37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 057
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Corrections and Conditional Release Act |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Assisted Human Reproduction Act |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Marcel Desjardins |
|
|
Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.) |
|
|
Highway Safety |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Appointment to the Senate |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Black History Month |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.) |
|
|
Marcel Desjardins |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
National Crime Prevention Centre |
|
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.) |
|
|
Member for LaSalle-Émard |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Les Voix Magiques |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Protection of Children |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Commendation for Bravery |
|
|
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Goods and Services Tax |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Air India |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Amateur Sports |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Goods and Services Tax |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Spending |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Border Security |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
National Parks |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Public Service |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Seasonal Employment |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Military Involvement in Iraq |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 38) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 39) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Allotted Day--Sending Troops to Iraq |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 40) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Canada Elections Act |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (for the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Canada Health Act |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
National Parks |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1010)
[English]
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-352, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, the idea for the bill comes from people in various areas in Canada who believe that the parole system is very lenient in its conditions of release. They would like to see them tightened up, particularly in the area of those who are addicted to drugs. The bill would simply say that one condition of parole from a penitentiary would be that the person must be totally drug free, free from all addictions to drugs, before parole would be considered.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Assisted Human Reproduction Act
The House resumed from February 5 consideration of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 5.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move:
|
That report stage Motion No. 86 be amended by adding in new clause No. 5.1 after the words “licensee to provide” the words “to an independent repository designated by”. |
That would replace the agency with an independent repository.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I want it on the record that the member for Halton is moving the motion and it is seconded by the member for Miramichi. I will take the amendment under advisement and come back to the House. Resuming debate on Group No. 5.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): It is my pleasure to rise again on Bill C-13 as we now debate the Group No. 5 amendments. I believe that the bill is actually one of the most important bills that the House will debate in this session and perhaps in this Parliament.
While the government has been tardy in bringing forward this debate since the 1993 royal commission, I caution the government not to attempt to rush through this legislation without allowing full debate and with every aspect of the bill being carefully looked at.
This legislation will greatly affect the lives of many present and future Canadians. We must take the issue very seriously and fully understand the implications that go with it. We are not discussing the price of a commodity or the engineering of a highway. We are debating legislation that affects the day to day lives and, even more, the very history of individuals. We must not and cannot take this lightly. We must ensure that we get it right.
I currently have some very strong concerns that the government has once again failed in its duty to the Canadian people. For instance, the current wording states that embryonic research can be undertaken “if the Agency is satisfied” that such research is “necessary”
I am very concerned with this wording and what the definition of “necessary” may include. When we permit such subjective language to become legislation that involves an issue such as reproductive technology, I believe that we permit the possibility of abuse and personal hidden agendas. While the health committee recommended that such research should be permitted “only if” researchers can demonstrate that no other category of “biological material can be used for the purpose of the proposed research”, the amendment offered by the Canadian Alliance restores the health committee recommendation and specifies that “healing therapies” should be the object of such research.
While I personally do not believe that embryonic research is acceptable at all, when it is being used for the development of cosmetics or drugs I believe that the practice breaches all moral and ethical boundaries.
With regard to the Group No. 5 amendments, I would like to speak to each of them in turn.
Motion No. 6 calls for the replacing of line 31 on page 2 with the following:
|
with the applicable law governing consent and that conforms to the provisions of the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March, 2002, as detailed in the Regulations. |
The amendment expands the definition of consent to include provisions made in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research stem cell research guidelines and has my full support. I believe that while Parliament must have the ultimate decision making authority in Canada, we must rely upon the expertise, the advice and the recommendations that professionals truly can provide to us.
Motion No. 80 calls for the replacement of line 5 on page 21 with:
|
proposed research and the Agency has, in accordance with the regulations, received approval from a research ethics board and a peer review. |
Again I support the motion. The amendment specifies that research using human embryos should be approved not only by the agency but by a research ethics board and a peer review. Even by being as thorough as we possibly can throughout this debate, the technology is developing so quickly that we do not know what issues will arise in the near or long term future. It is therefore imperative that the legislation include the requirement of an ethics review. The seriousness of embryonic stem cell research requires us to support any extra level of oversight or review.
The next amendment proposed, Motion No. 81, specifies that Bill C-13, in clause 40, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 21 the following:
(1015)
|
(2.1) No person may use an in vitro embryo that was in existence before the coming into force of this Act for the purpose of research unless it conforms to the criteria set out in the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March, 2002, as specified in the Regulations. |
Again, as parliamentarians we must review and use the recommendations that come from expert witnesses and groups such as the CIHR. The clause adds further controls on the use of human in vitro embryos for research, namely that those in existence before the coming into force of this act shall not be used unless they conform to Canadian Institutes of Health Research guidelines. Again I fully support the motion.
Motion No. 82 calls for an amendment to clause 40 by adding after line 5 on page 21 the following. Again this is referred to as subclause 40(2.1):
|
A person who wishes to undertake research involving stem cells from in vitro embryos must provide the Agency with the reasons why embryonic stem cells are to be used instead of stem cells from other sources. |
This amendment places the onus on researchers to explain to the agency the reasons why embryonic stem cells are to be used instead of those from other sources. This is similar to the original recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health that research on human embryos be permitted only if no other biological material is available.
Once again I want to remind the House how very frustrating it is for members of committees to do a thorough job, to make almost unanimous recommendations that are sent on to the minister, and then to have many of those recommendations and amendments simply thrown out. It thwarts the democratic situation in the House and once again adds to the democratic deficit that we have in this country.
I wish to remind the House that adult stem cell research is much more promising and does not involve the ethical problems that surround embryonic stem cells. I remind hon. members that adult stem cells are being used today to treat Parkinson's, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and many other ailments. The results from adult stem cells have been very positive, whereas the use of embryonic stem cells has been very problematic and has not shown the same process.
Of course we also have the problem of rejection. The use of embryonic stem cells requires the use of massive doses of anti-rejection drugs. That is not the case, of course, for adult stem cells. We often can use our own adult stem cells and bank them accordingly. I strongly recommend that researchers should focus their efforts on adult stem cell research and avoid the ethical and moral dilemmas that can arise from using embryonic stem cells.
In the same vein, Motion No. 83 calls for the following amendment:
|
The Agency shall not issue a licence under subsection (1) for embryonic stem cell research if there are an insufficient number of in vitro embryos available for that research. |
Embryos should be used for the creation of life, not destroyed in the process. I support the amendment.
I support Motion No. 86, which states that clause 40 should be amended by adding after line 21 on page 21 the following:
|
Every licence involving deriving stem cell lines from in vitro embryos must include, in the prescribed form, the obligation on the licensee to provide the Agency with samples of the resulting stem cell lines. |
This amendment attempts to control potential co-modification of human life or stem cell lines by requiring licensees to submit samples of derived stem cell lines to the agency.
Motion No. 88 calls for a series of additional clauses relevant to in vitro fertilization procedures. This amendment recognizes abuses and the potential for abuse that can and does occur in some fertility clinics.
(1020)
In turn it would require the agency to establish limits for IVF procedures on: the number of ova that can be harvested or fertilized, the number of IVF embryos that can be implanted at any one time, the number of embryos that can be stored for later use, and the length of time that an embryo can be preserved.
I note that the Standing Committee on Health did recommend that limits be placed on these activities. Furthermore, the amendment seeks to protect the health and well-being of women and children. That certainly has my full support.
Motion No. 89 would revise clause 42 to be amended from “the agency may” to say “the agency shall”. The remainder of clause 42 reads:
|
...in accordance with the regulations, amend, suspend or revoke the licence of a licensee who contravenes this Act or the regulations or the terms and conditions of the licence or who fails to comply with any measures ordered to be taken under this Act, and may prescribe conditions for the restoration of a suspended licence. |
I believe that this amendment has merit and is relative to the issue at hand. Given the gravity of assisted human reproduction it seems appropriate that licensees found guilty of contravening the act should have their privileges suspended.
Lastly, I support Motion No. 90 that adds a right of appeal to licensees who have had licences suspended for alleged violations to the act. If the regulation has the right to suspend, it is appropriate that the right to appeal is equally available.
The amendments that we are discussing today make up an integral part of the total package concerning reproductive technology. I believe they are reasonable and worthy of serious consideration by all members of the House.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is good to be here addressing Bill C-13 and in particular the Group No. 5 amendments. I will begin by speaking generally about the bill and then come back to the amendments as my colleague has just done.
This is one of the most important bills that has come forward in the House since I was elected. It is also the most important that has come forward in a long time because of the potential it has to affect our society and our culture over the next decades.
It is important to note that there are a number of aspects of the bill that are worthy of support in the bill. We support the ban on therapeutic cloning. It is important to have restrictions immediately. We support the ban on chimeras, animal-human hybrids, and sex selection that would be done deliberately. We support the ban on germ line alteration. We support the ban on buying and selling embryos. We think those kinds of things need to be prevented in Canada.
We support the idea of an agency which would regulate this sector. We want changes to the type of agency that has been presented, but it is essential that there be an agency that oversees this sector and what would become this industry.
It is important that the agency be directly accountable to Parliament. I had the opportunity to sit in on a couple of health committee meetings. The director for the Canadian Institute for Health Information appeared before the committee. It seemed that he really felt that he was allowed to run ahead of the legislation. The attitude that I saw that day was that the scientists should be making the decisions and the legislators should be sitting aside. I disagree with that. We have been given the responsibility to oversee legislation and to oversee what is going on in the country.
The preamble of the bill highlights a couple of things. First, it talks about the health and well-being of children, in particular the children that will be born through assisted human reproduction and the fact that those children must be given priority. The second point highlights that human individuality and diversity, and the integrity of the human genome must be preserved and protected. We agree with those concepts, but we also have concerns in those areas.
We support the recognition that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproductive technology should be given priority. In fact, the health committee in its deliberations came up with the ranking of priorities for the decision making around this technology. It stated: first, that children born through AHR need to be considered; second, that adults participating in these procedures need to be considered; and third, that the priorities of researchers and physicians that conduct AHR must be subject to both the children who are born and the adults who are participating in those procedures.
We realize that the preamble recognizes the priority of assisted human reproductive offspring. Other clauses of the bill fail to meet the same standards, the standard of children born through donor insemination or through donor eggs are not given the right to know the identity of their biological parents. There was a discussion in the chamber last week about the importance of those children who are born through reproductive technology needing to have some connection to their biological parents. The bill does not address that.
The bill's preamble does not provide an acknowledgement of human dignity or a respect for human life. I think it is important for that to be in the bill.
In my last speech on the bill I spoke about human life and that generally scientists have come to the conclusion and agree that life begins at conception. It really begins when the DNA package is created and there is little disagreement about that. The disagreement is in what value we give to that life once it is created.
I spent some time speaking about how important it is that we give value to human life and that we see it as valuable from conception right through to the end of natural life. The bill's preamble does not acknowledge human dignity or the specific respect for human life.
(1025)
It is interesting that it is intimately connected with human life and the creation of it. Yet there is no overarching principle of the recognition of the value of human life. As I pointed out in a speech the other day this is a grave deficiency in the bill.
In our minority report from this side of the House we recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize that the human embryo is a human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”. We would say it is important that it be legislatively defined. We need to make an amendment to the bill. The preamble and the mandate of the agency should also be amended to include a reference to the principle of respect for human life.
In our motions today we are talking about research using human embryos. The bill would allow a number of things with human embryos. It would allow experiments on human embryos under five different conditions. First, only in vitro leftover embryos from the IVF process could be used for research; and second, embryos could not be created for research, with one exception: they can be created for purposes of improving or providing instruction in AHR processes. I would think that exception is too broad as it really does open up the door to almost anything.
Third, written permission for experimentation on human embryos must be given by the donor, although in this case the donor is singular, not plural, and it should be plural; and fourth, research on human embryos is permitted if the use is necessary. Again, necessary is undefined.
This takes me back to the problem the government seems to have in defining legislation. I think back to the debate that we had on child pornography where the courts ruled that artistic merit was allowed and in John Robin Sharpe's case it was a good enough defence for his material. The government came back in response to that and suggested that we need to replace the defence of artistic merit with the public good. The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam pointed out the other day that the definition of public good would broaden the allowance for child pornography rather than narrow it. We have a number of situations in places where the government is unable to make the definitions necessary to put boundaries in these situations.
The research on human embryos is allowed if the use is necessary, whatever that means. The bill would also allow for experiments on human embryos if those human embryos were destroyed after 14 days.
We have some concerns about embryonic research. I have some concerns personally as well. The research is definitely controversial as it divides Canadians. There are numerous petitions being tabled in the House weekly regarding the situation. Clearly, it is an issue that is very important to Canadians.
The embryonic stem cell research inevitably would result in the death of the embryo. Life would not go on. For many Canadians this would violate the commitment to respect human dignity, to respect integrity, and to respect human life.
Embryonic research would constitute an objectification of human life. It is very important that we do no move into that direction. Life cannot become a tool which can be manipulated and destroyed for other ends.
The amendments today deal with a number of those things, but we have great and grave concerns about the movement toward embryonic stem cell research, particularly when adult stem cells provide far better means and opportunities for scientists to do their research.
In fact, a lot of the embryonic stem cell research has had some terrible results where cells have begun to grow out of control. People have had tumours where operations have been done in which embryonic stem cells have been inserted. Operations have had to be performed to reverse the effects of what had been done.
In conclusion, I would say there are some things that are good about Bill C-13 that we would support, but there are many areas in which the bill needs to be improved, particularly in the area of embryonic stem cell research.
(1030)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Before we resume debate, the Chair is ready to rule on an earlier motion moved by the member for Halton. After careful analysis the amendment to Motion No. 86 is acceptable.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join my colleagues in speaking to Bill C-13 on human reproductive technologies. It is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that we will deal with in this session of Parliament, and my colleagues have touched on that point. It really does divide Canadians on the direction we should take. What can be more important than how Parliament approaches the subject of science and human reproduction on behalf of our constituents, Canadian society as a whole? There is a fine line between those.
The Alliance supports some of the aspects of the bill. As in any Liberal legislation that I have seen in the two terms I have been here, there is always a bit of good mixed in with a lot of bad. The trick always is to try to separate the wheat from the chaff and come up with legislation that is in the best interest of Canadians.
We fully support, for example, the ban on human and therapeutic cloning. I think everyone across the country wants feels the same. On animal-human hybrids, why would anyone want to go there? Sex selection, germ line alteration, buying and selling of embryos and paid surrogacy are the types of things that people are e-mailing my office about, by the hundreds. Our e-mails are lighting up.
The petitions I have seen tabled in the House in regard to this legislation rival other issues such as the young offenders bill and things like that when Canadians leapt to their feet and said that they wanted changes. They are trying to get changes to this legislation before it becomes law.
Work has been done with non-embryonic adult stem cells. When we talk about adult stem cells, we are even talk about cells from an umbilical cord. A lot of people would think that it is part and parcel of the embryo but it is not. It is considered to contain adult stem cells. There have been tremendous advances made in research along that line and tremendous good has been done. They are finding less rejection with adult stem cells as opposed to embryonic cells. It is a tremendous dilemma.
We also see in the legislation a huge flaw. We see it again and again in some of the legislation that the government brings down. It is a failure to look after the best interests of children as its first priority. The government talks the talk but it does not walk the walk. We saw that in Bill C-20 that was tabled recently. The legislation is meant to protect children but a clause on artistic merit on child pornography has been left in the legislation and the age of consent has been left at 14 of age.
We see the same theme coming through in this bill where the best interests of our kids are not looked after. Under the bill, children conceived through donated sperm or eggs do not have the right to know the identity of their biological parents. We see that as a huge loophole. The donor offspring community gave moving testimony at the Commons' health committee on the need to fill in the missing gaps of their lives. People need to know their history. All of us use that as a foundation. That is what defines us as individuals in society. To leave that out is a huge and glaring hole.
We also have grave concerns over the accountability. The bill allows the minister to give any policy direction she likes to the agency, which she hand picks, and it must follow without question. We have seen that in other legislation where order in council does this, the minister has the right to do that and there is no overview. As parliamentarians, we represent our constituents.
All Canadians are represented by an MP whether they like it or not. We have seen things go astray when ministers have that type of power. We have seen that with the gun registry and in other failed ambitious legislation that those guys take on, where they give ministers sole discrepancy and they hand pick folks they like. We have seen things go off the rails in no time at all. We see that as a huge stumbling block. Whether one likes the legislation, that would be grounds enough to say “Wait a minute, let us take another look at this”, and we should.
Making the agency fully independent and accountable to Parliament as a whole would curb the political appetite that seems to permeate a lot of these things. It would ensure in the long run that it would serve the needs, aspirations and desires of Canadians.
Those two points alone would be enough for anyone of conscience to say that we have to step back and take a look at this.
Having scientists study and propose experimental methods for creating human life disturbs many Canadians. That has been shown in the petitions, e-mails and letters which we have all received. I know we are in the neighbourhood of approaching a thousand hits on this, just since the bill was tabled.
(1035)
The problem with this legislation is it lets the genie out of the bottle. It is a reality with which we have to deal. The rest of the world is taking steps and moving in certain directions. The Americans have taken a certain direction as have the Europeans. As I pointed out, our Canadian legislation has some large flaws in it. We have problems and concerns with it.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a memorandum to every MP. In its presentation to the Standing Committee on Health the conference outlined its vision of a human embryo as a human being who should be protected as a person.
The bishops are of the mindset, and always have been, that an embryo from the point of conception is a human being. Many people would argue this but that is a reality. Even the scientists who came before the health committee said that. An embryo is of no use to them if it is not alive.
By giving the green light to research on embryos that remain after fertility treatments, Bill C-13 fails to protect the human embryo. We see that as a huge flaw.
The Canadian Conference of Bishops is urging members of Parliament to strengthen Bill C-13 by amending it to prohibit research on embryos. We have had tremendous inroads and great gains on adult stem cell research. We do not have to use embryos. It is just that it is easy.
The conference of bishops made several points and I would like to review a couple more. Some argue that the embryos that remain after fertility treatments will die anyway, so why not do some good. We have heard that line from several different sources.
It is not necessary that we do something with these embryos so that some good or meaning will be given to their lives. They have already had meaning in their lives simply because they are intrinsically human, which also means from a faith perspective that they are known and loved by God. That is what the Catholic bishops said. I cannot disagree with that and I do not think anybody can.
It is unnecessary to search for meaning on their behalf, especially when such a search is really nothing more than a way of justifying the decision to release human embryos for research purposes. The bishops are saying that it is not required and that there is no need for embryonic stem cell research.
The Minister of Health, in speaking to the bill at second reading, said, “outlaw the creation of human clones whether for purposes of reproduction or research”.
Some questions have been raised as to whether the bill does exactly that. Does the bill go where she intends it to go? Are there some weasel words in there and some wiggle room that again we will see this challenged in the courts? We seem to be making laws for lawyers again and again. At the end of the day does this serve Canadians well? The Alliance does not think so.
The bishops are urging members of Parliament to ensure that the bill captures all forms and possibilities of cloning. Do not leave any wiggle room is what the Catholic bishops are saying. I do not think anybody can argue with that. They have put a lot of study and a lot of time into that.
I have an article that was in the Ottawa Citizen on February 10. Françoise Baylis, a medical ethics and philosophy professor, says that she has done some study on that. She suggests that the federal government could face a possible shortage from heavy pressure from Canadian researchers to remove any ban on the creation of human embryos for research purposes. She is saying that there will not be enough embryos.
At the end of the day her argument is a little self-serving. She is looking for a cash grant from the federal government to study this. It is a little bit more self-serving. She is raising the alarm so that she can go in and fill the void. We have certainly seen that done at government levels for that matter. They create a crisis and then they rush in as the white knights saying that they are there to help. It is a cause and effect situation. I do not think there is a lot of credibility in that treatise which was put forward.
Part of the situation we find ourselves in with a lot of what it out there is that we have been talking about this for 10 years. In that 10 years a lot of people have questioned if we have we got it right. I quoted some of the comments of the Catholic bishops. Many people from my riding and across the country have written me and have said the very same thing. They have asked if we have got it right? I guess at this point I would have to say we do not.
When we look at the number of amendments that have come forward on the bill, and a lot of good points in those amendments, will they be taken seriously? Will the minister, in her monopoly on handling this, take a look at those amendments? Will the minister agree that they strengthen the bill and make the bill better? Will she agree to vote those amendments through?
(1040)
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in the late 19th century, H.G. Wells wrote a book called The Island of Doctor Moreau, which is largely forgotten now I suppose. However it dealt with was a mad scientist who occupied an isolated island and he experimented with humans and animals. The technology of the 19th century was pretty primitive, so the scientific story is relatively primitive. The impact of it was that Doctor Moreau was taking parts of animals and attaching them to humans, and vice versa. In the end he created, out of animals, semi-humans.
This novel had a huge impact in the 19th century because the message, and why Doctor Moreau came to an untimely end, was that he was playing God. Even in the late 19th century it was appreciated that scientific advances were going forward so quickly that it would not be too long before man would be able to act as God and create human life.
That sort of concept is like a pebble in a pond. That novel sent a shiver through western society and faith-based groups, and we still feel the repercussions now. One reason why this debate we are having on reproductive technology is so sensitive is because instinctively, all of us, regardless of what faith we practice or indeed regardless of whether we are practising a faith, realize that when one starts tampering with life at the embryonic stage in any sense, man is playing God. Of course we feel that this is a very dangerous thing to do.
Yet science has advanced so much that we see almost unlimited opportunities to save lives. Scientists, with gene research, particularly the various research that has advanced medicine so enormously in the 20th century, see enormous opportunities to save human lives. We have seen advances in vaccines and antibiotics that have pushed into retreat many diseases.
Now with stem cell research, scientists are seeing an enormous opportunity to address diseases that are primarily genetic in origin. Anyone who knows someone who is suffering from Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis or any of these diseases, which would appear to have their basis in original genes, would only want science to advance quickly to save those people.
Even though we look to science with a great deal of caution, because science is always a two-edged sword that can save lives but can also take lives, any time we look at somebody close to us who is suffering from one of these terrible genetic diseases, particularly children, our hearts go out to them and we want scientific research to proceed and help these people and save them.
Therefore we find ourselves in this debate in the House of Commons now where we realize that scientists have advanced to the point where they see enormous opportunities in stem cell research. They see those opportunities, in particular, with the possibilities that are attached to embryonic stem cells. Science is not entirely sure that ordinary adult stem cells cannot provide all the information and opportunities that they might want in order to do the research that may address these genetic diseases. However, from the stated knowledge now, it appears apparent that embryonic stem cells also offer great hope for researchers to make breakthroughs to address some of these terrible diseases like Parkinson's.
(1045)
We find ourselves in the situation where, despite the fact that many faith based groups are very strongly against the use of embryos in any kind of research, we are torn by the prospect that these embryos may shorten the time if we are able to use these embryonic cells. I should make it very clear that we are talking about embryonic cells. Should these embryonic cells shorten the time that it takes to find cures for these terrible genetic diseases, then many lives will be saved.
We have a moral dilemma in which we now have a bill before the House that seeks to give opportunities to researchers to access embryonic stem cells, while, at the same time, putting real limitations on how they might be collected and how they might be used.
This is very important because, as in the case of the famous story of Dr. Moreau creating human beings out of animals, science always has the temptation of going too far. This is where Parliament comes in. It is up to us as parliamentarians to define the limits, and this is what Bill C-13 would do. It makes it very clear that embryonic stem cells are not to be deliberately created for research purposes. It makes it very clear that embryonic stem cells are to be used for research only if they are to be discarded otherwise.
I submit that there are those of some faiths who feel that embryos are human beings from the moment of conception. If that is the case, and one has that view, then surely an embryo is the most innocent of individuals, and that most innocent of individuals would surely want to see its short time on earth being used to save lives rather than being merely discarded.
I support, in principle, the idea that if embryonic stem cells are going to be discarded and can be offered to researchers who in turn can turn the information gained from them into saving lives, then I do not see, morally, how any of us should stand in the way of that very fine principle.
The bill does have problems and this is one of the reasons that we have to debate it so carefully. I support some of the motions that are before the House now which suggest that the assisted human reproduction agency, which oversees fertility clinics, should set very tight standards in how eggs might be created in these fertility clinics so that surplus eggs will not be deliberately created in order to provide material for research. Very high standards should be spelled out in the legislation, in my view, that sets the parameters on the oversight procedures that the assisted human reproduction agency should follow.
I draw the House's attention particularly to Motion No. 88. Motion No. 88 very emphatically and effectively states that the agency should be required to set standards that Parliament approves when it comes to the methods of encouraging egg production in women and how they are harvested. It is that kind of thing, I think, that is the role of parliamentarians, to take the legislation when it comes before the House after committee and to move this kind of motion. I urge all members to support Motion No. 88 when it comes up for a vote.
(1050)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 84.
The next question is on the Motion No. 80. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on Motion No. 80 stands deferred.
(1055)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, may I just request that the Chair clearly indicate the motions being voted on, because there have been changes in their presentation.
We have voted on Motion No. 84. What is the number of the one that you are preparing to put to a vote?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I have already said this, but I will repeat it.
The question is on Motion No. 81. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on Motion No. 81 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on the Motion No. 82. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on Motion No. 82 stands deferred.
The next question is on the Motion No. 83. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on Motion No. 83 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 85. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay,
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 86.
(1100)
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on the amendment stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 88. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded on the division stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 89. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
We will now move to Group No. 6.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) seconded by the member for Yellowhead, moved:
|
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 28 the following new clause: |
|
“59.1 Equivalency and enforcement agreements shall be subject to the following safeguards: |
|
(a) the Minister shall be accountable to Parliament for all equivalency and enforcement agreements; |
|
(b) the public shall be actively consulted on draft agreements before they are finalized; |
|
(c) the draft agreements, together with the comments made by the public, shall be tabled in both Houses of Parliament for comments and recommendations; |
|
(d) the text of all final agreements shall be included in the public information registry established by this Act; |
|
(e) all agreements shall be subject to termination or revocation upon reasonable written notice given by either party; |
|
(f) the Minister may intervene under a saving clause that would enable him or her to take any action deemed necessary for the administration or enforcement of the Act; |
|
(g) five years after this section comes into force, and at the end of each subsequent period of five years, a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing this Act; and |
|
(h) as a condition precedent to the signing of an agreement, a government that enters into an agreement with the federal government must agree to comply with the same reporting requirements that apply at the federal level. The other government must also agree to transmit the related data to the Agency for inclusion in the federal personal health information registry and the public information registry.” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 65, be amended |
|
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 30 with the following: |
|
“(c) for the purposes of section 10,” |
|
(b) by replacing line 8 on page 30 with the following: |
(1105)
Hon. Jean Augustine (for the Minister of Health) moved:
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 65, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 31 the following: |
|
“(s.1) respecting the notification of the Agency under subsection 15(3.1);” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 66, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 32 with the following: |
|
“Parliament shall be referred to the appropriate” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 66, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 32 to 43 on page 32 and lines 1 to 9 on page 33 with the following: |
|
“(2.1) Pour l'application du paragraphe (2), le comité compétent de la Chambre des communes est le Comité permanent de la santé ou, à défaut, le comité compétent de la Chambre. |
|
(3) Le règlement ne peut être pris avant le premier en date des jours suivants: |
|
a) le trentième jour de séance suivant le dépôt; |
|
b) le cent soixantième jour civil suivant le dépôt; |
|
c) le lendemain du jour où le comité de chaque chambre du Parlement a présenté son rapport. |
|
(4) Le ministre tient compte de tout rapport établi au titre du paragraphe (2). S'il n'est pas donné suite à l'une ou l'autre des recommandations que contient un rapport, le ministre dépose à la chambre d'où provient celui-ci une déclaration motivée à cet égard.” |
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) seconded by the hon. member for Yellowhead, moved:
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 66, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 12 on page 33. |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 68, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 33 the following: |
|
“(2.1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), any such agreement must be renewed whenever there is a change in any relevant federal or provincial legislation.” |
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) moved:
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 71, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 12 on page 35. |
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) seconded by the hon. member for Yellowhead, moved:
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 35 with the following: |
|
“person who undertakes or continues to undertake a specific controlled activity with no change in scope or purpose” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 35 with the following: |
|
“until a day fixed by the regulations. Once sections 10 to 13 are in force, changes in the scope or purpose of such controlled activity shall require a licence.” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 35 with the following: |
|
“until 90 days after the coming into force of this Act.” |
He said: Madam Speaker, I have a number of motions in this group. I would like to comment very briefly on them and use the remainder of my time to focus on the issue in general.
Motion No. 92 outlines some detailed provisions whereby equivalency agreements can be set up. The bill says that a province has the right to establish its own regulations and legislation with regard to the matters dealt with by Bill C-13. Therefore if it is deemed that the provincial legislation is compatible and covers it adequately, that legislation will override the federal legislation.
This would be an absolute nightmare in my view. The members from the Bloc Québécois probably will quote me on this, but the provinces have jurisdiction with regard to delivery of health care and certainly to the regulation of fertility clinics and researchers, even with regard to whether or not cloning, for instance, might be permitted within a province.
In fact the province of Quebec immediately came out and banned embryonic stem cell research. It was very clear from the beginning that the province of Quebec had some problems with the whole idea of the federal government starting to legislate in provincial jurisdiction.
We must address very carefully some of these equivalency agreements. We have to make sure the provinces are on side because we need to have some uniformity across the system to make sure that the intent of parliamentarians is applied uniformly across the country. Motion No. 92 lays out some features that the equivalency agreements should have, features that presently are not in the bill and which I believe should be.
Motion No. 93 seeks to delete clause 66(5). It says that if a regulation is new or altered after we pass the bill and after we promulgate the regulation, if we come forward with any new regulations or amendments to the regulations, they would not have to come back to Parliament like the original ones. Every regulation to this very important bill, whether it is a new regulation or an alteration of an existing regulation should have the consent and the review of Parliament before it is promulgated.
Motion. No. 94 is a consequential motion to delete clause 11. That is explained by virtue of the fact that Motion No. 47 moves the content of clause 11 to another clause. Motion No. 95 is similar so I will not speak to that.
The next motion I wish to talk about is Motion No. 100. The bill says that if there is a change in federal or provincial legislation, we do not have to renew the equivalency agreement that was entered into with the provinces. It appears to me that if there was a change in federal legislation it should come here. If we are allowing provincial legislation to override it if there is equivalency, then ipso facto, if there is a change in provincial legislation we must also have that amendment reflected in the new agreement the federal government would have with the province.
There has to be continuity. We cannot do something with regulations or changes in legislation when the bill is passed and for the first round but ignore it subsequently. That would allow legislators to get through the back door what they could not get through the front door.
It is a consistency motion. The motion also says that we should be consistent and treat everything the way we would treat in the original bill.
Motion No. 103 is very important. Some members would like to delete clause 71. It has to do with transitional provisions. It says that when this bill is promulgated we will have a situation where the enforced date on prohibited activities will be a date specified by order in council. It would be very shortly after the bill received royal assent. However, certain parts of the bill, in particular controlled activities, will not have royal assent until the agency is established and until the regulations guiding all of this legislation are put in place.
(1110)
Testimony from the health officials confirmed on two occasions that it would take at least two years. This is very important for members to know. After the bill receives royal assent, it will probably take as long as two years before most of the bill comes into force.
Clause 71, which is a transitional provision, says that once the bill comes into force, anybody who has done anything under the bill at least once during the past year is grandfathered and can continue to do it without a licence and without the scrutiny of the legislation. There is a motion at report stage which says that this is something that is asking far too much. If someone is out there doing a prohibited act or a controlled activity which is not in accordance with the provisions of the bill and the person continues to do it, this is problematic.
I understand that fertility clinics will be licensed and they are an ongoing and continuous activity. I believe that they are aware of this legislation. They will have ample opportunity to make the appropriate application. I believe that they are legitimate operations with no problems under whatever regulations guide them now, which I understand are very limited. If they are reputable fertility clinics, they would apply and they would ensure that they were operating in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
I tend to support eliminating this transitional provision. It is very qualified, the idea that if one has done it at least once in the last year one is grandfathered. I have never seen that before.
I think the different in force dates is somewhat problematic. The regulations are going to specify these dates. We have no idea when the controlled activities sections will come into force, but it will be a long time.
Members should understand that if this bill were to receive royal assent and the prohibited sections come into force earlier, that means we would prohibit cloning, genetic alteration, surrogacy for profit, and purchase and sale of human reproductive material, but the rest of the bill would not be in force until the agency, the unique body about which I have grave reservations, was put together. I will explain why I have grave reservations.
The Standing Committee on Health had a discussion about conflict of interest. The Minister of Health spoke extensively. She said that there was a provision in the bill which said that one cannot be a member of the board of directors if one has a relationship with a licensee or an application for a licence and that should certainly cover it.
The health committee after doing an extensive review and hearing from witnesses and so on, decided that commercialization and commodification of human reproductive material had to be nailed down very strongly. The committee very strongly supported a new clause which said that one cannot be a member of the board of directors if one has a possible pecuniary interest somewhere down the chain, whether it be a licensee, a fertility clinic, or a researcher. We even talked about pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, those companies that generally would be involved in the whole process of taking research and development and creating patents and pharmaceuticals and all kinds of things.
There is no question that the whole concern is that commercialization may lead to patenting. Patenting may restrict research and may restrict the ability of others to turn that research into therapies and cures.
The minister has not seen the potential impact. I am not concerned about the board of directors' decisions somehow being influenced by fertility clinics or researchers. It is beyond that. I have grave concerns.
(1115)
If the government has already decided that 50% will not be women, I take it as a signal that the members of the board of directors of this new reproductive agency have already been selected and are just waiting for their appointments. That is the only explanation I can possibly give for why the government would not recognize that the bill has to do with women's issues, with women's health issues and women's social and economic issues, and that it is important that women have at least half the representation on this board. Apparently somebody believes that is not the case.
I hope that members will speak on these very important issues in Group No. 6.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this group of amendments. We have been at this for a while and I hope that the people watching across Canada get a sense of the urgency of this piece of legislation, because it is extremely important. It really does go to the heart of the nation and challenges the ethics of our nation as to how far we will go and how we will treat human life, especially at its most vulnerable stage.
That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we stand and speak on this group of amendments. To give people a recapture, we are now on Group No. 6. We started with five groups, but we have split Group No. 2 into two, so Groups Nos. 2 and 3 are yet to be spoken on, and we are now in Group No. 6. There have been three or four days during which we have had the opportunity to speak to these amendments.
We are now starting on the Group No. 6 amendments. Every group has a significant number of amendments and they are not there by accident. They are there because this piece of legislation is so very important to the House and to the nation. Every party in the House has suggested that this legislation should come forward soon so that we can have some parameters around this whole area of reproductive technologies, especially in light of the cloning or supposed cloning that has been happening around the world, or because of those groups that say they are going to do cloning. We need to put some limits on where scientists will go in this whole area of reproductive technologies. Therein lies the urgency for this piece of legislation.
There are some prohibited activities in this piece of legislation, all of us agree, and if we brought in a separate bill that would deal with just those prohibited activities it would pass as fast as the raise in salaries of MPs passed, which was in about 72 hours. We would have it through and we would have some safeguards in place in Canada around this area of reproduction.
That was actually proposed. In fact, I introduced a motion in committee to have that happen and it got shot down immediately for no good reason. Everyone knows that we should prohibit certain activities within this whole area of reproductive technologies, such as cloning, both reproductive and therapeutic, stem line alteration, or chimera or animal-human hybrids. We know that we should be prohibiting all of these areas. I do not think there is any argument across this nation with regard to that. That piece of legislation would pass immediately, but some wanted to piggyback all of the other stuff with the controlled areas into a piece of legislation that challenges the parameters of where we should go as a nation.
If we look to Great Britain as an example, which has a regulatory body similar to the one in this legislation, we see that even under that regulatory regime the ethics in Great Britain and what is allowed under this agency have changed in the last decade. Britain had a very difficult time when trying to stop the idea of therapeutic cloning and in fact it has been allowed as of last spring. Also allowed is the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of research.
These are areas that this piece of legislation would prohibit, and yet we hear a massive cry from the scientific community to hold it and maybe re-examine reproductive cloning. That community is saying that this is not really reproductive cloning but nuclear transfer, so let us call it that instead of cloning to disguise what it is actually trying to do.
We have to be very careful of those who would like to push us into areas that as a nation we should not go into. This piece of legislation will allow that, which is why this group of amendments is so important. I would like to speak to my amendment in particular, Motion No. 103, which speaks to that issue, because in essence it is a get out of jail free card that scientists can use. The power then would not lie with the agency but actually with the governor in council, the cabinet of the House, which would allow them to grandfather in procedures that are deemed to be in a controlled area.
Controlled activities are very important. That is why we would have an agency and that is why we have to go through a tremendous amount of examination and determination to decide whether that controlled activity should proceed.
(1120)
In fact, when we as a committee first looked at this we had 100 witnesses from across the country and around the world come in and explain to us what should and should not be allowed. At the conclusion of the committee stage, they very eloquently and accurately said that we as a nation should not go into the area of embryonic stem cell research. We were very shy about recommending it at all. It was only at the demand of the minister that we should allow embryonic stem cell research that some committee members changed their minds on this legislation and on how the wording should be as to what we would allow to be under control and what we would allow to go ahead and use embryos for.
The committee was so determined not to allow something that was inappropriate that the wording was very tight. It said that if we are going to go down this road of killing life for the sake of research, then let us say that we should not do it if there is other biological material that could be used for that same research. I think that is reasonable. The committee said “only if no other...material can be used for the...research” should we then entertain the idea of using an embryo.
Some committee members, and I was included, said that this is where we should not go. We called for a three year moratorium on it, to put our emphasis on the non-embryonic stem cells because there is a great amount of research being done there and a great number of cures that have happened, even in the last 12 months. We need to move down that road for the next little while in this whole area of exciting medical research into stem cells that is taking place. Before we go to the embryo, we should move down that road much further so that we can be much more intelligent about where we are going.
If we are to decide on a piece of legislation that will actually determine where we go as a nation, then we should be on the cautious side. If we err in this legislation, it should be on the conservative side. We should be very cautious and tread softly in this area because it has such far reaching implications.
When we get into the area of what the cabinet could allow under this grandfathering clause, we see that it could be abused in an unbelievable way before the legislation is even enacted and before the agency is even up and going. The cabinet could allow scientists to carry on an extreme amount of embryonic stem cell research without any scrutiny of why they are doing it. The cabinet could allow it without any controls as to whether it is in the best interests of the nation and in the best interests of science. These are all the questions that an agency will have to reflect upon and very wisely determine. Whether it is something we should or should not do would all be a moot point under the clause if we do not allow this amendment to go forward.
There should be a limit as to how much should be grandfathered, if we want to grandfather anything at all, and it should not be outside the scope of the legislation we have before us. This amendment is absolutely crucial if we are to do that.
Let us go back to the actual wording of what Bill C-13 is calling for. I mentioned a few minutes ago that our wording was only if no other biological material could be found, but I suggest that this was overturned in this wording. Because of Bill C-13, the wording is not “if no other biological material” can be found. The wording is if it is deemed to be “necessary”. The minister explained to me that the reason why she had to change the wording was that “no other biological material” was so tight and restrictive that they could not define it. Therefore, they used the word “necessary”, meaning if it is necessary to use this material for the research.
I said that was fair, but if we are to use that terminology then let us then determine what “necessary” is. Let us define in the bill what would we sense and decide on as being necessary for carrying on with a procedure that would destroy a human embryo for the sake of research. Nonetheless, the definition of necessary is not in the legislation and if we do not have a definition of necessary, then necessary could mean anything.
(1125)
That is exactly what was said by the witness at committee, Dr. Bernstein. I asked him directly, because he is a scientist who works with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. He deals with the majority of federal funds that go into this area of research, although not all the funding because Genome Canada has federal funds as well. I asked him what he in his wisdom would determine to be not necessary for the sake of research, if he could think of something that would be disallowed. If we say we should do this research only if it is necessary, then obviously we are implying that some things are not necessary. I was trying to determine where he would draw the line or what line scientists would not cross over. His comment to the committee was that he could not identify something that would not be necessary.
This means that in his mind everything is necessary. If everything is necessary, then what are we doing with the legislation? What parameters does it lay in front of the Canadian people? I would suggest none, and I would say that we must tread very cautiously with this legislation and adopt these amendments or defeat the bill.
(1130)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-13. I was discussing this issue with the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable, and obviously we are both aware of how important it is.
I want to remind members how much time the committee spent on Bill C-13, and how hard we worked on this most important bill.
Bill C-13 is a bill that affects a wide range of values. It affects the notion of the family, the issue of the availability of leading edge technologies, our perception of sexuality, our perception of human relationships, and also practices prohibited under the Criminal Code.
During the holidays, we all witnessed what happened with Clonaid. It was quite shocking, even if proof was never provided, to learn that it was scientifically possible to clone humans.
The committee heard testimony about how mice, rats and sheep have been cloned. Of course, it was a different kind of success because, in a certain number of cases, premature aging occurred. Other times, the embryo was aborted. But we know how to make clones.
For a long time now, the Bloc Quebecois has been quite concerned about these issues. Shortly after being elected in 1995, and then again in 1997, 2000 and even in 2002, the member for Drummond introduced a bill specifically on cloning.
It is surprising that it has taken so long, and I must blame the government because the Baird commission tabled its report nearly 10 years ago. How could the government have waited so long to take action in an area such as this?
This bill is extremely controversial. There is a whole side to the bill that we fully agree with. Of course, we strongly support a bill such as this in terms of banned practices. With regard to creating chimeras and maintaining embryos in vitro, and therefore outside a woman's body for more than 14 days, we agree that such practices should be banned.
Maintaining an embryo outside the body of a woman after the fourteenth day should be prohibited because the nervous system begins to develop on the fifteenth day. The consensus in the international community is that this causes risks to viability.
We agree with prohibiting chimera. We do not want an embryo into which a cell of any non-human life form has been introduced or vice versa. We are of course opposed to human cloning and we are opposed to cloning for treatment purposes. We understand the need to say that a pregnancy must serve altruistic purposes. No one wants to live in a society where a monetary value is placed on pregnancy or it becomes a commercial transaction.
If the bill dealt strictly with the prohibited activities, we would have quickly voted in favour of it. For each prohibited activity carries ethical considerations.
Why are we opposed to cloning? We are opposed to it because we think that in human development and psychogenesis, it is not desirable for a parent and a child to have exactly the same physical appearance and genetic makeup.
(1135)
How could we meet our parental responsibilities? How could a child develop normally, in the healthiest manner, if at all the significant stages of his life he is the spitting image of his father or mother?
No one has studied these questions. But account must be taken of the fact that in human development and psychogenesis, this is not something that is desirable.
At the beginning of the year, and last year, the Bloc Quebecois moved a motion to split the bill. We could have voted on the 13 prohibited activities and there could have been provisions under the Criminal Code such that if someone engaged in one of the prohibited activities in a public or private laboratory, there would have been recourse.
Let us not forget that if we had learned in November or October that Clonaid—which has a subsidiary in Quebec or in Canada—had conducted experiments that resulted in successfully cloning a human being, we would not have had any legal recourse.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who is the member for Outremont, might not have liked it, but he would not have been able to do anything but make sorry excuses to Canadians because there is no provision in the Criminal Code to punish or lay criminal charges against anyone.
Thus the importance of this bill. Obviously there are colleagues in the House, who shall remain nameless, who would have made this a pro-life and pro-choice debate. I think this is ill-advised. This is not a pro-life and pro-choice debate; this is a debate about prohibited practices and specific regulations.
It is true that under the bill, the regulatory agency could obtain authorization allowing it to conduct research on embryos. Obviously if a woman were to give her informed consent and go to a fertility clinic or any other place that does artificial insemination and say, “If there are extra embryos in my ovulation cycle, I agree to let them be used in a carefully planned research project that has been approved by a research ethics committee”, then in this case it is true that research could be done.
We need to be able to do research on stem cells because there are major degenerative diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's and cerebral palsy, and we must improve the human condition. There may be situations where current reproductive material or knowledge does not allow us to conduct new research without new studies on embryos.
It is true that the use of stem cells requires destroying embryos. Depending on one's definition of life, there may be some who, for religious reasons, or who, because of their convictions, claim that destroying a human embryo is homicide.
However, that is not the case under the law. The Supreme Court has ruled: an embryo is not a human being. A human being exists from the moment it is declared living and viable, outside of its mother's body and once it has taken its first breath. That is the law.
I believe that this is a balanced bill because it requires proof that there is no other way to conduct this research other than using embryos to provide stem cells.
My time has expired. I will have further opportunity to comment during this debate. We have concerns about the regulatory agency and I will comment on these concerns when the other groups of motions are being debated.
(1140)
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on the motions in Group No. 6 at the report stage of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.
I am glad we are taking a deliberative approach to these many important amendments that have been placed before the House. I will attempt to address each one in the group in the time allotted to me.
All these amendments deal with the clause in the bill regarding enforcement and the regulations. As we often say, the devil is in the details, and that is why this is an important clause in the bill.
The first amendment brought forward by the member for Mississauga South seeks to place reasonable requirements on enforcement agreements that the Minister of Health may make with other governments, such as provincial governments.
As we know, often in federal law the federal ministry is delegated power by Parliament to make enforcement agreements with the provinces or other levels of government. Clearly, this is the case with criminal law where the power of enforcement for most criminal law is delegated to provincial attorneys general. I believe this is the model contemplated under the bill.
What the member for Mississauga South is seeking to do with Motion No. 92 is amend clause 59 of the bill to ensure that the minister is accountable to Parliament for any enforcement or equivalency agreements with other levels of government, and to ensure that the text of all final agreements be included in a public information registry. In a sense, there are several provisions in this motion that would make the enforcement agreements more transparent and more accountable to Parliament and to the public which we represent.
Most important, item (g) under this motion would require a five year parliamentary review of the bill, if enacted, which is a fairly routine provision in most statutes and ought to be incorporated into the bill. I support Motion No. 92.
Motion No. 94 is very interesting. What the member for Mississauga South is seeking to do in this motion is eliminate the ability of the Minister of Health to make regulations regarding transgenics. Clause 11 of the bill permits transgenics. Transgenics is the very troublesome practice of combining human genetic material, human genomes, with other species. Clause 11 states:
|
No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations and a licence, combine any part or any proportion of the human genome specified in the regulations with any part of the genome of a species specified in the regulations. |
In other words, the bill contemplates and permits, admittedly within the regulatory framework, a very troublesome practice which I believe is an ethical matter and ought to be clearly prohibited in the bill and not simply controlled or regulated. That is part of what the member for Mississauga South is seeking to do through this motion.
What the bill contemplates in clause 11 and elsewhere is the legal possibility of cross-breeding between humans and other animals. We do not need to read the large body of fictitious, science fiction work about the kinds of gruesome consequences of this kind of pseudo-science.
(1145)
Let me say as a matter of first principle, as someone who has studied philosophy, that even contemplating this reflects a very profound philosophical mistake, a very profound misunderstanding about the nature of man.
Humankind is not a species of the same nature as any other animal species in creation. Humankind is of a different kind altogether. We possess uniquely in all of creation the power of reason, which is expressed by theologians in all traditions as having been created in the image and likeness of God. That is to say, man has a particular dignity rooted in his capacity for reason which makes human life something which cannot be confused with the nature of other non-rational, non-human but sentient life. To suggest that science somehow can or should combine man with beast is, I submit, a fundamental philosophical and ethical error. Therefore I support this motion.
Motions Nos. 96, 98 and 99 are procedural motions brought forward by the Minister of Health to clarify the technical language in the bill pursuant to amendments which were accepted at committee. I will accept all of these motions. They are not substantive.
Motion No. 93 in the name of the member for Mississauga South would delete clause 66(5) from the bill. Essentially this is an effort by the member to enhance accountability when it comes to the regulatory process pursuant to Bill C-13.
Motion No. 100 is an amendment that would require equivalency agreements to be renewed whenever there is a change in any relevant federal or provincial legislation, again enhancing in the bill accountability to Parliament and the people. I will support it.
Motion No. 103 in the name of my colleague from Yellowhead is an important amendment to which he spoke moments ago. It would delete clause 71 which allows the grandfathering of controlled activities until a day fixed by the regulations.
As currently worded, the clause would allow scientists to engage in a controlled activity once before the act takes effect and thereby avoid licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. It could result in a stampede toward controlled activities, such as embryonic research, before the bill takes effect. The current clause is a get out of jail free card which allows the cabinet to exempt controlled activities through regulations.
I submit that controlled activities ought not to be grandfathered. If they are controlled in the bill, that should apply to activities which had begun before the bill's implementation. I support the deletion of clause 71 as contemplated by Motion No. 103.
Motion No. 104 is in the name of the member for Mississauga South. It would specify that the grandfathered activities should only be permitted as long as such activities have no change in scope or purpose, the intent being to prevent researchers from changing the scope of activities after they have qualified for grandfathering under the bill. Again I think this is sensible.
I see I am running out of time so let me just say briefly that I will also support Motions Nos. 105 and 106. Altogether, the amendments seek greater accountability and would seek to control abuses which I do not think is the intent of the legislation to permit. We ought to take these amendments very seriously.
(1150)
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting process working through this very important bill. Bill C-13 is entitled an act respecting human reproduction and related research.
The scope of the bill is very broad and relates not only to in vitro fertilization and assisted reproduction. The intent of the bill is to help people, couples who are having trouble because of infertility to have the families they want. It is because of that the health committee, in doing its work on the bill, entitled the study “Building Families”, which is the focus.
There are many controversial aspects of the bill. Part of it is the related research that spins off as a consequence of the in vitro process. The bill contemplates allowing so-called surplus embryos or left over embryos--frankly, even the terminology is offensive to consider--to be used for research purposes.
The bill discusses important issues which we have yet to debate. The amendments in Group No. 2 will be coming up later, and deal with anonymous donations for example and surrogacy. Donations of gametes and issues like that are also covered in the bill.
The subject today largely deals with some of the regulatory aspects. There are 11 amendments in Group No. 6, among them Motion No. 92 brought forward by the member for Mississauga South. These amendments deal with the regulatory body, the governor in council, how regulations shall be set up and some of the responsibilities of the Minister of Health.
Motion No. 92 brought forward by the member for Mississauga South has a number of subclauses. It deals with the equivalency agreements with the provinces. Various provinces may wish to develop their own bills. The province of Quebec already has some regulatory measures in effect concerning reproductive technology, and other provinces may have some also. The clause deals with equivalency agreements with other provinces. The member has very astutely observed that it is quite a loose arrangement in terms of equivalency and the amendment would tighten up the responsibilities. It specifies what an equivalency agreement would look like and the responsibilities that would come with making such changes.
The hon. member has brought in amendments which are quite reasonable. Motion No. 92 states in part:
|
Equivalency and enforcement agreements shall be subject to the following safeguards: |
|
(a) the Minister shall be accountable to Parliament for all equivalency and enforcement agreements; |
That is a very important clause. Ultimately, what is the purpose of our going through this exercise as a federal institution to develop a law for Canadians if someone is not responsible and accountable to the legislators who put the bill in effect in the first place? The motion further states:
|
(b) the public shall be actively consulted on draft agreements before they are finalized; |
The members of the committee who worked on the bill put a lot of work and effort into it. We heard from Canadians across the country. The committee received the bill in draft form and went to great lengths to tighten up this very important area.
We are dealing with human life. Children will be produced from this technology, children who will want to know about their identity later in life. We are dealing with some very profound emotional and moral issues relating to this research. The minister needs to be responsible and accountable and the public needs to be consulted. The motion further states:
|
(c) the draft agreements, together with the comments made by the public, shall be tabled in both Houses of Parliament for comments and recommendations; |
There are a few other accountability measures mentioned in Motion No. 92. An important one is item (g):
|
(g) five years after this section comes into force, and at the end of each subsequent period of five years, a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing this Act. |
(1155)
That is a very reasonable thing to do. This area of science is expanding at an amazing rate. The possibilities that come out of reproductive technologies are profound and have great scientific and health implications but also great moral implications. It is a very important motion. I hope all members of the House will give it due consideration and will vote appropriately. We certainly will be supporting this amendment.
Motion No. 94 also moved by the member for Mississauga South addresses a very important issue. It deals with the issue of transgenics or so-called chimera. A lot of Canadians are probably wondering what that is all about.
We wrestled with this issue at committee. We might wonder about this and I have raised this question repeatedly. There is a tremendous and resplendent array of genetic material available to us as human beings with some six billion of us on the planet. If we look around, a tremendous variety can be found within the human genome, from the little ones among us to the great tall ones who play basketball for great sums of money, from the ones of us who are a little slow to the ones who are really fast in terms of athletic prowess and ability.
I had the pleasure this week to watch an accomplished pianist at a concert. It was amazing to see that woman sit at the piano and play without looking at a note on a musical score. She could play this tremendous array of music from memory. I watched her hands fly across those keys.
It is amazing what human beings are able to accomplish. All that tremendous ability is available to us within our human genome. I have a hard time relating to why we need to mix animal and human genes. What would we hope to accomplish by putting a gene from a lower life form into a human cell or by mixing cell parts from animals and humans or by mixing genes from animals and humans? The bill allows for this under a licence.
The amendment would change it so that the regulations relating to chimera and transgenics could not be changed by the governor in council or by the minister. That is a very important amendment. If we are going to go this way at all, it needs to be tightened up so that this area is very significantly supervised and regulated.
Motions Nos. 96, 98 and 99 are procedural amendments which we would support. They are tidy-up amendments and we certainly agree with them and support them.
Motion No. 93 is an important amendment. It would delete clause 65 entirely, removing the power of the governor in council to make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes of the bill. Clause 65(bb) would allow the governor in council to exempt controlled activities from the provisions of the act.
There are important reasons that controlled activities in the bill require licences and that violations are subject to prosecution. It is because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life. Cabinet should not be able to simply overrule these regulations in a closed cabinet meeting. We certainly support the motion and feel it is very important.
Turning to Motion No. 103, clause 71 deals with transitional provision and grandfathered activities. This is a very important motion. It would delete lines 5 to 12 on page 35. This, as I said, has to do with the grandfathered activities. An agency that had done an activity as little as once would be allowed to do it if it had done it in the period preceding the adoption of the regulations.
(1200)
The regulations could take some two years to come into effect. There is another motion coming forward, Motion No. 106, which is related to this that would require 90 days as a limit for grandfathered activities to be accomplished.
I hope all members will give these motions serious consideration and we certainly support the amendments brought forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. Clearly, this is a far-reaching bill affecting almost all Canadians from one end of the country to the other. There is strong interest, because the subject is clearly very complex and very significant. That said, it is very important to have legislation on assisted reproduction and related research activities.
I first want to talk about Motion No. 92. In seeking to apply the same parameters to enforcement agreements and equivalency agreements, this motion is mixing apples and oranges somewhat. The enforcement agreements in the current act are standard administrative agreements set in motion by simple contractual procedures, and are amended or rescinded in accordance with the contract in question.
However, the equivalency agreements change the legal system applicable to assisted reproduction in the province in question, while ensuring equivalency so that all Canadians receive the same protection in terms of health and safety. This bill sets out in detail the approach applicable to important intergovernmental agreements of this type.
I see this is a debate that interests you, Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to see the clear interest you have in this bill.
Several other motions from Group No. 6 address regulation. In fact, regulation is at the heart of Bill C-13. It is the mechanism allowing us to control assisted human reproduction activities in order to assure Canadians that their use of these techniques to build their families will not put their health at risk.
I would now like to talk about Motion No. 93, which suggests deleting subsection 66(5).
Subsection 66(5) simply says that between the time the regulation has been revised by the House committee and finalized, there is no need to revise the regulation a second time even if it has been changed.
However, it is very important to look at subsection 66(4) which in fact requires the minister to lay before the House a statement of the reasons for not incorporating the changes.
We cannot ignore subsection 66(4) and just take the clause that suits us. Nevertheless, all the regulations that are written in the future and all the amendments to the regulations must be laid before the House under clause 66.
In terms of Motion No. 103 to delete clause 71, it should be said that without clause 71 in this bill, all assisted human reproduction activities will have to stop as soon as the bill is passed. Imagine how upsetting this would be to couples who use assisted reproduction services. Without clause 71, fertility clinics will be forced to stop all treatment until an agency is created and the regulations are written. Motion No. 103, if passed, puts an indefinite hold on any hope of having a family through assisted reproduction. Why ask couples to postpone their dream of having a family when this is unnecessary?
Motion No. 103 would only add to the heartache of infertile couples, which goes against the government's intention of reassuring Canadians who use assisted reproduction services.
By reducing to 90 days the time allotted to drafting the regulations, Motion No. 106 does not acknowledge either the scope of the regulatory process or how serious it is. It is too important to be time-limited. It is not some kind of race against the clock. What is important is the quality of the regulations, not the speed at which they are produced. For there to be quality, there must be time taken to consult stakeholders, that is clinic staff, infertile couples and all others involved.
By retaining clause 71, we are acknowledging that regulations on assisted reproduction will require sustained efforts of the utmost quality. By retaining clause 71, we are acknowledging how important it is to avoid any interruption in the assisted reproduction services being provided to all Canadians using such services to create a family.
(1205)
As for amendments 96, 98 and 99, these are of a technical nature, and aimed at enhancing the clarity and transparency of the bill. In fact, they are in response to the wishes of the Standing Committee on Health, which did such an excellent job on the bill.
Moreover, I must thank all of the committee members who devoted so much time to processing all the information provided to us. My thanks once again to all of the members for their contributions, as well as all the members of this House taking part in the debate.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to speak to Bill C-13. We face a huge dilemma as parliamentarians on issues of this type that come before us. I guess the bottom line question on Bill C-13 is, when is it okay to use cellular material? There are huge ramifications if we do not get this right this time around.
This particular bill would allow for experiments on human embryos under four conditions. First, only in vitro leftover embryos from the IVF process could be used for research. Second, embryos cannot be created for research with one exception. They can be created for purposes of improving or providing instruction in assisted human reproduction technology. Third, written permission must be given by the donor, although donor is in the singular, and for research on a human embryo if the use is necessary. Necessary is undefined in the legislation so it kind of leaves the door wide open to abuse. Fourth, all human embryos must be destroyed after 14 days if not frozen.
That is what is in the bill. Another huge question is, how do we maintain human dignity for the sufferers of disease who see this as the ultimate answer, as well as the unborn who would become the playground for scientists in trying to resolve some of these issues? How do we come to grips with all of this in the stark reality of legislation?
Part of the problem, in typical government fashion, is that it takes forever to get through legislation with all of these dilemmas attached.
The minister, in her wisdom or lack of it,--and again there has been a change in health minister--has chosen to ignore many of the committee recommendations, and some of the amendments that we see negate the work and effort that the committee spent so many hours on. We just heard the parliamentary secretary welcome the results of the committee and thank it for its work and yet on the other hand the government ignores it or says that it does not like what the committee said and so it will go its own way.
The committee is an all-party committee. It is made up of members who represent their constituencies across the country. They are taking input from the members of their communities, bringing it forward, and in the last write-up of the bill, the minister said no, she is better, the officials know, bang, and away we go. That is where one starts to question the other dilemma causing issues.
During the committee review of Bill C-13 the committee tried to restore some of the recommendations with an amendment specifying that healing therapies should be the object of such research. That is all. There would be no embryonic research for the development of cosmetics or drugs, as we have seen done in other countries, or providing instruction in assisted human reproduction procedures.
That has been left by the wayside and left out. We can look at some of the information that came forward from Suzanne Scorsone, a former member of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. The government is big on studies and commissions. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars spent and they are piled up in the basement of the library and nobody ever refers back to them. But there is an excellent quote from her and I would like to read it into the record. She said, “The human embryo is a human individual with a complete personal genome and should be a subject of research only for its benefit”.
We were all embryos once. Of course we were. This is not the abortion question, it goes beyond that. When an embryo is not physically inside a woman there is no possible conflict between that embryo and the life situation of anyone else. There are many across the spectrum on the abortion question who see the embryo as a human reality, and I agree, and hold that to destroy it or utilize it as industrial raw material, is damaging and dehumanizing, not only to that embryo but to all human society. We have crossed the bridge. We are on the thin edge of the wedge and it is a pretty slippery slope from there.
Also in true government fashion as we have come to see here, the governor in council would be used to end run a lot of the recommendations that come out in this bill. Perhaps worst of all, the minister would require that the advisory council of the assisted human reproduction agency, her little group,--itself a good idea as we need some watchdog--to report to her alone rather than Parliament and that the council take every ministerial directive as an order.
It is bad enough that Parliament is basically playing God with this research, but now we are going to appoint the Minister of Health as God herself. That flies in the face of everything that a democracy stands for.
There is a one-time, three-year review. That is it. We can never go back and look at this again. Those could be ongoing reviews. That is what democracy and representation is all about, ongoing review. We see that lacking in so many pieces of legislation that the government has brought forward.
(1210)
We only have to go back a couple of months to the gun registry. If there had been an ongoing review in a situation like that we would not have squandered a billion dollars. It could not have happened because the review process would have kicked out the flaws in that particular piece of legislation.
We also see that as a red flag in this type of legislation. There is no continuing review. The minister herself controls the whole process through her regulatory agency, which we do not disagree with, but she commands complete and total control over what is going to happen to this legislation afterwards. We see that as wrong.
Some of the amendments in Group No. 6 deal with the idea that deliberations and decisions should be open and accountable. What a good idea. Motion No. 93 would delete clause 66 which would allow the governor in council to write regulations after the fact. That could exempt some experimental activity not specified in the act. Accountability and transparency demand that cabinet not hold itself to the privilege of writing exemptions for activities the bill attempts to restrict. However, the way this legislation is written, that can happen.
Motion No. 100 calls for equivalency agreements that would keep changes between federal and provincial legislation in lock step. We see that particular situation break down again and again with the overlap of government to government. We just saw it during the huge debate on health care costs. We saw the Prime Minister whip the premiers into line by saying take the money or else: “My way or the highway”. Most of them, having to go back and deal with their own constituents, took the cash. They had no choice.
The same situation applies in this legislation where the federal government becomes over and above everyone else. It is provincial legislation that we are trampling on here. The problem we can have with it being provincial is the concern of the ability of children conceived through these artificial means to find out about their heritage. Some provinces would allow it and some would not. Therefore there would be a huge mishmash of problems across the country. Some people could be born in Ontario, move to Alberta, or vice versa, and in one province they could find out their lineage but not in another. There are some huge problems with this.
Motion No. 103 attempts to delete the grandfather clauses that might allow undesirable lines of experimentation to carry on. Parliament would decide against them in this bill. Motion Nos. 104 and 105 are related to this. The grandfathering must be limited in time and require licensing, otherwise we open up a huge problem with everybody leaping into these activities before the bill becomes law, and we are not there yet, this is report stage.
Cabinet could exempt certain activities through regulations. Basically it is a get out of jail free card before this becomes locked down in a legal situation. We have some serious, dangerous subclauses. We saw that with the Kyoto protocol, an accord that we ratified that has not been implemented yet, where the auto sector received an exemption. We would see the same type of thing here; politics at its worse. That is what we have seen in other legislation and it does scare us a bit.
Members of Parliament and people who have made representations on this do not have to have a religious agenda. A lot of that is thrown back at us that it is our conscience not that of our constituents. However, I have had hundreds of interventions, e-mails, letters and calls from constituents. I know everyone has. I have seen some of the headings on the e-mail lists.
Canadians are deeply concerned about where society and our economy is going. They are concerned with chemicals in the environment. They are concerned with genetically modified foods, government secrecy, and with the huge databases we are developing. Canadians need to be reassured that we can take a thoughtful, insightful look at legislation like this and come out with the best for Canadians. We need to have this legislation.
The problem with some of the sections of the bill that the Liberals have rejected would make the advisory council less political. They have shied away from that, and we see that as a huge problem. Politics has no business in this type of legislation, but here we see it again and again. The Liberals even rejected a recommendation to ensure that the board members of the new assisted human reproduction agency would not have conflicts of interest. They have left that out.
Therefore, at the end of the day we have some huge problems with this legislation. The Prime Minister must allow a free vote on legislation like this in order to best serve the interests of our constituents.
(1215)
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-13. The New Democrats have worked long and hard on the bill because we believe the time is long past that we have a bill governing reproductive technology.
The bill is overdue, it is important and there are several issues that must be addressed. We have fought long and hard in the committee that they be addressed.
At the committee stage, the New Democrats proposed 13 amendments to improve the bill. Although the language was not as strong as we had hoped, we were able to add the protection of the health and well-being of women to the principles. We also fought that the donors be provided with independent information before participating. We fought for the concept that the public needs to be informed on the risk factors relative to infertility.
It also was important that the board of the assisted reproductive agency of Canada, called CARA now, be made up of at least 50% women. We feel that this is important because women's health issues are central to this whole issue. We have to be sure that women are making the decisions and that their sensibilities and understanding are totally engaged. We must ensure that we are communicating with women, that we know their needs and that they are informing the board at all times on how everything is working and how we are doing in this area.
We also felt it was important to add a comprehensive conflict of interest clause governing the board. However we were unsuccessful in adding the precautionary principle to make safety an overriding concern in the whole bill.
The committee also voted down the NDP amendment to tighten up the commercial sale of reproductive materials and to make the agency more accountable by stipulating what it would do, rather than what it may do. This is a very important distinction.
Finally, we tried and failed to facilitate donor identification in recognition of the needs of children born through reproductive technology.
Unfortunately and incredibly, since that stage we have seen the bill come back. The government has ignored many of the recommendations made by the committee. That point has already been made today in the House. In the last draft of the bill the government overturned some important recommendations. This is very discouraging.
One of the main issues that the government overturned was the issue of equity and women's equity on the board. The second issue it overturned was the conflict of interest guidelines. At the present time it would be possible for large biopharmaceutical corporations to sit at the table and make decisions that would be very much a conflict of interest. They would have very much to do with the profits and the directions their companies were taking on the issue.
It defies reason that those important recommendations would hit the cutting room floor at this point in this important legislation.
Some of the improvements that have been made to the bill's principles have to do with the reference to women's health. The fact that the precautionary principle, which is a tool for ensuring that women's health is primary, is still not incorporated in the bill. It is not in the overriding principles in such a way to reflect the actual governance of the CARA board.
The rights and health of women must be the first consideration in regulating reproductive technologies. Our approach to reproductive technologies must be grounded solidly in the concepts of women's reproductive freedom.
(1220)
It is clear that we are concerned about the bill and that we will be making recommendations against it at this point in time.
As the New Democratic Party critic for persons with disabilities, I must say that persons with disabilities and families of persons with disabilities always have a concern when it comes to reproductive technology and what is coming our way in terms of creating designer children and potentially a designer species. It is important that we always keep front and centre the human dignity of persons with disabilities, who are living now and will continue to live, contribute and be incredibly important to our society, even as they struggle with their disabilities.
Although some people do not understand the linkage between reproductive technology and disabilities, the linkage is clear to those people who have disabilities. They see a society that often ignores them and seems to be running ahead to deny them their rights, as opposed to recognizing them and allowing them to plan for the future and to live their lives in a more substantial and respectful fashion.
At this point the New Democrats will be voting against Bill C-13 at report stage. We will continue to fight for the precautionary principle, that we have equity for women and that the issues around disabilities and the conflict of interest issue are dealt with and strengthened in the legislation.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for her excellent speech and I particularly want to echo her sentiments and concerns with regard to the bill and to people with disabilities.
I have a little child who is in a wheelchair and I am always very conscious of legislation like this that could possibly interfere with the vulnerability of people who find themselves in this position in our society.
This is a very important bill. It brings forward moral dilemmas like this for us. One of the huge moral dilemmas that it raises for me is the whole issue of embryonic stem cell research; notwithstanding the fact that I think perhaps there is a lot of pressure from the multinational pharmaceuticals to continue and increase the research with embryonic stem cells because of the need for anti-rejection drugs, whereas adult stem cells do not require that kind of drug therapy. Notwithstanding that, we have the whole question of human life itself.
It brings a moral dilemma to many Canadians and to many of us in the House. In a speech earlier today my hon. colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, for whom I have a good deal of respect, spoke about his moral dilemma. We have spoken about it privately. He said that the dilemma for him was that if these embryos were human life how should we approach that in this instance in terms of reproductive technology. I may want to speak to him further about this, but he seemed to come to the conclusion that one should come down on the side of embryonic stem cell research and that embryos would provide opportunities for much needed research to heal diseases. He said that if this little innocent life, and I presume he was saying that if that innocent life could express itself and somehow speak to us about this, it would want to help in this way. I found it somewhat startling that he would think that an embryo, which has the potential to live a very full life, would willingly decide to be aborted to be involved in embryonic stem cell research.
What that kind of reasoning does not take into account is the fact that it is quite possible that in the past we have indeed aborted and destroyed embryos that could have grown up to be great Canadian scientists who would find the cures for the very diseases that we are hopefully trying to cure.
I think there is something wrong with that argument. It just seems to hide the real fact that the legislation would allow the production and use of embryos that had their lives terminated. We have to ask ourselves whether that is a correct moral decision for us to make. I suggest that it is not and that there is something wrong with that kind of philosophy.
Then again that is only one of the many reasons that the bill is so important and the debate surrounding it is so important. We have to take the time in the House to get this right. A number of members have said over and over again that we have to take the time to get this right. We are walking down a path that the generations behind us will then be forced to walk upon. We are making decisions for countless Canadians who have not yet been born.
Motion No. 6 calls for the replacing of line 31 on page 2 with the following:
|
“with the applicable law governing consent and that conforms to the provisions of the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March 2002, as detailed in the Regulations. |
(1225)
This amendment expands the definition of consent to include provisions made in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research stem cell research guidelines and certainly has my support. Why? Because I believe that while Parliament must have the ultimate decision making authority in Canada, we must rely upon the expertise, advice and recommendations that professionals can provide for us in this very important matter.
Motion No. 80 calls for the replacement of line 5 on page 21 with the following:
| --proposed research and the Agency has, in accordance with the regulations, received approval from a research ethics board and a peer review. |
Again I support the motion. The amendment specifies that research using human embryos should not only be approved by the agency, but by a research ethics board and a peer review.
Even by being as thorough throughout this debate as we possibly can, we simply see that the technology is developing so quickly that we do not know what issues will arise in the near or long term future. It is very important that this legislation include the requirements of an ethics review. The seriousness of embryonic research requires us to support any extra level of oversight or review.
I must note the fact that the Speaker has reorganized the amendments themselves and I do agree with this step. However I also note the number of amendments that are within this group alone. I am certain every member here today would have relished the opportunity to speak at even greater length. Perhaps even further groups could have been made, thus allowing even greater debate on these issues. However I go back to the motions.
I intend to support Motion No. 92. I agree that we should place reasonable requirements on equivalency agreements that the health minister negotiates with the provinces. This was a recommendation from the health committee report entitled “Building Families”, and it is a valuable addition to the legislation. We must ensure that full transparency and accountability is a part of the process, that the public is consulted on all draft agreements and that the texts of these agreements are released to the public.
I also support Motion No. 93 which deletes clause 65 entirely. The governor in council should not have the power to make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes of the bill. This is what the 301 members of Parliament and their respective standing committees are elected to do.
There are important reasons why the controlled activities in the bill require licences and why any violations must be subject to prosecution. We are of course dealing with the creation and manipulation of human life. This is not something that any of us can take us lightly.
In turn cabinet should not be permitted to exempt certain activities through regulations. This defeats the democratic process and should not allow a get out of jail free card, in effect. In short I believe that this is a very serious subclause and should therefore be deleted.
Members of the Canadian Alliance will also be supporting Motion No. 94. This amendment removes the ability of the governor in council to make regulations respecting transgenics, which is the subject of clause 11. For those who do not know what transgenics are, transgenics are animal-human combinations and I believe that they are ethically wrong. On any level of which I can think, they are simply wrong.
Motion No. 96 is a procedural amendment that respects a Canadian Alliance amendment which was passed at committee. This amendment, now clause 15(3.1), specifies that a licensee who transfers an in vitro embryo to another licensee shall notify the agency of the transfer in accordance with the regulations. The minister's amendment follows from our amendment's inclusion of “in accordance with the regulations” and will therefore have my support.
Motion No. 100 calls for equivalency agreements to be renewed whenever there is a change in any relevant federal or provincial legislation. This seems appropriate and reasonable and has my full support. For example, if Bill C-13 is ever amended to enable children conceived through donor insemination to know the identity of their biological parents, any equivalency agreements that may be in place should also be renewed to reflect such a change. Without such a clause the legislation may be in disagreement with itself.
The next several motions are all closely aligned with each other. Motions Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106 all have my support. Included in these amendments is the allowance of the grandfathering of controlled activities until a day fixed by the regulations. Under the current wording, this clause would allow scientists to engage in a controlled activity once before the would act take place, therefore avoiding licencing requirements and prosecution provisions.This could result in a virtual stampede toward controlled activities, that is, embryonic stem cell research, before the bill takes effect. I do not believe controlled activity should be grandfathered.
(1230)
There are important reasons why controlled activities otherwise require licences and why violations should be subject to prosecution. They require utmost attention because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life as does this whole bill.
I ask my colleagues to take these amendments under consideration and vote according to their conscience.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill and to this group of amendments. I am pleased to do that because I know every member in the House of Commons, probably including yourself sir, has received a number of submissions from Canadians throughout the country.
In my riding I have received literally hundreds of petitions, e-mails and letters asking me not to support Bill C-13 without significant amendments. My constituents want all Canadians to know that in no way will they ever support any kind of activity allowing embryonic stem cell research. There is no way they want Canada to engage in any activities whatsoever regarding cloning.
My constituents feel we are off base in even thinking about this without looking at alternatives to deal with this entire situation. I certainly agree with these petitioners, in particular, with regard to the use of embryos for research and efforts to clone human beings.
I commend members of the committee in their efforts to try and reflect the will of Canadians in the legislation. I also commend members of the House of Commons for proposing amendments such as some of the ones in Group No. 6. I support these amendments because I believe they will add a lot of credibility to the whole issue. I encourage all members of the House to look at these amendments and seriously consider what will happen if they do not support them.
Motion No. 94 removes the ability of the governor in council to make regulations respecting transgenics. The whole discussion about animal-human combinations should be stopped in its tracks. A number of people who have written to me feel the same way.
Under the legislation, it is unbelievable the number of times the governor in council can make regulations regarding so many of these activities. This really concerns me. If many of these amendments are put in place, they will delete the ability of the governor in council to make decisions regarding the regulations on how we will proceed with this important issue.
I have been in this place for nine years and I have seen a lot of legislation come forward. The ability to make decisions to change regulations with regard to proposed legislation is overwhelming and wrong. I refer to old Bill C-68, the gun legislation, which caused great debate across this country. No less than 74 times in that legislation did the governor in council or the minister by order in council have the authority to make any changes they saw fit and at their whim. Throughout this legislation the same thing is happening over and over again. The ability to regulate what we do with regard to animal-human combinations is in the hands of one individual by order in council.
(1235)
Motion No. 93 would delete subclause 66(5) which would remove the power of the governor in council to make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes of the bill. We support that amendment. Subclause 66(5), if not deleted, would allow the governor in council to exempt controlled activities from the provisions of the act through regulations.
Controlled activities requiring licences and the reasons why violations would be subject to prosecution were put in the bill for a very good reason. They involve the creation and the manipulation of human life. In no way should anything be in the hands of one individual in regard to controlling the activities through regulation of that nature. To me it is absolutely astounding that anyone would suggest that would be possible. Cabinet should not be allowed to exempt certain activities through regulations. That is a really dangerous clause and Motion No. 93 would delete it. I am certainly in support of that.
As well, we have an amendment that would delete clause 71 which would allow the grandfathering of controlled activities until a day fixed by regulations. Once again, the current clause 65(bb) would allow the governor in council to exempt controlled activities through regulations. Controlled activities cannot and must not be grandfathered. Why? They deal with the manipulation and the creation of human life. That cannot be in the hands of such a minimum number of people through order in council.
When we head down this path, we had better be very cautious of where we are going by allowing certain things to happen in regard to the licensing and the permitting of activities simply because the bill would allow it to happen through order in council. That has been demonstrated on a number of occasions to be completely out of control in a lot of legislation and we cannot allow that to happen in this bill.
I will be supporting the motions in Group No. 6 because they would eliminate a lot of the proposals and remove the power of the governor in council. That is an absolute must. What we need to do more than anything is take into consideration all the petitions, letters and e-mails which we have received from our constituents throughout the country. We need to move in the direction that society as a whole has called for in regard to these issues.
Research in adult stem cell and umbilical cords has indicated many things. There are a number of ways we can deal with this kind of research in a manner that does not manipulate human life and does not deal with the creation of life or the destruction of such. I would encourage members to do everything we can to go down that path rather than the path of creating embryonic cells to be used as research, or the cloning of human beings.
(1240)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13 and the amendments in Group No. 6. I compliment the government for bringing this bill forward. It has many laudable goals such as the banning of human cloning. I want to deal with a few other issues that perhaps muddy the waters on this sensitive topic, such as the issue of choice, abortion, and the definition of human life. In my view, and I am speaking personally, some things muddy the waters on this extremely sensitive issue.
Make no mistake about it, much of the opposition to investigations into embryonic stem cell research comes from individuals who are completely entitled to have the view that an embryo is a human life. They must be respected for their view. That issue has to be removed from this subject. We are dealing with the potential to do investigations, to do research that will save people's lives.
It is very easy for those of us who are healthy, who do not have multiple sclerosis, who are not suffering from Parkinson's disease, who do not have cancer, to say we should not be doing research based on a certain moral viewpoint that people are entitled to have and should be respected for having. We cannot apply a moral decision, a moral choice on the issue of the definition of human life and apply that to the ability for us to prevent researchers from doing critical research into lifesaving procedures that hopefully will provide the cures for those scourges that kill millions of Canadians every year.
Having seen many people die from many of those illnesses, I cannot help but be somebody who strongly supports research using adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. I am not opposed to defining the regulations under which that could be done. Many individuals across the country who have respect for the material we are dealing with have put forth eloquent suggestions, as have members of my party, which can be respected and introduced. However, we cannot allow moral viewpoints, moral definitions and moral arguments to impede what I would consider to be a hard moral argument and that is the protection of people who are living today, the saving of their lives.
We should put ourselves in the shoes of somebody whose wife, husband or child is dying of cancer. If that research into embryonic stem cells provided the solution, the cure, we would have a very hard time saying no to embryonic stem cell research.
It is true that adult stem cell research has made leaps and bounds in the applications that exist but there is absolutely nothing that can take the place of the information that we will have on differentiation of cells, communication between cells, how cells migrate through the body and indeed from that, learn important lessons in how we can cure and prevent cancer. Absolutely nothing takes the place of that. It would be a huge mistake for us to invoke any kind of ban on embryonic stem cell research.
Motion No. 94 talks about animal-human clones. I completely understand and support the notion of banning animal genes being introduced into the human genome. No one knows where that could lead but it could lead to enormous biological and medical problems later on. What about the reverse? What about the introduction of human genes into animals? Are we going to ban that? I would suggest not, for the following reason.
In our country today, 170-plus people die every year from a lack of organs for transplant. That number will increase as our population ages, as the incidence of diabetes increases and the damage to people's kidneys and other organs increases. The number of people who will require kidney transplants will actually increase over the years. Indeed it will be an explosion is numbers that normal cadaveric transplants, transplants from humans, will not be able to meet. The need for organs exceeds the number of organs that are available today.
(1245)
There has been incredible research into introducing human genes into certain animals, for example pigs, to provide heart valves and organs for transplanting into humans to save lives. That research must continue. It is exceedingly important. That research enables us to produce organs that would not be rejected by individuals. Lifesaving organs truly could be the gift of life. It would be an enormous mistake to ban that type of research.
Then there is the issue of assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy. A lady who was in her forties wrote a very eloquent paper on the fact that she was not able to have children of her own. She paid money to a relative to be the surrogate.
The bill indicates that only payment for expenses should be allowed. A woman who undergoes surrogacy gives up more than nine months of her life. She undergoes pain and suffering and experiences a lack of work and is simply recompensed for the expenses. A person should not be criminalized for actually getting paid something more for the time and the pain and suffering involved in producing a baby for another. That should not be banned. That should be a decision between the people involved, the surrogate and the person or persons who are asking that woman to give up part of her life to have a child on their behalf. To criminalize that would be a huge mistake.
The penalties in the bill are $500,000 or up to 10 years in jail. Mr. Reyat, who is responsible for murdering nearly 300 people, just got five years in jail and could be out on parole in 18 months. Why should we criminalize somebody who wants to be a surrogate and potentially put the person in jail for up to 10 years? That is a huge mistake.
Furthermore, the issue of donor anonymity is too much of a hammer and should be dealt with. I understand the purpose is so the child will know the medical history. It is a completely reasonable and worthy endeavour. However, forcing the donor not to be anonymous would greatly shrink the number of individuals who would be donors. All those couples who cannot have children would not have the opportunity to have children in the future. This is a very serious problem.
The way to deal with it is to ensure that every donor would be anonymous but the medical records would be available to the child. In that way the mother and the child would know the pertinent medical history while ensuring that anonymity continued. That would not dry up the individuals who donate their time, their efforts and their sperm or ova so that others can have children.
It might be easy for those of us who can have children to completely ban this type of activity, but there are those people who cannot have children. For some of them, adoption, which is so difficult in our country, is not an option because of finances or simply because there are not enough children available. It would be inhumane for us to use such a big hammer and prevent them from having children.
There is so much more to talk about on this exceedingly sensitive bill. I understand completely those who take a moral and ethical viewpoint on it with respect to those who are against abortion and those who are pro choice, but let us remove that from the bill. Let us not forget that respect for the individuals who are born is exceedingly important but so too is the respect for those who donate their time and their lives to ensure that others can have children.
(1250)
This is a sensitive issue which must be dealt with sensitively. Banning human cloning is good, but we should not stand in the way of legitimate medical research that will pave the way in the future for those cures that will save many other lives.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the Group No. 6 amendments to Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.
The issue has a lot to do with stem cell research. Most members have referred to stem cell research. I have never had so much reason to be optimistic about medical research in my lifetime than has been caused by the whole issue of stem cell research. It is an exciting opportunity to finally find treatments and cures for some of the more serious diseases that we face as human beings.
Probably every one of us has someone in our family who is suffering from a disease and we are all desperately hoping for a treatment or a cure for that disease. We all should be very optimistic about the potential of stem cell research and I think we are. It is something to be excited about. I know I am, as is probably everyone who is taking a look at this. It is therefore important that we get it right.
In the Group No. 6 amendments we are talking about government oversight of the legislation. It is a very important aspect of the legislation. Before I get into talking about that, I want to look at the changes these amendments would make to the bill should they be passed.
One of the most critical and difficult aspects of the bill, as the former speaker said, is the issue of whether or not we should be moving into the area of embryonic stem cell research. Most companies which put money and resources into this type of research at first put them into embryonic stem cell research because it seems that there is so much potential in that area. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on research on embryonic stem cells. So far, unfortunately, researchers have come up empty handed in that category.
On the other hand, research using adult stem cells, stem cells which are readily available and are clearly far more stable than embryonic stem cells, has shown not only a lot of promise, but has already delivered, at least in the early stages, some treatments and cures. That is very exciting. From the testimony the committee heard and from information I have heard and read, clearly the most promise comes from adult stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research carries some obvious problems. The cells have proven over time to be very unstable, which has caused problems. For example in laboratory testing on mice, many have developed brain tumours when embryonic stem cells were used because of the cells being so unstable or for other reasons. If embryonic stem cells are used in the human body, we do not know whether the recipient, the person who is hoping to have a cure or a treatment that will help him live with a very serious disease, will be required to take anti-rejection drugs for a long time and possibly for the rest of his life. These drugs of course have a negative impact on the individual and they are also very expensive.
There are a lot of serious problems attached to embryonic stem cell research. Another very serious difficulty in using embryonic stem cells for research is that many people feel for religious reasons or moral reasons that it is an improper use of human life to use human embryonic stem cells in research. We have already seen promising and quite amazing results from adult stem cell research. There is so much potential there. Let us focus our resources on that and stay entirely away from this moral dilemma we face. Why have that split, why allow this research to go on when it causes that split in society?
(1255)
I would suggest that there will be people desperately ill, looking for a cure or a treatment, who will be forced to go against their moral values and positions on this issue because they are desperate for a cure. Again, the adult stem cells show a lot of promise. We have already had some wonderful things happen with adult stem cells. Let us focus on what the Canadian Alliance and I believe the committee suggested. First, there should be a three year moratorium on research with embryonic stem cells. We should focus on adult stem cells. I am absolutely certain we will see some wonderful results in the future.
I think that this is the way to go. Unfortunately the legislation has not properly dealt with it. In the Group No. 6 amendments, Motion No.103 put forth by the Canadian Alliance health critic points to part of the problem when it comes to government oversight. The motion shows that there is a problem with government transparency and accountability, because too many decisions will be allowed to be made behind closed doors just through regulatory changes, which usually go unmonitored. Certainly at the time there is no pre-approval given to them in most cases.
Motion No. 103 would delete clause 71 of the bill as it is before the House right now. Clause 71 allows grandfathering of controlled activities “until a day fixed by regulations”. It is grandfathering control behind closed doors by order in council, in effect by the cabinet or in reality by the minister. Already we are dealing with an extremely sensitive issue. Many say that it allows humans to almost become God. When we are dealing with such sensitive issues I do not think it is proper that one individual, such as the minister, should have the kind of control that is allowed in the bill. This is an issue of openness, transparency and accountability.
As clause 71 is currently worded, it allows scientists who engage in a controlled activity once before the act takes effect to thereby avoid licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. But if it is wrong in the future, why is it not wrong now? Why would they be allowed once to get around the regulations that are supposed to control in the way that Parliament and, hopefully, Canadians want? Why would we allow this one time avoidance of the issue?
This could result in a stampede toward controlled activities, especially embryonic research, I suggest, before the bill takes effect, just so scientists can be involved in this activity once. I think that this shows clearly the moral dilemma in having the minister in effect control this. Some of the concerns to do with that are I think quite obvious.
The current clause is really a get out of jail free card. This is the way our critic has referred to it. I think that is a fairly accurate description, as it allows the governor in council to exempt these controlled activities through regulation instead of having legislation passed in the House that clearly states what we will do and what we want to do.
Our argument is that the controlled activities should not be grandfathered. That is what Motion No. 103 would do. It would prevent them from being grandfathered. There are important reasons why controlled activities otherwise require licences and why violations are subject to prosecution. That is why they are there in the first place. They are not there for a frivolous reason. They are there for a very important reason: because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life, a very serious and sensitive issue indeed.
We do not want to do anything to stand in the way of this effective research that is taking place. In fact, just the opposite: We want to have legislation that will allow that to happen as freely as possible, only putting in place the restrictions that the committee of the House of Commons put forth on behalf of Canadians. That is what I know the committee certainly attempted to do and in large part I think the committee did it effectively. Unfortunately, this is one part where it simply was not done effectively. There is not a proper transparency. There is not a proper accountability with the way the government has chosen to stray from the committee's recommendations and to put this in the legislation.
(1300)
This is a concern that I see the government becoming involved in, well beyond this legislation. I do not have time to talk about that now, but when we look at it we can see that it is the same type of doing things behind closed doors that is very common with the government. The war in Iraq is an example. The government's statement to the public for some time has been that there would be no war, period. Then it was that there would be no war unless the UN sanctioned it, while all the time the government knew that it would in fact--
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair can be generous, but I know a number of members still want to speak to this issue.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to again participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technology and related research.
I would like to share with my colleagues the fact that many of my constituents have contacted me on this issue and almost all of them want me to oppose the bill unless it is amended.
I would also like to acknowledge that many members in the House have worked hard on the bill, specifically the hon. member for Yellowhead and the hon. member for Mississauga South, as well as the former leader of our party. They have worked really hard, along with our other caucus members.
Human reproductive technology is an area clouded by a high degree of moral ambiguity. There is little agreement about the harms and benefits of the relevant technologies. Still, virtually all Canadians would agree that there is a pressing need for laws to oversee the entire area of reproductive genetics.
Since 1997, when the proposed human reproductive and genetic technologies act died on the Order Paper, we have had Dolly, the cloned sheep, the discovery of stem cells, and the completion of the mapping of the human genome. A lot has taken place since then and what the next years hold in store is anyone's guess.
Thankfully, the government has finally seen fit to begin the process of regulating these complicated and controversial issues. Earlier the government was sitting on the fence, not being decisive, but now finally it has recognized that it has to deal with these controversial issues.
The Group No. 6 amendments we are debating today consist of 11 motions, all of which I support as improvements to the present bill. I will go over one by one some of the motions that I deem particularly necessary in this debate.
Motion No. 92, for instance, places reasonable requirements on equivalency agreements that the health minister negotiates with the provinces. All of us are aware of the negotiations that recently took place. In “Building Families”, this amendment was a health committee recommendation. Transparency and accountability in this area are needed. The public must be consulted on draft agreements and the text of such agreements must be made public. It is a good amendment and we will support it.
Motion No. 93 deletes clause 65 entirely, thus removing the power of the governor in council to make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes of the bill. This is a good amendment because we have serious concerns with one of the subclauses in clause 65. We support this amendment. It allows the governor in council to exempt controlled activities from the provisions of the act through regulations. I have spoken enough about how the government does not govern but rules through the back door by way of regulations. This amendment will limit the ability to rule through the back door.
There are important reasons why the controlled activities listed in the bill require licences and why violations are subject to prosecution: because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life. Cabinet should not be permitted to exempt certain activities through regulations. This is a get out of jail free card. It is a very serious, dangerous subclause.
Motion No. 94 in the group amends the bill to remove the ability of the governor in council to make regulations respecting transgenics, the subject of clause 11. Transgenics are animal-human combinations. Again this is very important and I am sure my constituents will appreciate my support for this amendment.
(1305)
Motion No. 96 is a procedural amendment respecting a Canadian Alliance amendment passed at committee. Our amendment, now subclause 15(3.1), specifies that:
|
A licensee who transfers an in vitro embryo to another licensee shall notify the Agency of the transfer in accordance with the regulations. |
That will allow tighter control and I support that. The minister's amendment follows from our amendment's mention of “in accordance with the regulations”.
Motion No. 98 again is a minor amendment specifying that regulations shall be referred to the appropriate committee of each House, rather than to “an” appropriate committee. What is important here is that regulations shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons, something the Alliance fought for and won at committee. Previous wording said that regulations “may” be referred to the House committee, but if this amendment passes they will be referred to a committee of the House. We fought to enhance accountability and transparency and we won.
In Motion No. 100, again the amendment would require equivalency agreements to be renewed whenever there is a change in any relevant federal or provincial legislation. This seems appropriate and reasonable. For example, if Bill C-13 is ever amended to enable children conceived through donor insemination to know the identity of their biological parents, any equivalency agreement that may be in place should also be renewed to reflect such a change. It is an important change. Children born through the process need to know their biological parents.
Motion No. 103 deletes clause 71, which allows the grandfathering of controlled activities “until a day fixed by the regulations”. As currently worded, the clause would allow scientists to engage in a controlled activity once before the act takes effect, thereby avoiding licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. This could result in a stampede toward controlled activities, for example embryonic research, before the bill takes effect.
The current clause is a get out of jail free card. It allows the governor in council to exempt controlled activities through regulations. Controlled activities should not be grandfathered. There are important reasons why controlled activities otherwise require licences and why violations are subject to prosecution: because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life. This should not be allowed. At the very best, the bill should specify a time limit on grandfathering and not leave it to the regulations. That is why I support this amendment.
In Motion No. 104 the amendment specifies that grandfathered activities should be permitted only as long as such activities have no change in scope or purpose. The intent here is to prevent researchers from changing the scope of activities after they have qualified for grandfathering under the bill, similar to Motions Nos. 105, 103 and 104. We support them for these reasons. Motion No. 104 adds the requirement that grandfathered activities should require a licensee if there are changes in the scope or purpose of such activities.
These amendments will ensure tighter control and therefore the manipulation of human life or creation would be under watch.
Similarly, Motion No. 103 specifies that controlled activities should only be permitted for 90 days after the coming into force of the act. The 90 day limit on grandfathering is far superior to the open ended “until a day fixed by the regulations”.
Since my time is over, I would like to conclude by saying that the public debate surrounding assisted human reproductive technologies signifies this issue's importance to Canadians. The provisions of Bill C-13 carry great consequences for individuals, families and therefore society as a whole. It is imperative that members be allowed to vote their conscience on the bill. An issue with such high ethical implications should not be decided upon through strict party discipline. The Prime Minister should indicate that there will be a free vote on Bill C-13.
(1310)
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, back in 1993, when I first came to the House, I made my maiden speech. I said that we were not here to argue and debate just for argument's sake and that we were not here to oppose for opposition's sake. I said that if the Liberal government came forth with a bill that was good, we would support it. If it had a bill which had some merit but needed some fixing, we would try to provide constructive criticism and some logical amendments that would strengthen and improve the bill. I said that only when the government had a bill that was totally without worth, would we strongly oppose it and vote against it.
This bill has some merit but it also has a lot of problems. As a result of those problems, many people, both in the Canadian Alliance Party and others, are trying to find ways to fix what we believe are the errors in the bill. I would suggest that it is not only us who believe there are errors in the bill, but a great deal of the Canadian public believes that as well.
The title of the bill is an act respecting assisted human reproduction. I draw the attention of members to the word “respecting” because that is the purpose of the bill. It is about respecting human beings and the whole process of reproduction. However there are some things in it that are very scary and we need to deal with these.
One concern I have, aside from any ethical or moral question, is the whole question of embryonic versus non-embryonic stem cell research. We have had a great deal of proven success with non-embryonic research, more commonly referred to as adult stem cell research. A lot of cures already have been developed. There are very few problems from adult stem cell treatment because the stem cells of the person being treated can be used and there is no rejection of those cells.
In the case of embryonic stem cell treatment, one would have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of one's life. Members probably have heard personally on more than one occasion, and I know through friends of mine alone, of people who had transplants of various organs, which are quite commonplace now. Not only were they on a regime of anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives, but in some cases the transplanted organ was rejected in spite of those drugs and they had to go through the entire process again.
What happens when something like stem cells are injected into a body and they are rejected? When an organ is rejected it is removed and the person goes back onto support machinery, if that is deemed appropriate, until such time as another transplant can be tried, hopefully this time more successfully. What happens to the body when injections of DNA and things which are created from stem cells are rejected? That is something for which I do not have an answer.
However my concern with the bill is this. If we do not ensure that we direct our research toward non-embryonic stem cell research where we have had more proven success, in fact our only successes, we may suddenly open the door to a more diversified expansion of research. This would mean that fewer people would be devoted to areas where we have had success and would switch to a new field which is completely unknown.
Yes, there may be some successes to be had somewhere down the road, mixed with all the problems that may or may not still be negatives. However we know we have success in non-embryonic stem cell research. The bill should make it clear that is where the weight of future research should be directed. This will ensure that our scarce research dollars are devoted to areas where we are most likely to have success.
(1315)
I have said that a lot of Canadians also agree with the fact that there are some things in the bill that are very concerning. As of this morning, I have almost 1,000 letters from Canadians supporting the various amendments dealing with the prevention of killing embryos for research and strengthening the ban on human cloning. We are here to represent the needs and concerns of our constituents, the people of Canada. To do that, we need to listen to what they say and we need to reflect that in bills that are brought forward and in the amendments made to those bills.
Some amendments to the bill have been proposed by the Canadian Alliance. However the ones we are debating and supporting largely come from Liberals who recognize weaknesses in the bill. They want to support their party but say that there are things in the bill that must be fixed.
The people who have written letters are concerned about research into embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. They are saying that if they are to support the bill there will have to be changes. In fact they clearly are saying that if they do not get these amendments, then their elected representatives should be voting against this bill. I assure the House and I assure them that if these amendments are not passed we will indeed vote against the bill.
As to the specific motions in Group No. 6, Motion No. 93 deletes a clause which would allow a proposed regulation to be altered without laying it before Parliament. Think about that. This is supposedly important enough, and it certainly is, to bring this matter before Parliament and to have great debate. Obviously there is a great deal of controversy, yet the government is saying that, once passed, it can alter it. In other words, it can change something and it does not have to bring it back before Parliament.
Think about how concerned Canadians are now with the things that are brought here and that have received their the input. In essence this is what the government is saying to Canadians. The government members hear their concerns but rather than dealing with those concerns by making the amendments, amendments which the main body of the Liberal Party supports and which have been brought forward in response to the desires of Canadians, they are going to ram the bill through. Then they are going to ensure that there is a provision in the bill so future changes can be made without having the hassle of bringing it before Parliament and subjecting themselves to input of the Canadian people. It is despicable that anyone would even consider such a thing.
Motion No. 94 removes the ability of the governor in council to make regulations about transgenics. By this time I am sure everyone is well aware of what transgenics are. That is a mixture of human and animal genes. Perhaps a few cabinet ministers would have to go along with this, but why would anyone in the House or anyone else want to make a specific regulation that says that the government can make regulations or change things in a bill, which deals with such an incredibly controversial thing as transgenics, without it coming before Parliament and without subjecting it to the scrutiny of the Canadian people? With what I have just said, we probably have the answer.
I hope all members in the House will say that they have had a lot of input from Canadians on the bill and that they have listened carefully. I hope they will inject their own thoughts into this. I hope the Liberals will strongly consider that a lot of these amendments have come from within their own caucus and that they are supported widely by other people in Parliament from other parties and by Canadians. Do not turn away the people of Canada who are concerned about what is in the bill or what should be in the bill and is not.
I am thankful for this opportunity. I hope this debate continues until people realize that we have to pass something that we can all live with, something that respects human dignity. As the title of the bill says, it is an act respecting human reproduction. Let us ensure that the respect is indeed in this bill.
(1320)
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-13 again today. We have tried to address most of the groupings of amendments as they have come forward. As the previous speaker said, interest in the bill has been quite high. There have been times when we have dealt with legislation that does not really catch the imagination or interest of Canadians, but this bill certainly has.
We have all received hundreds of letters, e-mails, phone calls and visits on this issue and have been presented with a wide variety of concerns. I had a letter this morning from a constituent in Lethbridge who had picked up on the different amendments and had an opinion on them. I appreciate that input. As we go through this process, it is important that Canadians have that ability.
This legislation was tabled, went to committee where the best witnesses on the subject were brought forward. Our former leader, Preston Manning, headed up the issue for our party. He brought some people together on Parliament Hill, and I was able to get to that meeting. It was an enlightening experience trying to understand a bit more about what this was all about. We are not all experts on everything and we have to learn, along with everybody else, about some of the subjects with which we deal.
In committee experts are brought together and different positions are put forward. The committee listens and comes up with amendments. However there is a possibility that everything which has been done in committee can be changed by the cabinet. Regulations can be created, things can be reversed and a different scope put on the legislation other than what was originally intended by the House and by Canadians in general. Hopefully we will vote for what we think is right and for what our constituents believe is right.
A lot of the amendments in this group deal with some concerns. One concern is the fact that the government is trying to take away the powers of committees and the House and is giving it back to cabinet. If we have a bill in front of us, it concerns me when I am told that the regulations will be done after the bill is passed. That is not good enough.
Some regulations deal with how the legislation will be implemented, how it will be handled and how it will be interpreted. In the past we have sometimes run into trouble with the legislation that has come out of the House. It has been challenged in the courts, that is, interpreted freely by judges as not being tight enough. It is very important that the House consider the bill and the regulations in their entirety. It is important that we do not give the parameters to cabinet to make changes after.
Motion No. 92 in the Group No. 6 deals directly with equivalency agreements that the health minister must negotiate with the provinces. It is very important that this be addressed and that some kind of reasonable requirements be put on this. In the past, results of negotiations between the provinces and the health minister have not always been good.
We know this has been a long time coming. As recently as a few days ago, the first ministers were in town to try to come to agreement with the Prime Minister on health care. This almost fell apart, and many of them went away very unhappy. It is important that this aspect be addressed. It is important that the health minister be given some reasonable limits on coming up with these agreements with the provinces because that is critical.
It is important that the public be consulted on these equivalency agreements with the provinces with regard to transparency and accountability. It is important that the public be allowed to look at the text of draft agreements. All of this is a very important part of the whole public debate on allowing Canadians to look into this process to ensure the government does the right thing and that it comes up with legislation that is meaningful and acceptable.
(1325)
Motion No. 93 would entirely delete clause 65. It would remove the power that the governor in council would have to make regulations. We are saying to take out clause 65 and take away the power that the bill would give to cabinet to make regulations.
This regulation would actually be the vehicle for which the bill would be put into law. We have some serious concerns with that and so we support the amendment to take out clause 65. Subclause 65(bb) would allow the governor in council to exempt controlled activities from the provision of the act through regulation. If it is in the act, why on earth would we want to give the cabinet the power to exempt some of these controlled activities?
Motion No. 95 was again an amendment that deals with the shift in power to the cabinet by the governor in council.
Motion No. 98 is a minor amendment specifying that regulations should be referred to the appropriate committee of each House, rather than an appropriate committee, which is just a small thing, but another part that is important is that regulations “shall” be referred to a committee, an appropriate committee of the House of Commons.
It was something that we fought for and won at committee. Previous wordings said regulations “may”. This is really important as we go through legislation. The word “shall” implies that it should be done, but “may” that it may not be done, it does not have to be. But when it is changed to “shall” then that is something that the legislation says must be done. We fought for that and are encouraged that it is here. We are going to support that. It was brought forward by the health minister. Anytime we can enhance accountability and transparency in the House, it is a step in the right direction.
Motion No. 103 was brought forward by the member for Yellowhead and would delete clause 71 which would allow the grandfathering of controlled activities until the day fixed by the regulation. That indicates that anything that is happening can be grandfathered until the legislation is implemented.
As currently worded the clause would allow scientists to engage in a controlled activity once before the act takes effect and thereby avoid licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. We were concerned that this would create a huge stampede to start into one of the areas, embryonic stem cell research for example, that the bill is looking to control in some way, and then all of these activities would have to be grandfathered.
We are saying controlled activities should not be grandfathered because there are important reasons why controlled activities, otherwise requiring licences and violations, are subject to prosecution. That is because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life.
That is where we get back to the issue that is important in the bill, that the dignity and sanctity of human life be respected throughout this entire process.
I suppose many of the letters or comments I have received on the bill are aimed at that specific item almost entirely. At the very best the bill should specify a time limit, not just be open ended on grandfathering and not leave it to the regulation.
Motion No. 105 does the same thing. It refers to Motion No. 103 and it is similar to Motion No. 104. But again, it says that grandfathered activities should require a licence if there are changes in the scope or purpose of such activities. That just makes sense. If somebody has been doing a certain type of research and all of a sudden that research is expanded or changed in scope, just to get underneath the grandfathering window, then we need to address that issue.
There are some positive things in the bill. The fact that assisted human reproduction would be more tightly regulated, making it safer and more effective for prospective parents, is good.
(1330)
Some of the things that need to be addressed are being addressed, but we believe that there is a lot that needs to be taken into account. Regarding the amendments that we are bringing forward it is important that they be looked at and considered, and not just put aside by the majority vote that the government has on these issues.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13. We support a number of the aspects of the bill. We fully support bans on reproductive and therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, buying and selling embryos and paid surrogacy. We support an agency to regulate the sector although we do have several changes that we would like to make to it.
The health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction must be given a priority. Human individuality and diversity and the integrity of the human genome must be preserved and protected. We support the recognition that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction should be given priority.
The health committee has already come up with a ranking of whose interests should have a priority in decision making around assisted human reproduction and related research. The first priority should be to children born through assisted human reproduction. Next should be the adults participating in assisted human reproduction procedures. Finally, in the list of priorities would be the researchers and physicians who conduct the research.
While the preamble recognizes the priority of assisted human reproduction offspring, other sections of the bill fail to meet this standard. Children born through donor insemination or from donor eggs are not given the right to know the identity of their biological parents. The bill's preamble does not provide an acknowledgement of human dignity or respect for human life. The bill is ultimately connected with the creation of human life and yet there is no overarching recognition of the principles of respect for human life. This is a grave deficiency.
Our party's minority report recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase respect for human life. We believe that the preamble and the mandate of the proposed agency should be amended to include reference to the principle of the respect for life.
There are a number of amendments that have been proposed and it is worth reviewing them and going through the amendments one after another.
Motion No. 92 would place reasonable requirements on the equivalency agreements where the health minister negotiates with the provinces. This amendment was a health committee recommendation in “Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families”. Transparency and accountability in this area are needed. The public must be consulted on draft agreements and the text of such agreements must be made public.
Motion No. 93 would delete subclause 66(5) which says that if a proposed regulation is being altered after initial tabling it need not be laid before Parliament once again. Since the regulations initially must come before Parliament, it is inconsistent that the amended regulations need not come to Parliament once again.
Motion No. 94 would remove the ability of the governor in council to make regulations respecting transgenics, which are animal human combinations.
Motion No. 96 is a procedural amendment respecting a Canadian Alliance amendment passed in committee. Our amendment, now clause 15, specifies that a licensee who transfers an in vitro embryo to another licensee shall notify the agency of the transfer in accordance with the regulations. The minister's amendment follows from our amendments mentioned in accordance with the regulations.
Motion No. 98 is rather a minor amendment specifying reference to “the” appropriate committee of each House rather than to “an” appropriate committee, minor but still necessary. What is important is that the regulations shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons, something that our party has fought for and won at committee. Previous wording said regulations may be referred to House committees. We have fought for enhanced accountability and transparency.
(1335)
Motion No. 99 would make minor changes to the wording of the French version of clause 66.
Motion No. 100 would require equivalency agreements to be renewed whenever there is a change in any relevant federal or provincial legislation. This seems appropriate and reasonable. For example, if Bill C-13 is ever amended to enable children conceived through donor insemination to know the identity of their biological parents, any equivalency agreements that may be in place should also be renewed to reflect such a change.
Motion No. 103 would delete clause 71 which would allow the grandfathering of controlled activities until a day fixed by the regulations. As currently worded, this clause would allow scientists to engage in controlled activities once the act takes effect, thereby avoiding licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. This could result in a stampede toward controlled activities, for example, embryonic research, before the bill takes effect.
The current clause would allow the governor in council to exempt controlled activities through regulations. Controlled activities must not be grandfathered. There are important reasons why controlled activities otherwise require licences and why violations are subject to prosecution because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life.
At the very least, the bill should specify a time limit on grandfathering and not leave it simply to the regulations.
Motion No. 104 specifies that the grandfathered activities should only be permitted as long as such activities have no change in scope or purpose. The intent here is to prevent researchers from changing the scope of activities after they have qualified for grandfathering under the bill.
Motion No. 105 is similar to Motion No. 104, but adds a requirement that grandfathered activities should require a licence if there are changes to the scope or purpose of such activities.
Motion No. 106 specifies that controlled activities should only be permitted for 90 days after the coming into force of this act. A 90 day limit on grandfathering is far superior to the open-ended “until a day fixed by the regulations” statement.
(1340)
Embryonic research is ethically controversial and divides Canadians. Embryonic stem cell research would inevitably result in the death of the embryo, early human life. For many Canadians this violates the ethical commitment to the respect of human dignity, integrity and life.
An incontestable scientific fact is that an embryo is early human life. A complete DNA of an adult human is present at the embryo stage. Whether that life is owed protection is really what is at issue here. Embryonic research also constitutes an objectification of human life, where life becomes a tool which can be manipulated and destroyed for other, even ethical, ends. Adult stem cells are a safe, proven alternative to embryonic stem cells.
Sources of adult stem cells include: umbilical cord blood, skin tissue and bone tissue. Adult stem cells are a safe, proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are easily accessible. They are not subject to immune rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns. Embryonic stem cell transplants are subject to immune rejection because they are foreign tissues. Adult stem cells used for transplants are typically taken from one's own body.
Adult stem cells are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, MS and other conditions. Embryonic stem cells have not been used in the successful treatment of a single person. Research should focus on this more promising and proven alternative.
Our minority report called for a three year prohibition on experiments with human embryos, corresponding with the first scheduled review of the bill. Bill C-13 says embryonic research can be undertaken if the agency is satisfied that such research is necessary.
During its review of draft legislation, the health committee recommended that such research should be permitted only if researchers can demonstrate that, “no other biological material can be used for the purpose of the proposed research with the promotion of healing therapies as its object”.
I hope this important bill receives the utmost consideration and that due consideration and attention are given to the proposed amendments. The amendments are a very necessary part to our party voting in favour of the bill.
(1345)
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, we are on Group No. 6 and the various amendments relating to that. I am not sure what I can add at this point to some of the comments already made but I do want to put some of my own thoughts into the bill.
First, I want to thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska who was the member of the committee and our health critic at the time when the bill was introduced to the House. We then had a subsequent change in critic roles.
I was not around during the early stages of the bill when it was developed in committee. The committee travelled from one end of Canada to the other hearing expert testimony. It received ideas on what should be in a bill that is as controversial or complicated, which is probably a better word, as this bill which deals with assisted human reproductive technology.
It might be interesting for the House and the listening public to have a small sense of the history of the bill and how far back it reaches into the workings of Parliament. The response to this was a result of the Baird commission when it reported to the House of Commons in 1993.
As you were in the House at the time, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that the Baird commission was set up in the late 1980s under the government of Brian Mulroney. In fact, the wife of the current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was a very important member of that commission. The commission did good work and as a result of that good work Bill C-47 was introduced in the House in 1996.
I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, but that bill died on the Order Paper, which often happens around this place. Then, of course, after the election in 1997 a subsequent bill was introduced, Bill C-247, which basically was the same bill, but it failed the test of scrutiny and did not go any further.
Finally, in 2001, and that was when the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was our health critic, the bill was studied by committee and then reintroduced into the House as Bill C-56. However, with the prorogation of Parliament last fall, the bill had to be reintroduced again. Now we have it as Bill C-13.
The other interesting thing about the bill is that I do not think the government recognizes success when it has it within its grasp. Much of the good work that was done on Bill C-13 in committee has been objected to by the government. I will give some examples of that. I am talking about the member for Winnipeg North Centre who sits next to me and who represents the NDP in this place. She was the former health critic for her party.
I just want to give an example of how the government gets overtaken or consumed by its own sense of power and invincibility.
The member for Winnipeg North Centre worked very hard, as did the member for Yellowhead and the member for Mississauga South on the government side, to introduce thoughtful recommendations and motions at the committee stage which would have improved the bill.
One recommendation by the member for Winnipeg North Centre would have actually changed clause 26(8) to guarantee that the board of directors of the agency, which would control the bill, would have no pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business relating to the field of reproductive technologies. The wording for that amendment was based on other legislative initiatives that were very similar in make-up to the present bill.
(1350)
The committee agreed to the member's amendment. However, despite the fact that the all party committee supported the amendment, when it came to the floor of the House of Commons at report stage the government eliminated that change. It overpowered the opposition and the thoughtful amendments put forward by various members of Parliament. Basically, the government used its power to defeat a logical amendment to the bill.
Not to stop there, the member put forth another amendment. In praise of that member and the hard work that she did, she put forth an amendment dealing with the agency that would oversee the regulatory side of the bill. The member said that the agency, which would consist of 13 members, should be made up of at least 50% women. The reason for that was that some of the biological aspects of the bill involved onerous procedures and medical procedures which had more to do with women than men. The committee agreed to the amendment she put forward and it was passed by the all party committee, only to be re-thought by the government and defeated here in the House in committee of the whole.
The government decided that it did not want it, that it would find a way to fix it and that it would find a way to control opposition to the bill in any respect.
In terms of clarifying the bill, in March 2002 tensions arose between the standing committee and the federal funding agency over embryonic stem cell research. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which distributes about $580 million annually for medical research, revealed their own guidelines for funding research on aborted fetal tissue and surplus embryos. This is important. CIHR announced that they would accept proposals involving stem cell research on fertility clinic created embryos as long as the owners had given consent based on full information.
This is where it ran afoul of the committee. The president of CIHR told the committee that the health minister was aware of their guidelines indicating that they were being used to anticipate public reaction for the proposed bill. Faced with charges that they were trying to circumvent Parliament, the CIHR then said that they would not distribute money until April 2003, allowing time for debate and the passing of the legislation. They also promised to change their guidelines if they did not match what was contained in the final legislation.
It is again the minister and her department pre-empting what might happen here on the floor of the House of Commons, assuming the bill will take a particular shape or form before it is passed by the House of Commons.
This fits in nicely with the point that I was making to you, Mr. Speaker, on Friday in terms of contempt of the House and the principles on which debate takes place in the House and what debate is all about. Basically, it is a violation of the rights of the House of Commons. It is a contempt for the House, assuming the bill will take a particular shape before it is passed by this place.
(1355)
That is the situation in which the government now finds itself. I think many of the parties on this side of the House, at the initial stages of the bill, were prepared to support it. However, after witnessing the heavy hand of government, I think they have had a change of heart, particularly the party sitting next to ours at this end of the Chamber. I think I can say the same for the Bloc and certainly the same for the Canadian Alliance.
When the government tries to stifle intelligent debate on the floor of the House of Commons, assuming a bill will take a particular form or shape where the substance of the bill will only be what the government wants, there is something wrong with the process. It is not the first time the minister has displayed that kind of contempt for the House of Commons.
My argument would be that it should be a free vote in this place on a bill that is as controversial as this one. Our party will be having a free vote on this bill because there are some areas of conscience, ethics and morality. It would be interesting to see what would happen on the government side of the Chamber if all of its members were allowed to vote freely on the merits of the bill. I think we would be surprised at the outcome.
Let us take a look at some of the members on the other side. The member for Mississauga West brought forward very thoughtful recommendations on the bill on how it can be improved so that outcomes are improved. One of the recommendations that came from the other side of the House was on how the bill should be split. I think most of us would have no problem with that. I think it would make it a lot easier for some of us to support the bill if it were split. It was recommended by at least one party, if not two parties in the House, that it would be desirable if the bill were split between prohibited activities, like cloning, for example, and controlled activities, like embryonic stem cell research.
If we were to look at it from the government's point of view, it would be caving into the opposition. It certainly could not do that but that is a very thoughtful recommendation and one that government members should entertain. If they did that we would find that more people on this side of the House would be more supportive of the bill. Of course, that would not be in keeping with the government's record of engaging parliamentarians on both sides of the House, listening to thoughtful debate and responding accordingly.
We will be having a free vote on this. I look forward to second reading and I look forward to debating further amendments in Group No. 7.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
Marcel Desjardins
Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to announce to the House that Marcel Desjardins, vice president and deputy editor of La Presse, died yesterday of a heart attack.
Over his career, Mr. Desjardins contributed to Le Droit, Radio-Canada, Montréal-Matin, and La Presse. Everyone agreed that he displayed exceptional skills that made him a key player on the team and also a role model for the entire journalism community.
The media world is in shock. My colleagues join me in offering our sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
* * *
[English]
Highway Safety
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the narrow, unforgiving stretch of highway between Summerland and Penticton in the federal riding of Okanagan--Coquihalla claimed yet another life yesterday.
Canadian Alliance MPs, along with locally elected officials and chambers of commerce, have long called for much needed improvements to this section of the highway.
The federal Liberal government must end years of delay and move ahead with its investment program for nationally designated highways. The federal Liberals take in $1 billion a year in fuel taxes in B.C. alone, while spending barely $300 million on highway improvements across the whole country.
Highway 97 is the primary highway of the Okanagan Valley, serving a population of well over 200,000. It is one of the great highways of North America and serves as an important trade corridor to British Columbia.
It is time that the federal government recognizes the need for a national highway investment program, recognizes the importance of Highway 97 and designates it as part of the national highway system.
* * *
(1400)
Appointment to the Senate
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the newest senator from Manitoba, Senator Maria Chaput. With this appointment, Senator Chaput becomes the first franco Manitoban woman to sit in the Senate.
For over 30 years, Ms. Chaput has been a prominent leader in the French Canadian community and has received a number of distinctions for her exemplary community involvement.
I would like to welcome the new senator to the Manitoba caucus and to the women's caucus. I know that she will play a vital role in advancing the views of francophone women from the west.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry—who was not elected as such—has been griping for several months, and did so especially loudly on Wednesday night in Ottawa. However, Quebeckers suspect he is not the least bit unhappy with how things have turned out regarding the new Canadian action plan on health. The plan will provide improved access to doctors and nurses as well as other health professionals at all times, more post-operative home care, less waiting time for access to diagnostic equipment and assistance for patients with high drug costs.
The people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, James Bay and Nunavik thank the Prime Minister of Canada, who has demonstrated flexibility so that patients can receive quality health care in the coming years.
* * *
[English]
Iraq
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, decisions of historical significance concerning Iraq are being made these days, the latest being the unreached consensus at NATO where three countries, Germany, France and Belgium, blocked U.S. efforts to send defensive Patriot missiles and airborne warning systems to Turkey in case of war with Iraq.
The Government of Canada, as a member of NATO, has a very difficult decision to make as to which side to support. It seems to me that it is in Canada's long term interest to side with France, Germany and Belgium so as to emphasize the importance of taking every possible step to continue efforts toward a political solution and avert war in Iraq.
* * *
Black History Month
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in commemorating Black History Month, we in the Canadian Alliance would like to pay tribute to the enormous contributions of black people in Canada, people like Lincoln Alexander, Canada's first black MP, cabinet minister and Lieutenant-Governor, and the current member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore, our first female black MP. These people and their families often endured much in racism and obstacles to fulfill their dreams. Their road was steeper than ours.
Let Black History Month be not only a tribute but a challenge: a challenge to stamp out racism and discrimination against anyone and ensure that people are judged on the basis of merit, not on the colour of their skin, and a challenge to act in the defence and protection of people abroad, especially in Africa, where people are dying from conflict, AIDS, starvation, and a host of other man-made and preventable problems. More than 50 million will die on that continent alone in the near future.
We in the Canadian Alliance salute the black people in Canada and challenge all of us to come to the help of the underprivileged and oppressed everywhere.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the members of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy's brownfields task force on the release of its long awaited strategy for Canada.
Brownfields are abandoned, idle or underused industrial and commercial lands that are so contaminated that redevelopment is unlikely.
We know that municipalities are already doing their part. In Hamilton, for example, the city has made progress on implementing its brownfield strategy, but more must be done.
Canada's cash starved municipalities need help from Ottawa. I urge the federal government to implement the report's recommendations and do its part to unlock the potential of these sites.
Redevelopment of brownfield sites creates jobs and an expanded tax base and improves quality of life. It is about leveraging public and private funds to energize our cities. Our G-7 partners are turning their plans into action. We know what the federal role can be, so let us get on with the job.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Marcel Desjardins
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, early yesterday, distinguished journalist Marcel Desjardins passed away suddenly. He was known as a hard worker, passionate about news, driven by a love for his profession, a hard-nosed journalist, a man of integrity and, above all, one committed to freedom of expression.
At work and elsewhere, people said he was motivated by a belief in a better society.
On Radio-Canada yesterday, many of those who knew him spoke of his conscientiousness, his respect for teamwork and his generosity.
For the past several years, he had worked at La Presse, where he became vice-president and assistant publisher. He started his career at Le Droit in 1967. In 1970, he joined La Presse and, in 1974, he was named bureau chief for the National Assembly of Quebec. In 1979, he became chief news editor of Radio-Canada's television network.
To his family, the staff at La Presse and his fellow journalists, the members of the Bloc Quebecois extend their condolences.
* * *
[English]
National Crime Prevention Centre
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to bring to the attention of all hon. members the outstanding work being undertaken by the National Crime Prevention Centre.
This organization provides funding to groups across Canada that strive to make our communities safer places to work and live. Through its four main programs, the business action program on crime prevention, the community mobilization program, the crime prevention investment fund, and the crime prevention partnership program, the NCPC is an integral part of our government's strategy to create a safe environment for all Canadians.
I ask all members to join me in recognizing the many community groups across Canada that have taken advantage of the National Crime Prevention Centre's outstanding programming. In combination with legislative initiatives, including those currently before the House, this initiative is critical in helping to protect Canadians and further our government's work to stop crime before it starts.
* * *
Member for LaSalle-Émard
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is more evidence for the existence of sasquatches than there is for the existence of the member for LaSalle—Émard. Every once in a while a hunter in the wilds of British Columbia will come across a footprint in the snow or glimpse a shadow in the woods that points to the existence of that hairy, ape-like creature. I am talking about the sasquatch here.
Oh sure, there has been that odd report of a figure resembling the former finance minister disappearing into a stuffed chair in the Rideau Club, a suppressed laugh, a tinkling of a glass, but nothing confirmed.
If the member for LaSalle--Émard, who according to legend wants to be prime minister, if he actually existed, surely he would have stated a position on the war in Iraq or on the health accord or his own ties to the failed firearms registry fiasco, because that is what a real live leader would do.
Let us stop this foolish talk about the former finance minister. Like sasquatches, or the Prime Minister's legacy, he simply does not exist.
* * *
[Translation]
Member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that our hon. colleague from Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle has been hospitalized.
The member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle experienced chest pains, and we are anxiously awaiting news of his condition following a battery of tests. Our hon. colleague is at the Centre hospitalier du Pontiac, in his riding, in Shawville.
On behalf of all the members of the Liberal caucus, I would like to wish him a prompt recovery, and I invite all my hon. colleagues in the House to join me in offering our support to him, his wife Sandy, and their children.
I know how determined the member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle is, and I am sure that we will see him back here very soon.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my outrage at the failure of our criminal justice system to adequately punish a man responsible for one of the greatest acts of terrorism before September 11.
Eighteen years ago, Inderjit Singh Reyat provided the materials necessary to blow an Air India flight out of the air, killing all 329 passengers. One hour prior to the explosion, he was responsible for killing two airport staff. For killing two people, he received ten years. For killing 329 passengers, he received five years. That works out to five and a half days in jail for every life that was lost.
To suggest that less than five years is a just sentence for the murder of 329 people makes a mockery of our legal system. To release an ideological murderer on parole after three years is not justice but a farce.
I urge the government to establish a board of inquiry to determine how our legal system has failed our reasonable standard of justice and public safety.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Les Voix Magiques
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the magnificent town of La Tuque, located in northern Mauricie on the bank of the Saint-Maurice River, may seem isolated but it certainly is not. This town, surrounded by lakes and mountains, fields and forests has a population that is known for its energy and its many talents.
This corner of the world, birthplace of the renowned Quebecois poet, Félix Leclerc, continues to distinguish itself. A good example is the Voix Magiques troop and its musical comedy Sur les ailes d'un rêve, which is enjoying major success everywhere it tours.
I would like to congratulate Sylvie Loiselle, the troop's artistic and musical director and all the artists involved in this highly successful production. And of course I must mention the patron of honour, Gaston Fortin, mayor of La Tuque, who must be very proud of his town.
Bravo to all. Keep the tradition of your fine talents alive for all of us to discover.
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian industry can meet the challenge in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and remain competitive in global markets. INCO Limited is doing it and has established itself as an industry leader.
In 2001, INCO successfully reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% from 1990 levels. In other words, the company has already met and surpassed Kyoto targets. The INCO experience clearly demonstrates that sound economic policy is not simply good public relations. It is good business with real benefits for the bottom line.
While reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the company has increased production, lowered energy consumption and remained competitive in global markets. As INCO officials readily admit, improving environmental policy has strengthened the company while making our environment safer.
I trust that the government will give credit where credit is due and properly reward industry leaders like INCO.
* * *
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Revenue stated that CCRA's 5,000 auditors, 1,000 investigators and a special enforcement unit of 175 officers are doing their job and doing it well for Canadians. Nothing could be farther from the truth and that minister and her predecessor know it.
When I receive constituents' calls about CCRA, I tell them immediately to record their phone calls, the only department I say that for. It is absolutely important because CCRA will lie and present it as evidence. It is the only department that when I put in an application for information, I make sure that I actually have it returned. It is the only department of this House where there is absolutely no control by the minister and no inspection by the minister. It has run rampant. It runs over the rights of Canadians on a daily basis.
* * *
Protection of Children
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Ottawa's Black History Month committee will hold its fourth annual reconciliation day in Ottawa. At that time a tribute will be paid to Canada at a celebration at the National Library and Archives of Canada.
Tomorrow, February 12, marks the first anniversary of a very important milestone in the history of humanity and the culture of Canada. On February 12, 2002, the United Nations ban on the use of children in armed conflict came into force.
A tribute will be paid to Canada for being the first nation to ratify this optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child. This treaty prohibits and seeks to eliminate the use of children under 18 in armed hostilities, a practice the ILO calls one of the most extreme forms of child labour.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Inderjit Singh Reyat was sentenced yesterday to five years in prison after pleading guilty to 329 counts of manslaughter in connection with the 1985 Air India bombing.
Reyat has served 10 years in a British prison after being found guilty in connection with a bomb that killed two baggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport one hour before the Air India plane exploded on the way to England from Canada. At the time, the Air India bombing was the world's worst act of aviation terrorism and it remains the largest mass murder in Canadian history.
After the most expensive and lengthy criminal investigation in Canadian history, where is the justice? For 17 years there has been no closure to this matter for the families of the 329 victims of the bombing. Yesterday's decision will do nothing to relieve their pain and suffering. Their wounds continue to remain open and bleed.
* * *
(1415)
Commendation for Bravery
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate 32 British Columbians who were honoured last week with a commendation for bravery in a ceremony at the Vancouver RCMP headquarters.
The recipients included eight civilians and 24 police constables who showed exceptional courage in the face of robberies, fires and attempted suicides. These 32 individuals who put themselves in harm's way in order to save the lives of others are truly heroes. These individuals went beyond the call of duty, entering a submerged vehicle to rescue a drowning woman, subduing armed suspects, rescuing a woman who had been shot by her husband, preventing suicides and convicting sex offenders.
I ask the House to join me in sending our congratulations and our thanks to these brave individuals and all others like them.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Goods and Services Tax
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, over the last few months reports have been circulating of losses on GST fraud of up to $1 billion. The revenue minister has denied this, but case after case has been leaking out. The minister has not been exactly forthcoming with information, but instead will only give us information on actual convictions for GST fraud.
I will ask the minister a very precise question. Since 1994 how much has the government actually paid out in GST rebates which it believes were fraudulent and which it has not been able to collect?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide the leader of the official opposition with the following information.
Over the past six years the courts have identified $25.4 million in fraudulent GST claims. Further, there are 78 cases presently before the courts and the total amount of money in play is approximately $80 million. We cannot give exact figures because until the courts make a final decision, we will not know what the actual numbers are.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to say “the courts”. The government and the minister should know the answer to this question.
We would not be fishing for this answer if there had not been a backroom deal between the CCRA and Treasury Board to cover up this information for years. This is disgraceful.
I will ask the minister again, can she answer the question? If she cannot answer the question on how much the government believes has been paid out in fraudulent GST rebates and not recovered, is it because she does not know the answer or she does not want to answer? Is it incompetence or is it contempt for taxpayers?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my actions and my words are based on facts, on rigorous audits and examinations. I will say once again to the leader that up to this point in time over the last six years, $25.4 million has been identified by the courts. Of the 78 cases presently before the courts, the total in play is $80 million.
I ask him, where is his billion? It is speculation. There are no facts. He should either put up or not talk so much.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are never going to shut up until we get the answers to these questions.
Let me move this subject slightly to explore links between the latest GST rebate fraud and terrorism. The sum of $22 million of taxpayers' money was funnelled through a credit union run by Ripudaman Singh Malik. Malik has since been charged with 329 counts of murder and conspiracy in the Air India bombings.
How long has the government known about this link? Has anyone in the government--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Revenue.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada believes in the rule of law. In this place we make the laws. It is not in the court of CBC or in the court of public opinion that people are tried.
I said to the member before that the $22 million presently before the courts is included in the $80 million in total. I say to him further that this matter is presently before the courts and he should allow the courts to do their job.
(1420)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are reports that in Halifax, $.2 million is missing; Calgary, $.3 million; Kamloops, $.5 million; Kitchener, $1.5 million; Montreal, $4 million; Port Coquitlam, $8.5 million; Milton, $20 million; and Surrey, $22 million; over $57 million is missing due to GST fraud. In the revenue minister's world this money has not been stolen; in the real world it has. This just may be the tip of the iceberg.
Why will the minister not come clean and give us the complete losses due to GST fraud?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member is listening. I said clearly this afternoon that at this point in time, the courts have identified the number of $25.4 million which is the number over the last six years. Of the cases presently before the courts, we believe it is somewhere around $80 million that is in play.
If the member has other information, I would really like to have it. I know that my information is based on fact and that his is based on hypothesis and speculation.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, these figures are coming out from the minister's own department, so the minister clearly does not know.
The minister has said that $25.4 million accounts only for GST fraud cases that have been identified by the courts. Surely the minister's own department has the capability to identify fraud losses on its own.
Other than those cases that actually have made it to court, does the minister have any idea how much has been lost to GST fraud since 1994, yes or no?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speculate on that which is still under investigation. Until charges are laid, we do not have a number. That is why I say that the cases before the courts, which total about $80 million, is our very best estimate. It will be the courts that finally decide because that is the way it works in this country. We investigate; when we have proof, charges are laid; and ultimately it is the courts that decide.
* * *
[Translation]
Iraq
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing military intervention in Iraq ought to be a prerequisite to any consideration in the House of deployment of Canadian troops, but the government will not budge.
Canadian participation in a war on Iraq ought to be voted on by MPs, but the government will not let them.
While the inspection process is working, and should be supported, are not all these roadblocks proof that, as far as Iraq is concerned, the government is already locked into a logic of war?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We were among the first to state very clearly that a Security Council resolution was required. Everyone will remember that, back in July, August and September, there was a strong possibility of the Americans and the British intervening directly without the Security Council.
We have maintained our position, however. There has been a Security Council resolution. Now we are waiting for the report from Mr. Blix on Friday, and then we will see.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is showing no leadership whatsoever on the international scene to give peace a chance. On the domestic scene he is thumbing his nose at the role members need to play, in order to have his pro-war stance prevail. His message is clear: the Bloc Quebecois' motion must be defeated so that troops can be deployed without another resolution and without a vote in the House.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, with all the foregoing, a vote against the Bloc Quebecois motion is tantamount to a blank cheque in favour of war?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Our position is very clear. We are working as hard as we can to ensure peace. We hope that Saddam Hussein will provide Mr. Blix with the necessary information so that all this can be settled peacefully.
But the United Nations charter contains rules that must be followed. We are insisting that all parties follow the rules of the UN.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as long as the Prime Minister continues to deny the House the opportunity to vote on sending troops to Iraq, he is preventing members from representing their constituents as they should.
Is it not an inherent responsibility in our roles as elected officials to vote on an issue as fundamental as whether or not we should participate in a war? Does the Prime Minister of Canada have so much to fear that he wants to prevent members of Parliament from fulfilling their role, an important role that is rightly theirs?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has the confidence of the House and is responsible for making these decisions.
Last week we said that we would allow a vote immediately following a decision, if there is a decision. Such a vote is possible because the opposition has 14 days it can use to move votable motions. If it wants to use one of these days immediately following a decision, which I hope will never have to be made, then the whole House would have the opportunity to vote.
However, in theory, it is the government that is responsible for making decisions. We were elected by Canadians to run the affairs of the nation. This is an executive power which we must exercise.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the Prime Minister, we are having trouble following him. We will be voting shortly on a motion to propose a vote in the House the day after a Cabinet decision.
The government has told us it is against the motion. The Prime Minister just now said the exact opposite. Could we know when the Prime Minister is telling us what the government really thinks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member just said that they want a vote after the government makes a decision. That is exactly what we said last week and what I said a moment ago. Once there has been a decision, the opposition may move a vote of non-confidence or approval and the members can have their say.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister through you that a Prime Minister who had the confidence of the House would put down his own motion and allow people to vote on it in the House and not depend on the opposition.
I ask the Prime Minister, is he aware that the Canadian military liaison team in Tampa, Florida, has followed their American counterparts to Qatar? Why has the decision been taken, which brings Canada closer to military involvement in Iraq before Mr. Blix's final report, before a second resolution of the Security Council, and before any meaningful vote in the House of Commons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had people in Tampa, Florida, for more than 16 months planning the activities for Afghanistan, the protection of the waters in that part of the world and so on. It is part of the ongoing discussions we are having with the people participating in the war against terrorism in that part of the world.
The activities were in Tampa and now they have been transferred to another city. As we want to be part of the planning, not to be left out when we have troops in that part of the world at this time, we feel that it is important--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona.
* * *
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, they did not just move up to Miami Beach, they moved all the way to Qatar.
I want to ask a question of the Minister of Industry. He will know that there is a great deal of concern among Canadians that they are being gouged at the pumps with the anticipation of war as a pretext for a huge increase in the price of gas.
I want to ask the Minister of Industry to please not fob this onto the provinces, but tell us what plan the federal government has to ensure that Canadians are not taken advantage of at the pumps during this time?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factors about which the member knows that lead to increased oil prices, including exceptionally frigid weather in North America and northern Europe, the uncertain situation in the Middle East, and the situation with the oil sector in South America.
We are very watchful of anti-competitive steps on the part of the oil industry, but the regulation of retail prices is a provincial responsibility as the member well knows. If he thinks prices should be regulated, that is where to look.
* * *
Iraq
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1991 the present Prime Minister's position on Canadian troops in the gulf was that we should send them, but once the shooting started, Canada should bring its troops home.
He has now sent Canadian troops to work with the Americans in Qatar. There would be a contingency plan for the role those Canadians would play in the event the United States acted against Iraq outside the United Nations auspices.
What is the contingency plan? Is it the Prime Minister's plan that those Canadian troops would come home?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have troops in that part of the world at this time. We have ships, planes, and soldiers working in Afghanistan, and fighting terrorism in that part of the world.
The planning groups have been transferred to that part of the world to be closer to the action and the soldiers who are there. We felt it was important that we still be part of the planning there.
Our position is very clear. It is the same as that of the government of the day in 1991, that there shall be no war outside of the umbrella of the United Nations. That was the opposition--
(1430)
The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to avoid answers on these questions. The House can only conclude it is because there is no plan in the government; it has no sense of what it is doing.
I want to make very clear to the Prime Minister that I am not asking him to divulge the details of any discussion in cabinet, but may I ask the Prime Minister, have contingency plans for a possible war against Iraq been presented to cabinet, either during today's meeting or at any time in the last few months?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is speaking for the Tory Party, whether it is Mr. Mulroney or him. Mr. Mulroney said this week that we should go to war and not pay attention to the UN at all.
I think the position of this party is the same as they had in 1991, which is that if there is to be a war, it has to be done with the authority of the United Nations.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, to increase the possibility of Saddam Hussein disarming, the Canadian Alliance has recommended predeploying forces as a deterrent to Saddam Hussein.
We now know that Canada has sent officers to the U.S. command post in Qatar. We are told that four frigates and possibly a destroyer will be deployed in the gulf related to the Iraq situation, not Afghanistan. Our forces are not just wandering over there on their own and they will not be there just for exercises.
Why does the government tell Canadians one thing about Iraq and then the government gives orders on the other side?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the movement to Qatar is merely a change in location for an operation that was ongoing for some time in Tampa.
As for the ships, they are committed to precisely the same mission as before; that is to say, the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. Their mission has not changed. Their enhanced role signifies Canada's determination to be a major force in the war against terrorism.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are being told by insiders that Canada's forces are being sent there for double duty and that one side of those duties involves Iraq. The government is not only playing games with Canadians, but is also playing games with our allies.
I am just asking this straightforward and simple question, are the Liberals predeploying forces to the Middle East for the Iraq situation or not?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member might identify his so-called inside source because I can tell him that his source whoever he or she may be is absolutely wrong.
These forces are there solely and uniquely for Operation Enduring Freedom, which is the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. There is absolutely no commitment to Iraq at this time. Should that ever happen, it will only occur with United Nations support following a deliberate decision by the government.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we now know that the evidence that Great Britain provided to Colin Powell for his presentation before the UN was not worth much.
Yet the Prime Minister said that he was convinced by Powell's presentation, while the French President said that the evidence was not clear: nothing that justifies a war.
Will the Prime Minister admit that serious doubt remains, that his opinion differs from that of other heads of state, and that this doubt is, in itself, enough for him to exercise some restraint with regard to our participation in a war on Iraq?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always been very clear on this. There is complete agreement to support the UN initiative and wait for Mr. Blix to give his report on February 14. That is how things stand. We will assess the situation. We have always been clear that it is essential to see what the inspection system put in place by the Security Council finds before reaching a decision. That is the responsible, logical position in this very complex situation.
(1435)
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in our justice system, we are not used to sending someone to prison without having proof beyond all doubt. In Canada, in Quebec, we are innocent until proven guilty.
Is the Prime Minister not ignoring this fundamental principle, in preparing to participate in a war in which victims will be inevitable, based on questionable evidence and opinions that others do not share.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the applicable law in this situation is resolution 1441. Resolution 1441, paragraph 4, stipulates that Saddam Hussein must cooperate fully with inspections.
Mr. Blix and American Secretary of State Colin Powell are both in agreement on this point. We need to wait until Friday to see what Mr. Blix says and not make false analogies in this regard.
* * *
[English]
Air India
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Inderjit Singh Reyat admitted to helping build the bomb that brought down Air India flight 182 in 1985 killing 329 people. For that he was sentenced to five years for manslaughter. That is about five and a half days for each life lost.
Canadian justice has hit a new low. Thousands of people around the world, the families, and the friends of the victims feel completely betrayed.
Why does the Minister of Justice continue to defend laws that allow this sort of travesty to continue?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of Air India is, of course, a tragedy. The prosecution of that case is made by the attorney general of British Columbia. Since the case is still before the court the House and the Canadian population will understand that we cannot comment.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in five years Reyat will be a free man. He will likely be paroled much sooner. He said that he did not know the bomb was intended to blow up a plane. He thought it was to be used on a car, a bridge or something heavy. Did he just assume that nobody would be in that car or on that bridge?
What message is the government sending to the world when in five years it will free a man convicted for participating in the terrorist deaths of 329 men, women and children?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a tragedy and our hearts go out to the families of the victims of that tragedy.
The attorney general of British Columbia is responsible for the prosecution of that case. Since the case is still before the court the House and the Canadian public as a whole will understand that we cannot comment on such a case.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said the U.S. is prepared to act without the UN and NATO despite objections by some members, and that planning would continue without NATO if necessary.
Will the Prime Minister tell us if Canada agrees with the position of the U.S. Secretary of Defense?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. member is referring to the situation with Turkey, which is causing a crisis at NATO today.
My opinion and the opinion of this government is that it is the fundamental obligation of an alliance to defend its members. That is why it is very important for NATO countries to agree to defend Turkey, which is a member of our alliance.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by falling into a logic of war at NATO, and in the rest of the Iraqi issue, the federal government is undermining international institutions.
Does the Prime Minister realize that this attitude means that Canada is condoning a war without evidence and also undermining, even destroying, major international institutions?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): On the contrary Mr. Speaker, multilateral institutions such as NATO and the UN are extremely important to Canada. This crisis, this problem with Turkey, runs the risk of undermining NATO, which is a multilateral transatlantic institution of great importance to Canada.
* * *
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the capital tax is a bad tax because it discourages innovation. It was introduced by the Conservatives as a temporary tax to reduce the deficit. The deficit is long gone, but the capital tax is still here. It is still here because the former minister of finance kept it going.
I ask the Prime Minister, will he direct his current Minister of Finance to axe the tax?
(1440)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be a budget in exactly seven days. I hope the member will be in the House to listen. The Minister of Finance will deal with his plans about taxation.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance could start by axing the capital tax.
As the former minister of industry, the finance minister knows the capital tax is bad for Canada. It discourages the exact type of investment we need to boost our lagging productivity. For the second year in a row the finance committee has called for this tax to be abolished.
I ask the Prime Minister again, will he direct the current Minister of Finance to assure the House he will follow through on this unanimous decision from the House of Commons finance committee?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will do as we have done for the last 10 years. He will ensure that we have a balanced budget, that the deficit does not exist any more, that we have reduced taxes as we have by $100 billion over the last three years, and that we are in a very good position financially.
Next Tuesday, the member of Parliament will have the occasion to applaud again the good management of our--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Huron--Bruce.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 2002, in the House, the supplementary estimates were passed devoid of new money for the firearms program. Today, without that funding, the national gun registry continues to receive new registration forms.
Could the Minister of Justice tell the House from where the operational funds are coming?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, up until the approval of the supplementary estimates, we were moving with what we call cash management. We said that before Christmas. The program is running at minimum cost but we are able to fulfill our duty.
Of course it is a short term solution and we are sure that the House will support gun control and will support public safety when we vote on the supplementary estimates.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The immigration minister recently asked Canadians to engage in a debate on the national identity cards which that minister supports. A number of the Liberal caucus members, including at least one cabinet minister, have indicated in response that they do not support them.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would take this opportunity to indicate to us and the Canadian people his position. Is he in favour of NIDs or not?
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. This is likely the one of the most vital issues for the coming decade.
Like the Canadian population as a whole, the government has absolutely no problem with holding a debate on this matter. It is important in a democratic society to be able to discuss important issues.
When society loses $2.5 billion as a result of identity theft, I think it is important to raise some questions.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
Amateur Sports
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Hockey Association now allows body checking as early as age nine. The changes were made after data indicated there was no evidence of additional injuries.
However, in view of the fact that the data analysis was wrong, that the CHA's research committee resigned en masse in protest of hitting at such a tender age and that at least one province, that of Quebec, does not allow hitting before the age of 14, does the minister responsible for amateur sport not think that the Canadian Hockey Association should be assessed a game misconduct in this issue?
Hon. Paul DeVillers (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada considers the safety of all our athletes as a number one priority. The executive director of the CHA has confirmed to me that the CHA has the same priority.
As a matter of fact, the CHA will be reviewing its decision at its annual meeting to be held in the month of May. However, only 13% of all boys between the ages of 9 and 10 are actually playing contact hockey presently.
* * *
Goods and Services Tax
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue keeps referring to the 1,000 person investigative unit within CCRA as proof that she is doing all she can do to prevent GST fraud.
Of those 1,000 investigators, how many of them are actually focused exclusively on fighting GST fraud and how many of them are just simply working on general audit duties?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the member's information, we have 5,000 auditors doing general audit duties. We have 1,000 investigators, and included in the 1,000 investigators, we have 127 special investigators who are looking specifically at links to organized crime. The result of their efforts last year, in GST alone, resulted in an additional $850 million collected in GST.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1995, Revenue Canada cancelled the GST enforcement service. This fraud squad, which was established by the Conservatives to avoid GST fraud, actually recovered millions and millions of dollars, that is, until the Liberals cancelled it.
What was the government thinking of when it cancelled the GST enforcement service?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member really is creating an incorrect impression. What happened in 1995 was that the GST unit and the tax investigation unit were combined to provide greater expertise. The result is that this past year we have seen double the number of prosecutions for GST fraud.
The decision to create a bigger and better unit has resulted in more investigations, more prosecutions and, in fact, a very good record in the court of successful cases.
* * *
Government Spending
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the dust settles on the next budget, many Canadians fear they will wake up to basically the same failed policy started by the former finance minister: things like a billion dollars wasted on the out of control gun registry; untold millions on the GST fraud; and, of course, the $11 billion spent on questionable corporate handouts, many of them to profitable corporations, many of which have close ties to the federal government.
Will the minister agree that now is the time for the federal government to get its act together and stop the handouts to corporate Canada?
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the point of the hon. member's question is. After all, when one considers the great success of the government with the elimination of the deficit, the reduction of the national debt and 560,000 new jobs last year alone, this is a government that works well.
Thanks to the hard work and sacrifices of Canadians, we have brought about an economic renaissance that is number one in the world.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): And none more, Mr. Speaker, closer than the friends of the current government.
Last week the Prime Minister explained how he found new money for the health care agreement. In speaking of the provinces, the Prime Minister said:
|
They say that the money that we had promised three years ago to be new money this year is no more new money. We have not paid it yet and it's old new money versus new new monies. For me, new money is new money if paying in $5 or $10, it's the same money. |
I am not sure what he meant by that but if he is seriously looking for new money to cut taxes, to help health care and so on, will he agree that cutting the $11 billion in corporate welfare is a good place to start?
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder what he finds so unclear. The reality is that the Prime Minister was very clear. He injected billions and billions of dollars to make sure that Canada's health care system will be accessible, high quality and provide the type of service that Canadians demand and deserve.
Now we just have to get the provinces to work hard and bring about positive change in the health care system.
* * *
[Translation]
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry acknowledged that, in the past, the Competition Bureau did look into what was going on in the industry. The prices of gasoline have risen astronomically, and yet the minister is keeping his arms crossed and sloughing the problem off on the provinces.
How can the Minister maintain that the Competition Bureau cannot determine that there is collusion, when every day in every big city in Canada consumers see all the gas stations raising their prices at the same time, on the same day?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must insist that the hon. member respect provincial jurisdiction. Only the provinces have the authority under the constitution to regulate retail prices. That is the truth of the matter, and the member must respect the jurisdiction of the provinces.
(1450)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to start by assuming his responsibilities, that would be a good start.
Does the minister realize that, by refusing to intervene on gasoline prices, he is also refusing to intervene on heating oil costs, thus leaving thousands of families at the mercy of the oil and gas companies?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, who is going to be the one to inform Premier Landry that we are going to stick our noses into his business? This is unacceptable.
At the federal level, we have jurisdiction over competition. We have a Competition Bureau. We are always prepared to address these issues. Regulating prices, however, is another matter. That is up to the provinces.
* * *
[English]
Border Security
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the Americans raised the threat level to orange there were immediate tie-ups at the border and the Nexus lanes were temporarily closed.
This has many Canadian manufacturers very concerned about the long term access to their American markets and some are even contemplating moving down to the United States.
Given that one-third of the Canadian economy is dependent upon exports to the United States, why has the government been unable to assure our exporters access to their American markets?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as soon as we became aware of the orange alert we contacted our American partners and offered to assist them in any way we could to ensure that there was a heightened security.
We allocated additional resources to customs on the front line in Canada. I am pleased to say to the hon. member that, all things considered, the border over the weekend functioned well and it is functioning well now.
In a state of heightened alert I think everyone should expected there to be some delays because of heightened security.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, despite the ministers claims, the Americans are becoming even more restrictive at the border, not less.
The proposed 24 hour requirement by the Americans is devastating to the Canadian auto industry, costing our economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.
Why has the government allowed its poor relationship with the United States government to jeopardize the Canadian economy and Canadian jobs?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, we have an excellent relationship with the Americans and have worked very hard on this smart border accord under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Ridge.
I also want to say to the member opposite that what she is talking about is a proposal by the Americans that has not yet taken effect. I would tell her that not only do we share concerns in wanting to see that the border functions effectively, but we are working very closely with all of those who have an interest in seeing that the border is secure and efficient because that is in the interests of both Canadians and Americans.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently we heard of the plight of members of the Canadian Forces who have been denied full benefits for injuries sustained in the line of duty. In particular, the issue relates to inequities in the insurance benefits available to senior officers and those available to more junior ranks.
I know the minister has wanted to correct this injustice. Could the minister tell the House what he intends to do about it?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it clearly is wrong to limit lump sum payments for dismemberment to those who hold the rank of colonel or above. There is no doubt about it, that is simply wrong. That is why I am extremely pleased to announce today that very soon such lump sum benefits for dismemberment will be available to all members of the Canadian Forces, irrespective of rank.
* * *
National Parks
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on January 20, the CFIA announced that two more Manitoba cattle farms had tuberculosis outbreaks. This is in addition to the six farms that already are under quarantine. In this new outbreak, 230 cattle will be destroyed, but guess what? No elk in the Riding Mountain National Park will be destroyed, even though they are the proven source of the tuberculosis.
Why is the heritage minister standing idly by and not eradicating TB from the Riding Mountain National Park elk herd?
(1455)
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada, together with other stakeholders, has played an active role in the concrete measures that have been implemented to manage this complex problem.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the plan is totally useless. It is not doing the job. The government's plan to reduce the elk herd through hunting licences is one way of trying to do it. However this year only 260 elk were taken by hunters. At that rate, the disease will never be eradicated.
Maybe we can get an answer from the agriculture minister. Does the Minister of Agriculture understand that Manitoba will never regain TB-free status unless the disease is eradicated from the wild elk herd?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working with the industry and with the province of Manitoba. We have developed a zone that will allow part of Manitoba to continue its TB-free status. We are working with the industry, the livestock breeders and others to ensure that they can move their cattle there as well.
We recognize the challenge that we have here and we will continue to work with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to alleviate this problem that we have.
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while visiting the North Shore yesterday, we were able to see that the softwood lumber crisis is continuing to claim victims. Many workers will see their employment insurance benefits dry up soon, the lumber mills are closed and entire regions are crying out for help. The government promised it would be announcing a second assistance plan, but we are still waiting.
Could the Minister of Industry tell me what he is waiting for to do his job and announce, as he himself promised on October 8, the second phase of his assistance plan for victims of the softwood lumber crisis?
Where is the aid promised by the minister?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first remind the hon. member of the efforts that have been made by the government on behalf of workers in the softwood industry.
Clearly we are concerned about the reality that they face as this disagreement continues. However I would remind the hon. member of the $450 million that goes to employment insurance benefits, of the more than $250 million that has been announced for support to communities, as well as additional support through employment insurance.
I also would remind the hon. member of the over $650 million the Government of Canada transfers to the province of Quebec specifically for active measures--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt
* * *
Public Service
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, government statistics prove that forced bilingualism discriminates against English speaking Canadians with respect to hiring and promotion in the public service. In fact my recent survey mirrored a 1991 report by the Professional Institute of the Public Service. The vast majority of respondents said that their careers were negatively affected by language discrimination.
Why is the President of the Treasury Board forcibly imposing artificial language requirements which deny employment and promotions for anglophones in the public service?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is perfectly acceptable that Canada's public service is committed to serving the people of Canada in both of the country's official languages. Anywhere anglophones and francophones live, they must receive appropriate services from our government.
I really have no idea what the member is driving at, particularly since he should have faith in young anglophones in Canada, who are becoming more and more bilingual.
* * *
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, the government does not have a good track record when it comes to managing and securing data. Witness the gun registration debacle and the social insurance card fraud. Now the government is floating the idea of a national identity card scheme.
Given the government's dismal track record in this area of personal security, does the minister really expect Canadians to have confidence in the government's ability to manage this high tech novelty item?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not have to bury our heads in the sand. We have to take care of two issues. First, there is the issue of identity theft that costs society $2.5 billion. Second, with what is going on with the entry-exit at the border all the time, we need to ensure that Canadians will decide the kind of identity policy we should have.
It is not a government thing. It is the Canadian way. It is among ourselves to decide what we want to do. It is an open debate for all. I urge every member and every Canadian to give their thoughts on that issue.
* * *
(1500)
National Defence
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Minister of National Defence to deal unfairly with landowners adjacent to the expanding JTF2 military base only generates negative publicity at a time when the minister needs to highlight the elite unit's excellent work in Afghanistan.
Why will the minister not offer fair compensation to these local landowners?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge and highlight the excellent performance of our special forces, the JTF2, which have indeed done a superb job in Afghanistan and elsewhere, although I must always be mindful of the security requirements, as indeed I am. However I hope in the not too distant future to share with Canadians the fantastic achievements of this group.
On the other hand, I cannot remember the other part of her question.
* * *
[Translation]
Seasonal Employment
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in several sectors of the seasonal employment industry, an increasingly common practice is for employers to accumulate employee overtime hours instead of declaring them in order to extend the work periods and avoid the infamous gap.
Will the minister admit that not recognizing seasonal work is the true cause of these fraudulent practices?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The government appreciates the contribution of seasonal industries and seasonal workers to the overall Canadian economy. The hon. member should recognize that our change to an hours based system directly supports seasonal workers by lengthening their entitlement and increasing their benefits.
As well, she will recall that we have made changes to a number of aspects of the Employment Insurance Act quite directly that respond to all workers, including those in the seasonal industries.
We are convinced that we have a program that works, that works well and that is there when Canadians need it.
* * *
Health
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister blocked the call of three territorials premiers for a northern health fund of roughly $60 million, despite the support of every provincial premier and Roy Romanow. Northern Liberal MPs have been shamefully silent on this issue so far.
Will the Prime Minister now assure the House that the coming budget will fully fund the critical health needs of northerners so that his legacy will not be one of neglect and betrayal of northern and aboriginal Canadians?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both the Prime Minister and I have indicated before in the House our willingness, and in fact on Monday, February 24, I will have the opportunity to meet with my three territorial health minister colleagues. At that time I hope we will begin the implementation of the new health accord for the people who live in the three territories.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--Military Involvement in Iraq
The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
The Speaker: It being 3:03 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 6 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
* * *
(1515)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 38)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bailey
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Benoit
Bergeron
Bigras
Blaikie
Borotsik
Bourgeois
Brien
Brison
Cadman
Cardin
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Clark
Comartin
Crête
Cummins
Day
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Elley
Epp
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Fournier
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godin
Goldring
Gouk
Grewal
Grey
Guay
Guimond
Harper
Harris
Hearn
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hilstrom
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
Lill
Loubier
Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Marceau
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Mayfield
McDonough
McNally
Ménard
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Nystrom
Obhrai
Pankiw
Penson
Perron
Plamondon
Proctor
Rajotte
Reynolds
Ritz
Robinson
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
St-Hilaire
Strahl
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tremblay
Vellacott
Venne
White (Langley--Abbotsford)
Williams
Total: -- 104
|
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Augustine
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Drouin
Duplain
Easter
Efford
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Frulla
Fry
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
Normand
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Provenzano
Reed (Halton)
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Simard
Speller
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Szabo
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: -- 148
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bertrand
Dalphond-Guiral
Knutson
McCormick
Paquette
Picard (Drummond)
Regan
Total: -- 8
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
* * *
(1525)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 39)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bailey
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Benoit
Bergeron
Bigras
Blaikie
Borotsik
Bourgeois
Brien
Bryden
Cadman
Cardin
Casey
Casson
Clark
Comartin
Crête
Cummins
Day
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Elley
Epp
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Fournier
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godin
Goldring
Gouk
Grewal
Grey
Guay
Guimond
Harper
Harris
Hearn
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hilstrom
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
Lill
Loubier
Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Marceau
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Mayfield
McDonough
McNally
Ménard
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Nystrom
Obhrai
Pankiw
Penson
Perron
Plamondon
Proctor
Rajotte
Reynolds
Ritz
Robinson
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
St-Hilaire
Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tremblay
Vellacott
Venne
White (Langley--Abbotsford)
Williams
Total: -- 103
|
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Augustine
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brown
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Drouin
Duplain
Easter
Efford
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Frulla
Fry
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
Normand
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Provenzano
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Simard
Speller
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Szabo
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: -- 148
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bertrand
Dalphond-Guiral
Knutson
McCormick
Paquette
Picard (Drummond)
Regan
Total: -- 8
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
(1530)
[English]
Allotted Day--Sending Troops to Iraq
The House resumed from February 10 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Jean relating to the business of supply.
The question is on the motion.
* * *
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 40)
|
YEAS
Members
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Bergeron
Bigras
Blaikie
Borotsik
Bourgeois
Brien
Bryden
Caccia
Cardin
Casey
Clark
Comartin
Crête
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Dubé
Duceppe
Fournier
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gaudet
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Hearn
Keddy (South Shore)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
Lill
Lincoln
Loubier
Marceau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
McDonough
Ménard
Nystrom
Parrish
Perron
Plamondon
Proctor
Robinson
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
St-Hilaire
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tremblay
Total: -- 54
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Anderson (Victoria)
Augustine
Bagnell
Bailey
Bakopanos
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brown
Bulte
Byrne
Cadman
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Casson
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen
Cummins
Cuzner
Day
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Drouin
Duncan
Duplain
Easter
Efford
Eggleton
Elley
Epp
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Frulla
Fry
Gallant
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goldring
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grewal
Grey
Grose
Harb
Harper
Harris
Harvard
Harvey
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hilstrom
Hubbard
Ianno
Jaffer
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Longfield
Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
Matthews
Mayfield
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McNally
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Minna
Mitchell
Moore
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
Normand
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Obhrai
Owen
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Pankiw
Paradis
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Provenzano
Rajotte
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Scherrer
Schmidt
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Simard
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Speller
Spencer
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Strahl
Szabo
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Vellacott
Wappel
Whelan
White (Langley--Abbotsford)
Wilfert
Williams
Wood
Total: -- 195
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bertrand
Dalphond-Guiral
Knutson
McCormick
Paquette
Picard (Drummond)
Regan
Total: -- 8
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
[English]
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 34 minutes.
* * *
(1535)
Canada Elections Act
[Government Orders]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (for the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to move second reading of a bill that will change the way politics is done in this country, a bill that will address the perception that money talks, that big companies and big unions have too much influence on politics, a bill that will reduce cynicism about politics and politicians, a bill that is tough but fair.
Canadians demand transparency, openness and accountability. They demand it in health care and we delivered last week.
Canadians demand it from their politicians in terms of their fundraising and we are delivering with this bill.
The bill provides for full disclosure of all contributions and expenses over $200 at all levels, not only for national parties and candidates in elections but for riding associations, for nominations, and for leadership candidates.
We are acting on recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, an officer of the Parliament of Canada. These recommendations were the accumulation of a career spent as custodian of the democratic process in Canada, a career that has earned him the respect and gratitude not just of Canadians or of this House but of new and struggling democracies around the world that have sought his advice as they have worked to bring truly democratic and fair elections to their nations. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Kingsley and I would like to thank him for his excellent work.
With these new rules, there will be no more black holes for campaign contributions and no more allowing unreceipted money and unaccounted expenses.
We only have to look south of the border to see how money impacts on politics, the many millions that are raised for individual Senate seats and the huge contributions to political action committees. In the United States, the fitness of a candidate for office is judged first on his or her ability to raise huge sums of money, rather than on his or her brains or ability to lead. They call it the money primary. It takes place in the shadows long before an idea is expressed, before a speech is given, before a vote is cast. We do not want to see this in Canada.
The bill will ensure that we have a very different system, a typical Canadian new institution, a system that will be a model for other democracies.
(1540)
[Translation]
Many years ago, we in Canada placed limits on campaign spending. This bill places limits on fundraising. Limits on contributions to political parties. Limits for candidates. Limits for nominations. Limits for leaderships. And it imposes full disclosure.
I was not always in agreement with René Lévesque on everything. But there is no doubt that the party financing legislation he passed in Quebec has served as a model for democracy. It has worked well. This bill builds on that model and corrects some of its flaws.
Contributions from individuals will be limited to a maximum of $10,000 to a political party per year. This amount is approximately equivalent in current dollars to the $3,000 of the Quebec legislation of 1977.
This bill is in the same vein as legislation passed a few years ago in Manitoba to prohibit corporate and union contributions to political parties' election funds.
With a very limited exception, which I will explain in a moment, businesses and trade unions will be prohibited from contributing to political parties or candidates or leaderships or nominations.
We all know there is a perception that corporate and union contributions buy influence. I do not believe that this is true. And I do not believe that any member of this House feels that he or she has been improperly influenced.
But, and this is very important, there is something that we should all recognize. All of us in this House have been guilty at one time or another of throwing out the accusation that corporate or union contributions influence our opponents. Often we have done so without really thinking, and the media are no better.
None of this is good for the political process or democracy. This bill addresses this issue head on. I firmly believe that the elimination of contributions to political parties by business and trade unions will greatly improve the political culture in Canada.
Members of Parliament argued that they should not be precluded from taking very small contributions from local businesses in their ridings. In fact, in the last election, the average such contribution was $450. Clearly such contributions cannot be seen to be influencing decisions.
Therefore the bill allows businesses and trade unions to contribute a maximum of $1,000 a year to a candidate or a riding association, but not to a national party. This is, I believe, an acceptable compromise, but anything more would gravely diminish the purpose of this bill.
A thousand dollars a year over a four-year period adds up to $4,000. No business should be able to contribute more than that to a political party through a riding association. Otherwise we would be recreating at the riding level what we are attempting to eliminate at the national.
Indeed, one of the great sources of frustration to those who are working for a true reform of political party financing is the existence of loopholes that allow people to get around the law. The necessity to plug those loopholes right from the start with this bill, and thus to avoid the public cynicism to which they give rise, is the justification for the severity of this bill we have before us.
Political parties are essential to the democratic process. We all know that in this House. We all know that they need money to operate. That too is essential in a democracy.
(1545)
The principle of public funding has been long established in Canada through tax credits for individual contributions to political parties and through rebates to parties and candidates for a proportion of election expenses.
To make up for the loss of corporate and union contributions, this bill substantially increases public financing of the political process. The maximum tax credit for individual contributions is raised from $200 to $400. National party rebates for election expenses will be raised from 22.5% to 50%.
Candidates themselves receive a rebate of 50% if they have more than 15% of the vote. The bill reduces the threshold to 10%. Each political party will receive $1.50 per vote received in the last general election.
[English]
The increase in the individual tax credit, the increase in the rebate and the direct subsidy to the party will make up for the loss of corporate and trade union contributions and it will do so through public financing, the only way to remove the perception that big money influences decisions of government. We can do this at a cost of about 65¢ per Canadian in non-election years and a bit more than $1 per Canadian in an election year. This is a very small price to pay for helping to improve our democracy. It is a very good investment of public funds.
Some have suggested that the subsidy to a political party means that an individual's tax dollars may go to a party that he or she disagrees with. The reality is that the $1.50 a year goes to the party that person voted for in the previous election.
If someone changes his or her mind after an election, if someone realizes he or she made a mistake, for example by voting for the Canadian Alliance, the $1.50 per year still adds up to a total of $6 over the four years. That person can make up for his or her mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. It could happen to somebody who voted Liberal too, but not many because we are still doing quite well.
That person can make up for his or her mistake by making a personal contribution of up to $10,000 a year to the political party of his or her new choice. That person will benefit from the increase in the limit for the maximum tax credit. The argument about the use of tax dollars for a political party the taxpayer does not agree with just does not hold water.
As a result of this bill, elections will be financed almost 90% by the public. This will make Canada a model for democracy. It is something we should all be proud of.
I know some members have concerns about the impact of this bill on the internal workings of political parties. It is important to understand that these are matters that are not for legislation; they are matters for parties to work out. We do not need legislation to regulate the internal workings of political parties.
This is a long bill with a lot of clauses in it. It is possible that there are provisions that have been drafted in a way where there are unintended consequences. I would hope that the committee will propose appropriate amend