Merv Tweed

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Auditor General released a report that stated that the Liberal government was underfunding the RCMP. In Manitoba alone the government has cut 25 officers from the highway patrol unit.

Last Friday a local business woman from my constituency of Brandon--Souris had to call three RCMP detachments and wait five hours before an officer showed up, following a robbery at her rural grocery store. She stated that she felt very frustrated as they helplessly were forced to watch thieves take off with their goods.

In light of the Auditor General's report, the increasing street crime in Canada's cities and the lack of police manpower in rural communities, I call on the government to admit its Liberal soft on crime approach has failed Canadians and to state that a new Conservative government will end the useless long gun registry and give more support to our front line officers.

[Justice, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says that those who commit serious sexual assault could get house arrest under exceptional circumstances. For Canadians, house arrest for sexual assault under any circumstances is just unacceptable.

Can the minister explain how he defines exceptional circumstances, or is that just code for more soft on crime Liberal justice?

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is important for all of us not to ignore the issue of Internet pharmaceuticals and the bulk transfer of drugs. The member has a very important issue.

Regrettably, I live in a community of 50,000 plus people who continue to struggle on a day to day basis to find doctors to provide services to the community and to the region at large. It is frustrating that the government would focus on an issue like this at a time when so many other communities are facing the same shortages. I am not trying to belittle the issue that we are discussing tonight, but the far more important issue is the supply of doctors.

I know one of the members across, and I regret that I cannot remember the member's riding, stated that through the immigration policy we can enhance these opportunities and bring doctors into these communities that are in desperate need. In reality, the way the immigration system is now is almost prohibitive in bringing doctors into our communities.

Doctors in my communities have been in the immigration system for four years. They have met every qualification, they have been practising, we have accepted them as people in our community, as Canadians. Yet the system will not allow them to advance to finalize becoming Canadians. That is a far greater problem and a far greater obstacle.

If we had a surplus of doctors, the members across the floor might have some validity in suggesting that the one on one contact, if we decide we want to slow the industry down, might be good. There is no one on one contact with local doctors for the people in my community and that is my priority. I think it is a priority of many of the people who represent constituencies across Canada and it should be the priority of this government.

We need a way of bringing doctors to our country, training them and making them accessible to the rural parts of Canada which are not being served well by the government at this time.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the member is not necessarily wrong in his comments, but the antagonistic way in which the Minister of Health presents these to the public is to fearmonger. When the minister suggests that Canada will not become the drugstore for the United States, I think we can all agree that it is not our intent. However, it is the language the minister uses that tends to conjure up a government coming in with its heavy hand on an industry that has been relatively successful and obscure in the sense that it has never been brought to the public forum the way the minister has. The comments that he makes are too aggressive.

We do not want to see a shortage in Canada. With all the controversy that the minister has dragged up about Internet pharmacies, we have not seen this to date. We have not seen an issue where the Internet pharmacies have had to restrict, or reduce or cut back. If we listen to what they are saying, the suggestion is that one of the easiest ways to move this ball forward is to ban the sale of bulk drugs. They agree with that. They have been far more generous in their comments, suggesting it is not their desire either to see Canadians shortchanged.

However, to make a bold and sweeping brush statement that we will ban Internet pharmacies because Canada will not be the drugstore for the Americans, is only done for political reasons. To me it is political posturing. The member has made very reasonable comments, and I think most agree with that. We have to get rid of the rhetoric and work to possible and plausible solutions. I think it can be done and it can be done in the interests of all people. I think Canadians will and can benefit as can Internet pharmacies.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak on the take note debate that we are having tonight. I want to begin by first thanking and congratulating my colleague, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, who has been a leader on the health issues in Canada in the short time that he has been elected to Parliament.

The member has been willing to bring forward the issues that Canadians are prepared to discuss and wanting to discuss, and facing them head on with solutions that are sensible and acceptable by many and most Canadians.

We are talking about the bulk export of drugs particularly into the United States. It is important that we not confuse this with the one on one sale of drugs which constitutes the online pharmacy industry. It is important because sometimes the government in its anxiousness to be seen as protecting the health care of everybody at all cost, it sometimes confuses the two issues. It is very important to acknowledge that the online pharmacy industry in Canada is separate and different from the bulk export industry.

There is not a Canadian, there is not a member of Parliament, who would suggest that at any time we should ever jeopardize the supply of drugs to our Canadian population. We understand that. I think we all agree to that, but I think we cross a line sometimes when we try and tie the two together. Sometimes we attempt to make political points in some parts of the country at the expense of others who are to some degree taking advantage of a system that has been put into place and enhancing their opportunities not just for the individuals that are doing it but for the people of the communities that they represent and live in, and the people that they work for.

I know that some members of the government would agree that there is a distinct difference. I know that the President of the Treasury Board stated and he believes that Ottawa can rescue the Internet pharmacy industry and save the jobs, not only in Manitoba, but across Canada. He believes that is has found a market, found an opportunity and has developed it into a good business with sound principles, but also a business and an industry that understands that we must be always aware and cognizant of the issues affecting the drug supply to the people in Canada.

It sometimes surprises me when the Minister of Health makes statements that I think are meant to aggravate and perhaps incite the people of Canada. However, I sometimes wonder if what he is trying to do is in the best interest not only of the industry but in the best interests of Canadians.

I do want to make note and I know that the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia has mentioned it a couple of times, that there was a motion passed in the health committee that asked to study this issue. It was agreed upon and yet to this day the minister refuses to engage that committee and create some relevance where we can get a better understanding of the issue.

I do not think it is wise for governments to move forward on issues like these without proper consultation, without discussion, and without engaging Canadians on what they are asking for and what they are prepared to accept and prepared to work with.

We are talking about the Internet pharmacy this evening. I know that it has been mentioned by some of the members and one of the ways that they would control or regulate it would be by forcing patients to have an appointment with a doctor in Canada.

We live in an electronic age. We can travel anywhere in this world. We can access banking institutions with a card. We can access services anywhere in the world based on the recognition of a card. We put a card in and take our money and our services out. It is time that the government and Canadians accepted this as a way of moving forward and a way of providing service.

I challenge the government to tell me if it does not want to shut the industry down because sometimes I think that is its motive and that is what is driving the government.

We have a system in Canada right now where our patients cannot see doctors. We cannot get in. We have extremely long lineups and members across the floor would agree that it is an issue. Obviously, government members identified it. They said they have committed $41 billion to reduce lineups to see doctors. Yet, we want to force another group of people to have an appointment with a doctor in Canada. No matter where we are, the prescription is written by a qualified doctor. That, to me, is the issue. We do not have to question the credentials of the doctor. We do not have to verify them. Obviously, the relationship has worked well and has worked for many years.

I live in a border community and long before online pharmacy, people from the United States travelled to Canada with their prescriptions. This is not something new; it has been going on for many years. If we live in a border community anywhere in Canada and we ask our pharmacist what percentage of traffic is made up by Americans, I think we might be surprised at the number of people who are actually accessing our services and have been for years.

That is an important note to remember when we partake in the debate because the bottom line is that nothing has changed that has not happened in the last 20 years except the technology and the ability to access it. That is important to remember.

Where I live, and I suspect where most people live, getting an appointment with a doctor is difficult enough. To add this on top of it is only a ruse to suggest that the government wants to shut these pharmacies down. Government members may mask it in terms of ethics or in many other words they choose to use, but in essence, they are saying they want to shut this industry down. I do not think that is a good thing for Canadians or for the Canadian consumer. If we want to look at it purely from an economic position, it is not a good thing for the economics of our provinces and of our country.

As I said earlier, we must not confuse bulk exports with the one to one sale of drugs which constitutes the online pharmacy. I think we all agree that as long as we can offer a safe and secure supply to Canadians, we should continue to support the online pharmacy industry. Even the online pharmacies have agreed and recommended that if we were to ban the sale of bulk drugs to the U.S., we could resolve many of the issues that we have. It is not a complicated matter. It is a matter of supply and demand. We would not move large bulk supplies across to the United States or any country for that matter with the idea that we would protect the Canadian consumer.

In closing, we have to remember that across Canada many people access prescriptions without ever having seen a physician. It is done through home care. It is done through nursing. It is done through nurse practitioners. They make the call, they give the definition of the symptoms and the drug is prescribed. It is important that we never forget that. I think that a ban on bulk exports would satisfy all the stakeholders. It would ensure the viability of the Internet pharmacy, and a healthy Internet pharmacy in Canada is an option that we should all look at and consider.

[Unanticipated Surpluses Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing missing from the hon. member's statement was that he did not start it with once upon a time.

The member opposite talked about revenue projections of the government. I would remind him that over the last several years the Liberal government has missed revenue projections by $80 billion.

In his most recent comments he talked about the $1.9 billion surplus that overnight turned into a $9.1 billion surplus. I have to remind the hon. members that this is not government money. This is the money of the people of Canada, which seems to be forgotten by members on that side all the time. They are even starting to refer to their entitlement as our money, our budget surplus. This is Canadian money. This is overtaxation on Canadian taxpayers and that has to be recognized by the government.

The member said that this was not a spending bill but in reality it is a spending bill. If there is a surplus at the end of the year, as has been proven by the history of the government, it will continue to spend that surplus time and time again. At the end of the year and at the end of the day that money will not be there. It will be spent on Liberal projects. It will be spent as if it were Liberal money and it will be of benefit to very few Canadians.

Does the hon. member believe that Canadians actually believe the Liberals when they say that they will spend or share that money with Canadians, or does he believe that Canadians expect the Liberals to spend it on their own pet projects in their own communities?

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member discuss some of the issues in the bill. I know from listening to the comments particularly from the other side that there is a desire by the government to portray this as a Chuck Cadman bill.

Being new here last year, I cannot say that I knew Chuck Cadman, but I certainly had met him. Everyone that I have spoken to has talked about Chuck Cadman, his virtues, his strengths and his desire to see justice served to people who have committed crimes against people. He was tired of the revolving door policies of the justice system that we currently have of, as the member said, catching and releasing, catching and releasing, catching and releasing.

I am wondering if the member could tell the House and Canadians how he thinks Chuck Cadman with whom he had worked closely would have perceived this type of bill with the changes that have been made.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the government across the way that there are over 170,000 vehicles stolen annually and that is what the bill is addressing. In the member's comments when he was talking about the onus of proof, if I understand it correctly, I would say that Mr. Cadman's bill put the onus on the person charged to explain why he or she had a vehicle with a stolen VIN.

To me that would be the obvious direction we would want to take. I would suggest that having the crown prove that a person caught with a stolen vehicle knows that it was stolen would simply lead to long, prolonged court cases. It would take forever to find out the truth, as opposed to when a person who is charged has to explain why he or she has a stolen vehicle. I would like the member to explain this to the House and to Canadians.

The member opposite wants to talk about process. We know the Liberal process is to delay, delay, delay and then it issues get out of jail free cards to everyone.

I would ask the member opposite if he would like to explain the difference between putting the onus on the person who is charged to defend why he or she has a vehicle with a stolen VIN and why he would want the crown to prove that a person caught with a stolen vehicle must prove that he or she knew that it was stolen?

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, whenever we talk about justice issues all we hear from the other side is talk about maximum sentences, and yet when we read the newspapers and when people see these crimes being committed, seldom is the maximum penalty imposed. I know from my own experience in Manitoba that automobile theft is at an all-time high, particularly in the city of Winnipeg.

The member said that changing some of the wording of Mr. Cadman's original presentation would prevent any problems being created with respect to autobody shops that have to change or alter the VINs. The first part of Mr. Cadman's bill stated that everyone commits an offence who wholly or partially alters, removes, or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse. Would an autobody shop that needs to make a necessary change not be covered? Would it not be operating with lawful excuse and therefore not be considered a part of the extension that has been added to this bill?

[Infrastructure, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 246 days since the government announced its new deal for cities and communities. The government has been signing deals since March and other provinces have been able to move forward with their plans and projects.

My province of Manitoba has lost six months' worth of valuable construction time, an entire season. Manitobans deserve their fair share. The only ones who seem to get the cash when they want it are the government's cronies who do not have to wait for approval, they just put it on their expense accounts.

It is within the government's power to make this deal happen. The Prime Minister must stop dithering and instruct Manitoba's lead minister to start rowing or get out of the boat. Maybe someone else can get this deal done for the benefit of all Manitoba communities. I urge the government to act today.