Gurmant Grewal

[Business Of The House, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I would like to know from the government House leader what the business of the House is for the remainder of this week and for next week.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is bang on. That is the solution.

All of us are homeless at one time when we leave our parents' home. For us to get a home we have to have jobs. Jobs can only be created when taxes are low. We can create more jobs. When taxes are high small businesses, the engine of the economy, feel the engine is smoking. The engine is being derailed with high taxes.

The hon. member is right on. The solution to the problem is lowering taxes. Government members do not get it. I plead with government members to lower taxes. That is what we do in our policy.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure by now the crocodile tears will be dry and I will give the answer to the hon. member.

Homelessness, poverty, unemployment, these are the byproducts of high taxes. These are the side effects of high taxes. We do not offer any band-aid solution. We want to offer a permanent solution. That is why we are asking for the taxes to be lowered. Taxes are killing jobs, creating poverty, unemployment, homelessness and all those things. We are offering a permanent solution.

I strongly believe people are not able to own a home unless jobs are created and unless the ability is created to earn the money to buy and live in a home. I think the hon. member will see that the solution to the problem is creating the ability to own a home, creating jobs and lowering taxes.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member is wiping his crocodile tears, let me point out that Reform Party policies are policies with vision. We are for lowering the taxes in this country which are the root cause of all our problems. The social safety net that we are getting from this government is damaging our health care system, elevating poverty, creating unemployment, homelessness and so on in this country.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber. And being returned :

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been in the House for a much longer time than I, so I do appreciate the concern raised by him. He knows very well that we have not formed the government yet, but when we do sit on the other side he will see a much more effective and efficient budget. We want to have that opportunity.

I would ask the member to look at our policies. I am happy that he has at least shown interest in our policies. I hope that he will look at the policies of the united alternative movement.

He did not fully read our document. If he had done that he would have seen what we are talking about. We are talking about poverty in this country. We are talking about high taxes in this country. We are talking about creating jobs in this country. The unemployment rate in this country has been quite high compared to our neighbours. The unemployment rate, particularly among youth, is very disappointing. What is the motivation for youth to get jobs? It is a vicious cycle in which we are living.

When children are young, they worry and struggle. When they go to school to get a better education they must be safe on the streets. When children grow up they worry about getting a job. When they do get a job they worry about paying taxes. When they get older they have to worry about their own families. After that they have to worry about their pensions.

We have to tackle this vicious cycle at a broader level. I can assure the hon. member that when we form the government he will see effective and efficient results.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. The official opposition will oppose the bill unless we have clarification on certain elements and see certain amendments to the bill, some of which I want to speak about today.

Earlier my colleague, the hon. member for Kelowna, the official opposition critic for public works and government services, spoke very eloquently about the bill and stated the position of the official opposition. I hope my remarks add to his comments.

I would like to emphasize that there has been a steady erosion of federal funding support for new social housing, culminating in its virtual termination from 1994 onward. Effectively by disavowing the spirit and substance, if not the letter of its social housing agreements with provincial governments, the federal government was deliberately offloading its social and financial responsibilities on to the provinces and territories at a time when they could least afford it.

In the process, despite its commitment cited in the CMHC mandate to maintain the flow of affordable housing as part of the nation's social safety net obligations, the federal government has virtually gutted its new social housing programs, thus adding to the plight and suffering of homeless persons and inadequately sheltered households in Canada.

Let us look at the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to redefine the roles and responsibilities of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, in relation to mortgage loan insurance and to export and international support.

Let us deal with housing financing. The bill will enable CMHC to adjust its insurance and guarantee operations under the National Housing Act to help ensure the continuing availability of low cost financing to home buyers in all region of Canada, promote market competitiveness and efficiency, and contribute to the well-being of the housing sector.

These amendments will give CMHC the necessary tools to compete effectively and fairly in the loan insurance marketplace. They will simplify our National Housing Act by removing unnecessary restrictions and enable CMHC to respond quickly to shifts in consumer demand and market conditions.

This is important because, as we know, since 1993 the Liberals have stopped funding new social housing projects. They have caused Canada to be the only western nation that does not have a national housing policy.

British Columbia and Quebec are the only provinces pursuing a social housing policy. We have a housing problem in the country. We have as many as 200,000 homeless people in Canada. Thousands and thousands of people do not have a place to live. This is a tragedy in our nation that has so much prosperity everywhere.

Many thousands of people are living in substandard housing. These Canadians are very uncomfortable. They lack running taps with hot water. They lack enough room for their children. These are the people whose homes lack the appliances and furniture that would greatly improve their day to day lives and serve the needs of their young children. Many Canadian mothers have no place for their families to live. They miss the conveniences of, for example, a microwave oven. Their children are hungry.

The government is having us debate a bill that addresses mortgage loan insurance and facilities to export housing technology and to provide support for our housing industry as it takes on an international capacity. Today we are debating housing, but it is amazing that we are not talking about the homelessness crisis in this country.

I wonder how the Liberals can ignore homeless people and pass legislation dealing with mortgages and providing housing for people in foreign countries. This would be a funny joke if it were not true. There are about 200,000 Canadians who are considered homeless. They are not worried about mortgage insurance, they are worried about homes and shelters in which they can live.

We want to support the bill, but only with clarification and amendments. However, it is very difficult to deal with the concerns of this bill given our country's housing crisis and homelessness crisis which we can even see a few blocks away from Parliament Hill. We see it every day on our way to work and on our way home. We feel that we are fortunate to have homes or, at least, hotel rooms or apartments.

One wonders if the Liberals can relate to the housing crisis. They are out of touch with the rest of Canadians. They do not know about drug problems, refugee problems, immigration problems or the problems Canadians have paying taxes. Even if they know, they do not deal with these problems properly because they do not know how.

I will turn to the second part of Bill C-66, which concerns export promotion. These elements of the bill will expand export opportunities for Canada's housing industry by giving the CMHC broad authority to help Canadians sell their housing expertise to foreign countries, to participate in housing development and financial infrastructure projects and to better promote Canadian housing products and services abroad. This is said to result in job opportunities for Canadians at home. I doubt that, but let us take it at face value. This is a good thing because Canadians are so heavily taxed that they cannot find jobs and we cannot create jobs.

Liberal government policies have been killing jobs since 1993. Payroll taxes kill jobs. Even if you have a job, the taxes you pay are unbelievable. Paycheques are cut in less than half in this country.

I have copies of recent press releases from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which I can table if members want. We can see the dire straits of our housing industry through the press releases. It is no wonder the Liberals want to construct housing offshore. Clearly they are not doing it inside our borders. For example, as of February 11, 1999 residential construction was expected to stay at the same level as 1998. This is disappointing, particularly to me.

The CMHC is being given no direction from the minister to help his officials increase residential construction for Canadians.

Before becoming a member of parliament I was a real estate agent. I can relate to how this is affecting homelessness. I can relate to how first time homebuyers are facing problems. Construction of new housing units is actually dropping under this government, while the homelessness crisis is growing.

The housing crisis is getting worse, but the Liberals only want to help the CMHC build houses outside Canada. Maybe the Liberals think they can do a good job helping the homeless in other countries. They certainly have done a poor job in Canada.

I have a press release from the Infrastructure Works department, dated March 5, 1999. I can table it if members want. Backbench members of the government do not normally read Government of Canada press releases because they are told everything they are supposed to say by the Liberal Party whip, so those press releases become irrelevant.

The press release I am talking about is entitled “Infrastructure Program funds Seniors' Housing Project in Brandon, Manitoba”.

Why are infrastructure funds needed to build homes for seniors? Why can the private sector not provide those services? The private sector can build homes. Why does the government have to get into that business? What lessons we learn when we read these kinds of press releases.

The Liberals are using our tax dollars to build seniors' homes, yet they are now trying to send our housing industry offshore.

There is enough work for the housing industry right here in our country where 200,000 people are homeless. They do not know where to live.

I would like to emphasize what Canadians want to see with respect to Bill C-66.

They want to see that the bill is effective and efficient and that there are real cost controls on what is being proposed.

Regarding efficiency, the bill is silent on administration. I do not see anything in the bill that talks about how it is to be administered. The bill is silent on the relations the government intends to have with the provinces.

Regarding effectiveness, does the bill really help the banks and other financial institutions? I cannot say that with confidence because I do not see anything in the bill which would do that. We need to know the details of this bill.

We already know that Bill C-66 is not helping Canada's homelessness and housing crisis. Therefore, we would like to be sure that it is really effective in terms of doing what it is supposed to be doing.

[Business Of The House, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, being Thursday, I ask the government House leader the nature of the business of the House for the remainder of this week and for the next week.

[Taxation, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents in Surrey was promoted but taxes demoted his family's standard of living. As his child tax benefits shrink, CPP and bracket creep eat away at his paycheque, leaving his family worse off. He pays $4,000 more in taxes than the family next door where both parents work.

Will this government stop discriminating against families where one parent stays at home to raise children?

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to private member's Motion No. 381 which reads “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical purposes”.

I heard the amendment. On the face of it the amendment appears to be okay as long as this is not a backdoor entry for legalizing marijuana smoking. As long as a firm guideline is established, probably it should be supported.

I have only recently undertaken the role of the official opposition's deputy critic for health. My constituents and my colleagues are proud to have me speak to Motion No. 381 and express our compassion for the predicament faced by those Canadians suffering from the diseases and conditions that cause them to turn in desperation to marijuana to ease their symptoms.

Looking through the lens of compassion, my efforts on this issue are dedicated first and foremost toward the thousands of Canadians who are desperately seeking medicinal therapy for various illnesses. These Canadians admittedly are frustrated at being in a situation where the only source of relief from their illness comes from smoking a substance that carries many extremely harmful side effects.

With them I seek less harmful alternatives. It is very important to look through the sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it. Therefore, I will continue to be outspoken on behalf of Canadians who are sick and seek safe medicine.

Historically, the use of marijuana goes back centuries. The remains of a woman from the fourth century were discovered. The woman had died giving birth. There were marijuana leaves found near her dead body at the site. Apparently she was inhaling marijuana, relieving her pain all those hundreds of years ago.

To review the pros and cons, let us see how various professionals look at this issue. Medically, THC, the drug in the marijuana plant, is known to be helpful to treat symptoms of cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, epileptic seizures, multiple sclerosis and migraine headaches.

In the United States there are people who would like to have marijuana moved from schedule 1 substances where it is deemed to have no therapeutic use, to schedule 2 substances which are useful drugs that can be prescribed by doctors. There are people who would like to see it treated as a herbal remedy instead of a drug.

Talking of support for legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, in a national U.S. survey, 50% of cancer therapists said they would prescribe marijuana if it were legal and 44% said they are already suggesting it. It is far less addictive and far less subject to abuse than other drugs used as muscle relaxants, hypnotics or analgesics, according to the survey.

According to Harvard University, the chief concern about the use of marijuana is the effect on the lungs of smoking it. Cannabis smoke carries even more tars and other particulate matter than tobacco smoke. Water pipes may reduce but cannot eliminate the side effects.

We are fast approaching the 21st century. We need to look into more advanced research to reap any benefits the drug can offer without side effects. Perhaps a technological inhalation of cannabis vapours could be developed, an inhaler for example, or something else which could deliver the contents of marijuana.

The question for us to consider is if it is ethical to deny people who are in pain something that will relieve their pain.

The result of Dr. Corigall's research at the University of Toronto dealing with the effects of canna-binoids on the brain predicts that there could be a creation of a synthetic form of marijuana. In arguments against legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, Dr. Corigall says that the dosage of marijuana as an analgesic cannot be regulated and ultimately people should not resort to smoking it to relieve their pain.

We already know that smoking is bad for us because of all the carcinogens that come with it.

Again on the negative side of the issue, a retired U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency official said in 1996 since there are better medicines with less harmful side effects than marijuana available for the diseases for which it is touted, medical marijuana is a cruel hoax. It does not help. It does more harm than good.

In another study, the chairman of the International Drug Strategy Institute two years ago said, “suggesting that marijuana be smoked as a medicine would be like proposing tobacco be used for anxiety and weight loss”.

The National Institute of Health determined that crude marijuana adds nothing to currently available medicine and indeed creates increased risk to patients. The U.S. National Institute of Health also says that a marijuana cigarette contains a complex mixture of over 400 different compounds, including carcinogens. This would be a concern for anyone but especially for patients with chronic disorders or impaired immune systems.

The U.S. National Eye Institute fact sheet on the therapeutic use of marijuana for glaucoma states that none of the studies demonstrates that marijuana or any of its components could safely and effectively prevent optic nerve damage from glaucoma. Also, there are about 24 FDA approved drugs for the treatment of glaucoma.

The U.S. National Cancer Institute notes that inhaling marijuana smoke is a health hazard. It has a long list of agents that are more useful than marijuana.

We need to look as well at the positions put forward by different professionals.

Lawyers have said through the Canadian Bar Association that the government's drug policies are misguided. They are in favour of decriminalizing marijuana because to continue the government's approach is doing more harm than good. The damage inflicted by the legal system seems disproportionate to the offence.

In 1993 the Canadian Police Association recommended making simple marijuana possession a ticketable offence, similar to speeding. The Ottawa police chief said that the risk of things going wrong during marijuana busts are too high.

In 1995, 43,000 Canadians were charged with 62,000 drug offences, and 71% of them were for marijuana. In the past 20 years, 700,000 Canadians were arrested on marijuana charges. Since 1995 in British Columbia, B.C. police have been advised to stop laying marijuana charges because of court backlogs.

Let us look at what the medical community says. The World Health Organization treats drug abuse as a health issue. In those countries that treat drug abuse as a health matter rather than a criminal matter, people are not afraid to seek help. Drug abuse declines and remains at lower levels in those countries.

Providing treatment for drug abusers makes more sense than prison terms. The goal is a healthy population.

With these things in mind, we should study using marijuana for health and medicinal purposes.

In conclusion, I would say what is important to me is compassion. If nothing else works for the diseases and suffering, I do not see anything as a barrier.

I would expect to have more research done. Through research and innovation, harmless methods may be found to benefit from the medicinal use of marijuana.

Reform is concerned with substance abuse of any kind, whether it is drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana. I warn Canadians that the Liberal government may use this issue of the medicinal use of marijuana smoking to legalize it through the back door.

As long as it sticks to the amendments and as long as it has a reasonable plan we will probably be supportive.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, budget '99 did not give any meaningful tax relief to Canadians.

In fact the budget discriminated against parents who chose to stay home to take care of their children. The budget did not make any significant efforts to pay off the debt. The budget did not do anything for small businesses. They are completely left out of the loop in the budget. The government's $24 billion in cuts since 1993 have caused the destruction of our health care system.

Will the hon. member ask his government to cancel the damage control ad that is running in the newspaper, wasting millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars? Is this not simply an ad to hide a pay more, get less budget? This ad denies Canadians the right to know or the right to express themselves. It is a campaign to deny that the budget destroys health care. Will the member ask his government to stop that ad?