Werner Schmidt

[Canadian Dollar, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the value of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar has dropped approximately 25% since the Liberals came to power. The implications of this fact are important.

First, it creates an attitude of complacency on the part of Canadian exporters. Due to the lower Canadian dollar, Canadian exporters observe that they can easily compete with a similar product produced in the U.S. without maximizing efficiencies of operation. Canadian workers are lulled into a false sense of security that their jobs will be safe.

Second, the lower Canadian dollar means a higher cost of living for Canadian consumers. That creates hardship, particularly for Canadians on limited or fixed incomes, many of whom are seniors.

How much lower is the Liberal government willing to let the dollar fall? The Liberal notion of Canada's competitiveness is a fool's paradise that builds wealth on a false sense of security and efficiency. It is time to stop the Canadian dollar from falling further.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member mentioned that because it is certainly a part of this preventive thing. It is also a part of our responsibility as parents. He mentioned, in particular, the phenomenon of the latch-key kids who come home and there is no one there.

My wife and I have two boys. One day when they were in junior high they were exposed to some things they were not sure about. In fact, it had something to do with drugs. They came running into the house and, the younger fellow especially, wanted to talk to their mom, but she was not there. They both needed to find her because they had an important question to ask. They ran to the back of the house and found her working on her flower beds. She loves gardening. They ran up to her and told her what they had been offered in the school washroom. They then asked her what they should do. She was able to deal with them. I will never forget that because she was there when they needed her.

I know many of my friends' children come home to an empty house. A note is left on the fridge telling them that there are sandwiches and that they should help themselves, or a note is left telling them which button to push on the microwave if they want hot chocolate. It is a different phenomenon. Does that mean it is bad for both parents to work? No. It just means that kids should not be home without some kind of adult influence in their life. Someone should be there to help them.

I agree with the hon. member. Not only do parents have a responsibility for their children but the teachers and the community also have a responsibility for these children. How many of us simply ignore and walk away from the problems our neighbour's kids may have believing it is not our problem? When I was child and I did something bad, I can remember a neighbour putting his hand on my shoulder and saying “Werner, do you know what is happening over here? Is this what your dad would want you to do”, and I would behave myself. It made a difference.

I believe we all have a responsibility. It is part of the prevention and it is part of the cure.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate. The first Young Offenders Act was brought forward in 1993, but it was my privilege and honour in 1993 to present a petition to the House signed by 6,000 young people. The petition came to me as the result of a visit by two young girls who were attending Mount Boucherie Secondary School. They came to me to ask if there was anything I could do about a problem they had in their school.

They were fearful because they were being harassed and challenged. They were afraid they would be attacked by a group of other girls. The problem was that the legislation did not work. Their teachers and principal could not protect them because the problem was happening in the community outside the school.

They asked what they could do. I told them one of the best things would be to get their friends and other young people to tell me about the problem. Some 6,000 young people could not come to see me, so I suggested they present a petition and that is what they did.

In 1994 the government presented a bill to the House which was completely unacceptable. My hon. colleague opposite on the Liberal benches asked what we could do to prevent it. One thing would be to have effective legislation. However there is more than that. We need to change attitudes. We need to change the attitudes of our parents, our legislators and our kids. We need to develop a set of values that will encourage people to respect one another and not accept violent behaviour.

I have a couple of values I will state. There are some virtues we need to have. The virtue of courage is an example. The virtue of character is another. We must live our lives according to what we know is right and wrong, where our word is our bond, where we keep our promises, and where truth is the watchword.

I take exception when hon. members opposite or even colleagues exaggerate or tell something that is close to not being true. Members sometimes deliberately state something that is false. We have a word to describe that. It is a three letter word and I cannot use it here. The important thing is that it happens and it should not.

If we all told the truth, wherever we were, our relationships would be different. If integrity became the watchword in our relationships with one another it would be a good idea.

I will respond directly to my Liberal colleague opposite. The greatest preventive measure, and it ties directly into what my colleague said a moment ago, is that we engender in our young people and in ourselves the recognition that we not only have rights under the charter of rights and freedoms but also concomitant responsibilities. The actions we undertake must have consequences and those consequences must be meaningful. They must entail more than a simple tap on the wrist for violent offenders or some silly little punishment that means nothing. We need to get serious.

Some people, like the hon. member for Mississauga West, will say I want to throw everyone in prison. That is not what I said at all. That is an example of telling something that is not the truth. The truth is that when there is a serious offence there must be serious consequences.

Do those consequences mean we stick people in jail? Not necessarily. Do they mean we teach people better ways of handling conflict? Yes, of course. Do they mean offenders should face their victims and recognize the pain they have caused those individuals and their families? Do they mean they should recognize that it is not only the victim who is the object of a violent attack but the victim's family and indeed the whole community?

Were the two young high school girls who came to see me concerned only about their own welfare? No, they were there to represent a whole other group of girls whom I met later. Then boys came along and said they were in the same situation. They were all victims of the threat that was out there. Let us recognize that we are responsible for our own actions. The hon. member for Mississauga West is also responsible for what he says in the House.

I will go one step further. What have we done in the act? I will refer to only one clause because it is central to the whole business we are talking about here. Paragraph 146(2)(b) of Bill C-7 states:

the person to whom the statement was made has, before the statement was made, clearly explained to the young person, in language appropriate to her age and understanding, that

(i) the young person is under no obligation to make a statement

What does this refer to? It refers to a police officer or a person trying to preserve the peace who has the responsibility to make a charge if someone has broken the law. The young person being charged does not have to make a statement.

Why is that significant? I will not use more arguments here. I will use observations made by the former attorney general of British Columbia. His name was Alex MacDonald. Lest anyone on that side of the House thinks he was a Liberal or a Conservative, he was neither of those. He was not a Canadian Alliance member either. He is retired now, but he was a member of the NDP. He later became a member of the legislative assembly and then the attorney general. Here is what he said:

In 1984, Canada's parliamentarians, perhaps inebriated by their exuberance for rights, replaced the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908 with the Young Offenders Act. It was as if they'd heard the word from on high: “Come to the charter waters! Drink and your souls shall live!”

I am quoting Alex MacDonald. He went on further:

The centrepiece of the Young Offenders Act is its Section 556, as it was renumbered in 1998.

It was renumbered to 145 in 1999, renumbered again in 2001 as 146, and I just read it.

The young person is under no obligation to give a statement to the police officer. Mr. MacDonald asked what kind of signal that gave to teens. It expresses one of the shibboleths of our law, one which the criminal defence bar is apparently prepared to defend to the death. Never mind that it contradicts the wisdom of the ages when it comes to raising youngsters to become responsible adults. Why? Because it allows teens two ways to escape responsibility for their mistakes.

First, as passed by parliament, the bill would allow young offenders to refuse to answer a police officer's questions about wrongdoing in which they may have been involved, even if the police officer saw them do it.

There is a case in Kamloops where a youngster was seen damaging some property. A police officer happened to be right there and asked the kid if he did it. The young kid looked at him and said he did not have to talk to him, so he did not. The law says he does not have to do so. That is the first escape.

Second, the bill would place no onus on young offenders to explain to a court what they have been up to even after a fair, though not conclusive, case has been presented against them.

Many of us as parents know only too well that when our children behave in a manner that is not appropriate they will often behave in a peculiar way. We will know that something is not quite up to snuff and that there is something bothering them. Usually, although not necessarily, they will have done something wrong.

The simplest question is to ask what is the matter. If they do not tell us it often begins to gnaw inside and turn them inside out. If they have done something really bad we could perhaps handle it. However when they keep burying it there is a problem. There comes a time when confession is good not only for the soul but for society. It needs to be done.

I wanted to talk about ways to rehabilitate young offenders but we do not have time. I am sorry about that. I would have liked to draw the attention of members to ways of amending the act so that it would resolve the issue better than is the case now.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Motion No. 2 to amend Bill C-7. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the content of the motion itself, which amends the word may to read shall.

What is the significance of that word? That word tells the judge that he shall make information available to the appropriate school authorities, among other people. They have to be people in a responsible position who need to know information. That is what we are trying to achieve. Why is this so important? Without knowledge, it is impossible to deal with the problem.

This act deals with young offenders. Sad to say, there are among our young people those who commit violent acts and do things they are not supposed to do, things which society says should not be done. Some people would argue that the only way to deal with them is to put them in jail or incarcerate them somewhere. That is not the only way.

It is impossible to help young people to understand what they have done wrong and how they can right it without first knowing who they are. We need to know who they are if we are going to have a program of rehabilitation and a program that will prevent future behaviour of this type. That is the absolute number one requirement. That is what this amendment does. I am very surprised that there are members in the House who are avoiding this amendment. That amendment should pass unanimously in the House.

Some might ask why are some people not supporting this amendment. I have to refer back to question period today. I was terribly surprised at the response from the Minister of Justice to a question raised by the member for Fraser Valley concerning two children who were forced to visit their father. The conditions of that particular order were such that we had to wonder where the common sense was in this situation. Rather than sympathising with these poor children who did not want to visit their father, the minister said the system said they had to go. A social worker had to intervene in this case.

It was absolutely atrocious that the Minister of Justice, who had the golden opportunity to sympathize, to show compassion and recognize that there was perhaps a flaw in the system, did nothing. She defended the system, then the law. She did not recognize that there could be a problem. There are problems not only in this instance, but also in a variety of other instances.

While a lot of things can be adjusted in this young offenders act, this is an instance where there should be no quarrel. Yet, we had to bring to the government's attention not only at committee level, but at report stage the fact that some changes had to be made.

We need to recognize that the reason why school officials need to know is because they act in loco parentis. It is significant to recognize what this phrase means. This phrase has been used for school boards, teachers and principals. Teachers who act in loco parentis act in the same position as a well meaning judicious parent. It is not only their actions, it is also their responsibility. They have the responsibility to look after our most precious resources.

There are many people in this House who have children. Probably the most traumatic experience we face is when our five or six year old youngster leaves home for the first time to be entrusted to a teacher. We are giving teachers custody of our children and we have to trust them to act in our best interest as parents and in the best interests of society.

Our judges ought to be acting in that same way. They need to recognize the responsibility that exists in our schools. They need to recognize the responsibility of teachers and principals. Judges should take the same care as if their child were being accused of certain things. What are they trying to do? Hopefully, they are not punishing the child but helping him or her to grow into responsible citizens. That is what the purpose of this should be and that is what it is. That is why we want the word shall in there.

We want it so that the judge shall make it possible that those who are charged with the responsibility of looking after our kids will do so in a manner that will reflect the values of our society and the best thinking among our professional people and among us as well-meaning parents. That is why the word shall should be in there.

I will now refer to a speech made very recently by the ex-prime minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher. She was at a college in the United States recently and reminded the assembled group of a visit she had from Mr. Gorbachev just before the system changed in the communist U.S.S.R.

She made the observation that he recognized that the system was not working and that an attitude had to change. The attitude that had to change was that human beings need to have the incentive to do what is right coming from within them, that the government could not force upon them a certain behaviour pattern. The government tried that for 50 years. It did not work. Finally the economic system broke down. The social system broke down. The judicial system broke down. Fear itself was no longer strong enough to bring these people under control.

Mrs. Thatcher said there is one thing we need to recognize, which is that the human spirit requires liberty in order to evoke the best and most noblest of emotions. That is what we need to engender in young people. We need to recognize that the greatest liberty for youth is to be able to walk down the street safe from the threat of punishment or violent attack. The same thing should happen in the corridors of schools. As well, teachers should know that they are free and have the liberty to work with these youngsters without feeling the threat of being violently attacked.

To do that we have to know who these people are. That is not an infringement on their privacy. They took the public action of committing violent acts. Those acts were not done in secret. They took it upon themselves to make victims of us all, because when one of us is attacked we all suffer, directly or indirectly.

How many of us did not empathize with the two young kids who had to go and visit their father, a convicted sex offender? Who did not? It would be a very callous, heartless person who would not sympathize with that. We did sympathize.

Now we want to create an environment where school officials will indeed have the knowledge and then develop the skills in order to treat these people. Can it be done? Yes, it can be done.

I want to refer to an interview in the Vancouver Province with RCMP inspector Rick Betker. He has been a cop for 30 years and has seen every type of bad guy and heard every sob story excuse.

Why is Inspector Betker waxing so enthusiastic about a program in which the bad guys do not go to jail, do not go to court and do not even get charged? For him the answer is simple: because it works.

What is this program? “Probably for me it is the most positive thing I have seen in 30 years of policing”, he says of the community justice forums he has now started in Victoria's western suburbs, where he commands the RCMP detachment. The idea of the forums is to bring offenders and victims together face to face, with a trained facilitator, to talk about what happened and to work out a resolution that leaves both happy.

Inspector Betker says:

It is very powerful...You can see the remorse (in offenders). You can see...this may be the first time they really realize how their actions have affected not just the victim, but their own family as well.

Here is an RCMP officer with 30 years' experience who shows us a way. It is not the only way, but it is a way that works. Will we give that kind of tool to our educators and school authorities, which is what we are talking about today? Will we tell the judges they shall make it possible for them to do that? Yes, we should do that. I hope we all support this amendment.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

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.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

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?

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is actually entering the debate because he has firsthand experience from his past life of some of the results of the abuse of illicit drugs.

One should appeal to people who have had that experience as to why they are so involved in this particular debate. It is no accident that we are talking about setting up a special study committee for this particular subject. The problem is all around us. I wonder if the hon. member could explain perhaps in more detail just how in his family or in the families of his friends we could actually create a change in attitude toward the illicit use of drugs.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I also commend the hon. member for his comments and his presentation this afternoon.

We need to recognize another point. We heard the Minister of Health and other members this morning say that we have to study this problem. We have had people explain in detail how serious the problem really is. The hon. member who just spoke has a tremendous background in the business of dealing with people, particularly in a pastoral sense. I believe that in another life he knew all about those kinds of things.

Are we dealing here with a situation where people are unwilling to face the reality of the situation? We had a drug policy in 1987 and 1996. We have had laws changed and programs introduced. We have had all kinds of things happening, yet the use of illicit drugs in our society has increased.

Obviously the programs and policies are not working and the law is not working. Could one of the reasons be that people do not want it to work? We talk about and we lament the fact that families are being broken up and that people's lives are being destroyed. However, are we really serious about dealing with the problem?

Is this kind of committee a way in which we can sensitize society to finally admit that we have a problem and that it is society's problem. We have come to the point where we are saying that it is a problem but that it is not our problem. I wonder if what we need as parents, as leaders in the community, as pastors and as teachers is a shift in attitude. Would the hon. member respond to that?

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Provencher on his comments and refer to his previous office in another life when he was minister of justice of the province of Manitoba. He is only too well aware of the difficulties in administering justice and making sure that our justice system works.

He made the observation that the drug policy had not worked. That is a very serious allegation. The questions then become: Is it that the policy was wrong? Is it that the people charged with enforcement or implementation of the policy were wrong? Or, was it the attitude of society which says it wants the policy but really does not care about the problem or is not so sure that it is a real problem and in fact says that there is nothing like having real good coke after dinner with friends in the neighbourhood?

Parents tell their kids they are not supposed to take coke, but they go to the living room, open a little drawer, take out the coke, put it on the table and consume it. What is the problem as the member sees it? I am sure he knows only too well from his past life what it is doing to society.

[Blood Samples Act, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have here one of those common sense type bills. It is one of those bills that looks into what is good in society and what would protect the health and the good nature of people. The bill would address good Samaritan activities. It would address the protection of good Samaritans, health workers and emergency workers.

I think all members of the House have at one time or another been in contact with an emergency worker. We have extended a helping hand to someone in an accident, whether on the highway or somewhere else, or have wanted to extend a helping hand but were not sure of the conditions of the situation. Emergency workers such as firefighters, police officers and security personnel are often subjected to cases where they do not know all the risks.

The hon. member brought forward the bill with the noblest of intentions. His intentions are not only noble but practical. The member wants to give as much protection as possible to people who are subjected to risks of which they are perhaps unaware. However there seems to be a feeling that any individual who suspects something can demand a blood test.

There is a safeguard in the bill. The safeguard is a judge. Judges are people who have demonstrated and exercised good judgment in the past. That is why they are judges. They help us interpret the law. They make sure the law is applied, as far as humanly possible, in a fair and equitable way. That is what we are after.

When individuals are put into questionable situations they may be subject to risk. The bill looks at three kinds of risks: hepatitis C, hepatitis B and HIV. The bill focuses on these three risks and no others. The presence of these diseases can be detected by a blood test. Is the test foolproof? Of course it is not. No test in the world is absolutely foolproof. However it is good enough to ask a judge that it be administered.

Why do people suggest it would be an intrusion into privacy? The greatest intrusion into people's privacy is to shorten their lives by infecting them with a disease. Drawing a couple of drops of blood and subjecting someone to a test is no great infringement on anything. It would be done through the auspices of a judge and through careful analysis of the situation. I do not know of anything more common sense and humane than that. We should all be supporting the bill with everything we have.

How can we not support the bill? We need only look at the absolute volume of organizations that support it. All kinds of organizations support the bill. I am talking about police departments and associations, and 18 such organizations support the bill.

This is not one group of policemen in some city somewhere. These are national and provincial police associations.

Let us go another step. We have security guard unions and associations. I have eight groups here. Who are some of these groups? The Union of Solicitor General Employees is a pretty sophisticated group. We have the Correctional Officers' Association of Ontario. We have the National Office of the Commissionaires and the North Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwestern Ontario and Nova Scotia divisions of the Commissionaires. Not only do we have groups on a national level, we have them on the provincial level. People in these groups are all emergency workers.

We go beyond those groups to include hospitals, health boards and nursing associations. Some 26 different groups support the bill.

We should pay special attention to health workers. Can anyone imagine a situation that is more significant to the welfare of our society than to have a sound and healthy group of health practitioners? Do we want to subject them to unusual and unnecessary risk? We should do everything we possibly can to protect their safety and to assure them that everything is being done to ensure they are not infected due to the risks that are inherent in the profession they are pursuing.

It is not only health workers. I have two other groups here, the paramedic associations and the ambulance services. My heart goes out to these people in a very particular way. They are the frontline people when an accident happens and no one knows for sure what will happen in a situation like that. These are very experienced people who can usually recognize when there may be an unusual risk of exposure in a particular accident or in a particular development. They often know when they have been pricked by a needle, cut by a knife, or have cut themselves on a zipper or on a piece of metal from a vehicle. If they see blood on their hands they do not know if they have been exposed to an infectious disease. Should we not give them every opportunity to have as much protection as possible? Surely that is not unreasonable.

I cannot for a minute believe that anybody would oppose the bill.

I have just talked about the paramedic associations and ambulance services, but we are still not finished. We also have the fire departments. The same set of arguments can be used here when people are going into a building that is on fire. These firemen, who enter buildings filled with fire, smoke and heat, could also suffer a cut to their face or hands no matter how much protective clothing they wear. It will happen. Should these people not have maximum protection? I believe they should. I believe judges are very sympathetic to that.

Someone mentioned to me that there may be abuses with a test like this. What kind of an abuse could there be if members have to appeal to the highest law enforcement office in the land for an interpretation? Are we really suggesting that judges would abuse this kind of a provision to hurt someone else? Would they really to do something like that? I cannot for a second believe that this would be a legitimate concern. I cannot imagine what kind of a reason that might be, but it would have to be an excuse that is manufactured, not one that is resting on common sense or past experience.

I am not finished. I have many other groups, such as the Victims Resource Centre in the city of Nicolet, Quebec, the Retail Loss Prevention Association of British Columbia, and another group from Quebec.

The hon. member from the Bloc mentioned some instances where this might be an intrusion into somebody's privacy. We have dealt with that to at least a small degree. I think even that member, when he thinks through what he said, did not actually mean everything he said. I think what he really wanted to say is that we should maintain the privacy of individuals, but we also wanted to protect their safety and ensure that is the case.

I am sure after analyzing carefully what he said the hon. member would say that he could trust judges, even those judges in Quebec where he suggested there might be intrusion. I believe the judges in Quebec are just as capable of doing this as properly as anyone else. I hope we can encourage everyone to vote in favour of the bill.