Debates of Nov. 26th, 2001

Violence

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations general assembly declared yesterday, November 25, as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, marking the beginning of a 16 day period of activism against gender violence. In the words of the general assembly resolution, “violence against women is an obstacle to the achievement of equality, development and peace”.

Yet women around the world continue to be victimized by gender violence. A quarter of the world's women have been raped during their lifetime. In Canada 50% of women by age 16 have been the victims of at least one incident of physical or sexual violence while gender violence remains among the most unseen and unpunished of all violations of universal human rights.

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women should strengthen our call to eradicate gender violence and protect its victims, to reaffirm our commitment to the empowerment of women throughout the world and to invite us to re-examine the power of gender relations in our own communities so that we may eliminate all forms of gender subordination and discrimination.

Science and Technology

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the long expected news that a human embryo had been cloned. That announcement came from a private lab in the United States but it could just as easily have come from any lab in Canada.

Why? Despite a recommendation to ban cloning by the Baird royal commission almost 10 years ago, and despite poll after poll showing Canadians are opposed to human cloning, what we have is only draft legislation with no timetable for action. So here we are the day after in the appalling situation of having no legislation in place.

Now is the time, finally and without qualification, for the government to act and to ban human cloning. Now is the time for leadership on reproductive technologies that respects human dignity and diversity, stops the commercialization of human reproduction, places a priority on the health of women and children, and puts public good ahead of private gain.

Paul-André Quintin

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, Paul-André Quintin, the former chair of the international relations committee of the Parti Quebecois, died at the age of 58.

Paul-André Quintin was a professor of philosophy at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, he was a committed sovereignist, a man who was completely devoted to sharing with the world the contemporary nature of Quebec's goal.

This goal of Quebec achieving nationhood is something he worked toward and something to which he was deeply attached. For him, a sovereign Quebec would be a small progressive country open to everyone, no matter where they came from, a country that would play its part on the world stage.

It is not surprising, then, that globalization and the problems that it created worried him, as did the growing gap between rich and poor. Yet he was a strong believer in closer ties with the countries of South and Central America, and he was fluent in their majority language, the language of his cherished wife, Ercilla.

Paul-André Quintin was a supporter right to the end, a staunch believer in Quebec's sovereignty.

Thank you, Paul-André.

Kiwanis International

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome to Ottawa and to Parliament Hill today the international president of Kiwanis International, Brian Cunat. Also with him are the governor of the eastern Canada and Caribbean district, Milton Peach; Lieutenant-Governor Paul McCumber; and one of my constituents, Lieutenant-Governor Larry Kowlessar.

Kiwanis International has over 8,000 clubs in 76 nations. In 1994 Kiwanis adopted its first worldwide service project, a $75 million campaign in partnership with Unicef to eliminate iodine deficiency disorders in the developing world.

I am proud to say that CIDA has also been involved in this important project by matching donations. Kiwanis raised funds are now at work in more than 75 nations and these IDD programs are saving more than eight million children per year from cognitive disabilities.

I commend these leaders and all Kiwanians for their commitment to this important cause. I encourage all members to get behind this worthwhile endeavour.

Science and Technology

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend we learned that American researchers had successfully cloned an embryo from the nucleus of a human cell.

This scientific experiment took place in the U.S., where there had already been steps taken to prohibit the cloning of human beings.

As we all know, Canada is still waiting for such legislative measures.

On August 8, my leader, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, wrote to the Minister of Health asking him to intervene to ban cloning.

Four months later, no response is yet forthcoming and now we are faced with a fait accompli: science has jumper the gun on legislation.

I am not asking the minister to stop all biomedical advancement, but I am asking that it be properly supervised so as to ensure that Canadians may benefit from such advancement while being protected from potential dangers. The minister's silence on the question puts both of these objectives at risk.

Employment

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we were kids at camp we used to sing the song “One dumb digger dug into the ditch, the other dumb digger dug out”. That is what the Liberals do with jobs. While they are creating jobs in one place, jobs are being killed elsewhere in the country.

A couple of years ago, when the Royal Canadian Mint was arguing in favour of expanding its capacity to build coin blanks, we argued against it. We said there was an international overcapacity. We pointed out that there were enough private enterprise businesses that could meet international demand.

The Liberals rejected it. They went ahead with their project. Now, thanks to the Liberals, a number of people in my riding are losing their jobs just before Christmas because their work in the Westaim plant has come to an end. That is shameful, and the Liberals should be ashamed of what they have done.

Science and Technology

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday science fiction took a step closer to becoming science fact. A United States firm announced that it has successfully cloned a human embryo.

It was over seven years ago that the government promised legislation to deal with the whole issue of reproductive cloning, and still we have seen nothing. The issue is upon us now. Why is the government stalling on the issue of reproductive cloning?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a bill in front of the committee at this moment on that very issue; to prohibit human cloning in Canada.

If the Leader of the Opposition had checked with his own members he would have known that it was being debated in committee at this time. It is the time to make other recommendations, if the bill is not good enough.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after seven years, we learn that for the first time a human embryo has been cloned.

Indeed, 90% of Canadians oppose human cloning. Despite the Liberals' promises, we still have no legislation in this area.

Now that human cloning is a reality, will the government introduce legislation right now—not in seven years' time, but right now—to ban all forms of cloning?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the person formulating the question should know, as I said in English a few seconds ago, that a bill has already been put before the House and is currently being considered by a committee of the House, in which MPs are looking at the problem.

The bill indicates clearly that the government—and we hope the House as well—is opposed to human cloning. This is the government's position and it will soon be the House's position, if the opposition realizes that a bill is already before the House and the committee.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, cloning a human embryo, creating a new human being, creating life for the purpose of destroying it just to harvest its cells is simply and absolutely wrong, especially since science is offering us great potential with adult stem cell research.

Would the Prime Minister agree that this is wrong? Yes or no.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I have said that twice already. A draft bill is in front of the committee and is being discussed at this time. The members are looking at the bill. When the committee reports to the House of Commons, the bill will be introduced and we will be happy to pass it very quickly.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the question. The question was whether he thought this was right or wrong and he avoided it.

My question is for the health minister. Since the draft legislation has been in front of the health committee for a long period of time, this new aspect of cloning is before us. Will the health minister bring the anti-cloning portion of the bill before the House immediately so we can deal with it now?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is odd. That side of the House likes to talk about democratizing parliament and giving members of parliament and committees a role in preparing legislation. Then, when this minister puts the bill before the committee, even before bringing it to the House, and gives the committee a chance to study it all, that side wants us to take it away from the committee and arrogate its role by putting it before the House now.

We should let the committee finish its work. It has a bill before it which would outlaw cloning. Let us let the committee report and then the government will act.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the cloning of a human embryo in the U.S. was done specifically to produce embryonic stem cells for the treatment of disease. There are other sources and methods for finding those embryonic cells. Adult cells are much preferable.

Will the minister assure the House that the government policy is to elevate adult stem cell research, instead of going down the road of embryonic stem cell research? Yes or no.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member would do better to save his speeches for the committee. The committee is studying all this right now, with members of that party on the committee taking part in the discussion. If this member has a speech to make about cloning, he should make it to the committee.

By the way, the bill that we put before the committee would prohibit human cloning.

Public Safety Act

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed public safety act, when a minister decides that there is a security risk, he may issue an interim order before anyone establishes whether or not the order is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does the Prime Minister realize that by not first examining interim orders in light of the charter, the government is leaving the door wide open to numerous violations of rights and freedoms?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the House is an attempt to anticipate matters of extreme urgency. Circumstances may arise in which it is necessary to act very quickly. The minister will have the power to do so. He will then have to have his bill approved by cabinet and the necessary legal reviews done.

But provision must be made for circumstances in which the minister might have to take a decision very quickly. I do not wish to anticipate such urgent situations, but there have been some recently where very, very speedy action was required.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, and in those situations, it was possible to act without violating the charter.

The government and the Prime Minister are demolishing entire sections of the legal apparatus, which it has taken years to build. The government is taking a huge step backward at our expense, and the Prime Minister, who claims to be the father of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, says nothing. We are worried.

Will the Prime Minister admit that by dropping the charter test, the government is shifting the burden of proof to citizens who, without the same resources as the government, will have to show that the interim order of which they have been the victim is a blatant violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there. It still exists. If an order such as this is inconsistent with the charter, I assume it will be struck down by the courts. That is how the system works.

We are not saying “excluding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The minister is being given powers to act in urgent situations. There will be the necessary reviews and, if there is a conflict with the charter, obviously the latter will take precedence, because it is the most important piece of legislation in our constitution.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-42 on public safety, the designation of military security zones by the Minister of National Defence goes totally against some provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms in that the rights of people will be suspended.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, within the security zones to be created under Bill C-42, certain rights, including the right to demonstrate and the rights to freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of movement may be suspended, which means that the public will lose some of its rights?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not suspended.

The only cases where these military security zones would be used are in those cases that are clearly within the law. They are primarily intended to protect military assets of the Canadian forces or of allied forces and only to the extent of a perimeter that is necessary to do that. If, for example, a group of planes came in from one of our allies at a commercial airport, we could cordon off that area and give it military protection.

That is the kind of thing for which this revision is intended.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not on Mars. It is clear in the bill that such orders are not subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.

It is also clear that the Minister of National Defence is not only suspending people's rights by creating military security zones, but that he is also, under the new clause 84(9), removing the right to go before the courts to seek justice and compensation for any damages, losses or injuries following the creation of a military security zone.

It is spelled out in the bill. What does the minister have to say about this?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member is greatly exaggerating what this provision is all about. Clearly the laws of the land prevail in this case. What we are talking about are the common law powers that are normally extended to police departments and may in some cases be enforced by the military, if upon recommendation and the chief of defence staff has determined that a particular area needs to be cordoned off for security purposes. However it would only be for that required area and only if it was in accordance with the provisions of our laws.

Child Poverty

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the continuing crisis of child poverty is a blight on the record of this government. Poverty measures must include affordable housing, better job security, decent income support and adequate child care. It must also include increasing the national child care benefit from $2,500 to $4,200 for the first child.

Does the Prime Minister believe that Canada's children only need to be fed and clothed 60% of the time? If not, what will--