PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Translation]

LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL REASONS

The House resumed from April 14, 1999, consideration of the motion, of the
amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
discussions have taken place between all parties and the member for
Rosemont concerning the taking of the division on M-381 scheduled at the
conclusion of Private Member's Business today. You would find consent for
the following:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on Motion M-381, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 25, 1999, at the
expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the bill
relates to something that is at the forefront of a number of people's
minds. It deals with the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Tragically there are a number of people in our country who are suffering
from debilitating diseases or are in the process of dying who need hospice
care and therapeutics to relieve their suffering. In some cases we have
been unable to prevent the suffering they endure in their dying moments or
in their time of need and some of those people have turned toward smoking
marijuana to relieve that suffering.

We do not know if the effects of marijuana consumed under those conditions
are due to a medical or therapeutic effect due to the intrinsic
pharmaceutical property of marijuana or whether this is a placebo effect.
As a physician, I personally do not care. In my view, if somebody is dying
they should be able to participate in whatever it takes to relieve their
suffering as long as it does not hurt anybody else.

We have no interest in legalizing marijuana or any other currently illegal
drug for general consumption. Some would disagree, but the reason for this
is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence to show that marijuana is
a harmful drug.

There are over 200 substances within marijuana. Some of those substances do
have a detrimental effect to a person's functioning in the short term and
in the long term. This is particularly profound among children who sustain
cognitive disabilities as a result of the chronic consumption of marijuana.
We have no interest whatsoever in furthering that. In fact, we would like
to prevent it. The bill deals with the medical use of marijuana.

1110

The government needs to work with the medical community and stakeholders to
ensure there is a well defined group of people allowed to use marijuana
under certain conditions. We do not want this to become a loophole whereby
people can say they have a headache and need to take marijuana.

I congratulate the Minister of Health for asking the Department of Health
to undertake studies on the medical effects of marijuana under these
circumstances. We would like to do our best to ensure people are taking
substances based on good medical science and not for other reasons.

Another problem in our country is how we are dealing with the overall drug
consumption. We tend to try to manage these problems rather than to prevent
them. I have spent quite a bit of time working in drug rehabilitation and
detox centres. What we are doing right now by and large simply does not
work. Our response to the terrible problems that drugs are inflicting on
our society is to try to prevent this when teenagers are doing it or when
adults are doing it. We try to deal with the management of the problem
rather than dealing with children very early on in trying to prevent it.

We, along with other countries, invest a lot of money internationally
trying to deal with the countries that are producing it. We try to deal
with the peasants in Columbia and in southeast Asia who are producing and
growing poppies in order to get money to put bread on their tables. Who can
argue with these very poor people who want to be able to grow these drugs
in order to survive? I would argue that most people in similar
circumstances, being faced with abject poverty and an inability to care for
themselves and their families, would do whatever it took to ensure that
occurs.

To invest money on that side is a losing proposition and we have been
unsuccessful. We spend a lot of money dealing with the producers of drugs
rather than dealing with the demand. We and other countries must focus more
on preventing the consumption within our own countries of illegal
substances such as pot, heroin, cocaine, Ritalin, T's and R's and a
kaleidoscope of illegal drugs used by many people. If we put more money
into prevention to deal with the demand within our own country the supply
would have to dry up. If nobody would want to consume the substances
production would have to stop. Rather than investing huge amounts of money
in drug interdiction in other countries like Columbia, Burma and others, we
need to look closer to home and try to deal with our consumption.

We found out that if we start dealing with children very early on when they
are eight to ten years of age, we will get the best bang for our buck.
Dealing with children early on will have the most profound effect on our
future ability to prevent children and therefore adults from consuming
drugs. The head start program has had a profound effect in parts of our
country, in particular in Moncton, New Brunswick, and in other parts of the
world such as Ypsilanti, Michigan and Hawaii. The Minister of Labour has
been a leader in pursuing this as has the secretary of state for youth who
has taken a very big interest in this issue and has pursued it with great
vigour.

If we all get behind the concept of a national head start program that uses
existing resources, we can start dealing with children in the first eight
years of life. We will deal not only with consumptive practices in
teenagers and adults, but we will also try to address the very important
issue of fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal alcohol effects and the effect of
drug consumption while a woman is pregnant. This is no small problem. The
leading cause of preventable brain damage in our country is fetal alcohol
syndrome. It is epidemic.

1115

The problems for people suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome cannot be
understated. These people have an average IQ of 68. They have physical
deformities. They have a number of other problems such as cognitive
deficiencies. When children who have FAS of FAE go to school, their ability
to interact with their peers, to study in school and to concentrate is
marred forever. They have irreversible brain damage.

When the child tries to interact at school teachers are often ill equipped
and under tasked to deal with them. The child becomes marginalized. The
child does not get the help the little one needs and progressively becomes
more isolated. Developmental and behavioural problems occur which can
manifest themselves not only in behavioural problems at school but also
tragically can lead to drug consumption and criminal behaviour.

It is a terrible vicious cycle which is very difficult to break. Imagine if
that cycle could be broken and the child's brain had never been damaged by
being subjected to alcohol and drugs in utero. The child would have a
fighting chance and could potentially be on a much more level playing field.

I implore the government to look at the national head start program. Look
at what the Minister of Labour has done. Look at what the Secretary of
State for Children and Youth is doing on this issue. Work with members
across party lines to prevent social problems rather than to manage them.
The benefits of doing this are dramatic on a number of levels. They found a
50% reduction in youth crime and a 40% reduction in teen pregnancies which
is a one-way route for poverty usually for both the mom and the child. They
found a massive decrease in welfare. Children stayed in school longer.

In short, the head start program dealing with existing resources,
strengthening the parent-child bond, teaching parents how to be good
parents, learning the importance of play, discipline, setting boundaries,
ensuring that children's basic needs are met, the importance of nutrition
for a growing child all sound basic, but members would be surprised how
many communities across the country lack them. We have to address this now.
The longer we do not deal with the preventative aspects for children in the
first eight years of life, the longer we will have the tragic situations we
see in so many communities today.

In closing, the motion is a good one. It needs to be applied to the
medicinal use of marijuana. We would like to see medical studies to
substantiate this. We would also like to ensure that this is not going to
be a route to legalizing marijuana which we are opposed to.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the control of marijuana today from
the legislative standpoint and legal obligation. The legislative challenges
are imposing but the government is committed to meeting them. The focus of
my debate today will be exclusively on the use of marijuana for medical
purposes and on the legislative and international commitments to which
Canada is deeply committed.

The medicinal use of marijuana is not only a complicated medical and legal
issue, it is a complicated legislative issue. Any move to relax controls
over cannabis brings into play domestic laws and international treaties,
violations of which bring very serious consequences. The legal realities
cannot be ignored. That is why I am speaking to the subamendment that has
been proposed. It is troublesome from the obligations and legal realities
especially of international treaties.

Should marijuana be used for medical purposes it must be done without
undermining domestic efforts to control the illicit marijuana market.
Canada cannot contravene important international agreements that combat the
global trade of illicit drugs. In view of this commitment as well as many
other concerns, the government is now preparing a plan specifically
intended to help Canadians who are suffering facilitate access to marijuana
for medical purposes only.

1120

Allow me to outline these legal obligations and how our agenda for research
will address them in Canada.

Cannabis is controlled under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and
the narcotics control regulations. The CDSA has a clear purpose to control
substances that can alter mental processes. These are substances that can
harm the mental health of individuals in society if used and distributed
without appropriate supervision. The CDSA therefore prohibits the
production, importation, exportation, distribution, sale and possession of
marijuana in Canada.

The narcotics control regulations meanwhile permit exceptions to the
control of substances if certain conditions are met. The regulations
authorize the granting of licences to permit the manufacture, import,
transport and distribution of narcotics, including marijuana, for medical
and scientific purposes. The current regulations therefore permit the use
of marijuana for medical and medicinal purposes. The narcotics control
regulations contain mechanisms to grant appropriate licences and so on and
so forth.

In short, the use of marijuana for medical purposes is already possible,
provided the product is of good quality and originates from a licit, that
is a legal, licensed supplier and is distributed and used in a proper
scientific or medical context. That is where we run into the complexity of
this issue. We face many difficulties relating to the securing of safe,
legal, that is licit, and reliable sources of marijuana for medicinal
purposes.

Canada must comply with international obligations under a series of
treaties designed to control drugs worldwide. I will expand on this very
briefly. For cannabis to be used in therapeutic situations it must
originate from a legal source and be of medicinal quality.

The government cares and has compassion for Canadians who are suffering
from serious illnesses. For this reason our plan will include access to a
safe quality supply of marijuana. We do not want Canadians to gamble with
their health in using drugs of unknown quality and drugs which may in fact
do more harm. As well, its distribution would need to comply with the
requirements of the food and drugs act and regulations to ensure product
safety, efficacy and quality.

Health Canada is exploring avenues to provide Canadians with access to
medicinal marijuana in a controlled medical setting. In fact Health Canada
has already taken the initiative of exploring and possibly securing legal,
licit, quality sources of marijuana for medicinal use for the vital
research we want to conduct.

There are a few countries, the United States and others, where marijuana is
being legally cultivated in limited quantity under strict government
control specifically for its use in research. Researchers can obtain
marijuana from those sources. The domestic supply here in Canada is also
being explored.

The cultivation of marijuana in Canada however involves more than domestic
health and safety issues. International obligations must be met. Marijuana
is controlled primarily by the 1961 United Nations single convention on
narcotic drugs. Canada is a signator and we have ratified that convention.
Under this and other conventions, Canada is obliged to exercise control
over production and distribution of narcotics and psychotropic substances.
We must combat drug abuse and illicit trafficking and report our activities
to international bodies. These are our treaty obligations.

As well I would point out that at the present time there is no scientific
evidence on marijuana's medicinal values and the safety or efficacy of
marijuana. This has not been established in any country.

The government is committed to enabling scientific research into the
potential benefits and hazards of marijuana. We want to compile the needed
evidence to meet our legislative challenges, and they are many as I have
outlined, but more important to help Canadians who are suffering and those
who are terminally ill and who feel medicinal marijuana might be of benefit
to them. We want to help. It must however be done without compromising
Canadian standards for health, safety and security.

I am sure hon. members would agree that this is a prudent yet compassionate
and carefully considered plan of action.

1125

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Motion M-381, presented by my colleague from Rosemont,
which reads as follows:

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

As the Bloc Quebecois critic for seniors and seniors' organizations, I
would like to congratulate the F‚d‚ration de l'fge d'or du Qu‚bec, the
FADOQ, which has supported the application for the legalization of
marijuana for health and medical purposes.

It has indicated its support by encouraging the Minister of Health to work
expeditiously in this matter. The F‚d‚ration's decision was unanimous, that
is 18 members of its 18 member board of directors espoused the cause, while
noting that they did not encourage the use of drugs either natural or
synthetic.

I should mention that the F‚d‚ration represents nearly 275,000 seniors in
Quebec and that its outgoing president, Philippe Lapointe, a very lively
85-year old, is from my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel.

In addition, we note that seniors are speaking out more and more. They are
defending their ideas and their rights. This year, 1999, has been declared
the International Year of Older Persons, and this week is seniors' week. I
would also like to mention that the fourth World Conference on Aging will
be held at the Montreal Convention Centre from September 5 to 9, 1999.

I reiterate my request to the public at large, so we may obtain as many
signatures as possible on the postcards the Bloc Quebecois sent out to make
people aware of this issue. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois send out over
10,000 postcards, and the response has been positive.

People cannot be insensitive to the suffering of thousands of people in ill
health. Many patients who might use this medication are currently forced to
take many pills a day and are at risk of becoming sick to their stomach. In
a 1997 CTV-Angus Reid poll of 1,500 adults, 83% of Quebeckers and Canadians
were in favour of legalizing the use of marijuana for health purposes.

The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, the Canadian AIDS
Society, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, the Coalition qu‚b‚coise des
organismes communautaires de lutte contre le sida, and the dailies Le
Soleil, Le Devoir, Le Droit, The Globe and Mail and The Ottawa Citizen all
support this initiative.

This is an issue of compassion. The chairwoman of the board of the
Vancouver Compassion Club, an organization with a membership of over 700
individuals, also supported the motion. She signed the postcard sent to
federal parliamentarians, asking them to support the motion to legalize the
use of marijuana for medical purposes. The club is a non-profit
organization which has been providing safe and high quality marijuana since
1996 to seriously ill individuals.

I addressed this issue on December 9, 1997, before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Health. At the time, I asked the Deputy Minister of
Health to provide clarifications on the use of marijuana for health
purposes in the fight against AIDS, to alleviate the suffering of AIDS
victims.

I raised this issue following representations made by Jean-Charles
Pariseau, of Hull, who regained some strength after inhaling marijuana. Mr.
Pariseau is a terminally ill AIDS patient. He uses marijuana to relieve
nausea and stimulate his appetite. His attending physician, Dr. Donald
Kilby, from the University of Ottawa's health services, supported his
representations.

Today, Jean-Paul Pariseau will be protesting in front of Parliament, here
in Ottawa, and I want to salute him and reiterate my support for his cause.

1130

Fortunately, there are some judges who are showing some compassion. The
Ontario court has already found part of the Narcotics Act to be
unconstitutional, particularly where the use of marijuana for health
purposes is concerned. Another Ontario judge has recognized the right of a
Toronto man, Terry Parker, to grow and smoke marijuana for his own medical
use.

It is hard to call upon judges to make a decision on a societal debate. It
is unacceptable for a chronically ill person to be liable for six months in
prison, in addition to a $1,000 fine, for using medication that may have
been recommended to him by his physician.

As I said in my first speech in this House on the legalization of marijuana
for health and medical purposes, there have been a number of changes in
federal policy on drugs in Canada. The first federal legislative measure in
this area, in fact, dates back to 1908 and was particularly aimed at those
who smoked opium.

The Minister of Health needs to do more than mandate federal public
servants to submit a plan including the holding of clinical trials. He
seems incapable of setting any real and reasonable deadline.

In conclusion, I must again point out that this is a matter of compassion.
I am proud that the Bloc Quebecois has raised this matter for the first
time with Motion M-381 by my colleague from Rosemont, and I strongly
encourage all hon. members to support this motion.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Musquodoboit Valley-Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to thank the member
for Rosemont for bringing the motion forward.

It was interesting to hear the government side speak about the fact that we
must concentrate on health care and health care matters when it was the
Liberal government that took $21 billion out of health care spending and
replaced only $11.5 billion after five years. In many ways I wish the
government would back up its statements and arguments with the resources
that are required.

It is also ironic the Minister of Health recently said that there would be
studies and clinical tests on the medical use of marijuana for those who
have serious illnesses. It is just being done now. Marijuana has been
around for thousands and thousands of years and in 1999 the federal
government is to conduct studies and clinical tests on the use of marijuana
for medicinal purposes.

I do not think any one in the House could actually dictate to people who
are seriously ill, who have AIDS and other ailments of that nature, what
they should and should not do to feel better. Yes, we have to put
precautions in place. Yes, we have to make sure that the safeguard of all
Canadians, especially when it comes to their health, is paramount in any
decisions that the House makes or in any recommendations from individuals.

However, we have to take ourselves out of our suits once in a while and
place ourselves in the position of those people who are severely disabled
through various diseases, especially, for example, when it comes to the
issue of AIDS.

In the United States 36 states out of the union have passed legislation
endorsing the medical use of marijuana despite a federal U.S. ban. I am
sure that ban is in place as the member from the Liberal Party indicated.
There are cross-country obligations and international treaty organizations
which have to be adhered to in the legal matter. If the Canadian government
really wished to and if the people of Canada were really behind it, ways
could be found to speed track the issue forward so that relief could be
found for those people.

As the father of two young girls there is no question I am very concerned
about the future of Canada, what substances will be adhered to, what will
be in the schools and playgrounds and everywhere else. The relaxation of
any concern when it comes to their health is very serious.

We should try to assist people who are seriously ill and have relied on
alternate means of remedies to achieve relief from their pain and
suffering. This is one reason the motion brought forward by the member for
Rosemont is very appropriate at this time.

1135

I wholeheartedly encourage the government to go forth with its studies in
terms of the medicinal use of marijuana. I encourage the member for
Rosemont to continue the debate to bring this very serious issue to the
forefront.

These are issues which a lot of people do not like to talk about because
they give the perception of being seedy subjects. People think we should
not be talking about issues of this nature. The House of Commons is exactly
where issues of this nature should be discussed and where regulations and
legislation should be passed. This is where people on all sides of the
debate should have an opportunity to discuss such an important subject.

I trust we will have a pleasant time in the House for the next four weeks
as we debate this issue and many other important issues brought before the
House.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague from Nova Scotia for the brevity of his remarks so that I
might participate. I say at the outset that the Progressive Conservative
Party agrees with comments which have been made with respect to Motion No.
381 put forward by the member for Rosemont. This is an issue of compassion.

A very important comment was made by a previous speaker regarding the
government's tendency to borrow opposition motions and previous
governments' initiatives. Although no one has a patent on good ideas,
Canadians have witnessed a government that has established a record of
policy plagiarism.

The hon. member for Rosemont brought forward a motion which calls upon the
government to bring about change in our health care system, our medical
practice, that would allow for the medical prescription of marijuana in
pain control. The most important point to keep in mind about the issue is
that the motion is aimed at those who are affected and are currently
suffering from very serious illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, MS and
glaucoma. These individuals are suffering every day and it appears very
little can be done with current medical procedures to ease the pain and
ease the mind, particularly knowing that many of these diseases are fatal.

Forcing people to acquire a painkiller like the currently illegal marijuana
certainly adds to the mental anguish. We are on the horns of a classic
dilemma. We have a legally restricted activity, a social wrong that was
created by law, yet a humane need to ease suffering.

I want to be clear. My position or that of the Conservative Party should
not be mistaken as advocating drug use for any non-medical purpose. In fact
it is quite the contrary. We are advocating a shift in the approach taken
to the enforcement of drug use, particularly marijuana that is used for a
very limited purpose, that being the medical tranquillity of suffering.

The key words here are health and medical purposes. We are talking about
the compassionate use of a substance which is presently illegal in all
circumstances. A number of substances are currently being used in the
practice of medicine which are prescribed by doctors quite often to control
pain, substances such as codeine, morphine and heroin which are perfect
examples of drugs that in other circumstances would certainly be deemed
illegal. Heroin, for example, has been used with a doctor's prescription
since 1985 to ease the pain and suffering of Canadians fighting side
effects of illnesses.

We can separate crime from medicine with very definitive, decisive laws.
Further research may lead to a chemical production of a byproduct of
marijuana which might be taken in a different form, that is taken orally
through a pill. The use of a drug to relieve pain in those suffering from
terminal illnesses, not for recreational use, is the aim of this motion.
Delay in bringing this about will cause further pain and suffering for
those afflicted.

On May 6 Jim Wakeford, a Toronto man suffering from advanced AIDS, applied
for and finally received permission from Health Canada to use marijuana
after fighting in the courts for years. Courts have recognized the humane
need. Legislators like the Parliament of Canada should lead, not follow, on
an issue such as this one. We cannot make criminals out of those needing
our compassion or those who are trying to ease suffering.

1140

The Compassion Club of Vancouver, also mentioned in the debate, supplies
marijuana at no cost, free, solely to ease the pain of sick people on the
lower mainland. This club is illegal but receives referrals from agencies
of individuals suffering from AIDS or multiple sclerosis. It is a secure
environment with a very good quality of marijuana, unlike that often found
on the streets which might be laced with another substance.

The health minister promised in March that he would take steps toward
helping seriously ill Canadians who require medical access to marijuana.
The guidance document makes no reference to the severity of illness. It
does not distinguish between terminal and non-terminal cases. There is a
number of ambiguities.

The health minister is simply taking too long. Hilary Black, the Compassion
Club founder, has stated that the slow speed of the minister's initiative
means that more people will have to come into her clinic. Those individuals
will continue to suffer until legislation is passed.

A fast response and a strict guide or criteria are needed, as is a clear
definition that doctors' prescriptions will be granted therefore avoiding
litigation, confusion and further delay.

A number of facts about marijuana have been touched upon already. One
matter to keep in mind is that when it comes to glaucoma it reduces eye
pressure, which reduces pain. It reduces spasms in victims who are
suffering from multiple sclerosis. It reduces nausea in the treatment of
cancer patients. It helps alleviate depression and regain appetite in those
suffering from AIDS. There are no real side effects, aside from some
dulling of the senses. As we know, some of the side effects from the
horrific treatments which are undergone, in particular I am thinking of
radiation, are sometimes worse than the actual symptoms of the illness the
patient is suffering.

The Canadian Medical Association since 1981 has advocated the
decriminalization of the possession of marijuana. It is encouraging to see
that we in this place and in other parts of the country are finally
catching up. The Canadian Police Association has taken a very positive view
of this step. There are certainly noble reasons to permit the medical use
of marijuana.

The Canadian Medical Association however recommends that the federal
government, with respect to the jurisdictional aspect, move toward changes
in our Narcotics Control Act and our Food and Drugs Act to keep up with
this current trend. This position raises concerns about the herbal medicine
aspect and the fact that it cannot be patented. The association states that
there is a possibility that there will be exploitation of research if
guidelines are not put in place. The government can address these problems
and make changes to other legislation which will have to be amended.

There is also concern, I might add, on a number of levels, one being the
chemical content that may come into play. These plants vary from plant to
plant with respect to dosage. There is also concern about the
standardization and the reproductability of clinical trials which will be
problematic when it comes to putting the medical use forward. It would be
almost impossible to conduct blind trials without having some consistency
in the approach. There is also concern about the delivery of the drug and
it not being reliable from patient to patient as the dose depends on the
delivery technique.

These are obviously scientific matters that will have to be addressed in
order for there to be consistency and in order for there to be safety, one
of the underlying elements which always has to be kept in mind.

There is concern as well about research in this area. Quality research,
random control trials and a guide to decision making are very appropriate
when it comes to the needed standardized approach. There is no consistency
in terms of the product available at this time. The dosage, the length of
use and the possibility of addiction are areas that will have to be further
researched.

Different drugs will have a different effect on individuals. There is also
the aspect of the synergistic effect that marijuana might have when taken
in conjunction with other chemicals and in consideration of a person's
bodily make-up.

The patient's perspective is something that has to be emphasized. A person
who requires marijuana and feels the physical need to use it to reduce
suffering even with the mental effect it has certainly legitimizes the
efforts to move toward the decriminalization of marijuana for this very
limited purpose.

We cannot ignore that drugs are a consistent problem in today's society,
but this is not a step toward legalizing marijuana in its entirety. I do
not advocate that position at all. With the checks and balances that are
needed there seems to be an opportunity before us. If the government is
diligent and forward looking in its approach I am sure we can move this
matter forward. 1145

We support this initiative cautiously and encourage the government to move
swiftly and decisively. I congratulate the member for Rosemont for taking
this initiative and we look forward to further debate on the issue before
the House.

[Translation] The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the order
adopted earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the said
motion are deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders later
this day.

[English] Orders of the day will commence at noon. SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find the consent of
the House to suspend the sitting until 12 noon. The Acting Speaker (Mr.
McClelland): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (The sitting of the House was suspended at
11.46 a.m.)

1200

[Translation]

SITTING RESUMED

(Division--Vote No 454)

YEAS-POUR

Members--D‚put‚s

- -- Ablonczy -- Adams -- Alarie -- Alcock -- Anders -- Anderson -- Assad --
Asselin -- Augustine -- Axworthy -- (Winnipeg South Centre) -- Bachand --
(Richmond -- Arthabaska) -- Bachand -- (Saint-Jean) -- Baker -- Barnes --
Beaumier -- B‚lair -- B‚langer -- Bellehumeur -- Bellemare -- Bennett --
Benoit -- Bergeron -- Bernier -- (Bonaventure -- Gasp‚ --
Iles-de-la-Madeleine -- Pabok) -- Bertrand -- Bevilacqua -- Bigras --
Blaikie -- Blondin-Andrew -- Bonin -- Boudria -- Bradshaw -- Brien --
Brison -- Brown -- Bryden -- Bulte -- Byrne -- Caccia -- Cadman -- Calder
- -- Cannis -- Caplan -- Cardin -- Carroll -- Casey -- Casson -- Cauchon --
Chamberlain -- Chan -- Charbonneau -- Chr‚tien -- (Frontenac -- M‚gantic)
- -- Clouthier -- Coderre -- Collenette -- Comuzzi -- Crˆte -- Cullen --
Dalphond-Guiral -- Davies -- Debien -- Desjarlais -- Desrochers -- Dhaliwal
- -- Dion -- Discepola -- Dockrill -- Dromisky -- Drouin -- Dub‚ --
(L‚vis-et-Chutes-de-la-ChaudiŠre) -- Dub‚ -- (Madawaska -- Restigouche) --
Duhamel -- Dumas -- Duncan -- Earle -- Easter -- Eggleton -- Epp --
Finestone -- Finlay -- Folco -- Fontana -- Fournier -- Fry -- Gagliano --
Gagnon -- Gauthier -- Gilmour -- Girard-Bujold -- Godfrey -- Godin --
(Acadie -- Bathurst) -- Godin -- (Chƒteauguay) -- Grewal -- Guarnieri --
Guay -- Guimond -- Harb -- Harvard -- Harvey -- Ianno -- Jackson -- Jaffer
- -- Jennings -- Johnston -- Jones -- Jordan -- Karetak-Lindell -- Kerpan --
Keyes -- Kilger -- (Stormont -- Dundas -- Charlottenburgh) -- Kilgour --
(Edmonton Southeast) -- Konrad -- Kraft Sloan -- Laliberte -- Lalonde --
Lastewka -- Lavigne -- Lee -- Lefebvre -- Leung -- Lill -- Limoges --
(Windsor -- St. Clair) -- Lincoln -- Longfield -- Loubier -- Lowther --
Lunn -- MacAulay -- MacKay -- (Pictou -- Antigonish -- Guysborough) --
Mahoney -- Malhi -- Maloney -- Manley -- Marchand -- Marchi -- Mark --
Martin -- (Esquimalt -- Juan de Fuca) -- Mass‚ -- Matthews -- McCormick --
McDonough -- McGuire -- McKay -- (Scarborough East) -- McTeague --
McWhinney -- M‚nard -- Mercier -- Meredith -- Mifflin -- Mills --
(Broadview -- Greenwood) -- Minna -- Mitchell -- Murray -- Myers -- Nault
- -- Normand -- Nunziata -- Nystrom -- O'Brien -- (Labrador) -- O'Brien --
(London -- Fanshawe) -- Pagtakhan -- Paradis -- Parrish -- Patry --
Peterson -- Pettigrew -- Picard -- (Drummond) -- Pickard -- (Chatham --
Kent Essex) -- Plamondon -- Power -- Proctor -- Provenzano -- Ramsay --
Redman -- Reed -- Richardson -- Riis -- Robillard -- Robinson -- Rocheleau
- -- Rock -- Saada -- Sauvageau -- Schmidt -- Scott -- (Fredericton) -- Scott
- -- (Skeena) -- Shepherd -- Solberg -- St. Denis -- Stewart --
(Northumberland) -- St-Hilaire -- Stoffer -- Strahl -- Szabo -- Telegdi --
Thibeault -- Torsney -- Tremblay -- (Lac-Saint-Jean) -- Vanclief -- Vautour
- -- Wappel -- Wasylycia-Leis -- Whelan -- Wood -- 203

NAYS-CONTRE

Members--D‚put‚s

- -- Abbott -- Bailey -- Breitkreuz -- (Yellowhead) -- Chatters -- Cummins --
Goldring -- Grey -- (Edmonton North) -- Hanger -- Herron -- Hill -- (Prince
George -- Peace River) -- Hilstrom -- Hoeppner -- Hubbard -- Manning --
Mayfield -- McNally -- Morrison -- Muise -- Pankiw -- Penson -- Pillitteri
- -- Ritz -- Serr‚ -- Steckle -- St-Julien -- Vellacott -- Wayne -- Wilfert
- -- Williams -- 29