House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was opposite.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Thornhill (Ontario)

Won her last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.

Statements in the House

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

Madam Speaker, I am aware that some hon. members wonder why the Government of Canada does not get rid of regional pay rates for its blue collar workers and simply pay the same scale nationally. There are good reasons behind the present practice, some very good reasons to continue it.

Those who know the history of the House know that regional rates were put in place in 1922. In those days the Government of Canada recognized that wages paid to certain trades were determined by local and regional market realities, realities that have remained unchanged and realities the Government of Canada cannot ignore.

I remind the House that in 1962 the Glassco royal commission recommended regional rates be maintained as a compensation policy where markets are regional or local. Thus in 1967 the government set forth its recommendation when it instituted collective bargaining processes within the federal civil service. If we had decided to go with a uniform rate rather than a regional rate that reflected local realities what would have happened? Quite simply we would have created local inequities in pay scale that would have engendered instability in local labour markets especially for private sector employers seeking to hire at rates that reflected the local market realities.

We must all recognize that incomes vary from place to place as a function of cost of living and other factors. I remind the member that representatives of the government and the unions are currently at the negotiating table. We all hope for a positive outcome and we value the important work that all members of the public service provide to the people of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to correct the record. The correct name of the riding I was referring to is Okanagan—Coquihalla.

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

Madam Speaker, as I rise today to participate in this debate there are several members in the House whose work on this topic should be acknowledged. I would like to begin by acknowledging the member for London West for the work that she has done in this area since 1997. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Rosemont, the member from Okanagan—and I regret that I cannot remember the correct name of the riding—and other members who have spoken to me.

This government is aware that Canadians are suffering who have terminal illnesses and who believe that using medical marijuana can ease their symptoms and we in the government want to help them.

I emphasize that those Canadians who are struggling to find new and better ways to maintain and improve their health have no interest in this topic, and to all of those who are healthy I would say that I hope this is a topic that will never be of interest to them and that they will never need to come forward to ask for this product.

The concern we have is that there are those who are suffering. As the Minister of Health said in the House yesterday, he has asked his officials to develop a research plan that will include clinical trials for medicinal marijuana, appropriate guidelines for its medical use and safe access to the supply of this drug. This will allow the government to get the information it needs so it can share that with Canadians. We want a flexible approach that will help Canadians and protect the health and safety of Canadians.

In order to truly assess the value of marijuana as a drug it is essential that we have reliable scientific evidence. We know there is much anecdotal evidence. We heard the member in his opening remarks refer to that evidence, but to date there is no reliable scientific evidence. Therefore, as I have stated, the Minister of Health has asked his officials to develop a plan that will include the kind of information gathering, research and development of clinical guidelines for the appropriate use of medical marijuana.

What we want to do is facilitate the development of these guidelines so that those people who are suffering and in need of help will have access to something that may be beneficial and that may assist them. Many are terminally ill, many are in pain, many are suffering from symptoms which they believe, and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest, could be helped in this way.

We want to get the facts. We want to know whether this is effective. But we also want to be able to use sections of existing federal legislation to give those people the opportunity to have access to a safe supply of medical marijuana that could be helpful to them.

The interesting thing that most people would not know is that Health Canada has already explored the possibilities of securing a medicinal quality source of marijuana for use in its research projects. As well, it has looked at ways of promoting research within this country. We would provide patients with access to medicinal marijuana in a controlled setting as part of clinical trials.

However, it is important to note, and I particularly address people who have expressed concern about access to the program, that the current Canadian drug regulatory framework and international control framework create a scheme by which medical quantities of marijuana could be legally available for medicinal purposes like any other therapeutic drug.

In other words, the distribution of marijuana as a medicine could already be possible provided that the product, the quantity and the supply, is of good quality and originates from a legal or licit licensed supplier as opposed to an illicit supplier. That is very important. It is also very important under the existing law that this be used in the proper research context.

The announcement by the minister dealt with the concerns that have been raised by many in this House: access for those who are suffering and in need, those who need help, but access within a controlled clinical environment of research with appropriate guidelines to ensure quality and safety and to ensure that the access to the supply of this drug is of good medicinal quality.

I want to state very clearly that physicians would be and must be very involved in the development of these research projects. The government wants to help Canadians who are suffering, but it wants to make sure they have the very best of advice and assistance.

While we will be developing a research agenda which will include clinical trials to gather evidence and needed documentation on both the risks and the benefits of the medicinal use of medical marijuana, we want a flexible approach that will provide patients with access to medicinal marijuana at an early stage of the research and in a setting that includes the support of qualified physicians. That is very important.

I heard the member opposite use the term legalizing of marijuana. People should know that we are not talking about the legalizing of marijuana.

What this does is it creates a research environment where we can do the research, gather the evidence and in that environment, just as we would with any other drug, make it available to people in a research context. During the research setting, people would have access to the drug. We would also be sure to develop appropriate clinical guidelines to make sure that it was used appropriately.

It would allow us to respond in a sensitive and compassionate way to those who are terminally ill, who are suffering and are coping with symptoms where the anecdotal evidence would suggest that medical marijuana might be helpful to them. We want to find solutions for Canadians who are suffering. We want to help Canadians. We want to do it in a way that is appropriate.

Therefore, I am pleased to say that I intend to amend the motion. At the appropriate time I will move an amendment to the motion. I would like to give members notice of what I plan to move.

I will be saying that the motion should be amended by deleting all the words after the word “should” and substituting the following “take steps immediately concerning the possible legal medical use of marijuana including developing a research plan containing clinical trials, appropriate guidelines for its medical use, as well as access to a safe medicinal supply and that the government report its findings and recommendations before the House rises for the summer”.

The member opposite and others have asked are we prepared to put forward a timeline for this plan that the minister has asked his officials to develop. I say to members of the House as part of this debate that it is the government's intention to do this work on a rapid basis so that we can have in place the plan to develop the research and give people access as expeditiously as possible. We know that the House rises for the summer in June. Before that time the minister is making a commitment. We hope all members will support the amendment. I know that there is support in all parties.

In the time I have remaining, I would like to thank all of the members who have spoken and who will be speaking on this, those who spoke in private and those who sent notes to the minister letting him know of their support for this initiative. I want to emphasize again that this is not the legalization of marijuana. This is treating marijuana like a drug that may be helpful to some. We want to find out if it is. We want to provide the conditions for access in a controlled clinical environment with appropriate clinical guidelines.

Therefore, I move:

That, the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “should” and by substituting the following:

“take steps immediately concerning the possible legal medical use of marijuana, including developing a research plan containing clinical trials, appropriate guidelines for its medical use, as well as access to a safe medicinal supply and that the government report its findings and recommendations before the House rises for the summer.

I have this available in both official languages and will be presenting it to the chair to further this debate and discussion.

Prostate Cancer March 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that the announcement of the minister about the centre of excellence will build on the expertise at the Vancouver General and B.C. Cancer Agency in the area of prostate cancer.

The prostate clinic at the Vancouver General Hospital is considered to be a leader in prostate cancer research, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and education. It will benefit all Canadians.

Rather than quibbling about where the centre of excellence should be located, I would have thought the member opposite would have applauded the government's decision to establish a centre of excellence in prostate cancer.

Health March 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the minister said that the policy of this government and his policy as Minister of Health was to try to help those who believe that the medical use of marijuana can help relieve their symptoms.

He has asked his officials to develop a plan that would include the establishment of appropriate clinical guidelines, clinical trials, and deal with the issue of securing safe access. That is the policy of the government.

Pharmacy Awareness Week March 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the seventh annual Pharmacy Awareness Week I congratulate all Canadian pharmacists for the valuable contribution they make every week to the health of Canadians.

Pharmacy Awareness Week provides Canadians with an opportunity to learn how their pharmacists can help them to maintain and improve their health.

Pharmacists will be very busy this week highlighting many of the key aspects of pharmaceutical care that they provide to Canadians. The theme for this year's campaign is taking your medicine well. Pharmacists are experts on medication and its proper use.

I applaud your efforts and wish you a most successful campaign.

Division No. 326 March 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, this government stands committed to the principles of the Canada Health Act, as I have stated on numerous occasions.

We believe that access to necessary services should be based on health need and not on one's ability to pay. There is very clearly a constitutional responsibility for the provinces to deliver services.

There is also a responsibility for the provinces to do the planning and the managing of the resources in their provinces. The problems the member has identified are a result of stresses and strains the provinces have had over the years.

With the budget of February 16 we have seen the biggest single investment this government has ever made, some $11.5 billion over the next five years. The budget clearly demonstrates this government's commitment to defending medicare. We are also defending access to quality care and ensuring that care is given to all those who need it regardless of their ability to pay.

Let me remind the hon. member that over the next five years $11.5 billion will be available. What is needed is more than money. What is needed is a more accountable, more integrated way of delivering services. The federal government has shown a leadership role in bringing together all the provinces, arriving at a health agreement.

I say to the member who has raised the principle of public administration that the NDP would have government run everything under the mandate of public administration. What we have in Canada today is a publicly funded but not government run method of delivery. The provinces have stewardship but they determine what partnerships they will engage, the corporate structures of their hospitals and their providers.

If people are dissatisfied with the way their health system has evolved, they must go to their provincial governments and say they are dissatisfied. Each province has done it differently and that is appropriate.

The role for the federal government is one, an important funding partner and two, the guardian of the Canada Health Act. We want to ensure that health services and the outcomes therefore are more accountable and the provinces develop a real system, more integrated models where people work together to ensure that when the people of Canada need care, they will get the care they need without having to pay for it.

The Budget March 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is factually incorrect. With this budget the health portion of the Canada health and social transfer will be fully restored. That will also give predictable and stable funding to the provinces which deliver those services.

When this government took office it faced a $42 billion deficit and a debt that was out of control. Today the debt and the debt to GDP ratio are on a downward trend. The tax burden is being reduced, particularly for the neediest. Also we have been able to secure social programs. This makes the single largest commitment to Canadian medicare. Transfers of $11.5 billion over five years, with $3.5 billion immediately to help the provinces solve their problems, is the single largest commitment in over two decades. That is a real commitment and those are the facts.

The Budget March 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, everyone realizes that there are enormous challenges for change. But the one thing that we believe in and that we stand for is that we can work together to ensure that Canadians have timely access to quality health care. That is what distinguishes us from the Reform Party.

The Reform Party's rhetoric does not match its policies. It would scrap the Canada Health Act. It would bring in user fees and American style medicine. This party says no. We believe that by working together we can solve the problems.

Internationally all countries are facing problems. Nobody has found the perfect answer. We are looking around the world and we are working together to ensure that Canadian health care will be there for Canadians when they need it. The provinces, which have the responsibility for the delivery of services, have committed to work together and to use their technologies to create a more integrated and accountable—