Pierre De Savoye

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, so that the Solicitor General can understand the context of my comment, I can tell him that my question deals with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-7 criminalizes dealing in controlled drugs, as well as import and export of those drugs. This is already in the present Act, and we have no problems with that. The bill also criminalizes possession of property obtained as a result of certain offences, but this is also in section 19 of the current legislation, so I see no problem here either. But perhaps you could tell me whether or not you anticipate any problems with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We also know that concerning the laundering of proceeds of certain offences, section 19 of the current legislation and clause 10 of the bill are pretty similar. Regarding search, seizure and detention, clause 12 is the equivalent of sections 11 and 12 of the Narcotic Control Act. As for the power of infiltration and making supervised sales, clause 54(2) of the new bill provides for things that were essentially covered already under section 18 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

However, where there is a departure from all this, it is in the powers given to the inspector. And I will conclude my question here. We know that, on the one hand, there are administrative powers used by the inspector and, on the other hand, there are judicial powers-

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank the House.

The House will remember that our third issue was medical file confidentiality. How can medical file confidentiality not be threatened by a law that literally allows an inspector to copy your file in a doctor's office or in a drugstore or even in a hospital and further allows this guy to get at your computerized data?

Allow me to quote once again the Canadian Medical Association. This organization is very concerned about some of the changes proposed in this bill, namely those which seem to take aim at legitimate activities conducted by medical doctors. Among other things, the new regulatory process will ensure easier access to the confidential files of patients.

I am also quite concerned to hear the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association say, again through Dr. Leroy Fevang, that it co-operated with the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs to develop a single electronic standard for computerized prescription delivery, in order to simplify the setting up of a data base on drug consumers.

Such a data base would provide detailed information on the pharmacotherapeutic history of any individual and, consequently, on his or her physiological and mental profiles. Is this really the object of Bill C-7? Of course not! Therefore, this legislation must be redrafted so as to allow what is useful and necessary, while prohibiting what is not and what constitutes undue and unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of honest citizens.

May I now tackle our fourth issue? Although it is the last I believe it to be the most important one. I ask this House: Why does this law make criminals out of addicted people who need to be medically treated rather than jailed?

Indeed, Bill C-7 makes criminals not only of those who are involved in drug smuggling, but also of those who use the drugs. Instead of treating those who suffer from a dependency, the law makes criminals of them. Thus, Bill C-7 is a tool to control and suppress crime rather than to promote health. In fact, prevention and rehabilitation are two concepts on which this bill is absolutely silent.

We all know that the illegal consumption of drugs results in the commission of various offences by those who have developed this kind of dependency. Some must steal and even prostitute themselves to be able to afford the daily dose which their sick body is so dependent upon. What slavery!

Where do they steal? Very often in our homes, where they take electronic appliances and jewellery which they quickly resell at a very low price to receiver networks. These poor people are sick but, because they are afraid to incriminate themselves, they cannot seek medical treatment and are therefore condemned to steal in order to satisfy their drug addiction. They have become the absolute slaves of drug dealers who grow richer with the loot stolen by these unfortunates.

That is the real problem. We must help these people, prisoners of their drug addiction. Once there are no more drug addicts, drug dealers will have to close shop. Alas, this bill does not show any concern about rehabilitating people found in possession of drugs. In particular, this bill aims at suppressing the drug trade. While it provides for the imposition of fines for possession of narcotics, there is no mention of providing access to rehabilitation programs.

The focus of Bill C-7 is controlling supply of drugs. It completely neglects the need to control demand, as well as aspects such as prevention, treatment and rehabilitation.

The May 27, 1993 issue of the Globe and Mail contained an article by Professors Usprich and Solomon about the bill now before this House. The article states the following: ``-the new legislation fails to address the vast majority of the problems that stem from the existing legislation and raises many new concerns. The proposed legislation is more complex and impenetrable than previous laws. The bill maintains the punitive nature of the law which is based on preconceptions which the findings of the LeDain Commission should have done away with once and for all twenty years ago. In its present form, the bill makes drug addiction a crime''.

In addition, Dr. Reginald G. Smart, Chief of Social Epidemiology at the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation, has this to say: "Many drug addicts in need of treatment end up in jail for possession of narcotics. We do not have in place a diversion process which would enable judges to give the accused a choice between jail or a treatment program. Our laws do not allow for this kind of choice, whereas such an approach is commonplace in many other countries in the world".

If we put a drug addict in jail, not only will we have a miserable, sick prisoner, but it will cost us an added $70,000 per year for most of his life. A withdrawal treatment and a rehabilitation program would only cost a few thousands dollars and would return to society an individual capable of greatly contributing to his or her community.

Do not tell me that this concern will be addressed in another bill. We have before the House Bill C-7, which can and should legislate in such areas as rehabilitation and withdrawal treatment. Thousands of our young and not so young fellow citizens, who are trapped by their drug habit, cannot wait any longer.

One more thing before I conclude. I want to mention two well-known psychotropic substances which have been left out of this bill. They are, predictably, nicotine and alcohol. Even though Canada and Quebec have always been relatively tolerant about the use of such substances, the population is very aware of the fact that nicotine is harmful, causes serious health problems and reduces the quality of life and life expectancy of people.

As for alcohol, driving a vehicle with .08 per cent or more of that substance in your blood is already a criminal offence. I wonder then if this would not be the right time to recognize the true nature of these substances and include them in Bill C-7 with observations that would reflect our modern tolerance and awareness.

In conclusion, we acknowledge the necessity of legislation like that proposed in Bill C-7 in order to control drug possession and trafficking. However, we strenuously insist that the bill should also deal with rehabilitation and detoxification.

Finally, it is of paramount importance that Bill C-7 be explicit about the legitimate activities of health professionals and patients. We should not rely on regulations to specify what should appear in the act itself. Furthermore the bill we must provide an adequate framework for the powers it confers to individuals and institutions.

Accordingly, we recommend that Bill C-7 be referred to the Standing Committee on Health which should revise its content in view of our concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention, and I thank the hon. members of this House for theirs.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to tell you about the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, which also testified last May. The president of that association, Mr. Leroy Fevang, said: "We have four concerns: the uncertainty about the type of substances which will be affected by the bill; the extent of the administration and enforcement powers provided by the bill; the possibility that the bill will force pharmacists to give information in such a way as to almost incriminate themselves; and the uncertainty caused by the lack of information on the nature of the regulations and the lack of any mention of medication in the bill. The Canadian Pharmaceutical Association wants the act to specify clearly what substances a pharmacist can legally handle".

The association also wondered how we should define "stimulant effect". Do we even have a standard to measure it? If one definition could cover everything, would there be exemptions for people who can have unusual reactions? Who would decide what is a so-called psychotropic substance? How would this information be given to pharmacists in order to help them to start exercising some control over those substances?

The association mentioned, for example, the risk which a pharmacist would incur in selling or packaging over-the-counter drugs that are not listed in the act and have minor or unexpected effects that can be associated with psychotropic properties.

I will now discuss the second aspect, and I am referring to the wide-ranging powers given to inspectors appointed directly by the minister, powers which I think will perhaps not encourage but at least open the door to errors that would unduly penalize health professionals and their patients. Will the public be able to deal with the new responsibilities it has under this bill? And how can this legislation co-exist with the prerogatives of Quebec and the provinces for dealing with their respective jurisdictions?

Bill C-7 appears to grant quasi inquisitorial powers to the minister, through inspectors, adjudicators and justices. Last year, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-85 wondered whether the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Rights and Liberties Federation would have something to say

about the compatibility of measures provided in the bill with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially in matters concerning the Criminal Code.

For instance, the committee had some questions about searches without a warrant. It seems that in 1984, in the Hunder and Southam case, the court ruled that a warrant was necessary, except under very special circumstances.

Bill C-7 provides for circumstances in which no warrant is required. It not only does that, but it also says in clause 29(1) that the minister may designate any person, literally any person, as an inspector for the purposes of this Act. These appointees will enjoy quasi inquisitorial powers. These powers are considerable and sufficiently broad to cover any kind of abuse, whether it is accidental, voluntary or the result of a conspiracy.

So the inspector is appointed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There are some questions about the minister's discretionary powers in this respect. First of all, this political appointment provides no guarantees that the inspector has the qualifications to perform his duties. Since the minister may designate anyone as an inspector, the appointment may be purely partisan.

The inspector's powers are considerable. According to clause 30(1) of this Act, "an inspector may, to ensure compliance with the regulations, at any reasonable time enter any place used for the purpose of conducting the business or professional practice of any person licensed or otherwise authorized under the regulations to deal in a controlled substance or precursor".

This article means that an inspector can visit and thoroughly search your doctor's office or your drugstore and all this without a warrant.

We understand that the intent of the bill is to give these powers to the inspector so that he can fulfil his administrative duties. But since the evidence that he accumulates could be used in a criminal court and a search warrant is required for any criminal proceedings unless there are very special circumstances provided for by the law, it seems to us that these circumstances should really be exceptional. However, the inspection powers go way beyond the principle that I just mentioned.

Let me explain to the House what we are talking about. We are talking about clause 30 concerning any person authorized or licensed under the regulations, such as the pharmacist, the doctor or the hospital.

Regarding these people, the search powers of the inspector are practically without any limitations, the warrant often being only required for a dwelling-place. The inspector can visit any place at any time that is convenient to him, he can search and examine any thing, including computerized data, he can use any computer or copying equipment in that place, without any compensation to the person in charge of that place, he can take away with him any thing that he wants and he can use force. Moreover, any person present in the place, including the patient, undoubtedly, is required to help the inspector and to give him any information without interfering with his work, even by omission. And I remind this House that the Minister can literally appoint anybody to that job.

I would like to mention also that this bill infringes on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. According to the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, under the present system, the provincial governments grant pharmacists licences which allow them to sell and package pharmaceuticals. According to that Association, it is not necessary for the federal government to issue new licences for the sale and packaging of controlled drugs, as this could create duplication and even greater confusion.

Consequently, this bill infringes on provincial jurisdiction. For example, Quebec grants inspection power to the Corporation des médecins. The inspector working for the Corporation can, upon prior notice, visit physicians in their offices to make sure that everything is in agreement with common medical practice.

The Government of Quebec, like the governments of the Canadian provinces, also gives the syndic of the Corporation the power to inspect the practice of a physician when it receives a complaint alleging that the physician prescribed harmful drugs to a patient. This is true for physicians and pharmacists everywhere in Quebec and Canada. This part of the bill would allow the federal government to enter areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Bill C-7 gives the Minister of Health and the Governor in Council increased powers. Clause 34, for example, gives the Minister, without prior notice to the person believed to have contravened the regulations, the right to make an interim order prohibiting the person from doing anything he or she would otherwise be permitted to do under their licence, permit or authorization. So, without knowing it, a licensee who has not yet received notice of the order issued and continues to carry on with the normal activities permitted under his licence, permit or authorization, becomes an offender.

Similarly, according to clause 43, the minister can designate any person as an analyst for the purposes of analyzing or examining any substance or sample taken by the inspector. As in the case of the inspector, this analyst can be appointed on purely partisan grounds and his appointment is no guarantee of his qualifications.

Another example is clause 55 of Bill C-7 which says the minister may exempt any person or class of persons or any controlled substance or precursor from the application of all or any of the provisions of this act or regulations, for medical or scientific purposes or if it is in the public interest. This ministerial discretion could have a major impact.

For example, the minister could feel forced to exempt some controlled substances because of the pressure put on him by scientific or medical lobbies, even though these substances could entail a potential threat to public health.

We must not forget that the scientific community can easily carry out research which is contrary to humanistic ethics, all in the name of science and of the sacrosanct well-being of humanity.

This bill also gives the Governor in Council, the cabinet in other words, various powers and authorities with regard to regulations. The Bloc Quebecois and all the stakeholders of the health community should therefore carefully examine the regulations that will be tabled.

Clause 54(1) gives the Governor in Council the power to make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act, including the regulation of the medical, scientific and industrial uses and distribution of controlled substances and precursors and the enforcement of this act.

Paragraph h) of this clause provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations:

respecting the qualifications of persons engaged in the production, preservation, testing, packaging, storage, selling, providing or otherwise dealing in any controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof;

Yet, in this clause giving major powers to the Governor in Council, we can see that paragraph c) encroaches on one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. This paragraph provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations:

respecting the issuance, suspension, cancellation, duration and terms and conditions of any class of licence for the importation into Canada, exportation from Canada, production, packaging, sale, provision or administration of any substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V or any class thereof;

We must recall that pharmacists' sales licences are issued by the Government of Quebec and by the provincial governments. This is another case of federal interference in Quebec's and the provinces' areas of jurisdiction.

And while the bill gives some powers that are not obviously necessary, it does not seem to give the powers that would really be needed. Last May, Scott Neward, general counsel of the Canadian Police Association, told the legislative committee that there could be a potential problem. What would happen, he said, if a court objectively decides after the fact that the force used in locating the drugs was not reasonable? Although he admitted that the police could be liable to prosecution for ripping up a floor, he was concerned that the 10 pounds of heroin found under the floor boards could then be ruled inadmissible evidence. He concluded by suggesting that it should be made clear that any violation relating to that subsection should not affect the admissibility of evidence.

I am sure we all want the law to be without mercy for the so-called druglords, but is Bill C-7 up to that task? I am not so sure. For instance, why is there a double standard concerning cannabis offences? Carefully bear with me.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, senior counsel for the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice, made the following remarks when addressing the committee:

The purpose behind creating a hybrid trafficking offence for cannabis was really not geared towards attacking the leaders of drug trafficking groups but rather to deal with the difficulty of court delays. By creating a hybrid trafficking offence for cannabis, it would be possible for prosecutors to prosecute by way of a summary conviction, and thereby reduce or eliminate access to jury trials and to preliminary hearings, thereby cutting down considerably on court delays. The entire purpose behind creating the hybrid trafficking offence for cannabis was not to attack drug trafficking ringleaders but rather to deal with the fairly complex issue of court delays, part of which is the result of mounting trafficking offences which linger in the courts because of the time it takes for them to get through the court process.

Obviously, this bill has not been properly thought through. It could potentially disturb honest people's peace of mind. We are rightfully questioning its ability to reduce drug use and trafficking.

I will stop for a moment. I voiced my concern earlier and attempted to speed up, but I still have a few pages left to read. I wonder if the House would allow me to go over my allotted time.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, drug trafficking, possession and intoxication is a very serious problem that modern society must face. We all know that adults, teenagers and even children get intoxicated with and addicted to drugs.

This is why I ask all those who are watching to listen carefully to what I say. If you have a videotape recorder, I advise you to record what I am about to say.

What we are going to talk about should interest everyone. People may think there is nothing exciting in the new bill. That is not so today.

As a matter of fact, during the next 40 minutes we will be dealing with issues that are of interest to everyone, honest people, sick people, health professionals, law enforcement people but also those who produce, distribute, possess and use drugs. We will be talking about Bill C-7.

This bill deals with certain drugs, their precursors and other substances. It was tabled in the House of Commons and passed the first reading stage on February 2. The passing of this bill at third reading would result in the Narcotic Control Act, and certain sections of parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act, being repealed.

It is important to note that Bill C-7 is, for all intents and purposes, identical to Bill C-85, an Act respecting the control of psychoactive substances, which was tabled by the Conservative government on June 11, 1992. That bill passed the first and second reading stages on June 11, 1992 and May 6, 1993. The committee tabled its report on June 3, 1993. Bill C-85 died on the Order Paper when the elections were called.

Bill C-7 is part of the national drug strategy. It consolidates and adds to the provisions of the Narcotic Control Act, and of Parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act. Last but not least, Bill C-7 would enact certain provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, dating back to 1961, and of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Both international conventions were ratified by Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois believes it is necessary for Canada and Quebec to be able to adequately and efficiently control narcotic drugs on their territories. Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois recognizes that legislating to that end is an obvious necessity.

Let us quickly review the situation as it is presently in Canada. At the present time, under the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act, drugs must be listed in a schedule to the act for their sale on the streets to become an offense. Consequently, new drugs are not considered illegal as long as they have not been analysed and added to a schedule. This process takes a lot of time. Meanwhile, people who use these substances, and society in general, may and do suffer grave prejudices.

It should be noted that Bill C-7 includes the provisions of the present legislation. Under clause 2 we find the same definition of the word "sale" as including distribution, whether it is made for consideration or not, that is to say free of charge.

Certain provisions, however, have been added. For example, besides manufacturing, synthesizing, cultivating, propagating and harvesting, "produce" also includes offer to produce, as mentioned in clause 2.

Moreover, according to clause 3(1), a substance included in the schedules is deemed to include not only any substance capable of producing an effect similar to that of a substance included in these schedules, but also any substance represented or held out as such by the purchaser, whether acting in good faith or not.

Thus, every person who, whether acting in good faith or not, traffics in a substance represented or held out as a substance included in the schedules, is guilty of an indictable offence or of a punishable offence, pursuant to clause 6(1), (3) and (5).

The mere act of possessing, for the purpose of trafficking, even if no money is involved, a substance included in the schedules, is an indictable offence or an offence punishable under clause 6(2) and (3). The bill provides for harsher penalties for substances included in schedule I and the severity decreases from one schedule to another. It should be noted that cannabis is listed in schedule I. Every person producing cannabis, no matter to what extent, is guilty of an indictable offence liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, under clause 8(2)(b).

This being said, is Bill C-7 substantially different from actual laws in regard to unlawful drug distribution? No, not at all.

It is important to make this statement to correct any other perception which some may have had following the recent comments made by the Solicitor General.

Indeed, on February 15, the Solicitor General said to journalists that Bill C-7 was the best way to curb cocaine smuggling activities by warriors on aboriginal territories. These comments tend to imply that current laws are not sufficient to adequately fight this traffic.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Like Bill C-7, the existing Narcotic Control Act makes the smuggling, importation and exportation of drugs a criminal activity. That act also says that it is illegal to have goods directly or indirectly linked to the commission of an offence, in or outside Canada.

Bill C-7 only adds the notions of conspiracy and attempt to commit an offence. The same is true in the case of laundering proceeds of certain offences. The powers to search, seize and detain are very clearly defined in the existing act.

Therefore, it appears that the legislation already provides the Solicitor General with all the necessary tools to intervene now on aboriginal territories to stop cocaine smuggling by warriors.

As for the Solicitor General's statement to the effect that Bill C-7 will allow police to make controlled sales, thereby allowing undercover agents to infiltrate smuggling rings and catch criminals by proposing deals, I wonder if that is anything new. Indeed, the power to investigate already allows police to conduct undercover activities and make controlled sales.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Solicitor General would try to use Bill C-7 to buy time and delay any action against smugglers who use aboriginal territories for their operations. The fact is that current laws contain all the necessary provisions to allow the Solicitor General to make a move. To claim anything else would only confirm that there is no political will to act, which cannot decently be true, naturally.

Having said this, I think we should question how effective Bill C-7 will be once it comes into force.

For instance, how many more people are expected to be arrested and convicted thanks to this bill? Who do we expect to arrest and convict? What kind of a reduction in trafficking and use is expected? Finally, will the judicial system be able to absorb the extra caseload? And what is provided in this law for the unfortunate people who have become addicted to drugs? Answers to these questions are either non-existent or unsatisfactory, as we will demonstrate in this debate.

Indeed, we consider that Bill C-7 has several significant flaws and not only ignores the parameters to be defined in effective drug control strategy but also opens the door to some major adverse effects. In the time at our disposal, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and I will try to express our concerns so that this House and the general public can cconsider this bill in the light of accepted modern values.

The flaws that we have identified in Bill C-7 can be grouped under four questions. First, are legitimate activities of physicians, pharmacists, vets and dentists properly protected against abusive application of the legislation and especially against regulations the scope of which we do not know at the moment?

Second, will the significant powers granted to inspectors, to be designated directly by the minister, not possibly lead to some errors which could unduly penalize health professionals and their patients? Will Canadians be able to take on the added responsibilities arising from this bill? And is this bill in line with the rights and privileges of provincial governments, especially Quebec?

Third, how will the confidentiality of medical records be ensured when the bill allows absolutely anyone designated as an inspector by the minister to reproduce documents found in a physician's office or in a pharmacy and to seize electronic data.

Fourth and foremost, why are drug-dependent persons who need to be treated and not jailed considered criminals in this bill?

I will now address each one of these issues in order to determine the provisions which need to be improved and which are, in our opinion, crucial for the purpose of this Act and for avoiding disastrous secondary consequences.

Let us begin with our first concern. Are legitimate activities of physicians, pharmacists, vets and dentists properly protected against an abusive application of this act and especially against regulations the scope of which we do not know at the moment?

I would like to remind hon. members that the Canadian Medical Association expressed its concerns, last May, before the legislative committee on Bill C-85, because physicians will have no way of knowing which activities are legal or illegal before the regulations have been promulgated. Hence, they do not have all the information they need to properly examine this bill. In fact, since regulations can be amended by the bureaucracy, how can physicians and their patients be informed of such changes? The lack of information in the bill on which medication will be controlled also added to their feeling of uncertainty.

For example, the Canadian Medical Association was concerned about the definition of practitioner in clause 2, which is left to the regulations, especially for the purpose of the definition "provide" in section 54 z .1.

We understand that the purpose of Bill C-7 is not to cause problems for health care professionals or their patients. However, it has recently come to our attention that the Canadian Medical Association clearly indicated that the bill requires some clarification so as not to cause undue prejudice to medical practitioners.

Dr. Barry Adams, chairman of the Council on Health Care and Promotion of the Canadian Medical Association, had this to say when he appeared before the legislative committee last May, and I quote:

The Canadian Medical Association is extremely concerned about the changes brought about by this legislation, because some seem to be directed at legitimate patient and physician activities. Our concerns are twofold. First, the changed definitions of some offences will have direct and undesirable consequences for physicians in their daily practices, and also for their patients. Second, the new regulatory powers will inappropriately and ineffectively regulate the prescribing practices of physicians, and will give increased access to confidential patient information.

We share those important concerns expressed by the Canadian Medical Association. In particular, we are seriously concerned by the important modifications that will affect all individuals treated by two or more doctors.

Is indeed guilty of an indictable offence or of a punishable offence a person who, having obtained within the preceding thirty days a substance included in the schedules or an authorization to obtain such a substance, neglects to mention that fact to a practitioner from whom that person obtains or seeks to obtain any substance included in the schedules or an authorization to obtain it.

The Canadian Medical Association points out that this new provision applies not only to patients who consult two doctors within a period of thirty days but also to any person obtaining or seeking to obtain a drug from a person authorized to provide it. This would include doctors who are obtaining or seeking to obtain drugs for legitimate medical reasons as well as every patient wanting to treat real symptoms.

The Canadian Medical Association stresses that the law does not clearly define what is unlawful. Consequently an individual would have to know if he or she is authorized to request drugs and who is an authorized drug supplier.

This creates an unacceptable uncertainty for the doctors as well as for their patients.

Does that mean, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that you and I and everyone will have to memorize the schedules to the act in order to avoid committing an offence unwittingly? If such a substance was legitimately injected while unconscious in a hospital, would it be a crime to neglect to mention that to the pharmacist you are asking to fill a prescription for that substance or any other substance included in the schedules?

Does that mean that every one of us, in Quebec as well as in Canada, will have to ask our doctor or pharmacist for a list of everything that is prescribed, sold or administered to us, and a list of the drugs a third party has been authorized to sell or to administer to us, whether or not that sale or administration happened? If clause 5(2) of the bill was to be taken literally, the nightmare I just outlined would become a definite possibility.

To those who think that no one in his right mind would apply the law so strictly and so foolishly, my answer is we should know better.

Unfortunately, there is no doubt somebody will choose to enforce the act rigidly and blindly, if given the opportunity to do so. The only thing that remains to be seen is where and when and, above all, who the unfortunate victim will be! It is our responsibility in this House to have a bill that is crystal clear and deals with the true goals to be achieved and leaves law-abiding citizens and pharmacists alone. The House should legislate and not leave it to well-intentioned bureaucrats to regulate.

There is another concern due to the fact that patients are included in the definitions given in the bill. In this context, we should consider the case of pain-relieving drugs used to spare unnecessary pain to the sick, the chronically ill and terminally ill cancer patients. If, under this bill, the physician must ask himself each and every time he writes a prescription whether he is breaking the law or not, then Mr. Speaker, I ask you: How many sick persons will be denied the drugs they really need?

The bill must be explicit and make a clear-cut distinction between an unlawful behaviour on the part of a physician and a questionable way of prescribing drugs.

The medical association emphasized also that it was not sure the federal government could legitimately regulate the prescription and administration of drugs by physicians to their patients. Moreover, it is far from certain that the enforcement mechanism will be effective. It thinks that the use of penal law to regulate quality in health care is counterproductive and inconsistent with modern management theory.

Mr. Speaker, I notice I still have a lot more notes to go through. How much time do I have left?

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about social housing, we are talking about people in need, and it should be clearly understood, contrary to what was just said, that Quebec receives as much money as it is putting in, around $28 billion. Quebec taxpayers pay $28 billion to Ottawa and receive in return $28 billion from Ottawa. It is their money. But the way it comes back to them has a direct impact on social housing. This money comes back mainly as unemployment insurance and transfer payments for public assistance, instead of coming back as research and development contracts or other types of government contracts which would create jobs, as is the case in Ontario and other provinces.

We can see, first of all, that there is absolutely no preferential treatment for Quebec. It only receives what it puts in. But Quebec is treated less fairly because the quality of the money it gets back is inferior compared to other provinces, and that has a direct impact on social housing.

Would my colleague, the member for Québec, care to comment?

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if, according to parliamentary procedure, I can say that the hon. member is dead wrong. You see, the people who have poor lodgings cost a lot of money to our society. Their health is bound to deteriorate, their children do not do as well in school as they should be and, eventually, do not find the jobs they would otherwise have been able to get.

A society that does not care for the people living in poor conditions and those in need gets into debt, because it does not tap the human capital and the talent of those people. In fact, if we were to follow the suggestion made by the hon. member, not only would we be putting the rope around our neck, but we would also be pulling on it.

[Tainted Blood, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that rushing the testimony would reduce the extent of this inquiry. As a result, and for the sake of consistency, does the minister not agree that the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the commission should be given the money they need to clear up this whole scandal?

[Tainted Blood, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. As soon as the inquiry on the tainted blood scandal opened yesterday in Toronto, Justice Krever asked that the mandate of this inquiry be extended by one year, given the complexity of this case.

Does the minister share the opinion expressed by Justice Krever and, as a result, will she extend the mandate of the inquiry so that it can shed light on the whole complex issue?

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the openmindedness shown by the hon. member, who said he would carefully consider the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, when the bill is referred to the Standing Committee.

However, I would like to cast some new light on an issue which is important, considering the amendments we will be moving. Even though we want to protect our territorial waters from overfishing, we cannot prevent our stocks from leaving our territorial waters. If we were to legislate on that, we would soon run out of aquariums to detain the fish which would have ignored our legislation and our territorial limits.

Moreover, outside of our territorial waters, we have no authority whatsoever to stop foreign vessels from fishing. And God knows those vessels come from all over the world! Since we cannot legislate on fish migration, all countries should agree to legislate globally on fishery resource management, because the fish stocks do not belong to one particular country. They do not belong to Canada nor to Quebec. They belong to the sea. And the sea, outside our territorial waters, belongs to everyone. This is why it is so important to pay special attention to the amendments we will put forward in the hope of seeing Canada and Quebec show some leadership in bringing the countries together to develop a better management strategy for this resource which belongs to everyone.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the two previous speakers talked about law and order, and I am in favour of law and order. However, in the last few years, we have seen a number of police mistakes, like the incidents that happened in Montreal and Toronto. I am aware that, under most circumstances, the majority of police officers do their job in a manner that is beyond reproach and deserves respect. Nonetheless, in the events I am referring to, as an ordinary citizen-even if I am a member of Parliament today, I remain at heart an ordinary citizen-I still have this feeling, this aftertaste, that things were not done right.

Of course, to better understand a given situation, I must have a number of criteria, of limits. What should a police officer do under the circumstances that led to these mistakes? Did the police act correctly? Without limits or criteria, it would be difficult for me to appreciate the consequences of their actions and that worries me.

On the contrary, if the limits are clear, if there is a definite rule to follow and if I am comfortable with this rule, like I am with the rule proposed in this bill, I will be in a better position to appreciate the behaviour of the police under these extreme circumstances. The police themselves may be in a better position to know clearly what society expects from them.

As a result, I do not agree with the comments made by the last two speakers, but they could perhaps help me to better understand their position now that I have explained mine.