Larry Spencer

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the Canadian Alliance motion, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, Canada's infrastructure needs should be met by a regime of stable funding; and that accordingly, this House call on the government to reduce federal gasoline taxes conditional on an agreement with provinces that, with the creation of this tax room, provinces would introduce a special tax to fund infrastructure in provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

As I address this motion, I want to bring just a few facts to the attention of the House and to those Canadians who are following this debate.

Currently the federal gasoline excise tax is 10¢ per litre. In 2001-02, the federal government collected $4.7 billion in revenue. Some people believe that the gasoline tax is a dedicated tax for roads, or that it used to be. In reality, the Canadian federal gasoline excise tax has always gone to general revenue. The original purpose of the tax was to increase the government's bottom line and discourage consumption.

In 1975, it was finance minister John Turner who introduced the gasoline excise tax as a measure to “encourage immediate conservation”. Subsequent increases were instituted as revenue raising measures to control the deficit and the debt, the most recent of which came in the 1995 budget, which I will quote from:

To help meet the deficit targets, the budget announces increases in taxes on business and an increase of 1.5 cents per litre on the excise tax on gasoline.

The Liberal government has bragged for years about having eliminated the budget deficit, but it has remained all too happy to continue to collect the excise tax to fatten its own spending sprees. It should be noted that under the former finance minister's watch, Canadian consumers have been and continue to be gouged at the pump by a tax that has outlived its purpose.

Here are a few facts that illustrate how the Liberals have been ripping off Canadians on the gasoline excise tax. Motorists, as I mentioned before, have paid $4.7 billion in excise taxes in the year 2001-02. They paid $2.25 billion in GST on the gasoline in that same period of time. So they paid a total of $6.95 billion in federal gas taxes and GST on gasoline in the year 2001-02.

One of the most interesting parts of this little list of facts is the fact that $329 million of that total amount of taxes paid to the federal government is GST on the excise tax. That is a tax on a tax. That is the Liberal way of tax fairness. That is the Liberal brand of honesty. Not only does the government continue to collect a tax that has outlived its stated purpose, but it adds insult to injury by taxing the tax. That gives the taxpayer a double whammy and the government does it with this little tax called GST.

The GST, as it is commonly known, is properly the goods and services tax. It is a tax carried on by the government in spite of its campaign pledge to scrap the GST. It is a tax placed on consumer spending. It is designed to tax spending on the purchase of material goods. It taxes things like boats, cars, furniture, clothes and food and just about anything we can carry home and some things that we cannot.

The GST also taxes service charges. Repair services of all kinds fall into this category. Again it is a tax on services received by a consumer. It taxes something that is being used by the consumer but at least the consumer is receiving something to his or her benefit, and in a sense that benefit, or at least the expenditure for that benefit, is being taxed.

What benefit is the consumer receiving for meeting the demand of paying an excise tax? It is tax on a tax. How can that be fair? How can it even be legal? Or is it? And if so, why should it be? Why has the public not already revolted on this inequity alone? Does the government think this kind of taxpayer abuse is being fair? Does it think it is being honest? I do not think so.

Many people think that gasoline taxes, especially federal ones, are supposed to be dedicated to roads and highways. As I mentioned earlier, this is a misconception. However, the concept of having this tax designated to highways and infrastructure is one that is well received by the public.

According to a July 2002 survey conducted by the City of Regina, 85% of the respondents strongly agreed that fuel taxes should be spent on highways, streets and roads. Almost 88% of the respondents believed that municipal governments should receive a portion of the fuel tax collected. It is no secret that municipalities across the country, including the City of Regina, have struggled to meet their ever increasing infrastructure demands.

According to the recent City of Regina brief to the Province of Saskatchewan, it stated:

Simply put, cities do not have sufficient revenues to meet the costs of services and infrastructure expected within a city. Cities also have expenditure pressures, particularly for the capital funding necessary to deal with an aging infrastructure.

So the obvious question then becomes, what shall we do? Our motion today, in part at least, attempts to address the issue of the ever expanding infrastructure needs facing Canadian municipalities. It presents a strong suggestion of what we could do. Our leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, has stated:

What we are proposing instead is that the federal government permanently vacate a portion of the federal gas tax, say three to five cents a litre, and allow provinces the option of collecting that revenue. In order to ensure that this money is not used for other purposes, the transfer of these revenues to provinces and on to municipalities would be conditional on signed agreements that these resources would be used for infrastructure.

I hope people understand that this is suggesting that the excise tax be lowered. The lowering of that amount would be designated for the provinces to claim that tax, or they could leave it as a deduction if they wanted to.

What we are proposing is supported by many of the individuals and organizations as evidenced by the following comments which were also in that Regina brief. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation stated:

Gasoline taxes are a user fee and should be earmarked primarily for roadway and highway maintenance andimprovement. In many cases the tax take far exceeds roadway expenditures. In particular, the federal government has reaped the revenue windfall, but has provided only token support for roadway spending. This must change.

Harry Kitchen wrote an article entitled “Municipal Finance in a New Fiscal Environment”. He stated:

Of the alternatives that are generally viewed as possible supplements to—not substitutes for—property taxes, access to a municipal fuel tax would make considerable economic and political sense, especially in large urbanized areas with severe traffic congestion.

One of the problems that we face out in the real world, especially in Saskatchewan, is that the burden for infrastructure and schools falls heavily to those who own property. Property taxpayers are burdened because that is the only area that the municipalities have control over and property taxes continue rise.

Transport Canada stated:

Canada's public road network extends about 900,000 kilometres. Only about 15,000 km are owned and maintained by the federal government, mostly minor roads in parks and on other government property. Some 231,000 km of the national network are owned by provinces and territories...The remaining 655,000 km are owned and maintained by municipal governments, including streets and arterials in towns and cities, as well as the extensive sub-network of rural access roads.

We believe in fiscal responsibility and accountability. Our motion would achieve both these ends and assist our communities in a real and dependable way. I would urge all members of the House to support this motion to give the needed financing to our municipalities in order to support, renew, and maintain the infrastructure so necessary in our communities.

[Criminal Code, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of thousands of people across the land who have written and stated their opposition to this bill perhaps more than any other bill that has passed through this place in the last few years.

Let me state first that the Canadian Alliance is against the promotion of hatred against any individual or group in society. The member opposite was right when she said that the Bible does not promote hatred toward any individual, and that is very true. It is sad, indeed, when people claim to be against these kinds of rights, such as Reverend Phelps who was mentioned earlier. I am sorry we have those kinds of people who take it over the top.

The Canadian Alliance does not support that kind of action because we believe every human being has the right to be respected.

However, although we respect them and even though the Bible teaches us to love them, it does not teach us to love things that are against the principles of God's word. Therefore we are not instructed to love the wrong that we might see but we are instructed to love the person. I have great respect for some of the people in this House. They conduct themselves as gentlemen and as ladies in many situations but I do not have to agree with their lifestyle.

The Canadian Alliance believes that all individuals should be protected by law against hate crimes. In fact, we believe all groups are already adequately protected under the Criminal Code. For instance, let us think of all the people who would speak evil of politicians. There are many people in this land who basically stir up hatred against politicians and yet we would not want to be added to that group.

However we do believe in the freedom of religious expression and conscience according to section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We believe in free speech. I personally am concerned about this. For the past 30 years I have stood in the pulpits across this land and in other places and have preached from the Bible text. I am concerned because it is my duty as a minister of the gospel, when I am fulfilling that position, to speak truly according to the Bible, which is the book that I view as the word that teaches us rightly how to live. I am concerned that some day I would not be allowed to read and speak freely from that book.

We are concerned that Bill C-250 would not ensure adequate protection for the freedom of religious expression; for teaching, preaching or speaking in these terms; standing up for what we believe is morally right or wrong; and that in some way those freedoms would be taken away from us in the future.

Although the sponsor of the bill, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, tries to convince Canadians that his bill would not threaten or impede religious expression, we all know that if the bill passes it will just be a matter of time before some pastor, some priest or some rabbi will be hauled before a human rights tribunal and prosecuted for promoting hatred based on his religious beliefs.

We do not believe the assurances of the member for Burnaby—Douglas and I will explain why.

Some time ago the former justice minister gave her assurances that the definition of marriage would not be changed. In this House, on February 15, 2000, the former justice minister said:

This definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada and which was reaffirmed last year through a resolution of the House, dates back to 1866. It has served us well and will not change. We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians. That value and importance is in no way undermined by recognizing in law other forms of committed relationships.

Then a few days later, February 29, the minister also said this, “The common law of this country is equally authoritative with legislation.The courts have said over and over again that there is no need to make it any clearer because I think they cannot make it any clearer. They have said that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Now we are facing an attack on this traditional definition of marriage. Why do we not just lean on the assurances of the former justice minister that it will not change? However we cannot do that. No person can give anyone the absolute guarantee that things will not change. Not even the justice minister can do that. Nor can the member for Burnaby—Douglas give us those kinds of assurances that religious freedoms will be protected, nor that holy books of the different religions will be protected if Bill C-250 is adopted.

I have seen too many changes in my lifetime to things that seemed to be motherhood and apple pie, but they changed. We cannot buy that line of a personal guarantee or guaranteed protection. There is no assurance of protection of any kind. The fact is we are already losing many of our individual rights and religious freedoms. Let me just share a few examples.

First, let me mention a group in Canada called the Gideons The Gideons, because of their religious conviction, like to hand out the new testament scriptures to grade six students in the schools across our nation. They no longer can do that on school property. They must do it outside of school property. They have lost that right to exercise their religion in that way.

Just last Christmas season, the Christmas tree in Toronto was not allowed to be called a Christmas tree. It was called the “Giving Tree”. Anyone knows that at Christmastime it is a Christmas tree and that right of expression has been removed. “Merry Christmas” was removed the year before, in 2001. A friend of mine put on 80-some commercials on the radio station in Ottawa, Ontario, and that is somewhere near here. After they were recorded, he was called back to the studio and had to redo them. They could not use the words “Merry Christmas” on the radio station in this town.

In 1997 in London, Ontario, Mayor Haskett was found to be in violation because she refused to declare a gay pride day because of her religious beliefs.

In 2002 an Ontario superior court judge ruled against the Catholic school board of Oshawa, preventing it from carrying out its religious beliefs at one of its own school activities.

A printer in Ontario was fined $5,000 and ordered to do work for a gay group, even though this was against his religious convictions.

In Saskatchewan, a man named Mr. Owens printed some old testament verses in an advertisement that he paid for in the newspaper. These biblical quotes were ruled to be hate literature.

It is already happening. We are losing the right to express ourselves according to our religion and according to the books that we believe are given to us by God and that will direct us in life.

We can talk about the hierarchy of rights. Why is the first section, section 2(c) granting religious rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subservient to down the line section 15, which mentions these hate crimes?

We can talk about free speech and guaranteeing it all we want but I do not believe there is any guarantee, even with the amendments. The three amendments are not written strongly enough to assure us of guarantee.

The loss of religious freedom is already taking place. People are losing their right to practise their religion and to speak freely, It is about words. It is not about hate. It is not about crime. It is about words. This bill is suppressing free speech. words that enable one to freely express religious opinion or conviction on their issues of morality.

The religious rights of people in our country are being trampled on at the insistence of a very small group of people associated with some very vocal special interest groups. Thousands of people have written to members of the House. Thousands of people have signed petitions. Not one member in the House can ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of Canadians oppose the bill. I will join them in the opposition of the bill.

[International Day of Families, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the UN General Assembly has proclaimed May 15 as the International Day of Families. The UN program of action for social development states:

The family is the basic unit of society and as such should be strengthened. It is entitled to receive comprehensive protection and support.

Shamefully, in our world today there are those who are bent on the destruction of the family. Some would advocate practices which would simply impact children like pieces of property to be passed around to accommodate adult conveniences.

The best interests of the children in any family should be the family's guiding principle. The protection and support of families should be the number one priority of the government.

The Canadian Alliance believes in protecting, supporting and encouraging families as the basic unit of Canadian society. Today I would like to honour those who are committed to their families. Their commitment to their families may sometimes go unnoticed, but its value is immeasurable. On behalf of Canada's official opposition, I thank them for their commitment to their families.

[Petitions, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents. The petitioners are asking Parliament to refuse to pass Bill C-250 or any similar bill that would repress freedom of religion or speech. They are also asking us to defend the historical legal definition of marriage and to override any court decision that infringes upon the freedoms of religion.

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise today to bring the attention of the people across the land and the attention of Parliament to the need to stand and be counted against the decisions that are being made across the land in our courts that bring a threat to certain things. These are things like the definition of marriage, like making it easier for child predators to produce pornographic materials, like granting prisoners the right to vote, and one other which I might mention.

Judges are extremely important public servants and are well paid for their competence in the business of making decisions that affect the lives of individuals and families. However, interestingly enough over recent years judges increasingly and purposefully are influencing public policy through their edicts. At times they seem to be dictating to Parliament on what public policy should be and what are the best interests of the general public. Often decisions by the judiciary reflect the judiciary's own personal views of the will of society rather than a more accurate application of the law.

Only elected officials and Parliament have the authority and the role to establish public policy. This is supposed to be done through the passage of legislation in what we all want to be a democratic system of government. The role of judges is to apply the law, but it is not the role of the judiciary to create the law. Elected officials can be removed from office if they do not represent fairly the views of the people. They can also be defeated even if they are doing an outstanding job of representing their constituents.

That having been said, judges are both unelected and unaccountable to the people for the decisions they render. Therefore, judges' decisions must always be subject to the laws established by our elected representatives. Elected officials should bear the responsibility of demanding more effective accountability of the judiciary. In a government of the people, by the people and for the people, there must be a strong system of accountability built into each branch of the government.

There are hundreds of stories in this country of judges making decisions that are not mandated by the laws that they are to administer. There is definitely a problem within the realm of family law, for instance. In family courts many times the decision favours one party or the other without real justification. Time and again, husbands and wives going through personal divorce are then divorced from their own children by the decision of the court. In most cases this means that the father is no longer allowed to have adequate parental involvement with his own children. He effectively becomes divorced from his own children.

Rulings handed down by these activist judges likely would never be found to be charter-proof if they were written in law by Parliament. Both the judiciary and the Liberal government have turned a blind eye to this travesty of justice. They have both failed the families of this nation.

Controversial decisions or bad decisions are met with little or no public scrutiny. Is this fair? Now more than ever our country is in need of fundamental legal reform. These changes must be made through Parliament and not dictated by appointed judges.

Recently an Ontario court ruled that the definition of marriage, defined in tradition and in Parliament as being exclusively between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional because it excluded same sex marriages. The ruling shocked Canadians across the country who have for decades supported the traditional definition of marriage and valued the institution of marriage on religious and societal grounds. The ruling also shocked many federal representatives who only three years ago voted overwhelmingly in the House of Commons to uphold the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Following the Ontario court ruling, I joined with Canadians across the country in calling upon the federal government to appeal the Ontario decision and to defend the traditional definition of marriage. In addition, my office received a great number of phone calls, e-mails and letters from across the country and from residents of my riding.

Regrettably the Canadian Alliance was the only party actively working to encourage the government to appeal that decision. Elected members of the federal Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party remained strangely silent on the subject despite the number of Canadians who were calling for an appeal. The federal government struggled with its decision waiting until the last day to finally make the right decision and launch an appeal.

Just this month the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision and said that laws prohibiting same sex marriage are discriminatory. The ruling gave Parliament until July 12, 2004 to change Canada's marriage laws and is similar to other rulings in Ontario and Quebec. The minister is again hesitating to appeal this court decision, this in spite of his vote in favour of the 1999 resolution which was overwhelmingly passed in the House of Commons and which stated in part, “that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada”.

The Minister of Justice is not following the will of Parliament's resolution. Interestingly enough, the current Prime Minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister and the wannabe prime minister all voted in favour of the resolution. It remains to be seen if the Liberal government will ever have the backbone to follow through on its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve the institution of marriage.

The Canadian Alliance supports the definition of marriage as it currently stands. We believe that the government has an obligation to defend the longstanding application of the definition of marriage as was affirmed in the House by that overwhelming vote. An issue as important as the definition of marriage must be ultimately decided by elected representatives who can reflect the wishes of Canadians. It must not be left to unaccountable judges.

The John Robin Sharpe case brought out a very imaginative ruling. It ruled that the child pornography produced by John Robin Sharpe had artistic merit and was therefore legal to be possessed by that convicted pedophile. Decisions continue to lean toward protecting the criminal rather than children and families.

Yet another example of judicial activism was apparent when the Supreme Court recently allowed prisoners, including murderers and pedophiles, the right to vote. We in the Canadian Alliance believe that this court decision is fundamentally flawed. We contend that this court ruling is nothing more than a slap in the face to the ordinary law-abiding citizen.

In her decision the chief justice stated that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy. I agree. However, is not the obligation to obey the law equally fundamental? If there is no respect for the rule of law, both our society and our institutions will deteriorate into a state of chaos. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that we would give prisoners the right to continue to vote so that lawbreakers then have the right to select those who make the laws and write out the pardons.

I also believe that this decision is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter does state that reasonable limits may be placed on fundamental rights. It is ridiculous to say that we cannot interfere with the rights of a prisoner. What is incarceration? Incarceration is all about limiting a prisoner's rights. The charter says that we can do that so we cannot hide behind that excuse.

Political scientists have failed to see the importance of this Supreme Court ruling. They claim that the 12,000 prisoners to whom this decision will give the right to vote is too small a number to influence the outcome of the election. That is not the point. It is a matter of principle.

What has the court done by giving prisoners the right to vote? The easy answer would be that the court has diminished the value of citizenship and it has harmed the integrity of the democratic system. Perhaps the court should reconsider its actions. Most of all, perhaps the government should reconsider, step up to the plate and deliver legislation to reclaim the rightful place of this the people's House.

Canadians expect their elected representatives to have the courage to make important decisions even if it means tackling divisive questions head on. For too long the Government of Canada has stood back and let the Supreme Court usurp Parliament's role as legislator. It is time for Parliament to take responsibility and protect and reassert its will and right to be the lawmaker of this land.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to some of the issues surrounding Bill C-13. I want to speak in a fairly broad sense, not being a lawyer like our hon. colleague across who just spoke in a passionate and honourable way in addressing the bill.

I want to speak about the feelings and concerns I have heard from my constituents. These are based around moral attitudes, perhaps even with a religious base, but nonetheless they are valid considerations to enter into this argument.

In fact, this bill is so divisive because there are those who have these particular moral views and those who do not have that same type of view. We are not taking into consideration all the information if we do not take into account what the people in our ridings are feeling. They have demonstrated this over and over with the numerous petitions that have come through this place requesting that we emphasize post-natal stem cell research rather than embryonic stem cell research. Thousands of names have been added to those petitions that have come through this place. I may remind members of that more than once as I talk about the bill.

I support assisted human reproduction and stem cell research. I would support a complete ban on cloning, whether it be reproductive or therapeutic. I would support a ban on animal and human hybrids, which is taking a human egg and adding animal sperm. Sex selection, buying and selling embryos, and paid surrogacy are all dangerous steps that need to be banned.

I am not sure the bill adequately bans any of those and the hybrid human is one example. It is quite a familiar sight when we look at comic books or some of the entertainment features that are being published in today's world where there are mutations for the kids to watch. I think of the ninja mutant turtles where they not only took on humanistic characteristics, but some of the characters were part animal and part human. We find those examples going back in history. However, this is a dangerous area for us to get into and we should be sure that is banned altogether.

I support the recognition that the health and the well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction should be placed ahead of the interests of adults, physicians or researchers involved. We talk about doing things in the best interests of the children and we talk about that in the Divorce Act and in other places. Surely, if we are talking about assisted human reproduction, we can remember to take note of the interests of the children who are being produced and put them ahead of the interests of those involved.

Sometimes the reproduction of a human being is only incidental to what a researcher hopes to gain from the research. We live in a world that is selfish, where so many are willing to sacrifice the lives of other people in order to see their lives enriched in some way, whether it be by finance, fame or whatever. I believe we need to place the interests of adults and researchers involved as subordinate to those of the children who may be born by this process.

I support the protection of the uniqueness of all individuals, their right to life and human dignity. We come into this world with little enough dignity. We come in naked and penniless and will go out that way unless someone dresses us, cleans us up, and puts us in a fancy box. Human dignity is something that must be maintained and valued. To materialize or commercialize the making of embryos, whether it be for research or whether it be an overproduction of embryos, even for assisted human reproduction in a legitimate sense, goes beyond what I would like to see happening. I know that it is being done already.

We hear of multiple births. We hear of quintuplets, sextuplets and numbers of children being born and then without fail it is discovered that these are people who have been working with some fertility drug or some assisted human reproduction process of some kind. What we are not told is how many embryos were created that were left over and/or frozen, and/or disposed of in some way. This bill opens the door to that and, therefore, we lose the respect for human life and dignity when we commercialize these products.

I support the right of all persons to know the identity and the necessary biological information of their birth parents. I have already mentioned that we tend to be somewhat selfish. As the hon. member across the way pointed out a moment ago in his speech, it is extremely important for children to maintain the right to know their biological ancestry and to know the biological information concerning any disease that might have been in their family. This bill falls far short of that.

The selfishness to allow someone to profit, as in a $25 per shot deal, and not require the identity of that person is beyond me. No matter what form that takes, any donors who are willing to contribute to an assisted human reproductive process need to subordinate their desires to that of the children being born. We must take responsibility as adults for these children who will be born.

There are some common errors made in the arguments and ideas propagated by the proponents of embryonic stem cell research. Let me talk about the defence based on the opinions of people who do not believe in or do not hold any absolute principles of right or wrong. We find many times that people believe everything is relative. Simply because the human reproduction process is interrupted early in its life does not mean it is not a human being. It is, in fact, being hijacked and used in some other way. It does not mean that it is right simply because that human being has not yet seen the light of day or has not yet exited a mother's womb, as the Criminal Code requires.

We know that people hold to this idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong. There are thousands of people in this country who disagree with that. There are right and wrong principles. There are things that are right and there are things that are wrong. Just because, as human beings and because of our education and technology, we are able to interrupt the processes of life does not mean it is right.

I am thinking of the story that I heard recently people who challenged God on creating life. They decided to have a contest. So God said, “Okay. I did this from dirt”. The contestants said, “Okay. We will do it from dirt too”, and they began to gather up some dirt. God said, “Wait a minute now. You've got to get your own dirt”.

We are gathering up the particles that we did not create and then we are claiming the right and the ability to create life from these particles. I do not think that is right. We are interrupting a process that comes from somewhere else. I think there is an origin of right and wrong.

Every day in the House, as institutionalized and formalized as it is, we take a little bit of time at the beginning to acknowledge God. If God exists we would presume that God would have the power to create.

On Wednesdays we sing O Canada as we address the flag. As we sing “God, keep our land...”, we are acknowledging daily, even in this place, that there is a power that goes beyond us. That is where moral authority comes from.

It is wrong to create a life, or put together the ingredients in any scientific way, solely for its destruction or for the benefit of another. No matter what we say, those components that are put together were not created out of nothing by us. We took what is already here and put it together. To do it for our benefit and for its destruction should be absolutely wrong.

Embryonic stem cell research requires the intentional death of innocent human life. It should be an absolute. It is an error to ignore the genesis of human life or to ignore the right of all human life to be protected from harm and death as much as possible. It is an error to believe that the embryo is a potential human life. An embryo is human life with potential. We sort of reverse things once in a while and to make it sound better.

For example, notice how we say human embryo. We say human fetus because that makes the subject an embryo. It makes the subject a fetus and only the modifier is human.

I want to remind the House that when we talk about a wagon we talk about a red wagon, particularly in the English language and this may be different in the French language which has a different structure. In English we talk about a white elephant, a baby elephant, but we do not talk about an embryo human, a fetus human, or a baby human. We reverse those so that the subject is not human.

A former member of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies stated:

The human embryo is a human individual with a complete personal genome, and should be a subject of research only for its own benefit....You and I were all embryos once. This is not an abortion question. When an embryo is not physically inside a woman, there is no possible conflict between that embryo and the life situation of anyone else. There are many across the spectrum on the abortion question who see the embryo as a human reality, and hold that to destroy it or utilize it as industrial raw materials is damaging and dehumanizing, not only to that embryo but to all human society.

That sums up what I wanted to say about that idea.

I will now address the fourth error. I believe it is an error to place the emphasis on embryonic stem cells when the scientific evidence points to postnatal stem cells as showing more promise without the ethical problems of embryonic stem cells and without the same problems of recipient rejection.

I am no expert on this subject but I understand that no one has ever been cured or helped from any disease by any embryonic stem cell. However I understand there are quite a number of people, and the number is continually growing, of those who have been helped by the implantation of postnatal, that is adult stem cells into their bodies.

I have a few personal conclusions to make. First, embryonic stem cell research should be avoided at this time. It is ethically controversial and it is strongly opposed by large numbers of Canadians, as is demonstrated by the tremendous volumes of petitions and signatures that have been tabled in the House.

Second, postnatal stem cell research should receive our complete focus for both medical and ethical, that is moral, reasons. If this has the greater potential, as science indicates at this point, why would a responsible government not give at least a three year moratorium, which the official opposition has asked for, on embryonic stem cell research and allow the postnatal adult stem cell research to develop as it should so there is not competition here? I believe it is because some people simply do not want adult stem cell research to win out over embryonic stem cell research, actually because that leads to life. It would be life-giving and the embryonic is not.

Third, a human life should be respected and protected in whatever stage it is observable. The dignity of human life must be preserved. Of all that we do for convenience and technological advancement, we do not do ourselves any favours, nor do we do our children down the line any favours, if we continue to allow the erosion of the dignity of the human being.

The fourth conclusion is that the truth about scientific and medical facts around stem cell research must be recognized and given without misrepresentation. It is unfortunate that such an emphasis on embryonic stem cell research has been put out there. It is made to sound almost as if people will die like flies if we do not sacrifice some embryos. That is not a good representation of the scientific truth.

Fifth, the rights of any child born because of assisted human reproduction should supercede the rights of any donor. Children must have the right to know their identity and their family medical history. It is only fair to the children being born.

The last conclusion I have is that the recommendation of our minority report, which states that the final legislation clearly recognizes the human embryo as human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”, should be included and should be a part of everything we do in this field.

[Petitions, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to table in the House, all from the province of Ontario.

The petitioners request that this House recognize the importance of allowing the parents of children to be actively involved with them after divorce and that discrimination on race, gender or religion be eliminated. I present these petitions on behalf of these people and many others who wish to have contact with their children.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand and speak to Bill C-420. Going back to the election campaign, I had a number of people ask me about my support for natural health products. Since that time I have had a number of constituents write to my office or call to ask what has happened with this or why have we not moved on it. I have been asked what we are doing and whether we support natural health products.

I would like to get on the record today to ensure my constituents understand that I support this. The bill is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It seeks to bring herbs, dietary supplements and other natural health products under the purview of Health Canada's food directorate by amending the definitions of both “food” and “drug” in the Food and Drugs Act and to implement the recommendations the transition team of the Office of National Health Products by repealing sections 3(1) and 3(2) in schedule A of the Food and Drugs Act.

Let me go to a personal experience before I come back to the details. With an agricultural background, one may know that when an animal on the farm becomes ill, the first and main treatment veterinary medicine uses to treat that animal is proper nutrition. Usually minerals, vitamin supplements and that sort of thing are recommended to bring the animal back to a proper condition of health.

I believe over the years we have learned that this is a very good practice for us as human beings, to first look after our nutrition and perhaps to go so far as to take supplements, like they do on the farm to supplement the natural food available to those animals and to guarantee their health.

Years ago I was introduced to a natural health product. After having knee surgery, three or four months later my knee was still sore and swollen. There was a goose egg on top of my knee that was like a golf ball cut in half. I was told about a natural health product but I could only be told that it might help because it had been known to help some other people, not because there was something in it that would help.

Recommendation 19 says that natural health products should be allowed to make health claims including structure, function, claims, risk reductions, claims and treatment claims. That cannot be done right now. It cannot be said that this is usually good for arthritis or it is usually good for swollen joints. However people who sell these natural health products can legally say that they knew old Joe over there, that he had an operation on his knee, that it was swollen and that it did not go away for four months. However when he started to take that natural health product and before the week was over, his knee was well, the swelling gone, the lump gone and the limp gone. Those kinds of things are happening with some of the natural health products. However it is against the law to say on the label that this may or may not happen.

I am very concerned that we make a move to have more accurate labelling on these health products to inform people what the products might accomplish for the human body. Right now there is a total lack of labelling on them. The label only says what is in the bottle. No kind of directions or claims can be made other than a recommended dosage. Any move to clarify the labelling and make even better suggestions to that would be welcome.

We always seem to worry. We find the bad news in every situation and we worry about would happen if somebody misused some of these natural health products. The question I would ask is what happens if somebody misuses the doctor's prescription. I believe that is a problem that we need to look at.

We understand the misuse of prescription drugs in North America is rampant and people are dying and yet we act worried because somebody might take a little sampling of garlic or onion in a concentrated dose.

Medicine in this century and in this nation needs to be administered by more than simply drug pushers. I am concerned that when we go to a doctor, we are pointed to one drug but if that does not work we are pointed to another and another until one works, and we call that science. Yet we worry when we are told to eat lettuce or garlic. We worry about the natural products when it is the drug products that are killing us. The misuse of drugs is the problem, not the misuse of natural health products.

My colleague in the Bloc suggested that there might be a third category. That is true, we might use a third category but we might have to go at it a little more scientifically. However we may want to take this baby step first before we get to that point.

I understand in the United States there is a third category being developed. I do not know how far along it is or if the legislation has passed, but the third category is called a nutriceutical. This is where the nutrients are tested scientifically so the health product can then receive a label and be recommended for some very specific health benefits to the body. Perhaps that amendment may have to go to that.

We have the observations that even under the labelling of being a food, we still have protections under the Food and Drugs Act. I think my colleague mentioned those.

He said that it could not be a harmful or a poisonous substance and that it could not be unfit for human consumption. He also said that it could not be filthy, putrid, disgusting or rotten, which l think are things people regularly eat and use. I could put some things, which people pay good money for, into that category right quick, but that cannot be in a nutriceutical or adulterated. It has to be manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged and stored under sanitary conditions. No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner that is false, misleading, and on and on they go. So there are protections there.

I believe it is time that we understand that health is more related to what happens and what goes into our body ahead of time than what goes into our body when we go to the doctor and he gives us a prescription of drugs.

I think we need to open this up. We need to allow our people to take responsibility for what they eat and what they choose, whether it be off the grocery store shelf or off the health food store shelf. I think we are headed in the right direction by making this baby step for this natural health product.

[Petitions, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions mostly from residents of Ontario and Quebec. They are calling on Parliament to modify legislation to ensure that parents are equally and actively involved in their children's lives after divorce, and to ensure that child support payments are used for the children.

[Divorce Act, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government wants to concede the sovereignty of this nation to the UN.

In 1991 Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For children who are separated from one or both parents, the convention states that children have the right to maintain direct contact with both parents. However the government's bill to amend the Divorce Act ignores this right of children by excluding shared parenting from the legislation.

Why does the Minister of Justice deny that children have a right to maintain a relationship with both parents after divorce?