not a criminal act. However it is a criminal act to smoke marijuana.

It seems to me that as a society we have to decide what shall be criminal and what shall not be criminal. There are three parts to this that we need to recognize. First we have to recognize what problem we are facing with this business of drug use. What is the problem? It seems to me we have had ample demonstration of what the problem is. Our young people are using it. Our adults are using it. The incidence of the use of the drug is increasing. That is the problem. Why is it a problem? Obviously somebody does not want people to do this. If all of us wanted them to take drugs, it would not be a problem. We would not be talking about it. Clearly we have recognized it as a problem.

Next, if it is a problem, whose problem is it? Is it your problem, Mr. Speaker? Is it the Prime Minister's problem? Is it the government's problem? Is it our problem? Is it the parents' problem? Is it the kids' problem? Is it the teachers' problem?

One thing is sure. If it is no one's problem no one is going to do anything about it. If we are constantly pointing the finger at someone else and saying “That is your problem, so you go do something about that”, what happens? We will not do anything about it. If we point the finger elsewhere then nothing is going to happen either. As long as there is an exercise like that going on, nothing will change.

It seems to me that we first need to recognize what the problem is and then recognize whose problem it is. Knowing that, we can then understand the situation and finally accept it. Until we do those things we will do nothing. We will talk about it forever.

The official opposition brought to the attention of the House a motion today which says that we should form a special committee to study the drug problem seriously with a view to examining the whole gamut of the issue. It is not easy.

Just recently I attended the Civitas conference here in Ottawa. It was a think tank conference, part of which involved a debate on whether we should keep the criminalization of drugs or decriminalize drugs. There were excellent debates on both sides of the issue.

What came out of the debate was a recognition that all of us need to be far better informed as to what the real issues are. Certainly there is a criminal element to it. Organized crime is involved. Also, there is a predilection to seek pleasure versus anything else and to do whatever one can to invoke the hedonistic tendency that all human beings have. We need to clearly understand the implications.

I think the hon. member mentioned in his remarks that there has been drug education in the schools. Yes, there has been a very complete exposé of what drugs will do to these kids. What has it done? It has not resulted in a decrease in the use of drugs. It has done the opposite.

I remember being asked, as the principal of a school a long time ago, if I would become part of a pilot project on drug education. I quickly did some research in schools where this took place. I compared the incidence of drug use in schools where the program had been implemented with that of schools where it had not been implemented. Guess what? The incidence was directly related to the degree to which the drug program had been implemented in that school. There was a direct increase.

We told the kids more about drugs, so guess what they did? They practised. Their curiosity was stimulated and they said “Gee, if it is that much fun maybe we should try it”. Little did they realize that these drugs are extremely addictive, particularly some of the harder drugs. Then of course there are other abuses that take place. For example they put some kind of drug in a bottle of Coke and drive each other nuts. They do this. They play tricks on each other, sometimes to the great chagrin and terror of the victim.

Clearly drug education, or education about drugs, which is really what it amounts to, is not the answer. It does not do anything.

The first thing we have to do if we are really serious about making a change is know what we are dealing with. What is this drug phenomenon that people are subjecting themselves to? The second thing we have to do is understand what drugs do to people, how they are addictive and what can possibly be done to combat them. Finally people have to say “I understand what it is, I accept that it is my problem, my issue, and I have to make a decision”.

I think the hon. member recognizes it is probably more important to have preventive programs than it is to have rehabilitative and treatment programs. No one becomes a drug addict without making a choice to take drugs. That choice had to be made first. It is a matter of choice and if it is a matter of choice, we also know that we are dealing with morals or morality. Choice is determined by the value structure that one holds. If we get into that kind of debate, can we imagine where it would take us? I am not surprised that the Liberal government seems to first test which way the wind is blowing and then decides what the value is, rather than deciding what its principles are in the first place.

We need to recognize that it is essentially a moral choice in the first instance. We then have to move from there. There are people who will argue that all we have to do is have good laws and everything will be fine. I do not know of a single law that has made people good, but I know of a lot of good laws that have been made by good people. There is a fundamental difference. Let us not ever deceive ourselves by thinking that making good laws will make people good. It will do nothing of the kind.

However, if we do have laws, and we do, we had better make sure those laws are observed and that the people who break those laws are dealt with in an appropriate, fair and equitable way. The consequences have to be strong enough that the rewards for breaking the law are not greater than the consequences. That is what is happening now.

For example, I know RCMP officers who pick up these marijuana growers in Kelowna. There are a lot of growers there. These people who break the law and grow marijuana do all kinds of things besides that. They produce a drug that is illegal in the first instance, but they also break the utilities law and a lot of other stuff. They get fined $2,500 for doing it. For an enterprise that generates something like $200,000 to $500,000 a year, $2,500 is just a good business licence. They will not quit. They will keep doing it. There are no serious consequences.

When we do this kind of thing we really create an environment that says to criminals it is okay if they break the law because after all it is just the way things are and society really does not frown on it too much, so they can keep on doing it.

The thing that scares me more than anything else is that there seems to be a syndrome developing that if it is legal it is right. It could be legal, but it could be extremely immoral and false. An example is the Feeney case. Members will probably remember it. A man killed an individual and left a trail of blood. The police followed the trail of blood to a mobile home. They went in and asked the individual if he killed the man. He said yes and showed them the bar he did it with. The police took him to headquarters and charged him with murder. They took him to court. The judge asked if the police had a warrant. The police officer said no. The judge said that then the individual did not commit the crime, that he could not be convicted on that basis. What a miscarriage of justice, what a miscarriage of truth.

I want to refer to one of the chief justices here in Canada, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé. At the 26th Canadian criminal justice congress in Ottawa in 1997 she said that “the search for truth is the very purpose of criminal justice”.

In this case, the Feeney case, truth was completely subject to a legal process. It had nothing to do with justice. That is the kind of thing that is happening in regard to the enforcement of drugs and it is happening in other cases as well.

There is another case that is extremely significant in connection with this. It has to do with drugs. In 1997 in Ontario a judge decided that a principal's authority extended to searches of students suspected of bringing drugs to school. However, giving his good sense some time off, the judge then added, but not if the principal enlists the aid of a police officer. The good judge was pronouncing on a case in which a crime stopper tip alerted police to a student who had put drugs in the pocket of his red jacket to smuggle into his high school. An officer visited the principal and together they checked the student's locker. There was no red jacket. The pair proceeded to the gym where they saw the red jacket and spoke to the student. Knowing the game was up, he said “You'll find it in that pocket in my jacket”. They did.

However the mere presence of a policeman stuck in the judge's craw. Moreover no cautions were given. There was no suggestion to the student of his right to counsel, et cetera. The evidence of both words and drugs were suppressed and the student was acquitted.

Where is the truth? Where is the commitment to decency and justice? The kids and the parents know it. The teachers and principal know it. These are the things we have to deal with. These are not matters of law. These are matters of choice to go in a certain direction.

A high school principal can proceed on mere suspicion but a police officer cannot. We pay officers to enforce the laws and then hobble them more than someone we pay to administer a place of learning. As for drugs, not to mention knives in our schools, this is scary stuff and becoming pretty common.

Not long ago, in fact it was 20 years exactly, at the Victoria Composite High School in Edmonton we had a student that walked down the hallway, lifted his pant leg, pulled out a knife and stabbed a fellow student. What do we have coming?

I have another case. It involves two caring parents; their son George, aged 14; the accused John, a young 15 year old stray; and a judge who knew more than enough charter law. John had left his home and was kindly allowed by George's mom and dad to stay in their home. In 1996 George and John donned masks and armed with knives robbed a convenience store in Etobicoke, Ontario. As they were fleeing, George dropped his wallet near the store. This brought officers to call on his parents. George's mother made sure that George had a chat with the officers who produced the wallet. He admitted to the robbery and implicated John as well.

John was questioned. Knowing George had ratted on him, John told the officer that it was not a balaclava; they were wearing stockings. Months later he was videotaped by police telling all. He also agreed to testify against George in a plea bargain and was subsequently let go with 18 months of probation.

In 1997 George went to trial with two strikes against him but the judge excluded his confession saying that George had felt intimidated by the officers. Next the judge rejected John's evidence against George, which he held to be a derivative of George's conscripted admission, that is John would not have tattled on his pal if George had not first got them both into trouble. George went free.

Now back to George's mother who had ensured that her son co-operated with the officers. Did she believe that it would have been better for her son to face the music, pay his social debt and get on with his life, or did she agree that the charter knew better?

I did not write this book. It was written by Alex MacDonald who used to be the attorney general of British Columbia. He called his book Outrage: Canada's Justice System on Trial . He says that we do not have a justice system in Canada, that we have a legal system. He talks about the prodigal law and he says that the justice system, the legal system, expands to fill the time and money available. Where is the truth?

These are the kinds of things that terrify me. It is one of the main reasons I am here. We have to get to the point where we recognize that human beings make decisions. We as human beings make decisions and choices. I am so concerned that we concentrate on whether we are Liberal, Conservative, NDP or whatever rather than on getting to the point where we agree that the time has come for us to share a common set of values. In that common set of values there should be things like character so that individuals will clearly distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, so that there will be a commitment to courage and duty.

How many times do we find in this place that we consider it a duty to serve on a committee or a duty to be present for a vote, or whatever the case might be?

It is almost as if we are forced into doing it. The whip has to whip us into place. That should not be necessary. Out of 30 million people in Canada, there are 301 of us charged with the responsibility of looking after their interests, to push back the walls of evil and to make sure there is a law that will allow people to feel protected and secure to walk down the streets safely without worry.

Canadians trust us to do that. It is our duty to do that and we should have the courage to stand and say that some things are wrong. There is something very seriously wrong when we reward the results of crime to a greater degree than the results of doing what is right. That is what is happening. We protect the criminal more than we do the victim. It is backward and as long as we have that kind of process we will not resolve the drug problem.

My appeal to all members is that we set up the special committee and that we empower it to obtain all possible resources so that we can analyze this problem and then have the courage to deal with it because that is our duty.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's drug strategy reflects a balance between reducing the supply of drugs and reducing the demand for drugs. Drugs affect every country in the world. Problems associated with substance abuse, production of illicit drugs and drug trafficking cause harm to individuals, families and communities. Only through the co-ordinated action at the national and international levels can we reduce the demand, illicit supply and trafficking of drugs.

Canada's drug strategy involves 11 federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, addiction agencies, non-governmental organizations, professional associations, law enforcement agencies, and community and private sector groups. It is a co-ordinated effort to reduce the harm associated with abusive drugs, alcohol and other substances. The strategy is based on four pillars: prevention, enforcement and control, treatment and rehabilitation, and harm reduction.

Through prevention we seek to prevent individuals from falling prey to substance abuse. Through enforcement and control we seek to prevent these substances from falling into the hands of the wrong people. Through treatment and rehabilitation we seek to help those who have a substance abuse problem to overcome the problem. Through harm reduction we seek to prevent the problems of disease, illness and community malaise that often go hand in hand with substance abuse.

Harm associated with substance abuse can be physical, psychological, societal and/or economic. Substance abuse is primarily a health issue, not simply an enforcement issue. Reducing the harm is considered to be realistic, pragmatic and a humane approach as opposed to attempting solely to reduce the supply of drugs.

The Government of Canada believes that a reduction of the harm can be achieved by a number of initiatives: first, by increasing the understanding of the risks associated with illicit drug use, particularly among young people; second, by reducing high risk patterns of alcohol and other drug use; and, third, by identifying and promoting best practices in substance abuse prevention, education, treatment and rehabilitation.

We are aiming at the illegal importation of illicit drugs and reducing that importation. We are hoping to reduce the availability of illicit drugs on the streets. We are reducing the ability of persons involved in the supply and trafficking of drugs to make use of the profits from their illegal activities.

It is not a simple response and it involves 11 departments in Canada's drug strategy. We are taking action on all those fronts. Canada's legislative framework is the backbone of our approach to drug control. Three international conventions guide domestic legislation, enforcement and control. They are: the 1961 single convention on narcotic drugs and its 1972 protocol; the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances; and the 1988 convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Canada's legislation controls the import, production, export, distribution, possession and use of psychoactive substances that can result in harm when distributed or used without controls. The law also provides mechanisms to ensure that the export, import, production, distribution, possession and use of internationally regulated substances are confined to medical, scientific and industrial purposes.

In 1997 Canada proclaimed in force the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which modernized and consolidated the existing legislation and provided enforcement agencies with additional tools necessary to combat illicit drug related activity.

The alcohol and drug treatment and rehabilitation program, ADTR, is another element that supports the Government of Canada's efforts to reduce the harm associated with alcohol and other drugs for individuals, families and their communities. Through this program, provincial and territorial governments have access to funding so they can improve accessibility to effective alcohol and drug treatment and rehab programs and services. Youth and women are major target groups for services funded under ADTR.

Canada places a high priority on international co-operation and recognizes the need for a co-ordinated international response in order to address the global problem.

International co-operation through the United Nations international drug control program, UNDCP, and the inter-American drug abuse control commission, CICAD, are the main elements of Canada's international drug control activities.

Canada's annual contributions are $1.5 million to the UNDCP and $600,000 to CICAD. Our activities internationally mirror the balanced approach taken domestically.

Canada took the lead in the development of a Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism, or the MEM, as it is commonly known, which was agreed to in September 1999 at a meeting of a working group chaired by Canada's former deputy solicitor general, Jean Fournier, in Ottawa.

The first implementation round of the MEM began soon thereafter. The first reports from the MEM were submitted to leaders at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City, in 2001, and were well received.

The growth of drug abuse in many jurisdictions and the impact of trafficking and associated criminality have strained the resources of many countries in the hemisphere that are seeking technical assistance and training to develop the health, social and law enforcement infrastructure to deal with the problem. Canada provides assistance to countries in the region through bilateral programs of the RCMP, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Health Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Justice. Canada also monitors and reviews experiences and innovations in other countries to assess the potential for applying new approaches here in Canada.

Canada's drug strategy is continually evolving. The types and nature of substance abuse problems change as does the national and international environment. Responses to Canada's drug problems, and our efforts on both demand reduction and supply reduction, are reassessed on a regular basis to ensure continued relevance and appropriateness.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my speech I would like to say something about what is happening in my family at this moment. My daughter-in-law, Lainy and my son Dan are in the process of delivering a child. This will be our fifth grandchild and somehow I have a feeling that Lainy is doing most of the work. I am very excited and just waiting for the phone call to find out how things are going.

With that in mind, the topic today is for my grandchildren and perhaps for other members' grandchildren. This is about the future of the children of Canada.

I would like to gently scold the government for half a second. I happened to note in an exchange a few moments ago between the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough of the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberal member for Scarborough—Rouge River. The Conservative member was absolutely correct in pointing out that this is not a Liberal initiative. It is a shame because this is a serious problem and perhaps the government does need to be prodded. The government should be more focused on the future of our children. I commend the member for Langley—Abbotsford who has been absolutely tireless on this issue.

The motion is that a special committee of the House be appointed to consider the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs in Canada and make recommendations with respect to the ways or means by which the government can act alone or in its relations with the governments at other levels in the reduction of the dimension of the problem involved in such use. This is a scourge and is a tremendously serious problem for us within our society.

Illicit drug use contributes to crime and law enforcement costs in several ways. It also breaks down much of the fabric of our society.

However with respect to the costs, first there are the costs of enforcing drug laws. Second, chronic or dependent use of so-called hard drugs, like heroin, cocaine, crack, speed, LSD and other strong hallucinogens, is often implicated as a contributory cause of property crime particularly burglary and theft. Third, drug use contributes to crimes of violence. Assault, homicide and other crimes of violence have resulted from turf wars in the illicit drug market. Illicit drug users are disproportionately involved in incidences of spousal and child abuse. Even cannabis has been implicated as a contributory cause of crime with regard to impaired driving.

Criminal offenders have disproportionately high rates of illicit drug use. Up to 80% of offenders report using illicit drugs during their lifetime. That is an important number. There is a connection there. We cannot get away from it. Fifty to seventy-five per cent show traces of drugs in their urine at the time of arrest and close to 30% were under the influence of drugs when they committed the crime for which they were accused.

Drug addicts committed to treatment often have criminal records. There is clearly a relationship between illicit drug use and crime but it is not always casual. The fact that a crime is committed by someone using illicit drugs does not necessarily mean that the drug use caused the crime to be committed. However there are several plausible casual connections between drugs and crime.

First, there is the pharmacological effects of the drugs. Each drug has its own track, its own trace and its own way of impacting the drug user. There is a relationship between drug consumption and violence for certain illicit drugs. Cocaine, other stimulants and PCP could induce violence by the loss of ego control, deterioration of judgement, induction of irritability and impulsiveness or the production of paranoid thoughts.

Second, there is a need for addicts to commit crimes to support their drug use. There is some argument that it is part of a drug culture, but when people become addicted to heroin and cocaine, they are unresponsive or their consumption of the drug is totally unresponsive to price. They simply go out and do more break and enters, or do more property offences or perhaps even become involved violently with people.

Third, addicts adopt a deviant way of life that accounts for both their drug use and their criminal behaviour. As I mentioned before, there is a relationship between those things.

Fourth, crime results from systemic violence inherent in the illicit drug trade. We are familiar with different turf wars that occasionally happen. We are also familiar with the fact that in many very strong ethnic communities in Canada, people who have come to Canada to build a better life for themselves and for their children are preyed upon by others within their own ethnic community who are involved in the drug trade. It is a very serious problem for law-abiding citizens, no matter what their origin.

There are police costs. According to figures I have in front of me, in 1992 the attributed costs of policing were estimated at $208.3 million for illicit drugs and approximately $168 million was expended on the enforcement of drug laws per se.

There are court costs. There are correction costs because the people involved in these property offences and other things end up being put away.

Finally, there is the issue of customs and excise and the costs involved there. Obviously we have to have borders that to the best of our ability will interdict the flow of drugs in and out of Canada.

Now, speaking of in and out of Canada, let me read a paragraph from the city of Toronto Drug Prevention Centre's article about the truth about marijuana. It says:

According to population surveys, past year cannabis use among Toronto adults remained relatively stable in 1999 at about 10%. Among Toronto students, past year use of cannabis increased from 9% in 1993 to 18% in 1995, levelling off at 19% in 1997. The 1999 survey found past-year cannabis use among 26% of junior high and senior high school students in Toronto, the highest rate reported since the survey started in 1994.

In 1998 almost one in five, or 18%, of drug treatment clients cited cannabis as a problematic substance.

The truth about marijuana is that it is not the innocuous substance that many of our hippie generation grew up with. The truth about marijuana is that it is cultivated and has a potency that was absolutely unimagined before. The truth about cannabis is that it has the potential to create tremendous serious societal problems.

Let me conclude with this statement. Often young users come from a background of poverty, physical and sexual abuse and substance misuse, particularly alcohol. Even before any influence by their peers, they are very much at risk of developing problems with alcohol or drugs. Experimentation with drugs and altered states of consciousness can start out innocently and often does not lead to harm. However young people can develop severe drug dependence and can be suddenly forced to navigate a complex, criminal environment to obtain the substance they are physically dependent upon to make it through each day.

I am sure the motion by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford will be supported by all members because it is with the young people of Canada, it is with the very basis of our Canadian society that we must wrestle with these problems, and the buck stops here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for South Shore, the Lumber Industry.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and to speak in support of the motion.

As we heard from my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia, we have heard many statistics, many studies and many comments, and those certainly have their place in the debate. It gives us some kind of an indication of the scope of the problem when we refer to numbers. Unfortunately, numbers tend to make things cold and impersonal. Human lives are reduced to numbers through statistics. We can never lose sight of the human element in the debate.

I would like to just take a bit of time to make a few comments on my personal experiences with some of these issues.

I recall back to November 4, 1992 when I was watching the evening news in B.C. There was a report about a double homicide in Cloverdale, B.C., which is a community in my city of Surrey. As the report unfolded, we knew that two women had been murdered. That developed over the next couple of days. I recall a couple of days later seeing on the news again a gentleman who was red eyed and crying. He was the father of one of the women.

Unfortunately, I and my family were recoiling at that time from a very specific traumatizing incident two weeks prior to that. I had the man's name so I took it upon myself to find his number and call him. I told him if he ever wanted to talk to let me know. It is an awful way to meet people but Bob and Pat are now among some of my closest friends.

As the story developed, those two women, and I will not name them, shared a house in Cloverdale. One lived downstairs in her basement suite with her three children and one lived upstairs by herself. A gentleman friend of the upstairs tenant paid her a visit. An argument developed over something and eventually he pulled out a knife and stabbed her. The lady in the basement, not knowing what was going on, went upstairs to see what all the ruckus was about. He stabbed her on his way out. The lady upstairs died instantly. The lady downstairs managed to make it out to the street.

The other element in this is that the lady downstairs had three children. Two of those kids were in school that day and that is where they found out what happened to their mother. The four year old was at home and saw the whole thing.

This is how this ties into the debate. When the case was investigated and was before the court, it was discovered that the gentleman friend was stoned on cocaine. He used the defence of cocaine psychosis. In other words, he said he blacked out and did not know what he was doing. Two minutes later there were two women dead as he ran out of the house.

My friend talked about our generation. There was a song by a group back in the sixties called I Got Stoned and I Missed It . I do not buy that kind of defence. We could get into a whole debate about what is an adequate or acceptable defence for killing people and whether cocaine or alcohol intoxication is valid, but that is a debate for another day.

The point is two women are dead, three children are without a mother and one of those children will be completely traumatized for the rest of his life because at four years old he saw his mother stabbed to death. All because of what? Cocaine, an illicit drug. That is part of the human side.

Members in this place have quite frequently heard me talk about how I like to ride along with the RCMP in my community of Surrey. I encourage all members to do the same, not just to have a cup of coffee with them for an hour and talk shop, but to get in the right-hand seat of a police cruiser and spend 12 or 14 hours overnight on a Friday or Saturday. These are usually pretty good nights to find out what goes on in the streets. I try to do that every couple of months with my detachment.

I have had a couple of experiences. It tends to be fairly routine most nights but every once in a while something comes along. I recall one time about a year and a half ago when we got a call very early in the evening about a shoplifter in a supermarket. When we responded to the call the security guard was holding a woman in her mid-thirties with no identification who had stolen three cans of Enfalac, baby formula, a hand puppet and a few little things.

As we questioned her we found out that her welfare cheque had not come and there was no food in the house for the baby. When the officer ran her name through police records he discovered she was on probation and was not supposed to be within 100 metres of the store. She was in breach of her probation.

What could the officer do? Where was the baby? The baby was at the drug recovery house where the mother had been living for nine months. The woman's husband was minding the baby. He was able to visit on weekends because he lived in another drug recovery house.

What could we do? Did the police officer breach her, which means take her to jail right away? No, he did not. He tried to help her and give her a break. The woman was taken to the house where the father, himself a recovering drug addict, was with the six month old child.

The police officer wrote her up and made her promise to appear at the police station the following morning and to appear in court about a month later. He lectured her. I gave her a piece of my mind and told her she was not doing her baby any good. I told her that people were trying to help her. The police officer could have taken her straight to jail but he did not.

I came back to Ottawa. About a month later I received a call from the police officer. The woman had never showed up at the police station and never showed up at court. There is now a double warrant for her arrest. What will happen to the child? That is my concern. Another young child will now go into foster care as a ward of the state. The whole vicious cycle will start over again because of drugs.

What should be done? I could take a hard line against the mother and say we should refuse to help such people. I could say that we give them all the help in the world but they do not want to take it and we should finally say enough is enough. However I am more concerned about the child because we have started the cycle all over again.

It is all too easy to make such judgments, especially if one has never seen how it is on the street. People here should look at the downtown east side of Vancouver or the core of Whalley in Surrey and see the junkies. They are called junkies and losers. I can tell hon. members that they are not. They have problems.

I was on a call one night, again on a ride along, to a house where a man had found his brother dead on the kitchen floor with a syringe beside him. He was in terrible shape. He was skinny, scrawny and dirty. I stood and looked at him and knew he was someone's son. It was the brother who called us. Let us never lose sight of that. We are not dealing with losers. We are dealing with people who have problems and we must do what we can to help them. Some want to be helped and will be helped. Others do not and we must deal with them too. They are all someone's kids.

I have kids of my own. The most traumatic incident in my life was the murder of my son. It was drug related. My son was not involved in drugs but the six people who attacked him and his friends that night were stoned. They had been doing drugs all day long. That is the human side of the issue.

I sense in this place a real mood of co-operation to do something about this issue. We all have different ideas, philosophies and approaches as to what should be done. However it is high time to bring those differences to the table, talk them out and do something. The country cannot take it any more.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an opportunity to speak about a topic that has generated enormous debate in the country. I congratulate the member for Langley—Abbotsford who has spent a lot of time on the issue and has brought it before the House today. For those who might have just tuned in this is a motion to review Canada's laws regarding illicit drugs.

I will talk about the issue from the perspective of someone who has had a stethoscope around his neck for much of his life.

I will take on the human component of this as well, as my colleague did. I will talk about some of the experiences I had with the treatment end of drug problems and reflect upon how I think there is a need for a fresh look at what Canada is doing with its drug laws.

I will start by talking about a jurisdictional issue. This is reflective of the different positions of Canada and our large neighbour to the south. I noted this week that the U.S. supreme court has taken a specific stand on the medical use of marijuana. The supreme court said there is no redeeming value to marijuana for medical purposes.

Here in Canada we have taken a different approach. We are trying to figure out what diseases are helped by marijuana. This is a significantly different approach. My own feeling is that as a physician I was able to use the strongest painkillers available for those who were ill, especially at the end of life as palliative care for those with cancer and very serious illnesses. I could use heroin. Everyone said that was reasonable because it was being used for a specific purpose.

I feel that if marijuana is the only thing that will help people with a serious disease at the end of their lives it is reasonable to use it. I do not think smoking marijuana is ideal for this. Research has been done to get marijuana in different forms, forms that will allow it to be used in a waxy capsule or even used like the Nicorette patch. In my mind that is reasonable. For end of life issues, for palliative care, for severe problems when no other medication works, I do believe that there is room for the medical use of marijuana.

However, what happens if our big neighbour to the south says “Forget that. That will not happen in the U.S.”? What might Americans do who are living close to the border, have a severe illness and feel that marijuana is the only thing that will help? They might well come to Canada. They might well cross the border. In a sense, they might end up putting some strain on our medical system here.

I bring that up because I think it is very important in regard to jurisdictional issues that we do not forget what is happening nearby. We could end up with major problems if we forget that.

There is one debate I have been involved in and have listened to both sides of it. Some say that softer penalties for drugs would make sense. In some cases that is a compelling argument, because I think an intelligent individual looking at the drug issue in Canada would say that we have not made huge progress. I am now stepping a little bit into what I think the debate in this committee might be.

What about the argument that softer drug laws would be of benefit? To get a sense of that answer, I look at places where this has been tried. It is possible to look at other jurisdictions. In some parts of Europe the penalties for drug use are substantially different.

There is a jurisdiction fairly close to home that gives me some sense of what might happen. In Alaska, the home of the free, the home of “don't tell me what to do”, they decided that the penalty for marijuana use would be virtually zero for adults. There would be no criminal penalty, no fine, nothing. If an adult wanted to smoke marijuana in Alaska not so long ago, have it was the attitude. That is the pioneer spirit, is it not, from the frontier? Yukon is the jurisdiction close at hand. Both of these jurisdictions are similar. They are fairly isolated and the populations are similar. A comparison of the two was done 10 years later. The use of marijuana in the adolescent population doubled in Alaska compared to Yukon, so it became obvious that this approach in that location was not a great success. I have heard individuals argue and debate that those are just straight statistics. From my perspective, to simply make it easier for kids to get an illicit drug is not the answer at least in that locale. I am not convinced that is the solution.

I will give another specific example from my own experience. In my little black bag I used to carry a medication called Demerol. I had little vials of it with me all the time. The proper chemical name for it is Meperidine. I would take it on house calls. If people broke a leg, for example, I could give them a shot of Demerol and they would be more comfortable going in the ambulance. It was thought to be fair and reasonable for me to do that. Demerol is very inexpensive to buy. I needed a triplicate prescription to get a supply and kept it with me.

It is a powerful, inexpensive narcotic. What is it worth on the street? It is not worth $10 for a big vial of Demerol. It is worth $1,000, plus or minus. Why is that? It is not available on the street. It is a potent narcotic. It is very close to heroin in its effects and so it is very popular.

The only way to get Demerol on the street is to break into a pharmacy or swipe it from a physician's black bag or get it from the manufacturer. There are other ways. There are people who wear the cloak of physician who dispense it. It gets out on the street in that way.

I use it as an example because it is an inexpensive medicine used for legitimate purposes which is very valuable in the illegal market. There are break-ins to get it. There are assaults to get it. There is damage done to individuals to get this drug. There are illicit activities for those who are using the drug so they can have it available.

What then would happen if we just made all these drugs available as that one was to me? That example tells me that it may not be the complete answer either.

What of those who say that we should put all our resources into treatment? That is also a good debate. There would be nothing directed toward those who were trying to supply the drug. We would just let people do what they want. There would be no penalties to the addict and the addict would be a patient. We would make the drugs available, license places to distribute them and might even tax them. There would be resources for the public and they would be very clean. It would not be illicit or illegal as the source would be government sponsored. What does that sound like? It sounds like the way we already handle one major drug, alcohol, which of course is a drug.

In my practice I was able to talk with a number of addicts. I should like to tell the House what treated addicts say. When treated addicts ask themselves why they started using drugs, the recurrent point I hear from them is that they started because of a broken family, peer pressure, loneliness, or because pushers tricked them. Why did they quit? Some quit because they hit bottom. Some found religion. Some had a wonderful rehab counsellor or friend.

This debate is about what society should do. My colleague who put the proposal forth suggests that we take a very careful look at the issue and debate it carefully. I support that and hope my colleagues across the way will as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion, as amended, agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

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.

Canada Marine Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

moved that Bill C-253, an act to amend the Canada Marine Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put before the House of Commons this bill I tabled, which aims to bring the Canada Marine Act into line with the reality of our regional ports.

First off, I will give a bit of background on why this bill had to be introduced.

In 1995, the Government of Canada decided to institute a policy of divesting itself of regional ports. Some ports were inactive, others were operating. Some were not cost effective, others were. The federal government therefore decided to establish a policy that would enable local communities possibly to acquire the port facilities.

In my riding, the port of Cacouna was affected. A port development corporation took this question on and studied the matter in depth. I would say it learned a lot about managing a commercial port like that of Cacouna.

The rule also spread to all regional ports along the St. Lawrence. Analysis has shown that in the medium term it was impossible for the local people to assume ownership, for the community to assume ownership, because this was too costly given the long term investments. Proposals were made to the federal government. There were counter-proposals, but never any conclusion because the infrastructures are indeed too costly.

Given this state of affairs, I had a look at the Canada Marine Act, with the realization that the federal government had put into place for the Canadian port authorities, which are the major ports, a structure which retains the government as owner, although day to day administration falls to the local community.

This means huge municipal tax bills can be avoided and allows a certain competition between ports. This has made it possible to promote and market the ports.

However, the same thing was not done with the regional ports where the federal government in my opinion settled for a kind of clearing out of the existing facilities, closing those that were absolutely not operational, in order—and I believe it was in good faith in so doing—to allow the local communities to acquire facilities. But in practice, as I have said, community takeover was absolutely impossible.

As a result, the regional ports people thought it over, and I have my own ideas of what they concluded.

In the bill, I propose that a regional port may remain government property. It could be the federal government, but it could also be the Quebec government. The responsibility for managing the port would be delegated to local interests.

Since the introduction of this bill, the Quebec government has taken a very positive measure. It has told the federal government that it would be interested in negotiating to get a number of ports, such as those of Baie-Comeau, Matane, Rimouski, Cacouna and perhaps the port of Gaspé, for which negotiations with the federal government are already quite advanced.

This proposal from the Quebec government is interesting. It would achieve the same objective as the one that I pursue with the bill that I introduced. Indeed, my bill would allow for such transactions, because I anticipated that the provincial government, namely the Quebec government, could become the owner of the facilities and hand over the responsibility for managing these facilities to local authorities.

This situation is the result of what I call dropping the whole idea of a marine policy for Canada. For years and even decades, the federal government has neglected things, even though it is responsible for marine issues under the Constitution.

The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière knows that better than anyone else. He fought an extraordinary battle to try to finally get a shipbuilding policy, but we are no further ahead. Despite his repeated attacks, his motions and his initiatives, we are still waiting for action from the federal government.

The same thing happened with the ports system. Under the constitution, this is a federal responsibility. But for years the government has been penny wise and pound foolish. When there was too much pressure in one sector, when partisan political pressure was strong, the government did the equivalent of slapping down a bit of asphalt. It applied just enough to calm public opinion to be able to win an election, but there was no comprehensive development strategy, just as there was no comprehensive strategy for managing waterways such as the St. Lawrence River.

I think that we must work very hard in this area. The proposal by the government of Quebec to negotiate in order to acquire the ports will be a step in the right direction, particularly as it is getting ready to introduce a marine policy. In the coming weeks, for the first time since confederation, there will truly be a marine policy to develop the St. Lawrence River, this magnificent waterway which allows goods to be transported in the best possible environmental conditions. This is much cheaper in the long run. It promotes sustainable development and will also increase communications along the whole length of the river, as well as bringing the north and south shores into contact.

We could reinvent many things, such as cabotage, and allow ferries specialized in transporting raw materials, cargo material. Other ferries could carry standard vehicles and foot passengers wanting to get to the other side. There are all sorts of possibilities.

However, since the federal government had renounced its responsibilities in this area, the government of Quebec, at the suggestion of Jacques Baril, the minister responsible for this area by virtue of his transport portfolio and a very realistic and down-to-earth man, saw this as a fantastic opportunity.

He visited the port personally and analyses were carried out of the potential projects for shore-to-shore transportation. All of this was connected to the immense economic development we have seen on the north shore with all the major companies there.

This wish of the government of Quebec will be translated into a marine policy that will be presented in the next few weeks. It is the outcome of consultation with all stakeholders. That is very important.

The people I referred to earlier worked in the various port development corporations and were part of the consultations, as were Quebec stevedores and marine carriers who are shipowners.

The outcome of all this will be the marine policy that is about to be announced. I believe it will be a historic moment for the use of the mighty river, an extraordinary rebirth that will allow the St. Lawrence to return to what it once was, a fantastic means of connection with other continents.

This week we were visited by a lobby of people involved in the Canadian marine industry. One of the things they explained to us was that a lot of shipping within the Americas is done by truck, but the main connection between Quebec and Canada's businesses and the rest of the world is by water. We now know how important transportation infrastructures are.

When it comes down to it, this is often what determines whether or not a product can be sold elsewhere. If savings can be achieved on shipping costs, then contracts get signed. There is a fairly important issue at stake and that is to know where the ships will pass. Is it not to our advantage to have the St. Lawrence used properly and the possibility of going in as far as Montreal, then using another means, including the railroad or truck, in order to maximize the impact of this industry?

If it is passed, this bill we are debating today will make a new form of ownership and participation possible for the community in port facilities. At the same time, this would mean flexibility so that a provincial government could acquire a number of facilities and give responsibility for management to local authorities.

This model is to some extent the result of the consensus there has been in recent years. I hope that the federal government will apply the same sensitivity to this issue it applied in the context of consultation on the Canada Marine Act. Initially, Canadian port authorities were supposed to become local owners and be subject to all municipal laws, including taxation.

Following consultation throughout Canada, the situation was corrected. The federal government retained ownership, but handed management over to local authorities. The results have been good. The model has proven itself. However, when it came to the regional ports, the government neglected to provide for this situation.

I think that the bill I am proposing would be a worthwhile amendment, an update of the Canada Marine Act. It would establish these situations and would give regional ports the opportunity to help the regions develop.

In my area, the port of Cacouna is an important infrastructure. A gas pipeline is being built and will, in the medium term, run from Sable Island through Rivière-du-Loup to the port, which could be used to export gas. The port could also be used to export other products, such as the powdered milk that is produced in Saint-Alexandre de Kamouraska and sold in North African countries.

The whole lumber export trade could also be redeveloped and a coastal shipping system could be set up. The link to the north shore would relieve some of the road transportation traffic in that area, and would prevent problems, particularly for the tourist industry.

Therefore, we must take a new look at the whole issue of river transportation to make it one of the elements of an integrated transportation policy, which I think would have been done long ago if transportation were the responsibility of one government only.

Let us look at what has happened in the past. Being responsible for roads, the provincial government invested money so that everything would work fine. The federal government was responsible for other things. In some cases, it was so far away that it did not necessarily make appropriate investments.

Had there been only one government, it could have ensured that its policy allowed intermodal transportation to maximize the use of the St. Lawrence River, which could have maximized the impact of ports, like the one at Cacouna, where the water is deep enough. This would have made the port a point of contact with the northeastern American states. This could have led to greater economic development than we now have.

In conclusion, I wish to say that this bill would contribute positively to better use of existing port infrastructures in Canada. I know that the regions are prepared to take over the management of these port facilities.

I believe that governments, such as the government of Quebec, would be able to carry the load of a comprehensive system. We could share use of all the ports, which would maximize benefits and enhance international marketing.

I hope that this House is listening and that members pass this bill to amend the Canada Marine Act. The economies of all regions of Quebec and of Canada would stand to benefit.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on Bill C-253.

The Canada Marine Act, which the member would like to amend, calls for a statutory review by June 2003. Given that there are a lot of other items that would certainly need to be reviewed under the umbrella of the Canada Marine Act, it is our view on this side that his proposals would best be left for review, again to be concluded by June 2003.

Let me explain a little bit about the Canada Marine Act and why we feel the way we do, notwithstanding the good work he has done thus far and, no doubt, will continue to do.

The Canada Marine Act was passed in 1998. It was intended to and does help the Canadian port system to become more efficient, competitive and commercially oriented to commercialize the operations of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services and to improve the operations of pilotage authorities. It marked the first comprehensive effort to increase competitiveness and to reduce costs in the marine sector. By making it easier for ports to operate according to business principles, it will make the marine sector even more competitive than it is now.

The benefits of the act are substantial. Ports benefit from reduced red tap, increased freedom to develop contracts and leases and to set tariffs and fees, and because funding no longer comes from the federal treasury, they will be free to pursue private sector capital to finance port projects.

The Canada Marine Act was a product of a lengthy and comprehensive review process. In 1994 the then minister of transport requested the House of Commons standing committee on transport to undertake a broad review of the marine sector in recognition of an inherent need to modernize Canada's marine system to ensure that the major ports and other marine infrastructures were in a strong position to respond to the demands in international trade, which is critical to Canada's growth.

In other words, there was a need for a port system that could serve both domestic and foreign shippers efficiently, one that was not only reliable and competitive but also one that could compete with the best in the world.

The standing committee issued its report in 1995 after hearing the views of provincial governments, municipalities, organized labour, shippers and other marine industry stakeholders.

In December of 1995, following a further round of consultations, we announced our national marine policy and our intention to bring in legislation containing comprehensive changes to the ports, the seaway, the ferries and the pilotage components of the marine industry.

The Canada Marine Act received royal assent on June 11, 1998.

The Canada Marine Act is a success story. Canada's major commercial ports are now competing on a level playing field for the first time. They have the tools they need to compete in the 21st century.

The St. Lawrence Seaway, which runs right past our Speaker's door in his riding, has been commercialized with control passing to a non-profit corporation controlled by the users of the system. It is saving money on operations. Ferry services have also been commercialized and changes to the pilotage regime have been implemented.

The Canada Marine Act provided the authority to dissolve the Canada Ports Corporation, which the government did on November 1, 2000. It was not long ago that the running of Canada's ports was being stifled by too much centralized government decision making, including the role played by Canada Ports Corporation.

To remain competitive with American ports, Canadian ports needed to reduce their transaction times and their overhead costs to make the kinds of local decisions that make commercial sense. The new port authorities have been a great success because control of the ports is now in the hands of those best able to adjust to competition and introduce greater efficiency in the marine sector.

This sector is vital to Canada's competitiveness in a global economy. It provides us with a key strategic advantage in the movement of key commodities for important industries such as steel and container traffic. It is also becoming evident that the marine mode is in a good position to benefit and participate in the growth of the worldwide tourism industry.

The cruise industry in Canada is witnessing a staggering growth on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts in the number of visits being paid annually to the Canadian ports and in the amount this industry adds to the Canadian economy. Canada's cruise industry is forecast to continue its growth for some time to come.

It should also be noted that the world looks to the marine mode to provide leadership in terms of setting the standard for an environmentally sustainable and safe mode of transport. It is evident that the marine mode is not just important for economic reasons but because of the Canada Marine Act it has contributed to other aspects of our well-being.

The intent of the Canada Marine Act was to curtail the federal government's extensive involvement in port operations, to introduce a high level of commercial decision making, to encourage financial self-sufficiency and to reduce inefficiencies and overcapacity, which I believe are being achieved.

As well, under the old regime we believe that the taxpayers of Canada were not receiving an adequate return for the funding of many port development projects over the years. To date, as a government, we have created 18 Canada port authorities and will soon have 19 when the Hamilton port authority is created.

Canada port authorities are defined as federally incorporated, non-share capital, not for profit corporations with powers and responsibilities similar to corporations established under the Canada Business Corporations Act. Under this regime, which combines various aspects of the old port regimes, the Canada Marine Act has given Canada port authorities the autonomy and flexibility to operate according to business principles and to make investment decisions to the overall benefit of the port authority.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-253 will create a third class of ports which will receive automatic federal funding. These ports will be competing directly with Canada port authorities who are legally prohibited from receiving federal appropriations other than under a program of general application.

Under the Canada Marine Act, port authorities operate in a more commercial manner than under previous regimes. As Canada port authorities are not eligible for federal appropriation of funds, they are required to borrow funds from private markets. This gives port authorities the ability to make investment decisions to their overall benefit without government approval in advance, thereby allowing a quicker response time in the ever changing business environment of today.

In addition, the Canada Marine Act gives port authorities the ability to make their own operating bylaws and charge harbour dues without having to obtain governor in council approval. By making it easier for ports to operate according to business principles, cut excessive red tape and reduce overhead costs, it puts port authorities in a better position to meet their own needs and the needs of their customers. Also, port authorities now have increased authority to lease land and to determine priorities associated with capital expenditures.

If a new port class were to be created and were to receive subsidies, it would undermine the level playing field of the financial rules and authorities that have been created for ports coast to coast. The government's view is that the current proposal is unnecessary and would re-introduce the inefficiencies and overcapacity that existed prior to the Canada Marine Act.

Another main objective of the Canada Marine Act was to focus the Government of Canada's attention on ports vital to domestic and international trade. These ports have become or will become Canada port authorities. All other ports, except for those that serve the remote regions of the country, are to be divested to local or regional interests.

I believe that local users are in the best position to determine the level of service required at these ports and that the Government of Canada is prepared to negotiate a fair and reasonable transfer funding package to help ensure the long term viability of these facilities.

In that regard, the government has also established a $125 million divestiture fund. The purpose of this fund includes the following uses: bringing existing port divestiture up to a minimum safety or operating standard, covering a portion of the cost incurred by the transferee in complying with regulatory or insurance requirements, making a lump sum payment to facilitate the takeover of a port, assisting a group of communities or other interests to take over a collection of ports and to achieve cost savings by rationalizing infrastructure.

The intent of the fund is to facilitate port transfers and to provide a one time contribution to help ensure the port's long term viability.

A lot of good work has been accomplished by the government through the Canada Marine Act. Its five year review will be coming up by June 2003. I would encourage my hon. friend across the way to discuss his ideas with other stakeholders in the marine community and to make sure his ideas are brought into the mix during that review. We wish him well, nonetheless, with his work on behalf of his constituents.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill. I will restrict my comments primarily to the experience we have had in my home community, an experience which has been less than pleasant in spite of what we have heard from the government in the last few minutes.

I am quite interested in the approach that my friend from the Bloc has taken in terms of recommending that authority be given under this bill to transfer the management and control of these ports to the province. We ultimately would like to see them divulged down to the municipality because of the experience we have had in the city of Windsor.

However, as I have indicated, we are quite prepared to support the bill because I think inevitably, at least in Ontario, the result would be that the province would give the municipality the authority to manage and control these lands and the traffic that works its way through.

I strongly support the point my friend from the Bloc made about the need for an integrated policy around transport. However I would add that we also need an integrated program that would allow the municipalities to do the municipal planning they need to do in order for a large city to function.

There is another point that needs to be made. Because of the nature of some of the lands that the port authority has in the city of Windsor the issue of conservation raises its head.

The experience that we have had in Windsor has not been a pleasant one. There has been a great deal of conflict between the local and municipal authorities around the issues of how transport is handled and how some of the shipping is done, particularly around the issue of municipal planning, and some of the lands the port authority holds. The city has had specific designs for not only its land but for some of the land surrounding it. There has been quite severe friction in some cases over the role the municipal government has and the planning that it wishes to do for these lands in a macro way. It has been thwarted on a number of occasions by the local authority in that regard.

I filed a petition with the House a week or so ago concerning one specific piece of land that borders the Detroit River. It is a piece of land that would act as a bridge to a large conservation area that we have in Windsor but which is controlled by the port authority. It wishes to develop it in a commercial fashion that would in effect act as a barrier for wildfowl that uses the Detroit River as a base and moves through this other region. This particular piece of land acts as a bridge. There is a local environmental group in Windsor that has been trying to get the land designated as a park but it has received absolutely no support from the port authority in that regard.

There have been other times where there was development with which we wanted to go ahead within the city and it too has been thwarted in various ways by the port authority because of its own self-interest.

I want to make one additional point concerning the history of the legislation that we now have. My friend from the government talked about the review that went on in the mid-nineties that culminated in legislation in 1998. Windsor sent a delegation to Ottawa at that time to put forward some specific proposals as to how the legislation should deal with the land and the control of it and its proposals were totally ignored.

The amendments that are being proposed in the form of the private member's bill would be much more in keeping with the position that Windsor had taken at that time.

I am pleased to indicate that my party supports the private member's bill. Assuming that it is not successful in passing, and I assume that will be the case given the government's position, the issue will be raised again at the end of the five year review. I assure the government and my friend from the Bloc that at that time Windsor will be here once again to make proposals on how the land should be more properly dealt with.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-253, an act to amend the Canada Marine Act.

The summary at the beginning of the private member's bill indicates that the bill would create a new class of port under the name “local port council”. The summary goes on to say:

Regional and local ports that become local port councils are not required to be financially self-sustaining when they are incorporated and may receive financial assistance from the federal government.

It goes on to say:

When a local court council becomes financially self-sustaining, some aspects of a local port council may be transferred to the government of the province where the port operated as a local port council is located.

As this is a private member's bill I assume the hon. member proposing the bill must have a port or ports in his region or constituency that fits the thrust of the bill. In the ordinary course of events many ports that were operated directly by the federal government over the years have been placed under local port authorities.

It is interesting to see what has happened in some of the eastern Canadian provinces and, in particular, in my own province of Newfoundland. The federal government has been delinquent in how it has been treating small communities that have these wharves. These little wharves and local ports were built under Canada works projects or LIP grants. Since the current administration came to power about 10 years ago it has completely abandoned those small communities and has sent them adrift.

When communities look for money to do repairs on these small local wharves they are given the old song and dance routine that it is no longer viable to keep these wharves and ports operating. As a result they have become dilapidated. The federal government waves its hand and says that they are not getting any money because they have become dangerous and a hazard to navigation.

Therefore it is okay for ports that have sufficient traffic and an appropriate infrastructure already in place. They are able to get along quite well. They have financial viability combined with the flexibility and sensitivity that can only come from independent local management. However, in the case of small communities, the viability of these small ports and wharves cannot be maintained without the involvement of the federal government.

The problem arises when the local port has dedicated local users or it is vital to the local economy but it is not viable in the financial sense. The government appears to be getting out of the business of running such facilities as a service to the public.

For example, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is currently divesting itself of 325 harbours nationwide. That is a blow to the communities. A full 42% of these ports are located in the province of Newfoundland. I would say to my colleague that there is quite a number of them located in Nova Scotia, in Guysborough county, and in New Brunswick. However 42% of them are in Newfoundland.

Given the state of the province's rural economy, many harbours will have nobody coming forward to set up a local port authority. Perhaps many of the harbours in other provinces on the list are also non-viable in a financial sense. What will become of them?

In the past, many of the wharves, sheds and breakwaters were put out to tender for dismantling or demolition, but the watchword of the federal government these days is viability or debt. If it is not viable it goes. The parliamentary secretary gets up and gives such glowing reports on the federal government and how it is looking after all these things when that is simply not true.

I invite him to come to Atlantic Canada. He should get out of central Canada for a change and get out in the boondocks. He should come to Atlantic Canada and see what is going on in the small communities. I am sure the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Transport would have a much different outlook on what they are doing to these small communities. The watchword of the federal government is viability or debt as far as ports and harbours are concerned.

Incidentally the same applies to airports. We have many airports in rural Canada that are being forced under local airport authorities and are now facing a struggle for their very existence. Such airports might be invaluable to the local people and economy, but the traffic volumes are not there to sustain an economically viable operation. The end result for many of these ports and airports would be closure unless the government is willing to subsidize the operations.

Bill C-253 does not directly address the policy question about whether or not the federal government should directly maintain financially non-viable ports as a public service. However the member proposing the bill is offering the federal government an indirect route to maintain non-viable ports by setting up a new entity called local port councils.

In the bill the government is being offered a vehicle through which it can subsidize the continued existence of financially non-viable ports. The parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Transport would do well to listen to the member who is proposing the bill.

I note that the wording in the bill reads that the minister may approve the setting up of a local port council. The Minister may make financial assistance available to such a port council. The Minister may transfer all or part of such a facility to the provincial government if the port becomes financially viable.

The local people in an area might be all for setting up a local port council to save a financially non-viable port, but they would be dependent on the goodwill of the minister to turn any of that into a reality.

To give it more teeth, a bill such as this one should try to establish certain objective criteria for port viability. Once the port meets those criteria, it is appropriate for there to be wording in the bill to say that the minister shall provide funding until such time as it becomes viable. The problem is that I am not sure the minister would want to be bound by the word shall.

The government appears to be getting out of running all kinds of services that are not financially viable. If local entities cannot run services on a self-sustaining basis, we can expect their closure or elimination. As I said a moment ago, with the current government the watchword has been viability or death over the last seven or eight years.

If nothing else, the member's bill points out a growing reality of the total elimination of federal services in institutions in rural Canada. The post office is now in the local drug store. The rail spurs are gone. The local airport is closing. Ports and harbours are being abandoned or dismantled.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said that the federal government was hot to trot on trying to get out of a whole range of services. It is looking at banks. It is looking at an awful lot of things. As I said, viability or death is the watchword of the government.

If the bill helps the member draw attention to a potentially viable port in his area, and if it sheds light on the problems we are having in rural Atlantic Canada, it is worthy of the effort. I congratulate the member on presenting the bill. We certainly support it.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, knowing my interest for the maritime sector, and for shipbuilding in particular, members will certainly understand that it was with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I accepted the invitation extended to me by my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques to speak to his bill.

There is a second reason why I accepted his invitation. It is because—he will not like this because I did not tell him in advance—through his dedication to defending the interests of his region and his riding, this member and colleague is a model for us all. He is very active in the House and cannot be accused of being negative. The proposal contained in the bill that he drafted some time ago and that we are debating today is one that the government seems to have considered.

I heard the remarks made by my Liberal colleague from a riding whose name I have unfortunately forgotten.

[An hon. member]

The riding of Algoma—Manitoulin.