Lynn Myers

[Criminal Code, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the issue of the criminal law power in prohibiting reproductive and genetic technology such as human cloning because it is very important.

Bill C-247 proposed by the hon. member from Drummond, Quebec proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada to add after section 286 a section that would prohibit genetic manipulation leading to human cloning.

The two practices covered in proposed Bill C-247 were prohibited in Bill C-47 which was tabled in this House in June 1996 and which passed second reading in November 1996.

In March 1997 the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health approved the bill with minor technical amendments. Unfortunately the call for the federal election came on April 27 and Bill C-47 died on the order paper.

It is interesting to note that the wording used in Bill C-247 is exactly the same as that used in Bill C-47 pertaining to human cloning. One major difference is that the hon. member proposes Bill C-247 as an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada.

The 1996 proposal by the federal government was for health legislation which relied on the criminal law power to protect Canadians' health and safety and to uphold our common values. This government does not take the use of criminal law power lightly as its means of prohibiting certain uses of technology.

Our Constitution divides jurisdiction over health matters between federal and provincial governments. The federal government has the power to make laws when issues relating to public health and safety are at stake or to maintain peace, order, security and morality.

This legislation lies squarely within the Canadian tradition of using criminal law to protect Canadians' health, safety and values. Most federal health law is based on the use of this criminal law power and the courts have recognized this as a valid exercise of the federal government's authority.

In the case of human reproductive and genetic technologies legislative action by the federal government is not only valid, it is necessary. The federal government has a duty to establish the basic perimeters of public health, safety and morality on which Canadians may rely.

To ensure adequate protection for all Canadians in the area of reproductive and genetic technologies there must be uniformity across the country with respect to what practices are prohibited, what practices are allowed and what safeguards apply. As with all criminal legislation provinces would be free to take as active a role as they choose in prosecuting the offences which were set out in Bill C-47.

Parallel provincial legislation in the field of reproductive and genetic technologies is welcome. Even if several provinces were to enact such legislation this would not diminish the need for a federal law to ensure that no region of Canada becomes a haven for unregulated practice of these technologies. To date no province has comprehensive legislation dealing with reproductive and genetic technologies.

The courts have traditionally recognized the protection of public health and safety and the maintenance of peace, order, security and morality as valid exercises of Parliament's exclusive authority over substantive criminal law. Most federal health legislation relies on the criminal law to protect Canadians' health and safety and to uphold our common societal values, for example the Tobacco Products Control Act, the Narcotics Control Act, the Food and Drugs Act and the Hazardous Products Act.

It is a constitutionally valid exercise of the criminal law power to define a crime not only by defining what acts are prohibited but also by exempting from criminal sanction certain acts when they are not carried out under prescribed conditions.

The government has already recognized the need for some form of regulatory regime for reproductive and genetic technologies, to regulate those practices which are considered acceptable to Canadians. In one respect, the hon. member's bill is admirable. However, Bill C-247 covers only two specific procedures out of the 13 which Bill C-47 would have prohibited and does not address the need for regulation of acceptable practices.

While the hon. member's bill does address one of the major areas of concern with reproductive and genetic technologies, we would like to reiterate that human cloning is indeed only one of the issues. There are many other aspects of equal concern which must be addressed which include sex selection for non-medical purposes, the buying and selling of eggs, sperm and embryos, germ line and genetic alteration, maintaining an embryo in an artificial womb, the creation of animal-human hybrids, the retrieval of sperm or eggs from corpses or fetuses and commercial surrogacy arrangements.

The final report of the royal commission on new reproductive and genetic technologies in November 1993 recommended both prohibitions of certain practices and a regulatory component to the legislation to manage those reproductive and genetic technologies which are considered acceptable.

The hon. member's proposed amendment to the Criminal Code would deny the possibility of regulations which would make certain technologies available to Canadians under certain and carefully monitored standards.

Bill C-47 dealt exclusively with absolute prohibitions but it was always intended that the regulatory component or conditional prohibitions would be added. Indeed much of the support from key stakeholder groups was premised on the understanding that this would be so.

The Minister of Health is sensitive to the concerns of Canadians regarding the need for comprehensive legislation. The minister remains committed to introducing a bill which will accommodate the reasonable concerns that are and have been expressed. The overwhelming response to Bill C-47 from virtually all quarters was for the addition of a regulatory regime to absolute prohibitions to form comprehensive legislation. The proposed additional components outlined in the white paper include the establishment of a regulatory agency and its powers of operation, licensing to permit acceptable practices, information registry and equivalency agreements with the provinces.

These proposals would ensure that acceptable technologies and practices are delivered in an ethical and socially responsible fashion and in a way that solicits the input of all sectors of society concerned with the issues raised by reproductive and genetic technologies.

This government intends to introduce in the near future legislation which will enhance Canadians' well-being by permitting them to make choices about their involvement with reproductive and genetic technologies, secure in the knowledge that their choices do not include any that are unethical or harmful to their health or to that of the children they bear.

It will balance the need to protect the interests of vulnerable women and children with the aspirations of individuals to become parents and the need of the research that will help them attain that goal. It will set the boundaries within which reproductive and genetic technologies can be regulated for the good of all Canadians.

Bill C-247 proposed by the hon. member is likely to draw criticism from many quarters. Canadians have clearly shown us during the consultations following the royal commission's report that there are many issues involved in reproductive and genetic technologies which require control, and not just human cloning.

Health Canada's overriding goal is to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We also seek to ensure the appropriate treatment of human reproductive materials and to protect the dignity and security of all persons, especially women and children.

Canadians have told Health Canada, as they told the royal commission, they want the federal government to act to manage reproductive and genetic technologies in a way that protects those most affected and which reflects our collective values. Canadians want unethical practices prohibited by law, and so does this government.

In an environment such as this Canadians would criticize passage of an amendment to the Criminal Code which merely prohibits human cloning. They have a concern to be answered about the total spectrum of reproductive and genetic technologies, and this government is committed to such legislation.

I believe it is necessary to wait for the introduction of new legislation by this government to encompass all the aspects of reproductive and genetic technologies which we have seen through the consultation process. They are of great concern to all Canadians.

I also believe proposed Bill C-247, an amendment to the Criminal Code, is premature and would be viewed as being heavy handed and failing to address the greater part of concerns of Canadians on this matter.

[Prisons, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

New Brunswick, Ontario and Nova Scotia are experimenting with jails planned, constructed or operated by private interests. Does the solicitor general advocate that the federal government should also privatize prisons or should prisons continue to be run by the public sector?

[National Defence Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite and was astounded by some of the comments he made with respect to the military and some of the jingoistic statements he made.

I want to remind the hon. member that the government has moved on a number of fronts with respect to our military, certainly on issues relating to housing, across the board pay increases and capital equipment acquisition. We are in fact positioned in a way that will meet not only our obligations here in Canada but around the world.

It recently came to my attention that the defence committee is working very well in trying to address some of the issues raised and the problems that are identified in a very collegial fashion.

I was somewhat amazed when one of the members from the Reform Party, the member for Lakeland, was chided for trying to turn the committee into a political side show. Talk about turning people against people and region against region. I guess the Reform Party is obviously very good at that in all cases and in all ways.

My question to the hon. member is: Why does the Reform Party, in its usual extreme manner, always insist on trying to turn the military into a political football? Maybe the Reform member could answer that for me.

[National Defence Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments being proposed to the National Defence Act, and especially the code of service discipline, relates to the abolition of the death penalty as a punishment and substitutes it with life imprisonment.

I am a little unclear from the member opposite with respect to the position of the Reform Party on the matter relating to the death penalty. I listened to the hon. member's response to a previous question, but I would still seek clarification if I might is as it relates to Bill C-25. As I have already stated, the death penalty is being taken out.

Will the Reform Party be introducing an amendment as it relates to the death penalty, or is it satisfied that what is in Bill C-25 is appropriate and will proceed accordingly? I would like the hon. member's response to that.

[Division No. 112, March 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today includes some very important elements of the Canadian opportunities strategy which was introduced in the 1998 budget.

In particular, the bill launches the Canada millennium scholarships foundation. With an initial endowment of $2.5 billion this foundation will provide more than 100,000 students full time and part time at colleges, vocational and technical institutes as well as universities with scholarships averaging $3,000 per student.

The bill also includes some very important measures to help manage student debt. It introduces a Canada education savings grant to help families save for their children's education. It gives employers an employment insurance premium holiday for hiring additional young Canadians, reducing payroll costs for those employers by about $100 million over two years.

These measures are only part of the strategy that we set out in the 1998 budget, a strategy that will help Canadians by expanding their access to the knowledge and skills they will need for better jobs and higher standards of living in the 21st century.

I want to take a moment to outline the other elements of that strategy. It is important to view these measures in the context of one another since they work together to provide a comprehensive set of tools to increase Canadians' access to knowledge and skills.

As part of the Canadian opportunities strategy the government proposes to introduce new Canada study grants. These grants recognize that many student needs are not fully met by scholarships and students loans. Beginning in 1998-99, Canada study grants of up to $3,000 a year will go to over 25,000 needy students who have children or other dependants. These grants will help both full time and part time students and will provide $100 million annually.

Assistance to students is only part of the information age equation. We must also recognize that nothing is more critical to Canada's economic success in the 21st century than vigorous broad based research and development.

To support graduate students and researchers as they develop the leading edge skills needed in a knowledge based economy, the opportunities strategy will increase funding to the three federal granting councils, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

These very important councils provide research grants, scholarships and fellowships. Over the next three years their combined budget of $766 million in 1997-98 will be increased by $400 million, and by the end of the year 2000-2001 the councils' budgets will be at the highest level in history.

As the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech, Canadians do not need to be told that student debt is a problem. That is why the strategy includes a range of measures to help reduce the financial burden on students, measures included in Bill C-36.

In addition, our strategy proposes that for the first time students will be given tax relief on interest payments on their student loans. This will be provided through a tax credit and it will help one million Canadians who are repaying those student loans.

Many Canadians in the workforce want to take time away from work to upgrade their skills through part time or especially full time study. But they often lack the necessary resources, so the budget also proposes several new measures to improve their access to learning through their lives. Therefore beginning January 1, 1999 Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs for lifelong learning.

The need to continually upgrade knowledge and skills can be particularly hard for the growing number of Canadians studying part time and trying to manage the difficult balance of work, family and study. We are proposing therefore two new measures to help them.

Beginning in 1998 the education credit will be extended to part time students. This measure will benefit up to 250,000 Canadians. In addition, for the first time parents studying part time will also be able to deduct their child care expenses within certain limits. Currently only full time students are eligible. This new measure will benefit some 50,000 part time students with children.

Finally, our strategy takes action to improve Canadians' access to the information highway. Beginning in 1998-99 we will provide an additional $205 million over three years to expand and extend SchoolNet and the community access programs. There will be an additional $55 million to the Canadian network for the advancement of research, industry and education.

The Canadian opportunities strategy provides a diverse and comprehensive set of tools. These tools will help Canadians acquire the knowledge and skills they will need for better jobs and a better life in the 21st century. By expanding access to opportunity we are building a stronger economy and a more secure society.

The federal government has done its utmost to ensure that the Canadian economy continues to be built on solid foundations. The federal government will continue to offer programs which meet Canadians' needs and expectations.

That is why I urge all members to support Bill C-36 in moving us forward to implement key elements of our strategy. I know certainly that the people of Waterloo—Wellington support this bill and want it to proceed and I know that all Canadians indeed want this bill to proceed as well.

[Jane Urquhart, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian novelist Jane Urquhart, winner of the 1997 Governor General's Award for fiction, will received France's highest arts and literature award today.

Jane Urquhart, who lives in Wellesley, Ontario which is part of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington, will be honoured with the Chevalier des Arts et Lettres as a recognition of her literary achievement.

Jane Urquhart, who won the Governor General's Award for her book The Underpainter , won France's prestigious best foreign novel prize in 1992 with her novel The Whirlpool .

I ask all Canadians to join with me in congratulating Jane Urquhart for her many achievements. Canada is very proud of her.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the former chairman of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Commission, I have a strong and keen interest in the generation of electricity in the province of Ontario. I have a particular interest in the use of nuclear power and the generation of that electricity.

Ongoing concerns have been expressed in relation to the use of nuclear power in Ontario. The safety of the system has been repeatedly questioned. I am not here to debate whether or not to use nuclear power. Rather, I think it is important to ensure that residents of Ontario have faith and confidence in Ontario Hydro. This includes the use of nuclear power.

Accordingly, I was dismayed recently when the Atomic Energy Control Board was reported to have said that Ontario Hydro's failure to show detailed plans on how it will improve slipping nuclear safety was “entirely unacceptable”. It would appear that there are ongoing concerns on the part of the Atomic Energy Control Board regarding missed promises and commitments by Ontario Hydro in this regard. This is unacceptable to residents of Ontario.

In any event, people in Ontario need to know and be reassured that everything is being done to ensure a safe and secure system in the generation of electrical power in Ontario. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources to give that assurance today to both this House and to the people of Ontario.

[Petitions, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, including Canadians from my riding of Waterloo—Wellington.

The petitioners request Parliament to urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to make the national highway system upgrading possible.

[Organized Crime, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

Police and prosecutors across Canada are receiving threats and are subjected to intimidation by motorcycle gang members. This affects not only those directly involved but their families as well.

What exactly is the federal government doing to protect our police and prosecutors from this kind of harassment?

[Toy Labelling, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on this motion dealing today with potential health and safety issues for children.

In light of the general concern over any potential threats to children's health, and that is a concern shared by all Canadians, and our common interest to see that appropriate measures be taken to address these threats, I want to use my time in this debate to highlight some of the more effective means the government is currently employing to protect the health and safety of Canada's children.

Two of the most effective tools at the government's disposal are the Hazardous Products Act and the hazardous products toys regulations which are both administered by the Products Safety Bureau of Health Canada.

Under the legislation, certain toys are banned from sale and other toys can be marketed only if they meet specific safety requirements. It should be noted it is the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to ensure that products comply with the regulations of the act and regulations before they are imported or marketed into Canada.

Product safety officers routinely monitor the marketplace and take appropriate enforcement action on any toys that contravene that legislation.

The mission of Health Canada's product safety bureau is to prevent product related deaths and injuries. Legislation, safety standards and consumer information are elements of the bureau's activities to ensure safer products for children and to promote their safe use.

These activities dovetail with the department's national information and education program. Child safety and injury prevention in the use of consumer products is one of the major programs and major goals of that particular area. I can say that as a former educator with the Waterloo County Board of Education I certainly understood fully the kinds of goals that were to be achieved by that particular educational program.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians.

Unfortunately, no matter how much safety is built into a product, children continue to die or suffer injuries from improper use of products.

The direct aim of Health Canada's information and education program is to reduce that number of accidental deaths and injuries to children in Canada. The program reaches out to children, parents, caregivers, day care centres and schools with useful safety information such as safety awareness campaigns, posters, pamphlets and videos.

Within Health Canada the health protection branch works to eliminate health risks associated with the natural and man-made environments that can lead to illness or death.

Its principal responsibilities involves assessment and control of the nutrition, quality and safety of food; the safety and effectiveness of drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, radiation-emitting devices and other consumer products; the identification and assessment of environmental hazards; the surveillance, prevention and control of diseases and the provision of specialized laboratory services such as those used in the testing and assessment of plastic products containing potentially hazardous phthalates.

It is important to point out, contrary to what has been said in this House this morning, that phthalates do in fact bind to PVC. There is no evidence that long term exposure to DINP causes concern and liver damage. There simply is no proof in that regard. It is a groundless assertion.

I also want to point out with respect to lead that 15 parts per million referred to for lead is not a government standard. It is a proposed strategy. In fact, the lead strategy is still being reviewed and under consultation with the stakeholders and indeed the focus groups are meeting next week across Canada with respect to that very important issue.

One of the common threads which bind these various programs together in the health protection branch is the government's concern for the health and safety of Canadian children. Health and safety is paramount, it is important and is something with which we are very concerned.

This concern is shared with parents and care givers, public health workers, manufacturers and retailers across Canada. By pooling existing resources, knowledge and expertise and by working with those partners across society, the government is indeed taking effective ongoing measures to address potential health threats to Canada's children. It is important that we continue in that vein and do the right thing for all our children, and for all Canadians.