37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 072
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Order in Council Appointments |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Food and Drugs Act |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Assisted Human Reproduction Act |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Assisted Human Reproduction Act |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Canada Winter Games |
|
|
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) |
|
|
St. Catharines Rowing Club |
|
|
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
|
Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Curling |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Joseph Haywood |
|
|
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Women, Peace and Security |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
Arts and Culture |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Arts and Culture |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) |
|
|
Middle East |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
MetroStar Gala |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.) |
|
|
Gander Weather Forecasting Station |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC) |
|
|
Canadian Radio Music Awards |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Border Security |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Heating Oil 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. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Vacancy |
|
|
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Budget--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Transportation Amendment Act |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Transport |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Transport |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Transportation Amendment Act |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Canada Elections Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Division 54) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
(Division 55) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act |
|
|
(Division 57) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Lobbyists Registration Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
(Division 56) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Specific Claims Resolution Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
|
|
(Division 58) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Financial Statement of Minister of Finance |
|
|
(Division 59) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Canada Student Loans Program |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Order in Council Appointments
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my honour to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments made recently by the government.
* * *
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Official Languages
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108, the committee adopted a resolution and agreed on Monday, March 17, 2003, to report to the House.
It concerns a request that we had already presented to the House—but it contained a small misprint—to reduce the committee's quorum from nine to seven members. Now that the misprint has been corrected, one of the seven must be an opposition member. It was my clear understanding that this matter would be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
* * *
[English]
Petitions
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, on the subject matter of stem cells.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that thousands of Canadians suffer from very debilitating diseases which need to be addressed and that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown encouraging potential to prevent and to cure many of the illness and diseases that they hold.
They also point out that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to pursue legislative initiatives in support of adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary for Canadians.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 118, 144, 148 and 149.
[Text]
Question No. 118--Mr. Rick Borotsik:
What, in detail, are all of the funding options being
considered regarding the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway in the Province
of Manitoba, and with respect to this process: (a) how many road and/or
highway construction projects has the government approved in Manitoba;
(b) what was the dollar amount for each project; and (c) what
work has been carried out under each project?
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Transport Canada is currently managing a highway
construction program, the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program, or SHIP.
Under the SHIP, $500 million is available for strategic improvements to the
national highway system, or NHS, which includes the Trans-Canada Highway. Under
the agreement, the total federal allocation for Manitoba is $20.2 million for
capital highway improvement projects on the NHS, to be cost shared on a
fifty-fifty basis with the Province of Manitoba. It is the responsibility of
the Province of Manitoba to submit projects for funding under the SHIP. The
eligibility criteria require that projects be major capital improvements on
east-west or north-south trade routes of Canada’s NHS, meet engineering
standards and environmental assessment requirements, and be supported with
detailed justification.
To date, two projects have been announced for funding
under the Canada-Manitoba SHIP agreement: twinning of Highway 1, the
Trans-Canada Highway near Virden, $3.15 million federal/$3.15 million
provincial, and rehabilitation/safety improvements along Highway 16, the
Yellowhead Trans-Canada Highway between Neepawa and Minnedosa, $8.15 million
federal/$8.15 million provincial. Construction along Highway 1 involves
completing the twinning of 12 kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway, starting
near Virden and finishing 1.2 kilometres west of the Highway 1/Highway 83
junction. The project also includes intersection work at the same junction and
installing a new culvert under the Trans-Canada Highway at Scallion Creek, just
west of Virden. The project has an estimated total cost of $7 million, $6.3
million eligible, and is expected to be completed in 2003, with 57% of the
project scheduled to be completed this fiscal year.
The Highway 16 project involves safety-related
improvements and rehabilitating 28.1 kilometres of Highway 16 between Highway
10, near Minnedosa, and Highway 5, near Neepawa. This includes adding four 1.8
kilometre long passing lanes, two eastbound and two westbound, improving the
intersections at Highway 466 and Highway 464, constructing fully paved
shoulders, and improving the load-bearing capacity of the road to accommodate
growing truck traffic. The project has an estimated cost of $18 million, $16.3
million eligible, and is expected to be completed in 2004, with 18% of the
project scheduled to be completed this fiscal year.
There remains $17.8 million in unnallocated funds in
the Canada-Manitoba SHIP agreement. No formal proposals have been received to
date for this funding.
Question No. 144--Mr. Grant McNally:
What did Canada Post pay in tuition, time off and for
any other expenses associated with the professional development training of Ms.
Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais during her employment with the
corporation?
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Canada Post values the contribution of its employees
and actively supports their development. The details requested constitute
personal information about Ms. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais and would be
inappropriate to disclose.
Canada Post has operated without government funding
since 1989 and all its expenses are self-funded. The corporation is committed
to providing universal, affordable postal service while sustaining a
financially healthy business.
Question No. 148--Mr. Werner Schmidt:
What was the total cost of the expense accounts of the
Honourable André Ouellet, P.C., Q.C. President and CEO of Canada Post
Corporation during the fiscal years 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999,
1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002?
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Canada Post has operated without government funding
since 1989 and all its expenses are self-funded. The corporation is committed
to providing universal, affordable postal service while sustaining a
financially healthy business. The details of the corporation's activities are
considered privileged and commercially sensitive and cannot be
specified.
Question No. 149--Mr. James Lunney:
What was the total cost of the expense accounts of
Vivian G. Albo, Chairman of the Board of Canada Post Corporation, during the
fiscal years 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001
and 2001-2002?
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Canada Post has operated without government funding
since 1989 and all its expenses are self-funded. The corporation is committed
to providing universal, affordable postal service while sustaining a
financially healthy business. The details of the corporation's activities are
considered privileged and commercially sensitive and cannot be
specified.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek permission of the House to revert back to the introduction of private members' bills. I realize I need unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed that we return to the introduction of private member's bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1010)
Food and Drugs Act
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-410, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods).
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act with the specific purpose of legislating mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.
The bill flows from the government's continued refusal to act on Canadians expressed concerns about the rapid entry of genetically modified organisms into the marketplace without the benefit of long term safety studies and without public information.
Our knowledge of the impacts of genetic modification is far from complete and mandatory labelling to identify and trace these items is the only way long term safety can be verified. Soon wheat, a staple of both our diet and trade, may be added to the GMO products available, with huge implications for both consumers and producers.
The bill provides for the full public disclosure of all genetically engineered products and gives Canadians the same right to choose as that enjoyed by the citizens of the 36 other countries that now require mandatory labelling.
I would like to credit the work of other members of the House who have repeatedly brought forward bills and motions to seek to have this issue addressed. I think all this shows the growing concern in Parliament for this matter and the urgency for a full public debate on the issue.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Assisted Human Reproduction Act
The House resumed from February 27 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. 2.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Group No. 2 amendments to Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.
First, this is my first opportunity to speak to this bill in any form. I would also like to thank my colleague, the member for Yellowhead, who has shepherded the bill through its many stages on behalf of the Canadian Alliance.
Group No. 2 amendments encompass Motions Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22 to 24, 26, 27, 40 and 47. I will address each in turn in what time is allowed.
Let me assure the House that the Canadian Alliance supports these amendments because the government brought in a flawed piece of legislation. The opposition knows this, as do Liberal members across the aisle. In fact, with the exception of Motion No. 17 which was brought forth by the Canadian Alliance member for Calgary Southeast, all these motions we are discussing today were brought forth by the Liberal member for Mississauga South.
Unfortunately, although all parties recognize the necessity of rectifying the government's flawed piece of legislation, the arrogance of the Prime Minister and his whip makes them believe that they do not have to take Parliament seriously.
Whenever a Liberal backbencher gets uppity and propose reasoned amendments like today, what is the Prime Minister's response? It is a vote of confidence. In other words, he is saying to Liberal backbenchers to vote how he tells them or he will force an election and not sign their nomination papers.
The Prime Minister flouts this institution and he flouts democracy. The Canadian Alliance is willing to take a stand and challenges the Prime Minister to allow his MPs to vote freely on the bill and this group of amendments.
Speaking of the Group No. 2 amendments, I will start by saying that I will deal with the motions thematically and not numerically as some of my colleagues have chosen to do.
The major themes within these motions are human cloning, the creation of embryos for research purposes and transgenics, the science of mixing human and animal DNA to create hybrids.
Motions Nos. 13, 22 and 40 deal with cloning.
First, Motion No. 13 expands the prohibition on the creation of a human clone in paragraph 5(1)(a) with the addition of “by using any technique”, to achieve greater clarity. It also specifies that no one shall transplant a clone into any non-human life form or artificial device. This is important because the current wording only prohibits transplanting a clone into a human being.
The Canadian Alliance supports Motion No. 13 because we will support any and all efforts to close possible loopholes in the prohibition on cloning.
Motion No. 22 expands upon the provisions already in the bill, preventing cloning for research purposes. The amendment simply expands the definition to include a ban on cloning of embryos for research or reproduction.
Motion No. 40 also deals with cloning. It adds specific prohibition on therapeutic research cloning. The bill already bans both reproductive and research cloning but for purposes of certainty this amendment should also be passed.
I will also try to deal with Motions Nos. 14, 16, 17 and 24 regarding the use of embryos.
We support Motion No. 14 as it amends a very important aspect of the bill. Currently the bill's existing clause would allow creation of embryos for purposes of improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures. We oppose the creation and use of embryos for research purposes. This is simply wrong.
Like Motion No. 14, Motion No. 16 strengthens the prohibition against creating embryos. Current wording of the clause in the bill prohibits creating an embryo from a cell or from part of a cell of another embryo for the purpose of creating a human being. The amendment removes “for the purpose of creating a human being” to ensure there is no creation of embryos for any purpose, not merely that of creating a fully mature human being.
Motion No. 17 is the one that I mentioned earlier. The amendment moved by my colleague from Calgary is well thought out and reasoned, and I would encourage the government to support it. Basically this clause adds a prohibition on embryonic research: no person shall “experiment on or harvest an embryo”. The current wording in the bill says that embryonic research can be undertaken under licence if the agency is satisfied that such research is “necessary”.
(1015)
Embryonic stem cell research is ethically controversial and it divides Canadians. It ultimately results in the destruction of the embryo. For many Canadians, this violates the ethical commitment to respect human dignity, integrity and life. It is unnecessary as adult stem cells have been proven to be a safe alternative to embryonic stem cell research. They are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, MS and other conditions.
Motion No. 24 is very important as it puts time limits on embryo storage.
Finally, I will deal with the remaining Motions Nos. 20, 23, 26, 27 and 47 which deal with transgenics and the mixing of human and non-human DNA to create hybrids.
Motion No. 20 is another reasoned amendment to this bill as it deals with the almost science fiction premise of mixing humans and non-humans, something I would have hoped the minister would have considered before rushing this bill out. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with the government, she did not. Motion No. 20 prevents the transplantation of sperm, ovum, embryo or fetus of a human being into a non-human life form.
Motion No. 23 is another motion that seeks to prevent the mixing of human and non-human DNA by adding a new prohibited activity, transgenics, combining any portion of the human genome with any part of the genome and non-human species. This motion is in conjunction with Motion No. 47 which I also hope is passed.
Motion No. 47 deletes clause 11 on transgenics, corresponding to Motion No. 23, moving transgenics to prohibited activities. As the two motions come hand in hand, we will support them as a group.
Yet another motion dealing with the combining of animal-human hybrids is Motion No. 26 and I have dealt with that.
Motion No. 27 is very important. It adds a prohibition on reproduction and links as well with Motion No. 26.
Once again as I wrap up, I would just like to emphasize that the government needs to allow MPs to vote freely on this bill. This is a very important moral decision for all MPs and they must be allowed to vote their conscience and their constituents' wishes.
As an example, even in my own office I have had many people write to me with their concerns on this issue. They believe that science should have a role in trying to make life better for people with debilitating diseases. However they are concerned as well for the protection of the sanctity of life and what sort of measures this place can put in place to move forward with science but with the respect for life. That is something about which all MPs should have a say.
We should have that vote and we should be able to vote freely. I think most Canadians would only expect that from Parliament, so I hope that will be considered as we continue to deliberate on this bill.
(1020)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this morning to address Bill C-13. It is my first chance to speak to the legislation. As my colleague who spoke just a moment ago pointed out, it is important legislation, legislation about which many Canadians feel very strongly. We have to be sensitive to different points of view when we talk about this particular issue.
The issue addresses a number of different aspects and there are a number of aspects to this issue. This has to do with human cloning. I want to say at the outset that the Canadian Alliance opposes the idea of human cloning. We see it as an affront to human dignity. I think most right thinking Canadians believe the same thing, which is that we should not trifle with something like human cloning.
It also deals with the issue of stem cell research. It draws a distinction between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, or at least it has to do with that issue. My party believes that we should draw a distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells.
Before I get into some of the particulars of the motion, I want to ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider for a moment what it would be like to be the technician in the laboratory who has to dispose of an embryonic stem cell. Let us say that it is a stem cell that arose as a result of in vitro fertilization. Let us say the legislation is now in place and at the end of 14 days you are charged with disposing that embryonic stem cell. I wonder, as you go to place that embryo in a disposal container of some sort, if you would for a moment feel some hesitation about doing that, or perhaps you would feel a twinge of regret at having to do that.
If people are in that position, are thinking about this and find that perhaps they would at least hesitate for a moment, I think it is quite appropriate to ask on what grounds they would hesitate. Why would they feel any regret at all about doing that? Perhaps they have been raised to believe that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that this is anything but a mass of cells. However, if for a moment they feel that regret or they hesitate and perhaps do not even understand why, then I think it is appropriate to ask themselves why they feel that regret.
I think a lot of people would suggest that it might be something niggling at their conscience if they are in that position. There would be some twinge of conscience that would cause them to feel that regret. If in fact that is the case, even as we do a kind of mind experiment and ask ourselves what it would be like to be in that situation, then I think we have to wonder whether what we are doing is correct.
For thousands of years people have wondered why some actions feel right to them, some actions feel wrong to them and why their consciences bother them when they do certain things. People have thought about this for a long time. People like Plato, completely outside the Judeo-Christian tradition rather obviously, spoke about divine laws that operate on all mankind at all times, as did Cicero and other great thinkers. Of course that tradition is carried on in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well.
I want to suggest that if people go through that thought experiment to which I have just referred and sense that they might feel some level of regret, then maybe they understand why the Canadian Alliance has deep concerns about legislation that would allow research on embryonic stem cells, stem cells that were perhaps created initially for use in in vitro fertilization. If they were not used for that purpose, they could then be used ultimately, according to the legislation, for research.
(1025)
A lot of us have deep concerns as we go through a thought experiment like the type I proposed. We wonder whether it is correct. We wonder if there is not some spark of dignity in that embryo. If we wonder at all about that, then it is incumbent upon us to put restrictions in place that prohibit the use of embryonic stem cells for research.
I want to draw a line here between embryonic stem cells and non-embryonic stem cells, or what a lot of people call adult stem cells. There is nothing at all morally troubling about using adult stem cells for research because there is no potential life that is being destroyed or, if we take a different perspective, life itself that is being destroyed.
We are urging the government to do a number of things. As we pointed out in our minority report, we would like the government to show respect for the human life that we believe is in a human embryo. We would like the government to put the emphasis on adult stem cell research, and there is more than just a moral reason for doing that. There is a reason that has everything to do with how effective treatments are today.
To this point, there has never been a single person who has been helped by embryonic stem cells when it comes to improving their health. Adult stem cells are used routinely, whether it is for leukemia or multiple sclerosis. A whole range of different diseases are treated by adult stem cells, and that is fine. We have no problem with that. We support that. We believe strongly that we need to find ways to help people. However. as of yet, the use of embryonic stem cells has not led to any kind of cure or help for people who are struggling with disease. That is one reason that we are very concerned about the legislation and why we would like to see some changes to it.
I want to speak now specifically to some of the motions that are being proposed here. I want to note that we in the Canadian Alliance support Motion No. 13. We like the idea of seeing some tighter language on the cloning prohibition. Back in September 2001, the Canadian Alliance asked for an immediate ban on human cloning. Why we needed that became apparent during the recent press conferences where the Raelians were suggesting that they had actually cloned a human being. People were horrified. Whether they did I am not certain, but suffice it to say that public reaction indicated that this government should have acted a lot faster than it already has when it comes to the issue of human cloning.
With regard to Motion No. 14, the bill's existing clause would allow the creation of embryos for purposes of improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures. We oppose the creation and use of embryos for research procedures. We think that denies the dignity of that human life. We do not think life should be created in order for it to be destroyed later.
With regard to Motion No. 16, the current wording of the bill prohibits an embryo from a cell or from part of a cell of another embryo for the purpose of creating a human being. The amendment removes for the purpose of creating a human being to ensure that there is no creation of embryos for any purpose, not merely that of creating a fully human, mature being. We believe that if people have gone through that thought experiment that I proposed a few minutes ago, if they felt hesitation at destroying that embryo, then perhaps somewhere in their mind they believe that there is a human life at stake.
(1030)
Therefore, for all the reasons that I have laid out, we have some obvious concerns about the legislation. From the thousands of petitions that have come in, I think many people in this country feel the same way. They oppose human cloning unconditionally.
However, on the other hand, they have concerns that go beyond that. They want to see some importance attached to human embryos, period. They are concerned that we are being too cavalier with human embryos. They believe and I believe that these are human lives and that they should be protected.
For those reasons, we are supporting a number of the motions today because they all take us toward more protection for human embryos which we believe is critically important. Overall, we will be opposing Bill C-13, or at least certainly I will, speaking on behalf of myself and my constituents.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, insofar as I am a mover of one of the principal motions, Motion No. 17 in Group No. 2, I would seek the indulgence of the House for the convention which is to allow a mover of a motion twice the normal time to address his motion. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent for 20 minutes, as has become the convention on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to extend his time to 20 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I rise to address the Group No. 2 amendments at report stage of Bill C-13. There are many good amendments in this section that would go a long way toward improving the bill.
In particular, I wish to draw the attention of the House to my own amendment, Motion No. 17, which would have the effect of prohibiting destructive research on human embryos. If my amendment were to be adopted as clause 5(d.1) of the bill it would read, “No person shall knowingly experiment on or harvest an embryo”. This means that no researcher or biotech company could take an embryo, even a so-called spare embryo, and destroy it in the name of science.
This amendment may seem like a radical overhaul of the bill, much of which is concerned with the regulation of this kind of research. I would submit that this amendment would help bring the bill back to its central purpose, which is not to allow the biotech industry unfettered access to genetic material to manipulate but rather to help infertile couples to conceive. There is absolutely no need for this bill to open the door to destructive research on human embryos that would in fact result in the death of living human beings.
Up until now Canada has had a moratorium on the funding of this type of research. If the bill were to pass unamended the signal would go out to companies and laboratories that it is now open season for embryos and for the first time taxpayers' dollars would go toward funding this destructive research. Let us as parliamentarians reject taking this dangerous downward step on the notorious slippery slope of genetic experimentation.
I oppose any embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of a human embryo for at least three principal reasons: first, it is unethical; second, it is unnecessary; and third, it would have grave and perhaps unforseeable unintended consequences.
Destroying the human embryo is unethical and immoral because at the most basic level this is deliberate destruction of human life, admittedly nascent human life but human life nevertheless.
I believe that human life is a continuum which extends from conception to death and that the deliberate destruction of innocent human life is an intrinsically evil act. What embryonic stem cell research means, even on spare embryos, is that we take an embryo that has been created as part of an attempt by a couple to conceive a child and decide that this embryo, this tiny male or female human being with a unique genetic identity of its own, is not worthy of life or even of a decent, dignified death, but that it is merely raw material for genetic research, for commodification.
We take other embryos, the brothers or sisters of the one we are researching on, and implant them into the womb of a mother with the hope that they will become children. However, the embryo that is left over we do not treat as human, but as a mere object worthy of nothing but disposal.
Some will object that surely it is absurd to treat an embryo, a tiny clump of cells they would say, that can fit on the head of a pin and treat those cells as a fully human being. I would follow that great moral authority, Dr. Seuss, who in Horton Hears a Who, which many of us who have children or once were children remember, says that a person is a person, no matter how small.
The size of embryos does not matter. They are all human. I submit that is scientifically undeniable. They are the offspring of human parents. They could be of no other species but homo sapiens. Understood either scientifically or philosophically, they are living human beings. Every single one of the 301 members of the House was once an embryo, no bigger than the head of a pin.
As I said in the House last May when we debated this bill at first reading, a human embryo is a living human being. Human life is a continuum and that continuum begins at the moment the ovum is fertilized by the spermatozoa. That moment is the beginning of a unique unrepeatable human life. The question we must ask ourselves in this debate is, what dignity and what worth does that unrepeatable human life have? I suggest that it has an intrinsic dignity and worth that we cannot deny.
(1035)
Many religions, not only Catholicism and other Christian faiths but Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and many others, teach that from the moment of conception the physical embryo co-exists with the spiritual soul. But even if we do not believe that all life has the sanctity of a soul, surely we can all agree that human life has at least some intrinsic dignity. We are all part of the human family. We share a common ancestry. We are all brothers and sisters in this human race whether we are athletes or parliamentarians; mentally handicapped people; patients on respirators; tiny, helpless infants; tiny, helpless pre-born infants; or indeed the most nascent human beings, tiny embryos.
If we accept that human life in the laboratory does not enjoy the dignity of our common humanity but can be used as a mere raw material for scientific research driven by multinational biotech companies, then we undermine the dignity of all human life. We diminish the dignity of the severely handicapped, the sick, the elderly, and those who some cultures and political ideologies have taught to be racially inferior. If these living human beings do not have intrinsic worth and dignity, at least in the eyes of some, then what is to prevent them too from being used simply as objects for research. For all of these reasons I believe embryonic stem cell research to be gravely unethical and immoral.
I believe the evidence is overwhelming that this research is unnecessary. There may be some members in this House who do not share my conviction about the absolute dignity and worth of the nascent life of the human embryo, but still feel that it has some dignity and worth, and should not be used and abused arbitrarily in the name of science. That is part of the reason why this bill seeks to limit embryonic stem cell research, to so-called spare embryos left over from attempts at in vitro fertilization. It is why the bill seeks to prohibit the creation of embryos by cloning or other means solely for research purposes.
That is why we have asked the scientific community to justify why it believes it is necessary to use human embryos for its research. That is why we have sought amendments at committee and here at report stage that would require scientists seeking access to embryos created ostensibly for reproductive purposes to make a compelling case as to why they need access for those embryos and why the science to be done with those embryos could not similarly be performed with non-embryonic, that is, adult stem cells, as a moral and ethical alternative, not requiring the destruction of life.
I suggest that this bill does not do enough to ensure that human embryos are only used as a last resort and that there are no other substitutes which can function as well. The evidence has shown to the contrary, that there are almost no cases where it is necessary to use embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes. In fact, almost all of the promising research on stem cells to date has involved adult stem cell lines.
I particularly commend my friend opposite from Mississauga South for his compilation of research on this question into an informative booklet which summarizes the overwhelming science on this. I commend him and my colleague from Yellowhead and others for their insightful questioning at the Standing Committee on Health where they drew out of the many expert witnesses the undeniable fact that adult stem cells, non-embryonic stem cells, have furnished much greater and clearer scientific advantages than the putative ones attributed to embryonic stem cells.
(1040)
Dr. Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, the chairman of the U.S. presidential advisory commission on bioethics and the author of what is probably the leading accessible text on this question Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity, has said:
|
One of the regrettable things about the stem cell discussion, if I may say so, was the hype that the proponents used, taking advantage of desperate people's desires for cures and seeming to promise them cures overnight or just around the corner. |
He goes on to say:
|
But truth to tell we don't even have animal examples of anything remotely resembling a cure for any of these diseases. And this would not have been the first time. Fifteen years ago it was fetal research which was supposed to solve all of these dilemmas and help the lame to walk and the demented to think again. So we've got to be very cautious. |
Dr. Kass should make us reflect, do we really need to be destroying embryos, the earliest stage of human life, to develop treatments or are there alternatives? Almost every week it seems there are articles confirming the promise of non-embryonic stem cells and articles saying that research into embryonic stem cells has been disappointing, has not lived up to the expectations and hype of some, a minority in the scientific community.
Adult stem cells have already been used to develop promising therapies for Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, diabetes and spinal cord injuries. Hundreds of patients have already benefited from these technologies which have no ethical complications and do not involve destroying human life in any way, shape for form.
Meanwhile, how many people have benefited from treatment from embryonic stem cells? Precisely none. Even in lab animals, results with embryonic stem cells have been extremely disappointing. Embryonic stem cells transplanted in animals have caused tumours or have been rejected by their hosts, so there are many dangers that would have to be overcome before we could even dream of human trials using embryonic stem cells, which this bill seeks partially to recognize in statute and which my amendment, Motion No. 17, seeks to prohibit.
Given these results and given the tremendous promise of adult stem cells, surely it makes sense for members of Parliament who have any qualms about the ethics of destroying embryonic human beings to insist that adult stem cells be used exclusively until we have fully exhausted their enormous potential. Adopting my amendment would lead to Canadian science directing itself on this more promising and less ethically troubling path.
Finally, allowing embryonic stem cell research would inevitably bring about unintended consequences. Let us consider just as few. The bill as it now stands would allow research on embryos left over from in vitro fertilization. Once this research is allowed there would be a demand from researchers and companies to participate, to have a piece of the embryonic research action and funding. However, at the same time, improving IVF technology would result in fewer and fewer left over embryos being created.
Therefore, undoubtedly, if we were to allow this research now we would see lobbyists before us in a few short years asking us to open the doors a bit wider to allow the creation of embryos for research purposes or to allow so-called therapeutic cloning. Once we open the door to therapeutic cloning, reproductive cloning is of course a very short step behind.
If we are truly concerned about the possible science fiction consequences of genetic technology of animal-human hybrids, human cloning, or attempts to create a genetic super race, then let us stop higher up the slope and not resist further steps down, steps that could slip beneath us as we slide inexorably toward the brave new world foreseen by Aldous Huxley.
I suggest the natural stopping point is to prohibit any research that would destroy human life. As I have argued, it is unethical, it is unnecessary, and it would have grave unintended consequences.
Many of my colleagues, principally in my party, fought long and hard in committee at the draft report stage when the initial draft legislation was introduced by the previous health minister.
(1045)
Since Bill C-56, now Bill C-13, was introduced and brought before the health committee, they have also fought vigorously for a three year moratorium as a modest measure to allow the scientific community to fully expend the enormous scientific opportunities and possibilities posed by non-embryonic stem cell research before crossing that moral Rubicon of destroying life for utilitarian purposes. They sought this three year moratorium in motions at committee put forward by my friend from Yellowhead, who has done a yeoman's job on the bill, but unfortunately members of the committee, principally in the government, voted against the moratorium.
That is why I sought this amendment, which is admittedly more restrictive than the stated policy of my party. I bring it forward not as an initiative of my party but of myself, because I submit that for legalizing a practice which involves an ethically questionable and clearly immoral technique of destroying a nascent human life, the onus is on the proponents of that sort of research to demonstrate that the putative benefits of that kind of morally offensive action are significant to society.
And even if they were, let me address this. While I believe that there are actually many supportable provisions in the bill, while I appreciate that many measures of the bill would in fact create legal parameters, where none now exist, on the manipulation of human life for commercial and other purposes, nevertheless, lying at the heart of the bill is a very basic but tremendously profound metaphysical error. The bill reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of man and his dignity. When I say man I mean, of course, the species Homo sapiens.
I submit that my amendment reflects this conviction that every human being, in theological terms as expressed by I think all of the great religions, is created in the image and likeness of God. That is religious language to express what secular Liberals would regard as the notion that every human being possesses an inviolable dignity, a dignity that is not granted by the state, not endowed by a court, not given by majority consent, and not recognized arbitrarily by scientists or even by parents who are in a physical sense the co-creators of that life. However, there resides in that life by the virtue of its very humanity an inviolable, inherent and inalienable dignity. For us in this place to begin to pass legislation which seeks to alienate that inalienable dignity crosses a moral Rubicon, the consequences of which we cannot possibly foresee.
I submit that we must learn from the lessons of the last century, the “century of tears” as some have called it, the most horrific period of which of course was the Nazi regime, which began and ended in an effort to manipulate human life for utilitarian purposes, to seek to improve the quality of life of those fully grown human beings deemed perfect, at the expense of those deemed imperfect.
(1050)
When the state begins, as we might in this bill if we defeat this amendment, to deem some human lives as possessing that inherent dignity and others without it, others that are subject to this kind of utilitarian experimentation, I submit that we are on a slippery slope to very great danger.
I therefore seek support for my Motion No. 17, which would radically improve--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Before we resume debate, I just want to clarify something that was said earlier. There is no precedent in the House for allowing 20 minutes on 10 minute debate. There is the unanimous consent of the House that is requested, but that does not set a precedent. I just want to clarify that in case there was a misunderstanding. The House is its own master. Once unanimous consent is given, then I follow the orders of the House, but there was no precedent set earlier by any other unanimous consent agreement.
* * *
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
|
That at 5:30 p.m. this day, when the Speaker puts all necessary questions to dispose of second reading of Bill C-24, the bells to call in the members shall ring for not more than 15 minutes. |
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
Assisted Human Reproduction Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my remarks will deal specifically with cloning and research, which are very critical to this debate. I think that it is important to look at what we want to accomplish with Bill C-13, which, in fact, does not take half measures in regard to cloning.
Bill C-13 prohibits all human cloning. In fact, it prohibits all types of cloning, be it reproductive or therapeutic. Different types of cloning have been mentioned. Bill C-13 prohibits all cloning methods that could be used to create a human clone. No matter what the objective or the method, this legislation prohibits the creation of a human clone.
I think that we must be extremely clear that human cloning is out of the question, no matter what the method or the reason behind it.
Bill C-13 sends a warning to the Raelians, who were in the news over the holidays. Obviously, they are being sent a very clear message: Canada is opposed to human cloning, no ifs, ands or buts.
Once Bill C-13 is adopted, the government will be able to crack down on any human cloning experiments, which is why it is important for this bill to become law. Currently, these people can pretty much do as they please.
By prohibiting cloning, we are banning any activity involving reproduction or research that would contribute to this objective.
We consciously avoided banning specific cloning methods knowing that if we did, scientists would find other methods for cloning that we would not have anticipated. This would leave the door open for cloning. Once again, this bill prohibits cloning. That is why we did not go into detail to define all the methods. We are simply providing a generic definition and eliminating any possibility of cloning.
Motion No. 40 is superfluous. All cloning methods including somatic cell nuclear transfer—so-called therapeutic cloning—are banned under Bill C-13. I think it is important that this also be very clear.
Furthermore, some of the proposed amendments would have unintended and perhaps harmful consequences. I will give you some very specific examples.
Motion No. 14 would endanger the lives of Canadian women. In fact, without the possibility of creating embryos in order to improve assisted reproduction technologies, women themselves—our wives, sisters, neighbours or friends—will be the research subjects. Do we want to them to be guinea pigs? I think not.
As for Motion No. 23, which would ban transgenesis, this would have the effect of immediately, and permanently, putting an end to the efforts of numerous Canadian researchers and laboratories to develop therapies for the treatment of a number of dread diseases, among them cancer and Alzheimer's. Do we really want to put an end to this promising research? I think not. I think that is absolutely not what we want to do.
Motion No. 26 would ban such things as sperm motility testing. As we know, this test is often able to explain why a couple is infertile. Without that test, the woman is subjected to treatments that have no chance of being successful. Do we want Canadians to be treated needlessly? I do not think Canadians want that.
I repeat, Bill C-23 bans all human cloning, regardless of method or form. It prohibits all human cloning, without exception, as well as protecting the health and safety of Canadian women who wish to use assisted reproduction procedures.
I believe that, regardless of what we are hearing said on all sides, there is no question of allowing human cloning in this country. That is why banning any type of cloning makes it impossible for someone at some point to find a way to get around this, because only certain methodologies have been defined.
Let it be clear to everyone: with Bill C-13, all forms of human cloning will be banned.
(1055)
[English]
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 Motion No. 13 in Group No. 2. 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): As agreed to earlier in the House, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. 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.
The next question is on Motion No. 16. 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. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 18 and 21.
The next question is on Motion No. 17. 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.
The next question is on Motion No. 20. 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.
(1100)
The next question is on Motion No. 22. 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.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. 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.
The next question is on Motion No. 24. 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.
The next question is on Motion No. 26. 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.
The next question is on Motion No. 27. 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.
The next question is on Motion No. 40. 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.
(1105)
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 47.
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 hon. members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
We will now proceed to Group No. 3.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) moved:
|
That Bill C-13 be amended by deleting Clause 6. |
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) moved:
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 6 with the following: |
|
“such services, except for medical or legal counselling services received in support of informed consent.” |
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) moved:
|
That Bill C-13 be amended by deleting Clause 7. |
(1110)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 6 with the following: |
|
“for the purchase of an in vitro embryo, a foetus or any foetal tissue; or” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 28 on page 6 with the following: |
|
“for the purchase of an in vitro embryo, or any part of one; or |
|
(b) sell, offer for sale or advertise for sale an in vitro embryo, or any part of one.” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 6 with the following: |
|
“in vitro embryo, a foetus or any foetal tissue.” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 7 the following: |
|
“(4) A donor may not transfer to another person the ownership, or any of the rights or obligations of ownership, of an embryo or any other human reproductive material.” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 7 the following: |
|
“(4) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations, adopt an embryo for the purposes of human reproduction.” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 7 the following: |
|
“(4) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations and a licence, use human reproductive material or an embryo, or any part of one, for the purpose of providing education or training related to assisted human reproduction.” |
(1115)
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) moved:
|
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 38 on page 7 the following new clause: |
|
“10.1 (1) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations, pay consideration to a female person to be a surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration or advertise that it will be paid. |
|
(2) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations, accept consideration for arranging for the services of a surrogate mother, offer to make such an arrangement for consideration or advertise the arranging of such services. |
|
(3) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations, pay consideration to another person to arrange for the services of a surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration or advertise the payment of it. |
|
(4) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations, counsel or induce a female person to become a surrogate mother, or perform any medical procedure to assist a female person to become a surrogate mother, knowing or having reason to believe that the female person is under 21 years of age. |
|
(5) This section does not affect the validity under provincial law of any agreement under which a person agrees to be a surrogate mother.” |
|
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 7 on page 8 the following new clause: |
|
“11.1 (1) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations, purchase, offer to purchase or advertise for the purchase of sperm or ova from a donor or a person acting on behalf of a donor. |
|
(2) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations |
|
(a) purchase, offer to purchase or advertise for the purchase of an in vitro embryo; or |
|
(b) sell, offer for sale or advertise for sale an in vitro embryo. |
|
(3) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations, purchase, offer to purchase or advertise for the purchase of a human cell or gene from a donor or a person acting on behalf of a donor, with the intention of using the gene or cell to create a human being or of making it available for that purpose. |
|
(4) In this section, “purchase” or “sell” includes to acquire or dispose of in exchange for property or services.” |
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) moved:
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 8 the following: |
|
“(3) No person shall reimburse a surrogate mother for a loss of work-related income incurred during her pregnancy, unless |
|
(a) a qualified medical practitioner certifies, in writing, that continuing to work may pose a risk to her health or that of the embryo or feotus; and |
|
(b) the reimbursement is made in accordance with the regulations and a licence.” |
|
That Bill C-13, in Clause 65, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 14 on page 30 with the following: |
|
“(e) for the purposes of subsection 12(1), respecting the reasonable expenditures that may be reimbursed under a licence; |
|
(e.1) for the purposes of subsection 12(3), respecting the reimbursement of a loss of income;” |
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in view of the substantial number of report stage motions that I have submitted, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have a 20 minute speaking period.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate but I will try to do this.
Motion No. 32 seeks to make an amendment because there is a prohibition in the bill to purchase embryos or to sell them but it does not relate also to fetuses or fetal tissue. I believe the bill should be amended to ensure there is no buying or selling of human reproductive material.
Motion No. 33 states that not only can one not purchase an embryo but one cannot purchase any part of an embryo which itself could be manipulated to become another embryo. It just says any part of an embryo. It is an important scientific fact to be known by members that to deal with human embryos or any part of them should be covered by the bill.
Motion No. 35 adds a new prohibited activity which prohibits the transfer of ownership of an embryo or any reproductive material to another person. There is a provision in the forms of the Ottawa Fertility Clinic whereby if the donors of a sperm and egg for reproductive purposes wish their eggs to be available for research but they have not paid rent for storage, it specifically states that the ownership and the control of that human embryo would transfer to the fertility clinic. It is unconscionable that anyone would contemplate the ownership of a human being is something that we can deal with and that we can transfer ownership of a person. This is a very important motion and I hope that members will support it.
Motion No. 44 adds a new control activity which would permit the adoption of embryos. California has a program called the snowflake program. People who cannot procreate themselves can adopt human embryos which have been in storage and are no longer necessary for the reproduction of the donors of the sperm and egg, in other words the embryo. It is exactly the same as adoption of a born child except that the embryo would be implanted into the woman seeking to adopt and she would birth that child. This is adoption, and I think that the use of human embryos should be considered for adoption certainly way before we would consider for them to be thrown in the garbage.
Motion No. 45 adds a new control activity to the effect that embryos for education and training shall be subject to strict guidelines. Presently the bill states that embryos can be used for research and education purposes. However we are talking about the utilization of human beings. There should be rules and regulations to ensure that it is appropriate and ethical. The change is necessary.
I am sorry I did not get the additional time. I wonder if I could ask yet again if the members would permit me to extend the balance of my time to a full 20 minutes?
(1120)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The House is its own master. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for Mississauga South has 16 minutes.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, this is the last group of debate at report stage. This is a very important bill. We are dealing now with the controlled activities but the linkages are enormous to the entire bill. The prohibited and controlled activities are the most important part of the bill.
I want to lay out for the House my concerns with Bill C-13. I hope that members will seriously consider what I am suggesting today.
First, the bill does not ban all forms of human cloning. If the bill does not ban all forms of human cloning, there is only one disposition of the bill, and that is to put it in the garbage.
I asked an hon. member this morning what he thought about the bill if it did not ban cloning. He said that it did. He said that clause 5 stated that “no person shall knowingly create a human clone”. What could be more simple? Absolutely, but what is a human clone?
There is a definition in there of human clone so that we cannot just take that statement on its face and say that it is a human clone as we all understand a human clone; a genetic identical organism to someone who is either living or deceased. The government's definition of human clone is stated in the bill and it includes an important word. It says chromosomes from a “single” embryo, fetus or fetal tissue.
It came to my attention on February 27 that members of the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to ban human cloning. How did they address it? They said that a human clone could not be created. However, their definition of human clone means human asexual reproduction accomplished by introducing nuclear material from one or more human cells into an embryo. Our bill states from a “single” cell, a single human being. It talks about one.
Dr. Dianne Irving presented materials to the health committee. She said that we had a bill that had problems with its definitions and terms used. With regard to cloning, she laid out that things like somatic cell nuclear transfer, parthenogenesis and twinning, et cetera, were not prohibited by the bill, and Health Canada finally got it.
At clause by clause, after all the witnesses and all the expert testimony, it tabled an amendment to the definition of human clone. However the definition it put in was still not comprehensive. In fact we have a definition now that still permits four different types of cloning. It still permits: pronuclei transfer; formation of chimeras and backbreeding; mitochondria transfer; and DNA-recombinant germ line transfer or, in other words, eugenics.
The parliamentary secretary said earlier that the scientists were moving very quickly and that they were coming up with new ways of doing this. Why have we redefined human clone to be something specific rather than to say that it is asexual reproduction that creates a genetic identical organism to someone who is living or deceased? Why can we not be clear? Why did the officials do that? Why have they changed the medical definition of human clone? Why have they changed the scientific definition of human clone to be something else?
(1125)
The same exists with regard to chimera. Chimera is the combination of an embryo and a cell. It is also referred to generally between humans and animals that cannot be combined. The bill says that creating a chimera is prohibited. The medical and scientific dictionaries say that chimera means animal into human or human into animal. If we look at the definition in the bill, it says we cannot create a chimera. The definition of chimera is that a non-human life form cell cannot be put into a human embryo, but it does not prohibit putting human cells into a non-human life form, a non-human embryo.
Why has the bill changed the medical definition of chimera? Why has it changed the scientific definition of chimera? The terms and the definitions in the bill are wrong. They should have been reviewed more carefully and they have not been.
The United States bill shows clearly that it must be the asexual reproduction by one or more cells. We only have a definition that says one. The conclusion is this bill does not ban all forms of cloning. It is a problem that must be fixed if this bill is ever going to see the light of day.
For further evidence of that, the New Jersey state assembly also in the last month had a bill to ban cloning. That bill was also withdrawn because Dr. Irving, who advised our health committee also advised the state assembly and pointed out the problems and they could not fix it. They had to yank the bill and will have to rework it to make sure that the bill accomplishes the objectives.
Conflict of interest is a very serious issue in this matter. An agency is going to be set up. That agency is going to have members on the board of directors. Our bill right now has the provision that a board member cannot be a licensee or an applicant for a licence or have a relationship with anyone who wants to be a licensee. That is all it says.
The health committee said that did not go far enough. What we should do is prohibit anyone who has any pecuniary interest in anything that goes on beyond the researchers and fertility clinics. I am talking about pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and those who are going to commercialize the research of genetic technology. The bill should make sure that there is independence in the board of directors.
The minister has a motion before this place to delete that health committee amendment. That means the Minister of Health would like us to approve a bill which says that pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies can be members of the board of directors of the reproductive agency. Pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies can be members of the board. How ludicrous.
The justice officials advising Health Canada were told, “We would like to see these people file conflict of interest statements and declarations”. What did they say? “They are not paid enough and they will not do it. They are only part time. It is only the president and the chairman that are full time. It is a real inconvenience for the part time members”.
I am sorry, but I thought every member of the board of directors had one vote. I thought every vote was important and that their decisions were important. Why is it that if it is too inconvenient for a member of the board of directors to file a conflict of interest statement that we would not look to someone else who was prepared to put on the table what his or her pecuniary interests were in the research that he or she would be making decisions on?
The bill does not define what is necessary research. It was probably the single most important question that members raised. In the minister's statement to the House on what I believe was Bill C-56 at the time, she said that a research ethics board or a reputable ethics board was going to determine whether it was necessary. That is not what the bill says. The bill says that the agency will determine whether research is necessary. The Standing Committee on Health in the report on the draft bill said that necessary should mean that there is no other biological material that could achieve the intended research objectives.
(1130)
That makes sense. It probably should be expanded to also include the fact that if research has already happened in that area, we should not be repeating research that has already been done. It makes so much sense but we do not want the definition of “necessary” in the bill. Why is that? We must have the definition of “necessary” to determine whether or not research on embryos or any part of embryos is necessary. We are talking about human beings.
When we looked at this meaningful research, one of the things that came out was that Dr. Françoise Baylis said that only half of the frozen embryos would survive the thawing process. She estimated that there were only about 500 embryos in storage in Canada today and only half of those would be available or qualify for research. Of those 250, 125 would die, would not survive the thawing process. Of the 125, she went on to say that only nine of them would have the ability to generate a stem cell line that would be useful. Of those nine only about half, so let us say five, would be able to produce stem cell lines which met the quality requirements of the researchers.
The situation in Canada right now is there are 500 embryos and out of the 250 that might be available for research, only five or 2% of those embryos are going to generate enough research material. If there are not enough embryos to sustain meaningful research, we should not be killing embryos, period. Why do we not have that?
The science is being developed to freeze or to store women's eggs, the ova. If we have the science to freeze or to store women's ova and only fertilize those eggs that are necessary for in vitro fertilization, there will never be any surplus. Why does the bill not say that should the ova storage techniques be as successful, i.e., only 50% successful, as it is with embryos, this would be the process that would be used and that we could not store human beings cryogenically?
That is one of my motions. I believe we should do it. It would be our full and final declaration that human embryos should never be created for research purposes. If we are able to store ova but we continue to store embryos, it is indeed someone's intent to use human beings for research purposes. It is just not acceptable.
Regarding informed consent, the bill defines consent as whatever the existing laws of Canada say. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided guidelines in March 2002. They went so far as to say that consent has to happen before anything happens. Before there is any contribution of any sperm or eggs, they have to be informed. Not only that, they have to be informed of which researchers are going to get the embryo. They have to know what contracts and what institutions that research has a relationship with. There have to be declarations right down the line and there has to be consent at every benchmark point. Those people can back out at any point.
What does the bill say now? The bill will not even define who the donor of an embryo is. The donor of the sperm and the egg are the human beings who donated them but when they are put together to make an embryo, the bill says the donor of an embryo is not the couple who created that embryo; it is whoever we say it is in the regulations. What nonsense.
Does that mean we are going to follow up with the Ottawa fertility clinic and say that if it does not pay its rent, then we own and control its embryo, we own that human being? Where are the principles in the bill? We need to deal with those things.
I cannot do this subject justice in the time remaining. I know other members want to talk and I want to hear them talk.
Finally, this bill permits the implantation of human genetic material into non-human life forms. The minister has put out a piece of paper explaining that we have to do this for research. We should not be putting human life form or any genetic material into non-human beings.
(1135)
Dr. Baylis at the UNESCO parliamentary round table said that down the road she could see that we would be granting personhood, moral status to hybrids of humans and non-humans. This is where the research mind is. They are doing it because they can do it.
I have worked on the bill. I have done the best that I can. I have nothing left to offer other than that tomorrow, members will be receiving in their offices, in both official languages, in plain language the intent or effect of each and every one of the 50-some report stage motions on which they will be asked to vote so that they will know the essence of those report stage motions.
I believe that many of those motions must be passed in order to save the bill. The bill is on life support and very soon it will be on the death watch. If we do not make substantial progress in dealing with the definitions and in passing many of these important report stage motions, I do not believe that I will be able to support Bill C-13.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to the bill and these motions.
I wish to congratulate my colleague from Mississauga South for the motions he has brought forward, the passion he has brought to the debate, and his analysis of the issues. He has done a tremendous amount of work on all of this and he deserves to be recognized for it.
I wish to acknowledge my friend from Calgary Southeast who is very interested in the bill. He has done a tremendous amount of work on this issue and has done his best to draw public attention to the bill. I also wish to acknowledge the member for Yellowhead, the Canadian Alliance critic for health. They have all done a lot of work on the bill. I appreciate their efforts to draw attention to some of these issues.
When we talk about these issues we should talk about them in a tone of humility. We are talking about the essence of human life here. Sometimes we are completely cavalier in how we approach this whole subject.
In the group of amendments that we have before us right now there is talk about paying people to be surrogate mothers. In the previous group of motions my friend from Calgary Southeast was seeking to prohibit the use of embryos for research and the commodification of human embryos for research. The member who spoke a moment ago was talking about those sorts of things.
When we see where Bill C-13 is going, and how the government is specifying particular ways for industry and in some cases individuals are specifying particular ways for private industry to come and commodify human life, we should be concerned. We should approach this with some reverence and some awe, and appreciate that there is a mystery at the centre of human life and science will never plumb the depth of it.
I am concerned when I see people acting in such a cavalier manner about these things that are greater and above individual people. There is something that springs from something greater and above this. Coming from a Christian perspective I would argue that it comes from God and I caution people to be mindful of this.
As I mentioned before, and I do not know if I said it very well, if a lab technician were asked to dispose of a human embryo would there not be a twinge of conscience there? Would there not be some apprehension about doing that? Would there not be a momentary pause wondering whether or not it was correct to dispose of a human embryo?
Even in the legislation the government says that these embryos may be disposed of up to 14 days. This suggests or implies that after 14 days all of a sudden there is some human dignity involved here.
Why is it 14 days? Why is there that cut-off? It seems rather arbitrary. I wonder if perhaps it does not suggest that the government on the one hand is troubled by the fact that it knows at some point that this thing, a human embryo, has some dignity. The government is afraid to say that it starts when that egg is fertilized. We should be cautious in how we approach this. We should approach it with some reverence and I do not think that we do that.
The member for Mississauga South made some excellent points when he spoke a moment ago. One of the things he has pointed to and it deserves the attention of the House and the public almost as much as anything else in this legislation is his reference to the fact that the bill does not ban human cloning. He has laid out all kinds of examples.
(1140)
I submit that when the Raelians had a press conference not very long ago, just at the beginning of the year, where they were claiming that they cloned a human person, people were horrified around the country and around the world that this could happen.
We need to move with tremendous speed to ban all kinds of human cloning, to close off all opportunities for human cloning. My friend from Calgary Southeast talked about this as well. We must ensure that any legislation that comes forward does not leave a loophole for this to happen because the nature of science is that if it is possible to do it, scientists will do it. To be fair to scientists, science is about finding the limits of human knowledge. It is about exploring things to the limits of human knowledge. That is what scientists do today and it is what they have always done. They do not always think about the ethical and moral considerations, so if there is any kind of a loophole it will absolutely be found.
The members for Mississauga South, Calgary Southeast and others have pointed to some of these problems. We should be extraordinarily careful about proceeding while we have these kinds of clouds of uncertainty hanging over our heads as parliamentarians. I would hate to say that I had participated in the crafting of a bill that allowed human cloning and I am just worried that perhaps that is where we are headed.
I want to address some of the specific motions in Group No. 3. There are things that my friend from Mississauga has proposed, for instance, that there be no buying or selling of human reproductive materials. Let me clarify that Motion No. 32 would add a prohibition on the purchase of fetuses and fetal tissue.
As I mentioned at the outset, I am concerned again that what this bill would do is allow the commodification, the industrialization, of human life. Some people seem to be okay with that. We have some people who are arguing that it is not a problem to pay surrogate mothers all kinds of money to go out and have children. I personally am deeply concerned about that. Motion No. 32 seeks to stop the selling of fetuses or fetal tissue. Any kind of extra protection we can give to that is very important.
Another thing that the member for Mississauga South is proposing to do is to block the transfer of the ownership of a human embryo from the parents to, for instance, a fertility clinic. The member for Mississauga South gave a very specific example of that. When talking about something as precious to people as their children, or a potential child--depending upon how we look at it, I think of a human fetus as an actual life--members can imagine the potential for lawsuits and disputes if this is not made clear in the legislation. The member for Mississauga South has made it very clear that there is a huge loophole and that we need to find ways to close that up. He has pointed to other problems as well.
In closing, members of Parliament should approach this issue with a little humility, a little awe, and a little reverence for the dignity of human life. We should ensure that all possible prohibitions are in place to ensure that cloning is not permitted in any way, shape or form. We should not allow some of the nightmare scenarios about which many people have already talked about. We should take into account some of the common sense proposals from different members around the House who are speaking on this and advocating particular points of view to ensure that human dignity is respected. That is what we are asking.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have good news for you. I just learned that our colleague Jean-François, who looks after question period for us with the House leader, will soon become a father. Since we are talking about assisted human reproduction, I thought I would share this with my colleagues. I am sure that everyone in this House will want to join me in extending our congratulations to him. Of course, no artificial processes were involved here, as far as I know. The child will be born some time in November. I will come back to that in due course.
This bill underwent a rather long gestation period. We debated it in committee for 18 months, but have yet to see it through report stage. We, and the minister's parliamentary secretary in particular—who is the father of this bill to some extent—look forward to a timely delivery. We look forward to that happy event in the near future.
It has not been easy for the Bloc Quebecois to come up with a position on this bill. Members will recall that the member for Drummond, whom each and everyone of us in the House is fond of, has been in the vanguard of this debate. Back in 1995 she tabled a private member's bill inviting the House to legislate and set out provisions in the Criminal Code to protect us from therapeutic cloning. We now realize, with the passage of time and some perspective, just how much of a visionary the member for Drummond was. I think that is the appropriate word.
During the Christmas break, we were given a scare because of claims made by a company called Clonaid. No one here would have wanted embryo cloning to be possible. However, if what the spokesperson for Clonaid was saying had been true, unfortunately there would not have been any recourse available to Parliament, because the Criminal Code does not contain any relevant provisions.
It is a bit sad that the government has taken so long in legislating. Ten years have gone by since the report of the Baird commission, the royal commission of inquiry on reproductive technologies. I think this is reasonable. We would have expected the government to have introduced a bill to deal with the pressing issues, at least.
True, it is not easy to look at every consideration and every aspect of a bill such as this one. It involves ethical values. One's perspective will depend on one's idea of family.
Of course, we have to bear in mind that when dealing with assisted human reproduction, one in five couples in Canada has fertility problems. Therefore, one in five couples could benefit from assisted human reproduction. We must also acknowledge that for the first time in the history of humanity that it will be possible to reproduce without there being sexual intercourse between two people. That is what is troubling when we look at how we must perceive this debate.
There are other important elements. First, with respect to this bill, the Bloc Quebecois asked, quite early on, that the bill be split.
If it had been, we could have voted rather quickly on provisions to add to the Criminal Code. I think that there is consensus in the House regarding the 13 prohibited activities. Some activities are unanimously condemned by all parliamentarians, be they members of the Canadian Alliance, the government party, the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives or the NDP. We could have voted rather quickly on these activities.
For example, there is the issue of cloning, of maintaining an embryo outside a woman's body for not more than 14 days, because the central nervous system forms after that.
(1150)
There is the issue of paying consideration to surrogate mothers. There is also the issue of not taking human reproductive material and mixing it with that of an animal to produce what is called a chimera.
There are, therefore, 14 prohibited activities in the bill that members unanimously agree on and that could have been voted on rather quickly.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois had asked that the bill be split. If we had been able to split the bill, perhaps it would have been passed already. Perhaps it would have already gone through the Senate and received, naturally, royal assent. Because we have been asking for many months now that this be done.
Today, we find ourselves in a complex situation because the Canadian Alliance does not like the bill. This bill is like an unwanted pregnancy. And as with all unwanted pregnancies, the father refuses to step forward. The Canadian Alliance is doing everything possible to prevent labour. We are being made to undergo a C-section. People want to force the bill into existence despite the protests of the Canadian Alliance. That is why, if the bill had been split, we would not be in this situation.
The Bloc is also in an uneasy position because we would like there to be provisions in the Criminal Code, but at the same time, we are uncomfortable with the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada. This agency would receive $10 million a year and interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
Allow me to give a few examples. If this agency were created, it would be incompatible with 14 pieces of legislation in Quebec, all of them important to the National Assembly.
One of these is the Civil Code of Quebec. What are the differences between the bill and the Civil Code of Quebec?The Civil Code of Quebec states that under no circumstances will surrogate mothers be reimbursed for expenditures. Pregnancy is an altruistic act. If you want to give life to someone, bring a child into the world, it cannot be for monetary or commercial reasons. It has to be a purely altruistic act. There cannot be reimbursement for certain expenditures.
Bill C-13 states that under certain circumstances, if receipts are provided, the agency may agree to reimburse certain expenditures such as for consulting a psychologist or travel. Some expenditures could be reimbursed. This is not consistent with the Civil Code of Quebec.
There is another extremely significant interference. The bill, especially the regulations that will govern its implementation, sets out not only the conditions under which gametes (the sperm and the ova) will be maintained but the conditions under which health professionals will be able to make technologies available and carry out medical procedures.
The National Assembly—the only true parliament for Francophones in North America—amended the Act respecting health services and social services. Quebec's Health and Social Services Minister was given authority for designating institutions for the exclusive delivery of certain services, including medically assisted human reproduction.
The conflict in jurisdiction is obvious. We have the federal government, which clearly has no valid constitutional jurisdiction over the delivery of services involving medically assisted human reproduction.
I am not denying that the federal Parliament has a responsibility when it comes to health care for aboriginals; the federal government has a fiduciary obligation to aboriginals. I am not denying that the federal government can intervene on matters of defence and the military; the federal government is responsible for the Canadian military. I am not denying that the federal government can intervene when it comes to research; the Supreme Court has recognized it as a valid power.
(1155)
However, the federal government cannot intervene to provide health care services in hospitals, in research institutions or in university facilities. That is not right.
That is what the Bloc Quebecois finds reprehensible. We want the Criminal Code to contain clear provisions to prevent cloning. Imagine living in a world where everyone started cloning and that threatened every human being's uniqueness.
The bill goes much further than that. It allows for changes to the Criminal Code, but it also makes other changes.
Madam Speaker, given the good news I just announced, would you please see if there is unanimous consent in the House for me to extend my speech for ten minutes? I would appreciate that, and it would be a fitting tribute to the child that Jean-François is expecting.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the House consent to allowing the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to speak for another ten minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, it is always very touching to see the great spirit of comradeship in this House. Surprising, sometimes, but still very pleasing.
So, on to the crux of the matter. We had hoped, as I have said, for the bill to be split. That was defeated. We introduced the standard motion in the House to that end. The government did not see it our way and we respected that. Today, however, the issue is still unresolved as far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, because again we are hoping to see provisions in the Criminal Code. We do, however, have questions about the consequences of having a regulatory agency.
Let us talk about the Government of Quebec. As you know, Madam Speaker, it is an excellent government and one that may retain popular support for a third mandate. The outcome will be known on April 14. I will have an opportunity to speak of this again.
What is worrisome is that, if the Bloc Quebecois votes in favour of this bill and regulations, it will mean the superimposing of structures one on top of another, and there will not only be the Criminal Code, but also an agency responsible for application of very important regulations.
I was in the process of listing inconsistencies between the agency, Bill C-13 and legislation passed by the National Assembly. I mentioned the Civil Code. This is an important piece of legislation because there is a world of difference between the common law tradition and Quebec's civil law tradition. What makes Quebec different, besides its blueprint for sovereignty, which will see it become a sovereign state as soon as the people make that decision, is its legal system.
In Quebec civil law, it is not up to judges to decide the meaning and interpretation of legislation; it is up to the National Assembly, which, through elected representatives, adopted a type of law called positive law, which is codified in its Civil Code. English Canada is not governed by the Civil Code, civil law, but rather by common law. This means that when there is a dispute and a court is asked to settle it, it may not necessarily be what the lawmaker provided that prevails, but precedents, tradition, custom. Judges are not required to take into consideration what was decided by an assembly of parliamentarians, but do take into consideration how their colleagues ruled in similar cases. That is what the common law tradition is all about. That is not what we have in Quebec.
That is why the Civil Code of Québec contains provisions prohibiting surrogacy agreements. One cannot give birth to a child and say,“I will not be its mother.” There are provisions against that in surrogacy agreements.
So, there are major inconsistencies between Quebec law and Bill C-13. These aspects are not compatible with our Civil Code and the Act respecting health services and social services, which was amended by the National Assembly a few years ago to allow the Government of Quebec to determine which facilities will provide medically assisted reproduction services. There is the Université de Sherbrooke and its health care facilities for instance, but the National Assembly and the minister determine who is authorized to provide services.
If we were to pass Bill C-13 with the related regulations, the federal government would then be able to determine which facilities, while not under its jurisdiction, may provide medically assisted reproduction services. This, of course, is a problem.
The debate with regard to the Privacy Act is extremely important. In the bill, the government says that there is no obligation to disclose the identity of donors. Individuals who donate at fertility clinics can and should maintain their anonymity. The child of a donor will not know who the donor is.
In committee, we heard the testimony of children born through such technologies who told us that this makes no sense.
(1200)
In legal terms, this is called the right to know who you are. Are children born through these technologies entitled to ask fertility clinics about the donor's identity?
This is the subject of much debate. The government says that it does not want to force donors to disclose their identity for two reasons. It says that, in places where this has been done, donations have decreased, and fertility clinics have experienced a shortage of donors. This has created problems in the supply of sperm and eggs.
If we look at the situation in Australia and New Zealand in the months after donor disclosure became a requirement, we see that supply really was a problem.
At the same time, some point to a whole new area of law opening. up. For instance, I recently read a document for the European Convention on Human Rights that said that the act of withholding the identity of the donor is inconsistent with human rights, not to mention what this means for psychogenesis. For his development as a human being, an individual, a child needs to know not only his social father, the man who raised him and took care of him, but also his biological father.
In our report to the Standing Committee on Health, we asked the government to lift the ban and make identity disclosure mandatory. The government did not listen to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health. If passed in its present form, the bill would not require disclosure of the donor's identity, except in emergencies.
Clearly if the child born of these technologies goes to the hospital for a blood transfusion and he needs to know his father's blood type, a national registry would exist for that purpose. This registry would make it possible to search and find the identity of his genetic father, his genetics, and of course, his blood type.
Over and above such urgent considerations, there is no provision in the bill for disclosure of donor identity.
We also note major incompatibilities with laws in place that have been passed by the National Assembly. I have already referred to the Civil Code, the Health and Social Services Act, and the Act respecting the Protection of Personal Information. I could now talk about the Act respecting medical laboratories, organ, tissue, gamete and embryo conservation. There is also an extreme incompatibility concerning the right to one's origins, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I could also refer to the physicians' code of ethics, the guidelines of the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec, or FRSC, and the ministerial action plan for research ethics and scientific integrity.
As you can see, it is not easy to gain a grasp of a bill like this one. We had good intentions, and were convinced that the government was prepared to split the bill, but it did not do so.
So we find we are faced with an incompatibility as far as the Health and social services act is concerned; a superimposition of criminal penalties onto the practices of our civil law; interferences with certain provisions of the Quebec Civil Code, particularly those relating to adoption. I am thinking of sections 538 through 542.
Then there are problems with qualifications, as found in the various statutes on professional practices, as well as the addition of an administrative framework to which researchers will be subject, as defined in the regulations as set out in the bill.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up. I do not want to take up the time of the House further, particularly since it is an important law and I have already had 10 minutes. I will come back to this at third reading. I assure you that, obviously, in this matter as in others, we are going to defend the interests of Quebec to the best of our ability.
(1205)
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a few words to say on Bill C-13. Like many who have already spoken in this debate, I too am against experimentation on embryonic stem cells. I just do not believe that the creation of the human embryo for the eventual destruction of it is an ethical procedure that we should be involved in here in Canada.
We have, as we are all very much aware, received many petitions in the House of Commons. I have received many from my riding of St. John's East urging all of us to oppose Bill C-13 and to concentrate our efforts on adult stem cells. We have seen hundreds and hundreds of petitions coming to the House of Commons on a daily basis.
We have heard a great deal about adult stem cells and the fact that this kind of experimentation holds great promise for cures for many diseases, like Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, cancer and diabetes, and for the reversal of damage from spinal cord injury and stroke. That research, as many people have been saying, would benefit a great deal from greater resources being put into it. It would make sense to put greater resources into adult stem cell research. This should be given greater priority by government.
By contrast, of course, there is an ethical dilemma arising from embryonic stem cell research. We are told that the benefits of embryonic stem cell research are sheer speculation at the moment. The controversy is expending a great deal of energy that I feel could be better redirected toward more promising pursuits like adult stem cell research.
Many ethical questions remain unanswered, not the least of which is the question of what happens to the embryos that remain unused in this experimentation. I have heard many points of view, some very good, put forward today regarding the beginnings of life. There are many, including me, who believe that life begins at conception. Given that belief, which is held by many, and given that these small beginnings of life have the potential to grow into full human beings, then from my point of view government should be coming up with some way to protect these very beginnings of life.
What is the reason we are not putting greater energy and greater resources into, if we will, pro-life? I happen to believe that we in the 21st century unfortunately are living in a culture of death. We seem to have very little respect for human beings and very little respect for the beginnings of life.
It probably stems from the fact that we have been fed a steady diet of violence and death on a daily basis. We have become desensitized by the images of death all around us. When we see, for instance, hundreds of dead bodies floating in a river in Rwanda, when we see thousands of dead human beings stacked one on top of the other in an image from the second world war and the Jewish holocaust, when we see hundreds of thousands of people on the brink of starvation and death in Somalia, or when we see bodies strewn in the streets from a chemical attack, then society becomes very desensitized, and things like abortion become just another procedure instead of the destruction of a human being, a living, moving human being.
(1210)
We can see, then, how embryonic stem cell research works its way on to the floor of the House of Commons. Assisted suicide and euthanasia will probably find their way here as well. Why? Because we live in a desensitized world, I believe, which embraces the culture of violence and death, and that is quite unfortunate.
There are many scientific risks surrounding embryonic stem cell experimentation. Initially scientists thought that real progress from stem cell research would come by way of embryonic stem cells. Today, however, it is known that while adult stem cells are already being used successfully in some human treatments, embryonic stem cells have yet to be associated with any kind of successful human trials. Embryonic stem cells are far from the utopian medical breakthrough that many people are suggesting. Embryonic stem cells appear to be subject, for instance, to a random and uncontrollable growth. On the other hand, adult stem cells seem to be more predictable in responding to the growth factors and hormones that function to redirect their development. Embryonic stem cells have been known to grow into the wrong types of cells, for instance, so the method for steering stem cells in the right direction still needs significant improvement.
Where should we go from here? I believe that due to the scientific risk and the ethical dilemmas associated with human embryonic stem cell experimentation, a moratorium on funding such research should be issued and we should be putting society's money into adult stem cell research. We are talking about human life. I think that we have an opportunity here to show respect and protection for the very beginnings of life.
It is far more beneficial for us to be concentrating our efforts on adult stem cell research. Let us stop for a moment and have a look at what we are doing here.
(1215)
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motions contained in Group No. 3 deal with a number of important points. First, they ban paid surrogate mothers, intermediaries who make surrogacy arrangements, and ovum or sperm donors. They also deal with the donation of in vitro embryos to couples who want to have a family and whether or not these embryos should be considered property. Finally, there is also the scope of Bill C-13 itself. I will speak to each of these points.
Banning payment for assisted human reproduction is a central element of the bill, which contains an outright ban when it comes to paying surrogate mothers as well as ovum, sperm or in vitro embryo donors.
These issues have already been debated at length by the Standing Committee on Health.
I believe that Bill C-13 treats all of these issues in a balanced manner. It prohibits payment for assisted reproduction and clearly states that children are not property to be bought or sold. This position received overwhelming support. The recommendation to prohibit paid surrogacy was always supported by the royal commission on new reproductive technologies in the 1990s, and the Standing Committee on Health supported that position several times.
Also, the bill was drafted in such as way as to not prevent altruism. As such, a woman who wants to help her sister, a friend, or even a perfect stranger, need not bear all the costs of her altruism.
Clearly, a surrogate mother who acts out of the goodness of her heart has expenses to cover, like any other pregnant woman. For example, there may be expenses for psychological counselling or other consultations related to the birth, there are costs related to drugs and vitamins that are taken during pregnancy. Under the provisions for regulations and the issuing licences, Bill C-13 will provide for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses related to the pregnancy of the surrogate mother. Incidentally, under the current version of the bill, an altruistic surrogate mother would not be eligible for any compensation for other costs, such as missing work.
The bill will also ban paid intermediaries. It is important to note that this does not include doctors or counsellors who give professional advice and medical services to surrogate mothers.
Intermediaries, or brokers, are organizations or individuals who get paid to arrange for the services of surrogate mothers for potential parents or make contractual arrangements for such services for commercial purposes. That is making money off of human reproduction, pure and simple. This is why we feel it has absolutely no place in Canadian society.
Under Bill C-13, it would also be prohibited to purchase sperm or ova for reproductive purposes, and to purchase or sell embryos. We do not think that the trade in human gametes and embryos should be permitted in Canada. Neither do we want to see human ova sold to the highest bidder on E-Bay, like antiques and collectibles.
In addition, Bill C-13 recognizes that, like altruistic surrogate mothers, ova and sperm donors incur legitimate costs that ought to be reimbursed subject to the regulations. The fact that a donor should not financially benefit does not mean that he or she may not be reimbursed for transportation and other reasonable expenses supported by receipts. The regulations will set out clear parameters with respect to these expenses.
To conclude my comments on trade, I wish to remind the hon. members of the wording of this Parliament's declaration concerning Bill C-13. Clause 2(f) states:
|
trade in the reproductive capabilities of women and men and the exploitation of children, women and men for commercial ends raise health and ethical concerns that justify their prohibition— |
I would now like to address the issue of in vitro embryos donated to couples looking to start a family. Given the current state of scientific and technological expertise, the production of surplus embryos is the almost inevitable outcome of IVF procedures.
(1220)
This bill will allow couples, who give their free and informed consent, to donate embryos they no longer need to other infertile couples who want to have children.
Motion No. 44 is pointless, in my opinion. Bill C-13 provides for embryo donation. I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that, legally in Canada, the term “adoption” refers to the adoption of a child and not to donated in vitro embryos. Furthermore, child adoption is clearly a provincial responsibility. Therefore, it is incorrect, legally, to talk about embryo adoption.
Now, I will address the legal concept of property as it relates to in vitro embryos. During discussions at the report stage of Bill C-13, members discussed how very inappropriate it would be to let market forces operate unfettered in the area of procreation. I find it very odd that Motion No. 39, on transferring the ownership of in vitro embryos, has been introduced. This government does not feel it is at all appropriate to consider in vitro embryos as property subject to property law.
The third point I want to briefly mention is the scope of Bill C-13. This is raised by Motions Nos. 32, 33 and 36.
This bill is limited solely to in vitro embryos. It is not regulating embryos in a woman's body, nor fetuses, nor stem cell lines. These are clearly outside the scope of Bill C-13.
Bill C-13 takes a balanced and reasonable approach to the issues raised by the motions in Group No. 3. This is a Canadian approach. Let us address these matters judiciously and help advance this country's legislative system.
(1225)
[English]
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are back debating Bill C-13, a very important bill, an act respecting assisted reproductive technologies and related research, as it came to be known. It started as Bill C-56 and our health committee spent a fairly extensive period of time discussing this issue. It came to us in a rather appropriate form as draft legislation. The health committee spent the better part of a year dealing with the very technical aspects of the bill. We came up with a report that we entitled “Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families”. It was tabled in December 2001. We spent a lot of time dealing with this comprehensive report.
Today, the Group No. 3 amendments with which we are dealing address a significant aspect of the bill. There are quite a number of issues that are being addressed here that are important to the outcome and the application of the bill, and to the effect that it will have on Canadians and certainly on the industry. We want to address these important amendments that have been brought forward.
In our report “Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families” members of the Standing Committee on Health were united in wanting an end to commercial surrogacy. It happens that the members for St. Paul's and Vancouver Centre were not members of the committee at the time, and these new members of the committee are responsible for some of the amendments that we will be addressing today. The report stated that:
|
It is contrary to our thinking to treat human beings or human material as commodities that can be regarded in terms of their economic value rather than their intrinsic worth. In particular, we feel that children can never be objects to be acquired or exchanged. Women and men need to know that their bodies and their reproductive material are not for sale or barter. |
Some of the amendments that are being addressed here, particularly Motion No. 28 by the member for St. Paul's, would delete prohibitions on surrogacy from the prohibitions and would allow it to be dealt with in regulations, which would allow compensation and commercialization of this aspect of reproduction. Motion No. 29 from the member for Vancouver Centre would allow for the payment of legal and medical services.
There are aspects of the bill that we certainly, as a health committee, were not inclined to want to see advanced. For example, the payment for sperm and gametes. These amendments would allow for donor compensation, but basically we are talking about selling human cells and human life.
A website of a Canadian company working out of Toronto is offering sperm donors--although it is not called compensation, it is just for their expenses in making a donation--$65 per sample. It is recruiting on university campuses for young men to make a donation and allows them $65 for their trouble. They may leave up to three samples weekly. That would total about $200 a week for a university student. That is pretty good part time income we might say, about $800 a month for someone who wanted to take advantage of that.
Furthermore, successful donors are referred to the company by their friends or fellow students. Referrals can be an excellent source of revenue, it says here. If individuals are comfortable talking with others about being a donor, they receive a $10 referral fee for bringing in a friend, but if the friend is accepted as a qualified donor, they receive a $100 finders fee.
This is what our health committee was concerned about. We did not want to see human reproduction commodified. We did not want to see people selling human cells or human parts. For example, we do not pay a kidney donor for a kidney and we do not think we should be paying people for materials to produce babies or for babies themselves, as these amendments would allow.
(1230)
I am quoting again from the committee report:
|
Women and men need to know that their bodies and their reproductive material are not for sale or barter. The Committee does not support any elements of trading, exchanging, buying or selling of human reproductive materials. We are aware that, in recent years, commodification, and in many respects, commercialization, have occurred in the field of assisted human reproduction. We want to ensure that the legislation will prevent the commodification of children, women's bodies, human reproductive material, and reproduction. |
The fact is commercialization is already taking place in the United States. People who have a desperate need for a baby are able to buy one with the help of numerous surrogacy agencies.
A quick Internet search under “surrogacy” returns over 54,000 website hits revealing the vast amount of commercial businesses available to people who are willing to buy and sell babies. How much are people willing to pay for someone to have a baby for them? What should be an altruistic gift to an infertile couple could wind up costing that couple as much as $50,000 U.S. or even more if they want twins or a surrogate mother that is experienced.
How much can a woman sell her baby for? The going rate for a surrogate mother in the Untied States is about $20,000 U.S. and more if the woman has experience or if she is willing to carry twins.
Is that what we want to pursue in Canada, the buying and selling of children? That is really what it amounts to. That is what will happen if the amendments that the members would like to bring in are passed. They would take out the clauses that prevent sale, surrogacy and commodification. That is what will happen if the legislation is amended to reflect the motions put forward by the member for St. Paul's and the member for Vancouver Centre.
Ms. Phyllis Creighton is a member of the Health Canada Advisory Committee on the Interim Moratorium on Reproductive Technologies. She spoke to the health committee on September 25, 2001. I would like to reflect on some of her comments. She stated:
|
Canada should learn from the U.S. experience, with its unsavoury catalogues of surrogates and Internet marketing. Sound public policy must be based on the principle of the best interests of children. Baby brokers are not in the best interests of children. |
|
Commercial surrogacy is vitiated by its morally unacceptable premise that a baby is a product to be exchanged and transferred for money. Brokers may claim that payment is for the reproductive service that the surrogate mother renders, but since she's not paid the full sum agreed to in the pre-conception arrangements until the baby is received into the custody of the commissioning parents, it is the baby who is being paid for. |
Ms. Creighton concluded:
|
We do not pay the expenses of kidney donors for their donation in circumstances of life-threatening need. Childlessness is anguishing and worthy of compassionate help-- |
We certainly agree with her on that.
|
--but it is not a life-threatening condition. And it ought not to be done unless the best interests of children are secured. |
The issues raised in these amendments are very important ones. There is donor compensation and whether we want to pay people for their gametes. Furthermore, other aspects of the bill allow for the import and export of gametes. Why, we might ask, would we allow for gametes to be imported from other countries where we cannot control the quality of the collection or the persons they are being collected from? We did hear evidence at committee that semen samples that are arriving at sperm banks in the U.S. are being sought out and also received from prisons in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we are addressing some important aspects of the bill. I am wondering, given the importance of these amendments, whether I might receive unanimous consent from the members to continue my comments for five more minutes.
(1235)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent for the member for Nanaimo--Alberni to have an extra five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I appreciate their indulgence.
We might ask why we are importing gametes from outside Canada, gametes that we cannot control, and why, when women go to a medical facility trusting that they are getting the best care, going through the anguish of the fertility experience itself, being exposed to very caustic drugs in many cases to enable them to produce an ovum to be fertilized, to then use sperm that has come from a sperm bank which sperm has come from prisoners in the United States. We do not know where this material comes from. We did hear such testimony at committee and it is alarming. Why are we allowing that?
Very important issues are being addressed by this bill. If we look at some of the information available on surrogacy in the United States, there are reams, pages of information on parenting service fees: $15,000, $5,000 paid at the time of signing up, $5,000 paid when matched. Another website says $7,500 for signing up and another $7,500 when matched. One says $5,000 at heartbeat. A surrogate mother monthly allowance of $2,000 while pregnant, that is about 10 months times $200. A psych group when she is pregnant, $300 or $75 each month. Reimbursement per cycle $750, or each attempted transfer. There is a whole billing schedule for people wanting to be involved in the baby business. Life insurance for the surrogate; health insurance premiums; OB care and delivery $2,500. Cost of the surrogacy is approximately $51,000.
Our concern on the health committee and my personal concern is that surrogacy has been said to be altruistic, that is, to help someone. Certainly many people are agonizing with the problems of infertility and they deserve compassion. To turn it into an industry with fee schedules and payment for producing babies is something that is unpalatable to the committee and it is unpalatable to most Canadians.
Motion No. 28 would take away prohibitions on surrogacy. We will certainly be opposing that. Motion No. 29 would also allow for payment of other expenses. We are opposed to bringing in payment for a whole industry that is related to this.
There are some very good amendments. Motion No. 32 from the member for Mississauga South and Motion No. 33 would have prohibitions on the purchase of fetuses. Motion No. 33 adds no purchase of any parts of embryos. Motion No. 36 adds a prohibition on the sale of fetuses or fetal tissue. We certainly would support this.
A very important one is Motion No. 39 which adds that there would be no transfer of ownership of embryos or reproductive materials. There are clauses in the bill that would allow the ownership, as if we could talk about ownership of human beings or preborn human beings, if a failure to pay for storage or for handling procedures, to revert to the clinic.
There are very important aspects being addressed in this group of amendments. We ask that all members look at the bill carefully. There are some very serious aspects to the bill. It needs to be amended the right way to make sure that the proper controls are there. The wrong amendment should not be passed to undo the good work of the committee.
(1240)
Ms. Judy Sgro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to set the record straight on a couple of issues that have been addressed during the debate today.
I will begin with human cloning since it is one of the rare issues on which the House agrees. We are united in our opposition to human cloning. Canadians have clearly shown that they too support this goal.
The only area of disagreement seems to be whether Bill C-13's prohibition on human cloning is complete. It is. There are no loopholes. Bill C-13 would ensure that no human cloning takes place in Canada, period. Patricia Baird, an internationally respected geneticist and former chair of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, has made this crystal clear. Professor Baird said:
|
Based on incorrect science-- |
--and I think part of what is being referred to throughout this debate in the last few days is the issue of incorrect science--
|
--some have suggested that the bill doesn't ban cloning, but in fact, on careful reading, it clearly does. |
All forms of human cloning would be banned, irrespective of whether the goal is to produce a child or to undertake research. The prohibition would capture every cloning technique, whether currently known to us or a new method still to be invented.
Therefore, the motions that were discussed in Group No. 2 are clearly unnecessary in reference to Motions Nos. 13 and 40.
I will now turn to the issue of embryo research. It sometimes seems that in the debate over the bill we are losing perspective of what it is actually all about. Bill C-13 first and foremost is legislation that seeks to protect the health and safety of women and men who walk through the doors of Canadian fertility clinics, people looking to start a family or to help others to do so.
The work we do in the House reflects the values and the principles that we share as a nation. Canadians believe that children and families are critically important to us. The government has made helping children and their families a priority in its long term commitment to a better quality of life. Healthy children, secure families and vibrant communities are all essential in defining quality of life in Canada.
Estimates suggest that some one in seven Canadian couples face the challenge of infertility. Many of us take the ability to have children for granted, but for them, starting a family is not at all a simple matter. Many of them have to turn to fertility clinics. They should be able to do so, knowing that there are the same solid safeguards in place whether they visit a clinic in Moncton, Toronto or Montreal. They should be able to do so knowing that everything possible is being done to make the procedures as safe and as effective as possible, not only for those undergoing them but also for any children born from them.
If we want the procedures used in fertility clinics to be safe, doctors, nurses and other health professionals must be able to learn how to do them safely. These professionals also have a duty to improve the assisted human reproduction procedures in ways that strengthen safety and further protect the health of the women undergoing them and that of any resulting children.
As the standing committee recognized, this work will sometimes require the creation of embryos. This would be permitted under clause 5(1)(b) but would require a licence and be subject to strict regulations and inspections, which are currently not happening.
We as a society have accepted assisted human reproduction procedures as a way to treat infertility. We cannot prohibit the research used to improve the safety of these procedures. That would be analogous to saying that we accept kidney transplants as a treatment for renal failure but do not accept the research needed to improve the safety of the transplants.
Indeed, I urge members to support Bill C-13. A lot of it is based on what Dr. Baird has accurately termed “incorrect science” that we hear from many of those who continue to be in opposition.
(1245)
Let us move forward in a timely fashion with this legislation to protect the people whom we are here to protect and to define our intentions.
Timeliness is key. As it stands today, Canada has no law to prohibit or regulate activities relating to assisted human reproduction. This has immense implications, not only for the infertile Canadians and for those born from reproductive technology but also for our society as a whole. Recognizing this, Canadians have said clearly that they want national leadership in this area. They have been waiting for over eight years for legislation that would protect Canadians.
Let us give them the leadership, for without Bill C-13, there would be no legislation or regulations governing embryo research. Without Bill C-13, there would be nothing to prevent the Raelians or others from attempting to clone human beings on Canadian soil.
I ask that members reflect upon this and on the alternative that the solid science that Bill C-13 represents, and on the immense need for us to have legislation to protect Canadians and to assist the many couples in our country who want to have children and create a family.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to speak once again to Bill C-13.
It is important to understand that this is the sixth and last round of amendments. We are trying to recap where we have been up to this point, and address the sixth grouping of amendments.
It is important for members to understand how many amendments we have looked at report stage. Over 70 amendments have been put forward by members of the House who have said that this legislation has failed in committee. It has failed in what it has brought forward to the House because it has not adequately reflected the views of Canadians or the whole area of reproduction with which the bill has attempted to deal.
It is true that the bill is very wide ranging in its scope. Some members say that it is all about reproduction and that it is to help individuals who have difficulty in conceiving a child. Part of the bill does deal with this and part of the bill deals with what happens with the leftover embryos. However part of the bill also deals with science related to that. The science is of great concern to most members of the House. It will change the ethic of a nation when we say if we are prepared to create human life for the sake of research.
If we do that, then we are moving to a place where we are saying that it is all right perhaps even to commodify life. Perhaps it is all right to even produce eugenics or be allowed to create a specific human, one that is tailor made for us, one that gets around the idea that God is the creator of human life and that we may be able to produce tailor made individuals.
This is something that has been tried many times in our history. It is also something that has that potential. It is alarming in the way some of the amendments have come forward in this group. It sets me back when I see the way this group has been put forward because it really says that the whole area of surrogacy should be opened up.
I know the intent is to be able to put it into regulations. However, if it is put into regulations, we do not know exactly what will happen. We are very concerned about what might happen in regulations. The regulations do not give us the intent of the bill. If we truly wish to do something about our concern with surrogacy and allow individuals to modify human life from that perspective, then it must be in the legislation.
Some of the amendments state that we should allow ourselves to purchase a surrogate and there is no real price tag on that. When the members of the committee went through the area of surrogacy, we were told that they should be paid $20,000, $40,000 or perhaps $100,000. It would depend on what they were paid in their workplace and how long they would be away from work. We have not defined in legislation what would be an appropriate reimbursement for having a child.
If this is allowed, then we have to set parameters around it. This is something on which we fought long and hard in committee. The committee had some of the best witnesses from Canada and around the world. Committee members were able to question the witnesses on this question and other important issues.
The area of surrogacy is very important. Either a person is on one side of the fence or the other when it comes to surrogacy. A person is either saying that surrogacy is all right, that it is all right to purchase a womb or an individual to have a child. The other side is that it is something that could or would be exploited. We see the exploitation of females for sex. People say that it is the oldest occupation and that it has been around for many years. We hope that would not be extended to the idea of having a surrogate, but perhaps we should think again.
What potentially could happen is women might have the opportunity, and certainly would be flirting with the idea of having a child, of taking an egg from them and a sperm from a super model or superstar, put those together and create the perfect child. This would be a child who would have the traits that would see as more of a toy rather than a living human extension of themselves.
(1250)
People are on one side or the other on this issue. Either we allow it to happen or we do not. I think there is a strong division in the House on whether that is okay because some people think it should be up to the individual to choose. Other people ask if we go down that road, where do we stop? If we allow it there, then why are we stopping the idea of sex selection, for example, and we say that is a deplorable thing, although the practice happens in other countries around the world. They try to take a picture of the child in the womb to discern whether it is male or female and then they keep aborting it until they get the sex they want. This also happens in Canada to a degree and it depends to what extent. This legislation will bulk us into that sort of idea with the kind of amendments that are before us in this group.
I would also ask, Mr. Speaker, if I could get an extension of my time. This is the last group. I have put a lot of time into it over the last couple of years. Could I have an extra 10 minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The member for Yellowhead has asked for unanimous consent for an extra 10 minutes. Some members say 5 minutes. Do members agree to give the member 5 more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, you sound a little like an auctioneer, and I will take the five. Sold, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the grace of the House in extending my time. I know that other members who have been given an extra ten minutes have not put into this the time and energy that we have had the privilege and pleasure of doing over the past year and a half. This is a very important piece of legislation.
I have talked briefly about the idea of surrogacy in this piece of legislation, so if I have only five more minutes I would like to move forward and talk about what would happen with the other piece of these amendments, which talk about the idea of buying and selling of either fetal tissue or embryos or any of these combinations. It is very important that we discern whether it is appropriate for us as a nation to be able to buy or sell fetal tissue. We know that it is happening in the United States. It is really interesting when we start discerning what might be happening in the area of fetal tissue or the area of tissue donation.
Many of us are aware of what happened with the ear bank in Canada, which was just closed down because of not having the right regulations and standards in place, with things being inappropriately done. I had an opportunity to sit on a plane this past weekend with an individual who was involved with that whole process. Some of the things he told me with regard to the breach of standards in the area of tissue donation would raise the hair on the back of one's neck. This can be very appalling.
In fact, he was telling me how embryonic stem cells could be used in the area of islet transplants. He also used the example of the Edmonton protocol for diabetes. For that procedure alone, some researchers have been offered $2 million U.S. by individuals wanting to have that procedure done to their wives. There are examples of how procedures can be bought and sold and how that can be applied to tissue donation or to the area of embryos. This is alive and well in many places in North America and is alive and well in Canada. We have to fight against that.
This piece of legislation gives us the opportunity to either put a stop to this or allow it to continue. I do not believe that Canadians want to live in a society where this is allowed and I believe that most Canadians do not understand the repercussions of this piece of legislation because it is so complex. I do not blame anyone for not being able to follow it, and I have been absorbed in it as much as anyone could possibly be because of the work done in committee over the last two years. In committee, 100 amendments for changes were tried. The 70 that we are working with now in report stage are not here by accident but because this piece of legislation is flawed. If it is put forward in its present state, it will fail Canadians because it will not reflect their values and will be exploited.
I will give the House another example of this because the United Kingdom is a little further advanced. In fact, the United Kingdom is about 10 years in advance. In that 10 year period, it started with a piece of legislation similar to this, with no therapeutic cloning and no reproductive cloning. The United Kingdom now allows therapeutic cloning and the possible creation of an embryo solely for the purpose of research. What ethical argument will we have if this legislation allows us to destroy an embryo for the sake of research? What ethical argument will we have if we are allowed to grow it for 14 days, kill it, and take the stem cells from it to try to do research, especially since that research is a long way from being proven effective? There is no proof of it working in animals yet. Nonetheless, the United Kingdom is allowing that now. What ethical argument will we stand on to say we cannot create them solely for the purpose of research?
We know that if we harvest them before they go into a refrigeration state the potential of them surviving the 14 days and being viable to grow stem cells is much more successful than it is now. It is only about a 5% success rate for those that are frozen and that this piece of legislation deals with. This piece of legislation says we should use them rather than destroy them, but let me say that this is a slippery slope. It is very dangerous for us to move to that degree. If we do not understand it as a nation and as a society, we will fail society because we will not have informed it of where we will likely go.
(1255)
I am very nervous about where this piece of legislation is going, and in particular where this group of amendments is going, because it would allow the commodification of human life. It would allow for the buying and selling of fetal tissue, for the buying and selling of embryos, and for the potential for those embryos to be transferred to different ownership. We have to say that this is either just a group of cells and tissue or it is the beginning of human life.
Biologically, we cannot say anything other than “this is the beginning of human life”. How much value we place on human life at that stage is a fair argument and a fair debate which we could and should have here, but whether it is human life is not arguable. It is just a fact of biology. If the House fails to protect human life at its most vulnerable stage, then who is going to stand up and protect human life at that stage? What other safeguards do we have if the House fails to do its job?
I do not think it reflects Canadian values to be able to take the most vulnerable in society and bring in a piece of legislation that will deliberately destroy them. That is not a Canadian value. It is just that most Canadians do not understand this, especially when there is an alternative, non-embryonic stem cells, which are a great opportunity for tremendous research.
I have had people from the Canadian Diabetes Association and people concerned with Parkinson's and muscular dystrophy in my office talking about how impressed they are with the use of embryonic stem cell research. As I told them in my office, it has yet to be seen that there is any proof that the embryonic stem cells are any more viable. In fact, there are many more problems with them because they are so elastic that at this present time they cannot be triggered into growing what they are intended to grow. Until we see it in the embryos coming from animals, we certainly do not have the science there to be able to move into an area of using human life as that kind of an experiment. We should be very cautious in this area.
Growing an organ from an adult stem cell, or a non-embryonic stem cell, was proven this last summer in July in Minnesota. They have been able to take those stem cells from bone marrow and grow them into any organ in the body. That is very exciting, because there is no ethical dilemma there. We can save the nation the gut-wrenching decision of being able to say that we have to destroy human lives for the sake of saving them.
One member of Parliament told me that his brother is dying and he knows that embryonic stem cells could save his life, if the scientists are right, which they are not, but he said, “Never destroy one baby for my life”. Many Canadians would feel that same way.
I am saying that in many countries in the world human life is very cheap. It is not very valuable. We are at the brink of war as a nation, as a world, and we see that some of the things going on around the world are detestable. But a fundamental Canadian value is to place a value on human life. This piece of legislation would move us into an area that would destroy that value. Because of that we need to have the appropriate amendments in order to be able to put forward a piece of legislation that would reflect Canadian values and limit the amount of research done, research that would be in the best interests of all Canadians. Because of that, we say that some of these amendments absolutely have to be put forward and have to pass or this piece of legislation will falter and will not be appropriate for Canadians.
(1300)
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that this is, for the most part, a good bill. It is a bill that sets out to place a legal, ethical and regulatory framework around very complex research and a technological set of new ideas that have come about in science.
As a physician I know only too well the agony and heartbreak that some couples face because they are unable to have children, to reproduce. The stress placed on these couples by society, by family expectations, and by their own desires and their dreams for children for the continuity of their family line, is very emotional.
New reproductive technologies and some of the research we are talking about in the bill are able to help couples like these in many ways. In effect, therefore, the good that the bill can do, the good that these technologies and this research can do, however, must be balanced by the recognition of the harm it could do to society as a whole. The bill sets out to find that fine balance and I think it has done so very well.
For instance, the commodification and the commercialization of reproduction carries with it the risk, as we of course have heard everyone speak about, of exploitation, especially of vulnerable young women. Young women who need money, who are in penurious circumstances, and not so young women who are in penurious circumstances, could be exploited for use as surrogates or as donors. For instance, because of the authority figures within a family, a young woman could be made to become a surrogate whether that young woman wishes to or not. Clearly one must set guidelines in which we do not allow for exploitation, in which we do not allow for commodification, and in which we do not allow commercialization to create an incentive for exploitation. I think the bill has done that.
Many people have suggested that donors of ova or sperm and surrogates should be driven purely by altruism. That is wonderful, but that is not what happens in the real world. The bill recognizes that realism. It recognizes that we cannot only ask people out of the goodness of their hearts to donate without protecting them in some ways. I think that the bill, to some extent, allows for that. In fact, it allows for the anonymity of a donor while at the same time ensuring that the elements of a family history and a medical history are there to protect the future well-being of any children born of these technologies. I think that the bill is in fact very good in all of these aspects.
Where I believe the bill falls short is on the issue of surrogacy. Surrogacy, unlike some of these other interventions, is not simply a donation. In surrogacy, a woman agrees to carry a child to term. Altruism alone does not play a part in this, because we all know that inherent within a pregnancy there are risks, risks that are expected and risks that may not be expected.
In Motion No. 51, I have suggested that we move to recognize some of those risks. If a surrogate faces any sort of complication due to pregnancy, such as toxemia, abruptio placenta or any one of those threatening problems that can occur during a pregnancy, and needs to take time off work, she should be compensated and reimbursed. At the moment the bill only allows for reimbursement of actual expenses such as taxis, going to the dentist, getting food, et cetera. We need to look realistically at some of the risks that could occur and ensure that the surrogate, the mother and the child are protected so that a healthy child will be born and so that women do not take undue risks. If we do not protect them, we will find that we will be able to say in the bill that surrogacy is allowed but it will never happen in fact, because no one would want to put themselves at that kind of risk if they are not assured that the risk is taken into consideration in the bill.
Similarly, I also want to say that in Motion No. 29 I am clarifying something that is extremely important. When we look at some of the issues of technology or issues dealing with sterility, surrogacy or any of the technologies involved here, there quite often is a need for informed consent from the patient, the couple needing the services, or the surrogate, a need to have counselling by a physician or by a legal counsel to allow them to make the right decisions, to allow them to make informed consent. Informed consent is a very important part of any kind of medical intervention. I think this is important and I do not believe it is very clear in the bill. I think that Motion No. 29 would clarify it very clearly so that physicians and lawyers doing their jobs on informed consent would not feel that they would be liable to prosecution.
(1305)
The parts of the bill, however, that deal with research, cloning and stem cells et cetera, have been subjected to a great deal of misunderstanding and I would say misinformation, but I would sometimes believe it is disinformation. I hope that this is because the complexity of the science is often too great for some people to really grasp it clearly.
For example, paragraph 5(1)(a) states:
|
No person shall knowingly (a) create a human clone, or transplant a human clone into a human being; |
It works in tandem with the definition of a human clone that states:
|
“human clone” means an embryo that... contains a diploid set of chromosomes obtained from a single--living or deceased--human being, foetus or embryo. |
A diploid set of chromosomes means the full set of 46 chromosomes that are present in every cell of an embryo, in fact, in every cell of each and every human being. Some members of the House raised concerns about this definition not being watertight. I would like to speak to and zero in on some of those concerns.
It is suggested that it is problematic to define a clone as an embryo that replicates the complete set of chromosomes of another single human organism. Members raised the spectre of cloning techniques that use more than one source of DNA, but this is not science. This is bad science. To create a human clone a scientist must, by definition, obtain all 46 chromosomes from the same organism but not necessarily from the same cell within that organism. That is what a clone is, a copy of an entire human being.
For example, if we wanted to clone you, Madam Speaker, we would need all of your chromosomes, not just some of them. It does not matter if we get the chromosomes from one of your cells or from a handful of them, as long as the complete set of chromosomes comes from your body we will have created a cloned Madam Speaker. But if we mix your chromosomes with the chromosomes of someone else we will not be able to produce a clone.
It is suggested that the bill's cloning ban would not cover newer approaches such as mitochondrial cloning, pronuclei transfer or parthenogenesis to create a clone.
Let me say for the record that it is not possible to create a cloned human being from cloned mitochondria. A mitochondrion is a little structure found within every cell. It supplies energy to the cell, a sort of genetic battery. Mitochondria have their own DNA separate from the 46 chromosomes found in the nucleus. We cannot create an entire cloned organism by cloned mitochondria. It is like saying that if we cloned the battery we could get the whole energizer bunny. Well, we cannot.
On the other hand, it is in theory possible to create a human clone through pronuclei transfer. There is a pronucleus containing 23 chromosomes in every human egg and sperm. Following fertilization the two pronuclei will come together and provide the 46 chromosomes of the developing human organism. Using two pronuclei from the same human organism would, theoretically, produce a clone. Such a procedure would obviously therefore be covered by the human cloning prohibition found in the bill and thus would not be allowed in Canada.
There was concern about some things that are not possible and some things that are already prohibited in the bill. Bill C-13 would ban the parthenogenetic creation of a cloned human embryo. Parthenogenesis is simply a method for asexually reproducing an entire human organism. It is not a means of creating sperm and eggs as Motion No. 27 wrongly suggests.
I want to address the suggestion that the cloning prohibition would not ban chimera. This is in fact quite true. Chimeras are not clones. By definition they consist of cells drawn from more than one entity and chimeras are specifically banned under paragraph 5(1)(i).
(1310)
The cloning ban in Bill C-13 is comprehensive and it is scientifically sound. Unless there be any further doubts, allow me to quote Dr. Patricia Baird, an internationally respected geneticist, who as many members will know chaired the royal commission on reproductive technology. Professor Baird said:
|
Based on an incorrect understanding of the science, some have suggested that the bill doesn't ban cloning, but in fact on careful reading it clearly does. |
Madam Speaker, a lot of my colleagues have been given an extra five minutes. I would wrap this up if I could be given another three minutes, please.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent to allow the member to have an extra five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Madam Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me this extra time.
I want to turn to some other motions. While I agree with the spirit of Motions Nos. 46 and 49, proposed by the member for St. Paul's, new subamendments would bring them into line with the principles of the section on controlled activities. Currently it needs to have the words “and a licence” in order to bring it into line.
At the end of the day, we will move forward and medical science will begin to push forward the boundaries that will allow us to take care of diseases that we have never been able to in the past. There are so many diseases right now that used to be a cause of death and extreme morbidity that we are now able to deal with very early in a human being's life, diseases that we can treat and prevent.
Medical science pushes that envelope forward. It continues to seek ways to improve the quality of life of human beings to protect them from diseases that are preventable, to cure diseases that are not preventable, and to improve the human condition. As we push that envelope forward, we always come up with new technologies that would improve human life. There will be a good in those technologies, otherwise we would never seek to bring them forward.
As always, with every good we will need to protect society from a harm that might be inherent, whether intended or not, in those technologies. We will constantly have to examine these every time they come forward. We will constantly have to find ways to regulate and set clear guidelines for the use of newer technologies as time goes on.
I am proud that our government has brought forward this bill because it tackles head-on and for the first time that kind of medical progress, while allowing us the ability to take the good in technology and protect us from harm. This bill is not carved in stone. I am sure that as we find newer ways of dealing with human reproduction in the future this bill may be revisited. But we will have set in place and in motion a process by which governments can continue to regulate and find the good in science while protecting humans from what could be harmful.
(1315)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.
Every year thousands of babies are born in Canada using assisted reproductive technology, everything from simple insemination to cutting edge in vitro fertilization. But there have been no laws governing any kind of regulations leaving doctors and infertile couples to come up with their own guidelines.
This long overdue act would now regulate some activities, such as research involving human embryos and criminally ban others, such as commercial surrogacy, non-medical sex selection, and all forms of cloning involving human reproductive material.
Since 1989, Canada has been attempting to define the proper legislation and regulatory controls to govern assisted human reproductive technologies through the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. According to a Léger marketing survey, 84% of Canadians were against the cloning of human beings, compared with just 5% who favoured the controversial practice and 11% did not know or refused to answer.
Human reproductive cloning represents a profound disregard for human dignity, individuality and rights. In effect, it is an affront to the dignity of human life and reduces its value to that of a commodity. That is not acceptable.
The Canadian Alliance minority report recommended that the final legislation, which we are now debating, clearly recognize the human embryo as a human life and the statutory declaration include the phrase respect for human life.
For many years, adult stem cell transplants have successfully been used to treat a variety of diseases such as Parkinson's, MS, leukemia and Crohn's. Adult stem cells are a safe, proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells include those collected from umbilical cords, placenta, brain tissue and bone marrow. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, are those extracted from an embryo in a procedure that kills a tiny but 100% genetically human living being. Despite the hype embryonic stem cells have never been successfully used in clinical trials.
As the member for Mississauga South said earlier, Bill C-13 would not ban human cloning. Thus, the bill belongs in the garbage and I agree. That is why we in the official opposition are opposing the bill.
Besides regulating the use of embryonic stem cells, Bill C-13 would ban the practice of paying a woman to carry a pregnancy. It would make it illegal to pay a man for his sperm or a woman for her eggs: gamete donations, as both are known. An estimated 50 to 100 babies are born through surrogacy every year in Canada while hundreds more result from gamete donations.
I will proceed to deal with all the motions in this group. The House has been very generous today and I would like to ask for an extra five minutes if I could, Madam Speaker.
(1320)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent to allow the member to have an extra five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I thank the members very much. I will take my time to go over all these motions now.
We oppose Motion No. 28. The sponsor, the hon. member for St. Paul's, believes women should receive some compensation for surrogacy. This amendment would delete prohibitions on surrogacy in order that they could be dealt with in regulations. The health committee, in its report “Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families”, was united in wanting to end commercial surrogacy. The sponsor respectfully was not on committee at that time. Surrogacy should be altruistic. There must not be any payment for children, no commodification.
We oppose putting off decisions on commercial surrogacy to the regulations. We should not always leave all the details of legislation to the regulations.
I would like to comment here that it is the habit of the government to table legislation in the House with little substance. Only the intent of the bill is there and generally the regulations are not tabled along with the legislation in the House. Therefore the will of the members is imposed upon the legislation but the regulations are ignored, so they completely escape the scrutiny of the members and input from the members on the regulations.
I always say that the government is ruling through the back door, not governing from the front door. It is an affront to democracy and it should be a habit in the House that all regulations be tabled along with the legislation so the members can read them, make comments and have input into the debate.
Motions Nos. 30 and 49, also moved by the hon. member for St. Paul's, both correspond with each other. They would delete the prohibitions on payments for gametes or embryos, again in order that this area be dealt with in the regulations. It should be retained in the bill, not left to the regulations. We oppose opening the door to payment for gametes or in vitro embryos. We do not want any commodification around assisted human reproduction, so we oppose those motions.
Similarly we oppose Motion No. 46, again moved by the member for St. Paul's, because the motion corresponds with Motion No. 28. The new clause would place exceptions on prohibitions on procuring a surrogate, arranging a surrogacy and inducing a female to become a surrogate, namely, except in accordance with the regulations. We oppose leaving controls on commercial surrogacy to the regulations.
Motion No. 29 from the member for Vancouver Centre would allow payment for legal and medical services in arranging surrogacy. The health committee was united in opposing such payments and the hon. member again was not a member of the health committee when it came up with the recommendations. There should be no such payments around surrogacy.
Motions Nos. 51 and 95, again from the member for Vancouver Centre, would open the door to compensation to surrogates for work-related loss of income. It would open a can of worms. The health committee heard testimony that compensation for such expenses could be greatly inflated.
How much compensation is reasonable for loss of work-related income? It is a very difficult issue and the health committee decided not to include it. The health committee recommended that there be no such compensation for surrogacy. Surrogacy must be altruistic, not for payment. There should be no commodification of children according to the recommendation. We have to oppose the three motions from the member for Vancouver Centre.
Motions Nos. 32, 33 and 36 would add prohibition on the purchase of fetuses of fetal tissue. We support checks on the commodification of human life. Therefore we support those three motions.
Motion No. 39 would add no transfer of ownership of embryos or reproductive materials. This supports the goal of preventing commodification around assisted human reproduction. Therefore we support this motion.
Motion No. 44 would add that the adoption of embryos should be restricted except as provided in the regulations. Embryo adoption is a possible alternative to the destruction of or research on so-called excess embryos, though not without its own complications. We will support this motion.
(1325)
Motion No. 45 specifies no research on embryos for reproductive research, except as provided in the regulations. We oppose research on human embryos for any purpose and, therefore, support the earlier amendment as Motion No. 14. If Motion No. 14 fails, then I would support Motion No. 45.
In a nutshell these are the motions on which I wanted to touch. I would mention here that the Canadian Alliance supports some aspects of the bill. Some of the things in the bill are actually good. We support the banning of human and therapeutic cloning, chimera, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alterations, buying and selling of embryos and paid surrogacies.
We support the recommendation that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction should be given top priority. This is all about children and children who are to be born. We believe that human life should be recognized in the embryo.
The children are a part of the legislation. However the bill is far from perfect and needs amendments, including those amendments we are considering here now.
I heard that there were over 100 amendments. The hon. member from the opposition, as well as members from other parties, worked very hard to put forward those amendments. We must carefully consider and support those amendments.
Given the great moral sensitivity of the decision, I believe the government ought to allow the conscience of every individual member of Parliament to be freely heard. This means that there should be a free vote in the House on the bill, and I recommend that.
We on this side of the House oppose the bill until all the amendments are accepted.
[Translation]
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in debating Bill C-13, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, we realize that infertility is still one of the most misunderstood, invisible and nonetheless distressing problems that Canadian couples are faced with. I do not know of any other complication for which friends, colleagues and decision makers—although well-meaning and normally compassionate—simply advise couples to forget about it and move on.
[English]
As we debate Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, it is clear that infertility remains one of the most misunderstood invisible, yet poignant situations facing Canadian families. I cannot think of another health problem about which it seems so easy for well meaning, usually empathetic friends, colleagues and policy makers to just say “Get over it”.
As a family doctor, I was often overcome by the tremendous reactive depression, inability to function and relationship disharmony precipitated by the realization that again this month she was not pregnant. There were also those moments where I, in giving the diagnosis of a cancer, or a genetic problem like Turner's syndrome, or a severe medical problem or disability, had to deliver the additional devastating news that woman would never be able to carry a pregnancy.
Bill C-13 was brought forward to help those women who would need some extra help in trying to have a baby and to ensure that happened in a safe and ethical environment. Unfortunately, a great deal of the debate of Bill C-13 has been hijacked by those anti-choice members who are obsessed with obstructing the use of embryos produced for the purpose of reproduction being used for research instead of being discarded.
There is no question that society wants reproductive cloning banned totally, which Bill C-13 does by placing it in the category of prohibited activities with penalties enforced by the Criminal Code.
The debate however, ongoing since the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technology and the health committee report leading to the present bill, is whether other activities should be prohibited, that is criminalized or regulated, thus requiring a licence.
The bill deals with a very specialized area of health care in which the practitioners, the fertility doctors, are highly qualified medical practitioners who would be losing their right to practise their profession if found to be performing these controlled activities in violation of the regulations. I believe that physicians take these responsibilities very seriously and for us to now possibly criminalize the activities of these practitioners and their patients amounts to the government once again trying to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies and a naive failure to recognize that not all those requiring assisted human reproduction will have willing voluntary donors or gestational carriers.
The number of pregnancies requiring AHR is small and the number of pregnancies carried by gestational carriers in Canada even smaller, with estimates ranging from 60 to 100 attempts resulting in only about 30 pregnancies a year. Only about 500 eggs are donated per year and surprisingly only about 1,500 to 2,000 pregnancies result from donor insemination. This is certainly a manageable number of assisted pregnancies that has been self-regulating for years with the clinics' own codes of conduct and certainly could be meticulously regulated without requiring criminal penalties.
Even without regulations, the maximum reimbursement for gestational carriers in Canada has been $20,000, much less than the $30,000 to $40,000 paid for international adoption once the legal, travel and counselling have been paid. Reimbursement for egg and sperm donors has remained equally modest compared to the American reproductive industry whose example seriously appalled the members of the health committee during their hearings. I think the intent of the bill could have been achieved within a tight regulatory framework.
I hope the new proposed agency will get up and running quickly so there will be no unnecessary delays for the women and their families needing help or for the researchers to carry on their invaluable work. I hope that we will continue down the road to a registry that will provide the much needed medical information of the donors leading to successful pregnancies and that the agency will have the capacity and the mandate to keep that information updated so that the offspring will be able to find out their evolving family histories, such as breast and colon cancers, heart disease and eventually actual genetic information.
The debate around additional identifier information should continue and in the meantime there should be a voluntary offspring registry. Indeed some infertility patients may want to choose donors who would agree to a full open model.
We have a lot to learn from the experiences of adoption. In AHR we should apply the imperative for honesty about a biologically different beginning to the children, a plan for disclosure without retroactivity, expert counselling and guidelines for the information available at intake.
At our town hall meeting on assisted human reproduction last year in St. Paul's, the panellists and the audience presented compelling stories of the need for a better understanding of the challenges facing the infertile community.
(1330)
The responsible use of gestational carriage for the women, who would otherwise be unable to carry a pregnancy because of trauma, cancer, genetic problems, was compelling. To assume that these women will be able to have a sister or find a friend to perform the role on a voluntary basis is naive. To close the door to gestational carriers with a modest compensation will drive these law-abiding citizens underground or to the United States.
I ask all hon. members to take the time to hear these stories, such that they will feel comfortable supporting Motions Nos. 28, 30, 46 and 49 that take the issue of surrogacy and egg and sperm donation from the prohibited category to that of controlled acts, and allow these families the opportunity of genetically related children and grandchildren.
Every day in Canada the dream of having a child genetically related to the parents is being fulfilled in families where it would have once been impossible. We must continue to ensure that our society becomes more educated and supportive of the one in eight couples in Canada who need help fulfilling their dream in a safe, affordable and ethical environment. The issue of a wanted pregnancy must be seen and responded to as yet another important issue of choice.
(1335)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, it has long been the NDP position that the commercialization of human reproductive services should be halted.
As a women's health issue, infertility should be given the full weight of government support through campaigns to inform the public of the causes of infertility and initiatives to eliminate those causes when possible.
In a recent article by Abby Lippman, who is a well-known expert in the field of reproductive technologies, she writes:
|
--the regime being developed to oversee the development of these technologies is not being created within a framework of women's reproductive health. |
|
We see the co-opting of the idea of choice--this idea that reproductive technology automatically increases choices. In terms of being able to have children, reproductive technologies are one kind of choice offered to women who can afford them. But if we want choices, why don't we deal with where the source of the problems are... instead of at the end of the road saying, “You can have this technology now that you're infertile...”--that's a limited menu. |
That is what we seek to achieve in this legislation, a women's reproductive health framework. That is what is missing in the bill and why the New Democratic Party remains concerned about Bill C-13.
Members would expect that those of us in the New Democratic Party believe firmly and with conviction that for profit health services have no place in our universal public health care system. It also will not come as a surprise when we say that the value of human health, of women's health, must be primary and unchallenged by competing commercial values.
Leaving these services to the for profit marketplace, irrespective of the compliance with specific quality regulations, will undoubtedly limit the number of Canadians who have access to infertility treatment, and for us that is totally unacceptable. Limiting access to quality reproductive health services only to those who are well off, runs counter to the very foundation of our public health service.
As the House has heard from many members on this side of the House, the government's record on protecting public health care in Canada, up to and including the recent health accord and the federal budget, has been shown to be totally untrustworthy. We only have to look as far as the revelations today on CBC radio and TV about clinical trials being conducted in this country and a drug being used in those clinical trials, when the government had the information and knew full well that deaths had occurred in another country as a result of that drug being used in clinical trials.
We only have to look as far as the failure of the government to act on the recommendations flowing from the death of an Ontario woman who had taken the drug Prepulsid, and having been failed by a system that did not require mandatory reporting of adverse reactions. Time and again, when it comes to health protection, the government has failed Canadians.
The House will also know that part of the debate is about patents. A strong concern has been expressed throughout the proceedings that the patenting of human reproductive materials and processes would have a severe impact on the question of financial barriers, yet the government has done nothing to tie the legislation to consequent clarifications of the Patent Act.
This legislation and the values it represents cannot be left in competition with the conflicting values on property rights within the Patent Act.
(1340)
We only have to look as far as the well-known developments around Myriad Genetics, a company that isolated two genes which can help identify women at particular risk of developing heredity forms of breast and ovarian cancer, a company that has sought to achieve maximum commercial benefit from the control over patent of that information.
It is an affront to human dignity and the integrity of our human heritage to commercialize human reproduction, and this bill does not adequately shut the door in this respect.
The government's position is revealed in its attempt to remove conflict of interest language proposed by the NDP and accepted by the standing committee. This measure would have ensured that government policy and reproductive technology would not be influenced by the commercial considerations of its advisers.
There is no question that without that amendment, without that strong language in Bill C-13, representatives of the pharmaceutical and biotech industries could possibly be permitted to sit on the board of the agency governing this field of endeavour.
In that context, I again want to refer to the remarks made by Abby Lippman in a recent article entitled “Conceivable Options” when she says:
|
Women's bodies are a natural resource for the biomedical industry because of the scientific possibilities to commercialize human reproduction, human DNA and develop increasing numbers of genetic tests to be used in combination with in vitro fertilization. |
The dangers are clear and the problems are evident without further action by this government. We express great concern and displeasure at the failure of the government to adequately represent the hard work of the Standing Committee on Health and to respect the democratic process.
The issue of surrogacy was debated and discussed at length in the Standing Committee on Health's examination of the bill and the government's no-name predecessor proposal. The committee concluded that surrogacy should be banned. To ban something is to shut down any avenues that will facilitate it happening. Motion Nos. 28, 29 and 51 in particular, appear aimed at relaxing the impetus within the bill to prohibit surrogacy. They send the wrong message, a message that must be unequivocal so that Canadians have a clear sense of what is acceptable and what is not.
Obviously it would be wrong for any of us to promote a piece of legislation that on the one hand said it was wrong for sperm donors and surrogate mothers to engage in any kind of commercial activity and on the other hand allow large corporations in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology spheres to patent life forms and make millions of dollars from their discoveries.
It is important that we be consistent on this principle and that is what we propose today in speaking to the bill and through our previous amendments.
Regrettably, the government has resisted our attempts to ensure that women's health is adequately protected in the bill. We proposed that the precautionary principle be incorporated as a fundamental principle of the bill and that it apply throughout. The government voted that proposal down in committee. What better way of ensuring that women's safety is the primary consideration in every decision?
We are all too familiar with the fact that women undergo many different drugs and treatments that can have an adverse impact on their health and it is our call today to ensure that all such drugs and treatments be allowed on the market only when proven to be safe beyond a reasonable doubt.
Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could give me permission to have three or five extra minutes to finish my remarks on this important matter.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It is not up to me to give you permission, but are you are asking for the unanimous consent of the House?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) Is it agreed to allow the hon. member to have a few minutes to finish her remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, we proposed that at least half of the board of the agency charged with overseeing the application of the bill be made up of women, as a form of a safeguard that decisions would be sensitive to women's health priorities. In this case we won committee support but the government wants that change scrapped.
A proactive approach to inspection and monitoring is needed if the regulatory nature of the bill is to be a factor. There is no sense in the bill that the approach or the resources will be there to ensure the protection to women's health that such a proactive regulation would provide.
Similarly, our attempts to bolster the independent counselling available to women has been resisted. Decisions about the options available throughout infertility treatment are in many instances exceedingly difficult and informed decision making is vital, especially when our desire for children makes us vulnerable to the influence of those offering services.
I will reference one other concern that has not been addressed by the bill. It is important for ongoing policy work in this area.
Many Canadians, in conjunction with discussions on the bill, have expressed concern that the current legislation does not adequately regulate genetic screening, testing and counselling. They are distressed because the current bill does not specifically address the need to protect vulnerable populations, including persons considered to be “abnormal” or “defective” from being labelled as undesirable and targeted for elimination.
Furthermore, they are concerned because the bill fails to consider fully the harm done to persons and families living with conditions labelled as undesirable and to the national psyche as life is reduced to a commodity subject to quality control.
I join with those Canadians in calling on the government yet again to ensure that it acts. It has the regulatory authority to act and must do so now.
Clearly, Health Canada, the Government of Canada, has an obligation and a responsibility to initiate a national strategy for the management of genetic screening, testing and counselling services. That is absolutely imperative.
I conclude by saying that for nearly 10 years New Democrats have been urging the government to bring in legislation to regulate reproductive technology. It was urgent 10 years ago for the protection of women's health and to provide guidelines for a burgeoning industry. It is even more urgent today given the unregulated developments in the interim. That we have come so close after all this time to achieving our goal but remain faced with a seriously flawed bill is both frustrating and disheartening. The pressure to buckle under and accept is immense.
We take our responsibilities seriously in this debate. The bill in the form now presented to us is unacceptable. We will be voting against the bill unless the government shows it has the fortitude to reinstate some of those progressive amendments that were advanced by the New Democrats and others in the House and accepted by the Standing Committee on Health.
(1345)
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have some subamendments to Motions Nos. 46 and 49. To ensure that these amendments conform with the writings of this section on controlled activities, I wish to propose a subamendment to these amendments. I move:
|
That motion 46 be amended by adding in clause 10.1(1), (2), (3) and (4) after words: “except in accordance with the regulations,” the words: “and a licence.” |
I move:
|
That motion 49 be amended by adding in Clause 11.1 (1), (2), (3), after the words: “except in accordance with the regulations,” the words: “and a licence.” |
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The subamendments to Motion Nos. 46 and 49 moved by the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo are in order.
The updated voting pattern is available at the table. This will change the order of the voting on the motions.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to address some remarks to Motion No. 72 which deals with subclause 26(8) of the bill.
In listening to the debate today, it is clear that all parties are engaged on behalf of Canadians and that the issues contained in the bill are of great importance to Canadians. As we look down the road into the current new millennium, those issues are leveraged highly with risks and benefits for Canadians and for the human race. How we manage to organize ourselves in the field of cloning and human reproduction will almost certainly affect how the human race evolves.
Motion No. 72 deals with a section of the bill that attempts to deal with conflicts of interest for members of the board of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency. As we know, that agency is formed for the purpose of issuing licences and dealing with licence applications for those who work in the field of in vitro fertilization and fertility clinics. This set of regulations is established to regulate that field so the interests of Canadians generally can be protected from activities that would not be in our national interest or in the interests of any one particular Canadian.
The original bill contained a provision that would deal with conflict of interest. Conflict of interest rules are put in place generally, as we all know, to prevent self-dealing by those who work in the public arena. Not only is it to prevent-self dealing but it is also to prevent the appearance of self-dealing because the appearance of self-dealing would undermine the integrity of the process, which in this case is the issuing of licences. Of course we want Canadians to have confidence in the integrity of all government processes.
The original bill contained a provision that stated that no member of the board of directors of this licence issuing authority could be an applicant for a licence or a licensee, or a director, or officer, or shareholder, or partner of a licensee or applicant for a licence. That sounds well enough and it goes a good distance to both preventing self-dealing and the appearance of self-dealing. However the health committee, which studied this, came to the conclusion that there was a category of individuals who might, as a director, part time or full time, of this agency come up against this issue of self-dealing or the appearance of self-dealing.
At committee amendments were moved and the committee adopted an amendment that would expand the ambit of the relationships which would prevent self-dealing or an appearance of self-dealing. The relationships were expanded by adding a section that stated:
|
No member of the board of directors shall, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner, or otherwise, have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in industries whose products or services are used in the reproductive technologies regulated or controlled by this Act. |
This would of course extend to persons associated with pharmaceutical companies or biotech companies.
That amendment is well-intentioned and pushes out the net, the barrier, the protection and the conflict of interest guidelines to exclude persons whose companies, businesses or partners provide services into the reproductive technologies field.
There is an amendment now, I believe it is to Motion No. 72, which would roll back that provision, at least if not all the way, most of the way. I have concerns about that. I believe the committee is well-intentioned and that the provision is well-founded.
(1350)
I know there have been discussions about the impact of this provision, this paragraph 26.8, on the ability of the government to obtain good, qualified and expert people to sit on the board. As I mentioned earlier, the two top executives on this government agency, the chair and the vice-chair, are full time positions. The other directors are part time.
One suggestions was, if we had conflict of interest guidelines that required board members to file full personal financial disclosure, that it would be a barrier to obtaining good people to come on the board. For a part time position, it is likely that people who are busy in their respective fields would not want to go to the trouble and bother of having to make a whole personal financial disclosure to allow them to become a director, which is in fact just a part time position.
However at the end of the day that decision making body would make its decisions with the part time members. Therefore the involvement of the part time member in decision making and the vote of the part time member in the decision making is not a part time vote and it is not a part time discussion. It is a full time vote and a full time discussion. A vote is a vote. There is no such thing as a part time vote. When they vote on the board of directors, when they make decisions and participate, it is important that Canadians and the people who work in the field see the board as independent and not influenced commercially by undue influence of their partners, the companies of which they are shareholders, their fellow executives or their fellow directors.
I for one believe that the state the bill is in now, as amended by the committee, adequately covers that. Even with the additional conflict of interest guidelines, the board and the agency will find their own way, will find qualified people to serve and they will serve with distinction and do a good job.
I will close by complimenting a number of members around the House for their assiduous work in all aspects of this bill. It is a tough bill.
When I came to the House in 1989, I remember saying that somewhere in this world there was somebody working in a closet laboratory who would ultimately generate a mutant of the human species. It was clear, at least to me and many other people then, that this would happen. Since then we have had Dolly the sheep and other things. We have been a little slow getting to it. The bill has been around for a few years. This is our attempt to put it to bed. I hope my comments on this amendment will be useful to the House.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1355)
[English]
Canada Winter Games
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a young lady in my riding recently showed the nation what constitutes true sportsmanship during the 2002 Canada Winter Games in Campbellton-Bathurst, New Brunswick.
When Amanda Bulman from Miscouche, P.E.I. saw an athlete from Saskatchewan lying unconscious at the bottom of a large hill, she sacrificed her own finish in the race by going in search of help and waiting there until help arrived and successful treatment was administered. To honour this young lady's action, she was awarded with the highest honour of the games, the President's Pin.
Furthermore, P.E.I.'s athletes brought home eight medals this year which was the most won by the province ever in a single games. Matthew Coe, Alicia Wilbert, Tyler Marchbank, Mitzi Mitchell, Frankie Gallison, Christine Wilbert, Darcy McKenna and Matthew Lemon all won awards.
Team P.E.I. was awarded the Jack Pelech Award for combining competitive performance, sportsmanship, fair play and friendship.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating these wonderful athletes. Islanders should be proud of team P.E.I.'s performance.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the public accounts committee hearings into the billion dollar firearms registry fiasco, the President of the Treasury Board had the gall to accuse members of Parliament of not doing their job. She should direct her concern to her Liberal colleagues on the justice committee.
This morning, the Liberals voted down a Canadian Alliance motion to hear from the justice minister on why he is asking Parliament to support his cash management program to replenish the money for the firearms registry that he took off the table. That is like shuffling credit cards to pay the bills.
The Canadian Alliance has been asking tough questions for years about how much the registry has cost Canadian taxpayers and how much it will eventually cost Canadian taxpayers. What is clear is that Parliament has not been able to get a handle on the cost of the registry because, in the words of the Auditor General, “Parliament has been kept in the dark”.
The President of the Treasury Board should take these words to heart.
* * *
(1400)
Agriculture
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Oxford County farmers have built a strong reputation for their efficient, innovative and environmentally responsible farming practices. On March 5 the agricultural community in my riding came together to recognize those who have made particularly significant contributions to this reputation.
I would like to recognize today the following winners of this year's Oxford County Agricultural Awards of Excellence. Large agribusiness: Green Lea Ag Centre Incorporated; small agribusiness: McMillen's Iris Garden; farm innovation: Greiden Farms Limited; family farm: Clefthaven Farms; food processing: Bright Cheese and Butter Manufacturing Company Limited; conservation: Shelwood Farms Limited; and the president's technology award: Minitube Canada.
In addition, an award for community service was presented to Mrs. Ruth Skillings for her many years of faithful work on behalf of Oxford farmers.
Congratulations to all of this year's finalists.
* * *
St. Catharines Rowing Club
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the St. Catharines Rowing Club which will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year, and to Stan Lapinski whose book entitled, St. Catharines Rowing Club: 100 Years in a Row, honours this momentous occasion.
Rowing in St. Catharines has a very rich history. People become involved as rowers and their interest often becomes lifelong. Many rowers have been awarded scholarships to further their education at numerous North American universities.
The rowing club has attracted many enthusiastic volunteers over the years. People like Henley Island steward Jim Minards; boat repairman George Manoogian; Clint Page; Sue Erskine; John Newman; John Dewar; Harry Edmonston; and many other volunteers.
There have been many changes to the club itself over the last 100 years. Since 1904 there have been five different shell houses located either at the course starting line, near Michigan Avenue, and the current location on Henley Island. Numerous Olympic rowers have come through the club.
I would like to congratulate the St. Catharines Rowing Club on its 100th anniversary of rowing in St. Catharines.
* * *
Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the establishment of Canada's first marine protected area, the endeavour hydrothermal vents area, southwest of Vancouver Island.
Canada is responsible for a submarine area equal to 50% of our huge land mass. This newly protected area, the first of 13, is an important step in the protection of the three oceans which surround us.
In protecting the endeavour hydrothermal vents, the minister is identifying a unique biological area where new species have been discovered recently. This is a part of the ocean which is of very special interest to scientists around the world.
I congratulate the minister as he sets in motion a system of marine protection areas which will one day rival Canada's very special system of national parks on land.
* * *
Curling
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): They won, Mr. Speaker, and what a win it was.
I speak of course of the champion Randy Ferbey curling team who won their third in a row Canadian Men's Curling Championship a week ago. It was an awesome, breathtaking, amazing, fabulous win. Not only was it the third consecutive win of this tournament, for Randy it was the fifth time he was on the winning team.
This win was made more significant by the fact that it was no cake-walk. The runner-up team of Mark Dacey from Nova Scotia put up one gallant fight. They were a formidable team to beat, yet the Ferbey team won a fabulous 13 games in a row.
There were many crucial and absolutely spectacular shots.
You might be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to learn that three of the four members live in my riding. Who says that no good can come out of Elk Island.
Congratulations to the whole team: skip Randy Ferbey, Marcel Rocque, Scott Pfeifer, and David Nedohin. We are very proud of them.
* * *
Joseph Haywood
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's veterans deserve our thanks and gratitude for their military service. Many of them continue to serve their countries through their community service.
One such veteran is Joseph Haywood of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Last week at a ceremony at Deer Lodge, Mr. Haywood received the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation. Mr. Haywood was recognized for his work on post-traumatic stress disorder and related conditions. He has conducted cross-country tours speaking to veterans organizations, Canadian forces bases and hospitals on post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction and recovery.
As the minister said of Mr. Haywood, his devotion, care and genuine concern for veterans and their families has touched the lives of many and his unfailing commitment is a source of inspiration to us all.
We give thanks to individuals like Joseph Haywood.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Iraq
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal government finally confirmed that it would not take part in the war that the United States and England are preparing to wage against Iraq. Nonetheless, the Canadian position does not entirely ease the fears expressed by hundreds of thousands of people who demonstrated on Saturday.
The people of Alma also responded to this call for solidarity which saw more than 5,000 people take to the streets to protest the war. They called for a peaceful solution to this conflict.
The federal government has a duty to pursue this. Taking a position not to take part in the war is one thing, but taking a position opposing the war is another.
Canada must not limit itself to helping victims and assisting in reconstruction. The Prime Minister must exert pressure within the UN to ensure that international law is respected.
* * *
[English]
Women, Peace and Security
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, March 8 is designated as International Women's Day.
I would like to join with other members of the Canadian Committee on Women, Peace and Security, a joint initiative of parliamentarians, government officials and civil society representatives, to recognize Canadians who took the time to consider the plight of women in situations of armed conflict.
These women are often portrayed as victims of violence or as helpless refugees. Yet women take on many roles during conflict. They are peacemakers, combatants, negotiators, leaders and activists.
United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security was passed unanimously in 2000. It reaffirms the important role that women play in the prevention and resolution of conflicts. It calls on member states to involve women in all aspects of negotiating and implementing peace agreements.
I call on my colleagues to recognize the important role that women have always played in conflict resolution and encourage a greater voice for women at peace tables around the world.
* * *
Arts and Culture
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mr. Takao Tanabe of Errington, B.C. received the prestigious Governor General's Award in Visual and Media Arts.
Mr. Tanabe is a landscape artist of international reputation and an influential teacher of younger generations of Canadian artists. He was born in the small fishing settlement of Seal Cove near Prince Rupert, B.C. Of Japanese ancestry, Tanabe and his family were unfortunately among those interned during the second world war.
Mr. Tanabe has studied and painted in Winnipeg, New York, England, Italy, Denmark and Japan, and has served as the head of the art department at the Banff School of Fine Arts. His work is represented in more than 50 public collections in Canada and 120 corporate collections internationally.
In 1980 Tanabe took up permanent residence on Vancouver Island. He is described as the “poet of the ocean shore”. There is little doubt that his images of the mist-shrouded coastlines are among the most striking of his accomplishments.
On behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo—Alberni and the residents of Errington, B.C., it is a great pleasure to extend congratulations to Mr. Takao Tanabe, laureate of this year's Governor General's Award in Visual and Media Arts.
* * *
Arts and Culture
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night the Governor General's Awards in Visual and Media Arts were once again presented at Rideau Hall. The awards, first awarded by Her Excellency the Governor General on March 23, 2000, aim to honour the best in Canadian visual and media arts. Former Governor General Romeo LeBlanc first conceived them.
In presenting the first awards, the Governor General said, “Canada is a better place when such selective prizes, properly juried, duly deliberated, take their place in our national life”.
This year's laureates are: Robert Archambeau, a ceramicist from Winnipeg, Manitoba; Alex Colville, a painter from Wolfville, Nova Scotia; Gathie Falk, a painter and sculptor from Vancouver, B.C.; Betty Goodwin, for her drawing, from Montreal, Quebec; Walter Harris, a sculptor from Hazelton, B.C.; Takao Tanabe, a painter from Parksville, B.C.; Suzanne Rivard Le Moyne, an educator and arts administrator from Montreal, Quebec.
* * *
(1410)
Middle East
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday 23-year-old American Rachel Corrie was bulldozed to death by Israeli troops demolishing a Palestinian physician's home in Gaza. This tragic, horrifying death has garnered international condemnation. Even the U.S. is demanding an Israeli investigation.
Middle East experts have repeatedly warned that an illegal U.S. led attack on Iraq could result in a call from the Arab world for widespread retaliation, an escalation in violence between Israelis and Palestinians and a heightening of anti-western sentiment; in other words, an explosion of violence throughout the Middle East and well beyond.
Canadians recognize that this illegal attack on Iraq will have profound implications for achieving a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We need the Canadian government to intensify diplomatic efforts to yet avert a war on Iraq by leading a coalition of the living instead of falling into line with the Bush led coalition of the so-called willing.
* * *
[Translation]
MetroStar Gala
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the MetroStar Gala honoured television artists, as selected by popular vote. The event was brilliantly hosted by Stéphane Rousseau, who was funny and entertaining. To round out six years of work on Un gars, une fille, Guy A. Lepage was voted male personality of the year, while Sophie Lorain came away with female personality of the year for the fourth time, as well as the Artis award for female character in a televised series.
Sophie Thibault was the first woman ever to be honoured for her work as newscast anchor.
Others honoured on that occasion included Paul Arcand and Jocelyne Cazin, Clodine Desrochers, Véronique Cloutier, Gildor Roy, Guy Mongrain, Benoît Gagnon, Roy Dupuis, Denis Bouchard, Élise Guilbault and Luck Mervil.
The Bloc Quebecois salutes all nominees and congratulates the winners.
* * *
[English]
Iraq
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House and thank our Prime Minister on behalf of all Canadians for showing us the true responsible statesman he is even in these most difficult times.
Yesterday during question period the Prime Minister announced the position of the Government of Canada. It was a clear and solemn statement that was consistent with this government's support and especially the Prime Minister's personal belief in a multilateral system which is the only guarantee for a more peaceful world.
Our Prime Minister has been steadfast in his efforts to build a consensus among those who are entrusted by the world to deal with issues of peace and security. We are proud of his tremendous work to try to find a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis.
I believe the Canadian position expressed yesterday by the Prime Minister received the general support and enthusiastic approbation of the Canadian population. I was also pleased to witness the support from most members on both sides of the House.
In these difficult and pressured times, our Prime Minister made sure that Canadian values are respected.
[Translation]
Bravo, Prime Minister, and thank you.
* * *
[English]
Gander Weather Forecasting Station
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Mr. Speaker, the downsizing of the weather forecasting station at Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador is another step by the Liberal government to hurt rural areas. A primary employment industry, the fishery, has been mismanaged. Now the latest is the downsizing of our weather forecasting station in Gander.
Those of us who live in Newfoundland and Labrador appreciate the force of our weather and the impact it has on our lives. Because weather changes frequently and quickly, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador require the best and most detailed weather information possible. For the safety of those in transport, offshore oil, the fishery, search and rescue and for the travelling public, the Minister of the Environment must reverse his decision.
If the federal Minister of the Environment does not change the course which he is pursuing, the negative impact it will have on Newfoundland and Labrador will be seen for many years.
I call upon the minister to reverse his decision and stop the downsizing of the weather forecasting station in Gander.
* * *
Canadian Radio Music Awards
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the crucial role that private radio plays in supporting the development of Canadian music stars.
The incredible success of artists like Céline Dion, Nickelback and Diana Krall in Canada and around the world is well known. Radio plays a big part in those and countless other artists' success stories. Radio provides name and song recognition to artists who often have little or no promotional resources. The love of music is what drives private radio broadcasters to promote local and rising stars.
The love of music was recently showcased on March 1 when Canada's private radio broadcasters celebrated Canada's hottest up and coming music stars at the sixth annual Canadian Radio Music Awards. The big winner at this year's awards was Napanee's own Avril Lavigne, who received five awards. Other award winners include Theory of a Dead Man, Crush, Remy Shand, Doc Walker, Sam Roberts and Nickelback.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating private radio broadcasters for their ongoing commitment to Canadian music and Canadian talent.
* * *
(1415)
Firearms Registry
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Centre for Research and Information on Canada asked, “Should Canada's national firearms registry be retained or should it be abolished?” In response, 95% said that it should be abolished.
The public knows what the government refuses to admit. It is all about the wise use of public money for a helpful social purpose, value for money.
Since the government did not want to expose its plans to full parliamentary scrutiny, as it was just making them up as it went along, disproportionate spending was put through under supplementary estimates and not identified in a line item as a clear major crown project in the main estimates process. The government will have spent a billion on the long gun registry by 2004-05.
The department obtained about 70% of its registry funding through the supplementary estimates, an admission that it had no idea about unfolding costs.
The Liberals made a wasteful, hurtful mistake because of their political blindness and ideological stubbornness. The spending behaviour of the justice minister reveals once again that the Liberals are not competent to govern.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Iraq
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the allies gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq. This is the only way now for the world and for Iraq to avoid war. It is the one chance for the butcher of Baghdad to do something useful for his country and for the world.
Has the Prime Minister been in touch with the government of Iraq, urging Saddam Hussein to leave office and preserve peace?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is very well aware of the situation of Canada. We have always said to him very clearly that he has to disarm. There was a process for disarmament. The Americans and others have decided that diplomacy is over. We are disappointed with that because we thought there was a possibility to have a bridge between the two different opposing views.
However Saddam Hussein knows today very clearly that if he does nothing, there will be some terrible consequences.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister does not seem to understand is that Iraq will never disarm as long as Saddam Hussein is in power. Everyone else has figured that out.
Less than a week ago the Prime Minister appeared on national television and said that Saddam should be allowed to stay in office. Given what has now occurred, does the Prime Minister now regret that statement and admit that he should have been one of the world leaders pushing Saddam to leave office?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always have spoken very clearly that the position of changing of regimes in different countries is not a policy that is desirable any time. I think there are other leaders in the world who are not my friends and I just avoid them all the time. In the present system, it is for the local people to change the government. It is like that around the world.
I think diplomacy could have solved the problem, but some people did not agree with me and decided to proceed, and I will respect their judgment.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may think diplomacy would succeed but even in 1991, when the United Nations Security Council was fully behind action, this Prime Minister would not stand up to Saddam Hussein then. He was firmly defending him, just as he is defending his right to be in office today.
Let me ask another question and it is about the government's attitude toward its own troops. It is one thing to not stand by our allies, but quite another to not stand by our own troops. Yesterday the defence minister said, “The world is on the brink of war, with thousands of lives at stake, and here we are talking about 31 Canadian military officers. I think we should maintain perspective”.
How can the government explain to the families of these 31 personnel that it does not consider them important?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ignorance of the Leader of the Opposition is sometimes amazing. In 1991 we voted with the government after the United Nations passed a resolution to sanction the intervention in Kuwait at that time.
Of course we are preoccupied about the 31 Canadians who have been lent to the armed forces of the United States. We have these exchanges with them. There are 150 soldiers from other countries within our army. They take orders from our commanding officers--
(1420)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention. Canada cannot stand on the sidelines at such a time. The members opposite can heckle my comments but they are the very words of the Prime Minister. He said them in 1998. He was very clear. He was giving unequivocal support to the use of force against Saddam Hussein in 1998, without UN approval. Now he says that we will sit on the sidelines and not be counted with our allies.
What is--
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that was in 1998. Now, at this time, we were of the view that Saddam Hussein was disarming. The question is, that some thought it was not fast enough. We are still of the view that the diplomatic process was bringing positive results. That was the view of this government; it was not obviously the view of the United States. We can have a disagreement there but I am still of the view, given some more weeks, disarmament would have been achieved.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he is more of a menace now, and I am talking about Saddam Hussein, than he was in 1998, and the Prime Minister thinks diplomacy will work.
Saddam Hussein again has publicly financed Middle East terrorism with a gift of a quarter of a million dollars to terrorist families. He also harbours the deadly Abu Nidal group, the al-Qaeda connected Zarquawi network and the Palestinian Liberation Front.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence said that our troops are in the region to fight terrorism but not Saddam Hussein. Would the Prime Minister please tell us how Canadians can fight terrorism without fighting one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism, Saddam Hussein himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we start to go and change every government that we do not like in the world, where do we stop? Who is next? This is something on which we have to reflect.
The situation at this time is that this person in 1998 was not disarming. After pressure was put on him with resolution 1441 and because of the fact that there were 250,000 troops around, he was disarming, and we were of the view that some more weeks would have achieved the goal. We think that it is better not to have war as the first instance but as the last instance.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada's decision not to take part in the war against Iraq does not relieve the government of its responsibility to promote peace. Instead of referring to the failure of Canadian diplomacy, as he did yesterday, the Prime Minister needs to take advantage of the 48-hour window of opportunity available to him to intervene in favour of peace.
Given the impasse in the Security Council, is the Prime Minister going to work to maintain peace and call upon the United Nations General Assembly to address the Iraq crisis immediately, as resolution 377 allows?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we need to be realistic. At the present time, certain countries are attempting to organize another Security Council meeting. If one could be held, we fully agree that it might perhaps prove useful. It seems, however, that it will be virtually impossible for the Security Council to meet prior to the U.S. decision.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the UN General Assembly is meeting at the present time. All that is required for the matter to be brought before the General Assembly is for seven members of the Security Council to support a request to Secretary General Kofi Annan, or for half of the member states to agree to it being brought before them. It is therefore possible to do this, if we try. I have every reason to believe that such an initiative would prove successful. This will not necessarily avoid war, but the matter could be debated in the current sitting of the UN General Assembly.
Can the Prime Minister make a commitment to do this?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no country not currently sitting on the Security Council that has worked harder for peace than Canada has over the past four weeks.
We can pass the hon. member's suggestion on to our ambassador. I am not sure how valid it is, but we will look at it and see whether it can be of any use.
(1425)
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, President Bush reiterated yesterday that the objective of the war he is about to wage on Iraq was overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But, overthrowing a regime is illegal under international law.
Does the Prime Minister not believe that the American intervention is setting a dangerous precedent, and, what is more, that toppling a regime goes against international law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we stated clearly that it would have been highly preferable to have the support of the Security Council, which is why we will not be taking part.
But, as to whether it is legal or illegal, I might point out that, when we took part in the war in Kosovo alongside NATO, there was no resolution from the Security Council.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, President Bush is going over everyone's heads, and he considers the war on Iraq to be essential for the United States. However, many world leaders, including the Prime Minister, do not share his opinion.
Does the Prime Minister intend to tell President Bush and the Americans that Canada, like numerous other countries, believes that the current American position is a mistake, a violation of international law and a threat to the future of international relations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a year ago, I told President Bush that Canada was not going to support a war on Iraq without the Security Council's authorization.
In our communications over the past 24 hours, American authorities, have informed us that they have been very clearly aware of Canada's position for the past year. We have always been clear on this. We have always said that a war in Iraq should have the Security Council's authorization and that is not the case here.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister could tell the House what the government is doing in order to make sure that Canadian Forces personnel who are participating in Operation Apollo are not put in a position where the Canadian government's own position with respect to the war in Iraq is compromised? Are there new rules of engagement being developed for personnel involved in Operation Apollo to make sure that they are not drawn into the war on Iraq?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they have received instructions that are very clear, and they shall not be involved in Iraq. They are there to help in the situation of Operation Apollo, dedicated to fight terrorism and help the situation in Afghanistan, not to work on the problem of Iraq.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there might be a need for very clear rules as to how that ought to be achieved. For instance, are there new rules of engagement being developed with respect to our surveillance aircraft and the sharing of information?
Why was the decision taken last week, apparently, that our ships are able to range farther north than they were before? Perhaps the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence could explain just how the government's objective in this respect is to be ensured.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they cannot do anything that they are not authorized to do, and the only authorization they have is to work on the problem of Afghanistan and terrorism. They are not authorized to work on the problem of Iraq at all.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's policy on the war is to stand aside, but we cannot stand aside from putting back together what war will tear apart. I hope the Prime Minister would agree that the work of reconstruction in Iraq and its neighbours would be best coordinated by the United Nations and not another country, but the UN would need specific new authority from the Security Council to undertake reconstruction.
Will the Prime Minister put his officials to work now on helping prepare a resolution for the Security Council so the United Nations can establish a reconstruction program which other nations could join?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before working on reconstruction we might wait for the war to start. We said yesterday, and we said publicly, that if there is a need for reconstruction, and I hope there will be no need, obviously Canada will be there. We will not be alone. We will work with the other nations and of course we will do whatever is possible to make sure that it would be done under the authority of the United Nations.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, there was a time when Canada had a policy to do something other than wait for others to lead.
Last night, Sir, Canada's position on Iraq changed again. The foreign affairs minister said, and I quote him precisely, “...at this time we do not believe that the use of force would be appropriate without a clear indication from the Security Council itself...”. Why did the minister say “at this time”? Are there circumstances in which the Prime Minister would change the position he outlined yesterday?
(1430)
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member is very knowledgeable about international affairs and I think he knows very well that things change regularly. We have an opinion which has to, and our position has to, reflect the reality on the ground at any one given time.
I think our policies have been extremely strong. The Canadian people support them. The majority of opinion supports them. Our position has clearly been that we do not wish to see force used. We have struggled against that consistently. It has been the policy of the government. It remains the policy of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced that Canada will not be taking part in a military intervention in Iraq. This Liberal government is the only western government lacking an official point of view on the legitimacy of a war that could start as early as tomorrow.
Will the Prime Minister finally take a clear stand and tell this House whether or not he believes that the use of force by our traditional allies in order to disarm Iraq is justified?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as their position is concerned, I can state clearly that it is not justified. Had it been justified, and backed by a Security Council resolution, we would have said yes. When we said no, it was because we believed they had not made a case for the necessity of waging war on Iraq at this time.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister expect anyone to take him or Canadian foreign policy seriously as he continues to make it up as he goes along?
Last month the Prime Minister said “resolution 1441 will authorize” military “action”, but yesterday he said that authorization had vanished because a subsequent draft resolution was not voted on. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House the logic behind his view that authorization for the use of force in resolution 1441 was somehow trumped by a vote that never took place?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government came to the conclusion that nobody has established clearly that there was no disarmament proceeding in Iraq at this time. We have, over the last few weeks, heard the inspector say that there were no nuclear armaments there. There was the destruction of the missiles that was in processing. We have suggested clear points to be debated within a certain number of weeks to make sure that biological and chemical arms of mass destruction were to be checked, found and eliminated, but they decided to proceed before this at--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Jean.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday we learned that the Government of Canada authorized a small group of Canadian soldiers to serve with U.S. and British ground forces if the U.S. and Britain decide to attack Iraq. This information was even confirmed by a spokesperson for the Department of National Defence.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what Canadian soldiers are doing there on the ground with the Americans on the eve of an assault against Iraq when the Prime Minister is saying that Canada will not take part in the war?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member is referring to the people who are in contact with our allies or if he is referring to our soldiers who are there to protect one of our bases.
If he is referring to the latter, those soldiers are there to protect a base we set up months ago. I have been there. It is there for the war against terrorism. That is the objective and that is why they are there.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the Canadians who are currently in combat units in Kuwait that are preparing to attack Iraq. Americans are going to attack Iraq in a few hours and Canadian soldiers are at their side.
If the Prime Minister wants to be consistent with what he said yesterday, why does he not call back all these troops immediately?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can provide new information about the Canadian Forces stationed at that base.
We have three transport aircraft there. We have given extremely explicit instructions that these planes cannot be used to transport materiel for Iraq or for the war in Iraq. This is very explicit. They received these instructions just recently.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that Canada is opposed to military action to enforce 17 Security Council resolutions because he now claims the UN has not specifically authorized such action, but that has never troubled him before. In 1990 he opposed the effort to liberate Kuwait, even though it was specifically authorized by a UN resolution. He later supported bombing campaigns in Iraq and Kosovo without UN sanction.
Why the flip-flop? Why does he now claim to care so much about yet another UN resolution when that concern has never before governed his policy or actions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): In 1990 we voted in favour of the resolution of the government of the day because it had an authorization from the Security Council. I have said that all along, that they needed the authorization of the Security Council. On resolution 1441, nobody has clearly established that the inspectors had terminated their work and rendered a final judgment on that. They might think that they were right, the Americans, but I think that for us we thought that more weeks of inspection would have resolved the problem.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder what planet the Prime Minister is living on. No country believes that Iraq has complied with resolution 1441.
Four years ago, the Prime Minister ordered our air force to bomb Serbia for three months without approval of the House or the Security Council, but Serbia did not possess any illegal weapon stocks. It had not signed a ceasefire promising to disarm, it did not pose a threat to our allies, and its program of ethnic cleansing was modest compared to Saddam's genocide.
Why was it right for Canada to bomb Serbia without any UN sanction, but wrong to forcibly disarm Iraq now on the--
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he knows what happened at that time, that when we went to Kosovo it was to stop genocide. It was not to have a change of regime. In fact, after the bombing was over and peace had been restored, the people of Serbia kicked out Milosevic in an election. The activity was not for a change of regime. It was to stop genocide.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The question and answer have been given. We now have another question from the hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the government made the decision to opt out of an armed conflict in Iraq. We supported this position, but we know that Canadian soldiers are in fact integrated with American and British combat units.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given the official position of Canada, why are these soldiers not being brought back?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have never hidden this fact, which has existed for decades. For decades, we have always had exchanges with our allies to wage battles together. You never go to war alone, it is a joint effort.
As for these 31 persons, they are not in positions that involve direct combat. They do not have the right to use force, except in self-defence. That is the situation.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that Canadian soldiers are integrated with combat units, and given the official position of the Government of Canada, would it not be best, and would it not send a clear and meaningful signal, if the Minister of National Defence were to bring them back, to prevent them from taking part in the war in Iraq—a war that we do not support and that the government is not supposed to support? I think this is a clear request.
(1440)
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, such action would be an insult to our allies from the two world wars and a sign that we are not a dependable ally. That is not the position of the Government of Canada. As I just said, our soldiers will not be involved in direct combat. There are only 31 of them. We support our allies, even though we do not agree when it comes to the situation in Iraq.
[English]
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government cannot have it both ways. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he does not support our allies in the impending war against Saddam Hussein, yet his government has authorized Canadian troops to remain attached to U.S. and British troops participating in the war. Why are Canadian troops fighting along with our allies in a war that the Prime Minister has said he opposes?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, there is more than a tad of hypocrisy in that question, because there are two options in front of this government: to yank our soldiers out of these co-operative arrangements or to leave them there. The position of the government is to leave them there.
Is the Canadian Alliance, the most hawkish party we have, the party which denigrates our contribution to Afghanistan as second tier, suggesting that we should pull them out? If not, it agrees with the position of the government and I do not know what the question is about.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will spell it out for the government. The Prime Minister has apparently made the decision to put Canadian lives at risk to deal with the very real threat posed by Saddam Hussein. It is a contradiction for the Prime Minister to take a political position against involvement in the war. If the war in Iraq is just, why is Canada not sending a meaningful contribution? If it is not just, why is Canada sending our troops into Iraq at all?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the hon. member is deluded, because the Canadian position is a principled one based on two strong, robust principles. First of all, we stand by our multilateral principles in the United Nations. Second, we stand by our commitment to the war on terrorism and we do not desert our allies when the risk of terrorism is rising. We do not move south and leave our allies in the war against terrorism in the lurch. That is the position of the government and I am proud to be a part of that government.
* * *
Agriculture
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and it has to do with the biosafety protocol.
So far 44 countries have ratified the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Fifty are needed for it to come into effect. In view of perceived conflicting agricultural interests, could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food indicate when he will give the green light so that Canada can finally ratify the biosafety protocol?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada signed the biosafety protocol in April 2001 and we are on a plan to ratify it.
However, before ratifying it we need to resolve some uncertainties in the agreement. We are doing that in consultation with the agriculture and the agri-food industry. Based on those consultations we have drafted an action plan to identify and deal with those uncertainties.
There is still more work that needs to be done, but we are committed to resolving those uncertainties that may impact the agriculture and agri-food industry before we ratify.
* * *
Iraq
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, contrary to some naysayers in this House, Canadians overwhelmingly support the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. They want the government however to go beyond rejecting war by a so-called coalition of the willing. They want Canada to join, even lead, a proactive coalition for the living.
Will the government commit today, in the Pearsonian tradition, to introducing an urgent uniting for peace resolution in the United Nations?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the government has demonstrated over the last month an incredible determination both to work as hard as we can for the preservation for peace and to exhaust every multilateral avenue available to us. The Prime Minister spent his time on the telephone with leaders and on his instructions we all worked with all our levels to get a peaceful resolution of this terrible situation we are in.
We will continue our efforts and explore all possible avenues. We will relentlessly pursue the need to have peace as we work through our multilateral institutions to achieve them.
* * *
(1445)
Agriculture
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to reach consensus among farmers but the government has managed the near impossible. Farm leaders are unanimous in their opposition to the risk management program being foisted on them in two weeks, saying the proposals are much worse than what exists now. With 22 major Canadian farm groups arguing they have not been listened to, the only farmers the department has not alienated are those it has not met.
Farmers want current safety net programs to remain in place for one more year. What is wrong with this very reasonable request by Canadian farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was very vocal in stating that, for example, the Canadian Farm Income Program was not effective. He was very vocal about that in the past.
The government has moved toward and is proposing a new, far more effective program. That disaster program has been there in the past and will not be there this year. The government will ensure that farmers in Canada have a disaster program for 2003 that they deserve to have.
* * *
[Translation]
Iraq
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, President Bush stated yesterday that the United States was giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or else it would launch a military offensive. There are 36 hours left.
The American government and the Department of Homeland Security have said that they were stepping up airport, port and border security.
Since this government has condemned the American action, I would like to know what agreement Canada and the United States have reached to ensure that these measures will not result in any discrimination against Canadians or present a barrier to trade—
The Speaker: The hon. the Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have already had the opportunity to speak today with Secretary Ridge. His officials spoke to our officials yesterday evening before the President gave his speech.
We have made the necessary arrangements between organizations on both sides of the border to ensure that trade will continue and that the level of security will be adequate for each of us.
* * *
[English]
Border Security
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, in his televised address last night President Bush said he was “...taking further actions to protect our homeland”. The last time the United States heightened security Canadian goods were stopped at the border and Canadian citizens were detained and interrogated.
The Deputy Prime Minister says he has talked to Mr. Ridge, however what guarantees has he secured from the United States to ensure that our commodities will cross that border and our citizens will not be detained?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over a year ago we entered into an action plan with the United States that has been implemented on both sides of the border toward creating a smart border. We have seen significant progress in the creation and the implementation of the NEXUS and FAST programs to ensure that regular crossings of the border are unimpeded as a result of the special measures and the technology available to us.
It is clear that issues related to security will remain top of mind and on both sides of the border we will need to take the measures necessary to--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
* * *
National Defence
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the core of Canada's contribution to the war on terrorism consists of a handful of capable ships, but they are equipped with 40 year old Sea Kings. That would be a tad past retirement age, I would think. Recently, a Sea King crash resulted in injuries to our pilots and embarrassments to Canada.
I would like to call ship to shore to the minister and ask, how does the government expect us to believe that Canada's Sea Kings are able to perform safely and effectively alongside our allies?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, as one relatively new to politics I thought that the hon. member's statements and announcements about her impending departure were extremely well taken, and I would like to congratulate her on that. Maybe that did not come out sincerely. I mean it sincerely.
On the Sea King question, I actually have good news to announce. While it had been said that we did not have a Sea King to spare, I can announce today that this week we are indeed sending a Sea King by ship to serve on the Iroquois.
(1450)
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we would wonder how it is getting there, that is for sure.
Our Sea King helicopters are also involved, as the minister knows, in search and rescue operations. Inadequate or decrepit vehicles and aircraft could cost the lives of people as well as Canadian military personnel. Given his comments yesterday, perhaps this is not a big concern for this minister, but it is serious.
Expertise and daring have allowed our Sea King crews to rescue many people, but we have to locate the people before we can rescue them. Does the minister honestly believe that our Sea Kings are properly equipped to save lives at sea in all conditions, day and night?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Sea Kings have performed a long and venerable service in a number of different areas. It is true that we are moving heaven and earth to replace them--the maritime helicopters--as fast as possible, which is why we moved from two contracts to one contract.
Indeed, on the search and rescue front we already have replaced them. I would say that the new Cormorants probably do a better job than the old Sea Kings in terms of search and rescue operations or else we would not have spent all that money to replace them.
* * *
[Translation]
Heating Oil Prices
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the threat of war in Iraq has driven gas and heating oil prices skyward. The federal government is not doing a thing about it, in contrast to its reaction in the fall of 2000, on the eve of a federal election, when the increase was much less drastic.
Now that the price of gas and heating oil is prohibitive, what is the government waiting for to put in place a contingency plan to help all those who bear the brunt of these increases, namely truckers, taxi drivers, farmers and heating oil users?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has established an energy authority called the Régie de l'énergie, which is responsible for monitoring and setting gas prices in Quebec.
Is the hon. member suggesting that the federal government should substitute itself to the authority established by the Government of Quebec? I hope not.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has put forward a practical suggestion to send each Canadian household $130 through energy distribution companies.
Is the federal government prepared to dip into its contingency reserve to help consumers face this intolerable increase, and send this $130 credit as soon as possible?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think it necessary at this time to take the kind of special measure the hon. member is suggesting.
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to this Ferrari contract with Health Canada to talk about aboriginal issues.
Yesterday, the health minister said that Joanne Meyer had no relationship with the department after January 2002; in other words, not my problem. That was wrong.
This individual had a contract with her department in February 2002. Will she explain that?.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any contract that my department had with this named individual in February 2002. To honour a commitment made as part of her existing contract, the contractor, Joanne Meyer, was permitted to participate in and attend a meeting on suicide prevention last January 2002. The contractor was paid approximately $1,000.
As I indicated yesterday, my department is reviewing the facts of this matter. If the hon. member has facts that could help in this--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I can understand the minister's reticence to cover for a predecessor. I do have quite a lot of facts here that would help the minister a lot.
Here is my question for the minister. Yesterday she said her department was looking into this issue. Today is her opportunity to report to the Canadian public about this bizarre contract, another Liberal contract mess.
(1455)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can respond because--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I know all hon. members want to hear the minister's answer. We have to be able to hear the minister. We cannot with all the yelling.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, this dealt with a member of my staff.
It is important to know that when I became Minister of Health in June 1997 Joanne Meyer was already in the office of the minister when I arrived.
She was an expert in aboriginal health medicine and served on the staff of my predecessor. She had more than 25 years of public service, years spent in aboriginal communities as a health care professional. I wanted her on my staff because of her expertise. I asked her to remain and she did. We entered into contracts. I expect they complied with Treasury Board guidelines, as always. She did the work and was paid the remuneration. She worked in the public interest.
* * *
Health
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Health.
Canadians are concerned with the recent diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome in some recent travellers from Asia. This appears to be a form of pneumonia.
Can the minister inform the House what measures Health Canada is taking to fight the virus producing this pneumonia, if it is a virus?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a serious public health concern. We, at this moment, have 11 confirmed or suspected cases, and that includes, unfortunately, two deaths. We are employing our state-of-the-art laboratories as well as our national surveillance system to monitor the situation.
I think, as the hon. member is aware, there is very little known about this disease at this time. My officials are working with officials around the world to try and learn more about the nature and cause of this disease. We are also working very closely with our provincial and territorial public health colleagues--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.
* * *
Government Contracts
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canada Steamship Lines sent three ships to Hibernia as part of a multi-million dollar contract. According to the Prime Minister, Hibernia was the finance minister's responsibility. But according to the former finance minister's leadership team, it was the responsibility of the junior finance minister.
If indeed all Hibernia issues fell under a junior minister, why did the Prime Minister send correspondence letters to the former finance minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance of the day had delegated the responsibility of making decisions on this file to the junior minister in his department and it was according to the rules. He did not want to make a decision himself and he asked the junior minister to make a decision for him.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that raises the question again why the Prime Minister, in a letter to the former premier of Newfoundland Brian Tobin, sent the correspondence to the finance minister and not the junior minister.
Yesterday, the ethics counsellor said that it would have been all right for the former finance minister to be involved in Hibernia because Canada Steamship Lines was only a subcontractor on the project.
My question for the Prime Minister, is it really the position of the government that it is okay for cabinet ministers to be in an apparent conflict of interest as long as they are only one contract removed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we sent a letter to the former minister of finance. He received all sorts of letters and when he saw in any letter that it could be causing a conflict of interest, he delegated the authority to his junior minister and it was for him to decide accordingly. He knew his business. I did not know. I wrote to him and he sent the correspondence to the one who was authorized to make a decision under these circumstances, and it was the junior minister.
* * *
[Translation]
Iraq
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the situation for women in Afghanistan has not improved since the new government was put in place in Kabul. Women are still limited in their movements and freedom of expression, and mass rape persists.
Knowing that the Iraqi regime commits systematic and extremely serious violations of human rights, what does Canada intend to do in the event of a military intervention in Iraq to ensure that the Iraqi people receive more support and help than the people of Afghanistan did?
[English]
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, yesterday we announced an additional $250 million to be committed to Afghanistan for the next two years. Part of that money will go for peace and security and maintaining the rule of law. We are working very actively on the constitution in Afghanistan. Money that we have already contributed is going toward fixing it. We recognize that the women in Afghanistan have a large problem and that is why we are very convinced that constitutional law is one area where Canada can have some input and have some respect. We hope to be able to ensure that women have access to education and other opportunities in Afghanistan as well.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Firearms Registry
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On February 21, after the financial fiasco of the gun control program, the government unveiled its plan of action. Among the measures that will be implemented, the Department of Justice will try to combine the processing sites located in Montreal and Miramichi.
Instead of creating another administrative structure, which will surely be as ineffective as the last one, what is the minister waiting for to suspend firearms registration and take the time to overhaul the current ineffective system?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the firearms registry system and the firearms permit system reflect values that are dear to the Liberal government. But they also reflect distinctly Canadian social values.
I am pleased to see that my colleague referred to our plan of action. The plan will move us in the right direction and allow us to introduce some changes based on the Auditor General's report and all her recommendations. In terms of the different sites, we are talking about consolidating—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns very serious allegations of negligence in Health Canada's controls on clinical trials of new drugs. It took months before cancer patient Oscar Mulder was finally given a revised consent form for the drug Iressa, despite many deaths from the drug in Japan.
Why this long, possibly life-threatening delay and what action is the minister taking to ensure that the patients in clinical trials give fully informed consent before they participate so that they are aware of the risks they take before they take these new drugs?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): In fact, Mr. Speaker, the issue of fully informed consent as it relates to clinical trials is a very important one and one that is largely within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories to ensure, but clearly the hon. member does raise a very serious question, and one which my officials are working with their provincial and territorial colleagues in relation to, to ensure that nothing but the highest standards are in fact in place and observed as related to clinical trials.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Joaquim Chissano, President of the Republic of Mozambique.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of laureates of the Governor General's Awards in Visual and Media Arts: Mr. Robert Archambeau; Mr. Alex Colville; Ms. Gathie Falk; Mr. Walter Harris; Mr. Takao Tanabe; and Madam Suzanne Rivard Le Moyne.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I invite all hon. members to join them in Room 216-N for a reception.
* * *
(1505)
Vacancy
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Mr. Antoine Dubé, member for the electoral district of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, by resignation effective March 17, 2003.
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
* * *
[English]
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could satisfy my curiosity as to why in question period a question put to the Minister of Health was answered by the former minister of health.
The Speaker: There are curious things that happen in question period. The right hon. member knows that under the rules any member of the ministry can stand and answer any question. It is not for the Speaker to decide who should or should not answer, or for the member asking the question to demand that so-and-so answer. Any minister is free to rise and answer a question. If that happened in question period, of course these matters are things that are quite invisible to the Chair. I am sure the right hon. member with his vast experience in government probably had something like that happen to him once or twice too when he was a minister.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, am I then correct in assuming that it would be appropriate in the future for members of the opposition to put questions to ministers with respect to their former portfolios?
The Speaker: I think the right hon. member knows that would be contrary to the rules and practices. Putting a question to somebody and getting an answer from somebody else are two different issues. I know the hon. member will want to have a careful read of Marleau and Montpetit tonight and then he will not have to ask this kind of question tomorrow or leap to that kind of assumption.
* * *
The Budget--Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's West on February 26, 2003, concerning a change in the budgetary policy of the government. I would like to thank the hon. member for St. John's West for having drawn this matter to the attention of the Chair, as well as the hon. government House leader for his comments.
The hon. member for St. John's West referred to media reports of a statement made by the Prime Minister. The hon. member asserted that the quotes attributed to the Prime Minister contradict the budgetary position of the government as set out by the hon. Minister of Finance on February 18, 2003. The hon. member points out that no formal notice of any alteration to the budget had been made in the House and, on this basis, he maintains that the government cannot ask hon. members to vote on the motion “That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government”, which stands as ways and means item number two on the Order Paper. The hon. member claims that the House cannot be asked to reach any decision on this motion until the government has clarified its position and taken the appropriate steps formally to amend the budget.
[Translation]
The Chair appreciates the great seriousness surrounding any charge concerning budgetary matters. The Speaker has a special responsibility to ensure that the procedures and practices relating to financial procedures are respected and that the traditional privileges of the House in these matters are not violated.
[English]
It is perhaps useful to put in context House of Commons practice with regard to the budget. I should say that the Chair is well aware of the current controversy surrounding this question in the Ontario Legislative Assembly and I would not want these remarks to be construed as a comment on the situation at Queen's Park. The Chair has no wish to embroil itself in matters arising in another jurisdiction.
Our rules here at the House of Commons make provision for the Minister of Finance to give a budget presentation, and the practices with regard to the presentation of the budget are well anchored in parliamentary practice. Still, our rules do not, strictly speaking, require that the minister make a budget speech nor is there any procedural necessity for such a speech to be accompanied by supporting documentation. Both the budget speech and the tabling of background documents are, in that way, voluntary actions of the government.
In the case before us, the hon. member for St. John's West takes issue with the apparent contradiction between a statement in the document entitled, “The Budget Plan 2003,” tabled by the hon. Minister of Finance on February 18, and statements made outside the House by the Prime Minister.
Specifically the document stated that:
|
--this budget will invest $10 million in the next two years for additional support to Canada's elite athletes in the event that the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic bid is successful. |
Media reports indicate that this condition would be lifted but no statement to that effect has been made in the House itself.
Neither the hon. member for St. John's West nor the media reports themselves suggest that this discrepancy represents an instance of the House being deliberately misled. The question is whether or not our procedure requires a statement in the House to correct or explain the discrepancy.
(1510)
[Translation]
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 379, states:
|
A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement outside of the House instead of making a statement in the House during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of privilege, but the Chair has consistently found there to be no grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached. |
[English]
The government can alter its policies as it sees fit at any time. The obligations that our rules impose concerning financial legislation, while they are strict, do not relate to how the government sets its policy objectives. That the supporting documents are no longer completely accurate is not sufficient grounds on which to challenge the right of the House to continue considering the budget motion. I must therefore rule that there has not been any breach of our rules or practices in this case.
I would also add a word with regard to the notices of ways and means tabled by the Minister of Finance on budget day. Standing Order 83(4) requires that any enabling budget legislation to be brought before the House must be based on the provisions set out in those motions as adopted. If the government, as a result of a change in policy, wishes to propose legislation different from that which it had earlier intended, then it will have to file a new notice of ways and means. At present, however, the House does not appear to be faced with a need to insist on a new ways and means notice.
What the hon. member for St. John's West has drawn to the attention of the House is an apparent change in policy with regard to the terms under which the government will invest in elite athletes.
Members who wish to seek clarification of the government's position on the funding of amateur athletes have a number of avenues open to them, notably, the budget debate and of course the oral question period. Meanwhile, I am ruling that there is no procedural requirement for the government to table revised documents in the House reflecting its change in position.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Transportation Amendment Act
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here today to speak on Bill C-26, amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the establishment of the VIA Rail Canada act.
[Translation]
I rise in this House today to discuss a document entitled “Straight Ahead: A Vision for Transportation in Canada”, which I tabled in the House on February 25.
Throughout our history, governments have embraced a succession of bold transportation visions - national railways spanning the continent, an international seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway, and transcontinental air services.
Our national transportation system, linking every corner of this country, opened our doors to the rest of the world and to the commercial markets beyond our borders. As our nation has evolved, we have built a world-class transportation system.
Transportation practices in Canada have evolved over time, as required by the times and circumstances. Where required, we have brought in reforms and taken aggressive and innovative steps to improve the system and increase its efficiency.
[English]
Changes in the way airports and ports are managed, the commercialization of the air navigation system, the privatization of other infrastructure have all contributed to making the transportation system stronger and more dynamic. The results speak for themselves. The productivity growth in transportation over the past 10 years has been truly phenomenal. In fact, it has doubled in that period of time.
Canadian ports are forecasting $700 million of capital investment over the next five years. More than $5 billion of private money has been invested in airport capital projects since 1997. Also, price and cost trends in the transportation sector have consistently been lower than the rate of inflation, and we have also succeed in eliminating most transportation subsidies.
What this has meant for Canadians is better quality and greater choice in transportation services. Safety and security, accessibility, economic efficiency and environmentally sound performance have all become cornerstones of our transportation system, but we cannot become complacent with these very impressive results. We have to ensure that our policies continue to adapt in the face of new trends and new challenges.
In our policy document, “Straight Ahead”, we talk of the culmination of an initiative that began in 2001 to review the transportation policy for the next 10 years and beyond. “Straight Ahead” proposes a vision to guide the continued development of a sustainable transportation system for the country. It also conveys the government's response to the 2001 report of the Canada Transportation Act review panel.
The amendments to the CTA that are introduced in this bill are an important step in moving the vision forward. “Straight Ahead” reflects a careful consultation with the industry, users, provincial and territorial governments and of course, parliamentarians through the various committee appearances that I have had with members of the House and Senate Standing Committees on Transport.
It also reflects the results from earlier consultation efforts on the transportation table on climate change, Transport Canada's second sustainable development strategy and the millennium transportation conference, which I hosted in Toronto in the year 2000.
(1515)
[Translation]
During these consultations, participants agreed that Canada's transportation policy is basically sound and headed in the right direction.
While it may not be necessary to overhaul the policy extensively, new challenges arise and our policy must adapt. Among these challenges are growing concerns about the impact of congestion on our quality of life.
The need for infrastructure in good condition to continue to support trade and the realization that our world-class transportation system is facing new challenges in a world where safety and security considerations force us to be more vigilant and to use new technologies.
The main sources consulted, which account for the proposed changes to the Canada Transportation Act, were general public information and research programs of the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel.
The panel received more than 200 submissions and held townhall meetings in every province and territory. Meanwhile, the research program called on experts to examine policy issues and options. The result was a series of well thought-out opinions on the state of the transportation policy, future challenges and options for efficient intervention.
[English]
All this activity shaped the deliberations and recommendations of the panel. In addition to this, I convened a number of round tables across the country where I met with key members of the transportation industry, both the big companies and organizations, and representatives of the smaller transportation companies. I met with shippers, professors and academics who were concerned about transportation policy. My officials have been engaged in dialogue as well, not only with stakeholders but also with the provinces and territories.
Policy directions were also discussed at the annual meetings of the Canadian transportation ministers in September 2001 and September 2002. By and large, I am very happy to note that provinces and territories have been supportive of the many changes proposed in “Straight Ahead”. Certainly they will reflect some of these changes within their own jurisdiction in their legislative and policy changes.
“Straight Ahead” lays out the basic principles that will guide transportation policy development and for future planning and activities affecting the sector. They include the highest practical safety and security of life and property, guided by performance based standards and regulations when necessary; the efficient movement of people and goods to support economic prosperity and a sustainable quality of life based on competitive markets and the targeted use of regulatory and spending interventions; a clear focus on environmental issues with specific measures, such as promoting vehicles and fuels that produce few emissions, increased use of alternative modes of transportation for passenger travel and more efficient transportation of goods to support the government's climate change plan; user pricing that better reflects the full costs of transportation activity and transportation infrastructure decisions that meet user needs based on governance models that provide for stakeholder involvement and transparency; reasonable access to the national transportation system by Canada's remote regions; accessibility in the national transportation network without undue obstacles for persons with disabilities; and finally, partnerships and integration among the jurisdictions and with the private sector.
These principles will guide our action in five broad areas: safety and security; marketplace frameworks; infrastructure; the environment; and innovation and skills.
Let me now turn to some of the specifics.
Having a safe and secure transportation system has long been a central objective of our transportation policy and the number one priority for Transport Canada. By virtue of the co-operation of transportation stakeholders, Canada has one of the safest and most secure transportation systems in the world. That is particularly germane at this point in time given the difficulties that we have faced since September 11, 2001, and the ongoing unsettling atmosphere that we have because of pending hostilities in the Middle East.
However I can assure Canadians that not only have we taken exceptional safety and security measures in the system in the last 18 months, but we have adopted new measures that will be and are being put in place as the current situation evolves.
I would like to turn to some of the specifics on the issue of marketplace frameworks. With regard to rail freight, we will make remedies more easily accessible for shippers by removing the requirement that the Canada Transportation Agency must be convinced that shippers would suffer “substantial commercial harm” before relief can be granted. We will expand the availability of final offer arbitration and we will improve the conditions under which a shipper can ask for traffic to be transferred to another railway. At the same time we will maintain all other existing remedies.
I should say that we did not accept the view of some to enhance the current running rights provisions within the Canada Transportation Act because we felt that it would place an undue burden on the system, that it would be unworkable and, certainly, that it would have the obverse reaction to the one that would be desired.
(1520)
A series of legislative amendments will be proposed in the legislation that will strengthen publicly funded passenger and commuter rail services, including giving publicly funded passenger rail operators, such as VIA, Go Transit, West Coast Express and others across the country, recourse to the Canadian Transportation Agency when commercial negotiations are unsuccessful with respect to the terms and conditions of operation on federal rail lines.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, the controversy over the last couple of years with West Coast Express, which was subsequently resolved, between the operator and Canadian Pacific Rail, but at that time no remedy was available for West Coast Express. This now says that publicly funded passenger rail systems will be able to seek adjudication from the Canada Transportation Agency.
Another measure is to make contracts of publicly funded passenger rail services public to improve transparency and to maintain the integrity of rail corridors for possible public transit needs by improving the rail line discontinuance process in urban areas.
We think these legislative amendments support rail as a viable choice for passengers, thereby contributing to both the government's climate change and the cities' agenda.
In support of passenger services, VIA Rail's existing mandate and powers will also be confirmed in new legislation. Unlike the majority of other crown corporations, VIA Rail did not have its own legislation. I feel particularly badly about that because in 1977 I was vice-chairman of the House of Commons standing committee on transportation and communications, as it then was, and was one of the proponents for the government to take the CP and CN passenger operations, the losses for which were 80% funded by the federal government, and put it in a dedicated company. The minister of transport at the time and the government did that. Unfortunately they did not go the extra step. They did not give VIA its statutory base. I believe VIA has suffered as a result over the last number of years.
Therefore we want to make sure that the statutory base will ensure that if there are any substantial changes to VIA's service in the future they will be the subject of public debate in the House. I think all members should applaud that. In fact, this was one of the recommendations that came from the Standing Committee on Transport a few years ago in its landmark report “The Renaissance of Passenger Rail in Canada”.
We think the new VIA Rail act accomplishes all of the goals that the committee members set out and, combined with other initiatives, will demonstrate the government's continued support for inner city passenger rail services across the country.
I should state that we are also working on some other initiatives, which have been commented on frequently in the news, with respect to making VIA services in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor faster. I would hope to be able to say something more substantial on that at a later time. However the fact is that we are committed to enhancing passenger rail and providing that option for Canadians.
We are also introducing two initiatives that are multi-modal in nature. We are proposing to adapt and expand to all modes the mergers and acquisitions process that currently applies for the air industry.
The House will remember that in 2000, after the merger of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada in the then Bill C-26, we brought forward a merger and acquisition strategy that covered the merger of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada.
We propose to adopt that particularly ethos and apply it to other transportation industries. Frankly, this really came about because we realized a few years ago, when Canadian National entered into a partnership merger, as it was called, with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, that there was no statutory base upon which to review that merger outside of the Competition Act.
While the Competition Act is important for obvious reasons, there are other public interest issues that need to be addressed when we have mergers of such magnitude, including the impact on communities and the impact on workers. We found the odd situation of Canadian shippers having to go to Washington to make submissions to the surface transportation board, which was then reviewing the proposed merger under U.S. law. What kind of a ridiculous situation was that when the sovereign country of Canada was not able to have its own process and its shippers had to go to a foreign country to make their case?
(1525)
Once we pass this bill that will not happen if we see in the future, as I think we will, further mergers in the rail industry within North America. The Canadian national interests will be addressed by virtue of the statutory changes that we have brought forward.
One of the most interesting files I have had over the last number of years is the evolving one with respect to air policy. I remind members of the House that in an earlier version of Bill C-26 in the year 2000 there was support from all parties in the House for the concept of a made in Canada solution to develop competition to Air Canada.
That policy, supported by all members on both sides of the House, was working on September 11, 2001. We had Canada 3000 at the time with its largest booking day in its history the day before. Of course we know that with the tragic events, the entire society was impacted, but nowhere was it more impacted than in the transportation sector and particularly the aviation sector. As a result, Canada 3000 went bankrupt. Air Canada's market share went from 82% at the time of the merger to around 65% on September 11, 2001 and then bounced back up to 78%. Since that period in time, Air Canada's domestic market share has declined. Some will say it is in the low 60% range and at some point it will bottom out.
Of course there are issues facing Air Canada which have to be settled by the unions, the workers and management. There are issues the government can be helpful with and we are prepared to play our part. We emphasize that at the moment there is a process going on with respect to the airline getting its costs under control.
Certainly with the restructuring that is going on, I would hope that we will be in a better position to have a more viable national carrier, Air Canada. Of course it is one of the world's great carriers and has been faced with the same problems as other great carriers in the world. I think Air Canada has done a much better job in handling the challenges than many of the other carriers, including the ones in the United States.
We are proposing some amendments to the CTA that would facilitate market entry for carriers. Through these measures a dominant carrier would be required to interline and agree to joint through fares with other carriers on domestic services and permit ongoing access to its frequent flyer program on reasonable commercial terms. This is not just targeted at Air Canada; it is targeted at any dominant carrier that reaches that position. Certainly with the fluidity we have seen in the industry, we will see other entrants come forward and have the critical mass that will provide viable competition to Air Canada.
We are proposing amendments that would ensure that the advertising of air fares is transparent and accurate. That is something that has really frustrated a lot of travellers. People in the House are much more knowledgeable about the air industry than are ordinary Canadians and therefore we are perhaps more circumspect when we look at the advertising. Ordinary people just open the newspapers or look at television and the price they see is the price they think they have to pay, but of course it is not. That is why we are proposing amendments to deal with that in this legislation.
Current ownership rules are not going to change. The raising of the limit from 25% foreign ownership is not an answer. It is not really required. In fact I am told that Air Canada's largest foreign stakeholder owns less than 10%, so where is the thrust?
I know there are some who will say, “Who cares whether we have an airline with a flag on it and it is called Air Canada?” They are entitled to their view, but I beg to differ. I believe Air Canada is one of the great symbols of this country. It is our flag carrier around the world. It brings us pride. It takes Canadians around the world.
(1530)
The government is committed to keeping the Canadian air industry owned and operated by Canadians, so current ownership rules will not change. Perhaps something will occur in the future to change our minds, but we do not think it is a solution that is required right now.
On the international front, we will continue to work with other countries to gradually liberalize Canada's bilateral air agreements using as a model the successful open skies agreement that we had in 1995 with the United States. A lot of people say that we are not prepared to broaden the agreement with the U.S. Of course we are. I have told this to my counterpart, Mr. Mineta in Washington. I have told Ambassador Cellucci that we are prepared to sit down with the U.S. any time to talk about the broadening of the current open skies treaty. People often confuse that with the issue of cabotage, the ability of a foreign carrier to take passengers from point to point within a foreign country; Air Canada could take passengers from New York to Los Angeles, or American Airlines could take passengers from Toronto to Vancouver.
This is an issue that has cropped up in the last few years. Everybody thinks it will be the panacea for competition and that it will better the Canadian flying environment. The fact is the large foreign carriers, especially the Americans, once they get reorganized, will only be interested in the major core routes. They will not be interested in serving smaller communities, unlike a company like CanJet that goes into Deer Lake, or Jetsgo that is now going into Charlottetown and Timmins. They would not be interested in those smaller communities, so where is the advantage?
We already have significant competition in the major markets. The biggest and most profitable one is Toronto-Vancouver and then Toronto-Calgary, so why do we have to do it? In any event, it is a moot point. I raised it with Rodney Slater, the Democrat secretary of transportation in the Clinton administration. I raised it two or three times with Norman Mineta, who is the current secretary of transportation. Mr. Mineta, who has served 20 years in Congress, said, “Look, just do not bother talking about this because there will be no appetite in the U.S. Congress to allow cabotage”. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker, because in the U.S., the U.S. unions view Air Canada as a high quality, low cost operator that will be a significant challenge to them.
Also, if they did it, they would have to extend that same kind of privilege to airlines in other countries, for example, British Airways, Air France, KLM and Lufthansa, so it is just not on. I am prepared to discuss anything, including that, but when the other side does not even want to discuss it, there is not much I can do about it. People just do not seem to get that message.
With respect to infrastructure, this has been the subject of some debate, certainly since the budget. This country now has a transportation infrastructure second to none. That does not mean to say it cannot improve, but we see the new airports being built. We see the ports improvements. We see the fact that the federal government is recommitting money to major highway projects across the country. We see the infrastructure programs that we have had with provincial and municipal governments since 1993. Some $800 billion has gone in there.
In the budget announced a few weeks ago there is $3 billion that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, will oversee. There is another $3 billion in the Kyoto envelope for the Minister of the Environment. Much of this money can be applied to transportation initiatives and transportation infrastructure in the country.
I know there are some who wanted more money, particularly the municipalities. I have to say quite frankly that when the municipalities reacted to the budget, they did not read the document. They did not read the fact that there is $6 billion for infrastructure in that budget. They did not realize all the other initiatives, whether it is housing, for which I have responsibility, or the homeless, for which the Minister of Labour has responsibility. There is an increase in moneys for affordable housing for the SCPI program and for the RRAP home renovation program. All of this helps Canadian cities.
On the transportation front there are moneys available. In fact a couple of weeks ago the Minister of Industry and I, along with the Minister of Justice, announced in Montreal the A-30 autoroute. The A-30 autoroute has often been raised in the House, particularly by my friends from the Bloc. This is a major piece of infrastructure that is national in significance, because it will allow trucks and cars to bypass the downtown streets of Montreal. That was done under the auspices of the infrastructure program.
(1535)
Let us not buy this phony argument that somehow the federal government is not involved in providing for federal infrastructure improvements. We are doing it through policy changes that allow local authorities, whether it is the ports or the airports, to borrow on the open market. We do it directly, like the subsidy to VIA Rail of an extra $402 million, or we do it through infrastructure programs as I have just described. As more money becomes available, it will be applied to transportation. I think that 60% or 70% of the money that came out of the 2001 budget that we are working on with officials at Industry Canada is applied to transportation projects.
I am not going to say anything about airports today because I am about to introduce another bill very soon that will deal with providing a statutory base for Canada airport authorities across the country. In the 1994 national airports policy, this was done under existing statutes and the Financial Administration Act and another statute, but there was no statutory base for these airports. We are taking the 29 largest airports and making them come under a new statute that will have as its goal improved accountability, improved transparency and improved governance. When people see the bill, in a matter of days hopefully, they will see that we are trying to put our airport authorities on a very sound footing.
As an accompaniment to that, we have been reviewing the issue of airport rents. We hope to have that review completed very shortly. We are also reviewing our policy on remote airports which will include the viability of regional airports. We want to make sure that smaller airports do not get left out in the cold. We did it right in broad terms in 1994 with the national airports policy, but there are a lot of loose ends. The loose ends require a statutory base for the big airports. For the smaller airports it requires further reflection and study and perhaps assistance.
There are other issues that will come up in committee and will be raised in debate here about user charges and how they affect the airline industry and the airport charge and all the rest. I will be pleased to answer those questions when we get to committee.
We are also having a review of the Canada Marine Act. Members may remember that in 1998 we passed the Canada Marine Act. It was somewhat controversial but has been a great success. It has enabled the creation of 19 Canada port authorities across the country. It allows them to borrow money. It allows them to manage their own affairs and to dictate their own marketing strategies. The results are incredible for big ports and for small ports.
For the big ports it has been truly remarkable. The three great ports of this country in terms of volume, Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax, have done incredibly well. Business has increased. Efficiencies have been made. Money has been made and ploughed back because facilities like airports are still owned by the people of Canada.
Vancouver, for example, is the single most successful port on the west coast of the Americas. My friend over there from British Columbia, who I know is going to speak after me, should be happy about that. It beats all the American ports on the west coast and any other ports south of the United States. Halifax and Montreal have similar competitive advantages to many ports on the east coast of the United States.
We will have the marine act review completed shortly. Then we will probably begin statutory changes to the Canada Marine Act. The bill we are introducing today is the precursor to the airports act and amendments to the Canada Marine Act.
(1540)
We are not only interested in our ports, airports, and putting more money into highways. We have announced highway extensions in New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and I am sure there will be many more across the country under the infrastructure programs and the program that we administer at Transport Canada.
However, we are also concerned about the need for new bridges or tunnels to the United States. That is one of the reasons why we have amendments in this bill to establish a clear approval process for the construction of new international bridges and tunnels to ensure they meet the trade and transportation needs of the Canada of the future.
I wan