February 16, 2004

LIB

Wayne Easter

Liberal

Hon. Wayne Easter

That is not correct.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
PC

Greg Thompson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Greg Thompson

There are cabinet ministers who actually resigned because of the use of those very words, Mr. Speaker.

In fact back about 1995, the deputy prime minister of Canada at that time actually resigned her seat on that very promise. She is the only one on that side of the House who had enough integrity to do that.

Every one of those people over there who tend to get excited when they hear this, knocked on doors continually through 1993 promising that that dreadful tax would be eliminated. Of course it never was and we know it never will be.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
LIB

Wayne Easter

Liberal

Hon. Wayne Easter

And now we are eliminating it from the municipalities, or reducing it in some cases.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
PC

Greg Thompson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Greg Thompson

I hope the member from Prince Edward Island gets a chance to speak and perhaps I will sit in my seat and heckle. But of course I would not heckle like that.

That is the same government which in 1993 said it would change NAFTA. Between NAFTA and the free trade agreement with the Americas, with the United States of America in particular, that has been the engine that has propelled our economy, as members well know. That coupled with the GST has really been the reason the government has--and we will give the government some credit, in terms of eliminating the deficit, but the deficit is only one side of the coin.

The Liberals do not brag much about this but the Government of Canada today is indebted by $35 billion more than when they took office. It is close to $600 billion in total accumulated debt. When the Liberals talk about eliminating deficits, they are only telling part of the story. The fact is that during the high growth period between 1993 and 2003, the Liberals paid very little attention to paying down the debt, something they said they would do but they have not done. As we stand here the country of Canada owes $35 billion more than when the Liberals took office. They cannot get out from underneath that. That commitment has not been honoured. Promises were made, but there was no commitment, no follow-through and no action.

A member spoke earlier on the democratic deficit. That is an interesting one. The present Prime Minister has talked about democratizing Parliament, giving more power to individual members of Parliament where their vote would count. We have seen some pretty horrid examples of how he has followed through on that one. The House had been in session for less than a week and he had already implemented closure. He will do it again before the session is out, provided he can survive that long because the Liberals are dropping like a rock in the polls. One of the reasons they are is the very topic that we are on today, throne speeches and promises not kept, promises broken. The track record as I said is 77% of their promises either have been broken or have not been kept.

Finally, after 10 solid years of promises and lip service, results are showing up in the polls. When the present Prime Minister was chosen as leader by his party and he became the Prime Minister of Canada, people expected something different, something new, something refreshing and it just did not happen.

On the very first day back in the House of Commons, he had to swallow himself whole attempting to explain the $161 million that his shipping company received courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
?

An hon. member

I thought it was $137,000.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
PC

Greg Thompson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Greg Thompson

Originally it started out being $73,000, or was that $173,000?

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
?

An hon. member

I thought it was $137,000.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
PC

Greg Thompson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Greg Thompson

Mr. Speaker, it was $137,000, but give or take $160 million, it was just a small mistake, was it not? That was when the Prime Minister stood in the House and said that he did not know about the mistake in the numbers.

Why would his company receive $161 million and he would not know it? His excuse was that he was busy in the leadership race. We know he was busy undermining the Prime Minister at the time for 10 solid years, so we can accept the fact that he was busy. The most interest thing is that he knew that excuse would not hold. Then he said he did find out about it at such and such a time but that he did not do anything about it. “Then when I finally became Prime Minister”, and I am quoting him from that public meeting televised by CBC, he said, “Only when I became Prime Minister and I had my hands on the levers of power, could I actually ask for the real number”.

The Prime Minister himself does not believe that one. That is the biggest fabrication in the history of Parliament. Every single member of Parliament, and Mr. Speaker, you know it because I am sure you have done it, can pick up the phone and ask the Auditor General to investigate. I have done that and just about every member on this side of the House has done it.

The fact of the matter is, the Liberals are dropping in the polls because 10 years of unkept promises have finally caught up with them.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
CA

Vic Toews

Canadian Alliance

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, speaking about broken promises, among all of the scandal to do with this Liberal money laundering scheme, we now hear about $2 billion on the gun registry. When I first heard about this I thought no, that was $2 million. I distinctly remember the Minister of Justice saying it would cost taxpayers $2 million. Now the Liberals say it is $2 billion.

Does the member have any comment about the impact on crime that this $2 billion boondoggle is having?

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
PC

Greg Thompson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Greg Thompson

Mr. Speaker, that is another example of the Liberal government not paying attention to detail. Originally, it was going to cost $1 million and then that ballooned to $1 billion. Now we are hearing it is up to $2 billion and it has done nothing, as our justice critic will confirm, to reduce crime. Basically, it is taxing innocent Canadians on a failed policy.

There have been a number of failed policies on that side of the House. For example, the former international trade minister has been promising us for years that he will fix the softwood lumber dispute with the Americans. They are just a bunch of words. That dispute has not gone away. Nothing has gone away on that side of the House. We have had 10 years of inaction on any of those major files.

The gun registry is a failed policy of the Government of Canada. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister, in talking about the democratic deficit, said that it would be opened up for review. There would be a discussion among the Liberal caucus on that failed registry. Even the Prime Minister admitted it has been a failure.

Now, after the House resumed for a couple of weeks, he has finally told his caucus there will be no free vote on the gun registry. The gun registry stays. It is $2 billion and counting. How much more will the taxpayer take?

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
LIB

Wayne Easter

Liberal

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's facts are quite wrong in a number of areas.

He went on with a lot of rhetoric and conjecture in terms of saying that $2 billion have gone to the gun registry, which is absolutely wrong. As I understand the way those numbers are calculated, it is a cumulation of the work done by the police and the courts. He is exaggerating the numbers way out of proportion.

The cost of the registry, yes, is too high. The government has admitted that. It has put in place an action plan to control it. It will be about $1 billion by 2005, but that is beside the point.

The hon. member talked about some failures when he was talking about the throne speech. Yes, the government has been in power 10 years, but would he see the fact that we have now had several budgets with surpluses a failure?

When we took over government there was a $42 billion annual deficit and we brought that under control. The throne speech talks about the emphasis on health care, children and infrastructure programs. The reason we are able to do that is because we manage the funds of this country properly.

Does he consider the fact that we manage the finances right and are doing things for the economy and people a failure? Does he consider that a failure or is he just playing politics?

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
PC

Greg Thompson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Greg Thompson

Mr. Speaker, the sheer fact that the Government of Canada owes $35 billion more today than when it took office in terms of the accumulated debt tells me that there has been some level of failure on that side of the House. I give credit where credit is due on some files, but the fact of the matter is there are a number of failed policies and the gun registry is one of them.

The member will try to slide out from underneath that one, but unfortunately he lives in a rural riding and he will not be able to. No matter who does the calculation, it is a failed policy and it has failed miserably to the tune of $2 billion.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Pettigrew

Liberal

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Health, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Official Languages, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the Minister of State for Public Health.

Thank you for allowing me to speak to this motion this morning. As Minister of Health, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Official Languages, I am pleased to support the vision for Canada laid out by the government in the Speech from the Throne.

As the speech and the Prime Minister's recent comments have made clear, health care is still our country's priority. We are at the dawn of a new era in federal-provincial relations, and linguistic duality will continue to be at the heart of our identity.

Canadians continue to believe in the fundamental values that the Canada Health Act is based on. They also believe in justice and equality, and in government provided services to ensure that access to them is based on need, not the ability to pay. That is the Canadian difference.

This government, along with its provincial and territorial partners, has achieved great things with respect to renewing and strengthening the health care system. We have recognized the challenges that await us and we will meet them without hesitation.

Last February, for example, the first ministers reached an historic agreement on health care reform, an action plan to ensure proper access to quality care according to need, rather than ability to pay, as well as to increase the transparency of the health system and its responsibility to the people of Canada.

By investing $34.8 billion over five years, the Canadian government has indicated its commitment to implement the agreement. The bulk of this amount has been transferred to the provinces and territories to provide them with predictable and growing funding for their health programs. Funds were also allocated to long-term structural reform, as well as immediate reduction of certain tensions within the health care system.

I am pleased to say that, in his initial meeting with Canadian first ministers last month, the Prime Minister indicated to his provincial and territorial counterparts that the federal government would be increasing its commitment by $2 billion this year.

This investment will provide more support for reform and help provincial and territorial administrations meet the major challenges ahead of them. These are substantial investments. Yet, as all those who have looked at our health care system are aware, money alone is not enough.

We need deep and lasting structural changes. That is why the governments have committed in this agreement to improving access to home care, as an alternative to hospital care. This is a cost-effective solution for Canadians.

We are also renewing primary care, in order to facilitate patients' access to the appropriate care from the appropriate source at the appropriate time. We are also looking at a way to provide coverage of the cost of expensive medications for people who are putting themselves into financial ruin by having to buy certain necessary prescription drugs.

It is a good to know that, together with our partners, we are making progress in these vital sectors. I am sure that progress will continue.

We have already achieved a lot. There was the inaugural meeting of the new national health council composed of leading Canadians from coast to coast.

The council embodies the government's commitment toward openness, transparency and accountability. The council will monitor the implementation of the accord and report back to Canadians.

In particular, it will monitor how long Canadians have to wait for important diagnostic results or badly needed treatment. It is information that will be critical to our shared commitment to reduce waiting times. The council's job is not to point fingers but to give Canadians vital information on medical outcomes.

Canadians are investing more than $100 billion a year in health care. They have the right to see how the system is performing and how it might work even better. Ultimately, it is about accountability to the people who use the health care system and who pay for it.

In December, the Government of Canada delivered on another important promise by establishing the Canadian Patient Safety Institute. This new, non-profit organization will work with the provinces, territories, and other stakeholders to examine the circumstances that result in patients becoming ill or injured through medical interventions. The goal, obviously, is to decrease the risk of accidents or errors in the health care system.

Another key commitment we have fulfilled relates to new employment insurance benefits for Canadians forced to leave work temporarily to support a gravely ill or dying parent, spouse or child.

These are some of the more prominent steps that the government has taken, but permit me to underline that we are not starting from scratch.

Health Canada and its many partners have had in place for a long time a vast range of excellent initiatives to improve the well-being of children and youth, women, seniors, aboriginal people, the disabled, and indeed all Canadians. Given the complexity of the health care challenge, more needs to be done.

Toward that end, the Speech from the Throne promised that the Government of Canada would take the lead in establishing a strong and responsive public health system starting with the new Canada public health agency. I know my colleague, the Minister of State for Public Health, will want to elaborate on that point. We will be working together on that.

The federal government wants to improve the overall health of Canadians so my government will focus on health promotion with a view to reducing the incidence of avoidable diseases. We look forward to any advice and recommendations that will come from the proposed new chief public health officer for Canada to address the toll of both communicable and non-communicable diseases.

Shortly after taking over the health portfolio, I had the opportunity to travel across the country to meet with my counterparts in all the provinces and territories. I am encouraged to find and to report to the House that there remains a deep and abiding respect for the Canada Health Act. Though there will always be differences of opinion on how best to deliver or organize health care services, there is a strong consensus about the fundamental principles--the idea that we can work together within the act to improve the health of Canadians.

Allow me to say a few words on federal-provincial relations, an area where our government, the government of the current Prime Minister, is determined to change the tone, promote cooperation and consider the provinces and territories as partners in governance, in helping our country adjust to this era of globalization. We want the provinces to be partners and we want to cooperate with them. We know that we can achieve a lot more by working with the provinces.

Of course, there will always be differences and tensions in our federation. This is normal. These differences and tensions can truly generate healthy competition within the federation to better serve our fellow citizens. However, the tone must change. This will be achieved in part through new policies. The Prime Minister indicated his willingness to negotiate the issue of parental leave with the Quebec government. He asked me ensure that we work more efficiently with provincial governments, particularly the Quebec government, at the international level.

So this is the beginning of a new era. The end of polarization is providing us with a unique opportunity. For the past 40 years, the issue of Quebec's independence has created a polarization that, in this debate, has prevented an approach as balanced and rational as it should have been. Last week, we lost a great political voice. My former boss, Claude Ryan, will be remembered for expressing so profoundly such a balanced and rational view.

I believe that, at last, without this polarization around the issue of independence, such political voices can significantly strengthen Quebec's chances of faring as well as it did in the past, before this polarization, when Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage were in office.

As regards official languages, we will implement the action plan that our government fully intends to recognize as essential to our Canadian identity.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
BQ

Réal Ménard

Bloc Québécois

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to question the Minister of Health. I wish him the best of luck.

I have two questions for him. As a Quebecker who is deeply attached to Quebec, something I do not question, is he not a little worried about his government using health for nation building? Does he not remember the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister saying he was concerned about the creation of a Canadian public health agency when there is a Quebec public health agency? Quebec only has observer status at the Canadian health council because it already has its own health council.

My first question for the Minister of Health is the following. Can he give us assurances that he will not be part of this movement using health for nation building? Second, does he not believe that it is contradictory of his government to appeal parental leave when the minister says his government wants to negotiate, and can he promise that Quebec will be given what it is entitled to, by being allowed to develop a truly integrated parental leave system without an appeal?

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Pettigrew

Liberal

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Speaker, there are two questions. I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, for his interest in this issue. He has been following it for a number of years.

Essentially, I know that the Bloc Quebecois tells us, and I think the people of Quebec know it well, that because we are different, we must achieve independence. With the slogan last fall of “Parce qu'on est différents”—because we are different—we can see that the Bloc Quebecois's platform has always been to focus on differences, on what divides, rather than on what unites us with others.

If there is one way Quebeckers are not different: germs do not stop at political borders. When we see crises like SARS or any other similar situations, while we respect the expertise developed by the Government of Quebec, like the excellent expertise developed in British Columbia, naturally, we do not want to duplicate research or reinvent the wheel.

Nevertheless, to us—in the light of the what we have experienced, particularly in the case of SARS—it seems imperative to develop Canadian expertise which will, of course, rely on what exists in each provinces and allow better coordination among the various jurisdictions. That is the reason we want to take this course of action.

As for the second question, concerning parental leave, the decision about an appeal will be made by our government, on the basis of a judgment that goes far beyond the issue of parental leave. The Attorney General of Canada and cabinet will make a decision on this. I think this decision to appeal or not—with respect to the entire decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal—should not be interpreted as a refusal to negotiate.

The judgment goes far beyond parental leave. Perhaps we will need to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court. It will be up to the government and the Attorney General to decide. Nevertheless, we could open parallel negotiations with the Government of Quebec on the subject of parental leave. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada suggested to Premier Charest of Quebec at the first ministers meeting last month.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
BQ

Réal Ménard

Bloc Québécois

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Health to state clearly in this House that there is no question of implying that our sovereignty plan is dividing Quebeckers and does not respect the anglophone or francophone communities.

I would like him to explain the following. How can he, on the one hand, say that there is room for negotiations and, on the other hand, appeal the ruling on parental leave? Does he recognize that this has been going on since 1998? Will he be a bit more aggressive, vocal and active in cabinet? This matter has remained unresolved for far too long.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Pettigrew

Liberal

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Speaker, in 1997, when I was Minister of Human Resources Development, I received a mandate to negotiate parental leave. I tried to resolve this issue in 1997. If it has taken so long, it is perhaps because, in 1997, the Quebec government did not make budget decisions that would have allowed Quebec to implement a parental leave program.

If the Quebec government wants to provide a more generous program, we encourage it to do so. The Canadian government is a strong believer in this federalism which is a kind of race toward better programs, where the experience of one jurisdiction will benefit other jurisdictions.

We are delighted with this. This is what happened in 1997. We were completely open-minded, and we made a generous financial offer to the Quebec government, but Mr. Landry did not want to allow Ms. Marois to allocate the necessary additional funds to implement such a program.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
LIB

Carolyn Bennett

Liberal

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on the address in response to the Speech from the Throne, in my new position as Minister of State for Public Health.

I would like to thank my constituents in the riding of St. Paul's who over the past six years demonstrated the civic literacy and participated in the two way accountability that are the prerequisites of a robust democracy. From 9/11 to SARS, their understanding of the complexity of the problems and their commitment to finding real solutions have inspired me and informed my work in every way.

I would like to start with a point on which I believe we can all agree: health and health care are our nation's first priority. Both the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's reply have made this clear.

Canadians have made it clear to us that their main priority is health and health care.

Canadians expect us to be serious about ensuring that this most cherished Canadian social program is sustained for our children and our grandchildren. As Roy Romanow said, it is “Building on Values”, most important, the Canadian values of that double solidarity between the rich and the poor and the sick and the well.

Our only real hope of sustaining our publicly funded health care system is to help Canadians stay healthy so they do not have to use it. Protecting and promoting health is the key to achieving that goal.

Last year's public health crisis from SARS to BSE to West Nile taught us that we were all in this together. This means that no one can be forgotten, no community is worth less than another, no threat can be dismissed. The planet has never been smaller and germs do not respect borders. Therefore, as the Prime Minister has said, working in partnership with the provinces and territories, we will design an effective, co-ordinated Canadian public health system that serves our citizens and allows us to play our part in global health.

That partnership is already in place. We want to strengthen the foundation by building on it. The federal government will start by getting its own house in order to re-energize a national partnership that can truly protect Canadians.

The government will therefore be getting its own house in order and re-establishing a national partnership that will truly protect Canadians.

We will begin by naming the first chief public health officer for Canada who can sit at the table with the medical officers of health from every province and territory. This officer will be a woman or man who Canadians will come to see as the country's doctor, a health professional who can be trusted to advise citizens and advise the government.

The chief public health officer for Canada will also speak for Canada to the world and build upon the strong relationships existing in other organizations, such as CDC in Atlanta and the WHO in Geneva.

We will create a Canada public health agency, the federal hub of a network built on partnerships and collaboration that is pan-Canadian and global in scope and that is accountable to Canadians. This agency will operate on three principles.

The first principle is collaboration with the provinces and territories. Public health is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. This means that we must work together to ensure that we have a strong, viable Canadian public health system, one that recognizes and respects the differences between jurisdictions.

We will be negotiating agreements with the provinces and territories, which will together form a solid public health system, one capable of managing both health emergencies and long-term strategies in the best interests of Canadians.

Working together will ensure that the various jurisdictions help each other progress. By setting aside old quarrels, we will join forces to create a vast network that is respectful of each jurisdiction.

That collaboration must also extend to aboriginal communities. Too many aboriginals in our country face enormous public health challenges, ranging from suicide to tuberculosis to bad water. We can build effective strategies to address those problems by working together with aboriginal communities, another important function of the federal public health system.

The second principle is value for money, transparency and accountability. Canadians expect us to use their money wisely, and public health experts have told us what they need us to invest in first. They need better surveillance, better information systems, better labs, more people and better co-ordination.

Some look to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and ask where CDC north will be. It will be first and foremost in the systems and procedures that link our best scientists with one another and with the frontline doctors and nurses who care for Canadians.

Let us be very clear. Our public health boast will not be about a single, shiny complex. Our achievement will be an outcome, a network that has shown its ability to protect Canadians and help put us among the world's healthiest people. It will be about Canadians feeling that we are prepared for emergencies, can minimize a threat of infectious disease and turn around the growing epidemics of chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes and obesity. In addition, we must be accountable for the results.

Canadians have made it clear that they prefer clean air to more puffers and respirators. We know what we have to do. We know where we have to invest. All we have to do is focus on getting the job done right.

The third principle, the one that will drive all others, is this. The interests of Canadians will stand at the very centre of the agency. Citizens, not just governments, will help us guide the mandate of the agency from one year to the next. Citizens will help us set priorities and strategies so they have a meaningful effect on the quality of Canadian life. Citizens will tell us what we get right and what we need to improve. Any effort to protect the health of Canadians must place the confidence of citizens at its centre.

As a physician, I have recognized that often the best solutions can be found in our own communities. They are the public health professionals, patients and ordinary Canadians armed with information and experience and instincts.

I also have to mention the enormous contributions stakeholders will be able to make to this process. It is clear that we will need to engage them, as well as citizens, in guiding the mandate of this agency from one year to the next because they will always let us know what we get right and what we need to improve. Citizens will tell us what they need us to do. Our obligation is to listen and act.

Therefore, Parliament itself, with a revitalized democracy, stands on the frontline of health protection and promotion, for these citizens are our constituents. They are the ones who walk into our offices, who ask for help and whose support we each seek.

Each of us in the chamber is an officer of public health. The democratic reform restores to each of us, regardless of party, the power to protect our own neighbours. That is why I need Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, Bloc Québecois and independent colleagues to ask the same questions in their ridings over the next few weeks that I will be asking across the country. What do Canadians need from a new public health agency? How do Canadians wish to interact with it?

The House has the power and now has the democratic culture to rebuild a partnership with provinces, territories and communities that is truly capable of protecting Canadians.

Canadians expect us to do better, to collaborate, to communicate and to co-ordinate across government departments and across jurisdictions. We must know what is working and what is not and who does what and when. We need a real public health strategy for Canada. We will build upon the existing excellence across Canada, from the fabulous BCCDC, which I visited on Friday, to the remarkable Winnipeg labs to the Institut national de santé publique in Ste. Foy. We will learn from one another and then keep learning.

A real system is a complex, adaptive model that measures, adapts and measures again. Canadians deserve a real public health system that will be a learning culture. It will be an example for the whole country of a distributive model that can break through the jurisdictional gridlock by articulating the strong common purpose and then respecting local wisdom and local knowledge to get the job done.

The Speech from the Throne focused upon three themes: securing Canada's social foundations; an economy for the 21st century; and Canada's place in the world. I hope that in my role as Minister of State for Public Health that I will be able to make a positive contribution to all of these, particularly as it affects the special foci of our communities and of our aboriginal people.

Our report card will be closing the gap in the health status of our aboriginal people. I am confident that we have the support of all Canadians in our ultimate goal of keeping as many Canadians as possible healthy for as long as possible.

I am confident that we have the support of all Canadians in achieving our ultimate goal of keeping all of them healthy for as long as possible.

Good health. Meegwitch.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
CA

Roy H. Bailey

Canadian Alliance

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my learned colleague. I enjoyed her remarks.

What I am about to ask strictly falls under her department in that the Government of Canada is spending millions of dollars warning everyone of the health hazards of smoking cigarettes--and I think it is paying off--but I am also somewhat worried, with more scientific evidence coming through and after talking to respiratory specialists, about the dangers of pot smoking, of marijuana and hashish. It is becoming clearer that it is a real health hazard.

I wonder if the minister would consider doing the same thing against pot smoking that the government has done for cigarettes.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink
LIB

Carolyn Bennett

Liberal

Hon. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed gratifying to hear the hon. member speak to the real problems that we face with tobacco in this country, and to the fact that we must do everything in our power to let our young people know the dangers. We must make sure that we do everything in our power before they become addicted to this extraordinarily addictive product.

It also important that as we develop the drug policy for Canada we learn from what both Senator Nolin and the special committee have told us: that we must move, I think, to a therapeutic approach, that making criminals out of young Canadian who are experimenting is not the way to go.

We have to start very early on. We have to teach kids about respectful relationships and about self-esteem and let them then make good choices in their lives. We know that if we work on all of the things that promote self-esteem, including exercise, nutrition, and just feeling good about ourselves, we find that kids make much better choices in terms of what might be an experiment with drugs.

I firmly believe that the present policy to decriminalize marijuana and to move it to a much more therapeutic approach, one that understands the reasons behind that kind of behaviour and which explains the consequences other than a criminal record, will be far more satisfying. Indeed, in the rest of the world, the hon. member should know that this is the only thing that works. We as a society must take the responsibility and not rely on the Criminal Code.

Topic:   Speech From The Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply
Permalink

February 16, 2004