2002-05-24

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the speech that I began a couple of days ago on Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.
This is legislation of great import to couples who want to have children and particularly to women who, as it is obvious, are always on the frontline when it comes to human reproduction.
The objects of Bill C-56 are threefold: to protect Canadians who are using assisted human reproduction to help them build their families; second, to prohibit certain practices such as human cloning; and third, to open the door to research provided within what the government deems a regulated environment.
As my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre said in the House earlier this week when the bill was first up, New Democrats have been calling on the government for years to provide legislation giving women access to safe and non-commercial reproductive health services. Canada is the last major industrialized country in the world without legislation in this area.
In 1993 a royal commission reported on assisted human reproductive technology and urged the federal government to act quickly.
It is an exploding area of science, as we all know, and much has happened since that 1993 Dr. Baird royal commission report. We know about Dolly the sheep. We now hear talk about designer babies. Nine years ago the commission said that it was only a matter of time and that it was urgent that government laws and regulations catch up to this burgeoning science.
Despite this caution, here we are some nine years after that royal commission reported and five years after Bill C-47 died on the order paper.
As is becoming habitual with this government, we have waited until just a few weeks before the House is scheduled to stand down for the summer to introduce such a momentous piece of legislation.
True to form, the government has mostly ignored many of the excellent recommendations made by the health committee regarding the topic of human reproduction. Yet it has ignored other good recommendations made by the New Democratic Party in a minority report attached to the health committee's report.
Allow me to provide one example of the good advice ignored by the government. Bill C-56 would establish the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada to administer and enforce the acts and regulations. Among other things, the agency can authorize embryonic research but this is a contentious area. In our caucus we have serious concerns with the government's off loading of many policy issues, such as stem cell research, to this agency. We were and remain opposed to the responsibility on fundamental areas of policy being sent to such an agency when members of parliament are elected, we maintain, to make these decisions.
Bill C-56 prohibits human cloning for either reproductive or therapeutic purposes. It prohibits creating embryos for research or other non-reproductive purposes. It prohibits maintaining active embryos outside a woman's body past 14 days' development. It prohibits gender selection procedures. It also prohibits the altering of genetic material to affect subsequent generations and it prohibits the mixing of human genetic material with non-human life forms for reproductive purposes.
The list of what must be prohibited is lengthy and it must be in an area where science, if unregulated, could easily overrun ethical considerations.
Let me talk about some of the areas in the legislation that trouble us. In any legislation regarding questions of human reproduction, our primary concern must be of the health and well-being of women because it is, after all, women who are responsible for reproduction in our society and it is women who too often have been in the past the guinea pigs for experiments in ways to deal with reproductive problems.
We are also talking about couples who want to have children and they have to deal with these new technologies. Our caucus insists that we must never lose sight of the fact that women's health and well-being must be first and foremost, and fundamental to the legislation. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that reproductive technologies are proven safe before they are made available.The government must ensure that the risks and benefits of any treatment for women are disclosed fully and that the moneys needed to achieve these objectives are made available
What we are really talking about is that the precautionary principle must be explicitly set out in the legislation. In its final report the health committee urged such an approach but it was, unfortunately, rejected.
Also rejected was any direction or move in the area of patent protection. The health committee called on the government to prohibit human patenting but the government has chosen to ignore this important advice, putting its emphasis instead on corporate property rights.
For example, companies are already lined up to benefit from the stem cell research that holds such promise for Canadians suffering from various diseases. New Democrats believe that the federal government should be playing a leading role to keep trade agreements from overriding the health interests of Canadians.
In summary, it is noteworthy that we have finally introduced a bill respecting assisted human reproduction. It is well past time. However it is deficient legislation for the reasons that my colleague, our health critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, mentioned previously and which I have stated this morning; most notably, the lack of protection around women's health and our concerns about commercialization.
We are also concerned about key elements that parliament will not be asked to debate because the government has chosen to leave those to regulation or to foist them on to the new regulatory agency for a decision.
In conclusion, it will be difficult for me and other members of our caucus to support the bill unless significant changes are made to it.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to contribute a small bit to this debate of a significant legislative area which in my view has been left unregulated for far too long.
I do recall standing in this place approximately 10 or 12 years ago on a debate that covered a part of this field and suggesting that somewhere out in the real world, not in this place but somewhere out in the real world, there were scientists doing their work and somewhere out there in a laboratory closet there was someone developing what might become a mutant of the species, because we are never sure as scientists carry on their work what they will end up with, and sometimes they are not sure.
We knew then, as we know now, that the implications for the future of the human race were actually in the hands of individuals most of whom were well-meaning, but some of whom were quite possibly simply looking to make the fast buck, the quick discovery. That made me, among others, fairly nervous.
Over the years we found it necessary to study this and related questions and put a magnifying glass on the whole area. It was quite appropriate. I regret that it has taken a decade or more to reach the point where we feel we have enough consensus in our society to impose some regulations and some guidance, let us call it, for those in the field.
There are in existence in Canada now groups of scientists and teachers who feel that they have a reasonable handle on these related fields of endeavour in human reproduction. They feel that their professional expertise and their commitment to country, to family, to community and to the conventional morality is sufficient to guide them in their work.
I am not suggesting for a moment that any one particular group of them or any particular scientist, teacher or professor is not doing things properly, but it is always a risk in the modern world. We know that around the world people operate on different moral codes and have different ways of looking at things. The risk of some person or group of persons going off on a tangent and manipulating the human genome in a way that might create a mutant of the species, a strain that would not have been there had they not gone through the laboratory effort, no matter how they got there, no matter what their objectives were, would not only embarrass us but prejudice us as a human race.
At the time, I remember trying to figure out what we would have if we were to end up with a mutant of the species. Would that mutant be a human being? Whether it was just so big or as tall as I am now, how would we treat that human existence? I could not come up with an answer, which then led me to conclude that we have to do something to reduce the risk of our scientists going off on a tangent and doing things that would prejudice the whole human race.
Lying in the background of this, of course, is a way of looking at the human race which rests on a foundation of religious faith. No matter what one's faith happens to be, I think all religious faiths subscribe to the belief that the human race is here because it has been willed by God and our position here is very much in the hands of God or a god. Although there may be some divine providence out there most of the time or some of the time, the human race has made mistakes in ways that we do not think our God has willed. We fight these huge wars, we do pretty mean and evil things, and sometimes we have accidents.
The bill attempts to regulate different aspects of human reproduction. I know that one of the areas of debate concerns the use of human stem cells. There are two or more different types of stem cells. It is the embryonic stem cell that has become the focus of some of these issues. Is the way the embryonic stem cell is produced, the way we use it and the way it is or is not protected compliant with an application of moral rules? There is some division of opinion on this, but I think most of us would agree that where there is doubt and concern we must take the safe route. We must protect human life wherever it comes into existence. We must not abuse our position, our condition here on the human planet, whether one chooses to view it as a scientific, biological one or as an extrapolation of creation by God subject to moral obligation.
To wrap up, I want to indicate that I am very pleased we have come this far. I do not really regret that it has taken all this time provided that we have a good product, a good piece of legislation. I hope we can take the time to consider it. I hope that Canadians will have an opportunity to follow the debate and that in the end we will have an opportunity to pass a piece of legislation that will serve all of us, not just in Canada but around the world, including scientists and the community, in the hope that our work in this field will produce benefits for the human race in health and in human reproduction and will do it in a way that will protect our global, collective human futures.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate Bill C-56 on assisted human reproduction. I welcome this opportunity to speak because of the thousands of Canadians who would also like their voices heard on this topic but have found their concerns silenced by a government that does not like public debate. This subject goes to the heart of who we really are as a society.
I am pleased to confirm that as a consequence of the desire to let the people of my riding have a say in this debate, I sent out a questionnaire to every household asking for views on this issue. I am pleased to report to the House that the people of my riding appreciated being asked their opinion on this important subject. In fact, some individuals took the time to, at their expense, copy the survey, not only to ensure that the people in our riding had a chance to voice their opinions but to circulate it throughout Ontario.
At a function I attended last week, a woman from the neighbouring riding of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington approached me to say how much she appreciated being asked for her opinion on such an important subject. She also added that this type of consultation never happens in her riding. Her MP sits on the government side.
I also take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank all those individuals who took the time to complete and mail back the survey, especially those who also provided comments on this important subject. At this time, I acknowledge the tireless work of certain individuals in my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke regarding the stem cell research debate. I salute Stan Callaghan, Shirley and Kellard Witt, Margaret Thuemen, Barbara and Robert Austin, Corrie Haas, Lee Agnesi, Sharon McNaughton and Mike Vande Weil, to name just a few of the people who have worked so hard on this important issue.
The vast majority of those individuals who took the time to answer the riding survey, while answering yes to adult stem cell research, said no to stem cell research involving embryos. A woman from Palmer Rapids had this to say:

Please don't support embryonic stem cell research. Some things are too precious...to mess with.

This comment came from Pembroke:

Any research that helps human life without putting human life at risk or causing the death of a life is beneficial and should be pursued.

What was clear in the responses I received was the struggle that many people had with the whole topic of assisted human reproduction. A person from Deep River, Ontario, sent this letter with her survey response, which to me represents the anguish this issue causes for many individuals as they contemplate its ramifications. She stated:

Dear Mrs. Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke,
I feel I must explain my position on the stem cell research issue.
I realize that by supporting embryonic stem cell research, we are interfering with God's plan (perhaps) for life of a new child.
However we do allow other procedures to carry on in our society and this is resulting in the same final outcome--i.e. killing a possible new life.
This is almost comparable to sins of commission and omission.
However in this case they are both to some degree sins of commission.
Whereas no one could argue that the September 11 destruction of the two trade towers wasn't a sin of commission, while the daily death toll of 26,000 people due to starvation, mal-nourishment and lack of medical aid is definitely an act of omission.
Therefore I think we must also consider the extent of the consequences of our acts of commission and omission and act accordingly.
The consequences are horrible pain and suffering of people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease and other diseases as well as people starving or dying of malnutrition and no medical aid.
Who knows what God would want us to do?
Therefore we do what we can in our bungling, inept, human way in order to try to reduce the pain and suffering in the world.
I am not in favour of killing in any way, shape or form but are we not killing people with diseases, too?

In my mind this letter represents the struggle that many Canadians have with the issue or at least those Canadians who are allowed an opportunity to express an opinion on the subject.
What was also very apparent in the thousands of responses I received regarding stem cell research was the healthy distrust of the federal government and the large corporations that support the federal government.
This was a typical response: “Yes, for improved medical research assistance. But not for profit, for anyone, government included”. Another response was “The dangers of private commercial exploitation of embryos demands nothing less than a ban on embryonic stem cell research”.
The debate also highlights the federal government's priorities in that it is prepared to put taxpayer dollars into fads, while at the same time it has gutted billions of dollars out of the health care system. Ontario alone is shortchanged by $2 billion every year. Yet the government can hide over $7 billion in so-called private foundations, as identified by the auditor general, away from the public scrutiny of parliament, while waiting lines for MRIs get longer. It is all a question of priorities.
The distinction of government funding priorities is not lost on the taxpayers, as a woman from Renfrew, Ontario comments:

I am not against a “better quality of life” for people in the future--but--what about people in the present?
Funds required for this research should be used, at this point in time, to assist our present health care system so the people now can have a “better quality of life”.
As our population ages, on its own, this lack of health care, especially for the aged, becomes more pronounced.
If life is extended, by scientific means, even though it may be of a better quality, this current problem, if not addressed, will become even more acute.

It is clear that taxpayers are questioning where the funding will come from to fund this research. The health care system is being underfunded by the federal government already. People feel they are overtaxed now and are certainly not interested in new taxes or increased existing taxes, particularly with all the unanswered questions that the legislation proposed by the government raises.
The majority of responses I received were similar to what I received from this couple from Cobden: “Please, do not allow our government to kill any more of our unborn babies, the future of our country”.
This comment from was from Pembroke: “We believe embryonic stem cell research kills small humans, therefore it is wrong”.
Canadians are also very concerned about cloning. Not one individual who took the time to answer the survey supported cloning. In fact, many took the time to register their opposition to cloning.
I believe that the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke elected me to take a stand on their behalf. As the legislation now reads, while recognizing that rules are needed where none now exist, I cannot support the legislation as it now reads. I support the stand of the Canadian Alliance to declare a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research.
Let us explore the use of adult stem cells first to find treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's before we move down the slippery slope of creating human life only to destroy it.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56, an act representing assisted human reproduction, provides a legislative balance that protects the health and safety of Canadians and their children and offers new hope for those who wish to conceive a child but have been unable to do so.
These are not easy issues on which to build a legislative framework. There is currently no comprehensive federal or provincial legislative framework governing assisted human reproduction procedures and related research.
The legislation we have before us today is the product of thorough consultation and review on this very sensitive topic. It is based on Canadian values and reflects a consensus on some very complex and very challenging issues.
We are aware Canadians have strong and differing views on the issues centring on assisted human reproduction and this legislation must be reflective of the diversity and requisite sensitivity needed in dealing with this. The legislation also needs to establish clearly defined boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not.
We will not accept the creation of life for reasons other than building a family. Cloning human beings is equally as intolerable as modifying an embryo to suit our personal preferences. We will not put a price tag on sperm, eggs, embryos or the process of pregnancy. These are not goods or services suitable for commercialization.
The proposed act, Bill C-56, addresses the needs of infertile couples who wish to make use of assisted human reproduction process in a safe, regulated environment. Children are indeed a blessing. As a mother of four I can stand before the House and say that it is my proudest moment of anything I will accomplish in life being the mother of four children.
However I am sure we all know couples who have encountered difficulties in building a family. We have seen their frustration as well as their disappointment and it is heart-rending. The truth is approximately one in eight Canadian couples faces the challenge of infertility. A core principle of the proposed legislation is free and informed consent. Any procedure to assist human reproduction as well as AHR related research would require prior written consent of the donors based on the most current information on AHR as to how they would make that informed decision.
Important aspects of Bill C-56 are the provisions to ensure reproductive technologies are safe and healthy options. The proposed legislation will create regulations on the licensing of clinics, the proper handling of eggs, sperm and embryos as well as the number of children that could be born from a single sperm or egg donor.
This is not intended to limit a person's options but rather to ensure the well-being of all involved. Bill C-56 proposes to give children of assisted human reproduction full access to all medical information about their donor parents. As adults they could have access to the information about the identity of their donor parents, provided the donors have also consented to the release of this information.
Bill C-56 proposes to bring Canada up to date with measures taken in other major industrialized countries. We have drawn on the best practices as well as the experience from countries around the world.
Canada's approach is based on Canadian values and speaks to the growing problem of infertility and our increasing reliance on assisted human reproduction.
Bill C-56 would establish the first ever regulatory regime for Canadian fertility clinics. The legislation would prohibit the creation of in vitro embryos for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving assisted human reproduction procedures.
Until now these facilities have operated without regulation. Under the legislation there will be rules on informed consent as well as information in general. Couples who turn to in vitro fertilization or other AHR procedures need reliable information about the technology, the treatment as well as the chances for success.
Another one of the regulatory objectives of Bill C-56 is to ensure that promising research involving in vitro human embryos which are no longer needed for the purposes of reproduction is conducted in a manner consistent with Canadian values.
Research using in vitro embryos may answer many questions about the causes of infertility. It may also advance the development of treatments for spinal cord injuries, diseases like juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's or cancer.
As we know, embryonic stem cell research is not without controversy. Stem cells are immature precursors of cells that eventually will mature into specialized tissue such as heart, muscle, brain or spinal cord. It does however raise profound concerns about how to balance scientific progress with public safety and how to balance deeply held moral and ethical views that are inherent throughout this entire debate.
The legislation would ensure that promising research related to assisted human reproduction takes place within a regulated environment, an environment where health and safety come first and where Canadian values continue to be respected. The only acceptable source of embryos would be from fully informed couples. It would be up to the couple to choose whether their unused embryo would be discarded or donated to research or to other infertile Canadians.
To monitor and enforce the regulations set forth in this act, the proposed legislation creates the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada. This agency operates as a separate organizational entity from Health Canada and reports to parliament through the Minister of Health.
The legislation we see before us today is a product of extensive transparent review processes. It is the result of more than a decade of consultation, considering the difficult issues that face Canadians. The former Minister of Health took the unprecedented step of first submitting draft legislation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in order to engage in input from all Canadians. These consultations will continue with Bill C-56 as it makes its way through the legislative process.
Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, is meaningful, balanced legislation that is both respectful to Canadian values and to progress enabling research.
This is a beginning, not an ending. I remember very well being a member of the health committee when we looked at xeno transplantation. We had outstanding leading medical ethicists come and talk to us on these very troubling and moral laden questions. I have every confidence that this is a basis upon which we as a government and Canadians can build regarding this very important topic and move forward.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand this morning and speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-56.
Unfortunately, time after time in the House legislation comes in with little foundation, public support or acceptance. We have seen this with Bill C-68 which turned into such a fiasco for the government. We have seen it with Bill C-5, the species at risk act which the government apparently thinks is a good bill because everyone is angry about it. We have seen it with Bill C-15B which is being pushed by animal rights special interest groups who feel the government owes them something from the last election. We have seen it with Bill C-55, the security legislation which is a power grab that would extend the government's power and particularly the power of ministers. Why do we see so much legislation coming to the House in this way? The main reason is that the government is adrift.
Yesterday we heard the government's talking points on corruption. It continually tries to convince us that only government members know what it is like to respect this institution. Today we are dealing with a bill that has had absolutely no respect from the government and its leaders. The bill was sent to committee. The committee did a massive amount of interesting and good work. The minister took the committee's work, threw it all out and brought a different presentation to the House. This is yet another bill that has been introduced almost in a vacuum.
One reason for this is the government's desire to avoid the discussion we need. There are issues beyond this legislation that have not been adequately discussed. If we passed Bill C-56 much of the responsibility that should be parliament's would be passed on to one more bureaucracy that would be created by the bureaucracy. This would remove any opportunity for parliament to control or discuss what goes on in the field.
I will take a few minutes this morning to speak to a crucial issue and ask a couple of questions. First, what is human life and how do we treat it? How do we deal with human life? There are people who say we have talked about this enough and do not need to talk about it any more. There are others who think it is foolish to speak about it. However we need to have a discussion in Canada about what human life is and how to treat it and deal with it.
There are a number of places we can go for the discussion. Ethicists deal with these issues on a daily basis. It is their life's work. There are scientists who are deal with the issues. We need to talk with them. We need to go to historians to look back in history and see what has happened with issues of life and death. It is legitimate to talk with the different faith communities of our country because their focus is on issues of life and death. We should not cut them off from the discussion.
We need to involve political leaders. We were sent here for a reason, and that is to have this discussion. We need to go to regular people and get their opinions as my hon. colleague from Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke did so well. In the last few minutes she read a number of the comments she got from her survey. We also need to go to business participants because there is a business component to the legislation that needs to be discussed.
Bill C-56 comments on what human life is and how we should treat it. I will go through a couple of the bill's definitions. Under Bill C-56 an embryo:

--means a human organism during the first 56 days of its development--

Interestingly, a fetus under the bill:

--means a human organism during the period of its development beginning on the fifty-seventh day following fertilization or creation...and ending at birth.

The definitions in the bill indicate that the government is willing to consider the embryo and the fetus as human organisms. I will continue the definition along its logical path: Perhaps a baby means a human organism during the period of development from birth to two or three years; a child means a human organism during the period of development from three years to 18 years; and an adult means a human organism during the period of development from 18 years to natural death. All we are talking about are different stages of development of the same human organism.
Does the human organism consist only of biological material that we can deal with as we choose, or is there something unique about it? Scientists and sociologists can take us apart and show us piece by piece that we are similar to animals. We have physical systems that function similarly. Because of that, research is done on animals that we can apply and use when dealing with human situations and illnesses.
Many throughout history have argued and understood that the total of what constitutes a human organism is far more than the sum of its individual parts. Most successful cultures and civilizations have believed men and women to be unique. Many religious systems have been predicated on the assumption. Many scientific discoveries have come from the hypothesis.
We need to have a discussion about the issue because we are not only setting the stage for a bill. We are talking about legislating attitudes toward human beings in our society. The conclusion we reach in the House about the issue will have great consequences for Canadian society and culture.
Throughout the last century we saw what happened when governments decided individual human beings were not unique and were only basic economic units. In university I was bombarded for three years with Mr. Marx's political theory which states that all events can be analyzed from an economic perspective and that human beings fit into the same analysis.
We have seen Marx's theory lived out under socialist governments throughout the last century and in this century. There has been more brutality under such systems than under any other. Let us look at Mr. Stalin. To gain control of a segment of his economic society he completely destroyed the middle class agricultural community by starving it to death. The individuals in that society were worth nothing to him because he needed to achieve an economic goal.
We have seen this in China which continues to persecute people and deny human rights. The individual means nothing under China's system as it tries to keep its economic structure moving along. We have see it in Sudan where war is being waged against individuals for the sake of profit. When weak positions are taken regarding human uniqueness, individuality and creativity there is a loss of compassion for other people.
We are not immune to this. The Liberal government has refused to deal with a number of issues involving the value of human life. About six weeks ago several MPs had the privilege of meeting with a number of police officers, customs officials and others who deal with the issue of child pornography. These people are fed up with the government's attitude and its refusal to deal with the issue. Anyone who has seen such material and understands what is going on in the lives of those children knows something needs to be done immediately. Yet the government insists on doing nothing. It has failed to move. Child pornography is repugnant and abhorrent. The Liberal government's failure to deal with the issue touches the heart of how it views its citizens.
There are a couple of other questions we need to deal with and talk about. We need to look at the idea of when human life begins. Our present law says human life begins at birth. This is nonsense. It is ridiculous from a number of perspectives, particularly a scientific perspective. The beginning of human life is at conception when the union of genetic material occurs and completion of the DNA package takes place.
Science has thrown a red herring into the whole discussion by arbitrarily choosing a number, day 14, as the point where the embryo becomes something more than it was on day 13. They want to be able to continue experimentation during the first 13 days so they suggest something happens on the 14th day that makes the embryo a different being. That is not the case.
Scientists have failed to address the issue of when life begins. They run the risk of disqualifying themselves by not dealing honestly with the issue. As we heard earlier this morning, for many of them the issue has become an opportunity to make a quick buck. It has become an economic decision rather than a scientific or ethical one.
My time is winding down. We will be addressing a number of other issues when the bill comes back to parliament. I will talk later about what human life is worth. We talked a bit about whether it is unique and when it begins. However what is it worth? Parliament needs to look at what we consider to be the value of human beings in our culture.
There are two interesting and ironic business realities in the legislation. Under Bill C-56 surrogate mothers would be paid absolutely nothing. They would not be allowed to make money from their commitment to surrogacy. On the other hand, companies in Canada would be allowed to make millions of dollars from research.
M. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-56. The purpose of the bill is to create a legislative framework for assisted reproduction, as well as to prohibit certain practices such as cloning, the sale of human embryos, and the creation of chimera. It also addresses DNA, that is genome alteration, and the issue of cloning for therapeutic purposes. The third element of the bill addresses the creation of an agency, one of the responsibilities of which will be monitoring research in this field.
First I would like to address the aspect that seems to have captured the attention of most of my colleagues who have had the opportunity to speak so far: stem cell research. All of my colleagues have made the distinction between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. A number of them seem to acknowledge the usefulness of research using adult stem cells but seem opposed to research using embryonic stem cells.
I will address the issue. A colleague on this side of the House criticized the Canadian Institutes of Health Research because only 1% of research money for stem cells is dedicated to adult stem cells. This would stand to reason because the ability to use adult stem cells is rather recent. There is a certain lag in allocating research money to recently discovered areas of research. I expect that over the next months and years we will see an increased percentage of money allocated to adult stem cell research.
However that does not detract from the valid position the government is taking in allowing embryonic stem cell research. A number of groups in our society look forward with great hope to the results of such efforts. I have received correspondence from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation which is supportive of it. I will quote a respected gentlemen from our community, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, who published an article in the Ottawa Citizen earlier this week. Rabbi Bulka said:

For those who were silent when embryos were being discarded--and that includes just about everyone--why the sudden outrage? It makes no sense to be silent when the embryos are being discarded but to scream “murder” when the embryos are being used for potentially life-saving research.

He also said:

As regards the slippery slope, I find it hard to defend that argument if doing so compromises the potential to cure pernicious illnesses. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with using embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

I concur with that view. Perhaps the attention of the agency should be focused on the number of embryos that can be created to assist families in having children. The surrogate debate we are having on abortion is ill placed and ill advised. We should be focusing on the research potential of embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be discarded.
My other concern is that banning such research would stand to harm us in the long term. Other countries have not banned it. Great Britain has taken the position that embryonic stem cell research should be accepted. The United States, our neighbour to the south, has stated that public money can only be used for existing stem lines. Nothing bans private research.
According to the World Health Organization $8 billion of research funding went into genetics research in the year 2000. Some $6 billion of it was spent in the United States. Most was from the private sector. If people think no embryonic stem cell research is going on in the United States I suggest they think again. That is not the case.
Banning embryonic stem cell research when no one else is doing so would erode our research capacity over time. It would put us in the unfortunate situation of not being able to provide the kinds of medical advances to our citizenship that other countries are providing theirs. It would be a rather irresponsible position to take.
I have other reservations about the bill, but I will still support it because of the three year review. One of these reservations is that we might be too restrictive in other areas as well. For example, we would ban the transmission of genetic modifications to our DNA. There are 4,000 genetic diseases, so if I can cure genetic diseases in my DNA and transmit them to my children, I would be guilty of a crime according to the bill. Yet if I transmit the disease I am not. That is a reasoning that has to be verified.
I support the legislation now because it is still a science at a beginning stage. We are not yet sure of the consequences of changing our DNA and therefore the prudent method would be to say no for now. I am willing to go along because in three years the bill would be revised. The ability to cure some of the 4,000 genetic diseases affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadians, if not millions, is an idea that we should not abandon. We have to be careful there.
My other reservation, and it is a controversial one, is therapeutic cloning. If we were to develop therapeutic cloning to the point where diseases can be cured, would we not be wise to lock that away forever? Our understanding of human genetics is at its early stages so perhaps we should leave well enough alone in terms of going along with this. I am prepared to go along with it as long as there is a three year review in the bill.
During the debate, which I have followed fairly closely, two or three other points were raised. I would like to address two of these.
Our NDP colleagues advanced the idea that the board that would administer the agency created by this bill should be made up of an equal number of men and women. I find this an attractive idea and trust that they will support this bill so that it may be referred to committee and this question studied there. I personally am very open to this idea, depending on the arguments advanced. We shall see.
The other argument my NDP colleagues raised for voting against this bill concerns the matter of patenting life forms.
They cannot support the bill since it does not contain prohibitions against issuing patents either on human genes or on live forms. I agree that we should ban the patenting of human genes, a practice that has been going on in this country for nearly 20 years. We should be careful about issuing patents on life forms. We will see what the supreme court decides on the Harvard mouse case presumably some time this fall.
I agree with the NDP that parliament should initiate measures to ban cloning. However this need not be in the bill. As has been argued by a member of the NDP, it would be better if it were in a separate bill. The patent legislation we have is incapable of dealing with the science and the progress we are making in genetics. We should review it and create another bill entirely.
My colleagues from the NDP should consider supporting the bill and not opposing it on the grounds that it does not contain prohibitions on patenting of a higher life form, of human genes, and the notion of having male-female parity on the board of the agency. One of these issues could be addressed in a separate piece of legislation and the other could be addressed in committee.
Overall the government has presented a balanced bill, but one that will not meet everyone's acquiescence. That seldom happens of course. The bill would provide sufficient protection yet would not ban our ability to make progress in curing diseases that afflict too many of us.

Statements by Members
AntarcticaMr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been associated with Antarctica since the first over-wintering party of 1899. Hugh Blackwall Evans of Vermilion, Alberta, was a member of that party.
Recently NRCan scientists, using Canadian RADARSAT imagery, discovered a huge ice stream flowing into the Filchner Ice Shelf. This has been named the Blackwall Ice Stream in honour of Mr. Evans. This is the first time that the Geographical Names Board of Canada has approved a name in Antarctica. We extend best wishes to Eleanor Evans in Vermilion and other family members.
More recently, through Nahanni Productions of Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Pat and Rosemary Keough published a book that includes 330 magnificent colour prints of Antarctica. The book weighs 12.6 kilograms. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in Antarctica and a reinforced bookshelf.
Interest in Antarctica is increasing across Canada. Canadians feel that we should ratify the environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty soon.
National DefenceCheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, the supply chain project at the department of defence is a threat to national security with no demonstrated cost savings.
Already, we have the case of the NATO Flying Training in Canada program which, in the words of the auditor general, saw a 20 year $2.8 billion contract awarded to Liberal Party favourite Bombardier without competition and without proper justification for sole sourcing. Existing profit policies for sole source contracts were not followed either.
So much for the new rules the Prime Minister talks about. The rules are there, the government just never follows them. Considering the abuse that is currently happening with government contracts, people in my riding are afraid that by privatizing the supply chain it will mean big profits to Liberal Party supporters at the expense of local jobs and national security.
The men and women who serve in our armed forces deserve the best. Stop the supply chain project now before it is too late.
National Missing Children's DayKaren Redman: Mr. Speaker, May 25 is National Missing Children's Day, a day of awareness which draws attention to the thousands of Canadian children who go missing each year. It also highlights the RCMP's National Missing Children Service and the release of its national report on Canada's missing children.
Since its creation the National Missing Children Service has been an invaluable source of information on missing children in Canada. Its annual report ensures that policy and prevention and policing approaches are up to date and therefore the most effective.
The National Missing Children Service is part of Canada's national Our Missing Children Program. Citizenship is recognized in the annual report, officially released tomorrow, as playing an important role in protecting Canadian children. Citizenship and Immigration Canada identifies, intercepts and recovers missing children at national borders as well as within Canada. Immigration officers play a role in all cases involving non-Canadians and non-resident visitors.
By continuing to work together, the Government of Canada will do all it can to ensure the safe and early return of missing children.
Hearing Awareness MonthMr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that May has been designated Hearing Awareness Month by the Hearing Foundation of Canada.
One out of 10 Canadians is profoundly affected by hearing loss. Six out of 1,000 babies born in Canada have hearing loss. Since 1979 the Hearing Foundation of Canada has raised millions of dollars to support services for deaf, deafened and hard of hearing Canadians. The Hearing Foundation of Canada urges Canadians to join in the fight against hearing loss by avoiding over-exposure to noise, wearing hearing protection and donating to medical research through events such as the August 25 Run'n Roll for Research in Ottawa.
I ask members to join me in wishing the Hearing Foundation of Canada a successful Hearing Awareness Month.
National Missing Children's DayMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 23 years ago a six year old boy named Etan Patz disappeared while walking to catch his bus to school. Since 1986, May 25, the anniversary of Etan's disappearance, has been recognized as National Missing Children's Day. It is a day for renewed hope and a day to remember.
The Missing Children Society of Canada asks Canadians from coast to coast to help light the way home for these missing children by turing on their porch lights the evening of May 25. For the families of missing children, the porch lights, which will shine brightly tomorrow night, are a reminder of the hope we all share for the safe return of their children.
I call on all hon. members and on all Canadians to join me in lighting the way home for missing children Saturday night.
The EnvironmentMr. James Moore (Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the summer boating season is upon us and with it comes the opportunity for my constituents who live near recreational water to bathe in human sewage. Many parents will join their children in boating in Bedwell Bay, up Indian Arm and around Burrard Inlet unaware that passing pleasure craft, small cruise ships and yachts are dumping human waste into their public waters.
For a Liberal government that is telling Canadians it is serious about protecting, safeguarding and cleaning up our environment I would think that ending the dumping of human waste into waters bordering residential areas would be priority number one in an age where Canadians are increasingly aware and concerned about water quality issues. Communities that are not on the short list of no discharge zones are having to battle bureaucracy to have themselves added. In fact the only community, Tribune Bay, which has tried to add itself to the list, is still waiting 16 months later.
Regulations which should have addressed this are 16 months overdue. It is time for the government to act so that my constituents do not have to swim in sewage being dumped in the waters around my riding.
National Missing Children's DayMr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May 25 is National Missing Children's Day.
On this special day, our thoughts go out in hope to the thousands of families throughout Canada who have had a child gone missing. This is an opportunity to stand together with these families that are thinking of their children today and every day.
This day is also intended to highlight the success of the Canada's national “Our Missing Children Program” designed to return missing children to their legitimate parents.
The national missing children's service and its partners have helped find 4,841 children. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who have contributed to the federal “Our Missing Children Program” for the hope they have brought to thousands of families across Canada affected by the disappearance of a child.
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May 25 is designated National Missing Children's Day. In 2001 alone, 66,994 missing children were reported to various police services in Canada.
Some of these children are victims of custody battles between parents and are abducted by one of their own parents. Others are abducted by predators, who need treatment. Still others choose to run away on their own, because they cannot bear to suffer any more.
Instead of pointing the finger, we must do everything within our power to end the suffering and trauma experienced by these children.
The emotional and moral damage inflicted upon these children will have a significant impact on the healthy and normal development that children have the right to experience.
To all these suffering children, we extend our love and our determination to eradicate this problem. We give them our love.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join all my colleagues to stress the importance of National Missing Children's Day.
Since 1995, the National Missing Children Society of Canada has been sponsoring the annual “Light the Way Home” campaign. This initiative symbolizes a joint effort to make it easier for children who are victims of abduction, runaways and even young adults who have gone missing, to return home.
The campaign encourages all Canadians to turn on their porch lights tomorrow evening to raise awareness about missing children.
I invite all Canadians to join the “Light the Way Home” campaign tomorrow evening. This small gesture will help restore hope among the families of missing children.
National DefenceMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, retired Major Bruce Henwood, a 25 year Canadian forces veteran, lost both his legs in 1995 while serving in Croatia as a United Nations military observer.
One would expect that having lost two of his limbs while in the line of duty he would be compensated. Not so. Because Major Henwood receives a military and disability pension he cannot be compensated. In other words his legs are worth nothing.
When we send our men and women into harm's way we have a responsibility to look after them if they become sick or wounded. Unfortunately, the case of Major Henwood is not an isolated one. Too often when our soldiers become ill or injured they are abandoned by the very government which demands loyalty of them. Pride, loyalty and honour must be a two way street. We owe it to these soldiers and their families to ensure that they receive the best of care and adequate compensation where necessary.
Shame on the government for its treatment of Major Henwood. It is time that his case be reviewed and that he be given the compensation that he and his family so rightly deserve.
National Missing Children's DayMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo--Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1986 the solicitor general of Canada created National Missing Children's Day on May 25 to raise awareness of the almost 60,000 children who are reported missing in Canada every year.
At the same time the RCMP created a National Missing Children Service. It now works closely with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in a national program called “Our Missing Children”.
Since 1995 the Missing Children Society of Canada has sponsored a “Light the Way Home” campaign. This campaign is intended to raise awareness about the plight of victims of abduction, runaways and young adults at risk. It asks Canadians to turn on their porch lights tomorrow evening as a symbolic gesture to raise awareness about missing children.
I ask all Canadians to turn on their porch lights tomorrow. This small gesture will provide renewed hope to the families of runaway and abducted children.
Anti-Ballistic MissilesMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on June 13 the anti-ballistic missile treaty will expire, after its unilateral abandonment by the Bush administration.
The termination of the 30 year old ABM treaty will leave an international legal void that will allow the weaponization of space and permit the development of space based systems and space based components of the U.S. mational missile defense system to go forward.
Canadians and citizens around the world should be alarmed at such heightened militarization of space.
Canada can play an important role in stopping the weaponization of space by adopting, supporting and promoting the space preservation treaty which would implement a ban on space based weapons and on the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space, and immediately order the permanent termination of research, testing, production and deployment of all space based weapons.
National Missing Children's DayMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 2, RCMP officials will attend the baseball game played by the Ottawa Lynx, the local professional team, and they will distribute kits that will include instructions to photograph children attending the game and take their fingerprints.
If, through some misfortune, one of these children were to go missing, this information would help authorities find them. Each year, thousands of children go missing in Canada, which generates a feeling of horror for many parents and friends.
Since May 25, is National Missing Children's Day, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the organizers of this event and all those who help find missing children by holding special identification activities.
I also want to encourage non-profit organizations and private groups to make a commitment to this important cause.
Fleur de lys FlagMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, next Sunday, a parade will be held on the streets of Montreal to pay tribute to the national flag of Quebec. It flew from the tower of the Quebec Parliament Building for the first time on January 21, 1948. That seemingly recent date notwithstanding, the fleur de lys is in fact one of the oldest flags in Canada, and its various components recall many centuries of our rich and brilliant history.
A unifying symbol for an entire people, the flag of Quebec is also a symbol of durability, having transcended history in order to become the very incarnation of Quebecois identity. From the moment it was officially reintroduced, the fleur de lys flag has symbolized a deep-seated desire for change, and has made it possible to eliminate the last remnants of a colonial heritage that has become obsolete. In lowering the Union Jack and raising the fleur de lys, Quebec affirmed its own identity, loud and clear.
Our flag has been proudly unfurled by the winds of reform which swept through Quebec during the Quiet Revolution and has quietly multiplied in numbers, to such an extent that it is now found just about everywhere. The fleur de lys flag is not only a reminder of our rich history, but also a symbol of what we are and what we hope to become in future.
Minister of Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, on March 16 and 17 the minister of public works and family stayed at the palais Boulay. For some strange reason this sojourn was only paid for two months later with an $800 donation to the local church.
Imagine for a moment a cash starved church waiting two months to cash an $800 donation.
Let us get to the bottom of this. The minister of public works claims that his daughter-in-law wrote the questionable Royal Bank cheque No. 355 on March 18. It is easy for this cloud of scandal to be blown away. Let the minister of public works table his daughter-in-law's sequential cheques. When was cheque No. 354 written and cashed and when was cheque No. 356 written and cashed?
It is time for the minister of public works to finally rise to the same standards he demanded of others when he sat in opposition. When were the cheques written and when were they cashed? If the minister cannot produce them he had best resign.
Multiple Sclerosis Awareness MonthMr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that May has been designated Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month.
Multiple sclerosis, or MS, is a neurological disease that results in loss of balance, impaired speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and paralysis. Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world and MS rates may be on the rise.
The MS Society had a record setting year in 2001, raising more than $24 million for research and services. Over 80% of revenues came from donations and special fundraising events. Thanks to donors, the society has directed $6 million to the MS research program and new treatments for MS have been discovered.
During the month of May volunteers across the country will be taking part in the MS carnation campaign in support of MS research and services.
I ask all members to please join me in wishing the MS Society a successful month and I urge all Canadians to join in this effort.
TD Canada Trust ScholarshipMrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the people of the riding of Blackstrap have many outstanding young individuals in their midst. Today I would like to take a moment to recognize high school graduates who are making a difference in their communities.
Recently I had the opportunity to meet with Elizabeth Pryor from Hawardern who attends Loreburn High School and is one of the 20 recipients of the TD Canada Trust Scholarship for outstanding community leadership.
This spring, several students from Blackstrap travelled to Ottawa to be honoured for their accomplishments back home. I was honoured to meet with Cosanna Preston, Daniel Ramage, Louis-Philippe Dubois and Uliana Kojalianko who were just a part of the Forum for Young Canadians. Uliana was on the Hill along with Jamie Dzikowski to be honoured for the Rotary Club's adventure in citizenship program.
It is indeed a pleasure to see so many young people having such a positive impact on the community.
I would like to congratulate these honourees along with the numerous others from across Canada for their hard work and dedication to education.

Oral Question Period
Leadership CampaignsMr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that an appropriate minister would be here today but I will ask a question instead to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister had this to say.

...I have not personally committed myself to a leadership race but...I have indicated that if, as and when money is raised, contributors must accept that their names will be made public whatever rules may later apply.

Of course on the same day we learned that his Toronto bagman was already privately counselling potential donors on how to hide their donations to his leadership campaign.
The Speaker: I am sorry but time has expired for the hon. member's question. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will want to respond to that.
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I said yesterday. If I am a candidate I intend to make the names of all the contributors public and I hope the Leader of the Opposition would be prepared to do likewise from his campaign.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, typically nothing is made public until we read about it in the press.
Yesterday the Prime Minister promised a set of rules that no one has seen in nine years and no one believes the government will ever follow. Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the reason the government is again delaying the announcement of any reforms is so that first it can be sure that all the loopholes are in place?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition comes to this place proclaiming himself to be reasonable, sensible and interested in honest debate, he might consider the standards that have been set in Canada in relation to those in other democracies, particularly on the Westminster formula. If he is honest in looking at that he will determine that the standards set in Canada under the government are among the best and most exacting in the world.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, let me ask this then. At a minimum, would the Deputy Prime Minister concede that he should have told us about the approach that his Toronto fundraisers were using for his leadership campaign, but having not told us, that it was inappropriate and should not have been pursued?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood that question. I do not know what it has to do with the administration of a government.
The Prime Minister has indicated to the House and publicly that he intends to set standards for ministers who are raising money for political purposes. That is an important element in this.
All of us need to accept, and that includes the Leader of the Opposition, that standards of probity must be followed, which means that anyone who thinks they want to be the Prime Minister of Canada had better be prepared to release the names of their contributors as--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Battlefords--Lloydminster.
Government ContractsMr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords--Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the public works minister tried to deflect his personal responsibility for another untendered contract for $56,000 to Groupe Everest by saying that he was not the minister at the time.
As usual, that answer was totally irrelevant and inaccurate. He was personally in charge of the Francophonie games and it was his office that negotiated that untendered contract.
In light of the fact that the Prime Minister and the minister of public works both admit that mistakes were made and continued to be made, which is a great start, is the Prime Minister, in his newfound zeal for ethics, ready to commit to a fully independent judicial inquiry?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a contract for $56,000 was granted to Groupe Everest with regard to the Francophonie games. The minister at the time was the House leader of the government and was responsible for the Francophonie games. A document, called une entente contractuelle, was drafted but it was not signed by his office. After its consideration the draft document was accepted as a contract in November 1999 with Groupe Everest. All of this was handled in accordance with treasury board guidelines.
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, as usual the government ministers are wearing out their own credibility and the patience of all Canadians by hiding behind obscurity, sleight of hand and treasury board guidelines that can be shifted back and forth.
As these files progress, it is not difficult for anybody out there to connect the dots and see a clear picture of Liberal abuse of ethics.
We all know there are very special relationships between the minister of public works and Groupe Everest. Will the government at least freeze all business with Groupe Everest until a full public inquiry can be held?
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I would also add that in connection with this particular contract a number of other firms were considered at the time, as is the practice of public works.
I would simply repeat to the member that the contract was awarded in accordance with treasury board guidelines and, with regard to this particular one, it was done in a fair, open and transparent manner.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps on saying that the House of Commons is the ideal place to ask questions and that the ministers are here to answer them.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to us how, in this House, we can ask questions of Jean Brault, Charles Guité, Pierre Tremblay, Alfonso Gagliano and all the other witnesses involved in the Liberal network?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, if there is a question about the government's administration of contracts, the member may ask the minister.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, the minister still needs to be present and we still need to be sure that he will provide answers, which we have been waiting weeks for him to do.
Worse yet, one of the resources available to parliamentarians is committees. Yesterday, however, the Liberal majority arranged to keep problematic witnesses away, thus making it completely impossible for us to get to the bottom of the Liberal network.
I therefore ask the government, which is still refusing to launch a public inquiry, where we may put all our questions to all the witnesses?
John Manley: Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are perhaps six members of the Bloc Quebecois here today to ask those questions.
In fact, if there is a problem, they have an opportunity to ask questions here, and there is also the process of committee of the whole, during which she and her colleagues may ask very specific questions.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the minister should not be giving any lessons to anybody: there are only seven ministers in the House today.
The Prime Minister keeps telling us that a public inquiry is not necessary because MPs can ask all the questions they want in the House. The problem is that the government refuses to answer the questions that we ask. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to shed light on the matter, to foster the trust that allows the government to govern.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister to order a public inquiry that will finally provide answers to the questions to which the government is refusing to reply?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member does not know how to count either.
In any case, I can state that, if they want to ask specific questions, they can do so not only today, but every day, during oral question period. Next week, the House will go into committee of the whole and this will also be an opportunity to ask questions.
There are a number of opportunities to do so. If questions are put, it is up to the public to decide if the replies are adequate.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works, who is a former government House leader, knows the rules of the House of Commons well. He knows that members cannot call witnesses in the House. He knows that committees, which are controlled by the government majority, refuse to hear some witnesses.
Should the minister not admit that the only forum that can shed light on the current situation is an independent public inquiry?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that, every day, a number of witnesses appear before House committees.
We are also well aware that he is fishing, he is just asking questions that are not relevant to the existing situation.
Ethical StandardsBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to coach the Deputy Prime Minister, but he might have mentioned that the Leader of the Opposition was the head of a secretly funded organization before he came here called the National Citizen's Coalition which refuses to divulge its sources of funding.
On the same subject, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether, in the proposals that the government is considering bringing forward, it is considering not just changes with respect to disclosure but also with respect to--
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to be coached by the member for Winnipeg--Transcona on many different matters, but unfortunately I did not hear the conclusion of his question.
However I would indicate though that what we are trying to accomplish is greater transparency and greater openness to give the people of Canada the ability to judge whether they agree with Transparency International which already has evaluated us as one of the most open--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona.
National Drinking Water StandardsBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the government was considering changes not just to disclosure with respect to political donations but changes with respect to the acceptability of certain political donations. For instance, changes have been made in Manitoba recently. Are they looking at that kind of change?
I intended to also ask him about another matter having to do with a different kind of pollution, not the pollution of money but water. What does the Deputy Prime Minister, as the minister in charge of infrastructure, intend to do about the recommendations of the second Walkerton inquiry report which calls on the federal government to play an expanded role in setting national standards and bringing in a national safe drinking water act.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, with respect to propriety of political donations, I think it will be important for members of not just the government but of all political parties to look carefully at all of the rules to consider whether they meet the current standards that are expected by the public. In reviewing that, the Prime Minister has undertaken to do so.
With respect to water, clearly the Walkerton report is something that we will have to take into account. However, I can assure the hon. member that water and water management is part of the--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough.
Government ContractsMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the Prime Minister if he knew of any other ministers who had vacationed on the mounting Everest tab. He told us we were on a fishing expedition. It looks like we needed a bigger net. We found that the immigration minister also stayed at a Boulay condo in 1997.
Palais Boulay pyjama parties aside, these ministerial sleepovers have got to stop.
The Prime Minister avoided this question yesterday. Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm how many members of his cabinet bedded down with the Boulays, who were benefactors and beneficiaries of his government?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the question. It implies that the member is going to be supportive of the Prime Minister's announcement that standards need to be introduced not just for ministers but for members of parliament and members of the Senate as well because the incident that he refers to occurred when the member was not a minister, not a member of the cabinet at all.
High standards are important for all of us. That requires therefore that we all consider what standards we want to live with that will meet the test of public expectation.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration was formerly employed by Groupe Polygone. That same group received millions of dollars from the federal sponsorship program.
That same minister admits in a media report that during his time as sports minister he “pushed all the time” for federal sponsorship. Sponsorship contracts more than doubled during his tenure. A large majority of these sponsorships were handled by Groupe Everest, a company that the minister bunked with for a few weeks.
With this growing epidemic of cabinet conflicts and cozy contracts, does the Deputy Prime Minister not, in keeping with the Prime Minister's initiative yesterday--
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I really think the hon. member has gone way too far with this, trying to impugn the actions of a member when the member was not even a member of cabinet.
Members of parliament also have a right to a personal life. We will look at the appropriate code for members and for senators in the months to come. He needs to be looking himself at just exactly how much of his life he wants to continue to put on public display.
Ethical StandardsJames Moore: Mr. Speaker, in a letter that Mr. Gavsie writes in order to raise money for the Deputy Prime Minister to replace the Prime Minister, and I guess he is like a lot of Canadians, he is waiting for a change at the top, he said:

On the other hand, some businesses may, at their own risk, decide to write off these contributions for tax purposes as a business expense.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he consider it an appropriate tax write-off for businesses to influence cabinet ministers who are running for leadership when these same cabinet ministers are often giving them government contracts?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of National Revenue with responsibility for tax administration, I want to assure the hon. member that everyone is expected to obey the law. If there are any questions about inappropriate tax expenditures, my department investigates them all appropriately.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, what the minister does not understand is that government members keep saying that ethics and legality are somehow synonymous. They are not. Ethics and legality are very different things. In fact, we should try to live not just at the status of the law but above the law and live at a higher standard.
Alfonso Gagliano failed that standard. The current Minister of Public Works and Government Services is failing that standard. Now it appears that the Deputy Prime Minister is not living up to the higher ethical standard that the Liberal government said that it was elected to impose.
Why will the government not put in real laws that will finally give Canadians a reason to think that politics are not corrupt and lower that number of Canadians from 70% down to about one half of 1% who thinks this place is corrupt?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, let me say very clearly that although I used to give people tax advice and I was paid a good deal more to do that then than I am now, I do not do it any more. First, I do not condone the notion that people should try to deduct expenditures that do not fit in the appropriate categories. That is not acceptable and I want to make that clear.
Second, the test here is really transparency and openness. I call upon the Alliance Party to meet that test as well, the test for example with respect to its own recent leadership campaign.
Government ContractsMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière--L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with time, the circle of Liberals involved broadens and business relationships grow stronger.
Not only is the minister of public works involved, but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with his cozy relationship with Groupe Everest, the Minister of Justice, leadership contenders, including the Deputy Prime Minister and his fundraisers, who benefit from government contracts. Basically, it is a fine patronage network.
Does the government understand that only a public inquiry will allow us to get to the bottom of this fine Liberal network?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, these are baseless allegations. Once again they are making allegations without having the facts.
It is unacceptable to criticize the reputations of people who are in public life to do the best job possible for the Canadian population. By their criticism, they are implicating all members of parliament.
The issue here is not about ministerial ethics, but instead, exaggeration by the members of the opposition.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can try as he will to cover up his government's reprehensible acts by diverting our attention with measures to fight corruption, but people will not be fooled.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that a public inquiry is not only necessary, but imperative to rebuild public trust in democratic institutions and the people who represent them?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the member does not think that the efforts of the auditor general are sufficient.
She has the ability to consider every aspect of the issues involved. She also has the ability to refer the matter, if necessary, to the police. This is truly sufficient.
In any case, it is important to consider the proposal, the eight points that the Prime Minister already laid out yesterday to help—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
Correctional Service CanadaMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general stated on more than one occasion that incentive payments, some as high as $700 a week, made by CORCAN to federal inmates was a one shot deal and that Correctional Service Canada said it would never happen again.
We have now learned that in the last fiscal year close to $2 million, $1.79 million, was paid for incentive allowances. It does not sound like a one shot deal from here.
We have asked the solicitor general time and time again and we ask him this again today. How many federal inmates have received incentive payments?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked a specific question previously on one situation and the fact was that about $700 was paid, and that was in one institution. Correctional Service Canada is evaluating the situation to ensure that this does not happen again.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general says that $700 was paid in one institution. It was $700 per inmate in one institution that received the incentive payment.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Per week.
Kevin Sorenson: Yes, per week.
A response like that is absolutely pathetic. The response from Correctional Service Canada is not much better. We ask officials and they say that such information is not readily available.
Will the solicitor general finally come clean and answer the question? How many inmates received incentive payments and how much?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, in Correctional Service Canada we have of course punishment for the crime and then rehabilitation. It is an incentive program of course in place to ensure that the people who are trying to be rehabilitated have some incentive.
The fact of the matter in the case that my hon. colleague brought up was correct. It was inappropriate. It was too much. I indicated that previously. I indicated that Correctional Service Canada said it would not happen again. It is evaluating the situation to ensure that it does not happen again.
Government ContractsMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he had learned in his first year of law school over 40 years ago that, when someone signed a cheque, payment was made, legally speaking.
After my three years of law and bar admission courses, I know that, under Quebec civil law, payment has been made when a cheque is honoured by the bank. As a reference, the minister may consult page 500 of Traité des obligations by professor Jean-Louis Beaudoin.
Given that the rent was paid two months after the minister's stay at the cottage owned by the president of Everest, would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that we have every reason to want to get to the bottom of this matter, given the appearance of conflict of interest?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the member apparently has doubts as to whether the minister wanted to pay for the time he spent there, but he paid with a cheque. There is nothing wrong with that. One has no control over a cheque once it is handed over. If he had paid cash, for instance, how could he prove that he had done so? He paid by cheque. He has no control over the cheque once he has handed it over. So what does the member want?
Michel Guimond: What we want, Mr. Speaker, is the truth and only an independent public inquiry will give it to us.
The Prime Minister told the House that the situation would have been serious if the minister had not paid. Now that it is becoming increasingly clear that the minister did not pay, will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that all this confusion makes an independent public inquiry into this whole business necessary? That is what we want.
John Manley: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister tried to wrap his government's advertising contracts in the mantle of national unity. He presented a list of seven initiatives his government has taken since the referendum of 1995 to promote national unity. The final item on this list was his government's unity advertising campaign, in which Liberal Party donors were given untendered contracts.
I think we can all recognize that this item has nothing to do with national unity and everything to do with rewards for Liberal contributors, but I would love to hear the Prime Minister set me straight.
What exactly is it about cronyism, favouritism and overspending that promotes national unity?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think the point the Prime Minister made yesterday was a very clear one. That is we had experienced for quite a number of years, including years in government by a party that was very closely in line with the hon. member, a disappearance of the federal presence in the province of Quebec.
When we saw the results of the referendum, of course there was concern that in districts and regions around the province the federal government's contributions were unknown and its presence was unknown.
If the hon. member wants to get up and say he does not think the federal government should have a visible presence in that province or others let him say so.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I guess we are going to be really well served now because the government's latest bid to foster national unity through advertising involved spending $2.1 million to run the names of 15 federal agencies in the credits for a TV mini-series. Even the intergovernmental affairs minister admits that this kind of advertising does nothing to promote Canada in Quebec.
Here is a thought. On the theory that Quebecers might find it more enticing to belong to a federation in which government is open and transparent than one in which it rewards its friends and hides the evidence, why would the government not cease all sponsorship spending pending the outcome of the auditor general's investigation?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, this is actually a little more interesting area of debate. Should there be sponsorship spending?
On the one hand we have members of the opposition writing letters asking for money under the sponsorship program for events in their constituencies. Why? I assume they want to raise the profile of the federal government, but more fundamentally, many of these events and programs occur only when some public money is there to help them happen. Is that good or is that bad?
The hon. member wants it all stopped, but that would mean that we will have to say no to his House leader who--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.
JusticeDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In a recent study by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health it was noted that children who were victims of bullying stopped regarding school as a place of learning but instead associated it with mental, emotional and physical abuse. Other studies have shown that bullying is a marker for future criminal behaviour and that it can have serious long term negative effects on the self-esteem of its victims.
I want to know what the government is doing to respond to concerns about this issue.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising this very important question about bullying. It is a concern not only in Canada but in many countries around the world.
Through our national crime prevention strategy, we as a government are involved in a bit more than 100 projects across Canada in order to deal with the question of bullying. It is not normal behaviour. We have to make sure that we will succeed in fighting back at the behaviour of bullying.
Yesterday morning I launched an ad campaign in regard to bullying. As well, with stakeholders, we have developed information kits.
Social HousingMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the National Housing and Homelessness Network report card graphically shows that the government's supposed housing program is in a complete mess. In fact, only Quebec has met its commitment.
The government has failed to respond to the ongoing crisis in Toronto by opening up the Fort York armoury, and in Vancouver today aboriginal groups are protesting the withholding of funds for desperately needed shelters.
I ask the minister responsible for housing, will he put some guts into the housing agreement, get the armoury open and deliver on the promise for affordable housing in every part of Canada?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I know that nobody notices but I also have responsibility for CMHC. I am very pleased that we did have in last December's budget $680 million made available for housing across Canada.
I am also very optimistic that we will see in the very near future the ability to enter into an agreement with the province of Ontario, which will see that money begin to flow in Ontario as well and address the very critical shortage of adequate, affordable housing in the province of Ontario.
National DefenceMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the defence minister. The government has demonstrated a questionable track record when it comes to managing contracts on behalf of all Canadians.
Last week Colonel De Blois, national defence privatization guru, admitted that contracting out of the military supply chain is a very risky business. DND's own documents showed that there will be no savings or improvement in service as a result of the contract to Tibbett's of England.
Will the defence minister now stop the ultimate service delivery of the supply chain before he does even more damage to the men and women of our military?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a business case was prepared. In fact, the auditor general said it was a good, strong business case for going this route. There will be savings. Savings are estimated to be some $74 million a year.
The people who are involved in the service now can be transferred to the company that will carry out the contract, fully 100% of them, at the same or better pay and benefits than they already have, guaranteed for a period of seven years.
It seems to me that the department wins. We get a better, stronger service, we save money and the employees are going to win in this as well.
Government ContractsMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Deputy Prime Minister said that the new goal of the government is an atmosphere of transparency and openness and even challenged the opposition to meet the test. I have a test for the government.
VIA Rail refuses to provide any information on questionable untendered advertising contracts and says it will only respond to and answer to the government. Under this new veil of transparency and openness, will the government provide all the information on those questionable untendered advertising documents?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may inquire directly to VIA Rail to find out how they operate.
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, the government clearly has failed the test. It said it has a new atmosphere of openness and transparency and yet would not answer the most simple question.
What we want to know is who ordered this disturbing clampdown on information by VIA Rail. Was it the Prime Minister's former chief of staff or was it the Prime Minister himself? Have other clampdown orders been applied to other government agencies and foundations?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the last thing the hon. member wants is a new excessive nationalization process for all crown corporations.
Again, it is always possible to ask VIA Rail about its administrative procedures. I am convinced that they can be transparent.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, government rules require that construction contracts in excess of $40,000 must be tendered. Agriculture Canada, in awarding two contracts to Nordic Industries of Saskatoon, clearly violated these rules.
Could anyone in the government explain why the agriculture department broke these rules in awarding these contracts?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take the question under advisement on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I am not aware of this matter but I will make sure that I bring it to his attention.
All contracts are mostly contracted through public works. I am not aware of these particular contracts, but I will certainly take the matter under advisement.
Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, breaking the rules seems to be a regular routine with the government. Canadians deserve better.
The government is now covering its backside by terminating one of the contracts with Nordic Industries, replacing the management team at Agriculture Canada in Saskatoon, and negotiating a settlement.
Why is the government giving Nordic Industries settlement moneys for termination of an illegal contract?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member did not hear my answer or he was not able to change his question after my response, which was that I would take this question under advisement. I am not aware of those contracts. I can assure him that all contracts are required to follow Treasury Board guidelines within the limits.
The problem we often see is that the facts of the opposition are totally wrong when we get to them, and it is very selective in what it brings forward.
We will be happy to look at that question. I will pass it on and take it under advisement.
Securities CommissionsMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week, speaking to businessmen in Toronto, the Minister of Finance criticized the provincial securities commissions, conveniently forgetting that this sector is exclusively a provincial one.
Is the Minister of Finance's attitude here a prelude to the creation of a Canadian securities commission, as he has made several attempts to do in recent years against Quebec's wishes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before asking questions, the member over there ought perhaps to at least read the speech.
What I said was that Canada has at least 30 different financial sector regulators. Moreover, some will say the number is even in excess of 40.
This imposes an enormous cost on Canada's financial system. If we are to be competitive with other countries, we will need far more discipline and a far more efficient system. That is what I said.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance ought to admit that securities are none of his business. This is a provincial sector.
If improvements are required, this is the responsibility of the 13 provincial commissions, including that of Quebec. These have, moreover, worked together on improving their system in recent years and continue to do so.
Will he then admit, once and for all, that this is nothing to do with him, that he needs to mind his own business and let the 13 securities commissions improve the system among themselves? That is the way of the future.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the poor member seems to really have a weak grasp on what a functioning economy is all about.
Certainly, a functioning economy is my business. Job creation is my business. Investment in the Canadian economy is my business, and our government's business. This is where we and the Bloc Quebecois members over there differ.
Government ContractsMr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Pierre Tremblay is the former chief of staff for Alfonso Gagliano. He was one of the senior staff members cited by the auditor general for not following the rules in awarding communications contracts. He is now the vice-president of propaganda for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. He has already given contracts to this Liberal firm, this Groupe Everest, one of the advertising firms that the auditor general is looking at.
Why does the Prime Minister reward this appalling lack of regard for contract rules with a $140,000 job promotion?
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, Public Works Canada administers some 58,000 contracts each and every year. We have rules in place to ensure that the contracts are let on an open, fair and transparent basis and in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, if that is the way it is, why would anyone promote someone who has broken the rules and give him a new job doing the same thing? That is a question that I think the Deputy Prime Minister should answer.
American subsidies, for instance, are driving down our grain prices due to foreign subsidies. We have labelling laws that are hurting our farmers' meat markets. Pierre Tremblay again gets rewarded for handing out government pork, but farmers have to fight against the U.S. subsidies all by themselves.
Why does the Prime Minister give these patronage appointments to people who are being investigated by the auditor general and probably by the RCMP?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister of agriculture, all jobs are appropriately viewed and decisions made through the public service.
The hon. member brings up the point of our agriculture policy. He should know that today the minister of agriculture, the minister of trade and the minister responsible for the wheat board are in Saskatchewan right now, listening to the farmers and listening to the premiers.
I would hope that he would concentrate on issues that are important for Canadians: agriculture policy. Why he is not asking questions on important issues for farmers in the prairie provinces, as the minister is listening to all the farmers and the premiers?
AgricultureTony Tirabassi: Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture met recently with his provincial counterparts to address the serious challenges facing prairie farmers on a number of fronts. The introduction of the U.S. farm bill has unleashed a storm of protest not only in Canada but around the world.
Could the minister please inform the House what the government is doing on behalf of these farmers?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we do not get those types of questions from the opposition about important issues for agriculture.
As I said, the minister of agriculture, the minister of trade and the minister responsible for the wheat board, three ministers, are in the prairie provinces, in Saskatchewan, to talk to farmers, to talk to the three prairie premiers, to get their views to make sure that is a consideration.
With regard to the U.S. policy, of course the Americans talk one language but their actions are about protectionism. The minister of agriculture has made that known to the secretary of the U.S. cabinet--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are Canadians sitting at home not working because of belligerent comments about Presidents Bush, senior and junior, by the Prime Minister and his nephew. Canadians are very aware that the government has no influence on the Bush administration and its increasingly protectionist policies.
When will the government get out of its recliner chair and get to work on improving relations with the Bush administration?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the hon. member what an excellent meeting I had just a few days ago with President Bush's director of homeland security, Governor Tom Ridge, where we were able to make real progress on the very substantive issues relating to the Canada-U.S. border.
From the very beginning, our understanding of how we could have influence with the United States was based on one of maintaining a respectful distance. It may be our closest neighbour, our biggest trading partner and perhaps our closest friend, but we do not influence it by taking the Alliance recommendations of lying prostrate before them and doing whatever it is--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between a respectful distance and a stick in the eye.
After a protracted and detailed review of current trade policy, the World Trade Organization has decided to effect a cessation of all operations to be accomplished over the next four months, culminating by the end of September. The World Trade Organization will reintegrate as a new trade body the trade regulation organization.
Will the government inform Canadians what impact this will have on our appeals on lumber, agriculture and other ongoing trade disputes?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member ought to know by now, the government is pressing its case at the WTO, as it has done in the past. Every time we have been forced to go that route the facts have supported the Canadian argument. They will again.
We have seen statements this week from the American public and the American industry understanding that the problem is south of the border and that the WTO will rule in our favour.
National Wildlife AreasMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since 1986, the Lake St. Francis National Wildlife Area has provided residents from the region with an opportunity to enjoy their natural heritage thanks to a management plan. The wildlife area has no federal employees and relies entirely on dedicated volunteers, but they are running out of steam. The Commissioner of the Environment said that the $102,000 provided by the federal government for the operation of Quebec's eight wildlife areas falls well short of what is required.
What measures does the minister have in mind to provide additional resources for the national wildlife areas?
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an issue of some detail. If he would provide the information we would be happy to provide the answer to him.
FisheriesMac Harb: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
We all know that the minister has taken a strong leadership on the issue of fishing outside the 200 mile limit off the east coast. I want to congratulate him on that but I also want to ask him a question.
As he probably knows, the fish stocks are diminishing on a regular basis and there is a need for proper management. We know the issue is complex but what is he doing at the international level to pressure those who are fishing outside the 200 mile limit to stop fishing in order to protect the fish stocks in Canada?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that I will be travelling to Russia next week to meet with the north Atlantic fisheries minister. At this year's conference I will be presenting Canada's position to NAFO member countries.
This year's conference will focus on the renewal of fisheries management and on co-operation in marine research. It gives me the opportunity to express Canada's strong concern about non-compliance outside our 200 mile limit directly to European counterparts.
The government acknowledges that there is no simple solution to this international problem. I think that this meeting will be a big step forward.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsKaren Redman: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
PetitionsHoward Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people in my riding and in the city of Winnipeg with regard to the creation and use of child pornography. It is being seriously condemned by these folks.
They are calling upon parliament to protect our children and to take all steps necessary to ensure that these activities involving children are outlawed.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition containing 27 signatures of people from the region of greater Montreal area, particularly from the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes, which I have the honour of representing here in the House.
The petitioners draw attention to the fact that rural route mail couriers cannot benefit from collective bargaining to improve their pay and working conditions.
All too often, these workers make less than minimum wage and their working conditions harken back to a bygone era, yet their colleagues in the private sector—who also deliver mail in rural areas—benefit from the right to collective bargaining, like all Canada Post Corporation employees.
The petitioners therefore ask the government to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which denies rural route mail couriers their right to collective bargaining.
I believe the government must intervene as soon as possible in order to put an end to the discrimination against rural route mail couriers that has persisted for years.
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition signed by 27 constituents of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik in support of rural route mail couriers.
Whereas private sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas, such as Quebec's far north, have collective bargaining rights, as do public sector workers who deliver mail for the Canada Post Corporation in major urban centres; whereas subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act deprives rural route mail couriers of their collective bargaining rights; now therefore these 27 petitioners call on the government to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta--South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition from citizens of Richmond, Delta and other places in British Columbia who would like to remind the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he has constitutional obligation to protect wild fish in their habitat.
They note that the auditor general and others have found that the minister has been negligent in his duties to protect wild salmon and the habitat from the effects of salmon farming. They call on parliament to remind the minister to fulfill his obligation to protect wild salmon and their habitat from the effects of fish farming.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George--Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present four petitions on behalf of the people of Prince George--Bulkley Valley.
The first petition contains thousands of names of people who are tired of watching the current government fail to protect children. They call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sadomasochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the next petition brings to the House that the practice of abortion is taking over 110,000 innocent human lives each year. The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation against causing the death of an unborn child by abortion at any stage along the continuum of prenatal life.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of the residents of Prince George are concerned that the Supreme Court of Canada and the Government of Canada will fail to protect the rights of disabled Canadian citizens and in some way alter the sentence that Mr. Latimer received for the murder of his daughter.
They call upon parliament to ensure that this sentence is not lightened in any way.
The final petition concerns the same subject. The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada, under section 15(1) of the charter of rights and freedoms, to uphold the Latimer decision in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just returned from consulting with the parties and I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to return to reports from committees.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Committees of the HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 58th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the review of the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of House committees, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 59th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding proposals on changes to the standing orders, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
Questions On The Order PaperKaren Redman: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Points of OrderJohn Duncan: Mr. Speaker, during question period I asked a question with respect to the World Trade Organization.
It has come to my attention that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the House. The World Trade Organization website was broken into and inaccurate material was placed on its website. I relied on that information when I asked my question.
As soon as I found that out I wanted to clarify to the House that there was no substance to the suggestion that the WTO was being reconstituted, re-organized and so on. Therefore there was no substance to my final question in the House during question period today.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-56 which is an important piece of legislation that Canadians should be aware of. Bill C-56 is a bill regarding assisted human reproduction.
There was a time when the conception of a child was that of nature, where a man and a woman created a child. Since then science has become involved. When there is difficulty in conceiving a child science has stepped in to allow other methods of reproduction to take place.
As a society we must deal with where that science has taken us. It has given childless couples the opportunity of having children but it has also put us in a position of having to deal with situations where there might be embryos created that do not eventually form a child.
The bill deals with those kinds of issues which are touchy in our society and that many people have strong opinions about. The bill tries to deal with what is prohibited, what is controlled, and establishes an assisted reproduction agency. There are many issues around those topics: whether or not this agency should report to parliament, who should be sitting on it, and whether or not it should keep information on record and report yearly to parliament on information.
Most of the debate in the House and most of the concern in society deals with the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research can be called nature's blank slates capable of developing into any of the nearly 220 cell types that make up the human body. It is this ability to replicate indefinitely and morph into any type of tissue that leads many to believe that stem cells would eventually be able to cure diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, heart disease and to even repair spinal cord damage. It is because of this potential that many are looking to stem cells as an answer to create positive change.
There are two basic ways of getting stem cells. There are non-embryonic sources of stem cells from adult bone marrow and umbilical cords after the delivery of children. The use of adult stem cells in research has shown some promise. However other research published online March 14 of this year in the journal Nature shows that adult stem cells do not morph into new tissues but rather fuse or merge their genetic material with other cells. This would indicate that we cannot stop the research on adult stem cell use. We should however ensure that it is maximized to all of its potential.
The other way of getting stem cells is through embryonic stem cell creation. Should we stop that from happening? Should we shut the door on this kind of research, should we put a moratorium on it? Many of the previous speakers have spoken about the problems with embryonic research. It can cause spontaneous tumours. It is subject to immune rejection that requires lifelong anti-rejection drugs.
Currently there is no panacea and some people are holding them out to be the end all and be all of disease control and prevention. Right now there is no panacea provided by the creation of stem cells, but there is a need for more research.
The questions that are on the table are: should this be allowed now, and should there be a moratorium put on it?
The bill would allow for more research. The scientific advancements that have taken place from polio inoculations to all kinds of other advances have allowed mankind to cure diseases. They have all been done through research of some form or another. The big question on the floor now is: do we allow embryonic stem cells to be used as part of medical research?
Most of the embryonic cells that are used for research come from unused embryos that are created in fertility clinics. When a couple goes to a fertility clinic, they provide the ovum and the sperm and these are created into embryos. It is not a process where one can take one of each and not have surplus. The process itself demands that there be multi-embryos created because the success rate is not that good on a first attempt. Often many embryos are implanted because some are rejected.
There is a surplus created of these embryos. What happens to these embryos? The debate as to whether they are a life form or not is one that has to take place. Assuming they are a life form, what happens to them? Does this life form get disposed of in a garbage can or down the toilet, or can it be used for positive purposes? That is the debate.
People would argue on both sides of this debate. People feel that the embryos should be used for a positive purpose and others feel that they are the beginning of life and therefore should be respected as such and should not be used. What is clear is that when these stem cells from an embryo are used, the embryo is then destroyed.
This debate about when human life begins and how we should be using these embryos is one that has been going on for some time. It is not a new debate. This is an issue that has been out there in discussion for a number of years. This is not the government's first attempt. I believe the government tried five or six years ago to bring in such legislation pertaining to stem cell research.
We know that human cloning is occurring, or attempts to clone humans are occurring. There has to be control. People out there want restrictions to prevent the cloning of human beings. We know that it is out there. I myself have asked my constituents a question on this issue or a similar issue two and a half years ago and 65% supported the use of embryonic cells for research.
I have recently put it out in my latest householder. My householders receive responses anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 residents in my constituency. Many of them place their comments on them. I am asking two questions of my constituents: first, do they believe that scientists should be able to use the unwanted embryos stored at fertility clinics to conduct embryonic stem cell research, and second, do they believe a human embryo should have the same rights as individuals who have already been born?
It is important that Canadians participate in this discussion. It is important that my constituents have an opportunity to share with me their values and concerns, and how they want to see this handled. Issues of this enormity on the moral and ethical values of our society need to be broadly debated and discussed. They are being discussed out there in the community. We need to be respectful of what Canadians have to say.
This is too important for 301 members to take a decision. I would hope that every member of parliament is out there talking about the issue, encouraging people to participate, and then take seriously how the people in their riding and in their communities feel about this issue. Members would be surprised how able the citizens are to sort out all of the dynamics of this legislation and make responsible and reasonable recommendations to us as their representatives.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the bill dealing with human reproductive technologies.
I will not be supporting the bill as it is now constituted. I must express my appreciation to our leader and our caucus for allowing our members to freely express their thoughts and feelings on this whole issue instead of invoking party discipline and squashing the debate. There are some important issues around the bill that people feel strongly about for a number of different reasons.
I would hope the Prime Minister and members of the government side would allow the same kind of freedom of expression and freedom to vote to their members when the bill comes to a vote. That is the democratic process and we would be better able to express the wills of our constituents and our own feelings on the issue. However, I am not terribly optimistic that will happen based upon what has happened to the bill up to this point. I am delighted to see that the government is at least making some attempt to introduce some legislation and regulations on the issue of human reproductive technology. It is long overdue.
I accept and believe the rumours we hear so often about a number of women around the world today carrying cloned embryos. At some point those cloned embryos will be brought forth as living human beings. What the result of that experiment will be anybody can guess. We are already a little late in bringing forth this legislation, but better late than never.
The primary reason that I will not support the legislation as it stands regards one of my favourite hobby horses about this place and how it works. This issue has been discussed endlessly by a royal commission which brought forth recommendations. The same issues have been before a committee for months. The committee has the ability to, and in fact did, bring forth experts on the issue from a number of places in the world to provide expert advice to help it put together a report.
As has happened so many other times, and most recently the bill on endangered species is a good example, in spite of all the time, effort and expert opinion which was presented, the bill before the House is not the result of what the committee heard. It was produced by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat somewhere and does not reflect what the experts told the committee in numerous different areas. There are some things in the bill that do reflect what the committee heard, but in so many areas, with no apparent explanation, the opinions of both the minority and majority committee reports were rejected by these bureaucrats who drafted the bill.
That is so objectionable and undemocratic. If these bills were drafted by an all party committee on the basis of the advice of the experts it subpoenaed we would have much better legislation and it would actually be a democratic process.
I am disappointed that it is not. I will continue to present that opinion on any number of issues that come before the House in the hope that somewhere in eternity the rules of the House and the protocol that governs the production of legislation will change to make it possible.
I want to talk about the whole issue of stem cell research without getting too far into the controversy. It is the most controversial part of the bill. I do not come to this part of the discussion from a religious or moral position. I prefer to approach it from an position of logic so that after all is said and done I can explain to my constituents how I voted and why. I want to vote in a way that is logical because there does not seem to be a lot of logic around the issue.
Last night the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville introduced a private member's bill for discussion in the House concerning the redefinition of human life in the criminal code. There was an instant and outrageous reaction from members of the House about the possibility of even raising the discussion. However I do not see how the government could allow embryonic stem cell research under Bill C-56 without somehow addressing the fundamental issue behind it: When does life begin and when does it deserve the protection of the law? That is not addressed at all in the bill. Yet it would allow embryonic stem cell research.
I will never understand that. It happens with the government with respect to so many issues we deal with in this place. I sat for a time on the committee that judges when private members' bills should be made votable and when they should not. It amazed me that when a particularly contentious or controversial subject came before the committee the other committee members said we could not make it votable because it was too controversial. I am always surprised when we shy away from controversial issues. I thought that was what we were sent here for: to debate controversial issues on behalf of Canadians and make laws out of the debates.
It surprises me that we would avoid the issue of when life begins and when it deserves protection. If we are to avoid this controversial issue, and that is a choice the government can make, it follows that we should ban research on embryonic stem cells because we do not want to go down the controversial road of defining when life begins and when it should be protected.
There have been extremely promising recent breakthroughs in the area of adult stem cell research, an area which is progressing faster than embryonic stem cell research. We could disallow embryonic stem cell research and instead focus our funding and attention on adult stem cell research. This would avoid the controversy of debating when life begins, the ethics of abortion and other issues.
My time is running out. I will make one other point on which I will have more time to elaborate as we go forward. The makeup of the board that would direct the legislation is seriously flawed, like so many of the boards the government brings forward. It would give the minister all power to make changes without being accountable to parliament. We need to seriously change the structure of the board to make it accountable to parliament so that the changes that are made as we go forward in the review three years from now come back to parliament and parliament's voice is heard through debate again. We will talk more about that later.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.
This is an important piece of legislation that would leave a legacy for a long time to come. What we do with it is important because we are in a sense entering into a legal vacuum. Bill C-56 would set the tone and put things in motion that would have important consequences down the road.
It is not only important that the legislation is well thought out. It is important that it is created in a way that allows it to move with the times and with people's growing sensitivity to the subject matter as public knowledge in the area grows in leaps and bounds.
One of the difficulties at the moment is that newspapers and all forms of electronic media are naturally attracted to embryonic research developments and not so attracted to adult stem cell developments. This is because we all think of adult stem cell research as traditional science. Traditional science tends to get relegated to the back burner while things like cloning are considered newsworthy and popular. However that will change because the science will have many practical implications and applications.
People have made reference to the fact that there have been recent developments. It is true that a lot more scientists are working on adult stem cells than on embryos, so the amount of effort going in is reflected in the results coming out. However it is also true that most of the positive results and developments have been through adult stem cells rather than embryonic research.
Assisted human reproduction is not something a lot of people have had to think about in a personal context. However it has touched my family in a significant way. It is an interesting juxtaposition. My younger brother is not only a leading edge geneticist at Washington University in the U.S. He and his wife are the proud parents of four beaming children who are all the products of assisted human reproduction. He is combining a lot of things. We are cognizant of all the scientific developments as a consequence of how they have affected our greater family.
My brother has pointed out some important cautions the House needs to seriously think about. First, as people who have had embryos in motion he and his wife are extremely relieved they have no embryos still in the system. There is an interesting dimension to all this. There is a never-ending argument about when life begins. For my scientist brother, a father, life begins at first cell division. He is probably one of the few people in the world who have seen their offspring at first cell division. It brings the whole question into intimate contact. The thought that there might be mothers' embryos out there for scientists to be experiment with is of huge concern to my brother and his wife. It is important that we recognize parental ownership of the materials.
We must get the legislation as right as we can. It touches on matters of life and death and on parents seeking to conceive children and build families. At the same time we must continue to promote the quest for scientific advancements to cure diseases or repair accident damages.
One interesting development shows how quickly the field is changing. My brother's family is quite young, but early on as a geneticist he recognized the value of adult stem cells which come from the umbilical cord. The cells must be taken at birth. There was a politically correct movement to denigrate people who took the cells to store and freeze for the future benefit of their children, the very children from whose umbilical cords the cells were taken. My brother saw through all that and made such arrangements for his own children. It is no longer politically correct to say it is a bad thing. Scientists have discovered it is a good thing that can guarantee medical opportunities for the children.
This reinforces my point that it is important to engage the public to stay in tune with public attitudes and ethics. That is why all the provisions in Bill C-56 that would set up the agency are weak and need to be changed. The agency needs to be arm's length from the minister and report to parliament. It needs a lot of other changes that have been recommended by the official opposition.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-56. This legislation approaches some very difficult and complex topics. When we are speaking on the legislation, it is important to identify what it is about and what it is not about.
We are talking about medical and health research, assisted reproductive technologies, stem cell research and the incredible potential that it can have to eradicate disease, create more advanced treatments and improve the human condition.
In addressing issues such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS or any of these diseases and conditions that we may be able to approach more effectively with technology and research from stem cell research, clearly it is in society's interest and the interests of mankind to develop treatments. As such I do not think there is anyone in the House who would not agree with the end result of achieving these advancements in research from stem cells.
On the issue of human cloning, as a member of a caucus of 14 we see the tremendous benefit of cloning more caucus members. However I think we will pursue more conventional means and elect more of them in the next election. We recently tried artificial ways to expand our caucus and it did not really work out that well, except in one case with which we are very pleased.
On the very serious issue of human cloning, my own view is that we are getting a little too close to playing God when we take that development to that extent. As such I agree with prohibitions against human cloning.
I support stem cell research for the benefit of medical advancement and the potential benefit to humankind of eradicating some of the diseases I mentioned.
I do not see that the abortion issue ought to be used to complicate the debate. That is a separate issue. In Canada the woman's right to choose has been legally protected for some time. That is a separate debate and I hope that members of the House will try not to link the issues of stem cell research with the issue of abortion. That is a very different debate and ought to be treated differently. In fact it damages the quality of the debate we have on this legislation to confuse the two issues.
I am pleased that in our caucus we will be having a free vote on this issue. It is a morally charged issue and one that I take very seriously. I also take seriously representations by my constituents on this issue. There are ranges of views on the issue.
When people and families need assisted reproductive technologies to facilitate childbirth and for who it is important to have access to those technologies, I take their views seriously. People who have family members who have had Alzheimer's, or MS or Parkinson's and whose lives have been impacted negatively by those diseases have strong and important opinions to express and I take them seriously.
As such, over the next period of time I will be determining whether I will be supporting this legislation or not. My belief is that this legislation does in many ways achieve a middle ground with which I am fairly comfortable. This is not perfect legislation. There are areas of the legislation I disagree with. However, as with any piece of legislation, we have to weigh and balance the pros and the cons of it.
As I say, in most ways the government has, with this legislation, struck a fairly reasonable middle ground position. As such, I am inclined at this point to consider favourably the notion of supporting the legislation.
John M. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned with Bill C-56 because of the effect the bill will have on our society and, most important, on future generations. I am concerned about the bizarre duplicities in the bill which leave important moral questions in the hands of a few or even single appointed individuals unknown to most Canadians.
I am concerned that the government has brought the bill forward in such a way as to avoid questions about life which it believes may be troubling politically. I am concerned that the government would use the promise of banning obviously abhorrent practices such as human cloning as a means of avoiding debate on a few of the more politically troubling issues surrounding stem cell research.
In his March 4 column of the National Post , Andrew Coyne exposed the tragic failure of the government to address the critical issues raised by the possibilities of science today. He began by describing the dilemma of Maureen McTeer:

On the CBC, Maureen McTeer--lawyer, feminist and freelance medical ethicist--was ticking off the reasons she opposed the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos for medical research, as would be permitted under proposed federal guidelines. She was passionate, even immoderate at times.
It was an affront to human dignity, she said. From the moment the egg was fertilized, it became part of “the human continuum.” To allow the killing of embryos before the proposed 14-day limit and not after was a specious distinction, an attempt to obscure the enormity of what we were doing by denying the humanity of the lives we were destroying. Nazi scientists, she said, shrugged that the victims of their experiments were “only Jews.”
Now we were saying “it's only a fetus.” At which point, one of her befuddled fellow panellists felt compelled to ask: “Aren't you pro-choice?”

The ethical confusion which surrounds this debate is not Ms. McTeer's alone. The Government of Canada is itself, in Mr. Coyne's words:

--twisted into the same contradictory pose: attempting to define and assert the state's interest in the rights of the fetus, while officially denying that it has any--at least, as far as that would imply any legal restriction on abortion.
Ms. McTeer attempted to square the circle this way. When it comes to a conflict between the rights of the child in utero and the rights of the expectant mother, “we have decided” that the mother's rights “trump” those of the fetus. The rights of medical researchers, on the other hand, do not carry the same weight.

That is:

A pregnant woman has an unrestricted right in law to kill the fetus she carries, right up until the moment of birth: because she does not want to interrupt her career, because she doesn't care for the father, it doesn't matter. She holds “trumps.” A scientist, however, may not do the same to another fetus in the course of extracting embryonic stem cells, even in the first 14 days, in pursuit of medical advances that--who knows?--might save millions of lives.

The logic or lack of logic inherent in the government's position on matters address in Bill C-56 make my head swim. On the one hand we would allow a woman to abort a fetus but on the other, would punish her by up to 10 years in prison for donating an unfertilized egg for use in therapeutic cloning, a process where, for example, her egg would be injected with someone else's DNA to produce an embryo from which embryonic stem cells would be extracted in the hopes of coaxing them to grow into an organ needed by the donor of the DNA.
To put it in clear, unmistakable terms, under Bill C-56 it is okay to destroy a fetus on whim but it is not okay, in fact it is punishable by 10 years in prison, if one destroys with the intent of improving someone else's quality of life.
The question is: how did the government lead us to this baffling juncture? The answer is patently obvious if one considers the principles upon which Bill C-56 is presumably based. Although they may be commendable as written, they are more remarkable for what they do not say.
Most notably absent is any clear definition of what constitutes human life or when human life begins. Unless and until these fundamental principles are clearly addressed and defined, confusion will prevail. It is virtually impossible to write a coherent and consistent bill, a bill which will withstand the challenges already being prepared by those who would clone humans and conduct other outrageous experiments.
The fundamental principles governing assisted human reproduction are matters of unparalleled significance to our society. They are in fact cornerstones of our society. They define us as people. They are matters of importance to all members of our society, those with religious faith and those with none. As my friend from Calgary Southeast noted in this place, even if we do not believe in the intrinsic sanctity of human life, surely we can all respect the dignity of human life.
There is another matter that I would like to briefly address. Let me note that although my comments will be brief, that in no way detracts from the significance of the issue.
Recently I received a communication encouraging me to support embryonic stem cell research because of the hope it offered a person's mother who is suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. I know something of Lou Gehrig's disease because I lost my mother to it. I also know that there is more hype than hope in embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research has a number of problems. Dr. Peter Andrews of the University of Sheffield in England said “Simply keeping human embryonic stem cells alive can be a challenge”. Doug Melton, a Harvard University researcher, said “In my view (human embryonic stem cells) would degrade with time”.
Human embryonic stem cells have never been used successfully in clinical trials, have a lacklustre success in combating animal models of disease and carry significant risk, including human immune rejection and tumor formation. Speaking about embryonic stem cells, Glenn McGee, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist, told M.I.T.'s Technology Review that “The potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after stem cell transplant might turn out to be a Pandora's box of stem cell research”.
In stem cell research dealing with Parkinson's disease, there have been nothing but problems. The results have been horrific. In 15% of the patients the transplanted fetal cells went out of control and produced irreversible and devastating changes in the patients' brains, resulting in muscle spasms, sucking movements and writhing, which could not be controlled by any medicine.
The case for adult stem cell research is different. The retrieval and clinical use of these cells is morally acceptable and there is no unreasonable hazard to the patient. Adult stem cells have been located in numerous cells and tissue types and can be transformed into virtually all cell and tissue types.
Multipotent adult progenitor cells are stem cells found in bone marrow in adults that can differentiate into pretty much everything that an embryonic stem cell can differentiate into. They seem to grow indefinitely in cultures without losing their characteristics and do not seem to form cancerous masses or cause tissue rejection. These cells may turn out to be the most important cells ever discovered and they can be produced in virtually limitless supply.
It is worth noting in conclusion how important this issue is to us as humans. Vaclav Havel, the president of the Czech Republic, noted:

Given its fatal incorrigibility, humanity probably will have to go through many more Rwandas and Chernobyls before it understands how unbelievably shortsighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God.

Eric S. Cohen, managing editor of Public Interest , writes:

The ancients knew better, and it is to their old wisdom that modern man must return. In both the classical and biblical vision, death awakens man to the preciousness of life; mortality awakens him to the possibility of transcendence; and constant recognition of his own imperfection reminds him of the need for restraint and repentance.
In his misplaced quest for autonomy--freedom from want, freedom from morality, freedom from death--modern man has forgotten how to see; he has turned his back on his essential nature. He treats the human experience of incompleteness--the fact of suffering, alienation, and death--as a problem to be solved, a sickness to be cured, a stirring to be forgotten. And so he forgets what his wise and wondering ancestors remembered--that man is not fully of this world; that the beginning of wisdom is not only realizing the limits of one's knowledge but the ultimate meaning of one's limits.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to speak in the House on this very important and critical issue. It is very interesting when I think of the implications of the bill and all that pertains to it. Not very long ago in the House we were debating an issue that was very similarly related to the bill and that was to change the terminology in the various government codes relating to children whose parentage was not directly known. I gave a speech at that time which I think very clearly outlined my very deep commitment to the value of human life and the dignity of individuals. I stand by that as the opening premise of any statement which I make here today.
I would like to indicate that I am one who is very much in favour of medical research. This is a question that is before us here today. It has to do with the use of human genomes and their use in research and, hopefully, in increasing the quality of life for people.
I have mentioned before that I have several friends who are permanently disabled. One of them, a very dear and in fact one of my closest friends, has been very severely afflicted by Parkinson's disease. He is younger than I. He sits in his wheelchair all day. Most of the time he is unable to communicate.
You do not know, Mr. Speaker, how much I wish that there would have been a cure for that disease when he was first diagnosed some 15 years ago or that there could be a cure even now in the ongoing stages of that disease in his life. I have another close friend who suffered a severe stroke. It would be wonderful if we could have some medical research that would yield some results and that would solve the problems that these people have to deal with when they are afflicted by such a calamity.
My basic premise in rising today is certainly to underline the fact that I am in great favour of medical research. In fact, one of the things that I thought I might do at one stage in my life when I was in high school and the early years of university was to go into medical research myself since I had a sister who suffered from cerebral palsy and who in her whole life never once was able to speak, at least not a language that we understand.
I was very much interested in the neurology of the human. I thought I might want to do some neurological research. I think I would have found it fascinating to discover much more, because as a young first year biology student how much does one learn? One just barely touches the surface. I have talked to people who have studied it. I understand from them that the more we learn the more we realize how little we know, so it is a very fascinating topic. Obviously people who get into research will be going down every trail they can find which hopefully will yield some results in the area they are researching.
However, what this bill is about is actually changing the criminal code in such a way that the use of human embryos is defined in the criminal code so that people do not unnecessarily go to jail based on what they do with human embryos.
With that, I want to take another little sidebar, as we have in recent years come to call a little side trip. I think we err greatly in the definition that we apply to human life. We like to speak very impersonally of the embryo, the fetus and so on. I think that we err by not attributing to the unborn child the full degree of humanity. I think that is an error and I will tell members why: We do not value a person's life based on whether or not he or she is wanted in any other case except the pre-born.
We have a lot of government interest in social housing these days and in trying to solve the problem of homelessness. There are unknown individuals on the streets somewhere in Toronto, Vancouver or any of our cities. Nobody knows them. They are really not wanted, but we do not say they are not wanted and therefore we should end their lives instead of finding houses for them. We do not think that way, nor should we. We say that they are valuable humans and everything possible should be done in order to provide them with a dignity of life, including housing.
We do not do that with the unborn. We simply, even flippantly, use the argument that the child is an unwanted child so therefore we can end its life. I think that not valuing the pre-born child diminishes our perception of human life.
I will dare to give a personal anecdote at this time. Very close relatives of mine, my nephew and his wife, were eagerly looking forward to the birth of their second child. Unfortunately she underwent a spontaneous abortion and lost the child. Holding this little pre-born child in his hand, just a tiny replica of a full grown human, my nephew said he could not help but note that there was the full potential for a human which was not allowed to proceed.
There are many people unable to have children naturally, as we say, so they seek medical assistance. I think that is perfectly fine. They use various methods to improve their chances of conceiving a child and thereby in some cases we end up with fertilized eggs in Petri dishes and in other areas. Of course the argument is always used that those eggs are human. They must be human, because if they are not human then what else are they? I would say they are obviously the beginning form of a human life.
Again one can ask the question: When does human life begin? It obviously begins at the moment of conception. Scientifically that is totally obvious, because it is when the unity of the two elements of life come together that the dividing of the cells springs into action. That is the beginning of the formation of a human life.
Scientifically there is no disputing that, as far as I know, and yet we simply have come in our society to a place where we say until that child has fully emanated from its mother's body it is not a human and warrants no protection. Again I think that we err. We take the lower road rather than the high road when we do that.
This bill is one that deals with the excess of these fertilized eggs, or young embryos as they are called, and they are the beginning of, the potential for, a human. I would certainly make sure in any of these considerations that we define that as human and treat it with all the dignity and care any other human is entitled to. One of the flaws in the bill that I think is really significant is the flaw of the identity of the so-called donors. I would prefer to call them parents. In many cases these elements are used to provide a child for someone who is not in any way genetically connected.
This particular bill provides that they should continue to be anonymous. I have problems with that. I have encountered in my short life a number of people who, having been adopted, have gone to great lengths to find out where their roots are. This seems to be almost an innate desire.
We should amend the bill to include that people who provide the elements of human life, who are indeed the parents of potential human beings, should be identified for the benefit of the children. Those children may one day want to know who their parents were. “From whence did I come?”, they would ask. They deserve the right to know.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always like to follow my hon. friend across the way because he speaks from the heart. He does not use notes. He has not read the Bible aloud to us or tried to put something into the bill that is not there. It is always a delight to hear his down home type of spin on everything and his personalization of the various people who affect his life. I always appreciate that and I like to follow him because I do not have notes either.
I am reminded of the Irish people during the war. They were told that they were neutral. They wanted to know who they were neutral against. Bill C-56 reminds me of that type of a scenario. It has all the elements of research and development. Some of the items of abortion have been brought in as well as some items on how to treat disease and the hope that genetic research will provide for an eradication of disease. It has elements of everything.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence I do not get an opportunity very often to express my views from both my own religion, which is Roman Catholic, and that of my family. We have two adopted children. My wife has taught in the separate school system. We believe that life begins at conception so I do not have any problem with that. It is not something I have to debate with anyone. Those are my beliefs and people should take them for what they are. I do not think anyone will ask me to vote against my conscience. If they do, then those are the breaks of the game. My conscience is my conscience and I will have to live with it.
A lot of people would like to say that if a member is a Liberal, he or she is this, or if a member is a Liberal he or she is something else. We get pushed into some kind of a slot. Sometimes if we vote against the government we are perceived as voting with the opposition. The Prime Minister has said to me on many occasions that I can vote with my conscience. That is what I am here for. However, when we are voting on something like this, Bill C-56, we must take a look at what group of people sent us here. Do they agree or disagree?
On gun control it was easy for me. I did a survey. I am a gun owner. I have hunted and had the odd deer die in front of me from various causes. I had trouble with the gun control bill because I thought that I would have to vote against it. However, when I did the survey in my riding 51% of the people were in favour of gun control and 49% were against it. I received letters with bullet holes from people who were so passionate that they wanted to let me know how they felt about it. Therefore if I voted yes or I voted no who was I serving? That is what I am dealing with here.
My constituency is evenly split. I have received many e-mails and my website has had lots of hits on it. People have sent me letters, e-mails and snail mail. All kinds of different things have come through. For every letter that I get that is in favour of the bill I get one that is against it. We have people who are sometimes motivated out of fear thinking that somehow if we vote in favour of this particular piece of legislation we are against motherhood.
There are other people who are desperate for the research because we have excellent researchers in Canada. Sometimes we tend to think that our researchers are not that prominent in the world. However, if we look at the Salk vaccine and the many things that Canadians have accomplished over the years we can see that we have excellent researchers. We must not bridle them. We must ensure that our researchers are allowed to carry on.
I have been a board of director of a hospital. I have sat on health committees. I have chaired the committee on HIV-AIDS which studied poverty and discrimination. Whether it is Lou Gehrig's disease, cancer, or whatever it is that can benefit from the research that would be involved in Canada by top-notch researchers, I would think we would all be in favour of ensuring that our research continue to be among the best in the world.
Yesterday was a full day of debate on the bill. I read the speeches given by the former leader of the opposition who quoted the Bible and members of NDP who are interested in an opposite view. Some have the same view as the former leader of the opposition. Some of our own members are divided on this issue. There is no clear path here.
Moratorium in French means to kill it. We may run into some wording problems with the Bloc because its idea of moratorium is different than the English version of moratorium. In English moratorium means to delay but in French it is a full-fledged killing. We cannot allow that word to creep in here.
A moratorium is not the answer. Somewhere along the line we will have to decide if the bill is votable according to our conscience or according to the will of our constituents. None of us are going to find a strong view from the scientific world if we are based in rural Canada. Let us face it, rural Canadians that I live with go to the big teaching hospitals in the cities. That is where most of the research is done, whether it is the London, Toronto or Hamilton hospitals that are doing great work in research.
Those hospitals are not looking at the ethics of it but certainly what the medical results could be. Sometimes that scares me because we then tend to take human life at less value than it is made for us. We must take human life at its highest amount of dollar value, but particularly emotional value. To me human life is precious from conception to natural death. If anti-abortionists or abortionists want to argue with my two adopted children, they can give a pretty good argument in favour of life from conception to natural death. That is not a problem with me in my Christian views.
I want to ensure that somewhere within the confines of the bill we are able to deal with the ethical and moral problems that we all face but with the value of the research, and the value of the strength and talent of the medical community throughout Canada. I also want to ensure that we do not put handcuffs on researchers. We must ensure research and development and embryonic research goes ahead and that it is brought to its fullest to assist life as it now exists.
Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my comments to what I think potentially is a defect in the legislation and confine my 10 minutes to that. It is the whole question of paid surrogate parenting. A large majority of members see this as a terrible evil. I spent some time thinking about this issue and I am still trying to determine what is evil about it and wondering why we are targeting it and criminalizing it.
Let me talk about a hypothetical surrogate parenting process. We have a couple who cannot have a child because the female has a disability. Her womb will not permit her to have a child. The couple find a young female who may be attending university and needs financial assistance. They engage her services with a commercial contract and the young girl rents out her womb.
The girl receives excellent medical care. She receives the highest standards in health, diet and so on. The contract states that no alcohol and no drugs can be used and that monitoring processes are in place.
What part of that evil process has to be criminalized? The parents receive a healthy child. The girl receives badly needed financial assistance. When we pass criminal law I always try to figure out which party is injured? Is the child injured? Are the parents injured? Is the girl who rents her womb injured? Who is the victim of the crime?
What is the great moral standard that we are infringing here? Invariably in criminal law we get into morality. I went through the great Ten Commandments and I cannot in all honesty find out how this impinges on any of those Ten Commandments.
Almost everyone I have talked to say that what is wrong with this is that a woman is renting her body for money or profit. With all due respect, that is wrong and inaccurate. Most people I know who run their own businesses or work in this world obtain rent for the use of their bodies. In the NHL right now there are players who are actually brutalizing themselves in pursuit of the Stanley Cup. Boxers will inflict terrible harm upon themselves in the name of profit.
Quite honestly, I have never considered a woman carrying a child to birth as something brutal, unhealthy, wrong or immoral. I am really trying to grapple with the rationale behind this particular point.
Let us take in vitro fertilization, which I believe is legal. The people running those clinics do it for a profit. The emphasis there is on a test tube. It seems to me that what we are saying here is that it is legal if it is a test tube situation but criminal if it is a child in a womb. I have a lot of problems with that.
Let us look at it another way. What great public interest are we threatening with this process? The parents receive a healthy child and the student makes it through university with financial assistance. What great public interest does this threaten and what makes it serious enough to criminalize it? Someone needs to help me find that public interest because I do not know what it is.
When we make laws we should always look at whether these laws will be legal. I have taken a look at the charter. Section 7 states that we have the right to liberty. Section 12 states that we should not face cruel and unusual punishment. I would suggest that sending two parents to prison because they wanted a child might be cruel and unusual punishment.
We must also look at the equality provisions. Subsection 15(1) of the charter says everyone has equal benefit of the law without discrimination. One of the grounds of discrimination is physical disability. One of the hypothetical parents has a physical disability. We are walking on thin ice legally as far as I am concerned. I am not exactly sure how anyone could walk into court with a compelling reason under the charter to defend criminalizing this conduct.
Let us look at some of the side consequences. Are you folks in the House prepared to send people to prison because they want a child and get a child of their own? I am not. How would we treat the child? You have come up with the proceeds of crime provisions. You would criminalize the act because the proceed of the crime would be a child.
There are a lot of side issues. If people leave the country and rent a womb in the United States or Europe would it be a criminal offence? What would be the status of the child? We should be thinking of these things. If we make bad laws here people will find ways to deal with it.
I have one other comment on the whole topic. There are members in the House who argue vehemently this is abhorrent, wrong and terrible and must be stopped. They are some of the same people who have no problem whatsoever with abortion clinics which are for profit and which kill life. Here is a case where a couple who cannot have a child make a commercial arrangement to get their own healthy child. Are we to make that into a criminal offence? I am sorry, but I have a lot of trouble trying to figure out the logic of the argument. I wish there were NDP people here today. They are the ones who generally take that line. I would like them to explain to me the logic of the issue because I do not know what it is.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to remind the House of two minor things which can be problematic. First, we never speak about the absence of any member or members. We all know what our individual schedules are like. We are often called on to be in different places at different times. Sometimes we would like to be in two places at the same time but no one has been able to do it quite yet.
Second, hon. members should always make their interventions through the Chair.
Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I knew the rule but in the heat of my speech it escaped me. I apologize to the Chair and members of the House for overlooking that point.
There are other aspects of Bill C-56 I will comment on briefly. These comments do not deal with surrogate parenting. We are not pursuing a lot of areas that other countries are pursuing. The U.S. is debating the whole issue of therapeutic cloning. European countries are into that sort of thing and so on.
I will raise another hypothetical question. We ban stuff in Canada. A lot of us do not feel the research will go anywhere. However let us say it does. Let us say we had effective treatments for something like Lou Gehrig's disease. Can anyone in the House seriously tell me that someone who tried to seek treatment would be a criminal? Would we jail these people or something along those lines? We need to think about these things.
There is one thing history teaches us. Even if we do not agree with something, once it is out of the bottle we cannot get it back in. Science has brought lots of things into the world we do not like but we cannot put them back in the bottle. I have never seen anyone do it. We need to think about this. Banning and criminalizing things is not necessarily the answer. To have some control over the process, a lot of times we would be better off treating problems with common sense and regulation rather than leaving the whole thing open ended or criminalizing the procedure.
The surrogate parenting thing still bothers me. If a perfectly healthy person was born out of that situation what would his or her status be? Would we criminalize the whole activity? For the life of me I cannot see the logic of it.
The Deputy Speaker: I trust I did not offend anyone in the House with my earlier remarks.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was planning to speak next, but as there is very little time left in today's agenda, I was wondering if I could ask for unanimous consent to see the clock at 1.30 p.m. and carry on with the debate at the next sitting?
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The hon. member for North Vancouver is not present to propose the order pursuant to the notice published in today's notice paper. The bill is therefore dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 1.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 1.30 p.m.)