Gary Schellenberger

[Supplementary Estimates (A), October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party votes no.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes on this motion.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party votes yes.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no to the motion.

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the ministers are the ones who set policies and the ministers are the ones who are influenced. That is why guidelines are in place.

Has the Minister of State responsible for ACOA ever received any undeclared gifts in excess of $200?

[Volunteers, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I rose to support Bill C-325, a private member's bill that would have allowed volunteer emergency service workers, such as firefighters, to claim a much deserved tax credit in recognition of the tireless service they provide the community.

After spending 14 years as a volunteer fireman, I have a firsthand appreciation for the tremendous work these groups contribute to our society and know all too well how poorly these volunteers are compensated financially.

The Liberal government has greatly reduced services offered to Canadians and volunteers are being called upon to pick up the slack. It can be easy to forget just how many Canadians, especially in rural Canada, benefit from the service of volunteers.

I want to thank volunteer firefighters right across Canada who give of themselves in order that others may be helped. This was a good bill and should have been passed. I say shame on the government for voting against it.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take my full three minutes, but there is one thing I would like to say again on Bill C-13, the assisted human reproduction act. I wonder if it might not be prudent for the government to allow for a free vote on the bill as it is a conscience bill. That is all I want to say.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies act. I have my reservations about this particular bill primarily because of the cloning aspect that might be perceived here.

Bill C-13 seeks to prohibit or control reproductive technologies such as cloning and establish a new federal agency to regulate and license fertility clinics and biomedical research involving human embryos. A bill solely addressing reproductive technologies would have easily passed over a year ago. However, since the vast majority of MPs would have voted to ban human cloning, it was thought that the bill would piggyback the ethically sensitive issue of destroying human embryos and still get passed.

Having underestimated the significant public backlash, the bill became the subject of intense public scrutiny. Initially, the concern was the ethics of destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells for research, but as time passed, many other weaknesses of the bill were discovered. I know a lot of those weaknesses have been discussed here today and I would wish that people would look into them even more.

Members should consider the following weaknesses. Despite the fact that Health Canada has already corrected one error in the definition of a human clone, the bill still does not ban all known forms and techniques of human cloning. I know, through much of my political career, that definitions are very important. One must look at all the definitions that could be described in this bill.

The bill would permit the implanting of human reproductive material into non-human life forms. The biomedical definition of chimera involves the implantation of reproductive material from a human into an animal or from an animal into a human; however, the definition in the bill only refers to the latter. I have friends who have had pig valves implanted in their hearts. I know that has been a very positive thing in life and in how things carry on, so I do understand that particular part.

Experts have estimated that there are less than 10 embryos available in Canada that would meet research quality requirements. The number of surplus embryos is not expected to increase since medical technology has improved. Comparatively, the U.K. has destroyed 40,000 human embryos without any positive research results.

The conflict of interest provisions are so weak that they would allow biotech and pharmaceutical companies to be represented on the board of the agency that would approve and licence research projects.

Significant clauses of the bill have been qualified by phrases such as “as per the regulations”. There are 28 areas in which regulations must be developed and these will not be known until at least 18 months after the bill has passed. Effectively, MPs are being asked to vote on a bill without knowing the full intent. Furthermore, MPs will not be permitted to approve regulations.

The Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies and the health committee both recommend that paid surrogacy be prohibited. The bill would permit surrogates to be reimbursed for lost employment income if they get a doctor's certificate.

The bill ignores women's health issues by not establishing reasonable limits on the amount of drugs used by them or on the number of ova that can be harvested, or embryos that can be implanted.

The bill prohibits the purchase or sale of human reproductive material, but Health Canada does not explain how researchers would get embryos from for profit fertility clinics without paying compensation.

The bill does not establish uniform disclosure or informed consent practices to be used by all fertility clinics. Such disclosure would protect the interests of the infertile.

The health committee urged that the bill state what constituted necessary research. Specifically, the committee recommended that research on human embryos be permitted only if it could be demonstrated that that was no other biological material that could be used to achieve the same research objectives. The bill rejects the recommendation and delegates the decision to the federal agency.

The health committee made 30 such recommendations on the draft bill. The report received no response and most of the key recommendations are not reflected in Bill C-13.

The health committee heard from about 200 witnesses and received over 400 written submissions. As a result of that work, the committee passed three substantive amendments to the bill. At report stage, all three amendments were reversed, with the effect that the work of the health committee was virtually ignored.

I can relate to that particular situation. I have seen it happen with various other committees. I am a member of a couple of committees that have worked very diligently on various pieces of legislation. Being in the--

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak today to a matter of great importance to the men and women of the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve.

The legislation has the support of members on both sides of the House precisely because it improves the standard of living of our men and women in uniform.

I have great personal respect for the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve, as I believe their personnel are national heroes. They undertake the defence of our freedom and the protection of our borders without concern for the obvious risks involved.

In return, I believe we owe them the best possible heroes' reward. Part of that reward is to ensure we provide them with the type and kind of equipment they need to complete their missions. We have an obligation to guarantee that they have the resources they need, not only to discharge their duty but to return home safely.

That is why so many of my colleagues in the House insist that we must increase the defence budget. My colleague, the member for Saint John, has done everything in her power to ensure that our military is properly equipped. She is not alone, and I want to praise the work of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs for all the work it has done.

The renovation of the military and reserve pension schemes is something that many would argue has been a long time coming. The Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve of the present day face many different challenges than those our military faced in the past.

Since the September 11 attacks, our military has changed both in terms of the missions it is given and the members it must recruit. Any effective pension plan must reflect these changes.

The military pension scheme must also reflect the fact that many of its recruits join up at a very young age, and that they are subjected to some of the most rigorous training imaginable. It is my understanding and belief that all these concerns, and more, are addressed in the legislation now under consideration by the House.

The legislation recognizes that our armed forces reserve is being called upon to take a greater role in our national security. As my colleagues have said, the backbone of our military is the militia. This fact has not been previously recognized in the military pension scheme. Under the legislation, those necessary changes will be made into law.

Many of the changes are administrative in nature but underscore the more important policy concerns that our military men and women have with the administration of their pensions. Clearing up this red tape will only help in making the Canadian armed forces a more attractive option for many young Canadians who might be considering a career in the military.

As the House already knows, our military is having a difficult time recruiting the necessary number of men and women needed to handle the burden of missions now upon us. The September 11 attacks and subsequent war on terror attacks have had a marked effect on recruitment efforts, as patriotic young Canadians have answered the call of their country. However, stories about how Canadian soldiers and veterans are forced to fight with this government for the benefits that they have so clearly earned, gives them pause.

The operational tempo, that is to say the ratio of time spent by Canadian Forces personnel in deployed missions, has increased dramatically in the same period that the number of CF personnel was in decline.

Any businessman will tell us that when demand exceeds supply, the end result is a shortage. When there is a shortage in our military, then the security of the country is weakened. Our ability to offer assistance to the world is limited. Our military ends up serving longer, with fewer rotations. With fewer rotations the men and women of our military have less time to train here at home and less time to be with their families.

We have just recently witnessed the very tragic and very dangerous aspect of military missions. Two Canadian soldiers in the prime of their lives were taken from us in Afghanistan. We can honour their memory and their service by improving the conditions of those they have left behind.

My colleague from Saint John has repeatedly said that when it comes to our military we cannot play politics. However I do not believe it would be political for me to say that we need to improve the state of our military in light of current events. It would not be political because so many of my colleagues on both sides of this chamber have said the same thing. It would not be political when an unbiased publication, Jane's Defence Weekly , has written that spending cuts to our defence budget have caused irreparable damage to our military.

We have to take action now. We need to ensure that the military has an increased budget that remains stable in years to come. Stable funding is the cornerstone of an effective military, just as a stable pension is the cornerstone of personal financial security for our military men and women.

Today I am proud to stand in support of making the changes necessary to improve the lives of those who risk their lives for us. Our military's strongest asset is flesh and blood, not steel. Whenever we speak of national defence, we must remember that we speak of sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers.

Our goal here today is to improve the standard of living for our military personnel for years to come. I believe, given that task, there is no reason that we should not give it our unanimous support.

[Government Assistance, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to face a number of very serious challenges, from the carnage of hurricane Juan on the east coast, devastating forest fires throughout the west, to economic crises such as the decimation of the Canadian cattle industry and excessive tariffs imposed on softwood lumber that are killing the industry.

In light of this, the current government is expected to recess the House in the very near future.

My question is for the government House leader. Why is the government abandoning Canadians and forcing them to deal with these disastrous situations?