Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explore further the government's strategy, if it has any, on dealing with smoking among young people. I have raised this matter on numerous occasions. My question on November 18 about Bill S-13 afforded me another opportunity to try to discover if the government had any kind of comprehensive strategy.

Are we dealing with words, rhetoric and old promises? Is there actually a serious plan in place to reduce smoking among young people and to deal with a very serious health problem that costs all of us an enormous amount of money and loss of health?

Bill S-13 offered the government a very constructive proposal, an opportunity to put a levy on the industry per carton in order to ensure money was available to be directed entirely into anti-smoking initiatives and into preventing young people from smoking in the first place.

At that time the government used procedural wrangling to argue that the bill should not be before the House. It succeeded. It also promised at that time that it would take the issue further and come back to the House with alternatives for putting in place something comparable to Bill S-13 which adhered to the principles of the proposal by Senator Kenny.

There has been nothing, not a word. There is no sign that a process is in place. We do not know if the Liberal caucus has even met on it as was promised and we are waiting anxiously to see what will happen. In the meantime there is a growing litany of broken promises on the part of the government. It keeps promising that money will be spent. It did so in the 1993 election and in the 1997 election. There was a promise for $100 million to be spent on prevention of smoking among young people.

To date, we still believe that about $200,000 has been spent. There is more rhetoric in the budget but no evidence of anything happening. We also know that on other fronts the government had opportunities to act and failed to do so.

As I mentioned before, with respect to tobacco taxes we know that American tobacco prices have skyrocketed as a result of the November 1998 settlement between the United States government and tobacco companies. Cigarettes now cost as much as $15 more in American states bordering Ontario and Quebec. This means that the smuggling threat the government always talks about, which caused the reduction in tobacco taxes, has been virtually eliminated.

The budget offered the government an opportunity to act. It failed to do so. The government also made a great fanfare about Bill C-42 and about how it was working on eliminating tobacco sponsorships. It was supposed to have included a grandfathering effect, with tobacco companies forbidden to initiate new sponsorships.

Lo and behold, just a few days ago, du Maurier put out a press release bragging about 234 arts groups receiving funding for the coming year and many of them being first time recipients. That is contrary to the spirit of Bill C-42.

Whether we are talking about taxation policy, whether we are talking about education programs or whether we are talking about restrictions on advertising, the government has failed to act. It has provided nothing but rhetoric and disjointed ad hoc suggestions without a comprehensive strategy.

What is desperately needed today for the future of our kids and for the sake of our health care system is a comprehensive, concrete plan of action.

[Division No. 342, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get to the bottom of why this government decided to spend $3.6 million advertising its federal budget. I raised this question after we received this information.

We were shocked and appalled as were many Canadians across this country, especially Canadians who are facing enormous difficulties gaining access to quality health care services. These are people who are in line for hip surgery, who are waiting for MRIs and for personal care homes, who are struggling to make ends meet in order to care for elderly family members and for needy children.

Today I hope Canadians will get some clarification on this very important question. I hope the parliamentary secretary is not going to simply say that this is what governments always do and it is doing a great service for Canadians. These $3.6 million ads that were taken out do not offer one iota of public service. They are sheer propaganda and speak only to the fact that this must be about political crisis management and not about worthwhile and meaningful remedies for our health care system.

Since the budget was tabled in the House there has been incredible coverage. There have been over 750 references to this budget in the major media outlets. This does not even include many of the weeklies. I am sure the tally comes up to well over 1,000 hits in the media just in terms of the health care budget alone.

Let us not forget that 10 days leading up to the budget the government decided to leak out bits and pieces of the budget so that people were inundated with news about what was in store for Canadians. We heard that there was $2.5 billion for health. Then came the big leak to Canadians about $11.5 billion. Canadians had it up to here about what was going to be in the budget and what was in the budget.

Canadians do not want to see $3.6 million spent on advertising this government's political agenda. They want to see every penny go into health care where it is absolutely needed.

What would that $3.6 million have bought? By our calculations it would have bought 150 personal home care beds. It would have paid many times over for training of emergency nurses. It would have paid for an MRI and then some. All these things are absolutely needed.

I would suggest to the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the government that they listen to the voices of Canadians on this critical issue.

I particularly want to reflect on what has happened in the province of Manitoba where the Conservative government decided to spend $500,000 advertising its so-called health care agenda.

Let me paraphrase the words of the Winnipeg Free Press and apply them to this government. The Minister of Health here in Ottawa should scrap the government's $3.6 million campaign for health care reforms. The move would show that a new firm hand is now steering health care in this country. It would show that the ruling Liberals can get their priorities straight.

That is the message Canadians send to the government. That is the message the Liberals ought to hear. It is far more important to deal with the health care needs of Canadians than to try to manage the political difficulties of this present government.

One really has to ask the last question of all which is if this budget was more about substance and less about smoke and mirrors, would this money actually have been necessary? Would we have to spend taxpayers' money to sell the news to Canadians that this government is finally moving on health care? In fact the government is merely trying to recover lost ground and put back some of the money it has taken out.

I look forward to an answer from the government on this critical issue.

[Health, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, public confidence in the health protection branch or what is left of it is at an all-time low. Too many Canadians have seen corporate interests put ahead of the public good. Even the unelected, unaccountable Senate has called for an independent review into the drug approval process. When will this government finally see the light, investigate the HPB and stop letting industry expectations take precedence over public safety?

[Petitions, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to present a petition on behalf of hundreds and hundreds of Canadians on the most critical issue facing this country today, that of the quality of our health care system.

The petitioners call upon the government to preserve medicare, to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act and to ensure that those principles are applied broadly to all aspects of our health care system.

They urge the government to guarantee national standards of quality, publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.

[Hazardous Products Act, March 10th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-482, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill and to say a few words about the significance of it. I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Acadie—Bathurst who presented a motion on this subject to the House. I am pleased to be able to carry on his good work.

This bill amends the Hazardous Products Act. It is about safe toys for young children and ensuring that babies and toddlers are not exposed to phthalates. This is about safe products for all citizens and ensuring consumers are protected from equipment with dangerously high levels of cadmium and lead.

This bill is grounded in the precautionary principle of do no harm. It is about safety first. It is about acting now to warn Canadians of toxic contaminants in products we use every day. It is about putting the public interest first and safeguarding the health and well-being of all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to pursue a question I raised in the House last December 3. It was about Bill S-13, the Tobacco Industry Responsibility Act.

This was the bill that would actually impose a levy on tobacco manufacturers of 50 cents per carton. This was the bill to help support this government's rhetoric around helping young people quit smoking and to encourage them not to start smoking in the first place.

This was the bill that was supported by all kinds of organizations, including the cancer society and hundreds of groups across the country and thousands of Canadians.

This was the bill that was supported by young kids themselves. I quote from a letter by Lee Smith from Chilliwack, B.C.:

I am 13 years old and I have smoked for a year. I am trying to quit. It is hard.

I support Bill S-13 that collects 50 cents on each carton of cigarettes because it will stop kids from smoking.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. Please help kids stop smoking.

Bill S-13 was the bill that the health minister said was a good idea. I quote from his comments to the media on June 3: “I think it is a good idea. I think it is clever. I think it is a good bill and we should go forward with it”.

That is what we are asking today. Where is the bill? Where is this government's support of the idea in the form of some legislation or financial measure to ensure the spirit of the bill put forward by Senator Kenny is adhered to?

Instead of concrete action, all we get from this government is rhetoric. We get the Minister of Health saying this country has the best record anywhere in terms of anti-smoking provisions.

Instead of a great record we have a situation where cigarettes are now cheaper than they were before, tobacco profits are up, more kids are smoking, cigarette advertising has increased, tobacco is killing more Canadians and funding for anti-smoking measures has not been put in place as promised.

What we are asking for is a comprehensive strategy. We thought we would have that when we heard the minister was making a big announcement on January 21. There was no complete comprehensive strategy. There were measures on packaging, on bigger warning labels on cigarette packages and on the particular health effects if one smoked and so on. There was no comprehensive strategy. There was nothing in terms of the need to look at taxation, especially given that many provinces are offering cigarettes at a much lower rate than in the United States. That puts to rest the whole notion of dealing with smuggling.

We have no evidence from this government that it is spending the money it promised in the 1993 federal campaign and in the 1997 federal campaign, $100 million, toward youth anti-smoking initiatives.

We are asking today where is the comprehensive strategy. When will we see the government act on the spirit of Bill S-13 and start acting in terms of protecting the health of our young people?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, speaking about families in need, I would suggest that the government hightail itself up into some of our northern remote first nations communities to witness for itself just how anti-family some of the government's policies actually are.

Members of the government should go to communities like Pukatawagan in Manitoba where the government's transfer of health care programs is nothing more than a dump and run approach.

I ask the Minister of Health when will this government start to negotiate health care agreements with our aboriginal communities based on true needs—

[Petitions, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition from hundreds of concerned Canadians regarding the critical state of the health care system in Canada today.

The petitioners call upon this government to preserve and enforce the Canada Health Act, which they call the foundation of medicare. They call upon this government to maintain and enforce the five principles of medicare.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the individuals involved in presenting this petition and particularly mention the work of the save medicare committee, and in particular the work of one individual, Russ Rak, who is with the Retired Workers' Chapter of Local 222 of the CAW in Oshawa.

It is with great honour that I present this petition which calls upon this government to move quickly to preserve and strengthen medicare in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, on November 30 I raised a concern about the apparent change in name of the health protection branch to the management of risks to health branch. It is impossible to find in any official document from the Department of Health any reference any longer to the Health Protection Branch. The HPB is out; MRH is in.

The question for all of us is does this mean anything. It would seem to me that it does mean something, using the old adage that if you change the name you change the game. I believe that is what is actually happening with the government. The health protection branch was supposed to be responsible for guarding public health: the safety of the food we eat, the medicines we take and the toys our children play with. These all depend on the investigative strength of this important arm of government.

Something has gone terribly wrong. The federal government has been closing labs. We have the RCMP investigating in terms of blood and breast implants. We have had scientists appear before the Senate committee expressing concerns about the approval process for bovine growth hormone. More recently, we have had evidence of blood coming from prisons in the United States into this country without proper regulation.

We have had the minister refuse to take action on scientific studies showing toxins in bags that contain blood products. We have had as recently as today officials of the department promoting a risk management approach when it comes to organs and tissues. I think we have a critical situation. The whole way of doing business has changed under this government.

The most important question for all of us, the question that sets the tone for the entire safety process, has to do with the burden of proof. Canada's health safety system has always required the makers of new or questionable products to prove that their products are safe before they are released to the public. The public has always been confident in the knowledge that long before they ate their roast, swallowed their pill or sprayed their lawn, the makers of those roasts, pills and sprays had to prove to someone that the product was safe. Someone was looking out for their well-being.

Now under this government it is all changing. The burden of proof will be on government regulators at HPB to prove that the products are harmful. Our system has been successful because it was based solely and solidly on the precautionary principle. The government seems to be now sacrificing that for a corporate friendly system of risk management.

This in our view is intolerable. We will fight it at every opportunity. Any risk is too high.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Rosemont for this initiative and for the role he has played in encouraging the federal government and the Minister of Health to take steps to allow the legal use of marijuana for health and medical purposes.

I would like to offer my support for this resolution, which states very clearly:

—the government should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical purposes.

Many of my colleagues in the NDP caucus have also worked very hard on this issue but I want to acknowledge many in our party who have come before us and have been quite outspoken on this matter over the years. All of us in our own ways have tried to find ways to put pressure on the federal government to act on behalf of persons who need to use marijuana for medical purposes, who need to find some relief from pain and suffering or to deal with the symptoms of chronic or terminal illnesses.

We all know that these people who are speaking out and asking for action are already in a poor physical state and are being forced to purchase marijuana illegally and with the risk of arrest.

We are here today to join with the Bloc and with all members in the House who support this view to urge the Liberal government today to take a brave step to overcome the history and associations of marijuana and recognize its value to the medical community as a part of legitimate treatment options.

We urge the Minister of Health, in the commitment that he made yesterday, to work with the Minister of Justice to ensure that people who use marijuana for medical purposes are never subject to prosecution.

Today we have before us this resolution from the Bloc now amended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health which will require some study and deliberations before we are prepared to indicate our support for the amended motion. Our major concern will be whether the intentions of the government, as stated today, will in any way inhibit access for those people who are suffering today.

It is one thing for the government to announce a plan of action to move on this very critical issue. It is another thing for individuals suffering from AIDS and other illnesses to wait four or five months before they will know whether there will be access.

It certainly does not answer the question about all those individuals who have been charged as a result of possession of marijuana for medical purposes, nor does it address the question of whether individuals currently under doctor's orders to access marijuana will be charged in the first place.

We have many questions that must be addressed. I think for all of us here today our concern is with trying to find a way to immediately alleviate the pain and suffering of individuals for whom marijuana prescribed on a medical basis is an important solution, an important alternative.

Members of the Reform Party have presented different positions to us and they are certainly going through a great deal of soul searching about where they stand on this issue. There are broader issues to be addressed. I think for today it is important for all of us to say that we must address this issue from the point of view of compassion and we must do it on the basis of a great deal of urgency.

I do not have to repeat the many arguments that have been presented to the House about the medical value of marijuana. I think it is important to simply summarize some of the information that has come from the medical and scientific community.

We know from studies that marijuana has been proven to be effective in reducing pressure in glaucoma. It has been proven to be successful in reducing vomiting and nausea associated with chemotherapy. It has been clearly identified as stimulating appetite in patients with AIDS wasting syndrome. It has been found to be useful in controlling spasticity associated with spinal cord injuries and MS. It has been found to decrease suffering from chronic pain. It has been found to be useful in controlling seizures in seizure disorders.

Marijuana is also considered to have a potential for a number of other conditions such as emphysema, because it dilates the bronchioles in lungs and in migraines. It has a wide margin of safety and by all accounts is non-lethal.

The other important factor in all this is that marijuana used for medical purposes does not have many of the side effects that so many other treatments entail, side effects that sometimes are so serious that patients stop using the medications despite their suffering.

I refer members to a 1997 editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine which refers to the parallel American prohibition as “misguided, heavy handed and inhumane”. It also states: “To demand evidence of therapeutic efficacy is equally hypocritical. The noxious sensations that patients experience are extremely difficult to quantify in controlled experiments. What really counts for a therapy with this kind of safety margin is whether a seriously ill patient feels relief as a result of the intervention, not whether a controlled trial proves its efficacy”.

Many scientists who are convinced of the value of marijuana in terms of its medical significance are advising patients to use it despite the legal risks.

I point to another study quoted in the national news on September 24, 1998: “Science is assembling convincing evidence that Queen Victoria was not merely catering to royal whim when she used marijuana to numb her menstrual cramps. “Researchers at the University of California have discovered that cannabis triggers a pain suppressing circuit in the brains of rats, which demonstrates that the drug is indeed a pain killer”.

The article outlines significant scientific and medical information to lead us to believe that study and research have been done on this issue. We may be just delaying the need to act by talking about clinical trials and further study before moving as quickly as possible on this matter.

I remind members of the most recent letter from the Canadian AIDS Society which urged all of us to support the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Rosemont: “As a result of the illness facing people with HIV and AIDS individuals often suffer severe nausea and an inability to eat. Wasting, which is a lack of body fat and muscle mass, is one of the leading causes of death for people with HIV and AIDS. Many of the current drug regimes that individuals are prescribed include strict timetables of when they can and cannot take the medication as well as whether the medications need to be taken with food or without. The side effects of these medications often include nausea”.

There is ample evidence of the benefits of marijuana use on a medical basis. There have been significant studies and clinical trials. I think the time is now for action.

What does the amendment put forward by the government today mean in terms of legal ramifications for people who are either charged now with illegal possession or are perhaps facing charges? I suggest to the minister that there is provision now within our Food and Drugs Act for actually ensuring that under the emergency relief program we can ensure reasonable and responsible access to marijuana for treatment in keeping with the requirements of Canadian law pertaining to the use of marijuana as a new drug under the Food and Drugs Act and as a controlled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

We will study very diligently the amendment of the government but we strongly support the motion put forward by the Bloc member and we urge the government to move quickly. We may need more clinical trials, more studies and more research but we also need to act immediately to deal with the pain and suffering of many individuals for whom there is no other reasonable alternative.