Grant Hill

[Census Records, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the census information is supposed to be private and confidential. Imagine the dismay of one of my constituents to find that his neighbour had access to every personal question on his census form.

Why was that personal information made available to neighbours?

[The Economy, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the finance minister said is that when these massive tax cuts wend their way through the system, everything will be fine.

A recent poll, however, found that 76% of Canadians have not noticed any drop on their paycheques. The finance minister's own focus test group came up with exactly the same conclusion.

Why is it that Canadians cannot see that tax reduction on their paycheques if those tax reductions are so massive?

[The Economy, May 18th, 2001]

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, not a good record. It did not even last 24 hours.

One of the big drivers of inflation has been energy costs such as home heating fuel. Just before the last election the minister arranged for a rebate program so that individuals could get some relief from that. Sadly, many of the people who received those rebates were convicts in jail.

How is it that convicts in jail ended up with a lot of the relief rather than senior citizens who really deserved that relief?

[The Economy, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance promised to hold inflation between 1% and 3%. Today, we hear that inflation is at a nine-year high of 3.6%.

How does the minister think he can reassure Canadians with forecasts that are not even good for 24 hours?

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have an opportunity to speak about a topic that has generated enormous debate in the country. I congratulate the member for Langley—Abbotsford who has spent a lot of time on the issue and has brought it before the House today. For those who might have just tuned in this is a motion to review Canada's laws regarding illicit drugs.

I will talk about the issue from the perspective of someone who has had a stethoscope around his neck for much of his life.

I will take on the human component of this as well, as my colleague did. I will talk about some of the experiences I had with the treatment end of drug problems and reflect upon how I think there is a need for a fresh look at what Canada is doing with its drug laws.

I will start by talking about a jurisdictional issue. This is reflective of the different positions of Canada and our large neighbour to the south. I noted this week that the U.S. supreme court has taken a specific stand on the medical use of marijuana. The supreme court said there is no redeeming value to marijuana for medical purposes.

Here in Canada we have taken a different approach. We are trying to figure out what diseases are helped by marijuana. This is a significantly different approach. My own feeling is that as a physician I was able to use the strongest painkillers available for those who were ill, especially at the end of life as palliative care for those with cancer and very serious illnesses. I could use heroin. Everyone said that was reasonable because it was being used for a specific purpose.

I feel that if marijuana is the only thing that will help people with a serious disease at the end of their lives it is reasonable to use it. I do not think smoking marijuana is ideal for this. Research has been done to get marijuana in different forms, forms that will allow it to be used in a waxy capsule or even used like the Nicorette patch. In my mind that is reasonable. For end of life issues, for palliative care, for severe problems when no other medication works, I do believe that there is room for the medical use of marijuana.

However, what happens if our big neighbour to the south says “Forget that. That will not happen in the U.S.”? What might Americans do who are living close to the border, have a severe illness and feel that marijuana is the only thing that will help? They might well come to Canada. They might well cross the border. In a sense, they might end up putting some strain on our medical system here.

I bring that up because I think it is very important in regard to jurisdictional issues that we do not forget what is happening nearby. We could end up with major problems if we forget that.

There is one debate I have been involved in and have listened to both sides of it. Some say that softer penalties for drugs would make sense. In some cases that is a compelling argument, because I think an intelligent individual looking at the drug issue in Canada would say that we have not made huge progress. I am now stepping a little bit into what I think the debate in this committee might be.

What about the argument that softer drug laws would be of benefit? To get a sense of that answer, I look at places where this has been tried. It is possible to look at other jurisdictions. In some parts of Europe the penalties for drug use are substantially different.

There is a jurisdiction fairly close to home that gives me some sense of what might happen. In Alaska, the home of the free, the home of “don't tell me what to do”, they decided that the penalty for marijuana use would be virtually zero for adults. There would be no criminal penalty, no fine, nothing. If an adult wanted to smoke marijuana in Alaska not so long ago, have it was the attitude. That is the pioneer spirit, is it not, from the frontier? Yukon is the jurisdiction close at hand. Both of these jurisdictions are similar. They are fairly isolated and the populations are similar. A comparison of the two was done 10 years later. The use of marijuana in the adolescent population doubled in Alaska compared to Yukon, so it became obvious that this approach in that location was not a great success. I have heard individuals argue and debate that those are just straight statistics. From my perspective, to simply make it easier for kids to get an illicit drug is not the answer at least in that locale. I am not convinced that is the solution.

I will give another specific example from my own experience. In my little black bag I used to carry a medication called Demerol. I had little vials of it with me all the time. The proper chemical name for it is Meperidine. I would take it on house calls. If people broke a leg, for example, I could give them a shot of Demerol and they would be more comfortable going in the ambulance. It was thought to be fair and reasonable for me to do that. Demerol is very inexpensive to buy. I needed a triplicate prescription to get a supply and kept it with me.

It is a powerful, inexpensive narcotic. What is it worth on the street? It is not worth $10 for a big vial of Demerol. It is worth $1,000, plus or minus. Why is that? It is not available on the street. It is a potent narcotic. It is very close to heroin in its effects and so it is very popular.

The only way to get Demerol on the street is to break into a pharmacy or swipe it from a physician's black bag or get it from the manufacturer. There are other ways. There are people who wear the cloak of physician who dispense it. It gets out on the street in that way.

I use it as an example because it is an inexpensive medicine used for legitimate purposes which is very valuable in the illegal market. There are break-ins to get it. There are assaults to get it. There is damage done to individuals to get this drug. There are illicit activities for those who are using the drug so they can have it available.

What then would happen if we just made all these drugs available as that one was to me? That example tells me that it may not be the complete answer either.

What of those who say that we should put all our resources into treatment? That is also a good debate. There would be nothing directed toward those who were trying to supply the drug. We would just let people do what they want. There would be no penalties to the addict and the addict would be a patient. We would make the drugs available, license places to distribute them and might even tax them. There would be resources for the public and they would be very clean. It would not be illicit or illegal as the source would be government sponsored. What does that sound like? It sounds like the way we already handle one major drug, alcohol, which of course is a drug.

In my practice I was able to talk with a number of addicts. I should like to tell the House what treated addicts say. When treated addicts ask themselves why they started using drugs, the recurrent point I hear from them is that they started because of a broken family, peer pressure, loneliness, or because pushers tricked them. Why did they quit? Some quit because they hit bottom. Some found religion. Some had a wonderful rehab counsellor or friend.

This debate is about what society should do. My colleague who put the proposal forth suggests that we take a very careful look at the issue and debate it carefully. I support that and hope my colleagues across the way will as well.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. He mentioned the medical use of marijuana. One of the debatable points on that is that youth may get the wrong signal. They may think that if marijuana was fine for medical use, then maybe it would be fine in a more recreational form.

How would my hon. colleague prevent youth from getting the wrong signal from those who say that medical marijuana is just fine?

[Committees Of The House, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following consultations I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion. I move:

That Mr. Harris and Ms. Gallant be substituted for Mr. Strahl and Mr. McNally as members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[National Defence, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose having to mention the concept again would be something that went over the Deputy Prime Minister's head.

If I might, several weeks ago the president of the United States phoned our Prime Minister. The subject of national missile defence was discussed. Did the president ask for Canada's political support of the concept of national missile defence? Yes or no.

[National Defence, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of defence is something that I think most Canadians would support.

NORAD is vital for the security and sovereignty of Canada. One of NORAD's prominent individuals has said that failing to support national missile defence would mean the beginning of the end of NORAD. On this basis what possible grounds can there be for not supporting this important concept?

[National Defence, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to delay a formal decision on the concept of national missile defence. The United States has been seeking a concept from Canada as to whether or not this was supportable.

Of course this is a decision that corresponds with the best interests of Canada. Is the government prepared to support the concept of national missile defence?