Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 047 (Official Version)

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 047

CONTENTS

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

1005

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

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

Canadian Human Rights Act

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)

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

1010

Committees of the House

Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Speaker

Petitions

Canada Post

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)

Stem Cell Research

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)

Religious Freedom

Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)

Stem Cell Research

Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)

Religious Freedom

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance)

1015

Marriage

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance)

Stem Cell Research

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance)

Marijuana

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance)

Canada Post

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Child Pornography

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Armenia

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Stem Cell Research

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Speaker

Government Orders

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

1020

Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker

Motions in amendment

Hon. David Kilgour

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Speaker

1025

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Speaker

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

1030

1035

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

1040

1045

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

1050

1055

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.)

1100

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

1105

1110

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

1115

1120

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

1125

1130

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC)

1135

1140

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. André Bachand

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ)

1145

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ)

1150

1155

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

1200

Hon. Hedy Fry

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)

1205

1210

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance)

1215

1220

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

1225

1230

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

1235

1240

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Mr. Stockwell Day

1245

Mr. Paul Szabo

1250

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

1255

(Motion No. 1 agreed to)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

(Motion No. 2 agreed to)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

1300

(Motion No. 11 negatived)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Mr. Paul Szabo

1310

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Ms. Bonnie Brown

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew

1320

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

1325

1330

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

1335

1340

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

1345

1350

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

1355

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Firearms Registry

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance)

1400

Iraq

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

Iraq

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

Brampton

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Government of Canada

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

Iraq

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Riding of Berthier—Montcalm

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ)

1405

Canadian Forces

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Visible Minorities

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.)

Immigration

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Fisheries

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.)

Foreign Aid

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

1410

Riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ)

Olympic and Paralympic Games

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)

Health Care

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC)

Louis Archambault

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

Specific Claims Resolution Act

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

1415

Heart Disease Awareness Month

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.)

ORAL QUESTIONS

Iraq

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

1420

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

The Speaker

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

1425

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

1430

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC)

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

National Defence

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Iraq

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

1435

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

National Security

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Health

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Goods and Services Tax

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance)

1440

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Ethanol Industry

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)

Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Health

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.)

1445

Iraq

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC)

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

National Defence

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Agriculture

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

1450

Health

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ)

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.)

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ)

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.)

Canada Elections Act

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Finance

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

The Speaker

1455

Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.)

Child Pornography

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)

Poverty

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ)

The Speaker

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.)

Aboriginal Affairs

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

1500

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Regional Economic Development

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC)

Hon. Claude Drouin (Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.)

Points of Order

Oral Question Period

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

The Speaker

Government Orders

Canada Pension Plan

The Speaker

1515

(Division 34)

The Speaker

Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Speaker

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

(Division 35)

The Speaker

Privilege

Ellen Fairclough

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC)

The Speaker

Government Orders

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker

Motions in amendment

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Speaker

Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker

1520

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Speaker

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

1525

The Speaker

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Speaker

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)

1530

1535

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

1540

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

1545

1550

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

1555

Hon. Hedy Fry

1600

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

1605

1610

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

1615

1620

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)

1625

1630

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.)

1635

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

1640

1645

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)

1650

1655

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

1700

1705

Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.)

1710

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

1715

1720

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

1725

1730

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

1735

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance)

1740

1745

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Private Members' Business

Youth Criminal Justice Act

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

1750

1755

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

1800

1805

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

1810

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)

1815

1820

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

1825

1830

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

1835

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

1840

1845

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)

1850

Mr. Jim Pankiw

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

U.S. Embassy

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

1855

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)

1900

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 138

•

NUMBER 047

•

2nd SESSION

•

37th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

(1005)

[English]

Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.

* * *

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (prevention of private hospitals).

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House a bill calling for the prevention of private hospitals. I place the bill before the House of Commons in response to the growing concern among Canadians about privatization of our health care system. It addresses the threats to universal public health care posed by private hospitals and public-private partnershipsin health care delivery which are springing up across the country.

It is a concrete proposition for implementation of the overriding recommendation of the Romanow commission report for a public not for profit health care system.

It amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide that provinces be financially penalized if they allow public funds to be used for the provision of insured services in private for profit hospitals.

Finally, the bill ensures the principles of medicare and the spirit of the Canada Health Act are absolutely and unequivocally reflected in the letter of the law.

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

* * *

Canadian Human Rights Act

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill. It is very important. The bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect the rights of individuals who require assistance dogs for daily living and the rights of the individuals who train these dogs.

This enactment would specify that it is a discriminatory practice to prohibit access of an individual with an assistance dog to goods, services, facilities or accommodation normally acceptable and accessible to the general public. The bill would assure that assistance dogs, other than seeing eye dogs, are recognized under federal law including seizure response and seizure alert dogs.

The owners and trainers of assistance dogs should be given the same rights of access under federal law as those individuals who require seeing eye dogs. As the House know, that has been in place for a very long time.

These exceptional assistance animals are a necessity in the daily lives of many Canadians. They can be trained to pull wheel chairs, carry and pick up things for persons with mobility impairments, alert deaf individuals to sounds, and even dial the telephone in an emergency. I have seen one of these dogs in action. It is high time that we enacted the laws that they would be given the same rights as others.

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

* * *

(1010)

Committees of the House

Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two travel motions. There have been consultations among the parties and I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its studies on settlement programs, on provincial nominee agreements, on a national identity card, and on Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, a group comprised of 2 government members and one member of each of the opposition parties of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Fredericton, New Brunswick; Quebec, Quebec; and any other city deemed necessary, in January and February 2003, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,again there have been consultations among the parties and I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its studies on settlement programs, on provincial nominee agreements, on a national identity card, and on Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian Citizenship, a group comprised of 2 government members and one member of each of the opposition parties of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to Victoria, British Columbia; Edmonton, Alberta; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Toronto, Ontario; and any other city deemed necessary, in January and February 2003, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to return to reports from interparliamentary delegations.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

* * *

Petitions

Canada Post

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians concerned about the working conditions of rural route mail couriers. They point out that these couriers are not allowed to bargain collectively and that section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits them from having collective bargaining rights.

They call upon Parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canadian Post Corporation Act.

* * *

Stem Cell Research

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens of Victoria, British Columbia, who point out that hundreds of thousands of Canadians suffer from illnesses and diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy and spinal cord injury. They point that ethical stem cell research has proven to be effective in addressing some of the problems faced by those Canadians.

They call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases suffered by such Canadians.

* * *

Religious Freedom

Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound I have the honour to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first petition deals with sexual orientation, section 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code. My constituents ask that they be allowed to practise their religious freedom and not be prosecuted because of it.

* * *

Stem Cell Research

Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with stem cell research.

The petitioners are asking that the government, through ethical practices, use adult stem cells to make sure that those Canadians who are suffering from various illnesses can be looked after and that cures could be found for these diseases.

* * *

Religious Freedom

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions on four different subjects.

First, the petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the addition of sexual orientation as an explicitly protected category against hate propaganda would lead to individuals being unable to exercise religious freedom.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be free to share religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.

* * *

(1015)

Marriage

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the second set of petitions the petitioners point out to Parliament that the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single, that is unmarried, male and a single unmarried female.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter, if necessary, to protect and preserve the current definition of marriage.

* * *

Stem Cell Research

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners point out to Parliament that hundreds of thousands of Canadians are suffering from debilitating diseases, that Canadians support ethical stem cell research and that non-embryonic stem cells have shown significant progress without immune rejection or ethical problems.

The petitioners call on Parliament for legislative support on adult stem cell research.

* * *

Marijuana

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the final petition the petitioners point out that incidents of drug use is becoming more frequent, that each incident leads to public harm and that the use of marijuana leads to the use of harder drugs. Therefore they call upon Parliament to stop any legislation that would legalize the use of marijuana.

* * *

Canada Post

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first one is from Canada Post rural mail couriers who claim that they earn less than the minimum wage of ordinary workers and that they are not allowed to bargain collectively.

They ask Parliament therefore to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

* * *

Child Pornography

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia involving children are outlawed.

* * *

Armenia

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the third petition Canadians across the country ask the House to consider opening an embassy in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, as Canada is the only G-7 country that does not have an office in the Yerevan. They feel that this office will work toward establishing better bilateral relations between Canada and Armenia. They ask the House to ask the government to open an embassy in the Yerevan.

* * *

Stem Cell Research

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from approximately 100 people in the St. John's area who make the point that non-embryonic stem cells, known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress and do not have the rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to focus our support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, on the issue of stem cell research. I present this petition on behalf of these Canadians who believe, as I do, that life begins at conception.

The petitioners would like to point out that Canadians support ethical stem cell research, which has already shown an encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for illnesses and diseases. They also point out that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to support legislative matters which pursue adult stem cell research to find the therapies and cures necessary for Canadians.

* * *

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 58, 83 and 86.

[Text]

Question No. 58-- Mr. Loyola Hearn:

Has the CBC or any of its agents used public funds to secure broadcast rights or other access to Paul Burrell; and if so, how much was paid and were these funds taken from news budgets or entertainment budgets?

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: The CBC cannot divulge information which might undermine the corporation’s autonomy, its competitive position, or its ability to preserve confidentiality. This question seeks commercial information regarding the corporation’s internal budgets and the cost of acquiring program rights, the revelation of which would harm both its autonomy and competitive position.

Question No. 83-- Mr. Jim Gouk:

What is the total cost incurred by the government in advertising for the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, as of November 26, 2002, the Government of Canada had spent approximately $9,700,000 on advertising for the Kyoto protocol.

Question No. 86-- Mr. Loyola Hearn:

With respect to the Department of Human Resource Development's withdrawal of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits from over forty fisherpersons from the Cape Shore Region of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) was an investigation carried out or a hearing held prior to the suspension of the EI benefits of these fisherpersons; and (b) if not, is the practice of suspension without an investigation or hearing in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, an investigation was conducted in each individual case. These investigations led to the cases being referred to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, for rulings on whether the claimants are or were employed in insurable employment. In cases where there was an active claim for benefits and when appropriate, EI benefits were suspended. The following regulation provides the legislative authority to suspend EI benefits during the course of an investigation.

Regulation 88 of the Employment Insurance Act states the following: “(1) Subject to subsection (2), where a request is made to an officer of the Department of National Revenue under paragraph 90(1) (a), (b) (c) or (d) of the Act for a ruling on the question of whether a claimant is or was employed in insurable employment for any number of hours in a particular period of employment or alleged employment, no benefits are payable in respect of any hours that is the subject of the ruling¼”.

In addition, Section 3B2.1.1 of the benefit manual states that when a ruling is requested, the payment of any benefits are to be suspended on the claim based on the employment in question, until the ruling is received. Furthermore, claimants who are denied EI benefits as a result of an insurability ruling from CCRA have a right to appeal that decision to the Minister of National Revenue.

The practice of the suspension of benefits is based on the EI legislation and is in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[English]

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

The Speaker: Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

* * *

(1020)

[English]

Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker: There are 107 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-13.

[Translation]

Motion No. 102 will not be selected by the Chair as it was ruled out of order in committee.

Motions Nos. 12, 34, 35, 37, 54, 56, 58, 67, 70, 87 and 107 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been proposed in committee.

Motions Nos. 3, 8, 15, 25, 31, 38, 41 to 43, 48, 50, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 73, 79, 97 and 101 will not be selected by the Chair because they were lost in committee.

Motions Nos. 9, 76 and 91 will not be selected by the Chair because they were proposed in committee and withdrawn.

[English]

In my statement of March 21, 2001, concerning the new guidelines for report stage, I mentioned that the reasons for non-selection of amendments will not routinely be provided by the Chair. However, today I would like to expand on this approach and share the reasoning that I have used for certain motions from the hon. member for Mississauga South.

The Chair notes that the member for Mississauga South attended the clause by clause meetings of the Standing Committee on Health but was not an official member of the committee. Furthermore, the member contends he was not able to have his amendments proposed by any official member of the committee.

Of course, the Chair recognizes that our parliamentary system is party driven and that the positions of parties are brought forward to committees through its officially designated members. The Chair also recognizes that some members may want to act on their own.

[Translation]

The Chair has examined the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), which reads in part,

The Speaker will normally only select motions that... or could not be presented in committee.

Consequently, the Chair is of the opinion that certain motions by the hon. member for Mississauga could not be presented during the clause by clause study in committee and should therefore be studied at the report stage.

[English]

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions and amendments at the report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

[Translation]

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 to 11.

[English]

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 13, 14, 16 to 18, 20 to 24, 26 to 30, 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 44 to 47, 49, 51 and 95.

[Translation]

Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 52, 53, 55, 61, 64, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77 and 78.

[English]

Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 6, 80 to 86 and 88 to 90.

[Translation]

Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 2 to 94, 96, 98 to 100 and 103 to 106.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

[English]

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 to 11 in Group No. 1 to the House.

* * *

Motions in amendment

Hon. David Kilgour (for the Minister of Health) moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-13 be amended by replacing the long title with the following:

“An Act respecting assisted human reproduction and related research”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-13, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 15 on page 1 with the following:

“individuals, for families and for society in”

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-13, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 4 on page 2.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-13, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 28 on page 2 with the following:

“introduced;

(b) an embryo that consists of cells of more than one embryo, foetus or human being; or

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-13, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 2 with the following:

“(b) in relation to an in vitro embryo, the original gamete providers and the embryo provider who created the embryo.”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-13, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 3 with the following:

“purpose of creating a human being, and further includes polyspermic embryos.”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-13, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 3 the following:

““human genome” means the totality of the deoxyribonucleic acid sequence of the human species.”

The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre is not here to present his motion, Motion No. 11. Is there unanimous consent for another member to move the motion?

(1025)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to have the motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's West.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for St. John's West to move the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the debate is starting with the first group that you put to the House. I think that this first group of amendments that you grouped together in accordance with the rules of the House allows us to discuss a more general principle and to put the bill in context.

This bill is certainly one of the most important bills that we will be called upon to debate this year because among other things, it concerns the issue of human cloning. You probably heard the news in December, as did all Bloc Quebecois members. We were all very worried about the issues of values, ethics and human integrity when we learned about the possibility of certain corporations such as Clonaid, with support from a group called the Raelians, having successfully cloned humans.

It is at times like this that all Bloc Quebecois members appreciate the member for Drummond. Why do Bloc Quebecois members, and other members I am sure, appreciate the member for Drummond? In 1995, 1997 and 2002, the member for Drummond introduced a private member's bill inviting the government to plug the gap in the Criminal Code and asking members to introduce legislation making it a criminal offence for any person, non-profit organization or corporation to attempt to clone humans in a public or private laboratory.

Now we know how to extract a cell, inoculate it in another living organism and transfer genetic material, thereby achieving cloning. What is obviously less certain is whether a child can be born in viable conditions. Cloning has produced extremely worrisome results in animals. However, when it comes to humans, it is completely out of the question.

Why do parliamentarians oppose and why should we oppose human cloning? Obviously, it is because of our belief that all human beings are created equal. This equality naturally leads us to seek out what makes each person unique. Each human being has a unique personality, unique ideas, temperament and sense of humour.

What would human relationships be like? How could a family be created if a father had to build a relationship with a son identical to him? He would have to live his entire live with an undeniable and inescapable basic premise: that his child is an exact physical copy, not the result of nature, but the result of a deliberate and intentional act.

I heard experts say that there are identical homozygous twins. How appropriate, since I myself am an identical twin. Think how wonderful it is for the House to discover that there is another person who looks like me. There must be some measure of satisfaction in the fact that this is the result of fate and nature. This was not something my parents tried to do, but something that occurred because nature took its course.

Even if my twin brother René, to whom I want to say hello this morning, has the same genetic baggage as I do because we are identical twins, our personalities are not the same nor do we relate to the world in the same way. Even for identical homozygous twins with the same genetic baggage, life does its best to make each of us unique.

(1030)

That is not the same as creating a cloning operation—I am sure the member for Hull—Aylmer will agree with me—and it is not the same thing as letting nature take its course.

What is rather hard to understand, obviously, is the government's delay in legislating, some 10 years after the conclusions of the Baird commission on new reproductive technologies were made public.

Once again, every member of the House owes a debt of gratitude to the member for Drummond. We knew that in terms of technology, the issues raised by cloning were on the political horizon. We knew that it was imminent.

Does this bill before us this morning, as well as amendments to it, mean that we as parliamentarians are against research? Of course not. I am one of those who believe that if research can be done do improve the human condition, then we should authorize it.

This bill, as introduced, establishes a fairly satisfactory balance, because research on reproductive material is generally prohibited.

However, if a researcher comes up with a research protocol and demonstrates that the research that he intends to conduct will be beneficial to human beings, but cannot be done without an authorization and cannot be conducted on other types of materials, the Minister of Health may authorize such research. A ministerial authorization will be issued to allow the research to be conducted under the protocol.

Ultimately, and most exceptionally, this may mean that research will be authorized on stem cells. What do we mean by stem cells? These are the cells that are available in the first days after conception. There are about one hundred cells that have the extraordinary biological potential of being used for the regeneration of all tissues.

This is why the availability and use of stem cells is extremely valuable for the research that may be conducted regarding such major degenerative diseases as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and cerebral palsy.

It is true that when we use stem cells, human embryos are destroyed. It is also true that, depending on how we view the beginning of life, this may raise certain questions. Does life begin at conception? Does it begin once the fetus is born alive and viable, as the Supreme Court says?

Again, the bill strikes a balance in that it does not prohibit research on stem cells in all situations. However, when such research is necessary, it will have to be conducted under a research protocol, and the researcher will have to demonstrate that there is no other solution than to use stem cells to achieve the results of the proposed research.

Throughout the day, I will rise to address other amendments that have been proposed, but I want to say that we are aware of the urgency of this matter and we realize that we must prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes as quickly as possible.

We are really uncomfortable with the whole issue of the regulatory agency, which will have an annual operating budget of $10 million. I will get back to this issue when the related amendments come before the House. Since we are responsible people, we will probably support the bill.

(1035)

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity finally to address long overdue legislation in the House on a clause by clause basis. I totally agree with my colleague from the Bloc who outlined the incredible importance attached to the legislation and the need for urgent action.

Given the incidence and reports of developments pertaining to human cloning over the past month, particularly in the context of the Raelian example, there is no question that we are compelled to act as urgently and as quickly as possible. Whether there is truth to that organization, whether the incident of human cloning happened, we know that science is progressing rapidly and that the possibilities of an actual cloning of a human being is real and could be taking place as we speak.

It is imperative that we have legislation that clearly reflects the views of Canadians and the hard work of parliamentarians over a decade on this matter and assert as quickly as possible a complete prohibition on human cloning. I believe there is general support, perhaps unanimous agreement in this chamber for that. The question though for all of us is why has taken so long to get to this point and why, as we begin the serious issue of clause by clause analysis of the bill and address a number of amendments at report stage, has the government continued to mire us down in details in terms of its own particular opposition to the hard work of members of the health committee over a long period of time.

What is so critical today is that we are beginning a process of receiving a number of amendments, some of which were made in the spirit of constructive amendment and improvement to the bill. Some though, as members will note, were proposed by the government of the day and the Minister of Health to negate the good work of the committee.

The obstacles that the government has put in the place of parliamentarians concerned about the issue have been extraordinary over the past year or more. The committee spent a great deal of work studying draft legislation and made a very comprehensive report to the government for improvements to that draft legislation, some of which were included and many of which were totally ignored. It was then in the process of clause by clause analysis of Bill C-13 by members of the health committee that we were able to reinstate some of those good recommendations to make positive changes. Lo and behold we now find that the government of the day is coming forward with amendments to negate the good work of the committee.

At every stage of the process the work that was done by members of parliament to ensure that we had the best possible legislation, acknowledging that there was some give and take required and some need to include a wide variety of views to reach a position of consensus, the government ignored all that.

At the outset, we are in January 2003 looking at, exactly one decade since the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, the Baird commission as we all know it in the House. For 10 years we have been grappling with the issue. The government for 10 years has ignored the suggestions of the women's movement, of people committed to action in this area and to the broad community that wants to see the government put in place a strong regulatory framework to ensure that women are protected, that the offspring of reproductive technologies are ensured of full protection under the law and that we have a mechanism in place to protect the health and safety of Canadians as new and future developments occur in our society today.

We have raised a number of concerns from day one around the process and today we still are concerned because of the failure of the government to respect the wishes of the committee and to include some very positive suggestions. Our concerns have focussed around four or five areas and in all areas we remain unconvinced that the government has addressed those concerns to the fullest extent possible.

We have raised concerns about health protection because we knew that women involved in reproductive technologies ought to be assured at every step of the way that the drugs and treatments they took would be safe beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on testimony and expert witnesses before our committee, we know that women must have access to independent information and counselling at critical times when they may be vulnerable to pressure from promoters of technologies that may put them at risk. We will see through the course of this consideration of the bill at report stage that all those concerns have not been fully addressed.

We remain concerned about commercialization in this sector. We know that much of reproductive technology remains the private preserve of giant life sciences and drug corporations with patent protection taking precedence over the public good and with private for profit interests dominating the field of reproductive technology. The health committee of Parliament recommended to the government that in the context of the bill it review and amend the Patent Act to ensure that the genes and genetic sequencing developments that were part of the human body were not matters for intellectual property rights and for profit of giant life sciences corporations.

(1040)

Another concern relates to the off-loading of key policy decisions to an agency. At the committee members worked very hard to ensure that this new agency, to be enacted with the proclamation of this legislation, would be constituted to ensure that there was no possibility of conflict of interest and to ensure that the board reflected the concerns of Canadians, particularly women who were most directly affected by this legislation.

As we proceed through this report stage process, members will see that the government has ignored many of the very good suggestions made with respect to ensuring that the agency is not a toothless wonder or an arm of the government, but is an independent body able to do the necessary work required.

We also have raised very serious concerns about the need for us as a health committee and the Parliament of Canada to reflect the fact that we have a diverse society and that we ought to acknowledge that people live with disabilities and that those people can lead full and satisfying lives. Our committee recommended that one of the proclamatory statements in the bill include reference to the fact that people living with disabilities ought to be referenced in the bill. It should be said that persons living with disabilities can lead full and satisfying lives and enrich the lives of those around them. That was taken out of the bill by the government of the day. Regrettably, an amendment which I proposed to assert that idea at this final stage of Bill C-13 was ruled out of order.

I regret that situation but want to say that as a Parliament we must address the concerns of organizations and individuals dealing with issues of importance to people with disabilities. We must ensure that those concerns are reflected in this bill, that we have an appropriate response to the issue of eugenics and that we work as hard as we can to develop a national strategy to protect individuals from the negative consequences of eugenics. We must ensure that people from all backgrounds, with all different abilities, are respected and their contributions acknowledged to the work we do today.

(1045)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to have Motion No. 11 moved in the name of the member for St. John's West and included in this grouping.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-13, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 4 with the following:

““Minister” means the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.”

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise and debate the first group of amendments to Bill C-13. We need to start by laying out exactly where the bill has come from, why we are discussing it and the importance of report stage.

Over the years we have discussed different issues and different pieces of legislation in the House for different reasons. Many of them involve dollars and cents and the protection of individuals and the economic welfare of the nation. Others are that we are trying to protect the freedoms of individuals by passing laws that are better for the entire nation.

This legislation is all about life and death no matter which side of the argument one is on. Some individuals understand that some of the research that will come out as a result of this legislation will create great advancement in technologies and in the lifestyle of individuals. Research will also provide some of the cures that we long for. Some diseases have the potential of being cured because of this legislation. With regard to embryonic stem cell research, some people have great hope for the reproduction aspects of having a child through advancements in some parts of this legislation.

There is also a negative side to this legislation. As we look at this first group of amendments we have to understand what we are really talking about, particularly when we think of what has been in the news in the last little while regarding the Raelian cult that has been looking at cloning a human being. There is a vacuum in legislation in this whole area and it is about time that our country had something. Bringing legislation forward on this issue has been a 10-year ordeal.

We stand here today to talk about the first group of amendments at report stage. It is very important to note that we are talking about the title of the legislation. The first amendment I wanted to propose was with regard to what we would call the bill. When looking at this legislation and understanding what we are trying to accomplish, we realize it is not about new technologies. Some amendments were made in committee and the title was changed to “an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research”. We are not assisting technologies; we are assisting reproduction. We should change the title to “an act respecting assisted human reproduction and related research”. This legislation has nothing to do with technologies.

With regard to cloning, my hon. colleague just spoke about whether or not it was a real clone which is a moot point. If that group did not create a clone, we know that other groups will. There is certainly a craving internationally and a drive in the science community to be the first to create a clone. We hear many voices saying they will potentially do it to make a name for themselves internationally.

It is an appalling situation when we think of the human clone, not so much because of the clone itself but because of the appalling practice. There is almost a 300% failure rate for any individual cloned. Dolly the sheep is a clone. That means 300 human lives would be sacrificed for one healthy clone. If we understood what cloning was all about and how it takes place, we would find that identical twins are much closer genetically than an actual clone would be.

The quest for what people are trying to do is not achieved in the outcome of actual reproductive cloning. This piece of legislation will ban reproductive cloning. It will also ban therapeutic cloning.

It was my privilege to sit as the vice-chair of the health committee as we went through this piece of legislation. Over the last two years the best witnesses from across Canada and around the world came before us. We had the opportunity to ask them important questions regarding the details of this very complex legislation. It is important that we in the House understand how complex this legislation is because members will be asked to vote on it. It is important that we discern what it is all about.

(1050)

One example happened in the fall when an individual was healed of leukemia from umbilical cord stem cells. The preamble to that story on the national evening news was a poll that was taken on how the people of Canada are for embryonic stem cell research. It talked about how wonderful embryonic stem cells were and all the cures that could be provided through embryonic stem cells. Yet when we saw the rest of the news story, it had nothing to do with embryonic stem cells. It was about umbilical cord stem cells which obviously are not embryonic stem cells. They are termed adult stem cells. I would prefer to use the term non-embryonic stem cells because they can come from embryonic fluid and other places.

Much success is being found in the non-embryonic stem cell research. Some phenomenal things have happened over the last year. Last summer there were instances where stem cells from bone marrow could be turned into any organ in the body. Even individuals such as the president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Dr. Bernstein, have suggested that this would change the thinking of how we should be driving for embryonic stem cell research.

When we look at the whole piece of legislation and this group of amendments, we have to understand what we are doing. The bill is not talking about the technology; it is talking about reproduction. The bill should have been split in two. It has a scientific side and a reproduction side. The reproduction side is all about the quest for individuals who cannot have children to produce children from their own genetics.

People go to in vitro fertilization clinics where they are hyperovulated and produce up to 30 ova which are then fertilized. Those become embryos that are put in storage. Some of them are used in the in vitro fertilization process. The others are held in storage for a period of time until it is known whether the person will produce a child from the first procedure. There could be four, five, six procedures. We heard from a witness at the committee who said that there are individuals who have tried as many as 16 times before a child was produced.

The question now is what is done with the other embryos that are in storage. That is what this piece of legislation tries to address. Some people say we should be able to grow them in a Petri dish for 14 days and then kill them, take the stem cells and produce research. We call those stem cell lines. In the United States over 60 stem cell lines were produced before the U.S. legislation came along and said that they would not create life in order to destroy it.

That is the background to this piece of legislation. It is very important that we understand that we are not talking about economics or freedoms. We are talking about life and death. I hope that is the sobering thought as members rise in the House and decide whether this is the right piece of legislation for Canada at this time.

We are crossing a line that we have never crossed before as a nation. We have never before decided to destroy human life for the sake of saving other lives. When we cross that line, we are on a very slippery slope. Where will this stop? What arguments will we use when scientists come to us in three years and say that we have to open this up to therapeutic cloning?

Members will then be asked what is the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. There is no difference. They both start exactly the same way: we take an egg; we take a nucleus from a cell and put that into a hollowed out egg, it is given an electric shock and it grows. The only difference is that one will be killed at 14 days and stem cells will be taken from it. The other will be planted into a womb and will grow into a human being.

It seems that scientists want one and not the other. This piece of legislation at least bans both of them for now. When we know where we are going with this group of amendments, we have to start with the title. The title should reflect what the bill will actually do.

(1055)

Everything is grouped together in the bill. We were not successful in splitting the bill between the science side and the reproductive side. Nonetheless, we are trying to discern what would be the wisest way to amend it so that we can go forward with the best piece of legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this morning to speak on Bill C-13. For several months, the committee worked very hard and vigorously on this bill to try to come up with a reasonable bill that would meet the needs of Canadians. Today, we are finalizing details and putting forward legislation that meets the needs of Canadians.

Some will say that the government did not listen to the committee. Personally, I had the privilege of sitting on the committee from the beginning and I would say we had very interesting discussions, which were quite spirited at times. Views were expressed in all earnestness by committee members. Consequently, we have today a bill that reflects the committee's position. I do not agree that anyone tried to push without earnestly listening or considering what others had to say. I therefore differ on this.

As regards Motion No. 4 currently being debated, here is a great example of the extent to which committee members listened to the presentations. This is why we feel we ought not to support Motion No. 4. We feel that in an advanced society like ours, there should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It used to be the case 50 years ago, but in our advanced society, we are recognizing that individuals are entitled to their particular sexual orientation; we cannot even tell whether it is a matter of choice or whether such is their nature.

I am very pleased to participate in the consideration of this bill in the House of Commons in order to finalize a number of details. I am convinced that all parliamentarians will have a chance to take part in the debate. All are welcome to express their opinions on this bill.

(1100)

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my amendment is to delete subclause 2(e). Clause 2 is the statement of principles that is supposed to underlie the whole of Bill C-13. The statement of principles in clause 2 begins with:

The Parliament of Canada recognizes and declares that

and then these declarations are listed. They include:

(a) the health and well-being of children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use;

Subclause 2(f) reads:

(f) trade in the reproductive capabilities of women and men and the exploitation of children, women and men for commercial ends raise health and ethical concerns that justify their prohibition;...

Subclause 2(g) states:

(g ) human individuality and diversity, and the integrity of the human genome, must be preserved and protected.

I propose to delete subclause 2(e) which I note at this point was added in committee. It was not part of the original drafting and that subsection reads as follows:

(e) persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status;

Before dealing with my main points I want to stress that this amendment was added in committee. It was inserted at the committee stage. It was not included in the original bill as presented by the government.

This means that the principle in subclause 2(e) was not necessarily part of the fundamental ideas considered when the bill was initially drafted.

If we want to articulate a statement of principle in terms of access to IVF procedures, it should reflect a commitment to limit access to natural and secure families. If we as parliamentarians are committed to passing a bill that protects the best interests of children we should be making decisions that are consistent with the scientific data, and I will cite some in the time that I am allotted.

Providentially, last Friday the Globe and Mail, which is hardly a hot bed of radical conservative sentiment, reported on yet another study which demonstrates the higher incidence of negative outcomes in children who are raised in single parent family situations.

This is not a slight against single parents, but it is rather an indication that they are real heroes; those who are in those situations and those who are 24/7 parents. Many single parents are the victims of circumstances not of their own doing, such as death of a spouse or various other factors. I emphasize that many single parents do a valiant job against the odds. However, that is the point. They are fighting against the odds.

Many will tell us that all things being equal they would rather not be doing the job of parenting on their own. They would rather have someone else assist them in that most crucial of all roles. Most single parents either find themselves living in poverty, on welfare to be able to stay home to raise their children, or sacrificing a huge amount of time during which they would rather be caring for their children instead of working full time to make ends meet.

Notwithstanding the cruel effects of the government's oppressive tax regime, two parent families have greater flexibility in the choices they can make for raising their children and living above the poverty line than does a single parent.

The recent Globe and Mail article which reported on a study published last week in The Lancet, a British medical journal, reported that children growing up in single parent families were twice as likely--this is some of the difficult and disturbing but nevertheless very thorough results that came out--as their counterparts to develop serious psychiatric illnesses and addictions later in life. Experts say that the latest study is important mainly because of its unprecedented scale and follow-up. It tracked about one million children for a decade into their mid-20s.

There was also a Swedish study released by Sweden's national board for health and welfare. Some of the findings of the study were that children of single parents were twice as likely as others to develop a psychiatric illness such as severe depression or schizophrenia, to kill themselves or attempt suicide, or to develop an alcohol related disease. The study also found that girls were three times more likely to succumb to drug related diseases such as addiction if they lived with a sole parent, and boys were four times more likely.

Those are somewhat disturbing results but very thorough in that one million children were tracked for a long period of time through their mid-20s.

(1105)

Another Swedish study found that adults raised in single parent homes were one-third more likely to die over the 16 year study period than were adults from intact families. I want to emphasize that we are talking about functional, healthy families, because people right away sometimes want to make a comparison with a dysfunctional family, and I would say that is not a fair comparison.

This and numerous other studies were discussed in a book published in 2001 written by Linda Waite and renowned researcher Maggie Gallagher. In the book entitled The Case For Marriage the authors examined hundreds of studies that cast light on how family formation affected children's health. In their conclusion they say divorce appeared to be literally making some children sick. For example, one study tracked the health of children before and after their parents' separation. The authors found that divorce made it 50% more likely a child would have health problems.

My colleague from the government side, the member for Mississauga South, has for many years openly addressed the benefits to children of intact families. He has pointed out that study after study showed that children from stable family environments had better lifelong health outcomes than children who were not in those relationships. That does not mean that a kid coming from a bad or broken home, or a lone parent situation cannot turn out to be healthy. We have wonderful examples of that, even possibly colleagues and members across the way. That is a real tribute to the parents who raised those children. They turn out to be healthy, well adjusted, contributing members of society, and they are truly heroes. However, the probabilities are very clear in terms of the overall spectrum.

Early last year a report by Britain's centre for policy studies produced data showing a sharp distinction in the effects on children of marriage over those of cohabitation. The research, “Broken Hearts Family”, chronicles the decline and the consequences for society. It found out that while over 50% of cohabiting couples break up within five years of having a child, only 8% of married couples split after a child is born and the children from single parent families are more than twice as likely than those from two parent families to experience some form of mental disorder. The research also found that children of both lone and cohabiting parents are more likely to suffer physical abuse than the children of married couples and are more likely to turn to drugs, to commit crime, and to run away from home.

The internationally respected Heritage Foundation in the U.S., in a study in April of last year, showed the significant impact marriage had in protecting mothers and children from domestic abuse. Among the findings of the study were that children of divorced or never married mothers were 6 to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious abuse than children raised by biological, married parents, and that the rate of abuse was six times higher in step families. It was 14 times higher in the single mother family and 20 times higher in cohabiting, biological parent families.

Ottawa Families, a community newspaper distributed free in the National Capital Region, recently reported on data provided by the Toronto based Institute for the Study of Anti-Social Behaviour in Youth. It noted the important role that fathers play in the lives of their children:

Kids are more inclined to exhibit violent behaviour if their biological father is absent from their lives, according to a study released by the Institute for the Study of Anti-Social Behaviour in Youth. The presence of a stepfather does not change this behaviour.

Very few people question the essential importance of mothers in the nurturing and raising of children. This quote points to that solid body of research that demonstrates the vital role that fathers play in the best interests of parenting, the need for a biological or adoptive parent, a mom and a dad.

I am running out of time so I will not be able to say much about the issue of same sex parents but the same arguments would apply. Same sex relationships are equivalent to cohabitation, or at least that is the argument made by gay people. Using their very own leverage that they have exerted on the courts and legislatures to extend benefits to their relationships, those cohabitation facts would apply as well. I do not claim to be original with respect to that.

I would like us to delete that subclause because of the overwhelming scientific evidence. I believe that Parliament wants to make a statement about access to in vitro fertilization. It should be one defining limited access. If we do not delete this subclause we abandon the best interests of children for the sake of a remarkably narrow ideological agenda that is increasingly being exposed as errant by the international scientific community.

(1110)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report stage debate on Bill C-13 deals with assisted reproduction and related technologies. I have four report stage motions in Group No. 1. I would like to address each one to relate to the House precisely why these motions are there as each of them in their own right is extremely important.

Motion No. 6 seeks to amend the definition of donor. Presently the bill that came out of committee states that in regard to an embryo the donor would be a person who is specified in the regulations. In regard to gametes, the sperm and the egg, the donor would be the human being who contributed those. I ask the question, why is it that the donors of the sperm and the egg that created the embryo are not the owners and, therefore, the donors?

One of the fundamental principles of the bill is the non-commodification of human beings. This definition would lead us to believe that the donor of an embryo has to be someone other than the genetic mother and the father of that embryo. Motion No. 6 seeks to establish that the donor of an embryo would be the donor of the egg and the sperm which created that embryo. To do otherwise would in fact transfer the ownership of a human life from one person or persons to others. This is a total contradiction of one of the fundamental principles of the bill.

Motion No. 5 has to do with the definition of chimera. Chimera is basically a multiple joining of embryos where, for example, one had genetic material from two embryos and put them together or one had a human embryo and non-human cells and put them together. These are something more than a basic embryo.

The bill seeks to define chimera. However I noticed that one of the items it did not address was whether or not chimera included transferring human reproductive material into an animal. The bill in fact is silent. The current definition of chimera is silent on whether it is permissible to put human genetic material into an animal. Members should think about it. If the purpose of the bill is to ensure that we are not mixing human and non-human species of genes, then we should clearly amend the definition of chimera with the related clause to mean that in the bill one is not permitted to mix human and animal reproductive material.

The reverse is in the bill, that one cannot put animals into a human embryo, but any activity which would take human reproductive material and combine it with any non-human reproductive material or cells or anything like that would be totally inappropriate and should be corrected in the bill.

Motion No. 9 wants to expand the definition of embryo to include polyspermic embryo. I do not want to get too technical, but this basically is an embryo, with its chromosomes et cetera, that has been affected by more than one sperm. From what I understand from the experts it means that this embryo would not ultimately be viable but is still living. It is like a disabled person. It is like someone who has disabilities. I am sure there are parallels with born children.

(1115)

By including the polyspermic type of embryo in the family of embryos generally, it would ensure that research on these disabled embryos or non-viable embryos would be covered under the same rules dealing with other human embryos. That is basically to say a human embryo is a human embryo regardless of its abilities or disabilities. That is the purpose of this. I hope the health officials will look carefully at that. They may know that Françoise Baylis recommended that.

I believe that the final report stage motion in Group No. 1 is Motion No. 10 which has to do with defining the human genome. As laid out in the report stage motion, it is the entire DNA sequence of the human species. It is not presently defined. There are very serious concerns about the possibility of polluting the human genome by the combination of non-human and human cells, et cetera. The bill makes reference to human genome but the definition of it is not there and I seek to have that introduced.

Those are the four motions. I hope that I will have the support of the parliamentary secretary, the health minister and others to make those important changes to protect the integrity of the principles on which this bill was based.

In the remaining discussions on the other groups, one issue that will come up often will be the existence of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research guidelines for pluri-potent stem cell research. This agency of the Government of Canada is responsible for public funding of research on a broad variety of matters, including stem cell research.

In these guidelines, which I would be happy to provide members, it says that people donating sperm or eggs for the purpose of in vitro fertilization who also specify that if there are any embryos created and stored that they subsequently do not need for reproductive purposes, must give their informed consent for research purpose. These guidelines go very extensively into the disclosures that have to be made by a fertility clinic and by subsequent researchers as to the authorized uses.

Presently the bill before us does not designate or specify what informed consent constitutes. Informed consent is just relegated to what we always understand, which is informed consent as in the laws of Canada. This material, the guidelines of the CIHR, clearly lays out the importance of having a clear idea for the providers of gametes as to what the terms and conditions are for the use of their reproductive materials if they are not used for their own reproduction purposes. If they are to be used for research, these guidelines say that the donors of the gametes must know. In fact these guidelines say that the researcher has to disclose their conflict of interest, their commercial relationships and all kinds of these things to the gamete providers prior to the donation even being made.

The bill as it comes out says that the donor of an embryo could be somebody other than the parents. It is totally contrary to the guidelines of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I think we will find in the debate that there are very serious differences between what the Canadian Institutes of Health Research will operate starting on April 1 of this year in terms of public funding and what this bill says.

I believe it is incumbent on the government to explain the real status of these guidelines. We cannot have two different rules of the game. We will either respect the peer review process, the tri-council policy statement or the CIHR guidelines with respect to reproductive technologies, informed consent, commercialization, non-commodification and all other aspects which are clearly laid out. I hope the government will lay out and explain to the House the status of these guidelines on this very important bill.

(1120)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before I go to the next speaker, I would like to clarify the decision made earlier this morning regarding Motion No. 11 standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Clark. By unanimous consent the House agreed that the motion would be moved by Mr. Hearn, seconded by Mr. Borotsik. Therefore Motion No. 11 is debated as part of Group No. 1, which we are debating right now.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is the subject of our debate this morning. The title of the bill is an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. One of the first amendments we will be considering in this block today is about the very title, and we will be addressing that momentarily.

This bill has been a long time coming and Canadians have certainly been interested in the debate. If we go back historically, as we heard the member from Winnipeg earlier describe, interest in this area goes back at least 10 years to the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies. It travelled the country, studied the issue indepth and made some widespread and strong recommendations that regulations be brought in to control and regulate this area of assisted human reproduction because of the epidemic of many couples who were having trouble conceiving and naturally having their own children. This involves rather invasive procedures to help a woman who is infertile to ovulate and produce ova that can then be fertilized and reintroduced or by a variety of reproductive technologies help a family to have a child.

When the health committee took the draft legislation from the minister, it was heralded as a real breakthrough for democracy. Rather than receiving legislation and then coming to committee to try to change and alter it, the minister of health of the day referred in draft form the legislative package, the ideals of the government in terms of which way this legislation should go, and left it to committee to consult Canadians and come up with recommendations on how we should proceed. I was pleased to serve on that health committee, and we did indeed hear from many Canadians. We heard from scientists, interest groups and infertile couples.

The bill covers a wide range of subjects and I will talk about them briefly. It is a very complex subject and it is very wide in its scope. We are talking about issues such as surrogacy. We are talking about the import and export of gametes. We are talking about the related research that comes out of this, such as words like the member for Mississauga South just used, chimera, words that are not commonly used on the street in Canada and that even many members of the House likely would find confusing. On committee we spent a lot of time discussing the ramifications, the parameters and what the language really meant. There are very complex issues associated with the bill.

Our committee titled its report on the draft legislation, “Building Families”. We wanted to ensure that the focus of this technology was about helping people who were having difficulty, because of reproductive failures, to build the families for which they so longed. That I think was the focus that we hoped all members would retain. Somehow we feel that we have gone a little off track in some areas of the bill on that ground. If the focus is building healthy families, we want ensure that all aspects of the bill drive in that direction.

The bill also deals with related research. One of the very important spinoffs that comes out of this is the issue of embryos for research, the promise of stem cells for the potential for healing and the tremendous breakthrough. Although it has taken 10 years to get us to this point, perhaps one of the benefits that comes from that lengthy delay is that we have had access to information on the stem cell debate that other jurisdictions and other countries that considered this before us did not have.

We now have today information about the tremendous potential within our own bodies to harvest cells that can offer the cures that were promised from embryos but without the complications, not only morally but scientifically and clinically, that come from taking cells from embryos which require the necessity for anti-rejection drugs. As well we have the moral dilemma of using embryos that were intended to become human beings for other purposes such as research and the implications that has. We hope to address that further in a later block on this issue.

(1125)

There are many challenging issues associated with this research. Another issue of course in “Building Families” is the children, keeping the focus on the children who would be produced from these technologies and whether we would adopt in Canada an open system or a closed system of donation. Nations before us have gone away from a closed system of anonymous donors which has created real problems for the children produced from the technology. We hope to address that in more detail as we get further into this debate on other blocks of amendments.

The issue of whether we pay surrogates or how we would reimburse people who help another person deliver a child is also a very challenging. The committee wanted to ensure that this was not turned into a commodification exercise, one that turned into another industry with great dollars and people choosing it as a career using their bodies to produce children for other people. We wanted to keep it altruistic and an initiative to help people, not one for profit or vulnerable to being exploited for commercial purposes.

In this block of amendments one important issue which has come up is the fourth amendment by the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin. It has to do with the preamble. It is a very important issue. I will read subsection (e) at the top of page 2 which was added at committee. It said that the purpose of it was to help people with failed reproduction to have healthy children. The following words were added at committee, that:

persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status;

I believe the member has raised a very valid issue in bringing forth a motion to delete these words because they take the bill in a direction that was not intended from the beginning. The bill is intended to help those with failed reproductive challenges, not those who have healthy reproductive system but who look for a way to circumvent nature and have a child another way. I feel that is not the intent of the bill and therefore we support the motion. We hope all members will support it and keep the bill on track for the purposes for which it was intended.

Very sensitive issues will come up on the importing of gametes. We have to ask why we would import sperm from other countries such as the United States. We do not know from where it comes. Health Canada purports to certify it is safe but we have heard evidence that we are importing sperm from U.S. prisons. That shocked most members on committee and I believe it would shock most Canadians. If we are trying to ensure a healthy, wholesome effort to help people with tragic circumstances, why would we allow anonymous donations from other countries that we cannot possibly control or regulate except to examine the product and try to determine whether we can detect something wrong with it. We feel we have no shortage of reproductive material in Canada. There are 33 million of us. We have the resources among us. We should not be importing sperm from other countries.

There are many items like this in the bill that need to be debated and Canadians need to be engaged. I am disappointed that the amendments I brought forth at committee on this subject, and in fact amendments we brought forth to be discussed at report stage, have been disallowed by the chair. It seems the government is determined to keep this current system in place with the flaws and risks that leave Canadian women exposed to the import of gametes from other countries. That is a disappointment.

We will be discussing more of these issues as we get further into the debate and I hope that all members will take these matters seriously.

(1130)

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As you know, I am no longer my party's health critic; it is now my colleague for New Brunswick Southwest. I have followed this issue with great interest and learned a great deal in the process.

Often, we learn a bit from analyzing bills, but where assisted reproduction and all the issues surrounding it are concerned, I have really had a learning opportunity. I must say that the atmosphere within the committee was exemplary.

That said, in the first group of motions, there is one by the Progressive Conservative Party calling for the report to be submitted to the Minister of Justice rather than the Minister of Health. The reason is that, where assisted reproduction is concerned, law often takes precedence when there is an analysis of circumstances.

There is a need to ensure that the agency to be created will be at arms length. The creation of that agency will, moreover, be debated at report stage. The agency must keep a certain distance from the Minister of Health. This is a health issue, yes, but also a legal one, a point raised various times in committee.

Motion No. 11 calls for, with regard to reports tabled in Parliament, the Minister of Justice to be held responsible for ensuring that the rights of unborn children and of others, women in particular, are respected.

Yes, it is a matter of health. We know that health is a provincial jurisdiction and so the provinces too are involved. On the legal level, however, the responsibility is federal by virtue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is important for the legal status to be correct. It may seem odd to say so, but producing a child is also a legal act. It is an act of love, a sexual act, but it is also a legal act. There are certain rights and responsibilities involved.

I would like to set aside Motion No. 11 for a moment to take advantage of the opportunity provided this morning, in the short time that I have, to talk about a few points regarding this bill.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance spoke about one of them, first, the issue of sperm donors. Canada is a country that is rich in natural resources, but not in sperm. What causes me to say this? Because we import it. We produce 50% of the tomatoes we consume, but when it comes to sperm, we do not yet produce 50%, because the system is not designed this way. Sperm donation is done on a voluntary basis, as we know, as is the case with blood. In other countries, donors—whether they be blood, sperm or egg donors—are remunerated. In Canada, this does not exist. We raised this issue several times in committee.

For safety reasons, in terms of the health of mothers and children, we want to keep it this way in Canada, and I agree with that. However, we do not have the system in place to allow this. Furthermore, we want to ensure that donors are no longer anonymous. In Canada, these realities are different from those of other countries.

I had proposed that there be some sort of payment for sperm donors, that there be analysis, and that a full medical record be kept on the donor, but that the donor's name be kept anonymous. From a legal perspective, the bill does not go far enough.

How will the donor be protected? The bill does not say enough on this; it is flawed on this issue. The provinces, including Quebec with its Civil Code, have an important role to play. There is no correlation between the federal bill and the provinces; the rights of parents are not sufficiently developed.

I proposed that, to begin with, in terms of enforcement of the legislation, we retain the anonymity of sperm donors but that we also invite healthy men in this country to donate their sperm.

(1135)

Some may find this funny. I remember when I proposed this report. Canada is such a rich country yet we have to import sperm. We often begin to look after our own affairs, but in a very safe manner when it comes to health.

The other important factor is that this bill raises questions about the right to life, the rights of the fetus and the rights of gays and lesbians.

Once again, perhaps because Quebec and other parts of the country are more forward looking, we have to be careful. In terms of Motion No. 4, when the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance talks about excluding lesbian couples, I find this somewhat odd.

Look what has happened in Quebec for example. I have friends who are lesbian and use the assisted reproduction system to have children. Between you and me, children born to lesbian couples are no more or less perfect than children born to heterosexual couples.

This is a reality. It would be a step back to send an anti-gay and anti-lesbian message in this bill. We cannot censor the right to life. That is what Motion No. 4 sets out to do. It would censor the right to life based on the sexual orientation of the parents. I find this appalling, but that is vintage Canadian Alliance.

Another related issue that we often talk about is the issue of family. What is a family today? The traditional family includes a father, mother and children. We know that 40% of couples are divorced. The traditional family is desirable. When we fall in love we want it to last for life.

(1140)

Except that a relationship may last a few years, a few months or a lifetime.

So, the family has changed and evolved. Unfortunately, there are members in this House who have neither changed nor evolved.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: They are conservative.

Mr. André Bachand: This is most unfortunate. The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is saying that they are small c conservative, in the derogatory sense of the term; he is not referring to the Progressive Conservative Party. We must be careful here.

Having said this, overall the bill is good but incomplete. Some people provided invaluable input to the committee. Because of the moral issues that some people see in this, or want to see in it, we decided to have a free vote. But I can guarantee that a majority of the Conservative caucus will support the bill.

This is an essential step. Why? Because a review will take place in three years. This is not a bill that will remain unchanged. It will be updated as we gain more experience as a result of the enforcement of its prrovisions.

It is true that we do not know what the regulations will look like. They will be very complex. The agency has yet to be created. It will surely cost more than the budget established by the government. In any case, when the government draws up a budget, things always cost more than anticipated.

Nevertheless, this is a major step toward assisted reproduction. There are members of my own family who have resorted to these techniques. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful, and it happened on a number of occasions.

The costs involved are huge. The government should also consider signing an agreement with the provinces, to see if financial assistance could be provided to these couples. There is no tax incentive for those who spend tens of thousands of dollars to have a child. There is nothing.

Perhaps it is time to look at modernizing the system. A parliamentary review of the act within three years may seem like a short timeframe, but the committee was very pleased to see the government take action. Initially, the review was to be conducted within five years. This will ensure that the legislation remains up to date. There will probably be some loose ends, because three years is a very short period of time, but we will be able to ensure that people who want children, whether it is a couple of heterosexuals or lesbians, can do so with legal protection and, perhaps, financial assistance, in a safe framework for parents and children.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my views at this stage of Bill C-13.

First, I would like to mention, like the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the groundwork done by the hon. member for Drummond. She introduced a private member's bill on this subject several times. Of course, the throne speech ensured that all the bills died on the Order Paper. However, her interest in this issue is long-standing. I remember working with her on the Standing Committee on Health. She was already making representations on this.

This issue itself is not new, since, in 1989, the then federal government appointed the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, known as the Baird commission. This commission, after having spent or used $28 million and questioned over 40,000 witnesses, which was phenomenal, tabled a report in 1993.

In 1995, this government implemented a voluntary moratorium on the issue, not that that made much difference. This became significant with regard to public opinion in 1997, when British scientists succeeded in cloning a sheep they named Dolly.

This has caused so much concern to scientists and officials worldwide, including UNESCO, that in November 1997 this UN organization issued a universal declaration on the human genome and human rights. According to UNESCO, human cloning is an attack against human dignity and, as such, must be prohibited.

We have witnessed recent events, after the three announcements by Clonaid, a firm associated with the Raelian movement, and all the publicity surrounding these announcements.

This bill was introduced last December, belatedly, if you ask me. It was not for lack of studies. As I said, it has been under consideration since 1989. Why have waited so long? Granted, this is a sensitive issue. But at the same time—because it was and still is a sensitive issue—it was important that the Parliament of Canada look into it. It is now doing so. Better late than never, I suppose. The issue is now before Parliament.

At this stage, we can say that the bill to prohibit reproductive technologies, or cloning, is pretty clear. As the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska just said, it remains a debate about values. He is right about that. We can feel it even in our ridings, regardless of our affiliation.

In my riding, supporters of my party have different opinions, and they have made them known. There are also people who, while they do not support our political option, share their concerns with me as their MP. This is great, because that is how I have always envisioned the role of member of Parliament. First and foremost, as representatives of our ridings here in Ottawa, we must take a stand on bills or motions, as we are now.

(1145)

I have always shared the member for Drummond's concerns about cloning. However—and I am not implying that she will disagree with what I am about to say—I feel it is both prudent and correct to leave open the possibility of stem cell research.

This can, of course, turn into a debate among experts, particularly concerning the point at which an embryo ceases to be an embryo and becomes a fetus, and so on. There are criteria in the legislation, which we shall address a little later on.

The idea of research being authorized by ministerial order is both pertinent and appropriate, since it is known that there are a number of diseases, such as Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and others, for which research might one day find a remedy or rather a solution.

Of course, there would have to be guidelines, ones that were as specific as possible, because we must not allow things to be done indirectly because people do not want them done directly.

In this connection, there are many in my riding who share my view that it is wise to address the issue of research within a very precise framework, not for the purpose of human cloning but rather to allow stem cell research with a view to finding solutions for certain illnesses.

That was the view I wanted to express at this stage of the debate, both for myself as an MP and also for the riding I represent, in connection with this bill.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this very important bill. During the holidays, I received calls for a great many people in my riding. The media also sought my opinion on the publicity done by Clonaid over the Christmas period.

I told my constituents and the local media that I was against human cloning. There was also the issue of the use of human embryos for research purposes. Bill C-13 is addressing to a fair extent concerns I had in my heart about human cloning.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute and congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his excellent work on this issue in the Standing Committee on Health and for the insight he has given Bloc members into this bill. I also wish to join him in congratulating my hon. colleague from Drummond.

I want to point out that, sometimes, if opposition members were not there to question the ruling party and confront them with the aggravating circumstances found in society, governments would often get pretty set in their ways. Over these past years, my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, has repeatedly raised the point with all Liberal health ministers that the government ought to take action to prohibit human cloning. In 1989, the Baird commission was established. Four years later, in 1993, it tabled its recommendations. The government has done nothing ever since.

On a personal note, my nephew is a cancer researcher in Montreal. Every time we get together, he tells me, “You cannot imagine how fast research in this field is advancing”. He also said, “You parliamentarians will have to be up on what is going on right now; you are already falling behind”.

I think, therefore, that this bill reassures Canadians and Quebeckers that human cloning will finally be made illegal in Canada. In my opinion, human conception does not begin with taking DNA. As a woman, I think that human conception begins when a sperm and an egg meet. I am very religious and, according to my principles, human beings are created by God. He gives us the ability to give birth to other human beings.

Many people in my riding wanted me, as the member for Jonquière, to take a stand. So it is with pleasure that I tell them what that stand is, because I am sure that many of them are listening to me today. I told them that I was going to speak this morning in the House on Bill C-13 to tell them that, finally, the government has decided to ban human cloning.

In fact, I support the objections raised and the reasons why this bill should be passed. Bill C-13 proposes banning, for any reason, unacceptable practices such as creating human clones. It also prohibits the creation of an in vitro embryo for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving assisted reproduction procedures, the creation of human and non-human hybrids for the purpose of reproduction, the provision of financial incentives to induce women to be surrogate mothers, commercial surrogacy, and selling or purchasing embryos or offering property and services in exchange. Bill C-13 bans these practices.

(1150)

This bill also authorizes the regulation of assisted procreation activities and related research such as research into the causes of infertility and improving fertility techniques. We are seeing that women are increasingly unable to procreate. This will authorize research to determine the exact cause.

Research will be allowed into problems that are unrelated to fertility, such as birth defects, as well as to find treatments for serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease and cancer.

Two of my friends passed away over the holidays, one from cancer and the other from Alzheimer's. I would have liked to have seen more research on embryonic stem cells because it has been proven that this is how scientists will make the greatest advances in finding cures for illnesses.

However, it should be noted that the bill proposes to rigorously regulate stem cell research. This is why I say that a code of ethics will be required to guide this process.

It was clear from Clonaid's announcement during the holidays that ethics were in short supply. The odd thing is that although they told us they had cloned three humans, we have not seen them yet.

I think a stop must be put to all this. We must follow the lead of the European countries. In 1998, President Clinton had also declared a five-year moratorium on human cloning.

We are going further. I think that the bill will pave the way for discussion with the provincial governments since they are responsible for health.

It will foster the well-being and safety of all Canadians and Quebeckers. It is with pleasure that I add my voice to that of my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and tell him and the people of Quebec that human cloning will be prohibited in Canada when this bill is passed.

(1155)

[English]

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak against Motion No. 7. A great deal of concern has been expressed that when we talk about who owns the gamete, as was discussed in some of the amendments, we are removing the decision making. If we say that the donor owns all the decisions and makes all the decisions with regard to any offspring born of a gamete, then we are taking--

Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am pleased to be here today for such a very important debate but I think it is incumbent upon the government to make sure that it shows enough interest to have a minimum quorum of people in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): There is a quorum call. Obviously there is no quorum and the bells shall not ring more than 15 minutes.

* * *

And the bells having rung:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Order, please. We now have quorum. When the call was made, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre had nine minutes left in her speech.

(1200)

Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking with regard to motions that have been made in this group which try to ensure that the biological parent remains the one who makes all the decisions about a child born of a gamete or sperm or egg donation. The point we are trying to make in this piece of legislation is to ensure that the person who receives that gamete, when that child is born, will be building a family with that new family. We cannot have another donor or somebody else make decisions for what happens to the child within this new family.

We have heard members across the way speak about building families. If a new family is built, then that new family becomes the child's family. There cannot be decisions about what happens to a child made by the person who donated what at the end of the day turned out to be a donation of reproductive material that they no longer have any sort of control over because it has become a child in a new family.

We want to be very careful that we do not take away the rights of parents who now have children as a result of reproductive technology, because they are going to be parents and they need to be able to live like parents, to bring up their children, to care for those children and to form a family. That is the slippery slope that we are worried about with some of these motions.

The other point is that some of the motions also seek to stop research. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is the first time that we are setting guidelines and regulations for very important and ground-breaking research. We do not want to inhibit research, yet we certainly do not want to allow research to carry on galloping at a pace without any regulations and without any way of defining the guidelines within which that research will take place. We must have research. Research will allow us to look at assistance for people with Parkinson's, for people with congenital abnormalities that are coming about in the future, for a whole host of things that we now deal with as diseases which create mortality and cost human life.

We have to continue to do research. Research is important if we are to move the agenda forward. How we set ethical regulations and guidelines that would frame that research is what the bill is seeking to do, not to throw research out the door and stop us from moving forward. I want to speak against some motions that will do that, because I think what we are in danger of doing is being extremely retrogressive and not allowing for any movement forward with regard to good science.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-13. This of course is a bill of great moral gravity which, if passed, will have tremendous implications for the legal status of human life as it is assaulted by new and emerging technologies and as we seek to harness those technologies to advance the dignity of human life in certain respects.

It is unfortunate that this legislation has been so long in coming. Of course, as we heard in debate earlier, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies was appointed in 1989. It is now nearly 14 years after that date. Indeed, many of the horrific Frankenstein-like technologies which were at that time of an almost fictitious nature have now apparently become all too real.

Today, unfortunately, this and previous governments have avoided taking swift enough action on some of the issues addressed in the bill upon which there is a broad social, moral and ethical consensus, such as banning cloning and banning human-animal hybrids and the like.

I would also like to say at the outset that I regret that the government has chosen to ignore the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health, which spent nearly a year in an exhaustive review of draft legislation. That committee of course recommended that the bill's provisions be split between those on which there was a general consensus, such as the prohibition of cloning and animal-human hybrids, and more contentious and difficult issues, such as the treatment of embryonic stem cell research, upon which there still is no social consensus. Had the bill been split, I believe that all members of the House speedily could have passed legislation restricting these most offensive practices, while more closely debating the need for statutory protection for nascent human life and the prohibition of creating life for the purpose of manipulating it and destroying it.

Let me further say at the outset that the bill is not founded on sound philosophical principles. It is imperative in a legislative exercise of this importance that first philosophical principles be established explicitly in the bill, preferably in the preamble, as a guide to us as legislators, to the regulators who will interpret and apply the bill and indeed to the courts who will adjudicate it.

For instance, the bill fails in its preambular section or anywhere else to assert the sanctity of human life per se. The bill clearly fails to assert the inviolable dignity of the human person. The bill fails to attribute to nascent human life, embryonic human life, the clear status of human life, let alone of personhood. Therefore, I believe, as do many who have critiqued this legislation, that it is founded on weak principles which will lead to weak application of the law if passed.

Let me turn to the amendments in Group No. 1 now before the House. I have no objection to the first and second amendments put forward by the Minister of Health, which are technical in nature. I would like to speak in favour of Motion No. 4 brought forward by my colleague from Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, which seeks to remove from the bill the language in clause 2, paragraph (e), which states:

persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status;--

(1205)

I object to the inclusion of this provision, and not because I support unjust discrimination because indeed I do not, but I do believe that we discriminate, if that word is properly defined, to make choices. We choose to give preferential options in legislation every day in this place to advance the social good. That we might call just discrimination, discrimination in favour of a social good. The social good in whose favour I think we ought to discriminate is the social good of the human family.

I submit that the focus of this legislation ought not to be the putative rights, the rights claims, of adults who seek to benefit from certain reproductive technologies, but rather the human beings, the children, who will be created by these technologies. It is their rights and their best interests which ought principally to govern this legislation, not the whims of individuals already seeking to use this reproductive technology.

In this respect I believe it is a self-evident and essentially irrefutable fact of human history, sociology and anthropology that the human family with a mother and a father is, generally speaking, the best environment in which to raise children, children with a sound and loving environment. That of course can be provided in non-traditional families, but the evidence is overwhelming that children benefit most, on average, in a family that includes a mother and a father. I believe that the focus of the bill ought to be to give that kind of environment to the children whose lives are in part created through reproductive technology. I will vote in favour of Motion No. 4.

Motion No. 5 put forward by my hon. colleague from Mississauga South is critically important, because it seeks to clarify that chimera may include animal-human hybrids. The definition of chimera in clause 3 now states “an embryo that consists of cells of more than one embryo, foetus or human being”, but this motion would amend that to include “a non-human embryo into which any cell of a human embryo, human foetus or human being has been introduced”. We know that there are researchers who seek to explore animal-human hybrids, and this of course has very troublesome ethical, moral and physiological implications, which I think the bill clearly should prohibit and which Motion No. 5 seeks to do.

Motion No. 7 clarifies the definition of a donor and makes it clear that ownership of an embryo cannot be transferred away from its human parents. This, I think, is the intent of the bill. The motion is a positive way to clarify its intent.

Motion No. 9 seeks to extend protection to polyspermic embryos, about which the bill as currently worded is mute. Essentially, polyspermic embryos are deformed embryos. I would hope that this Parliament has learned the lessons of the history of eugenics in the 20th century and understands that imperfect or flawed human lives deserve statutory protection, which is what Motion No. 9 seeks to do.

My time is coming to a close, so I will simply say that I look forward to speaking to other groups of amendments. I hope the government will take serious consideration of the thoughtful amendments that colleagues have brought forward.

(1210)

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to speak to Bill C-13 at report stage. This is a critically important bill. We deal with a lot of important issues here but this bill talks about life itself, the definition of how life can be created and how it is handled after it is created. A wide range of issues need to be addressed.

In addressing the amendments in group one, I will aim my comments mostly at the issues of donors and the control of them. Some of the amendments deal with that.

The bill is really about improving human life. We strongly support that and the research to that end, but it has to be done keeping in mind the dignity and value of human life. The Canadian Alliance as the official opposition will work to protect that dignity and value. What more important thing could we possibly address ourselves to?

It is about the best interests of children born from assisted reproductive technologies. I will address some of my comments to that. It also addresses access by prospective parents, that they should have access to the best technology available, but done ethically and with the value of human life front and centre.

When we get into the issue of donors, it really becomes complex. There is no limit on how many times a person can donate to reproductive technologies. A donor could make multiple donations and could have dozens or even hundreds of genetically related children. This is all right if everybody is healthy and everything goes well, but the donor may be unhealthy and it may not be detected at the time but it may show up later. There needs to be some limitation on how many times one person can be involved in donating.

The Standing Committee on Health made a recommendation both on the number of donations from the same donor and on the number of babies born through that same donor. The government must put something in the bill to require those limits.

As we look at the rights of a child to know his or her heritage, let us think about the number of people who have been adopted. I have had an experience in this. An adopted person needed to know the medical history of the biological parents because of some medical problems that had arisen. Not only is it important for peace of mind but it is important medically. Doctors sometimes ask about a family's medical history so they know what to look for. When a person does not have that information it creates a problem. In the instance with which I am familiar, the person was able to find out this information. It was of great help to the person to know what the history was. There were some things that were immediately disregarded and there were other factors that could have an impact. It was important to know that information.

What this bill means to do is to stop that. In the preamble the bill states that the health and well-being of children born through the application of these technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use. Certainly that statement needs to be made. We agree with this but the government does not. The bill protects donors by giving them complete anonymity but does not protect children who need to know their heritage. That needs to be addressed and it has not been.

The agency that is going to be established to deal with the records will have all of this information. The information has to be given but it will not be forthcoming. At present it will not be given out.

(1215)

I firmly believe that children have the right to know what their heritage is and in some instances it is critically necessary for medical reasons. That is why anonymous donors of sperm or ovum should not be allowed. It is critical that the records be complete so that down the road, if questions arise about health issues, they can be answered. They cannot be answered if anonymous donors are allowed.

Reproduction should take place within the context of a human relationship and should not be divorced from that. That is something we have to be very careful of. If we remove all of the human aspect to this, then where are we? If we do not know who the donors are and cannot go back on that in years to come, it takes out all of the relationship that is built around the creation of life. It can remove a whole group of people from those who know their lineage. It creates further problems in society.

The bill goes directly contrary to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health which said that it believes that only donors who consent to have identifying information released to offspring should be accepted. It went on to state:

We feel that, where there is a conflict between the privacy rights of a donor and the rights of a resulting child to know its heritage, the rights of the child should prevail. We need a system of responsible donation and greater public awareness. We want to end the current system of anonymous donation.

That recommendation came from the Standing Committee on Health. However as in many instances, committees meet, bring forward expert witnesses from all aspects of the issue and when recommendations are put forward, they are ignored by the government.

I feel very strongly that we need that amendment in, that a child created has the option of knowing his or her history and lineage.

We get back to the point about adopted children who want to discover what their origins are but are unable to do so. I have a lot of sympathy for those people. As I have stated, someone very close to me was able to find the biological parents and put at ease some of the health issues.

A whole section of society will be unable to do that. They will be a separate class of people, those whose history starts from the day they are born. They will not be able to go back any further than that to find out where they came from. I have English, French and Scottish heritage. Those people will be unable to do that.

We also think that a donor who is not anonymous is a responsible donor. There would be certain responsibilities that went along with becoming a donor. If people had to be willing to be identified, they would be donating for the right reasons. That is so important to the whole moral aspect of what is being proposed here.

Unfortunately, one of the driving forces for anonymous donations is money. If we factor that into this whole system then it will really become bizarre. If it becomes a commercial enterprise in that payment can be received for however many fertilized eggs are developed, that opens a whole new can of worms.

We certainly support some of the amendments in this group. We will not be supporting Motion No. 11, but we will support other ones. It is important that this debate take place and that Canadians realize there that much needs to be done to the bill before it becomes law.

(1220)

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the merits of Bill C-13 on human reproductive technology.

It is hard to believe that the government has taken so long to even begin addressing this important issue. It was 10 years ago that the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies reported. Since that time the government, at best, has paid lip service to this issue. In the meantime technology has been changing rapidly and there has been no legislation to regulate the industry. Indeed, the government has shirked its duty and once again has relied on outside agencies to set quasi regulations rather than be proactive and set legislation in place. We are very glad we are at this point in the debate in the House today.

I am proud to say that some of the strongest voices on this important issue come from my own riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan. Shirley Pratten and her daughter Olivia have appeared before several standing committee meetings. They have expressed their opinions in a clear and concise manner and have added immeasurably to the debate. On behalf of all members I want to thank them for their insight and commitment to this important issue.

Simply put, the bill is about improving human health. As a member of the Canadian Alliance, as a father and a foster parent, I strongly support research that is compatible with the promotion of dignity and the value of human life. I would like to speak to some of the amendments that are before us today.

The preamble sets the tone for the remainder of the bill. In turn, I believe that the preamble should state unequivocally that the bill refers to the promotion and the protection of human life. I find it ironic that while Bill C-13 deals with the creation of human life, the preamble does not even reflect this, so I urge the House to adopt that amendment.

I would urge also that the House adopt the proposed subclause (h) in clause 2 which would recognize that persons with disabilities can lead full and satisfying lives and enrich the lives of those around them. We must simply ensure that reproductive technologies are not to be used as a tool for eugenics. The screening of in vitro fertilization embryos for the purpose of eliminating those cells that may contain some disease or disability simply is not acceptable. It sends a terrible message to the disabled community of Canada. It is very important to recognize that disabled people are not lesser persons than the rest of us. We need to see that the House clearly states this in the legislation.

I have had the pleasure of being a foster parent to over 145 children and the adoptive parent to three. All of these children have added much to our family. I firmly believe that families are the cornerstone of our society and that adoption is an alternative means of building families, one with many benefits for all involved and one that should be recognized in the bill.

I note that in clause 3 there is only recognition for one donor. Let us remember that there are two parents for each embryo. This clause should be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 2 with the recognition of each biological parent of the embryo. Any decision making with respect to in vitro embryos should not rest with only one donor.

I also strongly support the proposed amendment to clause 5 which calls for the deletion of lines 33 and 34 on page 4. The existing clause would allow for the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures. Simply put however, we oppose the creation of embryos for research purposes. Life should not be created in order for it to be destroyed.

One of the more important issues that the bill has denied concerns the identity of donors. In turn, I support the amendment to clause 18 on page 12 that calls for the recognition of the donors' identities.

We are all unique individuals, yet we are all a product of our biological parents. It is important to allow children born through donor eggs or sperm to know the identity of their biological parents. Under the existing draft of Bill C-13, this is prohibited. Donor offspring and many of their parents want to end the secrecy that has shrouded donor anonymity and currently denies children the knowledge of an important chapter of their lives.

Liberals have made the claim that they want to put the interest of children first, but in this case they have allowed the desires of some parents to trump the needs and interests of all the children conceived through reproductive technology. In reality, the government has attached a greater weight to the privacy rights of donors than to the access to information rights of donor offspring. In doing so, I believe that the government has this backward.

(1225)

Listen to some of the statements that Olivia Pratten made to the health committee when she appeared before it on October 25, 2001, and told committee members what it felt like to be conceived through an anonymous donation. She said:

I have never had access to any of my medical or genealogical histories. I don't even know if I have any half-brothers or half-sisters. I'm quite doubtful my doctor ever maintained proper records, and even if he did, it's unlikely they still exist...With the fact that I don't have my medical information, and it's very unlikely I ever will, I almost feel like I was created in a back alley. It's like I wasn't good enough or wasn't worth keeping the records for...an anonymous system violates our human rights, as stated in article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to “undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity.

Canada, incidentally, ratified this convention in 1991.

She went on to state:

As for myself, born of an anonymous system, I'm completely in the dark about my donor. I have no possible way to find him or find any information about him... I'm always left pondering, trying to put the pieces together of who this man was and how this relates to who I am today. If I could somehow know who he was, it would not alter the essence of who I am. I know that already, but it would alter the way that I look at myself.

I would like to see a system where donors cannot donate unless they are willing to be identified if the child requests this when he or she comes of age at 18. The donor enters the program knowing this before donating. After all, he entered into this voluntarily; as offspring, we never asked to be put into this situation.

Those are elegant words from Olivia Pratten.

I believe that Olivia has provided a great deal of wisdom in those and the other statements she made to the standing committee and we should certainly heed them.

The very last issue that I wish to make comment on today refers to clause 70 and the proposed amendment. This amendment calls for a three year prohibition on experiments with human embryos, corresponding with the first scheduled review of the bill. Embryonic stem cell research is ethically controversial and it divides Canadians.

I have received hundreds of e-mails and petitions from concerned Canadians stating their opinion on this particular matter. Today during petitions we heard from four different members all tabling Canadians' wishes for a focus on adult stem cell rather than embryonic stem cell research. Let us remember that embryonic stem cell research inevitably results in the death of an embryo, an early human life. For many Canadians, this violates the ethical commitment to respect human dignity, integrity and life itself. It also constitutes an objectification of human life, where life becomes a tool which can be manipulated and destroyed for other, even ethical, ends.

I have come to learn that adult stem cells are easily accessible, are not subject to immune rejection and are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions.

I believe that the government has been far too long in addressing this issue. I am pleased to see it come forward, however, I must urge all members that if we are going to address this issue, let us be certain that at this time we get it right. The current draft of Bill C-13 does not have it right in many respects and it requires change. Now is the time to correct it. I hope members in the House will have the intestinal fortitude to do it.

(1230)

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments which include the title. I am not sure whether someone has talked about the title and what happened to the original title, but the original title of the bill was “an act respecting assisted human reproduction”.

Someone might ask why it is important that the title has been changed. What happened was that the committee, without the approval of anyone it seems, changed the title to assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. It seems to me that part of the purpose for that was to put the emphasis more on technology and to take the discussion and the debate away from what the bill really is about, which is human reproduction. I think that is an important change just in the tone of the debate.

When we look at the title of the bill and what is in the bill we see that the bill's original title, “an act respecting assisted human reproduction”, was appropriate. I think it should be returned to that. That proposal was made but it may be difficult to get that changed now.

In looking at the bill we see that the bill is about improving human health. The Canadian Alliance strongly supports research to this end, obviously. Who does not? However it has to be compatible with the dignity and value of human life. What we are talking about here is human life and human reproduction.

The Canadian Alliance will strive to protect the dignity and value of human life. We have seen in Parliament over the past nine years that there have been certain members of Parliament from all parties who have focused on protecting the dignity and the value of human life. However, as a political party, certainly the Canadian Alliance has focused on that more so than any other political party. That is important to our members.

The bill is important not only for Canadian Alliance members of Parliament but for Canadians generally. I am pleased to see members from other political parties who understand that and to hear them speak out very strongly on that throughout the debate at second reading and now at report stage. I am sure it will be carried through to third reading.

If we look at the essence of the bill it is about the best interests of the children born of assisted reproductive technologies.

The Canadian Alliance will continue to work hard, as our critics have, as others who have had input into the legislation have and as our former leader, Preston Manning, did as he worked through committee, over the months and months that led up to this bill, taking care of every detail. The Canadian Alliance will continue to work to protect the children born of assisted reproductive technologies. To me that is the essence of the bill. I do not think the title properly reflects that.

The bill is also about the prospective parents and the best assisted reproductive technologies that science can ethically offer. The Canadian Alliance will work to preserve that access to prospective parents which is also important.

When it comes to dealing with this issue, it will be extremely important, and I think most Canadians would agree, that all MPs from all parties have a free vote on the bill at all stages.

(1235)

The bill was brought forth by the government but it is too important a bill to be dealt with through party whips. The essence of the bill deals with human life and reproduction. It is about protecting the children born of reproductive technologies or assisted by reproductive technologies, and it is about the parents of these children. It is the type of issue that should be dealt with and settled entirely by each member of Parliament voting to represent their constituents on the issue.

I know that many members of Parliament from the governing party and the official opposition have done a lot of work with their constituents on this issue. They have had a lot of debate on the issue, more debate than we probably have had on most of the legislation that has passed through the House. They have had that debate and have heard from their constituents. There is obviously no other appropriate way to deal with this other than to have a free vote. I cannot stress that too much. It may sound like I am belabouring the point but it is a point that has to be made clearly. If we see a whipped vote, then I think each MP who accepts that should have to answer to his or her constituents on it because it is that important.

When we look at the legislation we see that dealing with the research of human embryos is a key part of the legislation which is what makes it so important. Clause 40 says that human embryos can be harvested if the new agency satisfies itself that it is necessary for the purpose of proposed research. However this discretionary power must be reduced by defining in the bill what constitutes necessary. I think that is something that must happen. I know we are not yet speaking to the group that deals with clause 40 but when looking at the title this certainly is a connection that should be made. It must not be left to regulations made by the agency.

We have seen too much of that in legislation where, instead of dealing with the hard issues in legislation, the government leaves the issues out of the legislation and then deals with the sensitive issues through regulations so that it is not open to public debate nearly as much. I do not think that is an appropriate way to handle issues like this. I think Canadians are looking for clear definitions on words like necessary when looking at the issue of research involving human embryos.

The purpose of research on human embryos is not specified in the bill. The purpose must be restricted to creating medical therapies that will assist in healing the human body. It is not specified in the bill what the purpose of research on human embryos really means and it certainly should be.

A modification in the phrase from the majority standing committee report should be placed in clause 40 of the bill. It would read “unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that no other category of biological material could be used from which to derive healing human therapies”. This is an important amendment and one which I hope would be supported by all members in the House.

I see my time is up. I am looking forward to speaking to the other groups of amendments as they come before the House, as well as to third reading of the bill. To me this is clearly the most important legislation that the House has dealt with and will deal with for some time.

(1240)

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague who just rose to address the bill.

The Canadian Alliance presented something in the order of 100 amendments that we felt would make this a better bill and more adequately suit the needs of society that are being requested and looked at here. If my count is right, I think something like three or four of our amendments were accepted in a very minor way, which is a great tragedy because there was a tremendous amount of research, reason and consultation with our constituents on those amendments. The amendments, a couple of which I will refer to, would not have taken away the possibilities that are available to us as human beings in this particular bill.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I think it is important for the House to know that the reason for the amendments not being accepted was that the committee members of the health committee were not permitted to make them. That is no reflection on the quality of the amendments. The member should be aware that the Speaker made that very clear when he addressed the House this morning on these motions. The member should withdraw his remarks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Thank you for the reminder. The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the interjection. I will not be withdrawing the remarks and I am glad the hon. member opposite did reflect on the quality of our amendments.

In my view and in the view of constituents who contacted me about this particular bill Canadians, being trusting, rightly or wrongly of our process here, feel that things are moving along in a proper fashion with the bill. But of Canadians who raised and brought their concerns forward, their concerns could have been addressed in a way that would not have been harmful or destructive to the issues that are being presented.

I will give an example. One of the fundamental aspects of the bill is that it presents Canadians with a moral dilemma, do we allow life to be created for the purpose of destroying it, for the purpose of research or of coming up with some kind of product, albeit a healing product, or something else? Do we allow life to be created for the purpose of then destroying it?

That is an ethical and moral dilemma which confronts, bothers and troubles many Canadians. It could have been avoided simply by saying that research and development in this area would be focused on non-embryonic cells. Twenty years of animal cell research on embryonic cells shows that there is an astonishing lack of possibility and progress in terms of developing healing properties through embryonic cells. Non-embryonic cells are absolutely available. They are less prone to requiring a lifetime of immune rejection therapy that would be required if embryonic cells were used. They are more able to be controlled for a certain purpose whether they are directed toward diabetes related issues, Parkinson's or whatever it may be. There is greater control and possibility of healing properties through non-embryonic cells.

There are more problems just on the physiological side by using embryonic cells and by the government insisting that embryonic cell research can go ahead in this way. It plunges millions of Canadians into this moral dilemma. It could all have been avoided if the government had said it would focus on non-embryonic cell research.

The question of donors is something that is a concern to many Canadians. Witness after witness came forward from all over the country saying that the issue of donors should be addressed. We proposed an amendment that would have allowed children born through donor eggs or sperm to know the identity of the biological parents and the bill prohibits that. There are a couple of concerns about that.

We know for instance that criminals, in certain prisons, even in the United States, are able to donate into that particular donor bank. That, literally, would allow the possibility that somebody could be receiving the donation from, let us say a criminal or convict in a jail cell in Mississippi. I am not saying anything pejorative about where the jail cell is but I am suggesting that at the very least recipients should have the opportunity to know that and then make a judgment on whether they should be the recipient of such a donation from such an individual. At the very least, leave that up to the recipient to decide.

Not only that. As we well know genetic health information is important for health issues that could arise later on in life. There is more than compelling evidence to show that it is important that we have access to our own genetic code for the purpose of confronting, and hopefully overcoming, future health difficulties.

(1245)

The government has refused to allow that to happen. Donor offspring and many parents want to end the secrecy that shrouds this donor anonymity and denies children an important chapter of their lives. The Liberals claim to want to put the interest of children first. I will not attack that claim at face value; I want to accept it at face value. However, if that is true then in this case one would think that the desires of some parents should be acknowledged related to the needs and interests of children. The government is attaching a higher weight to the privacy rights of the donors than to the access of information rights of donor offspring. Frankly, that is all backward.

These are just two areas of concern that we heard from people across the country that could have been addressed without serious detriment to the bill. In fact our society would have benefited, first from the avoidance of the excruciating moral dilemma which I have addressed, and from having access to information that could be not just valuable but possibly lifesaving later on in life.

These are two examples where the government has failed the people of Canada, which could have been addressed. We hope that at sometime in the future, upon reflection, the government would look to these areas brought forward by Canadians and bring these changes into being.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has come to my attention by reviewing all of the documentation that one of the motions which I had submitted for report stage purposes has been inadvertently left out and replaced by another. It has to do with the definition of chimera, I believe it is report stage Motion No. 5.

I understand, since the deadline for submitting the report stage motions was 6 p.m. yesterday, that the officials and their support staff were here until 6 a.m. to try to put this together. I understand how this can happen and I suspect that there are some other items.

I also note that with the groupings that we were advised of this morning, that in Group No. 2 I have 10 minutes to speak to 14 motions. I could not even read them in 10 minutes. I believe that if I had an opportunity to talk to the legislative counsel and to the Speaker that there could be some accommodation at least for splitting a group into subgroups so that at least a minute or two could be spent on each motion.

Our staff is not available because they have gone home to sleep. We need to sort this matter out because we have some other contradictions or issues, and I know members are concerned about what happened to their motions, We are trying to get it settled.

I wonder if the House would agree to defer the further consideration of Bill C-13 report stage motions in Group No. 1 until these questions could be asked of the appropriate staff or officials to get clarification so that members will know what they are talking about.

I cannot address 14 of my report stage motions, which I spent a lot of time during the Christmas break developing, in only 10 minutes. I think the grouping is unfair and in fact will constitute a breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament to do my job.

(1250)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order because I think it is very valid.

As of 10:30 this morning I had an opportunity to look at the different groupings and how they were put together. When we look at some of the subject matter in Group No. 2 particularly, it is understandable that my hon. colleague would be upset because of the 14 amendments that he put forward. I know it was difficult for him to speak during committee as we went through this.

The dynamics and the differences in Group No. 2 are also quite significant. To give 10 minutes to speak to that wide a variety of subject matter in Group No. 2, I would suggest is a breach.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I listened attentively to both presentations and I will take the matter under advisement. It will be reviewed by the Speaker as well as by the clerks. In my opinion, if the member has 14 amendments that he wants to speak about then 10 minutes is definitely not enough time. However, let us wait and see what the Speaker has to say about it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would entertain a motion for the House to adjourn until 2 o'clock?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, any measure that the Chair may take to allow the hon. member to express his views will be welcomed by the Bloc Quebecois, particularly since we are aware that our colleague worked hard in committee. However, we are opposed to interrupting our proceedings, since it is urgent that Parliament deal with this bill.

We are prepared to give more time—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): So, there is no consent to have the House adjourn until 2 p.m.

Therefore, we shall resume debate on Group No. 1.

(1255)

[English]

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare Motion No. 1 carried.

(Motion No. 1 agreed to)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare Motion No. 2 carried.

(Motion No. 2 agreed to)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 5.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know I earlier raised the point that an amendment had been incorrectly put on the Order Paper. It is the one which you have just read, but it should have been another one. You have deferred consideration of that until you have had a chance to consult. As this particular motion which you are asking us to vote on is under consideration by the Chair, I believe it would be appropriate to defer putting this particular question in Group No. 1 until a proper investigation of which motion should have been on the Order Paper has taken place.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The Chair will hold Motion No. 5 in abeyance until a bit more research is done.

The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Translation]

The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

(1300)

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The motion is defeated.

(Motion No. 11 negatived)

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): We shall now move on to Group No. 2.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier a point of order was raised with regard to the number of motions in Group No. 2, including that I have some 14 motions in one group and have only 10 minutes to speak. I think the Chair decided that it would defer its decision on whether or not we could have some relief.

I would appreciate some clarification if we should be moving the motions now. It may pre-empt some accommodation. I would ask that the House consider suspending until 2 p.m. to give the officials an opportunity to make that determination.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am advised that your motions will be put at the very end of Group No. 2 in order to give the Speaker an opportunity to rule on your request of having time given to the 14 motions. I am advised that should come soon enough.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attempt for accommodation. As the Speaker will know, it is not only the member who moves the motions who is here to speak to those motions, but it is all other members. At this point members will not know whether or not they are speaking to my motions.

With due respect, I honestly believe that the answers to what we will be debating should be made prior to moving any motions in Group No. 2 so that members have an opportunity to speak to the motions that are legitimately on the floor.

I would again ask that the House be suspended until 2 p.m.

(1310)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I thank the hon. member for his representations. We will now proceed with proposing the motions in Group No. 2, without prejudice to any decision the Speaker may make with regard to how debate on the motions in Group No. 2 will proceed. I can assure the hon. member that the questions will not be put to the House until due consideration has been given and the Speaker has come back to the House.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to comment and ask for your assistance in the arrangement of these motions in groups.

I would point out to you that Group No. 1 has seven motions, Group No. 3 has 11 motions, Group No. 4, which is mainly about administrative matters and the agency, has 16 motions, and Group No. 5 has 11 motions. In opposition to that, Group No. 2, which deals with the most serious concepts and the issues most highly debated in committee, contains 27 motions. I do not have a motion in that group, unlike the previous speaker who has 14 motions, but even I, in trying to comment on the major issues which are being proposed in the 27 motions, would find it difficult to comment within 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if you could divide Group No. 2 into 2A and 2B. The member for Mississauga South and members who have worked now for two full years on this issue might at least have sufficient time for fulsome remarks on each of the 27 amendments proposed. It is impossible to comment on them in 10 minutes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, your ruling has put us in a predicament as has already been described. Quite a number of motions have been put forward. According to your ruling, we do not at this point know if we are going to be addressing these more than once and whether there will be an opportunity to address them at length. We do not know whether the 10 minutes that we are allotted now to speak to this will occur again. I need some clarification from the Chair as to whether we will have another opportunity to speak to some of the other motions if the Speaker so rules.

Is our speaking time used up now? Will we have an opportunity to speak to the many other motions that are still coming? That is the predicament we are in, in addition to what has just been described.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I wonder if you might find consent to go to Group No. 3 and then come back to Group No. 2 later.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the House give its consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Agreed and so ordered. We are moving to Group No. 3.

Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (for the Minister of Health, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-13, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 9 with the following:

“(b) to the extent required by the regulations, make counselling services available to the person;”

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-13, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 17 on page 9 with the following:

“(d) in accordance with the regulations, provide the person with the information that the Agency makes available to the public under paragraph 19(i).”

(1320)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 11 the following new clause:

“16.1 (1) The Agency shall prescribe standarized forms and information disclosures related to the terms, conditions, options and other information relevant to the donation, use and ultimate disposal of human reproductive material for use by all fertility clinics or other parties that obtain human reproductive material for human reproduction or research purposes in accordance with the regulations.

(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) shall specifically include

(a) details on the option to give embryos up for adoption; and

(b) the facts related to what percentage of embryos donated for embryonic stem cell research are likely to produce stem cell lines that would meet the research quality requirements.

(3) All forms and information disclosures shall be approved by Parliament.”

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-13, in Clause 21, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 15 the following:

“(3) The Official Languages Act applies to the Agency.”

Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (for the Minister of Health, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-13, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 35 on page 15 with the following:

“the professions respecting assisted human reproduction and other matters to which this Act applies, and their regulation under this Act, and respecting risk factors associated with infertility;”

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-13, in Clause 26, be amended by deleting lines 30 to 33 on page 16.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-13, in Clause 26, be amended by deleting lines 10 to 17 on page 17.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-13, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 18 with the following:

“its powers under section 40, 41 or 42 or any of its powers or duties”

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-13, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 19 with the following:

“eligible for reappointment for one additional term of office only.”

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-13, in Clause 39, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 20 the following:

“(4) The Agency shall establish a dispute resolution process, which may include arbitration, to resolve any disagreement which may arise between the Agency, the donors, the licensees and any other relevant parties.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The member who proposed Motion No. 78 is not in the House. Therefore we will not proceed with it.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that Motion No. 78 be put in the name of the member for Fundy--Royal.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take it that we are discussing Group No. 3, since we have set Group No. 2 aside.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): That is right. We are now at Group No. 3. We will return to Group No. 2 later.

Mr. Ménard: Having read the amendments that the Chair has selected, I see that they deal with prohibition and payment for surrogate mothers, in particular.

I would remind the House that, for each of the groups of amendments to which I will be speaking, the Bloc Quebecois has serious concerns about the whole issue of the regulatory agency. If I understand correctly, the amendments will be discussed in greater detail when Groups Nos. 4 and 5 are considered. Because of this, I will refrain from commenting on the substance of the amendments, but I believe that the urgency of the situation that we experienced over the holidays compels us, as parliamentarians, to realize that it is important that the Criminal Code contain provisions to remind us that a certain number of practices are prohibited.

Of course, we could lament the fact that this government has demonstrated its characteristic sloppiness on this issue, and that it has taken almost ten years since the findings of the Baird commission, a royal commission of inquiry, to introduce legislation.

It is interesting to review the values to which each of the 13 prohibitions contained in the bill corresponds, for us as a society and as human beings. This bill on new reproductive technologies—or assisted reproduction, to use the official terminology—clearly contains extremely important ethical components.

We are opposed to human cloning because we believe, obviously, that every human being is unique. Every human is an entity in and of itself. We cannot imagine an equal relationship in terms of interpersonal or parental relations when a parent has a child who is identical to the parent in every way. This obviously raises questions. It raises questions about psychogenesis. How would a child be raised? How would the child's development be affected, if he or she sees a mirror image in his or her parents?

Among the prohibited procedures, we are also opposed to the genetic modification of cells to ensure that certain features are passed on from one generation to the next. Science would have enabled us to decide we wanted, for instance, children with blue eyes and blond hair who will grow to be six feet tall and weigh 180 pounds. We are talking about a choice made on the basis of specific physical features, and this can be achieved by altering a number of germ-line cells. We take it for granted that prohibitions like this one must be maintained.

In addition, we are opposed to the maintaining of embryos outside the womb for more than 14 days. We are talking about in vitro embryos here. Why this 14-day limit? It may sound like an arbitrary timeframe, but it is not. Fourteen days is the limit unanimously agreed to within the scientific community. After 14 days, the central nervous system starts developing. There would therefore be problems with maintaining outside the womb an embryo known as an in vitro embryo.

Moreover, we are opposed to a much debated aspect of the bill, that is, how far research should go. Should the creation of embryos for research purposes only be allowed? The bill—and I agree with this provision—prohibits the combination of genetic material and the creation of embryos exclusively for research purposes. We believe that when an embryo is created, it must be first and foremost for the purpose of reproduction.

(1325)

As set out in the bill, this does not mean that, when there are authorizing mechanisms or cycles of fertilization that have left surplus embryos, a person cannot give consent for such embryos to be used for research. This is, however, part of another framework, which requires authorization by the agency to be created.

This authorization will, of course, make progress in research possible. But when it comes down to it, for ethical reasons relating to the concept of what constitutes human life, we believe that a created embryo must be used for reproductive purposes, not research purposes.

It is forbidden to create one embryo from another. Understandably, a child created under such circumstances would be deprived of ancestry, of natural ties to the human race, to the species. We cannot condone such a practice.

Any use of human reproductive material in the body of an animal would, of course, be an offence under the legislation. One very precise example of this: bringing ovum cells to maturity on the skin of a mouse.

In committee, there was another ethical debate on forbidding the selection or determination of a child's gender. We have the technology to do this. It is acceptable in certain specific cases, since it is known that certain gender-related diseases are passed on from one generation to the next,or skip a generation. Under such circumstances, technologies to identify sex may be authorized.

With the exception of medical considerations justifying jeopardizing the life of the mother or the unborn child, the value of individual equality stops us from wanting to see future parents able to determine a child's sex automatically. “If it's a boy, we don't want him; if it's a girl, we do”, or vice versa. This is not the kind of society we want to live in. We believe that men and women have an equal contribution to make to society, and I am sure the hon. member for Jonquière agrees with me on that.

Another very important provision is the one that prohibits the purchase, bartering or exchange of gametes. This leads me to a very important aspect of the bill: the only maternity we recognize is altruistic maternity. Under the bill, it is prohibited to pay someone to carry a child.

Of course, one can carry a child for altruistic reasons—although the Criminal Code does not recognize this type of maternity—but, as parliamentarians, we are definitely not prepared to allow someone to tell a woman, “I will give you $50,000, $100,000 or $250,000 if you agree to carry a child that will be recognized as mine”. This is bartering, buying or selling and profit seeking, and these are not values we embrace.

My time is almost up, but I will have the opportunity, during the debate on the third and fourth groups, to explain why the Bloc Quebecois will support the bill, albeit with some serious reservations about the constitutional interference that the creation of the proposed regulatory agency will lead to.

(1330)

[English]

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a bit difficult to keep up with the changes in the day by debating Group No. 3, prior to Group No. 2. It was agreed that debating Group No. 2 would be very difficult because of the dynamics. If we look at the 26 or 27 amendments, we will see that there is such a variety that it becomes intense. I hope you will rule on that soon, Mr. Speaker, so we can get back to that part of the debate.

This part of the debate is very important because it talks about accountability on three fronts. One is the accountability when it comes to the different infertility clinics across the country involved with in vitro fertilization. It is very important that we understand how we can hold those fertility clinics to account for what is practised within those clinics.

I am not saying that are not doing everything above board. I am saying we need to look farther up stream when we look at them. Often when we talk to scientists or doctors who are involved in this, success to them is a brand new baby. That is as far as it goes. When they have a live child who is healthy, that is success to them.

We spoke to other individuals involved with in vitro fertilization and we looked up stream a little farther. Individuals who were 19 or 20 years old and adults came to committee. They suggested that they were having difficulty trying to cope and understand where they came from because of the practice that went on years before. We have to take their interest into consideration.

Part of that is to hold infertility clinics accountable. The other is to hold the government accountable. Some amendments deal with how we would audit the agency that would be set up. I would argue that the agency is the most important part of the proposed legislation.

Some people say that the bill is about the embryonic stem cell; others say it is about surrogacy and donation of gamete. I would argue that it is neither of those. I would argue that probably the most important part of the legislation is the regulatory body that will take us into the 21st century and will determine how far we will go or not go when it comes to the whole area of infertility. Virtually we are in the position where we are playing God. The regulatory body will be asked to make decisions that are very important to individuals in not only their lives but in the lives of generations to come after them because of the decisions that will be made.

We need to hold that body accountable. We have to understand how it is made up. Some of these amendments speak to that. The body is not the Senate. The body is there for a certain period of time for a certain job. We have to ensure that body is not driven solely by science or a single interest of any kind. We are creating something new, an agency that will take us into the 21st century. We must be absolutely sure that we look at all sides of the issue and that the regulatory body is responsible to the House and to the people of Canada through an extension of the House. If we do not, we will fail in the proposed legislation in a way that we could never imagine. Therefore that is what some of these amendments are about.

Let me go back to holding the infertility clinics accountable and about counselling. This was a very hot issue in committee. We listened to the witnesses and tried to understand why they were in the situations they were. We asked them how much they understood about the process and about the opportunities to have a child in another way. Virtually all of them said, “What counselling, what opportunity, what information? They knew nothing about that.

The proposed legislation revolves around the idea of embryos in refrigeration in the 25 or more fertility clinics across the country. What do we do with those? Then we have individuals who cannot conceive who have the opportunity to take one of those embryos in the freezer and use it to create a child of their own. However that had not been given to them as an option and they did not know the opportunity existed. They did not know that was something that could even be considered, but the drive was there for their own genetics. A lot of these people are not so concerned about that as they are about having a new child and having the experience of creating that child.

(1335)

When it comes to the counselling side of it, as a committee we virtually unanimously said that we wanted not just the opportunity for counselling to be provided in those clinics, but that it be necessary to go through counselling and to have that information available. In fact we even said that maybe counselling should not really even take place in clinics, that maybe there should be third party counselling because fertility clinics have a monetary vested interest in how they would counsel. Perhaps the counselling should come from outside the clinics so that there could be no attempt to manipulate an individual with a very altruistic rationale and reason for going into this whole area. They should have not informed consent but informed choice about the options ahead of them. It is very important.

When I see the government putting forward an amendment that would water this down and just leave it there as an option, I suggest that this is something we should consider soberly and very carefully. The idea is to make available all of the information before an individual or a couple go into the most important area of their lives, which is to conceive a child and to create a new human being. The responsibilities that come with that and some of the challenges that will happen down the road because of it are very important.

That is why I would like to speak to Motion No. 52 in particular, which is about counselling. I am really appalled that the government would put forward an amendment actually reversing some of the decisions and amendments made in committee by individuals from all sides who listened to the witnesses, discerned and understood just how important this is and how it actually has been abused in many of the infertility clinics across the country.

Accountability of the clinic is very important, but then we can go on to look at some of the other amendments. Motion No. 55, for example, says that there should be appropriate forms and that they be standardized so we have that information available. When we start talking about a gamete donor, whether it is an egg or sperm, we should not be talking just about the numbers but about how to identify them. We identify them in more ways than by just placing a number on them. We should be identifying that material because it is human material that does not consist just of cells. It actually is the beginning of life. It all comes from individuals. It has a record and the potential of human life; when it is able to cause conception in an individual, it certainly is all of that. We should not just be numbering it. We should be naming these embryos, because they are life at its beginning.

I listened to some of the earlier debate in the House and the question of whether this is life at its beginning. I do not think that is really a debate. It is life at its beginning. It is just biology and it does not matter how one looks at it. One cannot deny that it is biology and life begins at conception. How much value we place on life at that stage is a fair and open debate, but that it is life, one cannot debate. DNA starts there. DNA is created when 23 chromosomes from an egg and 23 chromosomes from a sperm come together and start to grow. That same DNA is there for as long as you, Mr. Speaker, and I are on this earth. The DNA never changes. We have to discern the importance of understanding that this is life at its beginning, that it is not just cells. We have to be accountable for how we treat that life, for treating it with the dignity it deserves.

I also would like to talk about the accountability of the regulatory body. The terms for sitting on that body should be limited so that it is not completely controlled by a certain group of individuals, so that all interested parties have an opportunity to be heard and to be discerned so their views are understood before a decision is made as to how far we are going to allow the regulatory body to push its agenda. Believe me, that body will be pushed as we go forward into the 21st century. It is very important that we in this place hold that body accountable. Now we have an opportunity to amend the bill appropriately and I hope we consider it.

(1340)

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, before I commence my comments on the Group No. 3 amendments, I want to make a comment on today's confusion in the House, which has led us to this point. I am sure that all members of the House realize that the legislation is probably one of the most important and ground-breaking pieces of legislation to come before the House in a number of years, because it is opening up huge new frontiers to us. It is important not only for us today but for the future of all Canadians who are not yet born. We need to get this right. It is very important for us to be able to not allow the special interest groups or particular biases of any of us to interfere with this process.

I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone else who is in the chair, will be able to give us full flexibility to deal with this issue. The matter raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South certainly is bang on as far as I am concerned. We need to take the time to hear from all sides on this issue, particularly those who worked so long, and to not make an end run around the legitimate committee process, in which so many members worked for so long, to make sure this is done right.

Having said that, I would like to look at Group No. 3 amendments and related matters as they affect the whole bill.

The mandate of the agency in the bill, at clause 21, is to “promote...the human dignity and human rights, of Canadians”, yet as we stated in our comments on the Group No. 1 amendments, this is really not reflected in the preamble of the bill. If there were a different statement of principle in the bill itself, it would affect the kind of regulatory agency there is and even the purpose and aims of that regulatory agency. The contradiction could be resolved by, for instance, including the following statement in the preamble. By the way, this is taken almost word for word from the majority report of the health committee. It states:

It is hereby recognized and declared that assisted human reproduction and related research must be governed by principles and practices that respect human life, individuality, dignity, and integrity.

I suggest that the inclusion of such a statement in the preamble would go a long way toward setting the proper boundaries for the regulatory agency.

I know from having sat on a number of committees in the House how frustrating it is for us to do a lot of work in which members sometimes in the heat of the debate do have some heated exchanges, but where at the end of the day the good of country is put before all of that. The members come together in some kind of opinion that should be carried through on with legislation. To have the government of course then just ignore those particular unanimous or near unanimous recommendations of committees is a devastating thing. Again, let us get this right and take the time to do it.

Another matter is that the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada will not, according to the legislation, report to Parliament, only to the minister. We have had other situations in other quasi-government agencies where this has been the case. It circumvents the responsibility of Parliament to be the final judge and arbitrator of what is happening according to government agencies. This should be an independent agency that reports to Parliament.

(1345)

Clause 25 allows the minister to give any policy direction she likes to the agency. The agency must follow it without question. The clause also ensures that such direction would remain secret. If it were an independent agency, answerable to Parliament, such political interference and direction would be far more difficult. We are suggesting that this entire clause should be eliminated for the good of the future work of the agency.

Members of the board should have fixed, twice renewable terms of three years to ensure that the minister simply cannot get rid of a non-compliant board member or keep one on forever. This again was a recommendation of the majority health committee report and should be implemented.

The performance of the agency should be evaluated by the Auditor General rather than the agency itself. Of course in the last number of weeks and in past years, we have seen how important the work of the Auditor General is, not only in terms of uncovering wasteful practices of government departments and agencies but also in making sure that the original intent of the agencies and the government departments that receive taxpayer money are actually kept on track. That kind of review by the Auditor General of course would be made public. We feel that there should be transparency in that regard.

As my colleague from Yellowhead has already suggested, the creation of new fertility clinics, for instance, also should be a very transparent process. The licensing of these new clinics should be something that all of us can see as that process moves on.

In the passing of any new legislation, there is of course the possibility for a particular sector of our economy to perhaps make more money than it used to. It is quite possible that the passing of this legislation will create a fairly lucrative business for a number of related agencies, along with job opportunities. We have to realize that the bill and the setting up of the new fertility clinics could become very big business. Money would become very much a part of that, for example, in regard to the whole role of surrogate mothers and some members wanting to allow surrogate mothers to charge for their services. All of this becomes very much a concern if it turns into a big business and takes out the aspect of really majoring in the public health and good of the country.

The bill also allows for the creation of advisory panels. We believe the bill should mandate that they include some key stakeholders. We would suggest these: the users of assisted human reproductive technology; children born with the assistance of AHR technologies; and people with disabilities. The disability community has had a fairly emotional yet rational response, I believe, to the possibility of new reproductive technologies taking place in this country. I have a little daughter who is quite severely disabled. Certainly one would want to protect the interests of that community, which often finds itself very vulnerable in the face of government regulation and society as a whole. We would suggest that people with disabilities have a large role to play on these stakeholder committees. We would also suggest the following: the scientific and medical communities; the faith communities, to discuss the ethical dilemmas that surround this; professional ethicists and representatives of research ethics boards; private sector providers of services and private research firms; taxpayers and their representatives; and, of course, the provincial and territorial governments.

This again is in accordance with the majority and minority health reports of the standing committee and we would hope that members of Parliament would see fit to include these recommendations in the law.

(1350)

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of items in the bill that bother me and that would make me want to support the amendments to the bill.

I noticed in the agency part of the bill that the minister in Motion No. 72 has actually moved to delete 10 lines on page 17. It appears to me that she is endorsing the conflict of interest part of this agency that we are fighting against. In other words, she would be endorsing the fact that anyone who sat on a pharmaceutical board, who was involved in research and could make a profit from the bill, would be allowed to do so with that particular deletion. I would have to look for a lot of clarification on that before I could consider that to be a good amendment.

I believe that conflict of interest to this House is an issue that we all take extremely seriously and that we should look at in the light that whether it is upcoming legislation that involves corporate donations or whether it is a simple thing like a ticket to a hockey game from a corporate sponsor for a member of Parliament, a person may ask “What is the next thing?”.

According to what I read in Motion No. 72, “That Bill C-13, in Clause 26, be amended by deleting lines 10 to 17 on page 17”, it would allow conflicts of interest among the board. I do not think that is right.

I also want to comment on the standardization, the forms and the agency that would be being formed here: the terms, conditions, options and so forth in Motion No. 55 in the name of the member for Mississauga South. The motion includes:

details on the option to give embryos up for adoption; and

the facts related to what percentage of embryos donated for embryonic stem cell research are likely to produce stem cell lines that would meet the research quality requirements.

I have an adopted daughter. We have spent an inherent amount of time being private detectives trying to find out her history. No history is available, at least none that I know of. I searched everything from the birth mother's OHIP number, the old Ontario hospital insurance number, to searching CPIC to see if the person has a driver's licence but none of those exist. I have gone down the path of trying to find the history of someone in my own family. It is for their information not for mine. I am quite happy to accept everyone as they are.

However the fact is that she wants to know her lineage, her roots and what the possible connections could be genetically that cause us to be in certain forms, such as whether one keeps a good head of hair, like the member from Calgary, whether one is bald, or whether one is allergic to peas or to something else. Some of these things cannot be found out until it actually happens, whereas if there is genetic information available one can be on the lookout for it.

In my own case, all the men in the O'Reilly family, previous to me coming along, all died in their late forties and early fifties. No one knew why until we researched it and found out that there was a genetic problem that sets in around the age of 45 to 47 where blood pressure starts to elevate. Back in the forties and fifties blood pressure was not something that anyone looked at as a problem. Being able to trace that, knowing what to look for, seeking the proper medication and doing the things that can be done, we can preserve and make our lives longer.

(1355)

I am most interested in the fact that transparency not be removed from the bill, that it be very transparent and that people will be allowed to know the health and the history of their parents.

As we go through the bill and the amendments to it, we should keep in mind that this bill deals with life itself. It deals with the reproduction of human beings. It deals with what can happen with the recent scandal over Clonaid and those people who pretended they cloned someone. We need to make sure that when we examine the bill that we examine it all the way through and that we look at every clause, not taking a particular line because someone is a right wing fanatic, or someone is a religious lunatic, or someone is maybe standing up for the rights of the unborn.

We have to look at the rights of people who, like myself, have adopted children. I think those children have a right to know their background. They have a right to know what they can expect in their growing years and what they can expect to find out from their genetics.

In conclusion, I just want the House to know, and certainly the people who have phoned my office with concerns about the bill, that we are reading it and going through it line by line. I look forward to debating Group No. 2, which, by the way, I cannot read because it is messed up. I hope we get to the bottom of that and find out that it is placed properly. I seconded the motions from the member for Mississauga South. I did it not just to fill in the numbers but because I believe in what he has brought forward.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[S. O. 31]

* * *

[English]

Firearms Registry

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, over the past few months we have seen the facade of the gun registry program unravel before our eyes. This other billion dollar boondoggle of the Liberals has given Canadians little security in their person, reputation or their privacy.

Just last week we heard that a computer hard drive, loaded with personal health and financial information on the residents of Saskatchewan, was stolen from ISM Canada in Regina, but what about that broken down old wreck, the firearms interest police database?

People are named within that system whether they are gun owners or not. The data is unreliable, an invasion of privacy and has gone through the hands of several private industries. A database system is only as secure as the people who have handled it. Lives have been disrupted due to inaccurate or mischievous information inserted into that system.

I ask the Minister of Justice to call it a day. The registry is compromised. Will he axe the database before the information gets into the wrong hands? It is that serious.

* * *

(1400)

Iraq

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents in the riding of Hamilton Mountain are concerned about Canada's involvement in any conflict with Iraq.

As this volatile situation continues to dominate the news and the minds of Canadians, I feel it is important to speak out on behalf of my constituents on this issue.

I would just like to state categorically that I am against Canada's involvement in a war with Iraq. War must be a last resort. I share Canada's view that on matters of peace and security the international community must speak and act through the United Nations Security Council. The stakes in this situation are simply too high.

As the member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain and speaking for the thousands of my constituents, I wish to express my strong opposition to Canada's involvement in any conflict with Iraq, except through a clear mandate of the United Nations.

* * *

Iraq

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to paraphrase the Toronto Star columnist Jim Travers who wrote that while the U.S. fist-shaking at Saddam Hussein successfully masks more pressing problems, including a flagging domestic economy, escalating violence in Israel and Palestine and the failure in effectively prosecuting the war on terrorism, violence is not the answer.

No matter how hard the Pentagon tries to reposition war as a bloodless video game, it will have inescapable consequences. Soldiers will die, civilian losses will be coldly counted as collateral damage and an unstable region will rearrange itself in ways that defy forecasts or logic.

I appeal to the House and to the government to remain committed to a multilateral UN approach and to have real faith in democracy. There should be no declarations of war until and unless a binding vote is taken in the House. There are political costs to defying uncle Sam but war is no way to try to please a friend.

* * *

Brampton

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make my first statement as a parliamentary secretary about the City of Brampton.

On January 17, 2003, the City of Brampton celebrated its 150th anniversary, and the celebration will last for the entire year. I invite members of the House to join me in congratulating the mayor, members of city council and the citizens of Brampton for the wonderful celebration.

Brampton is also known as the city of flowers or the city of gardens. Brampton is home to over 325,000 citizens and is one of the fastest growing cities in the country. Brampton is the home of Nortel Networks, Chrysler Canada, Brampton Brick and many high tech corporations, and employs over 100,000 citizens.

I ask members of the House to join me in wishing Brampton a happy birthday.

* * *

Government of Canada

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister struggles to finish off his political career on a positive note, his so-called friends in cabinet insist on making it a bumpy road home. Every time he pretends to rein in the largesse of his ministers, especially his former finance minister, another one jumps up and proves again that the Liberal government is rotten beyond repair.

The heritage minister is now taking her turn at proving the Liberals just do not get it. She said recently “Obviously, there's a link between corporate donations and government policy...”. This is quite an admission from a minister of the crown who sits at the cabinet table cooking up the thin gruel that passes for government policy under these Liberals.

We have also learned that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not above strong-arming her own corporate connections at Heritage Canada to keep her sputtering leadership ambitions funded. She will never have the high priced connections of the member for LaSalle--Émard, but then again she will never have to register any ships offshore either.

* * *

[Translation]

Iraq

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues in this House, I have received calls and letters from constituents in my riding of Laval West, asking that the government not enter a war against Iraq.

We know that the government in that country is far from democratic. But before any offensive is launched, I want to put on the record that the clear and unequivocal consent of the UN is absolutely necessary. Peace and security worldwide are at stake.

* * *

Riding of Berthier—Montcalm

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House today as the new member for Berthier—Montcalm.

My first words are words of thanks to the people of my riding for the trust they have shown in me by sending me to represent them in the House of Commons. I want to assure my dear friends in Berthier—Montcalm that I will look out for your interests in Ottawa.

As I said repeatedly while campaigning, I will focus my action on issues dealing with the social and economic realities of our region, that is, agriculture, lumber and health.

I will also go to bat for all seasonal workers in the tourism industry, who are heavily penalized by the existing provisions of the employment insurance plan.

I also take the opportunity afforded me in this House today to reiterate my commitment to my top priority: to support the people of Quebec in their pursuit of nationhood.

* * *

(1405)

[English]

Canadian Forces

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr.Speaker, Canadians have identified what they felt should be the government's top priorities. They named health care, the economy, education and defence spending as their top four national issues. With an upcoming budget these priorities need to be considered.

Most Canadians believe that the main problems facing the Canadian Forces are inadequate resources for equipment and personnel. Three out of four Canadians agree that the defence budget needs to be increased. Many Erie--Lincoln constituents also share these views. In a recent letter writing project by Lakeshore Catholic High School leadership class, one of the reoccurring themes was the need to adequately fund the men and women in the Canadian armed forces.

I urge the Government of Canada to consider the priorities listed by Canadians and Erie--Lincoln constituents, especially with regard to defence issues. We need to provide solutions to the immediate needs of the Canadian Forces that reflect the values and desires of the Canadian public.

* * *

Visible Minorities

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently Statistics Canada reported that my riding of Richmond, B.C. has the highest proportion of visible minorities in the country. Among municipalities with 5,000 or more, Richmond leads the way with 59% of its population being part of a visible minority group.

The census reported that during the 1990s Richmond was the top ranking city for immigrants to live in with the largest increase occurring in the Filipino community. Canadians of Chinese origin have established businesses and organizations in Richmond making it an exciting multicultural and diverse community in which to live.

Eventually these newcomers will embrace Canadian citizenship and the Canadian way of life. Richmond has excellent schools and community centres thereby making it a wonderful place to live and raise a family.

* * *

Immigration

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week I held a town hall meeting on problems faced by new immigrants to Canada. Representatives from over 30 cultural groups gathered for a discussion of delays in processing, the need for settlement services and difficulties in obtaining accreditation for training received in other countries.

One man from South America with Masters degrees in both science and education told of being accepted as an independent class immigrant on the basis of his 15 years' teaching experience. However when he reached Canada he discovered he did not qualify to teach here. His current job is restocking vending machines.

A PhD student from China talked about other examples of wasted immigrant talent. He said “It's just like pulling out a tree--you transport it to this country but you forget to water it”.

Immigrants and our wonderful country deserve so much better from this government.

* * *

[Translation]

Fisheries

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, Fisheries and Oceans Canada released the results of the 2002 commercial fishing season in Quebec.

On November 30, nearly 58,000 tonnes of fish, shellfish and crustaceans were landed in Quebec, at a total value of $158.7 million, an overall increase over last year. This is the highest tonnage since 1995, at the highest value since 1993.

As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said last Thursday in Quebec City, during the conference of the Association québécoise de l'industrie de la pêche:

By working together, the Government of Canada and the fishery can meet the challenges of tomorrow, maintain a strong fishery and aquaculture sector and produce the best quality seafood possible.

* * *

[English]

Foreign Aid

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tonight the world will be watching the toxic Texan give his state of the union address to the American people and to the world. I guarantee the bulk of that speech will be based on future war in Iraq.

I encourage the President of the United States to start focusing on the war on despair, the war on poverty, the war on famine, the war on homelessness and the war on AIDS that is raping and pillaging the people of southern Africa. The real war that is facing us in the world today is the humanitarian tragedy that is beyond belief. As our colleague, Mr. Stephen Lewis said, “If the world does not focus on this, it is a human calamity beyond repair”.

I encourage the President of the United States, our Prime Minister, all parliamentarians and all Canadians to focus their attention on the real despair in this world, which is that of the peoples of Africa.

* * *

(1410)

[Translation]

Riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, first, to sincerely thank the voters of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay for supporting me on December 9. My words, actions, and sense of priorities will prove that they made the right choice.

The best way of showing my gratitude will be to be an effective spokesperson for the issues on which there is consensus in our region, in order to make concrete improvements in the everyday lives of my constituents.

I would also like to remind the Liberal government that, during the election campaign, it came and made promises to the people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. As you can see, the people of my riding have not forgotten, and nor have I.

Finally, I hope to prove to everyone, particularly young people disillusioned by politics, that politics are essential if we want to make things happen and are still, in a democracy, the best way to send a message.

* * *

[English]

Olympic and Paralympic Games

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation for submitting the bid book to host the Olympic and Paralympic winter games to the International Olympic Committee in Lausanne, Switzerland on January 9, 2003.

Canada is still competing, along with Salzburg, Austria and Pyeongchang, South Korea to win the rights to host the world in 2010.

We have a great team made up of great players and I know we can win gold for Canada. The team, led by Mr. Jack Poole, includes volunteers and governments, first nations and athletes, the Canadian Olympic Committee and Canadian Paralympic Committee and leaders from business and finance from right across the country. I thank them for the good work.

Members please join me in congratulating the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation for its success to date. Let us go for the gold. Let us bring the Olympic and Paralympic winter games home in 2010.

* * *

Health Care

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, for many years Canada's publicly funded health care system was the envy of the world. In the beginning the federal government paid 50% of the cost of provincially delivered health care services and had the moral authority to insist on a truly national health care program.

However the federal government drastically cut health care funding to the provinces, resulting in a dangerously downgraded health care system. Now paying only 14% of the costs, Ottawa no longer has the moral authority to insist on national standards.

The federal government has recently indicated it will put more money into health care. Accordingly, it is essential that the Prime Minister reach agreement with the premiers on a renewed and modernized health care program.

Canadians expect their leaders to work co-operatively to restore our health care system as one of the hallmarks of our citizenship.

* * *

[Translation]

Louis Archambault

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were saddened yesterday by the news that Quebec artist Louis Archambault had died at the age of 87.

Louis Archambault was a refined artist who was respected by his colleagues and who redefined sculpture. He was one of the first sculptors to do public monumental art, and he moved sculpture from the religious and commemorative themes of the past to abstraction and modernity. The works of Louis Archambault can be seen throughout Canada.

Louis Archambault was also an excellent teacher, and he influenced young artists when he taught at the École de meuble and at the École des beaux-arts, in Montreal, beginning in the seventies.

In 2000, his life was the subject of a documentary entitled “À la recherche de Louis Archambault”.

On behalf of the Canadian government, I want to praise Louis Archambault for his work and for his influence on sculpture in Canada. I also wish to offer my most sincere condolences to his family and friends.

* * *

[English]

Specific Claims Resolution Act

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House is scheduled to debate Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act. The Canadian Alliance strongly supports speedy resolutions of claims but we cannot support the government bill because it would not accomplish that goal.

In committee the Canadian Alliance introduced more than three dozen amendments to strengthen the independence, transparency and accountability of the Indian claims centre that would be set up under this legislation.

No timelines were mandated in the Bill C-6 process. In fact there are numerous opportunities for the government to stonewall. The proposed structure lends itself to patronage peddling.

Our Canadian Alliance amendments would have sped up the claims resolution process, reduced conflict of interest, increased organizational independence and saved taxpayer dollars. Every one of our amendments was brushed aside, despite support from opposition members.

This bill would offer very little hope to first nations or taxpayers that the backlog of specific claims would ever be resolved in a responsible and expeditious manner.

* * *

(1415)

Heart Disease Awareness Month

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and the people of Canada that next month is Heart Disease Awareness Month.

Great progress has been made by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada but there is still a long way to go in the fight to reduce the major risk factors such as smoking, high cholesterol and diabetes.

Events are planned in communities from coast to coast and I would like to encourage all Canadians to benefit from leading a healthy lifestyle. Lack of exercise is a significant health factor in the development of heart disease. Studies have shown that children whose parents are physically active are likely to be active as well.

Let us kick off this campaign to develop healthy habits and become role models for all Canadians.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions ]

* * *

[Translation]

Iraq

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we continue to head toward a serious international situation, and this government needs to have a clear plan of action.

We have looked at the responses provided by the Prime Minister yesterday, and I would ask him the following in order to allow him the opportunity to clarify his position: does the government feel that resolution 1441 is sufficient on its own to give the international community the assurance that Saddam Hussein is disarming his country?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the resolution imposes a very clear path on Saddam Hussein. He must take the necessary steps to provide the information required by the inspectors.

The inspectors are doing their job, and made their report yesterday. As far as the atomic bomb is concerned, they say that a new program has not been established and that they are not satisfied with the responses obtained to date in connection with weapons of mass destruction other than atomic ones. They have asked for an extension in order to continue their work . When they come back with another report, we will be able to know whether or not Saddam Hussein has complied with resolution 1441.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister neglected to answer the authority question, but let me continue.

Yesterday, as the Prime Minister noted, the United Nations inspectors' report said that Saddam Hussein has not fully complied with his obligations. Today, the Prime Minister of Australia said the same thing. The British foreign secretary said the following:

The conclusion is now inescapable that Iraq is in material breach of resolution 1441.

Does the Prime Minister agree with this position?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not what Mr. Blix reported. He reported that he has not completed his work; that he is working on that; that he needs more time to do his job, and then he will report. When he reports, if he comes to the conclusion that Iraq is in a real breach of the responsibilities imposed on it by resolution 1441, we would be in a position to react according to the report of the inspectors.

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister should not be spectators. The government should have its own opinion on what is happening in this situation.

We never used to be a spectator. A multilateral coalition of countries, including Great Britain, Australia, the United States, Spain, Italy and others is prepared to keep the pressure on Saddam to comply with United Nations resolutions, including resolution 1441.

Is the government prepared now to stand with the allied coalition to seek enforcement of this resolution?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everybody is seeking the enforcement of the resolution. This is the position of the Canadian government. We have always clearly indicated that if Saddam Hussein does not respect the condition of resolution 1441 we will then be in a position to decide what to do.

According to resolution 1441, it says there will be great consequences, but we cannot make conclusions about a report that has not been made yet. We are waiting for the report and we are saying to Saddam Hussein that it is better for him to respect resolution 1441 because the consequences will be very great.

(1420)

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a menace to international security and to all the values we hold dear as Canadians. The Canadian people and Canada's allies need to know where we stand. As a matter of fact, Saddam Hussein, the tyrant himself, needs to know where Canada stands.

Will the Prime Minister please tell us if Canadian officials are involved in the strategic planning on enforcing the United Nations resolution on disarming Saddam Hussein?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this question of the resolution I would like to quote the leader of his party who said on Saturday, “I think everybody should wait and assess the evidence before deciding on the most appropriate courses of action”. That is from his leader.

What the leader, the member of Parliament, said was that it is under the control of countries that threaten our values of freedom and democracy.

For us, it is very clear. We are not to make a final decision until we know if Saddam Hussein wants to avoid a war. For him to avoid a war, it is very clear, he has--

The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are glad he is finally listening to our leader.

In its resolution the UN clearly demonstrates that it understands the only thing Saddam Hussein has ever responded to is the threat of serious consequences for his barbaric actions. In order to provide a strong deterrent to Saddam Hussein, the growing multilateral coalition of nations, including Australia, Great Britain, the Czech Republic and others, is deploying to the region to back up the UN resolution.

Why will the Prime Minister not commit to a Canadian deployment to help support the United Nations resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, resolution 1441 is very clear. We were one of among the first during the summer to ask the United States and Britain to go in front of the United Nations to get a resolution. Resolution 1441 is a unanimous decision of the Security Council. We want Saddam Hussein and everybody to respect the United Nations and go according to the resolution.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration believes the UN Security Council resolution 1441 gives the U.S. all the legitimacy it needs for military intervention in Iraq. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that resolution 1441 is very clear.

Will he now tell us if he shares George Bush's opinion? Does the Prime Minister believe that with resolution 1441, the U.S. does not need a second Security Council resolution in order to attack Iraq? Yes or no?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Saddam Hussein fails to comply with resolution 1441, not only the U.S., but its allies too will be there to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are removed from Iraq. That is the resolution. It is very clear. We must wait for a clear report from the inspectors. Mr. Blix has asked for more time to do his work. We believe that we must give him more time so that we can make a decision based on a full report.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that resolution 1441 is very clear. This is indeed true, particularly the last article, article 14, which specifies that the Security Council, and I quote, “Decides to remain seized of the matter”. So, nothing has been decided and it is up to the Security Council to meet and decide by way of a second resolution.

Given the clarity of resolution 1441, can the Prime Minister tell us who must decide on military intervention in Iraq, the Security Council, with a second resolution, or the United States, on its own?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first we have to wait for the inspectors, under the authority of Mr. Blix, to do their work and report to the UN. All of the questions the member is asking are questions that will need to be raised in the House once Mr. Blix has submitted a report, after having been satisfied with the work he has done and with the facility of carrying out his work in Iraq. In order to accomplish this, he needs time. We believe he must be given the time necessary to do the job properly.

(1425)

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, paragraph 14 of UN Security Council resolution 1441 states that the Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter.

Does the Prime Minister understand that when the Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter, this means that it wants to reserve judgment until later and decide whether Saddam Hussein has met the conditions? Does the Prime Minister believe that this is the Security Council's duty and will he wait until it has fulfilled that duty before making any decisions?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the best example that the process is working well is that Mr. Blix reported to the Security Council yesterday and said that he was going to present another report to the Security Council. This indicates that the Security Council's authority is being respected in the way things are being done and I hope this will always be the case.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not have the right to feign ignorance. Many people might be in favour of going to war against Iraq, but France might exercise its veto power in the Security Council.

Under these circumstances, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is up to the Security Council to decide and not the U.S.? It is the United Nations, and not the United States that must decide. Does he acknowledge that?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe we should wait until there has been a veto before we talk about it.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am sure Canadians do not take the view that we should wait until everything happens before we talk about it. We want the Prime Minister to tell us what the position of the Canadian government is now. It is a fair, procedural question for Canadians to want to know what the Prime Minister's position is with respect to the need for a second Security Council resolution.

Will it be the United Nations that makes a judgment on the weapons inspectors' final report or will it be the United States? What is the Prime Minister's position? He owes the Canadian people an explanation of where he is at on this.

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Blix will report to the Security Council again. He provided an interim report. He said he needed more time and then he will report again. After the report, he will advise.

In terms of debating that, we had question period yesterday, we have question period today, and there will be a debate tomorrow night when all members will be able to express their views.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, I am asking the Prime Minister, through you, where he thinks the authority lies for making a judgment as to what follows from the final report of Mr. Blix. Does it reside with the United Nations Security Council or with the United States?

As for Parliament's role, could he tell us if he will allow a vote on whether or not Canada will participate in any military action? He did not answer that question yesterday.

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in terms of the process in the House, we have done that clearly for many years. We always have debates on that. We will have a debate tomorrow night on that. Mr. Blix will not report for weeks and we want members to express their views right now.

There is a time when the government decides. It is the constitutional authority of the government to decide and if the opposition believes that the government is not doing its job properly, it can always vote non-confidence.

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he will follow established parliamentary procedures on votes about war. On October 19, 1990, the House agreed to a government motion that spelled out:

...the undertaking of the Government to present a further resolution to this House in the event of the outbreak of hostilities involving Canadian Forces in and around the Arabian Peninsula--

As the prospect of hostilities grew, the House was then recalled especially for a further motion and a vote.

Why will the Prime Minister not allow, in this crisis, the kind of vote by Parliament upon which he insisted during the Gulf War?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we have to make decisions like that, for example, in the case of Kosovo, we follow the precedent that has existed for a long time. It is a decision of the government and the government can always be defeated if it makes the wrong decision through a confidence vote.

(1430)

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the master of the double standard on everything he does.

I have a question for the minister of defence. The minister of defence has said that Canadian Forces in the Persian Gulf area are ready for military action should the time come. The minister knows the trouble his predecessor got into when the rules of engagement for Canadian troops in Afghanistan were not clear, including the treatment of prisoners of war.

Can the minister inform the House whether new rules of engagement pertaining to military action in Iraq have been issued to Canadian troops now in the area. And, if so, when were those new rules of engagement issued?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that question is triply hypothetical. There may be no war. If there is a war, there may be no Canadian participation. Who knows what the rules of engagement might be for a hypothetical Canadian contribution to a hypothetical war?

* * *

National Defence

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last year the government made a huge flourish about giving raises to our military families. What it is doing next month with much less flourish is to slash and cut the cost of living allowance of military families making them substantially worse off this year than last.

What kind of a government do we have that while we are sending our troops off to a potential war, and their families are dealing with that, the government has chosen to slash their incomes?

I ask the Minister of National Defence, will he halt next month's cuts to their cost of living allowance? Yes or no.

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House should congratulate my predecessor for making quality of life his top priority over five years. As a consequence, the Canadian Forces receive substantially higher wages, a substantially higher income for areas where the price of housing is much higher, and substantially improved health care.

We still have work to do but a huge amount of progress has been made.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the minister, that is absolute nonsense. Our armed forces personnel possibly are going to war. Their families are concerned. Next month the government is going to slash their cost of living allowance. Last year in November it increased the rents on their substandard homes.

When is the minister going to do the right thing and halt these cuts to their income? I ask him, for the sake of our armed forces personnel, to stop these demoralizing cuts now.

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, there is no one who has more respect for the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces than the people on this side of the House. With all due respect to the hon. member, what I said is true. There have been substantial increases in the salaries and quality of life of our military. That is a fact.

* * *

[Translation]

Iraq

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the time came to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the Prime Minister said that the issue was important enough to warrant a vote in the House of Commons, and he added that this would be a vote of confidence in the government.

The environment is an important issue, but the decision to go to war is at least as important. If the Prime Minister feels that this is an issue of confidence, he should let members of Parliament vote on it.

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for several years now, our practice has been to consult the House whenever Canada participates in a military operation. This has been done every time since the current Prime Minister took office, even when only a small number of troops were involved. This is what we have done, and the government is committed to continue to do so. Incidentally, there will be a debate tomorrow evening on this issue, and there was unanimous consent in the House yesterday on how to proceed.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a recent poll shows that the public does not want Canada to take part in a war against Iraq. Members of Parliament receive comments from their voters on this issue and, as representatives of the public, they wish to have the opportunity to vote on it.

Does the Prime Minister's refusal to let parliamentarians vote on this issue, despite what his party always said when it was in the opposition, not show that his only fear is the fear of being defeated by his own members on this issue?

(1435)

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his colleagues all know that we are using an approach that has been there for years. We have used it each time. About once a week, there are opposition days to allow parliamentarians to debate any issue.

The hon. member knows full well that what he is sayaing today is not quite accurate.

* * *

[English]

National Security

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals imposed a punitive $24 tax on air travellers last year to finance air security. On the other hand, no user fee has been imposed on shipping companies for port security. That means air travellers get taxed while shipping companies, like Canada Steamship Lines owned by the former finance minister who imposed the taxing imbalance, get security without a tax bite.

Why should Canadians tolerate this clear example of a taxing imbalance for security needs?

Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that there are a variety of charges that apply in the shipping industry. In the case of the air transportation security charge, the member also knows that we have released a consultation document. I hope that with some changes that are coming we will be able to see a reduction in that charge.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are no specific charges for port security and the government cut the port security.

In the former finance minister's last budget he played shell games with taxpayers' money and selectively taxed one industry but not another.

Canadians deserve secure borders, secure ports and secure airports without a tax increase.

I ask the finance minister, will he end the unfair taxing of one industry and not another, and put Canadian security interests first and the corporate interests of the former finance minister last?

Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has answered the question with respect to the user charge on the airlines.

What the hon. member fails to inform the House of and consistently ignores are the security improvements that the government has put in place since September 11, 2001, not just in aviation, but look at the announcement we made last week with the ports.

The member should be focusing on that and reassuring Canadians and not alarming them.

* * *

[Translation]

Health

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is preparing to put back into the health sector a portion of the money cut since 1994. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister wants to do so with strings attached, and this is unacceptable to the provincial governments, which have responsibility for health care.

Despite the formal commitment made by Bernard Landry that all moneys paid out by Ottawa will go directly to patient care, how can the Prime Minister maintain that there will be conditions, when his government is not the one with the expertise in health, the provincial governments are?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that this time he is not going to put the money in the Toronto Dominion Bank in Toronto. If he indeed wants to use it strictly for health, I am thrilled. I trust that he will have no objection to doing the same as the other provinces and the federal government, namely being accountable to the public for all expenditures, as is normal procedure in a democracy.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that his government administers five hospitals, four for aboriginal people and one for veterans? The federal government lacks expertise in health care.

How dare it dictate procedures and priorities to provincial governments, which are responsible for health care, when its true expertise is limited to five hospitals? Once and for all, ought it not to be wise enough to leave it up to the provincial governments to look after these responsibilities?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the ministers of health, and I believe a fairly clear agreement exists between all governments, the federal government included, on the priorities.

We want to be sure that the moneys which will be made available in the budget and which we want to see allocated to health care will focus on these priorities. We also want to see each level of government clearly reporting to the public on what it is doing with the taxpayers' money.

* * *

[English]

Goods and Services Tax

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, shortly before the House recessed in December, the Minister of National Revenue indicated that $25.4 million had been lost due to GST fraud and not the $1 billion that has been widely reported.

She was able to get away with clouding this issue because her department no longer reports GST input tax fraud in the public accounts.

Would the minister explain who made the decision to stop reporting these numbers? Was it the CCRA, Treasury Board or the former finance minister?

(1440)

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year some $28 billion was collected from GST and over the past six years, as I reported, there have been accounted some $25.4 million.

My agency is forthcoming at public accounts. We are happy to report it in any way that the public accounts committee would like because we believe in openness and transparency and are happy to provide all of that information as always.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem to understand that she has a responsibility to Parliament. The minister has a duty to report lost revenues to the House.

There is a huge difference between $25 million and $1 billion. Just ask the justice minister. The revenue minister should clear up the difference. There are strong possibilities that this GST fraud may be connected with organized crime.

Would the minister tell the House why she did not report this problem in November when the issue first came up?

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while our enforcement officers are extremely good at what they do, it often takes more than one year to complete cases before the courts. There are a number of cases before the courts at the present time.

As I have said and I will say once again, we are very pleased to report to public accounts in any format which would conform to its requirements the total of GST fraud as it has been determined by the courts in any given year.

* * *

Ethanol Industry

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the benefits of the ethanol industry in this country are clear. Ethanol can eliminate over 30 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. It will generate over $1.5 billion in new investments. It will create new markets for 100 million bushels of wheat. It will generate 2,000 new jobs.

This year alone the United States has built one ethanol plant per month, while in Canada only one plant has been built in 10 years.

Would the finance minister make a one time commitment of $400 million over the next eight years to kickstart this industry in Canada?

Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has been a champion of the ethanol industry since he arrived here. It is no coincidence that his riding is the home of Canada's largest producer of ethanol, Commercial Alcohols.

As we prepare for the upcoming budget, the member will know that we have put a lot of our emphasis on alternative energy sources over the last several years. I will be working very closely with my colleagues in order to ensure that we continue to find alternative energy sources to help us achieve our Kyoto target.

* * *

Health

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Roy Romanow was crystal clear and Canadians have been crystal clear that profit must be kept out of health care. In the draft accord the Prime Minister presented to the premiers, there is no mention of this fundamental issue.

Does it not strike the Prime Minister as problematic that what he has said to the premiers could very well have come from the official opposition? The Alliance wants private hospitals. The Liberals just do not bother to stop them. What is the difference? Will he put a real Romanow offer on the table?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me underscore for the hon. member that Canadians have been crystal clear. What they want is a publicly financed system.

This government has been crystal clear. What we want to do is work with the provinces and the territories to ensure that the publicly financed system is sustained into the future and continues to provide accessible high quality care to all Canadians.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Prime Minister who is clearly interested in his legacy.

Unless he starts to listen to those commissions, the National Forum on Health Care, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care, he will leave a legacy of ignoring the experts he sought out for advice and the advice of Canadians.

Will he start to listen to those royal commissions, change his position to the premiers, and put forward a Romanow offer that keeps the profit out of health care?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate for the hon. member that all those reports and task forces she referred to talked about a commitment to publicly financed health care. What Canadians have talked to us about, and what they have talked to Mr. Romanow and Senator Kirby and others about is a publicly financed health care system.

I suggest the hon. member should look at our proposed draft accord. She will see there are measures that will ensure a publicly financed health care system for all Canadians well into the future.

* * *

(1445)

Iraq

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, incredibly a minute ago the Minister of National Defence said who knows what the rules of engagement in the conflict will be. If the Minister of National Defence does not know the rules for his own forces, who does?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my goodness, talk about out of context. I would have thought the hon. member would remember I said that for a hypothetical Canadian contribution to a hypothetical war, it would be very difficult to know in that doubly hypothetical situation what the rules of engagement would be.

* * *

National Defence

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces have ID paint on their vehicles that shows up in the thermal imaging screen of its weapons system to mark them as allies. In 1991 the British went into combat without such markings and suffered casualties as a consequence. Our Coyotes do not have this marking. Canadians are therefore at risk of being victims of friendly fire once again.

What steps has the Minister of National Defence taken to obtain the necessary marking system to avoid any more tragic losses for our military?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that if our soldiers were to wear the dress of the hon. member over there they would be very well identified.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. John McCallum: More seriously, Mr. Speaker, I know that our Coyote vehicle is a top of the flight addition to our military. I will look into the answer to the hon. member's question with great seriousness.

* * *

Agriculture

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, here is another joke for the Liberal government. For three years the agriculture department has been in chaos. Programs are dysfunctional. The agriculture policy framework is a failure. Staff morale is at an all time low. This bureaucracy has completely failed agricultural producers.

Now we understand that this year's farm programs will be delayed by one year. There are only 10 weeks left until farming begins. What past unworkable program will the minister be dredging up and forcing farmers to endure in 2003?

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member has just said, we will have some changes to the support for agriculture, starting in April of this year. Crop insurance will continue, with some improvements. The industry and the producers have asked us to take a look at improving programs such as NISA, including a disaster component to a new design of NISA with different levels of contribution and different participation choices by producers.

I can assure the hon. member that we will continue those discussions with the provincial ministers this Friday.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that the APF is a failure. It will not meet its deadlines. He and his department have spent two years planning a new agriculture policy framework and the government is once again failing farmers.

Twenty-two farm organizations have written directly to the Prime Minister about their concerns about the APF. Farmers realize that the minister is wrecking NISA. Farmers fear they will be stuck again with CFIP in 2003 and they are facing reduced crop insurance coverage.

The minister knew years ago that these farm programs were ending and needed to be replaced. Yet he can still not get new programs in place. Why?

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been consulting with the industry and consulting with the provinces. We will continue that.

I can assure the hon. member that every province will have the opportunity to make improvements to their crop insurance program, for example, for the 2003 crop. That is what the producers have been asking for. They have been asking for changes to the net income stabilization account. We are discussing those changes. I can assure the hon. member that we will have those changes in place for the 2003 crop year by April 1 of this year.

* * *

(1450)

[Translation]

Health

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec gave his word that all the federal money Quebec received would go to patient care. So it is hard to understand why the federal government is not satisfied with this unequivocal commitment.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why he is obstinately refusing to transfer money unconditionally, when the provinces have proven that they are the experts in patient care?

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the governments have the same priorities. The Premier of Quebec said that this was the case, and the Prime Minister of Canada said that this was the case. So things are moving along, and we do not see why the Bloc Quebecois is objecting.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the federal government decided to cut health services, it cut everywhere, leaving the provinces to deal with the mess.

Now that money must be restored to the health care system, why has the government suddenly decided to make such a fuss about where and how the provinces should spend the money?

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada restored the transfer payments while the provinces, during that same period, made $22 billion in cuts. So much for the past.

With regard to the future, we all know that Canadians want their governments to make health care a priority, and that is what we intend to do in partnership with the provinces, while respecting each other's jurisdictions and agreeing on the priorities that will ensure that our health care system remains one of the best in the world.

* * *

[English]

Canada Elections Act

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last fall the Supreme Court gave imprisoned murderers the right to vote in Canada, even though their victims lost all of their rights. Recently, child killer Clifford Olson announced from prison that he supported the decision and that he would vote Liberal in the next election.

Could the minister tell Canadians what he has done to ensure that imprisoned murderers, pedophiles and other violent criminals cannot vote in the next federal election?

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, as the hon. member knows, put in measures regarding this. They have now been overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The justice department and other departments of government are actively reviewing the decision with a view to doing everything we can both to respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, because it is supreme, which is why it is called that, to the surprise of the hon. member, and at the same time to have fairness in a democratic society.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): A minister, Mr. Speaker, who speaks about fairness for murderers but nothing for the victims that these murderers have killed. Last fall the Liberal minister promised to review this decision. Unfortunately, the minister and the justice department have done absolutely nothing to prevent child killers and other violent criminals from voting, even in the last byelections.

Because of Liberal inaction, the Canadian Alliance brought forward the only motion that can be made, a motion to reverse the decision by a constitutional amendment. The government opposes it. Why does it support the rights of murderers?

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member proposed an alleged solution that we should use the notwithstanding clause. Then he discovered that the notwithstanding clause did not even apply to that particular section. Now he wants to have another constitutional amendment that requires the consent of all the provinces and to do that before the next byelection.

The hon. member knows that this is a very serious issue. He should not trivialize it in the way that he is. There is a Supreme Court of Canada decision. He should also know about what the Government of Manitoba did with a similar issue at the time when he was a provincial minister many years ago.

* * *

Finance

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

The central bank rate has been set at the lowest levels we have seen in decades, at around 3%. At the same time, interest rates for popular credit cards such as Visa and MasterCard are hovering at 18%, six times the bank rate. Traditionally, credit cards have moved up and down with the bank rate and the spread has been around 10%, but not since 1995. The spread is now more than 16% at a time when consumer credit debt has achieved levels that are unsurpassed.

My question for the minister is, what is the Government of Canada doing to protect Canadian consumers from the avarice of our credit--

The Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

(1455)

Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Actually, Mr. Speaker, real assets have grown faster than real debt in Canada, which means that Canadians are worth a lot more today than ever.

Second, on the issue of credit cards, our responsibility as a government is to create vibrant competition in the sector. Over 600 products exist in that sector, including low interest credit cards. It is clear to me that Canadians have choice, and they will always act in their best economic interests for themselves and for their families, but to help we have created the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to make them wise consumers.

* * *

Child Pornography

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we now know that Project Snowball uncovered 2,329 suspected pedophiles living in Canada. With the few police officers we have working around the clock, they were able to arrest between 50 and 100 people.

When it comes to the safety of children, does the Solicitor General consider a 4.2% arrest ratio a success?

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, child pornography is a terrible crime. It is unacceptable to Canadians and it is unacceptable to the government.

On the specific point the member raised, the government has been moving forward. We have increased the penalties and we have increased the funding for police. I am pleased to announce today that the RCMP, working with the Ontario Provincial Police, will create a joint steering committee to develop a national strategy on Internet based child pornography. This group will include representatives from CISC and other large police services.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, an Alliance government would immediately put into place a national strategy to stamp out child pornography in its entirety and give the police the tools to accomplish that goal. As well, an Alliance Party would develop a zero tolerance of child pornography, implement it immediately and not wait with their silly games.

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference, certainly, between the Canadian Alliance policies and the government's. This government believes in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we believe in discussing solutions with people. That is why we are setting up the steering committee to develop the national strategy with police forces across the country.

In addition, the RCMP's national missing children's service will be expanded to provide a high level, strategic approach to child exploitation, including child pornography. We are doing our job on this side of the House.

* * *

[Translation]

Poverty

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, poverty is al around us. Sad cases are on the rise. There is an increase in homelessness; more and more children do not eat three meals a day; families live in unsanitary dwellings or dwellings that are too expensive. The situation has become unbearable and requires solutions and resources as soon as possible.

The government is preparing to spend large sums of money on a possible war against Iraq, but does it feel that it is just as important to provide means to fight—

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw the hon. member's attention to the progress that has been made in reducing child poverty in Canada. It has been and will continue to be a priority for our government.

The hon. member need only read the Speech from the Throne to see the continued commitment from the government in supporting low income families through the national child benefit and in working with the provinces and territories to create and increase the services available to our children, our very important youngest citizens. We have made investments in homelessness projects right across the country, and we will continue to do so because poverty must be beaten.

* * *

Aboriginal Affairs

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, despite all the rhetoric about wanting stronger partnerships with first nations and Métis people, the Liberal government refuses to work cooperatively with first nations governments. The government refuses aboriginal leaders their rightful place at the table with first ministers deciding the fate of health services in Canada.

Will the government put an end to this shameful disrespect for the aboriginal people and their leaders and give them their rightful place at the first ministers meeting on health?

(1500)

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first ministers meeting is for first ministers. Ministers are consulting with the aboriginal leaders, but when we have a meeting of first ministers we mean by that the leaders of the provinces and the territories.

* * *

[Translation]

Regional Economic Development

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, after last fall's announcement of the closing of the asbestos mine in Asbestos and the loss of 350 jobs, we learn today that Noranda is announcing the closing of the Magnola plant, which is also in Asbestos. This closing for at least one year, which will lead to the loss of 380 more jobs, is due to the impact Chinese production has had on the drop in the price of magnesium. All of this puts the town and the area in a catastrophic situation.

I ask the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec the following. When will there be concrete action, when will a special emergency fund be created to diversify the Asbestos economy?

Hon. Claude Drouin (Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am saddened by the recent bad news, which along with the news from last fall has devastated the town and the area.

We have already initiated a process with socio-economic leaders to assist in diversification. I can assure the House that we will speed up the process to work toward finding solutions for the area.

* * *

[English]

Points of Order

Oral Question Period

[Points of Order]

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think members in the House should be able to rise and ask a question of the government, of a cabinet minister, without fear of having what they are wearing referred to in the answer. The Minister of National Defence should rise and apologize to the hon. member for Saint John.

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact I was trying myself to rise on a point of order because I know the hon. member is a great friend of the Canadian Forces. I know she asked a serious question and I said that I would report to her with a serious answer. However in the excitement of the moment I used inappropriate language and for that I would like to apologize to the hon. member for Saint John.

The Speaker: I thank the minister and the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona for drawing this matter to the attention of the House.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Canada Pension Plan

The House resumed from December 13, 2002, consideration of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

The Speaker: It being 3.03 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the report stage of Bill C-3.

Call in the members.

* * *

(1515)

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 34)

YEAS

Members

Abbott
Ablonczy
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bailey
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Benoit
Borotsik
Breitkreuz
Brison
Cadman
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Clark
Cummins
Day
Doyle
Duncan
Elley
Epp
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Gallant
Goldring
Gouk
Grewal
Grey
Hanger
Harris
Hearn
Herron
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hill (Macleod)
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Obhrai
Pallister
Rajotte
Reynolds
Ritz
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Vellacott
Wayne
White (Langley--Abbotsford)
Williams
Yelich

Total: -- 66

NAYS

Members

Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bagnell
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Binet
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Cardin
Carignan
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien
Coderre
Collenette
Comartin
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Cullen
Cuzner
Dalphond-Guiral
Davies
Desjarlais
Desrochers
DeVillers
Dion
Dromisky
Drouin
Dubé
Duceppe
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Farrah
Folco
Frulla
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gallaway
Gaudet
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laframboise
Laliberte
Lanctôt
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Lill
Lincoln
Longfield
Loubier
MacAulay
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marceau
Marleau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Ménard
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
Normand
Nystrom
O'Reilly
Owen
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Péric
Perron
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex)
Plamondon
Pratt
Proctor
Proulx
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Roy
Saada
Sauvageau
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Simard
Speller
St-Hilaire
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Tremblay
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wappel
Wasylycia-Leis
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood

Total: -- 186

PAIRED

Members

Carroll
Dhaliwal
Fournier
Lalonde
Macklin
McCormick
Paquette
Picard (Drummond)

Total: -- 8

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it you would obtain unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with the Liberal members voting in favour.

The Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous consent to proceed in such a fashion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members oppose this motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois support this motion.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote against this motion.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party are voting for this motion.

Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan: Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of this motion.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Speaker, the independent member for Chambly votes yes on this motion.

* * *

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

(Division No. 35)

YEAS

Members

Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bagnell
Barnes (London West)
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Borotsik
Boudria
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Brison
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Cardin
Carignan
Casey
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien
Clark
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Cullen
Cuzner
Dalphond-Guiral
Desrochers
DeVillers
Dion
Doyle
Dromisky
Drouin
Dubé
Duceppe
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Farrah
Folco
Frulla
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)