House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was offenders.

Topics

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK

That is nurses.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, the member will have a chance to conclude and continue the debate, so I would remind him to exercise the kind of restraint that most of us do during Private Member's Business.

I commend the member for his initiative, but as the government member stated, most of this falls under provincial jurisdiction.

I am really disappointed. I know the member believes firmly in this. That is his right. That is why he was sent to this House. But why would the Reform Party stay away in big numbers? There is not one single member of the Reform Party—

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I must remind the hon. member that we do not comment on the presence or absence of members in the House.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, to phrase it another way, which may be parliamentary, there is not one single member of the official opposition here except the mover of the bill. That tells us something about his lack of support within his own party and it tells us a lot about that party and its commitment to this very issue.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to draw to the attention of people watching that I have received a lot of support from all members of the House.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

An hon. member

That is not a point of order.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK

It is a point of order.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

It is not a point of order. Once again, I would ask all hon. members not to comment on the presence or absence of members in the House.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, I apologize for referring to the absence of Reform members in the House.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The comments of the member are very offensive when we are dealing with something as serious as this. We have had members from all parties in the House support this.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am afraid the member is debating.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, the member who put forward this bill is a member of the very party that denied us on opposition day the other day by simply denying unanimous consent to continue the debate.

I cannot believe that, again, he is the only member of his party here debating this very issue. Where are they? Back home? What is the problem? Why would they not—

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

This will be the last point of order on this subject.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the comments of the member and I think you should shut it down. He should finish his speech. We have had good support from all members—

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I would again warn the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, I have nothing against the member in terms of his commitment to the issue, but the point that I have been attempting to make is that widespread support is needed on a bill which is before the House. I cannot see widespread support on the other side of the House. I cannot see widespread support on this side of the House. Basically, the problem is that it goes into what is generally considered to be provincial jurisdiction. On that basis alone I do not think he will get the kind of support he is seeking.

The preamble to the bill and some of the facts the member has presented to the House are open to debate in terms of the protection that health care workers, doctors and nurses, are afforded today through the charter of rights and through their individual rights as working Canadians. That is very much respected today and we want to see that kind of respect and defence of individual rights continue. I believe that under the current legislation that is happening.

Although his intentions are good, I do not believe that this bill will add anything to the debate. On that basis I will sit down and allow the sole member of the Reform Party to continue.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I will recognize the hon. member who presented the bill for his five minute reply, which will end the debate.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking members on the government side of the House who supported this bill. Although they are not here in body, I know they are here in spirit and they are supportive of it.

It is unfortunate in our present system that we have a scenario where private members' bills are slotted at the end of the day, late in the week, when individuals have to catch flights and things of that sort. These are individuals from the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. There were some 100 signatures collected in support of this bill. The bill also came in by way of the draw and that is why we are having this discussion today.

What I think is really quite questionable about our system is the fact that if we go into committee with a bill that has the support of at least a third of the members of the House, in principle the bill should come before the House. It should be voted on, it should be tweaked, it should be amended, it should be changed and improved.

I would certainly welcome the member from the Conservative Party who spoke previously for the contributions he would make there. He would listen to the various witnesses from Nurses for Life and various health care workers and he would find that we do not have protections in our country at this time for nurses, the men and women who serve alongside, but who are in a different position than physicians. Everything that he had to say concerned protections for, in his own words, physicians. Physicians are a lot different than nurses. That is the focus. That is the particular matter under discussion here today. I want to thank and encourage others who work in the health care profession and those who are in training institutions.

I recall a day some months ago when I had an aboriginal girl come into my office. She was pretty emotionally shook up. She was coming to the completion of her term of study. She asked me “What can I do in the situation I am caught in? I am supposed to do a study of certain modules or elect certain modules as I come to the end, and it appears—I do not know and I have to find out—that I have to be involved in an abortion procedure”. This was an aboriginal girl and from her background, whether religious or not, sanctity of life, respect for life, was important. She had the feeling that she would be coerced or forced into an abortion procedure or be denied completion of her program. I have talked to doctors and to others, and it seems that in some schools at least, students are forced to be involved in this as part of their training program.

As the member who spoke prior to me mentioned, it is not covered. We have too many nurses, too many individuals, who call and tell us that this is a problem. It is not something that we can simply leave. It would no longer be a problem if it were something the provinces could deal with. It needs the broader protection of the federal government. It should be in the criminal code, as we are suggesting.

If there are better ideas in terms of the protection of health care workers, we are certainly open to them, but nothing has been forthcoming so far. We would gladly do what we could in defence of and on behalf of good health care workers who dedicate their lives to the profession or specialize in the area of bringing life into the world. They do not want to be involved in abortion procedures. It is not banning abortion; it is simply saying that others cannot be forced into being involved. It is saying that others cannot be forced into being involved in euthanasia. We hope to have a bill in place some day to deal with the reproductive technology that greatly troubles health care workers. It is ethically troubling for them.

Again, as I conclude my remarks, I want to thank members of the House who may even be viewing this in their offices or in their homes on CPAC, especially members from the government side of the House. Obviously they would not be the minority, but there are good members of that party which have given their support, as well as members of the Conservative Party. In fact it was the deputy House leader from the maritimes who seconded this bill. It was this member's own colleague.

I want to thank members of my party, a good number of them, maybe the most significant amount of those 100 signatures, as well as members from the NDP. This issue needs to be dealt with and we will do that in due course.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the thanks, but I would remind the member that his own caucus is missing this debate and I am very disappointed.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I have been very patient with the member.

Would the hon. member for Wanuskewin like to complete his remarks?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK

Madam Speaker, I have completed my remarks. I simply want to assure members on all sides of the House who have these concerns at heart that we will continue to try to improve the bill in different ways such that it reflects and protects workers. It would appear at this point that our only recourse is to bring it into the criminal code so that there is broad, uniform protection across the country for health care workers.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address a matter that I raised in this House on October 18.

At that time I raised a question and brought a matter to the attention of the Minister of Health pertaining to the very serious and broad issue around food safety.

I specifically asked the government about its intentions with respect to Bill C-80, which was legislation tabled in parliament last spring but not dealt with before the summer recess.

In the interim a most unusual development occurred. The extraordinary public display of concern by 200 staff people in the Department of Health took place. Two hundred scientists in the health protection branch, knowledgeable about the area of food safety and food research, spoke up publicly. That is unheard of. For that large a group of employees within the government to go public with their concerns suggests to me and to members of my party that there is a very deep rooted serious problem within the Department of Health that has not been addressed and continues to fester and cause concerns for all Canadians.

Those scientists went public on September 30 of this year. They called upon the government to reverse its decision with respect Bill C-80 and with respect to the whole erosion of the food safety approach of the government. They were very clear about the problems associated with Bill C-80 and about a number of other developments that have raised serious concerns among Canadians regarding the quality and safety of our food.

Specifically they talked about aspects of the bill that need to be addressed by the government. For example, fundamental to their concerns is a matter pertaining to a conflict of interest in the inspection and surveillance of our food safety system.

The government has shifted responsibility from Health Canada to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency which is a step removed from direct accountability to parliament and involves a serious potential conflict of interest, being an agency that is responsible both for the promotion and marketing of food as well as for the inspection and safety of our food supply. They believe Bill C-80 will take us a step further in that direction.

They also raised concerns about the failure of the government, which is shown in Bill C-80 as it was tabled last spring, around ensuring that genetically engineered foods are safe. They suggest that the legislation will open the floodgates and allow for biotechnology to take place at a very rapid pace in the country without any kind of in-depth research being done to determine the long term impact on human health, on production patterns and on the environment.

They also believe that the bill will neutralize the Minister of Health and prevent him from carrying out his legislated statutory obligations under the Food and Drugs Act.

They have many other concerns, all of which I am sure the government is fully aware of. However, I want to use this opportunity today to ask: Given these concerns, will the government not just simply put Bill C-80 on hold but actually take it right off the agenda and look at restoring the teeth—

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am afraid that hon. member's time time has run out.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6 p.m.

Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies Québec

Liberal

Yvon Charbonneau LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health has taken the question raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre very seriously. He also took very seriously the petition signed by over 200 employees of the food directorate, and told them that food safety is vital for the minister and the department.

The employees of the food directorate recently met with senior management, and the minister totally supports the dialogue that followed.

We feel as well that the recent appointments of Dr. Le Maguer, an internationally renowned scientist, to head the food directorate and of Dr. Mohamed Karmali, a former member of the science advisory board of Health Canada, as head of the Guelph laboratory and specialist in diseases of the digestive tract, signal clearly Health Canada's commitment to scientific excellence and to the renewal of the food surveillance program.

Allow me to reiterate the commitments made in the October 12 throne speech on strategic investments in health research and technology, and in the improvement of Health Canada's Canadian food safety program and the investments that will modernize our health protection activities to better mirror our changing world. These ongoing commitments to food safety justify the $65 million announced in the last federal budget.

When parliament established the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in 1997, it set up a review system under which the Minister of Health is responsible for developing policies and standards relating to food safety and nutrition, and for evaluating the effectiveness of the agency's activities in the area of food safety. Health Canada is very diligently fulfilling these commitments.