Home | Goals | Founders | What's New | Headlines | Contact Us | Please donate! | Links | Search

House of Commons -- Canada


Tuesday, May 25, 1999





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

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.


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.



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.



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.



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

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.




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

As the Bloc Quebecois critic for seniors and seniors' organizations, I would like to congratulate the Fédération de l'âge d'or du
Québec, 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 Fédération'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 Fédération 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 québécoise 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.



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

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.


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

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.



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.



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

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.



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.


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.

. . .



The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made earlier today the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 381 under Private Members' Business. The question is on the
amendment to the amendment.

We will take this vote the same way we did for the previous private member's bill. The first one to vote will be on my left and
we will follow the regular procedure.



(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

                                        Division No. 452

. . . 

The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment.



After the taking of the vote:

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleagues think I am going on the theory that we should
vote early, vote often but I want to vote in support of the motion. I stood up twice.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

                                        Division No. 453

  . . .                                            

The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.

The next question is on the main motion as amended.



After the taking of the vote:

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It appears I inadvertently voted twice and I want the record to
show that I support the motion.

Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering if the hon. member for Medicine Hat is the
finance critic.

The Speaker: You are out of order.

(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed to on the following division:)


   . . .

The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment.



After the taking of the vote:

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleagues think I am going on the theory that we should
vote early, vote often but I want to vote in support of the motion. I stood up twice.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

. . .                                       

The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.

The next question is on the main motion as amended.



After the taking of the vote:

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It appears I inadvertently voted twice and I want the record to
show that I support the motion.

Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering if the hon. member for Medicine Hat is the
finance critic.

The Speaker: You are out of order.

(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed to on the following division:)

. . .                                        

The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

Updated: 24 Jul 2001 | Accessed: 23744 times