Gurmant Grewal

[Heroin Prescription Trials, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 454 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very much on topic and I am exposing what the government is supposed to do and is not doing. In fact, it takes money from health and education which it should spend on our children, on our families. The point I am trying to make is that the government has focused on the wrong target. It spends millions of dollars on things like free flags, for example.

The Liberals spent $3 billion helping 40,000 fishermen thrown out of work due to the failure of the federal government managed east coast fishery.

Why would the Liberals not spend money to help the surviving 40,000 hepatitis C victims whose lives were thrown into jeopardy by federal government managed blood?

I could go on and on and on. I have little time to describe the shameful record of the government that has caused this motion to be brought before the House for debate. The Liberal government allowed Justice Krever to be held up in court so that he could not report to Canadians what he had found during his inquiry. The health minister withheld vital documents from him, but Justice Krever continued to fight and would not let it go. He submitted his report to the House, but the Liberal government virtually ignored it.

Ontario and Quebec are ready to compensate hepatitis C victims without discrimination. The Liberal health minister by contrast is only compensating his legal beagle buddies by providing them the means to launch lawsuits and have the victims pay the lawyers in order to try to make the federal government compensate them for the federal government's mistake of giving them tainted blood.

The official opposition has been calling for immediate compensation before it is too late for many victims of tainted blood who need help right now. We on this side will continue to call for a no fault insurance fund to compensate all victims. This was one of the recommendations of Justice Krever, by the way, if members on the other side who are heckling have forgotten.

Some 87% of Canadians believe that provincial and federal governments have a moral obligation to compensate these victims, and 72% of Canadians believe it is unfair to compensate for HIV or AIDS while denying the hepatitis C victims compensation.

Speaking to the second part of the motion, there are a number of diseases on the other hand that we can test for and seek to control, including von Willibrand's disease. We should be concerned about these diseases.

I am sure the member who proposed the motion is aware there is no way that the Liberals will entertain paying heed to this concern. This is a government that lacks compassion and lacks vision.

All these diseases and bleeding disorders should be studied. I am talking about a broader picture. We should do the most and the best research we can to tackle these diseases and screen them out of our blood supply. We could make progress, but we have to prepare a blueprint and a long term vision. We know the Liberals do not have that and do not want to do that.

In conclusion, the motion we are debating today is wishful thinking. Canadians know that Liberals will fight, drag their feet, dig in their heels and be dragged kicking and screaming before they show compassion and compensate the victims of government controlled tainted blood.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 273 which we are debating today is a noble motion and one that should enjoy the support of all sides of the House, except the Liberals of course.

As we know, this kind of motion did not receive their support exactly one year ago tomorrow. Joey Haché was here that day. He is a very young victim of tainted blood. He stood in the gallery while the Liberals voted not to compensate him for his sickness. One year ago Canadians witnessed a very important vote in the House on a matter that can only be described as a tragedy.

It was the federal government that controlled the Canadian blood supply that infected about 60,000 Canadians. We forced the House to vote on that issue because of the cold-hearted position of the Minister of Health. In the beginning he wanted to close the file and compensate no one. Today after about a year of holding his feet to the fire, he is willing to compensate about 20,000 of the victims of tainted blood.

Last year 1,200 of the victims died. Many of the victims have already died. It is as if the health minister is stalling so that as many of these victims as possible can die before he is finally forced to open up the vaults of taxpayer money he and his pal the finance minister have siphoned off the paycheques of Canadians and then pay off the victims who have successfully struggled to stay alive without any help from the Liberal government.

Many members on this side of the House were very sad, very emotional and very angry when that vote was held in this chamber. We knew that the Liberals would vote against compensating Canadians infected with federal government controlled tainted blood. On this side of the House we were frustrated, but we tried to get the Liberals to allow the House of Commons to do the right thing.

On the other side of the House the tears being shed were of a different nature. Backbench Liberal MPs were weeping openly because even though they and their constituents felt that we should help the people infected with tainted blood, they had to vote against helping those Canadians. If those Liberal MPs did not vote as they were told to vote, the Prime Minister would ensure that they were punished.

There are no free votes in the House as long as the traditional kind of political party like the one across the way holds the majority of seats in the House.

The Liberals will not even agree to televise parliamentary committee meetings. Why? Because they want Canadians to know as little about this place as possible. They want to hide the way they are forcing their MPs to vote and govern.

Canadians know about the dictatorial behaviour of the Prime Minister and the lack of compassion shown to Canadians by the government. We know because it keeps on spending tax dollars and it refuses to give us tax relief even though the budget is in surplus. Canadian families are suffering under the heaviest tax burden by the government.

Right now, outside the House, Canadians are working on an alternative to traditional political parties. The alternative will truly be democratic and will put an end to the government that talks the talk about democracy but fails to walk the walk when it comes to power.

The government has cut $23 billion in health care and education since it came to power. The government has refused to eliminate waste and duplication in federal spending. It has already spent $450 million on a gun registry system that is estimated to cost about $1.2 billion. It appears the Liberals are sucking money out of health and education to pay for the highly questionable gun registration system. In fact, it should emphasize education and health care that would help our children.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the last two years the government has not delivered the funds to the RCMP in Surrey that it said it would.

The government is underfunding the RCMP and that is why it is refusing to divulge the figures. This has seriously reduced RCMP services and destroyed morale.

Will the solicitor general immediately provide the city of Surrey with a detailed and accurate accounting of the government's funding before that city files a lawsuit against the government?

[Nisga'A Treaty, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to give the government fair warning not to use its majority in the House to invoke closure or time allocation in order to pass the Nisga'a treaty, trashing democracy like the NDP government has done in B.C. this week.

This Liberal government had better not slam the door on Canadians who want to debate this treaty. It should at least listen to its B.C. Liberal cousins.

The government should not even introduce the Nisga'a treaty in the House because the people of B.C. have not had a democratic say on the treaty.

For over 100 years the Nisga'a people have been waiting for fair and equitable compensation. Let us do it right and in the right way. Why the big rush?

The official opposition challenges the government to have a free vote in the House on the treaty because it is a precedent that will have national implications.

We do not want one problem solved and 10 more problems created.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-78 amends various acts, essentially replacing words such as spouse, wife, wives, widow, et cetera with survivor or survivors. In this 200 page bill which has about 231 clauses, the word survivor is mentioned 249 times. Of course it is defined in clauses 53 and 75.

The government's backgrounder on Bill C-78 states: “To ensure that the government's pension package for its employees is in keeping with the opinion of the courts, survivors benefits will be amended to extend survivors benefits to same sex partners”. However, in 1995 the supreme court ruled in the Egan case that an opposite sex definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act relating to spousal benefits was reasonable.

In the hon. member's opinion, why is the government ignoring this supreme court decision?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-78 proposes to establish an investment board. The proposed investment board will not include any provisions for the auditor general to take an indepth look at the books of the proposed investment board. Nor will the board fall under the provisions of the Access to Information Act.

To whom will the board be accountable? Who will ensure that the board will operate in a fair manner?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we have noticed that the Liberal government has been slowly liquidating the surplus over the last few years.

When we talk about Bill C-78, we are talking about the government's intentions to take over or raid the surplus of this fund, which is about $31 billion. That is how it has been able to balance the budget.

The last time we debated this issue in the House was when the government tried to put its hands on the surplus in employment insurance. It has not been balancing the budget by cutting spending or eliminating waste. Year after year taxes are increasing to balance the budget, and now the Liberal government is trying to put its hands on various surpluses in various departments.

Why does the government think it has to put its hands on surpluses which belong to corporations or the public? Why is the government trying to put its hands in the cookie jar?

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. member what conclusion he draws when he sees there is hesitation in tabling the code of ethics document in parliament.

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the code of ethics is a very important issue. I thank the hon. member for bringing forward the issue and for demanding that the code of ethics be tabled by the Prime Minister and his cabinet in the House.

Yesterday, we saw that not even one Liberal member voted for it. They seem to have some sort of fear, or, as the hon. member pointed out, maybe the code of ethics does not exist, or maybe they just do not want to present it. What is the hon. member's opinion—