Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2002

Business of the House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, it always pays to persevere in life.

I was saying that every member of the Bloc Quebecois understands the importance of the issue of reproductive technologies. I am aware that this type of bill concerns one couple in five on average, since 20% of people experience reproductive difficulties at some point or other in their life.

However, we do have some real concerns, concerns that are shared by the Government of Quebec, led by Bernard Landry. Quebec's minister of health sent a letter to his federal counterpart, the federal Minister of Health, outlining some of these concerns.

What we would like, is for the federal government to use the valid constitutional power that it has, under section 91.27 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to criminalize certain practices around which there is consensus for ethical reasons and because of our values.

In the time I have left, I will come back to the prohibited practices and the need to criminalize them. Remember that, since 1997, the Bloc Quebecois with its sense of responsibility it has always had, and through the member for Drummond, whom I would like to commend, has introduced a private member's bill three times, to criminalize cloning for reproductive and therapeutic purposes.

Back then, members will recall that the government had turned a deaf ear to the member for Drummond. If it were not for the member for Drummond, who is part of a too small group of visionary people who really paved the way for the government when it comes to reproductive technologies, I believe this government would never have acted with the diligence that we should expect from the members opposite.

We would feel quite comfortable voting in support of a bill that would maintain the 10 prohibited practices in Bill C-13 as it now stands.

We cannot be a party to an attempt to invade a provincial jurisdiction. Let me explain. With Bill C-13, a federal regulatory agency is established, which will administer an annual budget of $10 million and—who would have guessed?—regulate the medical profession. It will determine under which conditions physicians will be authorized by regulation to perform medical procedures related to insemination or other activities related to reproductive technologies. In Quebec, in the Act respecting health services and social services, section 112 confers that power to the Quebec health minister. So, let us not mix two debates and two issues that should be kept separate.

As a society, we may say that certain activities are immoral, unethical, and as lawmakers, we may not be prepared to condone them; we have no problem with that. We may want to prevent potential manipulations and such practices in government or private laboratories; we are willing to follow the government in that direction.

All our fellow citizens may not be aware of this, but I can sense the Chair's contagious interest in this matter. Still, clause 5 of the bill lists 10 activities prohibited under Bill C-13. Once again, we hope this will be enacted in legislation, as was recommended by the hon. member for Drummond, who is ahead of her time in this field. Under clause 5, it is prohibited to create a human clone for reproductive or therapeutic purposes.

We believe that each human being is unique, that each has a personality of its own, and therefore we do not want cloning to be made possible.

It is also prohibited under the legislation to:

(b) create an in vitro embryo for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures;

It is also prohibited under the bill to:

(c) --create an embryo from a cell or part of a cell taken from an embryo or foetus or transplant an embryo so created into a human being;

It is prohibited to:

(d) maintain an embryo outside the body of a woman after the fourteenth day of its development--

This 14th day is the recognized time when the formation of the nervous system begins.

It is prohibited to alter the germ line, that is to:

(f) alter the genome of a cell of a human being or in vitro embryo such that the alteration is capable of being transmitted to descendants.

This means that we cannot create custom made human beings. We cannot say, “I want a girl with blue eyes and I want all her descendants to have blue eyes”. It is not possible to use genetics for such purposes.

Under the bill, it is also prohibited to:

(g) transplant a sperm, ovum, embryo or foetus of a non-human life form into a human being.

It is easy to understand the need for such a prohibition. Under the bill, it is prohibited to:

(h) for the purpose of creating a human being, make use of any human reproductive material or an in vitro embryo that is or was transplanted into a non-human life form;

Under the bill, it is prohibited to:

(i) create a chimera, or transplant a chimera into either a human being or a non-human life form;

Finally, it is also prohibited under the bill to:

(j) create a hybrid for the purpose of reproduction, or transplant a hybrid into either a human being--

If the government had been logical, had introduced Bill C-13 and had limited its scope to these 10 prohibitions, we would have immediately given our support to this legislation.

However, when it comes to health, the federal government wants to engage in nation building, it wants to interfere and get involved in provincial jurisdictions. The Kirby report is indicative of this trend. The national forum on health, which proposed a national pharmacare program, is also a case in point. On Thursday, we will see what the Romanow report recommends, but we think it is going to be more of the same.

The Quebec government, which is one of the best to have presided over the future of Quebeckers, examined all the acts that would be deemed incompatible, totally or partly, with Bill C-13.

I will tell you about this, if I may. Our Civil Code—one of the things that is most distinctive about Quebec, since the rest of Canada has the common law tradition—this most important legal system prohibits such things as payment for the services of surrogate mothers, as well as reimbursement of surrogates or donors for certain expenses.

The Civil Code, the legislator and the National Assembly have taken stands on this issue, stating that donors and surrogates must live with their choices. Donation must be a purely altruistic act, and that is why under the Civil Code no reimbursement of any kind is allowed.

Bill C-13 makes an exception to this principle and acknowledges that certain expenses might be reimbursed with ministerial authorization. The bill proposed to us is therefore incompatible with the wishes of the Quebec legislator.

There is also incompatibility with Quebec's Act respecting Health Services and Social Services. As I have said, section 112 of this legislation empowers the minister of health to determine those facilities which will provide services relating to infertility and reproduction. Any issues relating to the approaches to be used in this service delivery are determined by the legislation.

The regulatory agency would, therefore, be superimposed, adding another condition which is central to health and social services, although these are a provincial area of jurisdiction.

I trust that the government House leader will bow to this logic. It is not too late to influence the Minister of Health, a lady who must be treated with kid gloves because she can sometimes be a bit obtuse. But I am counting on him.

There is also incompatibility with another piece of Quebec legislation, the Act respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector. If the regulatory agency did come into being, it would be possible, admittedly only with consent of the parties involved, but nevertheless possible, to disclose identifying information. In Quebec, in such cases, such information cannot be disclosed under any circumstances.

It is therefore clear why it is important for all references to the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada to be deleted from this bill and for the provinces, which already have legislation on this, to be left to do their work.

The list of legislative measures is a lengthy one. It is a great shame that such a bill has been allowed to see the light of day. The government is going to pay dearly for its desire to centralize.

So, as I said, it is incompatible with the Civil Code, with the Act respecting health services and social services, the act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information, and the act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, the act respecting medical laboratories, organ, tissue, gamete and embryo conservation, ambulance services and arrangements for corpses, and last, but least, it is incompatible with Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

I cannot mention Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms without getting emotional. First, because the charter was one of the first ones in North America. It was adopted in its final version in 1977—the work on it having been started by the Liberals with Jérôme Choquette at the National Assembly—but it was really the Parti Quebecois government, a government that has always been progressive, which was the first to give the charter its shape, and make it the envy of other parliaments.

Of course the charter contains provisions regarding the protection of life and the equality of citizens. However, the charter also contains the right to confidentiality and the right to privacy. Section 10 of the charter also contains provisions on social condition. I have had the opportunity to speak to this on several occasions; there are only three provinces, and the federal government, that do not have provisions regarding social condition in their charters of human rights.

However, rest assured that I am here, keeping an eye on the situation. I have sponsored a bill that has been chosen that would allow us to amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include social condition. While the government has done nothing, the Bloc Quebecois is fulfilling its responsibilities.

So, the bill is incompatible with Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, with the medical code of ethics, with the guidelines of the Quebec health research fund, better known to people in the field as the FRSQ as well as with the ministerial action plan on ethics and scientific integrity.

So clearly, the Government of Quebec has not waited for the federal government to get to work on the issue of assisted reproduction. The Government of Quebec took action. It has already established practices. Civil law has rules on a number of issues, but despite all that, the federal government once again wants to stick its big nose into areas that are not under its jurisdiction.

I have had the opportunity to meet physicians such as Doctor Bissonnette, not to mention names. This is a physician who is involved with the firm Procrea. They cannot see why, with the expertise we have in Quebec and what Quebec is doing, and doing well, in the field of reproduction technology, another structure, one which is cumbersome, inefficient and complicated, would be superimposed on the existing one.

Let me touch on this briefly. There are at least 15 good reasons to defeat Bill C-13. If passed—thank goodness, this has not happened yet, and we will not let it be passed as it stands—Bill C-13 would block any new initiative by Quebec to manage assisted reproduction techniques, even if Quebec has made strides in that field in the past decade.

The assisted human reproduction agency of Canada would superimpose a cumbersome and expensive structure on a system that has been tested and is already operational in Quebec.

It is important to note that the Quebec government's approach is to empower the stakeholders, an approach which is not always compatible with this desire to make certain procedures illegal, except for the ones listed in clause 5, with whose prohibition we agree.

Again, the saddest thing about Bill C-13, and we will never tire of pointing it out, is that it infringes on the power vested in Quebec's Minister of Health and Social Services concerning the exclusive delivery of services under section 112 of the Act respecting Health Services and Social Services.

This is a direct infringement upon a provision of the legislation passed by the National Assembly, under which Quebec took its responsibilities.

Again, criminal sanctions are created for medical procedures that have been enshrined in our civil law. I addressed earlier the whole issue of paying surrogate mothers. Bill C-13 interferes with provisions of the Civil Code, particularly with respect to the whole issue of consent to treatment—the government House leader will recall that this is covered in articles 10 and 11 of the Civil Code—and that of the relationship of parentage as it regards adoption, and articles 538 to 542 of our Civil Code.

Seventh, Bill C-13 does not reflect the positions taken by Quebec, particularly as regards adoption when we dealt with civil union. As hon. members know, Bill 84 was unanimously passed. It is rather unusual in our parliamentary system to have a bill that is unanimously passed. That was the case at the National Assembly with Bill 84, which instituted the civil union and which established new parentage rules.

Bill C-13 creates discrimination between children who were born through the use of new reproductive technologies and the others, since there will be a national register in which information will be available. This information will not necessarily be made available to adopted children.

One of the saddest aspects of the bill is that it interferes with the confidentiality of assisted human reproduction files.

I could go on and on, but I am asking hon. members to do something sensible and to allow this bill to be split, so that we can all vote as one. We know how beneficial this is for society. The bill could be quickly passed if it only dealt with prohibited activities. Let us leave it to the provinces, since it is their responsibility, to the extent that it relates to the delivery of health and social services, to adopt the practices relating to these issues, which are covered by clauses 25 to 39 of the bill.

I think such a measure would reflect common sense. It would be respectful of our constitutional law and it would allow us to move forward very quickly on issues which, again, are extremely important from an ethical and moral point of view.

Since my time is almost up, I am asking the House to unanimously agree to this motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am quite familiar with Bill C-13, as the member knows. This issue related to criminalization matters as well as provincial equivalency agreements has been the subject of much debate. Indeed, the matter is still before committee and we do have the opportunity. I think the member has raised some interesting points.

Yesterday, the Canadian Bar Association, I believe, made a presentation to the health committee specifically with respect to the criminalization of certain acts under the bill. It would be important if the member would like to comment on the following. If the legal community and Canadian law were to agree that the criminalization of certain activities that are prohibited under the bill should not be treated as criminal law, I wonder whether or not that would satisfy the member vis-à-vis what would be the case in Quebec.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for a long time, through the hon. member for Drummond, that some prohibited practices be added to the Criminal Code.

The situation is as follows. If there were a void, as is the case at the moment—we might think of cloning for instance—and if those doing the cloning were not punishable under the Criminal Code, there would be very little deterrence. If we had a definite scheme and fines were provided for, it is quite possible that a large pharmaceutical company would not be deterred by the risk of being fined $50,000, compared to the profits to be obtained from research that led it to do cloning.

I believe that some practices must be prohibited under section 91.27 and that penalties must be provided for in the Criminal Code. However, the bill must not go any further. As for the rest, namely the regulatory agency, equivalency agreements and so on, they should not be legislated since provinces are responsible for offering services related to infertility through clinics, hospitals and local community service centres. These are public facilities funded mainly by the provinces.

This is why we ask that the bill be split. However, we believe that the 10 prohibited activities must be added to the Criminal Code.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member has raised an interesting subject. I have to admit that I missed the early part of his intervention, so my question may ask him for clarification of something he has already covered.

The bill does raise some very challenging components. It is a very broad bill, purporting to cover assisted human reproduction but going into a very broad area of scientific research as well, such as issues of cloning and therapeutic cloning. We know that the bill would ban cloning and, at the current time, therapeutic cloning. There is still some discussion about that.

I want some clarification. In the area of regulation, scientists are certainly looking for a lot of openness. There is a controversy about embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells and a lot of questions remain to be answered on that front. There are very serious concerns concerning importing and exporting of sperm, of parts and even of embryos in relation to the bill, and even about the provisions regarding anonymity in donations.

My question is really about the equivalency provisions currently in the bill, which would allow provinces to have their own regulations that they could argue are equivalent to the federal jurisdiction. Does that not satisfy his concern about the provinces? It is still enabling an umbrella that would cover the country but allow provinces to make their own minor variations that they could argue are equivalent.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the current regulations already provide for the importation of sperm, an issue that raises many concerns, including possible contamination by infectious agents. We were told at committee about the regulations already in effect.

Second, prohibitions are the responsibility of the federal Parliament since they come under the Criminal Code. As for the rest, if the procedures are carried out in provincial institutions, then I think it is up to the provinces to determine if donor anonymity is possible or not.

At first, in committee, I thought disclosure should be made compulsory. I have changed my mind, because now I understand that those who donate sperm are not doing so, for instance, to be able to raise a family. We fear that compulsory disclosure would allow the child to go to court to get a living allowance, student financial assistance, or similar things that have more to do with family law than with criminal law.

When sperm or ova are donated, it is not to help a family, but to help those who are facing fertility problems.

[An hon. member]

Those issues come under provincial jurisdiction.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right in mentioning that these issues are up to the provinces. For this reason, the only concern this Parliament should have is related to criminal law and to maintain these prohibited activities.

When it comes to stem cells, what people need to know is that what makes these cells special is that there are approximately 150 of them that are available in the first days after conception of an embryo. These cells are extremely malleable and they can be used to regenerate tissue to treat a number of debilitating diseases.

However, using these stem cells requires destroying the embryo. This is an ethical and religious issue that is a concern for a great many of our colleagues here. I believe that if a person gives informed consent, if it has been proven to be unavoidable to use the cells, and research cannot be performed with other existing genetic material, then such a use should be authorized because it would allow us to improve the human condition.

Women who go to fertility clinics and who undergo cycles of ovarian stimulation may produce several embryos. If these embryos are not used, they will be discarded and destroyed. I believe that with informed consent—obviously this cannot be done without the person knowing—this could be a good way to advance research. It is a way to improve the human condition, particularly in cases of cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and juvenile diabetes.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on this matter. It is a very important issue. I am sure that at the root of my colleague's concern is the impact Bill C-13 would have on some provinces.

I understand that Quebec is very concerned about embryonic stem cell research. In fact some dialogue has taken place as to whether Quebec will allow embryonic stem cell research to be done there. I applaud Quebec for that. I think it is a progressive move, one that is ahead of many other areas in the country.

However, the piece of legislation has an equivalency agreement contained within it. If it allows embryonic stem cell research, which will take precedence: the provinces or this piece of legislation?

I also wonder if my hon. colleague would speak to the reason why he wants this piece of legislation split, the appalling procedure of therapeutic and reproductive cloning? If his province feels so strongly about embryonic stem cell research, does it also feel the same about cloning? Is the idea that Quebec will not allow human cloning within the province on its books?

I am also a bit confused about this jurisdictional thing, because we are seeing from the provinces intense pressure on Bill C-13 and this area, reproductive cloning. I am a bit confused because my colleague, his party and his province seem less interested in provincial jurisdiction with regard to the impact of the Kyoto accord, which would have many more repercussions on his province than this bill would have.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, as far as criminal law is concerned, we do not believe that this Parliament has the appropriate jurisdiction to regulate such things as the whole issue of the practice of health professionals or that of a donor registry. These are areas of jurisdiction that are connected with the delivery of health and social services.

Our colleague is right in reminding hon. members that, generally speaking, Quebec totally prohibits the use of stem cells and research on those cells. Each hospital where such research is carried out has its own ethics committee. Once again, first and foremost, areas of jurisdiction are involved.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, as you know, this matter does not fall under my minister's portfolio but it is one in which I have played an active role in by informing myself about Bill C-13 and some of its important provisions.

The member who has just spoken has moved a motion in the House that would call on the Standing Committee on Health, which is presently studying Bill C-13, an act on reproductive technologies, assisted human reproduction, to have the bill split in two so that it can deal with matters related to the criminalization of practices such as cloning and have that handled in a separate bill.

I believe that the motion is relevant. This is a very, very complex bill. It is a bill that in fact has its genesis in a royal commission from at least 10 years ago. The response of the public to it, certainly with regard to certain aspects, for instance cloning, I think was fairly definitive, but the science was evolving with a rapidity that the public was not able to really be fully aware of.

There was an attempt in 1997, I believe, to have a bill that responded to the royal commission. It did not get through the legislative process before the subsequent election. It was not until this Parliament that a legislative effort actually came forward.

It is interesting that after a number of years of having a royal commission, of certainly many people having advocacy positions with regard to reproductive technologies, both with regard to prohibitions and support for other aspects of reproductive technologies, the then minister of health came forward with a draft bill. That draft bill went through second reading here and to committee, where over 100 witnesses were heard on a variety of aspects. That is very significant. Hearing 100 or more witnesses on a bill indicates that it is not an insignificant bill.

I have to credit the committee with having prepared one of the most comprehensive, thoughtful and constructive reports of a standing committee, and on a very tough bill. That report was tabled in the House in December 2001. The response of the then minister of health was to not address specifically the 34 recommendations of this report on the draft legislation. In fact, on the last day on which it was possible for the minister to respond, the minister, and I believe it was on May 9 of this year, tabled Bill C-56 in response to the draft report.

There have been changes made between the draft bill and this one. One of the things I noticed was that in many of the clauses there was this standard phrase, for instance, “this is prohibited”, and then “unless otherwise provided for in the regulations”. If we were to look at this bill we would find that reference to the regulations spread throughout the entire bill, to the extent that I am not entirely comfortable that I know what the bill stands for in all regards and what I would be voting on if I were to vote for the bill, because I will not see the regulations until after the bill is passed and receives royal assent. This is backwards. I would like to see the regulations before the bill is passed.

I believe the relevance here is that the member has raised an issue with regard to jurisdiction. It is an issue, particularly with regard to criminalization related to the prohibitions. It is a relevant question and has been argued by others back at the beginning of the debate on Bill C-56, which transformed itself into Bill C-13 after prorogation.

There were calls for the bill to be split between the reproductive technologies part, i.e. cloning, genetic alterations, surrogacy issues, et cetera, and another part which dealt with issues, such as the restrictive use of stem cells from embryos for research purposes, a very difficult issue for many Canadians because of the ethical implications.

This particular bill, as the mover of the motion laid out, includes provisions whereby if provinces have existing legislation and regulations in place that address elements of the proposed bill, Bill C-13, that with consultations and negotiations the provincial legislation or regulations would be the relevant or the operative jurisdiction on those matters where there was an agreement. Therefore there are these kinds of provisions in there.

It is a rare case where federal jurisdiction and federal law would be seconded to a province. At any point in time we can imagine what would happen if there was a case before the courts and somebody asked what the federal law said on it. The federal would say “This you cannot do, blah, blah, blah”. However it is subject to whether or not there is an equivalency agreement. The fine line of the law being what it is, the interpretation of whether or not there was an offence, criminal or otherwise, could be very fine. Therefore a significant effort would have to be made to ensure that should there in fact be any equivalency agreements, that those clearly reflect the legislative intent of the federal legislation.

The member who moved the motion did not mention it specifically but I thought it was interesting to note that the Quebec minister of, I believe, health and social services announced very quickly after the bill was tabled in the House that the province of Quebec would be banning the utilization of embryos for harvesting stem cells; in fact banning embryonic stem cell research outright. The words he used were “It is forbidden”. I remember reading that in the press article.

While all this is going on, we have a group called the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It came forward with an interesting set of guidelines. It is the funding agency for publicly funded research in Canada, including things on embryonic stem cell research, and it has laid out the guidelines and the criteria under which they would permit such research.

That was quite controversial to this place and certainly to the health committee because those guidelines were developed and it was announced that they would be in place almost immediately at the same time as the committee was in the middle of dealing with Bill C-56, the legislation on precisely that issue. The controversy was that we now had another jurisdiction.

This agency was set up by the Government of Canada. It transferred funds to publicly funded research projects. I believe it was formerly called the Medical Research Council and is now called the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It even brings more relevance to the question of whether or not there is a jurisdictional problem here, because it is not just the federal government and provincial governments, it is also funding agencies, et cetera. Our bill right now, I believe, but I do not have my papers with me, seems to take the approach that this is the law but if the law is silent on some aspect then that other aspect still comes into play. I am thinking of the tri-council policy statement that permits research on embryos up to 14 days. We know that is in there.

What I do not believe is fully covered in the bill is the element of education and training and whether or not all of the provisions with regard to the safeguards, controls, consent, et cetera, with regard to donations of gametes or embryos for education and research purposes, are fully articulated in the current bill. I think we may want to consider whether there has to be some amendments. That is another jurisdiction.

The tri-council policy is basically the recognized leader or association of all researchers that makes pronouncements and provides guidelines for all research.

We have the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the tri-council policy statement and the provinces all having the opportunity to establish equivalency agreements and negotiate those with the governments, and then we maybe have another dimension that enters into this and that is the disciplines.

The Canadian Bar Association, which appeared before the health committee yesterday, said that it had a problem with criminalizing prohibitive behaviour. If a person makes a clone that is prohibited by this law should the person be treated as a criminal and penalized as a criminal? Bill C-13 says, yes. The Canadian Bar Association says, no. Other representatives of the medical research community obviously have come to us and said, no.

Now we have, not necessarily a formal jurisdiction, but certainly an industry, that being the lawyers, doctors, researchers and whoever else, having a problem with jurisdiction. I do not know how they will fight their cases if every province will be able to establish their own rules and require respect for their laws, practices and regulations, which will be incorporated, I guess by reference, in this legislation.

Now we are getting complicated. This now is a multidimensional problem. The member therefore has raised a quite straightforward motion, the implications of which are enormous. They are enormous because if we open up this matter with regard to the criminalization issue we must necessarily open up the matter with regard to splitting the bill between reproductive technologies and related research.

Eighty-five per cent of the bill is acceptable to Canadians and to the House. There was such a strong consensus on the bill, which deals with cloning, genetic alteration, surrogacy for profit, et cetera, all in line with what the health committee report on the draft legislation laid out, that today the legislation would have been passed.

However, it is not passed today and there is one reason and one reason only, and that is because the bill incorporated the whole aspect of related research.

I understand that research using embryos is an activity and that those embryos have to come from somewhere. Where they come from and prescribed to come from under the act is embryos which are surplus or left over after the process of in vitro fertilization, test tube babies.

The only linkage to this bill is the fact that those embryos are surplus to an IVF process. The IVF process is part of the reproductive technologies bill. It is a very small linkage. This whole area of embryo related research, education and training, finding therapies and cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, cancer and diabetes, is a wonderful science. I know of no one in Canada who is opposed to stem cell research because stem cells occur naturally in the human body. Every organ in the human body has stem cells. They also occur in placentas, umbilical cords, umbilical cord blood, aborted fetuses, as well as in embryos. The only linkage of related research in Bill C-13 is the fact that embryos from the IVF process will be used in the research, and the IVF process is linked to reproductive technologies.

A perfect argument would be to say that we should split the bill and take the reproductive technologies as one bill. Eighty-five per cent of the substance of this bill is acceptable to Canadians and to the House, party by party. It could be passed immediately and put into law. We could then ban cloning and genetic alteration in Canada. We would be able to deal with surrogacy for profit in Canada. We could have done this a year ago but the bill included related research. Now we have a problem.

If we look at the volume of the bill, we see that only about 50% of the pages are on reproductive technologies. The rest of the bill sets up an agency. We are going to set up an agency with a full time chair and representatives from all disciplines and provinces, part time people, and their responsibility will be to license fertility clinics and researchers. We are going to set up a bureaucracy.

On top of that, and I will not talk about it in any detail but I will just raise it, when we deal with research we are dealing with commercialization issues, and money gets made. Things like generic drugs versus brand names, the patent process and the legal issues of informed consent really start to come in on the related research.

When we look at this, the provisions to establish this agency are enormous. After the bill gets royal assent, which I expect might be in a year from now, it will take an additional two years to establish this agency and the related regulations. We are two and a half years away from having laws on the books to ban cloning. Shame.

I would argue, just as did the member who moved this motion, that we should split this bill and get the related technologies out of it. If it is going to take that long to come up with regulations to figure out how to deal with this, why not spend the time to look at this carefully, but let us get legislation on the books banning cloning, banning genetic alteration, and dealing with surrogacy for profit. Let us get those other prohibitions on there and the other controlled activities. It has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells. It has to do with the fact that Canada does not today have any legislation whatsoever dealing with matters such as cloning. We are one of the 128 countries in the world that does not even have legislation on these important matters.

We could have that legislation immediately. All it would take is to split the bill. I could make that argument just as well as the hon. member from the Bloc who moved this motion to split it. With regard to jurisdictional issues it is tremendously complex.

It has taken a long time to deal with the bill. I suspect it will take a lot longer. I know that members are very concerned about this issue. Certainly there are ethical issues that are involved which are not universal.

Canadians must be heard. We must respect the due process of the legislative process. If it means that we have to have a vacuum in our legislation on matters such as cloning, because we have put things in there which perhaps should not have been there to make an efficient disposition of legislation, there is always time for common sense to prevail.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague. He knows the subject very well. Some things have been excluded from his dialogue and it is probably because of a time restraint. I am quite concerned about the issue and the idea of splitting the bill. He has laid out the argument very well.

Other nations have wrestled with the same difficult subject. The United Kingdom has moved and has a regulatory agency. It is probably the leader in the world as far as the direction of technology, the regulatory body and in some things it allows in the area of research.

The Americans have also been wrestling with this. Over the last year we have heard them say that there will be no embryonic stem cell research. They have gone one step farther than that. An advisory committee for President George Bush has suggested that embryos, the fertilization of an ovum and a sperm, should not be called an embryo but rather a human subject.

Are the dialogues and what is happening in the States and has happened in the United Kingdom related to some of what we are wrestling with here? Could the member shed some light on his feelings on that?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is also very knowledgeable. He has been on this file since the very beginning. Maybe Canadians do not know but he knows that the United States already wrestled with this one. With an election of presidents, the position of the U.S. government changed from President Clinton to President Bush. Individually, they have different views.

The current position of the United States of America with regard to the embryonic stem cell research is that there will be no more killing of embryos, no more killing of human beings. However, it did allow researchers to get public funding for the purposes of purchasing pre-existing stem cell lines that had been harvested from embryos prior to it coming to its position. It identified that there were some 14 cell lines around the world that were available. Oddly enough, I was very much surprised to find that the cost of a vial of stem cells was only $3,000. If people can get what they want by purchasing vials of embryonic stem cells to do their research, that raises some question about why they would even want to go through the hassle of establishing an agency or the regulatory framework to ensure that there is this control.

The member also mentioned the U.K. Last night I printed off its bill. It actually had its genesis back in 1990, and there have been amendments since. I looked specifically at schedule 3, an excellent schedule on informed consent. In fact Dr. Françoise Baylis recommended that we should have a similar schedule 3 in Bill C-13 to deal with the complicated issues related to what consists of informed consent, when that occurs, et cetera, and the implications.

We definitely have to apprise ourselves of the work that has been done in other jurisdictions. We do not want to have to reinvent the wheel but we want to make it consistent with the intent of the legislation and compatible with the laws of the land, as they are a combination of federal and provincial laws and regulations. Respect for the jurisdictional aspect is extremely important.

We have asked at committee that a representative of the Government of Quebec, we were hoping either the minister of justice or the minister of health and social services, be invited to come to committee to help us to better understand the Quebec position. We know that Quebec was very quick to review the matter and to give its preliminary view. I understand its first step was to ban embryonic stem cell research outright. Subsequently I understand it is open to following the CIHR guidelines on it, but I am not sure.

We will see some other things happening too. Dr. Leon Kass is the head of President Bush's advisory council on biomedical research. Dr. Kass is eminently qualified and highly respected in the field. He is on record as recognizing that human life begins at conception as an undisputed biological fact.

The President has specifically asked Dr. Kass and his advisory committee to pursue as vigorously as possible research related to the storage of ova, women's eggs, so that there would not be any surplus embryos from IVF and this entire debate on the ethical level could be dispelled.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member. I know that he is very knowledgeable on this subject and has done a lot of research, particularly in the area of the stem cell research embryonic versus adult.

There is a lot of discussion today about which is the right way to go, not only ethically but scientifically. We know that in our day we had tremendous breakthroughs, unlike the U.S. and Great Britain when they were dealing with this subject earlier. There really was confusion about which would be the right way to go. It seemed as though the industry felt it had to have embryonic stem cells.

However we have seen tremendous advantage in the plasticity of adult cells, which can change into different types of cells. Also, as he mentioned, we have tremendous possibilities if ova can be used. Then we would not need to have a bunch of extra embryos created for the reproductive purpose.

Dr. Françoise Baylis did some research on the effect of freezing these embryos and thawing them and on how many would be effective or would need to be destroyed in order to find any useful stem cells. Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member will well know that when the whole issue on embryonic stem cell research came up, the assertion was that embryonic stem cells had more potential than adult stem cells, that is non-embryonic stem cells. The member is quite right. In fact there have been over 50 research papers since that time showing the plasticity or flexibility of adult stem cells.

Probably the most significant study comes out of the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Research Institute, by Dr. Catherine Verfaillie. Dr. Verfaillie has the research evidence now that stem cells taken from the bone marrow of a human being can be morphed or adjusted to become virtually any cell in the human body. It can do anything an embryonic stem cell can do. This is very significant because the intent of one of the recommendations, I think it is recommendation 14, of the report of the health committee on the draft legislation is that embryonic stem cell research be permitted only if necessary and that necessary be defined as there is no other ethical alternative that could achieve the same research objectives.

If the bill were to incorporate that definition of necessary, and I am not sure who could be against that definition, then the whole question of whether we want embryonic or adult stem cells used for therapies is moot because there is an ethical alternative.

On top of that, Canadians may not know this, but stem cells out of embryos have a different DNA than the patient in which they would be used. As such, if we were to use those stem cells to treat someone else, there would be an immunosuppressive reaction, that is immune rejection. It would mean that the patient would require lifelong anti-rejection drugs.

On the other hand, adult stem cells would come out of the patient's own body. They would be adjusted to become the cells necessary to repair damaged cells. They would be injected into the blood and automatically migrate to the area that had the problem. All of a sudden, having the same genetic makeup and same DNA, there would be no rejection.

Therefore, if there is an ethical alternative and no need for anti-rejection drugs lifelong, why would we ever consider using embryonic stem cells? That is why we had people like Dr. Ron Worton and Dr. Alan Bernstein advocating for therapeutic cloning, which is a process of taking the nucleus out of embryonic stem cells and re-introducing the patient's own cells, and that would be compatible. The only problem is it is cloning. If we allow that new nucleus in there to start dividing, all of a sudden we would have a full human clone. This is banned under the legislation.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on this important issue. I had initially thought that we would deal with Bill S-2 today, which would have been my preference, as it is an important international treaty. However that not been possible, we were then going to discuss parliamentary modernization, which I thought would have been our next subject.

It is a little peculiar because, at the same time we were going to discuss parliamentary modernization, we had the opposition today use a loophole of sorts to cause a vote on a bill in which it was in favour for no reason other than to cause an artificial delay. That does not sound like a very modern thing to do. Maybe it is because the opposition is not a very modern group. That is okay. It has a right not to be modern. If it does not want to be, I cannot help it.

Now we have another motion brought to us with the alleged purpose of splitting a bill. Perhaps it is a genuine purpose, I am not sure. That is a real parliamentary procedure and there is no doubt about it. However I wonder about the application in this case.

I would now like to quote the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. He will no doubt be pleased that I am quoting what he said in a parliamentary committee.

During a discussion in committee, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve wondered about hearing certain witnesses again. Being totally satisfied with the good work the committee had done to date, he was opposed to this. I cannot fault him for that. He said, “We now have 18 potential witnesses. We can hear them over three days at the most, if we have three meetings. Therefore, let us not get into ideological debates”. He was speaking to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works. He said, “The member has to sit down with the minister, who has to settle a certain number of issues, but he cannot transfer a debate that should be happening in caucus to the committee, because that does not make any sense. If clarifications are needed, I absolutely agree that this should happen, but I do not want the committee to become a hostage to those who want to wage a pro-life crusade and who want speak to defend ideological considerations”.

He then went on to refer to Canadians and Quebeckers. Quebeckers are, of course, automatically Canadians and proud of their citizenship. We are proud of belonging to this fine great country. I did not want to break into the quotation but I did want to cite it factually. He went on to say, “Canadians, Quebeckers and members of the House expect new legislation as soon as possible”.

He went on to say “The Canadian Alliance, in its recommendation, asked us to table a bill as quickly as possible. Well then, that is what we must work towards. If we were to work every day next week, say from 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., we can get a serious amount of work done, but I hope that we can count on all the members around this table not to hijack the committee”.

We see what is happening. The committee is still sitting and, today, the measure proposed in the House would have the effect of hijacking the committee. Yet, the hon. member told us that he was opposed to the idea of hijacking the committee. He did not have to say that. No one asked him to do so. He said it, presumably without being forced to. No one had wrestled him to the ground to force him to make that comment during the sitting of the parliamentary committee.

I am quoting the proceedings of the parliamentary committee. Without being overly specific, this was said on June 6, 2002, at 10:57 a.m.. He concluded his remarks around 11:25 a.m.. So, as we can see, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was then opposed to any measure that would have had the effect of delaying the bill presented by the minister. He was primarily opposed to members defending ideological concerns.

Today, the ideology that he expressed is to the effect that we must destroy everything that is federal and give it to the provinces. This ideology is a pretext to split the bill and delay its passage.

I see that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Health is very concerned about the hon. member's suggestion. Like me, he has a hard time figuring out why the Bloc Quebecois member made such a quick about face. He wanted the bill to be passed quickly, that is until his recent conversion. Since then, for ideological reasons, he has been wanting to delay its adoption by splitting it, even before the parliamentary committee has made a decision and reported to the House. This is hard to believe.

There a few more points that I think need to be raised before the House.

The bill was introduced and debated in the House and then voted on. The same member voted in favour of the bill. No motion was brought forward to split the bill at that time. When the bill was before the House no reasoned amendment was proposed, or anything like that, suggesting that the bill should not be read a second time and should be redrawn. That was not done.

I am told that the bill is established in a way to deal with provincial concerns, but whether that is or is not the case is surely an issue to be raised before the parliamentary committee on which the hon. member sits.

I want to go back to my initial point, namely that the bill is before the committee. It is not before the House.

It is with great regret that I see that I will not have enough time. I have so many things to say on this bill. We will have to conclude our remarks. Of course, we can carry on some other day and discuss this bill, even though it is with great regret that I must conclude.

Madam Speaker, you are indicating that, unfortunately, we are running out of time.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. government House leader will have eleven minutes left the next time the House debates this motion.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Canada Health Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved that Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise, and I am doing so eagerly, to speak to Bill C-202, which will be debated in the House today for the first hour at second reading stage. Before going any further, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, for supporting this bill at first reading, and the member for Leeds—Grenville for supporting it at second reading.

I said eagerly because I have been waiting for this moment for five years, since this initiative started its journey in the House in 1997.

This bill would add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act. This basic principle would ensure that Canada's linguistic duality is respected in the health care system everywhere in Canada.

When we put it like that, it sounds cold, legal and perhaps even incomprehensible to people who have better things to do than to read the Canada Health Act, things like earning a living for instance. However, for those who, like us, look into issues that are of concern to Canadians and are responsible for deciding on the best course of action for the future of one and all, this is downright scary.

This is when people start looking for—and they always find some unfortunately—the kind of arguments that hold us back. The most common one is that it is too expensive. Believe me, there will always be complaints about anything having to do with the rights of minorities being too expensive.

That it is not true, however. Quite the contrary. Bill C-202 asks that we take account, and I quote, “of the human, material and financial resources” of the facilities involved in developing health care access plans or delivering these services. No action shall be taken without looking at the capacity of each facility.

Also, with new technologies like telemedicine and diagnostic software, health care professionals will be able to provide services to several facilities.

Granted, hiring personnel capable of providing health care services in both official languages will entail additional costs. However, given that health care reform is unavoidable and actually well underway, we need to train more physicians and nurses anyway. So, why not train enough health professionals capable of working in both official languages of the country?

The current political climate suggests that the Government of Canada will have to reinvest in health care. So, with a sixth principle, a portion of the additional contributions would be dedicated to steps taken to respect the principle of linguistic duality.

The other reaction we get to the addition of a sixth principle is to say that this is an area that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I say that it is not so. Yes, and everyone agrees on this, health programs and their management are the responsibility of the provinces. But the Canada Health Act and the Canada Health and Social Transfer are within the federal jurisdiction. In fact, the highest court in this land has recognized the constitutionality of the Canada Health Act. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the Parliament of Canada cannot set the conditions for the transfer of credits to the provinces.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that Canada and each of its provinces and territories are having serious problems in the area of health, especially in terms of ensuring that everyone has equal access to top quality health care and services.

The whole country is facing significant shortages in terms of doctors and health professionals. There are also too few nurses. We see a shortage of family physicians in big cities, something that, not so long ago, used to occur only in remote areas. Even at that time, it was unacceptable.

I am not blaming anyone, but we have to realize that governments were unable to find a solution and to stop that shortage from affecting the big cities and now almost everyone.

And as if that were not enough, our governments now have to pay more just to maintain the current level of health care. A huge portion of every government's budget goes to health care. We restructure. We merge. We innovate. We introduce new methods. We close beds. We perform more day surgeries. We keep looking frantically for a solution to this problem, which has reached epidemic proportions.

In its substantial report, the committee chaired by Senator Michael Kirby raises these concerns and proposes solutions. In Canada, the people wants this to be the number one issue.

The commission chaired by the hon. Roy Romanow will be releasing its final report next week.

I draw hope from the words of Commissioner Romanow in a speech he delivered for the John Kenneth Galbraith lecture on public policy at Memorial University in Newfoundland last October 23:

The principles of the Canada Health Act were built on basic values like equity and solidarity. To Canadians, these values mean everyone should have access to our health care system on the same terms and conditions, and that this access is ultimately a right of citizenship.

They mean that access to the health care system should be based on need, not a person's wealth, province of residence, gender or age. Canadians still feel strongly that these basic values must set the direction upon which the system is governed in the future. They have served us well and they show us the way.

In fact, as long as change is built from these values, I believe change will be acceptable to Canadians. In other words, I think Canadians are prepared to rethink some of their ideas about medicare, provided we do not retreat from our ideals.

Following those words from Mr. Romanow, I remind members that all minority language communities in Canada support the bill.

Umbrella organizations, which represent those communities, namely the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, or FCFA, and the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, asked that a sixth principle be added to the Canada Health Act. Those groups made that request to Mr. Romanow during his Canada-wide hearings and they made the same request to the Senate committee chaired by Senator Kirby. Our communities want it.

This debate and the subsequent vote will not be an easy task, but hon. members will agree that we are not here to make easy decisions. If everything always went well, we would not even need to be here. We are here because the task is difficult and because people, in each of our ridings, regardless of the political party or the region, expect us to deal with issues that are difficult but important for their future.

I dare say that issues dealing with linguistic minority rights are central to our idea of this part of America, where we chose tolerance and diversity rather than the absolute quest for uniformity. We have chosen difficult tasks because they allow us, collectively and individually, to reach a higher level.

All parties in the House acknowledge the relevancy of Official Languages Act, the rights of Canadians enshrined in the Constitution and the preponderance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all have undeniable rights.

Even the Canadian Alliance which, as the former Reform Party, did not consider linguistic duality as important, in its policies, now acknowledges the importance of our two official languages, and I quote:

We support the need for key federal institutions, such as Parliament and the Supreme Court, to serve Canadians in both English and French.

In its policy statement of May 2002, the party also acknowledged, and I quote:

--the federal government's responsibility to uphold minority rights.

No one will be surprised to hear that the million francophones making up minority communities in Canada have an urgent need for services and health care in their language. A study published by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes, the FCFA, indicates that at least half of that community has no access to health care in French.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, has recognized the difficulty minority communities experience in accessing proper health care services in their official language.

In addressing the Quebec Community Groups Network on October 20, he said:

You have identified access to quality health care in one's mother tongue as a very high priority. A Missiquoi Institute-CROP survey in 2000 indicated that 84% of anglophones [in Quebec] rate that type of access as “very” or “extremely important”. This is particularly relevant because a greater proportion of the anglophone community is 65 years of age or older...and more likely to use the health care system.... This older population also tends to be far more unilingual: 56% of them do not speak French.

The minister also said that access is particularly difficult outside the greater Montreal region.

As far as I am concerned, we have first and foremost a moral obligation to these communities.

Furthermore, I would like to underscore to the government and the cabinet that there is a constitutional obligation to add this sixth principle. I realize that, when the Canada Health Act was enacted, it was left out. Our history is full of such omissions, but also corrections that we have made when our mistakes became apparent.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act of Canada require that the federal government take into consideration linguistic minorities.

While this may not have been clear in the past, it is quite clear now. All of the successive judgments from the courts have confirmed this constitutional obligation, particularly judgments handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec's secession and in the Beaulac decision, not to mention the unprecedented decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Montfort Hospital case.

And I would go so far as to say that if the Government of Canada ignores its responsibilities, how can we expect provincial governments to shoulder theirs?

The Official Languages Act, backed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly at section 16, requires that all Government of Canada programs take into consideration our linguistic duality. Without a doubt, this includes the cash transfers to the provinces for health care services.

In fact, one only has to read the Canada Health Act to realize that failing to specify the vital nature of services to minorities was an oversight. Take only a few of these principles that are considered sacred by Canadians.

Take universality. If service delivery is to be universal in a country where there are two official languages, then it goes without saying that we must serve linguistic minorities the same way we serve the majority.

When it comes to accessibility, having equal access to health care services no doubt means access to services in one's own official language.

As for portability, let us reflect for a moment on what is included in this principle. It says that we will be treated as we would be treated in our home province, should we need to call upon health care services in a province other than our home province.

In some Canadian provinces, residents enjoy linguistic rights when it comes to health care services. This is the case in New Brunswick, which is the only officially bilingual province.

Let us ask ourselves this question: can Canadians who have certain language rights with regard to health care in their province of residence transfer those rights to the other provinces, particularly the ones that do not offer these language rights to their own residents? We have to wonder about that.

If the principle of transferability, or portability, in the health care system implies language rights for some Canadians, should we not ensure that these rights are extended to all Canadians, regardless of their province of residence?

Despite these arguments that I believe to be sound, some will ask whether the existing principles imply respect for linguistic duality. If the act, the charter and the unwritten principles in the Canadian Constitution already require that minorities be protected, why add a principle that may be redundant after all and therefore useless?

We all know the answer to that question. We have learned, after nearly a century and a half of history that, unfortunately, keeps repeating itself, that we cannot rely solely on the goodwill, the understanding and the vigilance of our governments with regard to linguistic duality.

This is why we legislate. This is why we have a Constitution. This is why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It must be written in black and white in our statutes. And even then, we know that we have to be vigilant.

I will ask those who argue that it is not necessary to add a principle to protect our country's linguistic duality with regard to health care a question that is just as valid. If the existing principles imply respect for linguistic duality, why then would anyone be afraid of adding such a principle?

Here again, we know the answer, and it is not pretty. The truth is that, politically, it is not worth it. It creates problems for nothing. In Canada, as we know, linguistic issues have always been explosive.

So we are back to square one, caught in a vicious circle of our own creation, immobilized by fear, unable to act, while the rights of the linguistic minorities keep on being ignored.

How many more court decisions will it take before we take action?

If I may, I will appeal to your sense of history, our history. We are all victims of misinformation when it comes to our history, which includes having us believe that the founders of our country were not preoccupied by linguistic duality. It is absolutely not the case.

When the Fathers of Confederation took the bold step of creating a new country, 135 years ago, they would not have conceived of Canada not respecting the rights of its linguistic minorities. The protection of these minorities was the underlying principle in all their efforts and actions.

If ever there were any doubts regarding their intentions, the decision of the Appeal Court of Ontario in the Montfort case erases them all. The judges of this highly respected court wrote, and I quote:

Protections granted to linguistic and religious minorities are an essential characteristic of the 1867 Constitution, without which Confederation would not have come into being.

The court also quotes a reference to the Supreme Court dated 1932, in which Lord Sankey wrote, and I quote:

It is important to keep in mind that the preservation of the rights of minorities was a condition on which such minorities entered into the federation, and the foundation upon which the whole structure was subsequently erected.

It is high time we lived up to the promises made by the Fathers of Confederation. It is time to set aside our traditional arguments. It is time to make hard decisions.

Under the law, under our Constitution, in keeping with our history, and in the name of the legacy we will leave to humanity, in the name of everything good this country represents, in the name of past, present and future generations, I urge this House to demonstrate a spirit of generosity, the Canadian spirit, when it comes to this bill.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I wish to congratulate the member for Ottawa--Vanier. I know he has been interested in this issue for years and have no difficulty in acknowledging his sincerity and his staunch convictions.

I have consulted with my colleague from Repentigny, the Bloc Quebecois official languages critic. It is true, as the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier has said, this is not an easy position to determine. The right to be served in one's own language contributes not only to people's happiness, but is also an inalienable right. It is unbelievable, in a country that claims to be bilingual, that people in crisis situations requiring them to seek health care should be unable to obtain services in the language of their choice.

The problem—and this is where I differ with my colleague from Ottawa--Vanier must accept—is that we do not in fact believe that Canada is a bilingual country, nor do we believe that it can be one. That is the first point on which we differ with the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier.

The second is that we have never accepted the legitimacy of the Canada Health Act. My colleague invited us to review history and I believe he was right to do so. The health act was enacted in late 1984, when the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau was in its last days.

This was such a controversial act that it triggered a doctors' strike in Ontario. It is not a common occurrence for physicians, even those paid from the public purse, as they are in most provinces—

[An hon. member]

We have seen that in Quebec.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

And not just in Quebec.

[An hon. member]

We have had that in Quebec recently.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

But not for the same reasons, sir.

So, in 1984, Ontario doctors went out on strike, but not on the language issue. It was because they said their ability to organize themselves as self-employed workers was threatened. But all parties were in favour of the Canadian act.

Mr. Mulroney had been elected in a byelection and all parties represented in the House in 1984 were in favour of the act, but the bulk of the provinces were not. The bill was passed, regardless.

They played around with various scenarios of constitutional challenge. I studied constitutional law with the member for Chapleau and I do not think he can be suspected of having sovereignist leanings. So the National Assembly member for Chapleau, Mr. Pelletier, who is a very good teacher by the way, told us that, strictly speaking, a constitutional challenge would have been possible. In 1984, the government passed the Canada Health Act not because it had jurisdiction in that area, but by virtue of its overall spending authority. We must never forget that this is the authority under which this legislation was passed.

I appreciate what the member for Ottawa—Vanier is doing; once again, I think he is a sincere man and I do not say that every day, so I really believe his efforts are genuine and that he has been fighting this battle for a long time. However, should we not state clearly that this is a provincial jurisdiction and that provinces should be responsible for providing services to minorities in their own mother tongue? Yes it is important. It is bad enough to be sick; one does not choose when this will happen, any more than one decides to have bad luck, but if and when we are sick, it is unconscionable that we should depend for our care on people who do not speak our language, who do not understand us.

I believe that this cannot be a federal area of responsibility, especially not health care services. The member for Ottawa—Vanier is asking us to endorse a very noble value.

Earlier, a member said that there is one officially bilingual province in Canada. But in reality, as we know, there are two, because bilingualism also exists in Quebec. It is such a noble value that, in Quebec, there are public institutions, including the educational system from kindergarten to university, which are funded by the state.

Under the laws in Quebec—and this is true for the health care system where, of course, this is legislated—the Anglophone minority, which is made up of just under one million people, can have access to health care services in its own language. This is entirely desirable. We must evaluate societies and our ability to live together. The test of civilization is the interest we take in our minorities. There is no doubt about that.

No one, and certainly not I, would like to live in a society where, because of the influence and tyranny of the majority, a minority would be deprived of certain services in its own language.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier knows as well as I do the sorts of setbacks that francophones living outside of Quebec have suffered in this regard in the past. However, the past must not be allowed to dictate the course of the future. It is not because francophones outside of Quebec have experienced injustices, of which the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has reminded us, that we should not envisage the future with much nobler ideas and a desire for equality.

I believe that the battle that the member for Ottawa—Vanier wants to wage should also take place in the provinces. All the provinces, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, must undertake to offer services both in French and in English.

Hon. members will recall that at the in 1977, René Lévesque—whom I am not sure is considered an icon by all members of this House—had proposed a goal somewhat similar to the one pursued by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. Obviously he did not want the federal government calling the shots. He suggested that there be interprovincial agreements. The Bloc Quebecois members would feel much more comfortable with that sort of scenario.

I am in total agreement with the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier that this must not be a money matter. Access to services, especially at a moment in life when people are not at their best, should not depend on financial means. I cannot go along with the argument that this is implicit in the legislation. The five conditions mentioned by our colleague do not show any bias for or against the delivery of services. She explained which principles should apply.

I have been the Bloc Quebecois critic for health care since 1997. When public servants appear before the health committee, they state that those five principles are national standards. The legislation does not state that they are, but public servants do. We know that the federal government does not have any expertise in health care, except as concerns the aboriginal people, inmates serving a sentence of more than two years, and research in epidemiology and on immunization.

This is why we think we should not have a Canada Health Act. I can tell the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier that if he were to launch a crusade to create a coalition to make sure, through interprovincial agreements, that all provinces provide adequate services to their national and historical minorities, he could count on me. I would wholeheartedly join his campaign, and I am sure most members in the Bloc Quebecois would do the same.

I wish the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier good luck, and I thank him for his initiative. I hope he will nonetheless consider that our argument has at least some historical merit and some basis in law.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to this important bill, Bill C-202, standing in the name of the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I feel very passionately about this bill.

As a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, I come across all sorts of things concerning the legislation on bilingualism in Canada.

The bill proposed by the member for Ottawa—Vanier focuses on the health sector. It deals, more specifically, with a sixth principle to be added to the Canada Health Act. This is an important issue, which members will have to seriously consider.

I am really disappointed that the Canadian Alliance decided not to address this issue, today. But we shall see what happens in the coming hour.

We should learn to accept the reality of official languages, not merely respect it. Furthermore, this issue goes beyond official languages. It is about respecting others.The purpose of the bill is to help people. It is a bill about linguistic duality in the health sector.

The place of French and English, in minority communities, is a current issue. A few days ago, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled a report asking that the government do more on this issue. The Commissioner's efforts do have some impact.

A few days ago, in this very room, an hon. member challenged the role of official languages in the public administration. We cannot tolerate such unparliamentary language by members.

We still have a long way to go. We need the change mentalities and behaviours, which is even more difficult. Believe me, we have had a lot more examples of that this week.

Fortunately, a few minor improvements can easily be accomplished. A bill or a motion could be more helpful than we think. I am glad to see this bill from the member for Ottawa—Vanier being introduced here.

I concur with the idea to introduce an appropriate bill whose purpose is to help people. However, I can only object to a member bringing forth a destructive bill or uttering racist comments.

It is often assumed, incorrectly, that all the people's rights are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a wrong assumption.The charter provides a certain amount of protection to francophones and anglophones, but it is not enough. In most of the provinces, rights recognition did not translate into meaningful action, especially in the health sector.

Bill C-202 is quite simple. It is so simple that everyone here can understand it. If we give it some thought, it makes no sense to oppose it. The bill establishes that language will not be an obstacle for people when they seek care, when possible.

This is simply common sense. The country has two official languages and still people cannot receive hospital care in the language of their choice.

The most important thing in life is one's health. Ask someone who is sick if he would prefer money or health. If we asked someone who is rich and healthy which he would choose between the two, he will go for the million dollars. But ask someone who is sick which is more important. He will answer health. He would give anything for his health. Imagine then, when it comes time to seek medical attention, if he cannot talk to the doctors or nurses in his own language. He cannot even describe his condition in his own language.

This is when Canadians must show open-mindedness. Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, all the provinces of Canada must be open to these two communities, the French-speaking and English-speaking communities, so that people can receive treatment in the language of their choice and understand what they are being told.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier is proposing that a sixth principle be added to the Canada Health Act. Great. Adding a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act makes sense. Canada is a bilingual country. Debates in the House of Commons, as well as federal government documents, must be bilingual. Since the federal government is giving money to provincial governments for health, it makes sense that it would enforce its own bilingualism requirements.

With all due respect to Bloc Quebecois members, including my hon. colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I am sure they are going to argue that this is a provincial jurisdiction. I respect their opinion. But at the same time I would expect the opinion of Canadians to also be respected. If the government is going to spend money in an area, it should have a say. In many parts of Quebec, people who speak English are respected. I am sure, however, that there are places where they are not.