Libby Davies

[Elimination of Racial Profiling Act, November 18th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an act to eliminate racial profiling.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today and I thank my hon. colleague for seconding the motion. This is a very important bill because it would eliminate racial profiling and take a step forward to reaffirming the right of all Canadians to equal treatment under the law.

There is no question that we need a legally binding mechanism to ensure the accountability of our enforcement agencies and officials to all people of Canada, regardless of their race or religious beliefs. We have seen an increase in targeting based on ethnic background and colour. This has happened particularly since September 11. We need to have a bill which makes it clear that racial profiling is not allowed in this country. This bill would take steps to do that.

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

[Criminal Code, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16, which is the companion bill to the bill we debated earlier in the day, the so-called decriminalization of marijuana bill.

I must say this particular bill which deals with drug impaired driving has not received nearly the same amount of attention or scrutiny as the bill that we debated earlier today. In fact, when this bill was introduced in the last Parliament, many of us felt that it had been very hastily thrown together and the government had responded to a criticism that it had not adequately dealt with the issue of drug impaired driving.

I would like to begin my remarks by drawing attention to some of the information that is contained within the government's own background information in presenting this bill. In the backgrounder it is pointed out, for example, that the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec has determined that 30% of fatal accidents in that province involve drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. A traffic injury research foundation poll in 2002 found that close to 20% of Canadian drivers had driven within two hours of taking a potentially impairing drug, whether it was an over the counter legal prescription or an illegal substance.

I find this very interesting because it really highlights that the fundamental issue we are dealing with is not whether or not a substance is legal; it is whether people take prescription drugs, an illegal substance or drink alcohol when they drive. This point really needs to be driven home, excuse the pun. It is very pertinent to the critical issue of education and people taking responsibility for their actions.

While we believe it is very important in dealing with the decriminalization of marijuana to ensure that there is a rules based approach and that there are proper regulations around use, including impairment, while under the influence of drugs, the most important thing is probably education and self-responsibility. If anybody doubts that, one only has to look at the laws we have. There are all kinds of laws around drunk driving. There are all kinds of criminal prohibitions.

There is massive enforcement, although some people would argue there is not enough. I would argue that over the years what has changed in terms of people's attitudes around drunk driving has come from education, from groups like MADD, local organizations, parent groups, youth groups, through peer education and training in schools. People have come to the realization that driving while under the influence of a legal or illegal substance that can impair one's ability is something that is very wrong and which we all have to take responsibility for.

I want to make that point first and foremost. We can always say that we rely on the law and police enforcement to correct a problem, but we should never overlook, but in fact we often do overlook, the significant value of education and a sense of responsibility that we all have.

In dealing with drug impairment, it should be pointed out that this already is an offence. The problem is there is no sound scientific or objective process for having a test done similar to what there is for alcohol. In fact, again reading from the backgrounder prepared by the government, there is no legal limit offence for drugs as there is elsewhere in the Criminal Code for alcohol.

Unlike alcohol, for the vast majority of drugs there is no scientific consensus on the threshold level of drug concentration in the body that causes the impairment and makes driving hazardous. Technology to detect drug concentration at the roadside is neither an available nor an effective option.

Given this background, I think this should give us some real cause for caution in examining what this bill is about. As I say, from the perspective of the NDP, we certainly support the principle and idea that there has to be effective regulation, but I think we have to proceed on the basis that we examine the proposed bill and that we do it, wherever possible, on a scientific and objective basis.

For example, right now police can ask for, and people can voluntarily subject themselves to, a certain level of testing that can involve blood samples, saliva or urine testing. That is now only done on a voluntary basis. Under the bill police powers would be extended to compel that to be a mandatory requirement.

The issue for doing that involves a series of procedures that are known as drug recognition expert training. At this point only 123 officers in Canada have that training. That is obviously a serious shortcoming. In fact, this testing, if we can call it that, is only used by police in Quebec, B.C. and Manitoba. Again, I emphasize it is only when the driver has voluntarily agreed to participate.

If this is to be extended, if it is to be made mandatory, I would certainly echo the concerns of my colleague from the Bloc, of whether or not there are adequate funds to make this happen. This is something of great concern that we will have to examine when the bill goes to committee.

There are other issues. The Canadian Bar Association has raised some questions about whether or not demanding bodily fluid samples without a warrant is something that could be subject to challenges under the charter. This is something that needs to be examined.

From our perspective in the NDP we support the idea that there needs to be clear regulations. We support the idea that there needs to be enforcement. We believe it is very important that the committee hear from expert witnesses on this issue. I think there is some ambiguity about how these tests are applied, about what the longer term consequences are of these tests and whether or not there are areas where they could be considered to be infringing on people's civil liberties based on the fact that they would be mandatory and not voluntary.

I am sure we will have an opportunity at the committee to go through the bill, to put it under the microscope of that kind of examination and to hear from witnesses.

At the end of the day, because there is a nervousness, there is a jitteriness about proceeding with the first bill, we have to be very concerned that the government does not rush through this companion piece of legislation which may have some serious problems with it. We want to make sure that the examination by the committee takes place with expert witnesses with proper training. We must ensure that whatever rules are put in place for drug impaired driving are rules that can be backed up, that can meet various charter tests. We must ensure that adequate training is involved. Most of all, we must understand the importance of providing education to people.

I would say all of the attention is focused on marijuana. If we really want to worry about what is taking place, we should think about the people who are taking prescriptions and getting in their cars and driving in a way that they are impaired and not in full control of their faculties.

In some ways, perhaps this is an opportunity for us to focus on the broader issue because the marijuana bill is before us today. We should not lose sight of the fact that whether it is legal or illegal is not the issue. It is the issue of substance use and what happens when one is impaired and driving. We will give that full examination at the committee.

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak yet again to a bill that would reform our laws governing marijuana.

I will begin by echoing the comments made by my friend from the Bloc. The bill has been before us twice. This is the third time around. It was only because the former finance minister, now the Prime Minister, was afraid to take this on before an election that we are now back in a position of redebating a bill that already went to a committee, already had some amendments made to it and is now back in the House. I think that needed to be said.

This issue has been kicking around for more than 30 years. We can go all the way back to the LeDain commission and the recommendations that were made around decriminalization and legalization. It seems to me that there is a reality out in the broader community around this issue but it is the elected representatives who have failed to catch up and be realistic about what we need to do when it comes to drug policy and law reform.

I am proud to say that the federal NDP has long advocated for the decriminalization of marijuana. I believe we are the only party in the House that actually at our party convention had a resolution and a policy for decriminalization.

In advocating that position, we understand that we need a drug policy that does not primarily rely only on the police and the criminal justice system. I think there is a growing consensus across the country that our current marijuana laws are not working and that the drug laws themselves now cause enormous harm. Decriminalization, we believe, is a first step, but it is not the only step. It is a first step to what needs to be an open and honest debate and dialogue about the failure of the current practices.

The policy toward marijuana has too often been approached from the point of view, and I think an incorrect perspective, of focusing on the misguided belief that the illegal status of the drug is the primary factor in preventing use. This is a very important point. I listened to the Conservative member reading out some of the concerns people have about drug use and people who were in treatment.

What the Conservatives cannot deal with and the reality that they continue to deny is that by relying on criminal enforcement as the primary tool for preventing use we have actually made the situation worse. By denying reality and proper education and treatment to people, particularly young people, they are actually making the situation worse by driving the problem underground.

We understand what that contradiction is about. We believe that Canada must build a workable policy on marijuana that recognizes the failure of criminalizing people for their drug use. These policies must be part of a broader drug strategy that focuses on a health based approach, as recommended by the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs on which I was a member.

In fact, the introduction of the former bill on marijuana in June 2003 was accompanied by an announcement of a renewal of Canada's drug strategy providing $245 million over five years. I want to point out that that commitment fell far short of what was recommended by the special committee and is barely half of what was promised by the Liberals in the 2000 election.

I would also point out that in the Auditor General's report of 2001, the report on illicit drugs sharply questioned the reliance on enforcement and pointed out that 95% of federal funds spent on the illicit drug use in Canada were used toward enforcement and interdiction.

We have barely put anything toward treatment and with the money that we do put into enforcement, what have we solved? Does anyone believe that we have actually solved this issue?

We believe that Canada should take steps to move marijuana out of the criminal legal framework and eliminate punitive measures for responsible adult marijuana use. We believe that we must move forward to a discussion on the best system of rules based on public health education.

For instance, there should be rules about age, rules about impaired driving and rules to tackle commercial grow ops. The federal NDP believe that the federal government must move beyond decriminalization and examine and introduce a non-punitive rules based approach to adult marijuana use, with an emphasis on prevention, education and health promotion.

Marijuana policy needs to eliminate the criminalization of users and focus on reducing the harms and preventing crime. What the federal government should be doing is putting resources behind public education rather than on criminal prosecution. We only have to look at the examples of tobacco and alcohol to know that consistent and strong messaging on the health risks associated with tobacco and alcohol have actually helped to reduce consumption, particularly with tobacco. It was not by making that substance illegal. It was by providing people with real honest options and a health based approach and rules around use.

It is not necessary to use criminal law to discourage harmful forms of drug use. In fact in many cases, as we have seen over the last few decades, it actually can be counterproductive.

We also believe that policy objectives need to pay special attention to keeping cannabis and other drugs out of the hands of minors. Again, this is where we need to focus on rules and enforcement that is targeted, based on rules to prevent use by minors. Recent studies have shown that consumption among youth has actually risen. The reality is that kids are choosing to opt for marijuana over tobacco.

The issue of driving under the influence of marijuana also needs to be addressed. There is another bill on that and we will be speaking to it as well.

Public policy must also recognize that the prohibitionist laws continue to fuel organized crime and other violent organizations in our society. Prohibiting drugs creates a huge black market that greatly inflates the value of drugs and the profits to be made by selling them. Even the extensive law enforcement resources used by countries such as the United States to enforce prohibition clearly show that they cannot make any appreciable dent in the drug trade as long as prohibition continues. The economic incentive created by prohibition to sell drugs is so powerful that law enforcement really has no chance of stopping the trade.

We need to look beyond our closest neighbour and come up with a comprehensive and safe marijuana policy. The U.S. driven war on drugs is not a Canadian made solution. I do not believe we should be intimidated by some of the rhetoric we have heard from the United States that somehow we have no right to develop our own policies that are rational and intelligent. Canada should look instead to the United States as an example of a country with a disastrously failed drug policy, a failed policy because of its perennial reliance on prohibition.

When this bill last came forward, the NDP members on the committee sought various improvements and we did get some changes in the bill. We will continue to seek improvements to the bill this time around.

We want to ensure that there is an amnesty provision for those who have had a conviction for the simple possession of marijuana. About 600,000 Canadians have a record for that reason. We want to ensure that the records of fines for possession are sealed and not shared with Interpol or other foreign jurisdictions.

We want to put in measures for non-commercial transfers of marijuana to prevent passing a joint from a friend being considered as trafficking. This is what happened to Mr. Emery. He is now in jail as a result of that particular aspect of the law in terms of passing a joint.

We also want to ensure that reasonable grounds are required for searches. For example, for a warrant to be issued, police should have reasonable grounds to suspect that more than 30 grams are in a home.

We also want to see changes to the fine regime. We want to see non-punitive measures for personal cultivation of up to five plants.

Basically, we need to ensure that there is a distinction between private and public use of marijuana.

We look forward to the bill going to committee. We will have very serious amendments for consideration to improve the bill.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to give a brief reply to the parliamentary secretary.

I would point out that the member is portraying the deletion of section 6 of the Canada Health Act in 1995 as simply some minor technical amendment. The reality is the deletion of that section has created and paved the way for the privatization of extended health and home care services.

Time and time again we have heard the Liberals deny in the House that they changed the Canada Health Act. We have an acknowledgement and an admission today that yes, indeed, section 6 was changed in 1995.

I come back to my main point. If the government has been so diligent in defending the Canada Health Act and if the government has been so diligent in ensuring the public delivery of public services with public funding, then why do we have this crisis? Why do we have an absolute violation of the principles of the Canada Health Act? Why do we have privatization? Why do we have waiting lists? Why do we have these for profit corporations banging down the door with apparently no punitive recourse from the federal government?

It is up to the federal government to enforce the Canada Health Act and--

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to press further on the concerns I first raised during question period on October 22 when I questioned the new Minister of Health about the deepening and increasing privatization of health care that is taking place across Canada. I also questioned him as to why on earth the federal government was siding with big tobacco in a law suit that began in B.C.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak further on the concerns that have been expressed to me by many constituents from East Vancouver and, indeed, from people across Vancouver and British Columbia about the state of our health care system.

We know that in September there was a meeting of first ministers around health care. A lot of people watched the live coverage and even the non-coverage as they sat and looked at the empty chairs. However a lot of people focused on that debate because they certainly saw it as one of the key issues facing our society, and that is the crisis in our public health care system.

One of the things that was very disturbing was the fact that there was barely a mention and certainly no resolution on how to deal with increasing privatization. It has been very disappointing to hear the new Minister of Health, who comes from B.C. and who was a former premier and former cabinet minister in the B.C. legislature, basically do zilch in speaking out and making it clear that the federal government will stop the privatization of our health care system.

In B.C. alone the situation is very alarming. For example, surgeries are now being planned to be contracted out to private facilities, while publicly funded and publicly operated operating rooms remain closed at facilities like Mount St. Joseph Hospital. We have four operating rooms operating very much under capacity at the B.C. Children's Hospital, most of them just sitting there idle, while at the same time, because of a backlog, the provincial government is saying that it wants to send surgeries out to private facilities.

At the first ministers conference there was a lot of debate and discussion around waiting lists, but there was no resolution on dealing with privatization and how by closing down public facilities and laying off public health care workers we have actually created the backlog in operating rooms in various procedures that were done previously through the publicly funded and publicly delivered system.

What we have seen the government walking into consciously is an environment where it has created the stage and created the situation where private health care interests can come forward and say that they have a deal for us. We have been very concerned about this.

We have also been concerned about the contracting out of the B.C. medical services plan and what violation that will pose for the privacy of Canadians and for people in B.C. under the U.S. patriot act. Again, we have seen nothing from this government to stop that.

We are waiting to see enforcement of the Canada Health Act. In fact, there was a coalition of public health care defenders, including CUPE , the Canadian Health Coalition, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, CEP and the Council of Canadians who actually went to court to defend the accountability and transparency from the federal government on our public health care system.

To date, we have been terribly disappointed and alarmed at the lack of action taken by the Minister of Health. We wonder whether he changed his principles after he changed his political membership in a political party, because we have yet to see him take action to defend our public health care system.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Thirteen budgets.

[Child Care, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today is Child Care Worker and Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day. It is a day to recognize and celebrate the valuable contribution child care workers make to the lives of kids, parents and society. However, child care workers need more than appreciation. They need decent wages. They are underpaid and undervalued. That is why we need legislation to ensure a system that is publicly funded, not for profit, affordable and universally accessible.

Next week the government has a clear opportunity at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers responsible for child care. The federal NDP says to the Liberals, no more broken promises. We want legislation now. We want child care workers to be paid adequately. We demand better for our kids. Put it in legislation and put in the money. No more excuses.

[Health, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record, because section 6 was deleted in 1995 and as a result home care services in this country were privatized.

The Minister of Health's job is to protect the health of Canadians, not abandon them, so why is he siding with big tobacco? Can he explain to Canadians why he cannot afford a pharmacare program but he can afford to help big tobacco in a lawsuit that is against the interests of Canadians?

[Health, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. We know that the minister has done nothing to stop credit card medicine as he gets cozier with his new friends. Now we have the Prime Minister's office claiming that he would never touch the Canada Health Act. Here is another example of their saying one thing and doing something else.

Does the Minister of Health deny that his friends deleted section 6 of the Canada Health Act in 1995, yes or no?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will acknowledge they exist. There are three independent review bodies for those agencies I listed and two statutory review bodies for CSIS. But let me ask why we had to get to the point of a public inquiry with Maher Arar. Those review bodies existed during the time that whole case developed. It took enormous public pressure to finally convince the government to hold a public inquiry.

Yes, those bodies exist. In theory, they have a mandate to provide oversight and review, but one has to wonder how on earth we got to the situation with Maher Arar, because they certainly did not protect his rights and now we have a public inquiry to investigate what the heck went wrong.