Pauline Picard

[Tobacco Products, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health: Why change the campaign if it is effective? What guarantee does the minister have that she will not once again waste millions of dollars in a California-type of campaign? What guarantee can she give us?

[Tobacco Products, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. On April 21, the Minister of Health confirmed in this House that the anti-smoking media campaign to inform and educate the public, particularly young people, about the risks linked to tobacco use, was a flop. The minister also said, and I quote: "I must say that I have indeed inherited the ad campaign -launched by the previous government".

How can the minister put the blame on the previous government, since she is the one who, last February 8, decided to waste an extra $3 million on a campaign which never gave any result?

[Health, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that this prevention campaign was the very last thread of credibility she had in the eyes of the anti-tobacco lobby following the reduction by her government of consumer taxes on tobacco and that now she has none left whatsoever?

[Health, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. As part of the action plan on smuggling announced in February, the government included a $3 million or so anti-smoking media campaign to inform and educate the public, particularly young people. Now, the word came out that after meeting with groups of young people, the minister has decided to terminate the ad campaign.

Can the minister confirm in this House what she has already recognized publicly, namely that this anti-smoking campaign was cancelled because, by her own admission, it had no impact whatsoever on young people?

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken in this House many times to express my growing concern about the lack of financial resources needed by the commission of inquiry on tainted blood for Mr. Justice Krever to get to the bottom of this outright scandal.

Judge Krever himself told the daily La Presse on November 24, 1993, that the funds granted to the commission and to the Canadian Hemophilia Society were clearly insufficient and that it would be difficult to show what really happened in this tainted blood affair.

The time has come to give more money to this commission and the Canadian Hemophilia Society.

But every time I spoke in this House to ask the minister to act or to grant the funds essential to the proper operation of this commission, she always repeated the same thing, that the request was being considered by Treasury Board and a decision would be made as soon as possible.

How can the minister justify the government's slowness to allocate more funds? What are the minister's intentions on this? These questions are unanswered.

The minister should realize sooner or later that her inaction has and will have a major impact on the work of this commission and its findings. For example, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, the only real defender of the victims of the scandal, is now financially unable to send one of its members to follow all the proceedings of the commission of inquiry.

Who is in a better position than a member of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which knows every aspect of this affair, to follow it up and properly inform the lawyers on location? However, the inaction of the minister and her government does not allow it and deprives the least fortunate victims of an opportunity to defend themselves in the same way as those who hold economic and political power.

The democratic principle whereby all are equal before the law is being violated, this time with the consent of the minister and her government. Even worse, neither the minister nor the Prime Minister have seen fit to act on the many distress signals from the Canadian Hemophilia Society.

Do the government and the health minister really care about their citizens' welfare? Indeed, do they have something to hide about this shameful saga, one unworthy of a modern society? Why are the minister and her department systematically obstructing the repeated requests of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and thus making any openness in this case impossible?

Need I remind you that lack of openness will leave a bitter memory for all the victims of tainted blood and their families. These victims are entitled to know the circumstances surrounding this scandal and this is the government's and the minister's responsibility. No one has a right to hide the truth and to silence anyone who could clear up this horrible nightmare.

It would be in the minister's interest to speak out clearly and as soon as possible on granting additional funds for the inquiry on tainted blood and for the Canadian Hemophilia Society, as requested by Mr. Justice Krever, so that justice can be done.

My question is simple: what is the minister waiting for to act?

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that I have no intention of not criminalizing drug traffickers; it was not what I meant. Where I do not agree with this bill is that the 500,000 young people arrested so far for possession of drugs were given criminal records, fines and jail sentences and are now being turned into users and criminals.

What I ask from this bill is that this policy be reviewed to make it more helpful to young people, who are not criminals but users. We should bring in policies to encourage them to get treated for their addictions, to rehabilitate themselves and to become good citizens. I condemn Bill C-7 because it does not put forward such policies. What I find strange is that this bill comes from the Minister of Health and yet deals only with criminal offences.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will be commenting on Bill C-7 in my capacity as Official Opposition health critic.

The Minister of Health has introduced on behalf of the government Bill C-7, An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances.

After reviewing this bill carefully and mindful of the seriousness of the health issues at stake here, I have to say that the bill misses the mark because of the underlying push to criminalize certain activities and that it is a failed attempt to modernize our approach to combatting this costly scourge on society.

At the outset, I wish to point out to this House that I, along with the Bloc Quebecois, support the move to criminalize the sale of illegal drugs. Adequate and effective measures and pertinent legislation are needed to control mood-altering substances. Not just any legislation, mind you and, from my perspective as health critic, especially not legislation that focuses only on the repressive aspects of the issue and overshadows basic public health considerations. Such considerations must be a key component of any legislation, initiative or regulation aimed at combatting drug abuse.

In this respect, Bill C-7 needs to be radically amended. Although this bill was introduced by the Minister of Health, it does not contain any provisions designed to improve public health or the health of the many people who abuse drugs. In short, this bill proposes to fight one of society's ills through coercion and relentless legal efforts.

In the next few minutes, I will show how illegal drug use is much more of a health problem than a crime problem.

There are many reasons why a person turns to drugs. A person may be searching for a high or a feeling of euphoria or seeking temporary respite from the problems associated with depression or stress. Others who may find it difficult to keep up with the demands of our consumer-driven society see drugs as a way of overcoming fatigue or increasing their productivity. Teenagers in search of an identity often try drugs to defy established authority or simply to conform to standards of behaviour dictated by their environment. An unhealthy family environment and pervasive poverty, violence and despair are often a one-way ticket to drug abuse.

The one common denominator in all of this is that drug abusers experienced health, emotional or social problems before they actually started using drugs. The criminal activity, that is obtaining and using the drugs, is secondary to their illness or social failure.

Canada's Drug Strategy was adopted to spearhead the fight against drug abuse.

A total budget of $270 million over five years has been earmarked for the CDS. This works out to an average annual budget of $54 million. So, to fight drugs, we will invest about $1.98 per person per year. Yet, according to the revenue department, drug trafficking in Canada generates some $4.6 billion, which represents $168.52 per Canadian per year. If you invest $1.98 to fight an activity which generates $168.52, you are going to look like David against Goliath.

In 1984, the Addiction Research Foundation estimated that drug use led to additional medical care totalling $2.728 billion, which is almost $100 per Canadian per year, while the monies allocated for treatment and rehabilitation only represent $0.75 per person, or 38 per cent of the CDS budget, and the funds for education and prevention are equivalent to $0.63 per person per year, or 32 per cent of that same budget.

Every year, reduced productivity linked to drug use costs each Quebecer and Canadian the equivalent of $37.54, while the costs of implementing the law amount to $31.10. These figures are self-explanatory.

The amount of money spent to fight drugs is nowhere near the health, social and economic costs generated by this plague, or the profits generated by this traffic.

The bill which is before us has no long-term vision regarding the fight against drugs, which is something we had to include as parliamentarians. On the contrary, this legislation proposes or suggests old and archaic recipes as an easy way out.

There is an explanation to that. By merely revamping the old Bill C-85 tabled by the previous government, this government is sending the message that initiative and new ideas are not its forte when dealing with such important issues.

Personally, I deeply deplore the fact that a bill from the Department of Health gives so little consideration to its own field of responsibility, namely public health in Canada. Instead of seeking to treat and rehabilitate innocent victims, this legislation provides for criminalization and incarceration.

What will our society, which claims to have the best health care program in the world, do to an innocent young person, who could be my child or yours and who is influenced by others into using soft drugs? Our society will give that young person a criminal record and give him a jail sentence. So much for our social ethic and our value system.

Whereas enforcement measures must be maintained and even strengthened to fight drug traffickers-those merchants of dreams who make such fortunes-victims of these despicable people must be helped, and that means being lenient and offering education, prevention and rehabilitation programs, as well as health care.

Is imprisonment an adequate solution, considering that 70 per cent of federal penitentiaries inmates use illicit drugs? Is making our laws more stringent a good idea, considering that numerous studies have repeatedly shown that fear of punishment or harshness is an insignificant deterrent among drug users?

When comparing risks of punishment with risks to health for drug users, concerns for health clearly win out.

I believe that Canadians are asking us to take effective drug control measures. To do so properly, we must reduce both the demand for and the supply of illicit drugs in a balanced way. A good approach will combine health, prevention and rehabilitation measures, and legal sanctions, too. Bill C-7, the amounts spent on the Canada Drug Strategy and their allocation do not effectively provide this balanced control.

That is why we must reject Bill C-7, review the Canada Drug Strategy and use the results of recent research to update our approach. Above all, we must give priority to values and concepts that emphasize a better quality of life through better public health.

You know, Madam Speaker, it is more mature to admit one's mistakes than to stubbornly repeat them. Therefore I call on the Hon. Minister of Health and the government to withdraw Bill C-7 and start all over. I assure them of my full co-operation in this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-17, the government is asking us to amend 11 different laws to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994. However, this budget, as could be expected and as was denounced in this House, is making waves in the financial community of this country because it fails to meet either the expectations of the financial community or those of Quebeckers and Canadians.

This government had the opportunity to take some measures to put public finances in order, to put an end to wasting money and to eliminate duplication and unproductive expenditures in programs under both federal and provincial jurisdictions, but it did nothing. This government had the opportunity, as it has promised during the election campaign, to restore some hope among Quebeckers and Canadians, but it did nothing.

Rather, the Chrétien government brought about a budget which deeply affects our economy-and, God knows, it did not need it-and thus deprives us of our hope for economic growth and job creation. Those past two weeks, we have witnessed in the financial community some reactions which clearly reflect the low level of confidence they have in the direction that the government wanted to follow in this budget.

This government did not go in the right direction: the budgeted deficit has never been so high, reaching $40 billion and when they propose to cut back on expenses, they bluntly attack the most disadvantaged, the victims of a recession they are fueling rather than fighting, they go after unemployed men and women.

In the same budget exercise, the Liberal government is asking us to spend every day some $110 million more than the revenues it receives while the unemployed have to bear the largest part-almost 60 per cent-of the new budgetary cuts announced in the Liberal budget. In this regard, this budget is particularly unequitable and unfair, and when the government is asking us, through this omnibus bill, to implement measures so devastating to the unemployed, we must object to it.

The government has announced a comprehensive review of social security, including unemployment insurance, and hopes to present a reform plan to this House next September. It is therefore unacceptable for the government to proceed with such important cuts and such drastic changes in the unemployment insurance program before the necessary consultations have been held and before this whole matter has been thought through.

Whether it be the increase of the premium rate for 1994, the reduction in the length of the benefit period, the longer qualifying period, the two-tier benefit system which will affect 85 per cent of claimants, or the lesser importance attached to regional unemployment levels, these measures have, in our opinion, been taken on the spur of the moment and have only one purpose, to reduce the budget deficit on the backs of the unemployed, in an economy where there are not enough jobs for everyone. Instead of helping to reduce unemployment, these measures only weaken the social safety net. By impoverishing the unemployed, the government promotes the degradation of the entire social environment in Quebec and in Canada and thereby activates all sorts of ripple effects on such things as welfare and health systems.

If the government thought that the social environment in this country was bad enough to require social program reform, why does it further aggravate the situation by improvising such harsh measures for the unemployed? There were many areas where there is fat to be cut, but the victims of the recession have none. The Bloc Quebecois spared neither its suggestions nor its offers of services to identify areas where major savings could be made, and this, through a committee of this House looking at budget spending as a whole.

But no, this government would rather pursue policies it once condemned. I quote: "Conservative fiscal and monetary policies, as we have seen over the past few days, are having disastrous effects on the economy and always ask more of the poorest".

We must not fail to mention one of the adverse effects of the bill: the shifting of a portion of the deficit burden onto Quebec and the provinces. By shortening benefit periods, the federal government will more rapidly divert a greater number of unemployed people towards provincial social security programs. According to three members of the Department of Economics at the Université du Québec à Montréal this new shift from unemployment insurance to the welfare system will cost Quebec an additional $280 million. The provinces as a whole will have to pay an additional $1 billion, approximately.

Considering the government's promise whereby any social program reform affecting provincial finances would take place after due consultation, in order to get their prior approval, here is a good example of a broken promise. First the cuts, and then, the negotiations: what a nice way to instill a climate of confidence in future public debate and negotiations with the provinces!

We must reject Bill C-17 out of hand because it is a rag-bag containing radical amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Those amendments should have been dealt with in a separate piece of legislation in the first place and, most important, they should have been preceded by extensive consultations.

In the present context, the unemployed in Quebec and Canada have enough incentive to find work and they do want to work. They plead for jobs in our ridings every day. Fraud, which we must continue to try to eliminate, accounts for only a very small percentage of costs. The basic problem is that there are not enough jobs for everyone as things now stand, and reducing the amount of benefits and the benefit period will not put more people back to work.

The government has estimated that every one-cent reduction in contributions leads to about 1,300 new jobs. At the same time it maintains an increase of 7 cents in contributions, which rise from $3 to $3.07. In doing so, the government deliberately prevents 9,000 people from going back to work, regaining their dignity and taking part in the economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, I like to use numbers on a smaller scale, those of a riding for instance, since I represent people from a riding in the House of Commons. Therefore, if you reallocate equitably on an individual riding basis the number of jobs lost because of the stubbornness of the government which maintains the contributions at $3.07, 32 people are deprived of a job in every riding.

You might say it is one case among many others. Maybe, but it was not so when we were elected or when our government colleagues got elected by promising jobs, jobs and jobs. Before we vote on Bill C-17, I invite my colleagues to think of those 32 people and of all those who regularly come to our riding offices to tell us about their hardships and their dismay because of the employment situation.

[Tainted Blood Inquiry, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

In January, Mr. Justice Krever, who is in charge of the tainted-blood inquiry, said that he did not have sufficient funds and resources to carry out his mandate. Questioned by the Official Opposition, the Minister of Health said that a request for additional funds had been presented and was being considered by Treasury Board.

Can the Minister tell us if Treasury Board has finally made a decision on this request for additional funds?

[Health Care, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not recognize that the best way for the federal government to maintain health care in Canada is first and foremost by maintaining the growth of transfer payments and respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction?