Pauline Picard

[Hepatitis C, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again this government has unabashedly given us evidence of its lack of judgment and compassion. The Liberal members do not like to be told that, one year ago, all of them, without exception, turned their backs on the thousands of people infected with hepatitis C.

Joey Haché and a group of Quebec victims were here yesterday, a year to the day after the Liberals' rejection of a motion, which had the support of all the opposition parties, calling for compensation of all hepatitis C victims. They reminded us that nothing has changed in the past year, except that several hundred victims have died, without receiving any support from this government, which continues to wash its hands of them.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health refused to meet with them and to listen to them. The Minister of Health even refused to accept a letter one of the victims wanted to hand him. So much for Liberal attention and compassion.

The Prime Minister wonders how he will go down in history. He need have no illusions. The arrogance and cynicism of his government and himself have given proof in this instance—

[Heroin Prescription Trials, April 28th, 1999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since the last budget was brought down, the federal government's contributions to social assistance, education and health programs have no longer been based on the number of recipients, but on the demographic weight of the provinces. In the case of hepatitis C, however, the federal government is reverting to the number of recipients.

Why is this government using demographic weight in its calculations only when it suits it, when this penalizes victims in Quebec?

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has established a shared-cost program with the provinces for the victims of tainted blood. But, when it comes to the cost to the provinces of looking after all victims, the Minister of Health would have us believe that the special $300 million contribution is not a new shared-cost program.

Why is the federal government using semantics to deny Quebec its fair share of this new shared-cost program, as it promised to do in the 1996 throne speech?

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to have to debate this matter again today. Justice Krever's report was tabled over one year ago—its anniversary is coming up tomorrow. Still nothing has yet been settled for the hepatitis C victims.

The motion introduced by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, which dates back to November 1997, just a few days after the Krever report was tabled, is as current as ever, for this motion recommended compensation for all victims of tainted blood.

The motion before us this evening reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to provide a humane and fair resolution for those infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply system, and provide for research, education and support into the identification of other inherited bleeding disorders, in particular von Willebrand's disease.

So here we are, still debating a motion that is as current as ever, a year after the tabling of the Krever report. That is what is unfortunate.

Following the report, the government, in March 1998, after voting against an opposition motion calling for compensation of all victims of hepatitis C, provided $1.1 billion in compensation to people who contracted hepatitis C between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990, because it did not acknowledge making a mistake either before or after this period.

Over a year later, the motion is still relevant—sad but true—because there exists no fair and just compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, who were contaminated by this blood, as the hepatitis C people put it “This rotten blood we were injected with”.

Motion M-273 calls upon the government to take every possible measure to find a fair and equitable settlement for people infected by the hepatitis C virus. In this regard, an initial step is possible in the form of a transfer to the Government of Quebec of its share of the $300 million announced last September to compensate all those who became victims, regardless of the date.

If this $300 million were transferred on a pro rata basis to the people, we could say in Quebec that we had a fair share of this money.

To provide a little background, Quebec and Ontario felt that the government's offer fell short and the two of them announced they would extend the compensation program to include all victims, regardless of the date. In September 1998, the federal government announced $300 million to pay the medical costs of people infected through the blood supply system.

Since Quebec already has a program to cover medical expenses, the Quebec government asked that its share be used to extend the compensation package to more people because, as members know, the federal government does not recognize victims infected prior to 1986 and after 1990.

Since Quebec already pays for medical expenses and since the federal government announced $300 million in compensation, Quebec would like to get its share so that it could use it to compensate all victims, that is those infected before 1986 and after 1990.

This request is based on the government's resolution, announced in the 1996 throne speech, to no longer use its spending power to establish programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction without the provinces' agreement. That resolution also included a right to opt out with compensation.

But now, it appears that the formula used to distribute the money between the provinces, which was always based on the population of a province, may no longer be valid. Instead of paying $75 million, or 25% of the $300 million, as provided under the established formula, the federal government is only prepared to give Quebec $45 million, or 15% of the total amount.

This change caught everyone by surprise. Neither the Quebec government nor the victims or the organizations working for them, including the Quebec chapter of the Hemophilia Society, can understand why Quebec's share does not reflect its demographic weight, that is 25% of the overall population.

The federal government is said to have based this figure on epidemiological studies. This is a very haphazard method, since hepatitis C is difficult to detect. Indeed, many people may be infected without knowing it, because they are still symptom free.

Using this sort of calculation, there is a risk of serious errors that will ultimately penalize the victims, who are waiting for some sort of compensation to improve their condition and quality of life as much as possible.

This is why both the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Government of Quebec intend to put pressure on Ottawa to keep the population-based formula. Thus, those who contracted the disease before 1986 and those who did so after 1990 will be able to count on $75 million instead of $42 million.

It has now been more than a year since the offer for those who contracted the disease before 1986 and after 1990 was announced. We now know what is in the agreement and we are still waiting for the courts to approve it. But, according to the Canadian Hemophilia Society, it is already unacceptable. We are also waiting for the results of the Red Cross's negotiations with its creditors to see how much it will be able to offer victims.

One thing is certain: the issue is far from resolved.

The motion by the member for New Brunswick Southwest also calls on the government to provide for research, education and support into the identification of other inherited bleeding disorders, in particular von Willebrand's disease.

The September 1998 announcement also mentioned $50 million over five years for prevention, public education and research into hepatitis C and other related diseases. The House will agree that $50 million is a minimum, and that much remains to be done to fully understand and treat these diseases.

In conclusion, much remains to be done for those whose lives have been turned upside down because of deficiencies in the blood supply system. We are appealing to people to show compassion and ensure that those who have been the victims of this national tragedy are properly compensated. The goal is not to assign blame, but to ensure justice for all victims of this unprecedented tragedy.

This government prides itself on guarding the safety of Canada's blood supply system. It can and it must do what is necessary to ensure that all victims of the contaminated blood scandal are treated fairly.

[Tainted Blood, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1996 throne speech, the government made the commitment that it would not put into place any new cost-shared programs with the provinces or, if it did, there would be a right to opt out with full compensation.

In the case of this program for assistance to tainted blood victims, will the government finally respect its own commitment from 1996?

[Tainted Blood, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last September 18, the federal government announced the injection of $300 million into a new program aimed at helping the provinces meet the costs of health care for all victims of tainted blood.

Since Quebec already has a similar program, which provides care to all tainted blood victims, does the minister intend to pay Quebec its fair share of the federal funds on a per capita basis, that is $75 million?

[St. John Ambulance, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, St. John Ambulance is celebrating 900 years of community service. The white cross of the Order of St. John was first seen in the Middle Ages, and has since become a symbol of devotion and support, both in times of peace and in times of war.

Since its inception, St. John Ambulance has saved millions of lives, and an equal number have been saved as a result of its training, prevention and consciousness-raising efforts aimed at the general public.

Every year, close to 800,000 people in Canada and Quebec receive St. John Ambulance training. In other words, millions of people could some day save lives.

We have all seen this great humanitarian organization in action, as we are familiar with its trained first-aiders, therapeutic canine hospital visitors, CPR courses, and ski patrollers.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to express its thanks to all St. John Ambulance volunteers. Their generosity and commitment merit our admiration.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the use of marijuana for health purposes.

This is a health debate, a justice debate, based on the values of fairness, mutual aid and compassion that we all share as a society.

Unfortunately, the motion, as amended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, no longer mentions the legalization of marijuana, which is a matter of concern. It now talks about the “possible legal medical use of marijuana”. In our view, this is a step backwards since the government has asserted many times that it was open to the idea and eager to look into it further.

In fact, more than a year ago, my colleague from Rosemont asked the Minister of Health to set up a parliamentary committee to consider the issue. The minister replied that the question was under consideration, that some people were already studying the matter. He said, and I quote: “The issue is under consideration by my department and by the Department of Justice. Along with my colleague, we are reviewing all the aspects of the issue. We hope to present our policy in the coming months”.

Thirteen months after this statement, we are still waiting for some answers and for some concrete measures by the minister or his colleague, the Minister of Justice, who, a year ago, had already started to review all the aspects of this important issue.

In our view, at the present time the government is holding hostage thousands of people who are suffering and waiting for a sign of hope while risking six months in jail and a $1,000 fine in order to buy marijuana on the black market.

Currently, this debate is about medical issues. But it is also a matter of compassion. More often than not people with HIV/AIDS or other diseases suffer from extreme nausea and are unable to eat. This is a problem, since some of the drugs prescribed to them must be taken with food.

If the patient is successful in taking his medication in spite of the nausea and lack of appetite, he might be affected by side effects: more nausea or even total intolerance to the drug itself.

For some, the solution to these problems has been to smoke or inhale marijuana. It eases nausea and stimulates the appetite. Currently these men and women must break the law to get relief. This is intolerable in a country boasting one of the best health care systems in the world.

Nobody doubts the therapeutic effectiveness of THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana. As a matter of fact, for a number of years already physicians have been prescribing Marinol pills containing synthetic THC. This drug is available in drugstores. However even Marinol is not as effective as inhaled marijuana.

Many physicians are asking to be allowed to prescribe THC, arguing they are in the best position to determine in which form marijuana will be the best able to help their patients.

The positive effects of THC have been know for a long time, but, strangely enough, it is only recently that medical authorities have started to examine seriously through clinical research these effects and potential medical applications.

Last March, the American medical institute published a report that found, once again, that marijuana has an excellent medical potential.

In November of 1998, the British science and technology committee of the House of Lords took a strong stand in favour of the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic uses. The chairman of the committee stated “We have enough evidence to be convinced that physicians should be allowed to prescribe marijuana to ease the suffering of the sick or the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, criminal code notwithstanding”.

Recent research has confirmed earlier reports, including those of the World Health Organization, which are more and more dispelling myths about the therapeutic value of marijuana.

Since the beginning of his campaign, my colleague from Rosemont has gathered a great deal of support, and more support keeps coming in. The Canadian AIDS Society, the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida support motion M-381 without any reservation.

Not too long ago, the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation urged the health minister to act quickly on this issue. The Canadian Medical Association has been defending the decriminalization of simple possession of marijuana since 1981 and deplores the lack of any systematic scientific research on the issue.

Support for decriminalization of marijuana for therapeutic purposes does not come just from the medical associations or social groups; according to a survey carried out last month, close to 80% of the population are in favour of this major change.

Health Canada has had a program since 1966 whereby certain patients may receive unauthorised drugs so that they do not have to suffer needlessly while awaiting authorisation of a product that could help them. Jean-Charles Parizeau and James Wakeford, among others, have applied to obtain marijuana The government has not, however, given any concrete response as yet.

This is a problematic situation, because a recent Ontario Court decision on the Wakeford case almost found the Narcotics Act unconstitutional, since it has the effect of depriving certain individuals of the only effective treatment to alleviate their condition. It did not do so for just one reason: there is a way to obtain marijuana and other drugs, such as morphine and other unauthorized drugs, under the current legislation, via the special access program.

This means that, if the government persists in refusing to respond to requests, or refuses access to marijuana through the special access program, part of the Narcotics Act will become unconstitutional, not by law but by fact.

Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Wakeford, and others in their position, would have two choices available to them. First, to play the good citizen, to suffer and to die in the near future, or second to improve their condition and their quality of life by an illegal act. This is the impossible choice this government offers to those in needs. It is unacceptable.

In conclusion, the government must stop holding sick people hostage, stop waffling, stop letting the courts decide for it.

I would therefore like to propose an amendment to the amendment of Motion M-381. If the government is sincere in its desire to settle this important question, it will acknowledge that the change is well-founded.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “concerning the possible legal” and substituting the following:

“to legalize the”

[Daffodil Day, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today, March 25, is Daffodil Day.

Organized by the Canadian Cancer Society, Daffodil Day has, for almost 40 years, been a major fundraising activity for this agency, whose goal is to wipe out cancer and improve the quality of life of those who have the disease and of their families.

In Quebec alone last year, Daffodil Day raised over $1 million. It is through the continuing generosity of Quebeckers and of Canadians that the Canadian Cancer Society can provide material and psychological support for the tens of thousands of individuals struggling with this terrible disease and help fund medical research.

Let us give generously. We may think that cancer is something other people get, but life has a way of proving us wrong.

To all the Canadian Cancer Society volunteers, I say thank you for your generosity and have a great Daffodil Day.