Joe Volpe

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-8, the controlled drugs and substances act.

This legislation was first introduced into the House of Commons in February 1994 with a view to respond to the need for consolidation and modernization of the existing drug control legislation, the Narcotics Control Act and parts III and IV of the Food and Drug Act.

Bill C-8 will allow for better controls over drugs covered under these acts while listing new drugs and substances that are required under the three international conventions of the United Nations.

Bill C-8 is an important component of Canada's drug strategy, a strategy based on the recognition that we must favour a balanced approach of both demand and supply reduction when dealing with substance abuse and misuse. In fact, 70 per cent of the funding under this drug strategy is dedicated toward education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. The remaining 30 per cent goes to law enforcement.

The drug strategy aims to reduce the harm caused by drugs to individuals, to families and to communities. It is an effort by many partners to co-operate in dealing with Canada's problems of substance abuse. These partners include all levels of government, law enforcement agencies, professionals, voluntary organizations and community groups. Health Canada plays a leading role in the strategy.

There is no simple solution to Canada's substance abuse problem. There are many programs in place, both inside and outside of government. Communities, provinces and territories have been working hard for a long time to reduce the demand on drugs and for drugs.

Many professional and volunteer groups have played an important role in helping people learn about drugs. They also help people cope with problems caused by drugs and abuse thereof.

Federal programs have also begun to stress even more the new drug law enforcement and crime prevention. A balance between reducing both demand for drugs and their supply in this regard is crucial.

When Bill C-8 was referred to the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health all members of the subcommittee worked closely together to ensure the views of all were carefully considered. The subcommittee heard many witnesses and clearly examined the complexities of the legislation. There were representations from a broad spectrum of groups, organizations and individuals having an interest in the controlled drugs issues and legislation.

The Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs also took the necessary time to listen to a wide diversity of views.

The government has taken very seriously the concerns expressed by witnesses at the hearings of the subcommittee of the House of Commons on the bill, as well as those put forward by hon. members from all parties in the House.

Hon. members knows the consultative process is inherent in the parliamentary system. One of the strengths of that process is that it brings forward a range of opinions and perspectives.

Some witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons committee were not only addressing the proposed legislation specifically but wanted to put broader issues on the agenda. That is why the subcommittee recommended in a separate report that the Standing Committee on Health undertake a comprehensive review of Canada's drug policy to examine those broader issues. This review will no doubt give members an opportunity to explore the many facets of drug issues, namely scientific, political, social, legal and economic influences of drug use and abuse.

At the committee's hearings members of the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs also took note of the opportunities for the commercial cultivation of hemp in Canada. Hemp can be cultivated from varieties of cannabis sativa that contain a very low level of THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive active ingredient in the plant.

The committee was of the opinion that this plant should be considered by government for its potential commercial applications. For example, it noted that hemp can be used in textiles, paper production or sometimes as a wood substitute. Research authorizations have been granted in recent years to examine the issue of the viable commercial cultivation of hemp. The research is still ongoing. The analysis, as well, is continuing.

Canada is learning more and more about hemp. One might conclude that Bill C-8 opens the door for future products such as commercial hemp because it allows the government to create regulations for scientific, medical and industrial applications of listed controlled substances.

The Senate committee made important amendments which will pave the way for the commercial activities involving hemp by facilitating its handling. Consequently, Schedule II to Bill C-8 has been amended to exclude cannabis stalks and fibre derived from such stalks from the application of the act. Although a licence will still be required to cultivate hemp, once harvested the stalks and fibre will not be subject to any form of control under the act.

I will come back to the general aim of Bill C-8. We have to keep in mind the overall intent of Bill C-8 is the protection of Canadians against risks to their health. Illegally obtained and unsafe drugs are among the greatest risks to health. Substance abuse too often contributes to isolate an important segment of our population. We must equip law enforcement professionals with the tools and techniques needed to deal effectively with those who prey on the addicted. This bill, I believe, provides those tools. We must promote sound law enforcement if we are ever to advance the broader social goal of maintaining safe and peaceful communities. This bill provides the means for accomplishing that goal.

As Canadians we believe children are entitled to grow up and to develop in a supportive and caring environment, one that spawns honest, healthy and productive lifestyles. The bill before us and the amendments with it in one way can help us to create such a climate for the children of Canada.

Drug dependence is a complex issue requiring comprehensive medical, psychological and sociological approaches. There is clear benefit in treatment. However, the element of motivation on the part of the patient is essential successful treatment.

Bill C-8 recognizes that drug dependence is also a health and social issue. It recognizes a positive approach to treatment programs for those affected by drug addiction. It supports the availability of help and appropriate treatment for those who want to get back their health and to resume a productive lifestyle.

Many people, at one time or another, develop a serious dependency on medication or drugs sold illegally. Moreover, many run the risk of becoming victims of drug-related crimes, such as break-ins or gangland violence. This situation does little to help the plight of individuals in general. It is unfortunately the cause of tremendous suffering. Many are likely to become frequent users of medication designed to treat or to temporarily alleviate anxiety attacks or some condition. There is no doubt that the efforts made

by the government to fight the abuse or ill-advised use of drugs must be maintained.

Another aspect which must be pointed out is that the bill promotes the rational use, for medical purposes, of several controlled substances, while prohibiting their illicit distribution. It recognizes that these controlled drugs are indispensable for medical purposes. Doctors, pharmacists and authorized distributors are all allowed to handle such substances, or to use them in the fulfilment of their duties. These substances must not be unduly restricted. They must be available when required, given the medical condition of patients, so that these patients do not suffer a drastic change in their quality of life.

Bill C-8 advocates the judicious use of medication by indicating how controlled substances can be handled, distributed and used. These substances are mentioned in the act to protect the health and safety of the public, by striking a fair balance between people's needs and the dangers of illicit use.

Bill C-8 covers other situations as well. It allows cancer patients, people suffering from debilitating diseases and those who have reached terminal phase to relieve their pain with prescription drugs such as morphine. A patient who is hospitalized, or who is under strict medical supervision, can even be prescribed heroin to relieve the pain.

The bill means that preparations containing cocaine can safely be used during examinations and surgery. It also gives access to many other products for the treatment of less serious, but nonetheless debilitating, ailments, such as migraine. Medications containing codeine are regularly prescribed; their usefulness is not in question.

This bill also mentions substances used to treat addictions. Methadone, for example, a substance covered by this legislation, is used to relieve pain, but also to treat heroin addicts. A number of treatment centres and hospitals use it. For a large number of patients, methadone maintenance therapy means that they can continue their regular activities and lead a constructive life. Some have jobs, others decide to pursue their education. They can thus lead a healthy family life and benefit from a stimulating social environment.

I believe that, in this bill, we have found the balance necessary to the well-being of all Canadians. It is for this reason that I urge all members, and even our senator colleagues, to give it their support, as I myself am doing today.

[Health, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know exposure of Canadians to dioxins has declined over the last 20 years. This in part is the result of the effectiveness of controls that have been put in place to prohibit the creation of these unwanted substances.

Health Canada, as all members in the House will acknowledge, has been reviewing all available information on dioxins, as have other countries such as Sweden, Germany and the United States. Canada's current guidelines are similar to all other countries with the possible exception of the United States.

While we have no plans at this time to revise the guidelines, Health Canada will not hesitate to pursue any necessary additional measures if the dioxin data indicate we need to do so.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, like others in the room, I compliment all members who have as the base of their interventions the altruistic and sincere desire to ensure the health of all Canadians is safeguarded.

The member does a great discredit to the initiatives the government has taken over the last couple of years, specifically the question of the tobacco tax he referred to on a couple of occasions. That was not an isolated initiative. He pointed out this is a complex problem that requires a comprehensive approach. Much of what he addressed is already in place and not working.

Export controls and taxes were causing problems in many places in Canada and had to be addressed as well. He is conveniently putting to one side the fact that other initiatives were put forward by the government to specifically address consumption of tobacco products by young people. It is very easy to put them to one side and pretend they do not exist. The government initiatives are in place and they are working.

Finally, it is important as well to appreciate that in the context of some of those initiatives it was a supreme court decision that did away with some of the initiatives which were already in place.

If the member opposite is impatient because the appropriate legislation has yet to be presented before the House, it is only because the government wants to make sure the legislation, when it is presented, will withstand the challenges that will surely come forward from interested parties.

If he is as sincere as he has demonstrated in the House, he would encourage the Minister of Health and all his colleagues in cabinet to ensure the safeguards are in place and that all the checks and balances are looked at carefully so that we not repeat the scenario which we saw in the supreme court some eight months ago.

The member is correct to bring these issues forward in the House, but let him make an acknowledgement that Bill C-24 is a very important and good first step. He can bring his suggestions forward when the legislation goes to committee.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, knowing the rules of the House as I do, I did not want to implicate the Speaker in any of the urgings for support. I used the English generic "you" which applies to all members in the House who have the right to vote.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak over the din of the crowd and proceed with the debate on Bill C-24.

Just before question period I was addressing the shared responsibilities of the stakeholders and all interested parties in the control of tobacco consumption everywhere. I indicated that some of the areas involved different levels of government, schools, parents and smokers. I left off by indicating that the federal government is committed to providing leadership in this area. Perhaps I could resume the debate on that theme.

I realize that all members' attention is riveted on the debate. The government will continue to participate in consultations and to collaborate with its partners in the national strategy to reduce tobacco use, along with the provincial and territorial governments and a wide range of health groups.

Partners in the national strategy recognize that there is no simple or easy solution to the problem. To be effective, solutions will need to be multifaceted and will need to be based on collaboration. The proposed plan of action meets these criteria.

On December 11, 1995, the government tabled Bill C-117 which was reintroduced in this session as Bill C-24. At that time we tabled a document entitled "Tobacco Control-A Blueprint to Protect the Health of Canadians". That document sets out the government's proposed approach to tobacco control in response to the Supreme Court decision.

The overall objective is clearly stated in the blueprint, specifically, to reduce tobacco consumption among Canadians and the adverse health effects that it causes. This objective is supported by three broad legislative goals.

First, to protect the health of Canadians in light of conclusive evidence implicating tobacco use in the incidence of numerous debilitating and fatal diseases.

Second, to protect young people and others to the extent it is reasonable in a free and democratic society from inducements to use tobacco products and consequent dependence on them.

Third, to enhance public awareness of the hazards of tobacco use by ensuring effective communication of pertinent information about tobacco products and their use. The blueprint document reflects the government's recognition that because millions of Canadians are addicted to tobacco products, these products cannot simply be made illegal and banned from the marketplace.

The Supreme Court recognized that a prohibition on the sale or consumption of tobacco would not be a practical, public policy option, given the addictive nature of tobacco products. Rather, the tobacco control measures under consideration must necessarily focus on reducing the demand for tobacco products.

I can confirm that there is a consensus in the health community that, given the addictive nature of nicotine, it is better to concentrate our efforts on preventing experimentation and uptake rather than try to overcome that addiction. Because very few people start to smoke after their teenage years, tobacco control efforts must focus on dissuading youth from experimenting.

The recent data that shows increases in youth smoking, as my colleague opposite wanted to indicate earlier, in various regions of Canada lend urgency to the development of a legislative response.

Since the advertising and promotion of tobacco products influence not only brand choice but also the perceptions of the products and the disposition to using the product, there is clear need to counter the effective advertising and promotion that results in experimentation and addiction among youth who appear to be especially susceptible to product advertising and promotion. Furthermore, because the demand for tobacco products is influenced by other marketing activities like retail merchandising, packaging, product design, these areas must also be addressed in order to achieve the stated health goals.

The complex social, economic and health issues surrounding tobacco use suggest the need for a comprehensive, mutually reinforcing set of strategies. It is important to ensure that any legislative initiative be consistent with and complementary to the ongoing public education and awareness programs that are part of the larger federal strategy as well as the broad policy thrusts in other areas of federal activity.

Similarly, the development and implementation of a comprehensive strategy must be consistent with related municipal-provincial-territorial activities and legislation. The tobacco control blueprint outlines a comprehensive set of measures that would establish the conditions and requirements under which tobacco products would be manufactured, sold and marketed in Canada.

The measures under consideration include, first, the most comprehensive restrictions possible on advertising. The government is committed to providing the necessary information to support the most comprehensive prohibition on advertising possible, always taking into account the guidance of the Supreme Court and our concerns for protecting youth from the inducements to smoke. Second, it would include restrictions on other promotional activities, and third, a comprehensive set of ground rules for sponsorship promotion. I see that my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk is in complete agreement.

I want to make it clear that the government is not proposing to ban the sponsorship of cultural and support groups and philanthropic activities by tobacco companies, quite the contrary. Such companies can and should support cultural and sporting events that they consider to be worthwhile. What the government objects to is sponsorship promotion of tobacco products and their use.

The measures set out in the blueprint document for sponsorship promotion include, among others, prohibiting the use of brand names and logos on non-tobacco items associated with an event or activity, prohibiting the incorporation of brands names or logos into the name of a sponsored activity or event, prohibiting testimonials and personal endorsements, and requiring health messages on all sponsorship advertising and signs.

The blueprint document also proposes to further reduce the likelihood of easy access to tobacco products by minors by eliminating self-service tobacco product displays and mail order sales. It proposes to restrict point of sale promotional activities, such as in-store advertising, promotion and product display. It also proposes to require additional new packaging and labelling requirements that would control package information and prohibit false and misleading claims on that packaging. Finally, it proposes to expand reporting requirements for tobacco manufacturers, distributors and importers to regulate tobacco products, their constituents and tobacco smoke emissions.

I might emphasize that consultation is continuing with interested parties on the impact of the blueprint measures on the health of Canadians and tobacco and collateral industries supported by tobacco funding.

This legislation, together with the research and public education components of the tobacco demand reduction strategy, will strengthen efforts to counter the ill-effects of tobacco consumption in Canada.

Given the unique problems associated with tobacco use, the government is developing tobacco specific legislation which will again make Canada a leader in the battle against the health effects of tobacco consumption. The bill before the House today is the government's first legislative response aimed at redressing the legal problems identified by the Supreme Court's ruling. It is the important first step in the overall action plan.

The amendments to the Tobacco Products Control Act in Bill C-24 are straightforward and vital to the health goals. Through Bill C-24 the government is reinstating the requirement to display health messages on tobacco products and in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada, is giving the tobacco companies the option of attributing health messages on tobacco packaging to Health Canada.

We know from studies conducted by the Department of Health that despite an awareness of the general health affects of tobacco use, Canadians lack knowledge about the specific health consequences of that tobacco use. Knowledge about specific health consequences is important because it may result in a better appreciation of the harmful affects of smoking.

I acknowledge that the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council released a voluntary packaging and advertising code in December 1995 that continues to use health messages with an attribution to Health Canada although in a different format than that set out in the regulations that were made inoperative by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Tobacco companies want to return to the format of the health messages that were used prior to 1994 before it was improved to make messages more visible and readable. The code requires that health messages be on advertisements. Despite that, within days of the release of that code, advertisements without health warnings, whose art work and designs were obviously targeted to youth, were placed within 200 metres of schools, violating the code. That code is both insufficient and unenforceable. Its pre-clearance and review processes are not subject to public scrutiny. It does not impose any sanctions on those who fail to comply with it. It is clear that public, transparent and forcible regulatory controls are required if we are to meet our health goals. That is what Bill C-24 begins to put in place.

What Canadians need is a legislative framework that will control the manufacture, sale and marketing of tobacco products in this country. They need legislative measures to protect youth from

inducements to using tobacco products. This government intends to provide Canadians with that framework.

Bill C-24 is a vital first step toward a safer and healthier country for all Canadians. I am sure all colleagues on both sides of the House will join with me in supporting the amendments listed under Bill C-24. I thank you for your attention and support.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

I welcome the commentary of the hon. member opposite. It is favourable to the introduction I am presenting. Rarely has there been such a clear and compelling case for government action, as the member acknowledges.

To put matters as simply as possible, smoking kills. The supreme court recognized this fact. The warning labels are entirely accurate, scientifically correct and vital to Canada's health strategy on smoking. They cannot, however, tell the entire story.

Tobacco is the only consumer product that has absolutely no known benefits, none whatsoever. When used as intended, it can cause irreparable damage and can kill those who use it. A couple of my colleagues opposite in the medical profession will attest to that as well. They will also attest to the fact that research tells us a smoker's life expectancy decreases by some seven to eight minutes for each cigarette smoked. That is a terrible price to pay.

Between one-third and one-half of Canadians who now smoke will die prematurely as a result of tobacco use. This means that over three million people will die an early death because of tobacco use. When the Tobacco Products Control Act was introduced in 1987 some 72 Canadians died each day of tobacco related causes. Today, as we debate some minor amendments to the act, the toll has risen appreciably. Today, tomorrow the next day and each day in this year on average 110 Canadians will die of tobacco related causes. Sadly, we have every reason to believe this toll will continue to increase for some time.

Tobacco addiction does not take its toll immediately or quickly. It often takes some 20 to 30 years for the consequences of smoking to manifest themselves. That is why deaths attributable to smoking continue to escalate, even though fewer people are smoking now than 10 or 20 years ago. From 1989 to 1991 Canadian deaths attributed to smoking increased by some 8 per cent to more than 41,400.

Even those who do not smoke can be affected. The United States centre for disease prevention and control published some alarming findings recently about second hand smoke in a journal of the American Medical Association. I point to the study because the study is noteworthy for not only its findings but for its sample size and its methodology.

It involved some 10,642 people over four years of age and older randomly selected at 81 different sites in 26 separate states. It was the first centre for disease prevention and control tobacco study to combine blood samples, physical examinations and questionnaires.

Using the blood tests of the 10,642 people, the centres for disease prevention and control were able to confirm almost universal exposure to tobacco smoke even among young people and people who never smoked and who do not work or live around people who smoke.

Their tests showed 87.9 per cent of non-smokers in the group had a blood chemistry that indicated exposure to cigarette smoke. Their blood tested positive for cotinine metabolic residue from the body's processing of inhaled nicotine. There is virtually no other source of that chemical than inhaled tobacco smoke.

We know from other scientific studies that second hand smoke can have 20 to 30 times the carcinogens found in smoke inhaled directly through the filter by the smoker. This study confirms those carcinogens find their way into the lungs and bloodstream of almost everybody, including non-smokers.

The centres for disease prevention and control estimated that in the United States second hand smoke caused 3,000 deaths annually among the non-smoking public and 150,000 to 300,000 cases of respiratory infections among children.

This is generally consistent with the data available in Canada. Here it is estimated that about 330 people each year die from the effects of second hand smoke. Almost half of all Canadian children under the age 15, some 2.8 million, are exposed to second hand smoke on a regular basis.

These data provide clear and compelling evidence that tobacco use is not a personal choice issue, as the tobacco industry would maintain. It is clearly and irreputably a public health issue.

The American study clearly shows no one is safe from the effects of tobacco smoke. A smoker's decision to use tobacco products has demonstrable and negative impacts on the health of those with whom the smoker lives and works.

This year about 50 billion cigarettes will be smoked in Canada with tragic consequences for public health. In addition to the human consequences I have already noted there are hidden costs. The health care costs of tobacco use are estimated at some $3 billion per annum. Another $8 billion is lost in absenteeism and productivity loss. In short, the personal and public costs of this addiction are tragic, pervasive and wholly preventable.

If this product were discovered today it would not be allowed for use in the marketplace. The government realizes, as did the Supreme Court of Canada, it would be impractical and unrealistic to ban a product that is part of the daily lives of almost 7 million Canadians.

At the same time, it would be irresponsible and callous to allow unfettered marketing and promotion of such a lethal product. The government has an obligation to take appropriate action. The government is prepared to act, it is determined to act. It is determined to take action, although the solutions to this national public health problem are complicated and difficult.

Tobacco use is an integral part of the daily life of almost 7 million Canadians, roughly one-third of the population aged 15 and over. Each day in films, magazines and on television tobacco products are portrayed as normal consumer products associated with contemporary lifestyles. This benign portrayal of tobacco products ignores that tobacco is inherently hazardous and addictive.

The length of time between initial experimentation and the onset of adverse health consequences is typically between 20 and 30 years and results in the loss of immediacy that has prompted dramatic public reaction to other less threatening public health issues. Its addictive qualities make it difficult to quit even when smokers know the toll is exacting on their health. Many smokers would like to quit but are unable to.

Government efforts to reduce tobacco use in Canada involve powerful and competing interests in a highly complex social, legal and economic context. The debates on the various pieces of legislation regulating tobacco have elicited strong reaction from such diverse interest groups as tobacco farmers, manufacturers, retailers, printers, artists, cultural groups, health groups and average Canadians whose health or families have been affected by tobacco use.

Because of tobacco's unique hazards, the enormous profits generated from selling it and the many competing interests involved, reducing tobacco consumption and its resulting adverse health effects is a challenging task indeed. It involves shared responsibilities among the various stakeholders and partners: the different levels of government; employers promoting smoke free environments among their employees; schools through the education of their students on the hazards of tobacco use; parents by encouraging their children not to start smoking; and of course the smokers themselves.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak on second reading of Bill C-24 which will amend the Tobacco Products Control Act. Action on the proposed amendment is a key element of our strategy for reducing the consumption of tobacco products in Canada. Before I address the specifics of Bill C-24, I first want to take a few moments to touch on the historical and policy context of this legislation.

When the Tobacco Products Control Act became law in 1989 it set a number of important public health precedents. It phased out tobacco advertising. It restricted the promotion of tobacco products. It required health warnings and toxic constituents information on packages. Finally, the act required manufacturers to report information on tobacco constituents and sales to the Minister of Health.

In passing this legislation, Parliament acknowledged the hazards inherent in tobacco use. It acted to protect all Canadians but especially youth from inducements to the use of tobacco products. To this day Canada is recognized as a world leader for the action it took in 1989 to regulate tobacco marketing and promotion.

Since the implementation of the Tobacco Products Control Act, Canada has been viewed as a model in terms of tobacco control measures. Australia, New Zealand, France and Thailand are among the countries which have used aspects of the Canadian model, including advertising bans, prominent health messages on packaging and increased health promotion activities. In some cases these countries have gone further than Canada with various components of their policies and legislation. Their non-smoking policies are based not only on Canada's experience but also on the recommendations of international health organizations such as the World Health Organization.

As countries co-operate on tobacco control, these international agencies have an increasing wealth of data and models to draw upon. The World Health Organization for instance recently released a report indicating that three million people a year now die prematurely from tobacco related causes. If the current trend continues, the body count would reach some 10 million deaths per year within one generation.

Last September the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Parliament had the power to control advertising and promotion of tobacco products under the criminal law power of the Constitution. The court also found unanimously that the purpose of the act, specifically to reduce tobacco consumption, was a valid and important health objective, one sufficiently important to warrant the limiting of the freedom of expression.

However, the court was also of the view that the government had failed to demonstrate that some of the measures in the act, in particular the total ban on advertising, the restrictions on promotion and the inability to attribute health warnings to the government, were justified under the charter. As a consequence, the majority ruled that large portions of the act were without force and effect, including provisions requiring health warnings and toxic constituents information.

The government accepts the responsibility conferred on it by the Supreme Court of Canada decision. It will not allow the unrestrained marketing and promotion of a product that kills so many Canadians.

[Health Care, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that an agreement was struck between the Minister of Health for Canada and his counterpart in Alberta.

The agreement is essentially twofold. As of July 1 private clinics will no longer be permitted to bill patients for facility fees for insured services and at the same time bill the province for physicians' fees. The federal deductions in the transfers to Alberta will cease immediately upon this decision.

For Albertans and Canadians everywhere, this means that the Canada Health Act does work and the principles are being upheld because of co-operation between governments. It means the citizens of Alberta are guaranteed access to universally guaranteed medical services.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

A replenisher of the treasury.

[International Aids Conferrence, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the public will be forgiven for thinking these kinds of theatrics are shameful. When one takes a look at the record of the country's and the government's commitment to solving the problems of HIV-AIDS, the member will retract his rhetoric.

He will know, as the House knows, that Canada commits in excess of $40 million per annum toward research and epidemiological monitoring, $5.5 million is administered through the national health and research development program, $1.5 million annually in national welfare research grants, an average of $3 million annually for infrastructure of Canadian HIV trials, the remainder is allocated through the health protection branch, and a further $2 million is directed through the medical-