Bernard Bigras

[Marijuana, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Minister of Justice said she was open to the idea of decriminalizing the simple possession of drugs. However we know that those who use marijuana for therapeutic purposes are in a particularly difficult situation.

Would the minister agree to move quickly for those already using marijuana for therapeutic purposes so that they no longer have to face the threat of being charged?

[Millennium Scholarships, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk about the students, fine, we will.

Yesterday, the president of the FEUQ said “The federal government...is hiding behind the foundation legislation to refuse to negotiate an arrangement”. The problem is not in Quebec City, it is here in Ottawa, with the Minister of Finance.

What is holding the Minister of Human Resources Development back from assuming his responsibilities and going to negotiate with François Legault in Quebec City?

[Millennium Scholarships, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development took refuge behind the Gautrin resolution, using it as an excuse for his refusal to move on the millennium scholarship issue.

This resolution calls for negotiations to be held government to government, leading to legislative amendments, and avoiding any duplication.

Instead of playing the wise guy, will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that he is the one not complying with the Gautrin resolution by refusing, for no real reason, to negotiate with Minister Legault, who is there in Quebec City waiting for him?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleagues in the House for allowing me to speak to this important issue.

The decision to involve ground troops can be heavy with consequence, and I think we must also not ignore the fact that it could well lead to loss of life. There is no doubt that parliament must be much better informed than it is at the moment before it makes a decision. A true debate must be held before parliamentarians can make an enlightened decision on such a serious matter. Then this debate must necessarily be sanctioned by a vote, which will give the government a clear mandate on the relevance of sending ground troops.

The purpose of the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is not to take a stand on a possible military engagement on the ground in Kosovo, but rather to force the government to have a debate and a vote on this issue in the House should this possibility arise. To avoid thinking about it right now would just postpone a problem we will have to face sooner or later.

It is clear to us that the government cannot claim to have firm democratic approval if it does not have a vote on this issue in the House of Commons. Moreover, without a vote, the position of the various parties carries no real weight. All day, government members avoided taking a stand on this issue claiming it is only a hypothetical question.

First of all, I want to say that, as the situation progresses, the chances of a ground intervention becoming necessary are increasing constantly. Also, even though it is just a hypothetical question, nothing prevents the government from making a commitment today to consult parliamentarians before sending in ground troops. In fact, to us, it is impossible to justify the government's current position, which is simply undemocratic.

Moreover, the government is probably worried that some members or some parties may express their opposition to the deployment of ground troops, which would be perceived as dissension and would send the wrong message to the Yugoslav leaders.

In fact, by acting the way it is acting now, that is by keeping information from the House of Commons and by refusing to let it play an important role, the government forces members and parties to be more and more critical.

If, in fact, members of the House are not informed of diplomatic or military initiatives and if the reasons for decisions made by NATO or the Canadian government are not explained and discussed in the House, this cast doubts in the Bloc members' minds as to the appropriateness of these decisions.

For the government to refuse a vote for misleading reasons would send a negative signal to all members of parliament. That would be denying the House the possibility to play its role and would jeopardize the present consensus.

The government should not be afraid of having a real debate and of answering certain critical questions. It would be stupid to act as though 100% of Quebeckers and Canadians agreed with Canadian participation in the present NATO operation.

In fact, it is important to stress the fact that many Canadians are concerned and critical of the situation. The government must be accountable to them. Taking a serious decision without the consent of parliament would amount to a denial of our democratic system.

I will conclude by saying that our riding offices receive many calls from citizens asking questions. They want their elected representatives to debate the question. They also want their member of parliament to represent them well and, for that, there obviously must be a democratic vote.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I speak in this House, NATO planes are carrying out air strikes against Serbian military targets in Yugoslavia and Kosovo.

At the international level, diplomats from around the world are trying to find a negotiated solution to Serbian attacks on Kosovo's Albanians.

In neighbouring countries, the staff of non governmental humanitarian assistance organizations are doing everything they can to facilitate the arrival of hundreds of thousands of refugees, whose numbers have been rising since the beginning of this crisis.

Here, however, no one can or wants to tell us whether or not the Canadian armed forces are getting ready to send ground troops to the Balkans.

Once again, this afternoon, the Minister of National Defence refused to indicate if senior officers were planning Canada's involvement in ground operations. These statements were not made a week ago. They were made today in answer to questions put by opposition members to the minister.

Earlier today, during question period, the Minister of National Defence said and I quote “The only thing I can confirm is the breakdown of Canadian troops already in the Balkans.”

When a minister refuses to provide clear answers to questions put by the opposition and uses carefully phrased statements—and that is a rather strong word—such as “the only thing I can tell you is”, one has to wonder if the government is not about to make a far reaching decision behind closed doors, without consulting parliament.

This is exactly what we want to avoid in this motion. The motion is clear. It says, and I quote:

That this House demand that the government submit to a debate and a vote in the House the sending of Canadian soldiers to the Balkans who may be involved in military or peacekeeping operations on the ground in Kosovo and the Balkan region.

Our goal is simple: we want such a decision, which may put the lives of fellow citizens at risk, to be taken in a transparent and democratic manner. Because the government has so far refused to commit itself to holding a vote before sending ground troops to the Balkans, we have no choice but to bring forward this motion, which asks this formally.

It is astounding that we have had to go this far something that just makes sense. A few people cannot decide alone to send Canadian ground troops to take part in a conflict that could still last for months.

We think that parliament must have a say in the Canadian policy regarding Kosovo. So far, the opposition parties supported the government's decisions in favour of air strikes against the Serbian aggressors in Kosovo, but that does not mean—

[Millenium Scholarships, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the President of Bell Canada, Mr. Monty, already has his hands full with the operators he wants to lay off. His shareholders will certainly not appreciate his spending all his time negotiating for the federal government on the millennium scholarships.

Given that the matter is totally stalled and that students could be penalized in this new federal flag war, could the Minister of Human Resources Development shake off the cobwebs and meet in Quebec City with Minister Legault, who has been waiting for him for weeks to come and resolve this?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am still very surprised to hear such a hard-line speech about young people in this place, and I am particularly surprised by our colleague's definition of prevention.

He seems to view prevention as an activity that only comes into play after the offence.

I find this rather surprising, because he talks to us about lists, as though young people should be stigmatized. This is unacceptable.

We have always seen prevention as coming before the offence. For there to be prevention, there has to be education, guidance and resources in our schools, often at the time when young people are having difficulty.

I would like to ask my Reform Party colleague what he means by the term prevention, which he has used repeatedly in his speech.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House in order for the hon. member for Shefford to finish her speech.

[Medical Use Of Marijuana, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after last year's announcement by the British government that it would be carrying out clinical testing of marijuana on 600 patients, the American government has just made public a study by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences in which it comes out in favour of the medical use of marijuana.

When is the Minister of Health going to get moving and take all the necessary steps to legalize the medical use of marijuana, thus allowing Canada to catch up in an area where it is seriously lagging behind other countries?

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

I hear the parliamentary secretary over there taking the liberty to react to what I am saying.

The parliamentary secretary ought to be familiar with the demands by the Canadian AIDS Society. She ought to be familiar with the position of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which has been tabled today. She ought to be familiar with the positions of Donald Kilby, director of the University of Ottawa Health Services. And of Réjean Thomas, a leading figure in the treatment of AIDS. And she ought to be familiar with the case of James Wakeford, who has made a request under the special access program. With the cases of Jean-Charles Parizeau and Terry Parker. But no, the parliamentary secretary does not want to know.

The minister's new policy smacks of improvization, as I have said.

He has given a hasty mandate to his departmental employees on the eve of a debate on the matter, but is unable to give any details on his policy. In fact, the minister cannot even say whether his announcement means that he is taking the necessary steps to legalize the health and medical use of marijuana.

That is exactly what today's motion is calling for. The minister is still refusing to say whether he will vote for or against the motion. I hope that we can clarify his intentions in the course of debate.

If the minister said yesterday that he was prepared to take steps towards legalization, the only course open to him in June is to vote in favour. Any move by the government to vote against this motion will be interpreted by those favouring the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes as unwillingness to keep this promise.

I repeat, the government and the minister must demonstrate in good faith. I grant that he has taken a step in the right direction, but his actions must suit his words, and he must vote in favour of the motion.

In fact, the minister is certainly not yet able to tell us what stand he will take. We are still waiting, and would have liked an announcement yesterday as to where he stood. But instead we must wait.

I was in touch by phone as recently as yesterday with patients, doctors, and associations asking me to continue the fight, because nothing is a given, because although there was an announcement yesterday, no timeframe was mentioned. There was no research protocol. We know that there is no indication whatsoever that the minister listens to patients, for instance those who have made applications under the Health Canada special access program, which is the minister's own responsibility.

I therefore wish to assure everyone, not only in this House, but everyone involved in the campaign, the physicians, the patients, that I will continue the awareness campaign I launched this morning.

I wish to assure them that this lack of transparency can only make me step up the pressure so that a majority of MPs here in this House will be able to vote in favour of this motion. The government has no excuse whatsoever for taking refuge behind inaction, as it has so far.

No one disputes the therapeutic effectiveness of THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal active ingredient in marijuana. Moreover, physicians can already prescribe Marinol tablets, and have been doing so for some years now. This authorized medication contains synthetic THC and is already available in pharmacies. It is prescribed mainly to relieve nausea in terminally ill patients and to stimulate appetite.

However, taking synthetic marijuana pills is not as effective as inhalation. According to the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine , swallowing pills cannot be compared to inhalation, which rapidly raises blood THC levels and greatly enhances the sought-after medical efficacy.

What is more, many patients who would be candidates for the medical use of marijuana are already required to take huge numbers of pills daily. We are talking of numbers even in excess of 30. One can imagine what taking more pills in the form of Marinol means, then. The precise purpose of marijuana is to help make the taking of so many pills bearable by relieving nausea.

Obviously, it is better to administer THC for nausea by the pulmonary route than the digestive route. Many physicians are therefore campaigning for the possibility of prescribing THC in the form best suited to their patients. They argue that they are in the best position to determine what suits their patients best.

The Canadian Medical Association represents the medical community in Canada and ensures that the health care system provides doctors with what they need to deliver quality health care to their patients. Since 1981, this association has been arguing that the simple possession of marijuana should be decriminalized, but it deplores the absence of more systematic scientific research on the topic.

In 1995, the American Medical Association pointed out the need to review American legislation on the therapeutic use of marijuana. The British Medical Association goes even further: it has called on the British government to take all necessary steps to authorize the therapeutic use of marijuana, while respecting all established scientific criteria.

The British Medical Association has also publicly encouraged the police and the courts to tolerate use of marijuana for therapeutic purposes. In its report, it says, and I quote:

Some patients are forced to use an illegal drug to relieve symptoms that are not controlled by existing medication.

The report also says:

—and that there is sufficient evidence that marijuana can help in certain circumstances.

These were quotes from a report by the British Medical Association.

As a result, following a major scientific research study by the British House of Lords, the British government decided to go ahead and authorize the first official trials to evaluate the therapeutic effects of marijuana. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is confident that, three years from now, cannabis will be a prescription drug in Great Britain.

In Quebec and in Canada, well known physicians such as Réjean Thomas and Donald Kilby have already come down unambiguously in favour of legalization for medical and therapeutic purposes, as have some major dailies. So have the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which wrote me another letter this morning, and the Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida. All these organizations are calling on the government and members of parliament to vote in favour of Motion M-381.

Today, I ask the men and women fighting for this legalization to be patient, because I am very confident that they will have all the support they need in June. Therefore—