Werner Schmidt

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He said that every one of the Canadian Alliance and Reform has done that, and that is not true.

[A Spouse's Valentine, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today is St. Valentine's Day and I wish to recognize the unsung heroes of Parliament, our spouse's and significant others.

They raise our families and represent us in our constituencies while we are away from home. They endure the long hours, the late nights, the last minute changes, the pressure of election campaigns and the stress of long distance relationships. They sacrifice their privacy and they brave the scrutiny of the public eye.

In times of uncertainty and difficulty, they are our voices of reason and our most trusted advisers. They share our greatest joys and our deepest sorrows and they do it all with strength and grace.

Today, I send a valentine to our spouses and significant others, for their selfless support of the work that we do in the House of Commons.

And to my sweetheart Teena, I give my love and deepest gratitude.

[Petitions, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition also signed by people in my constituency, who call upon Parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Petitions, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to present a petition which is signed by just under 4,000 petitioners. The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the child pornography section of the Criminal Code by deleting the term artistic merit. Applying artistic merit can be associated with criminal sexual activity against citizens, especially children, in any form of expression, such as violence, children's rights, standards of respect for humanity, community standards and civilized society.

[Sports, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend the rest of the world had to take second place. Melanie Turgeon of Quebec won the first world alpine skiing championship in 10 years. Melanie's blistering 94 second run topped off a remarkable week for Canada's ski team.

Cindy Klassen of Manitoba became the first Canadian in 27 years to win the overall title at the world all around speed skating championships, while Clara Hughes, also of Manitoba, took the gold medal in the 5,000 metres.

Brian McKeever of Alberta placed first at the world disabled ski championships, while world cup bobsledder Pierre Leuders steered this team to a first place victory.

In golf, Kelowna's Dave Barr, became the first Canadian golfer ever to capture a Champions Tour event.

Congratulations on behalf of many Canadians. These athletes made us proud, gave us spirit, enthusiasm and now the rest of the world knows why Canada is tops.

[The Environment, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week seven young skiers tragically lost their lives in an avalanche. Avalanche forecasting like that provided by the Mountain Weather Station in Kelowna could not be more critical at this time to the local communities and to search and rescue units.

We cannot believe that the Minister of the Environment is suggesting that Canada's second largest weather station be closed. Will the minister recognize the critical role this centre plays in mountain safety and keep the Mountain Weather Station open in Kelowna?

[Question No. 69, February 4th, 2003]

For the fiscal years 1993/94, 1994/95, 1995/96, 1996/97, 1997/98, 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001, from all departments and agencies of the government, including crown corporations and quasi/non-governmental agencies funded by the government, and not including research and student-related grants and loans, what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded in the constituency of Malpeque, including the name and address of the recipient, whether or not it was competitively awarded, the date, the amount and the type of funding, and if repayable, whether or not it has been repaid?

(Return tabled.)

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to enter into the debate on a subject like this one is both gratifying and frightening. It is almost repugnant because the subject matter is such that one would not want to be involved in this kind of activity.

I remember when my good colleague presented to us in caucus and to a number of members in the House some video material that had been collected by the police in Toronto. He showed us what some of the content of child pornography is. It is the most repulsive, the most repugnant stuff that anybody could ever portray.

We have here a proposed law, Bill C-20. It purports to deal with the issue of what is child pornography and what the defences are with regard to child pornography.

Much has been made today about the substitution of “public good” for the words “artistic merit”. It is almost as if something very substantive has now taken place, that we have somehow brought into being something that is much clearer to understand and much easier to defend in court than artistic merit would be. Here we have public good as being a very good thing and much clearer than anything else.

I want to draw attention to something that has happened in terms of the definition. I want to put this in the context of what the proposed law actually says. Subclause 7(2), which amends subsection 163.1(6) of the Criminal Code, states:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence, or if the material related to those acts that is alleged to contain child pornography, serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good.

Notice what happens right after that in subsection 163.1(7)(b). I want to read it into the record:

For the purposes of this section,

(b) it is a question of law whether an act or any material related to an act serves the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged or the material goes beyond what serves the public good--

That is a question of law. It goes on:

--but it is a question of fact whether the act or the material does or does not extend beyond what serves the public good;

I am sure all my colleagues understand the difference between those two things as does everyone listening today. We understand clearly what that means.

I suggest that everyone does not know what that means. It seems to me that this is the grist for judges and lawyers to be debating from now until kingdom come or until the law is changed again to define clearly what it being talked about.

It is a question of law or a question of fact and the difference between the two is so difficult. A lawyer or technocrat would look at it and say what is meant by it and another lawyer would say it meant something else. The argument would carry on until the time, the money, or both were exhausted by the defenders or the prosecutors.

Alex MacDonald, who was the attorney general for the province of British Columbia, said that Canada does not have a justice system; we have a legal system. If there was ever an example of something that was made to order for a legal system, it is that clause of the bill.

What has this bill really contributed to the understanding and the protection of children? It has confused the issue. It has not clarified anything, yet one of the purposes of the bill is to clarify both what is meant by pornography and what is meant by the defences.

As the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam said so clearly, if there is anything in terms of the general interpretation of public good, we have added more elements to the public good than would ordinarily constitute artistic merit.

What have we done? There are at least two levels on which we can debate this thing backwards and forwards and find out it is no clearer today than it was before.

There is something far more significant than the technicalities. It has to do with our responsibility as legislators, as adults, as fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of the children around us. What is our major job? The fundamental and most significant activity we are involved with is to teach our children, the next generation, the difference between right and wrong, to give them an understanding of ethics.

Recently in Switzerland CEOs from around the world got together and talked about what will be the most significant issues in the coming years in terms of business around the world. After many days of deliberation they came to the conclusion that the fundamental concern of businesses over the next while will be ethics, the difference between what is right and what is wrong and to apply that in a practical sense in the everyday world.

If business people have recognized that ethics is important, how much more the case for us as legislators to recognize that we ought to be ethical and set the example and indicate what is right and what is wrong.

To write in the bill what is the public good and there is no understanding of what is right and what is wrong in the first instance, how could it ever be clear what the public good was all about?

Over 300,000 people have said one of the elements of the public good, one of the things that they believe is wrong is child pornography, the exploitation of children for sexual purposes by those who are older and should know better. The people of Canada have said something. They have said it very clearly. They have said it unequivocally. They have been absolutely clear.

Could it be that the government listened and said that yes, it had to do something but it really did not want to change anything substantially so it decided simply to change “artistic merit” to “public good” in order to tell the people that it did something. And the government did something. It replaced two words with two other words. What is the substantial difference? Nothing.

What has happened to our young people? What direction did they receive? What guidance has the government given to young parents who are trying to teach their youngsters between what is right and what is wrong? None.

All of us in the House need to recognize that our primary responsibility is to create laws that are clear, that are understood by all concerned and that tell clearly the difference between what is right and what is wrong. The bill falls far short of that mark.

We talked about the age of sexual consent. We on this side of the House have been advocating that it should be raised from 14 years to 16 years.

I would like to raise other questions. How is it possible that in our society we can say that one has to be at least 18 years old to make a decision about who should help run this country, but it is perfectly all right for one to determine the future of one's life in terms of being pregnant or not pregnant as far as women are concerned? How is it possible that it is all right for older men to impregnate younger women at the age of 14 if they say yes, but there is no way that they are able to vote for somebody unless they are 18 years old? What kind of logic is that? What kind of sense does that make?

I ask the government to reconsider very seriously what it has really done to help the people of Canada and particularly for the protection of young children by this piece of legislation. The government has not done anything to help us.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to enter the debate on Bill C-13. I know we are debating certain amendments, but I wish to address my remarks to the entire bill because a lot of the amendments deal with various provisions of the bill.

I would like to suggest that the seven principles that are enunciated at the beginning of the bill are rather comprehensive. I would like to summarize them as reading them in detail would take too long.

First, priority must be given to the health and well-being of children in the application of assisted reproductive technologies; second, in the application of assisted reproductive technologies the health, safety and dignity and rights of humans must be protected and promoted; third, the health and well-being of women in particular must be protected; fourth, free and informed consent must be promoted and employed in the use and application of assisted reproductive technologies; fifth, there must be no discrimination against those who undergo assisted reproductive procedures; sixth, the productive capabilities of men and women must not be exploited for commercial ends; and seventh, the human genome, human individuality and diversity must be preserved.

Those are lofty and worthwhile principles. I would like to look at the implications of the application of those principles to the body of the bill and the legislation that follows it as presented to the House.

The first principle states that the well-being of children must be preserved. It means, among other things, that all children are created equal. That does not mean that they are all the same. It means that they are equal in the basic rights and freedoms before the Constitution and the law. This means they have at least three fundamental rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. They also enjoy or should be given four freedoms: the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of every person to worship God in his or her own way, the freedom from fear, and the freedom from want.

Three rights and four freedoms should be there for all children. I think principle number one clearly implies those kinds of freedoms. Are any of those rights and freedoms denied in the body of the bill? No, they are not. I think the bill is consistent in that area. Does that mean I find each of the other six principles to be that consistently applied throughout the bill? I do not think so.

Let us examine principle number four, which is subclause 2(d). It states:

the principle of free and informed consent must be promoted and applied as a fundamental condition of the use of human reproductive technologies;

The phrase free and informed consent deserves further investigation. Free and informed consent is considered as a principle that must be promoted and applied as a fundamental condition. Let us look at that in some detail. What are the provisions of the bill with regard to the application of that?

The first of these is the prohibition of certain activities. They are found in the bill as a general provision and I think that is good. There are certain activities with regard to reproductive technologies that are prohibited. Second, the bill would create an agency to enforce the bill and the provisions of the bill. I think that too shows foresight and recognizes that a bill like this, complicated as it is and difficult as the implications might be, does require a good and solid administrative structure.

At this point it is essential that we look at what constitutes the conditions under which this agency must carry out its responsibilities. Interestingly enough, as one goes through the operation of the agency, one discovers quickly that almost all of the agency's administrative provisions or obligations are subject to the regulations of the governor in council. That is an interesting provision. This is an agency that is to carry out the administration of this act but subject to the regulations of the order in council.

Let us look at the regulations with regard to free and informed consent. Free and informed consent, as far as the orders in council are concerned, are not the subject of consultation, and are not the result of the intense seeking advice and assistance from persons or experts outside of the government.

In fact, in a parliamentary system the government represents the people. The free, open and informed consent is the Government of Canada which is elected by the people, not the governor in council. The governor in council is the cabinet which is the arm of the Prime Minister.

How would this work in terms of the agency doing its work? Clause 65 of the bill has 28 subclauses. It states that the governor in council may make regulations in 28 particular areas.

I am going to look at this particularly as it affects clause 8. Subclause 8(1) reads:

8(1) No person shall make use of human reproductive material for the purpose of creating an embryo unless the donor of the material has given written consent, in accordance with the regulations, to its use for that purpose.

Under subclause 65(1)(b) it states:

1. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this Act and, in particular, may make regulations

(b) for the purposes of section 8, respecting the giving of consent for the use of human reproductive material or an in vitro embryo or for the removal of human reproductive material;

We must observe here that the consent must be written by the donor for the use of human reproductive material for the purposes of creating an embryo in accordance with the regulations.

The regulations, if any, may be made by the governor in council. However there will be somebody immediately who will say “the agency shall require written consent and the governor in council may make regulation”. One could argue what if there are not any regulations? Then any form of consent literally would be recognized.

Is it realistic to assume that to be the case? I doubt it very much. For example, written consent might be the result of coercion of some form or it might not be current or there might be any number of reasons under which written consent might occur and it would have to be regulated according to the governor in council. I can see all kinds of reasons why the governor in council might make some regulations. I can see also why the agency might want to make them.

The point I am trying to make here is that the regulations themselves are secret. They would be created in secret and then perhaps made public, but they would not be the result of checks and balances in the debate of the House.

I would like to look at clause 10, although the regulations cover clauses 10 and 11. Subclause 10(1) states:

10(1) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations and a licence, alter, manipulate or treat any human reproductive material for the purpose of creating an embryo.

Subclause 65(1)(c) states:

1. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this Act and, in particular, may make regulations

(c) for the purposes of sections 10 and 11, designating controlled activities or classes of controlled activities that may be authorized by a licence;

Interestingly further down subclause 65(h) states that the governor in council also decides what the rules and regulations are with regard to a licence.

Therefore the business of allowing these kinds of activities would be determined not by the agency, but by the regulations first of all with regard to the activities and with regard to a licence. A person wishing to do this kind of manipulation would have to have both a licence and have the regulations as well.

We have a double whammy here as the governor in council would virtually be controlling the whole operation of the agency. Who would be in control? Would it be the agency or the governor in council? It is pretty clear by now that it would be the governor in council. It would run roughshod over the House of Commons because it would not have to consult the House. With regard to this kind of arrogance Jefferson in the declaration of independence said:

...to secure these rights, [the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The bill should be reconstituted before it is brought to the House so that indeed we can have free and informed consent as to the provisions for assisted human reproductive technologies.

[Goods and Services Tax, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the backroom deal between the revenue minister and the Treasury Board was made over seven years ago. Seven years of GST fraud losses have been hidden from Parliament.

The Speaker explained yesterday that it was “disingenuous” of the minister to suggest that the present system of reporting is “adequate”.

Will the revenue minister today now tell the House how much money in GST fraud losses has been hidden from Parliament?