Debates of Oct. 27th, 2003

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-13 dealing with reproductive technology on which many people have waxed eloquently in this chamber on many occasions. I feel it is only appropriate that I add my voice to this very controversial and contentious yet extremely important debate.

It seems to me, when I take a look at the bill, that members of the government have not truly figured out where babies come from. Perhaps they still believe in the stork. They seem to differentiate between the way that we deal with embryos and life before birth and life after birth. I think that is totally wrong on the Liberals' part. I can understand their whole motivation because it seems to be the way that they do things.

Let us start with adults. Before adults, they were children. Before children, they were babies. Before they were babies, they were babies waiting to be born. Before they were fetuses, they were eggs and sperm. It is a fairly simple process of a continuum leading, hopefully once we reach old age, to death and the life hereafter, however we believe in that. The point is there is a continuum from inception all the way through gestation to birth and life.

We all know it has been the government's policy to leave a vacuum and to wait for the courts to fill that vacuum before it acts. Then the Liberals will say that society has moved in a certain direction and they just have to legitimize it through legislation. We have seen that on the same sex marriage issue that is currently being debated in the country.

We could go back a number of years to when the abortion agenda was fought at great length. The debate was heated. Finally the government of the day under Mr. Brian Mulroney said it did not know what to do as it could not come to a consensus, so it left a vacuum and the courts filled it. Today abortion is something that is just a normal occurrence. It happens hundreds of times across Canada each and every day.

Here we are again. The government wants to leave a vacuum in the legislation so that researchers can be allowed to use embryos as if they were just specimens cut from a piece of flesh and do their research and testing as if there were no consequences whatsoever. There are many Canadians who believe that human embryos are life in transition, life in the evolution to being a full born baby. As the previous speaker pointed out, we would never hand over our babies for research. We would never allow our babies to be slaughtered for research, although it did happen once before in history and many people died in order to put a stop to that.

Again here there is the notion that embryos, life in the womb, life before birth, are now going to be used by researchers just as another commodity. That debases all life and if it debases all life, it debases us, those who were elected to lead and make decisions on behalf of all Canadians. If we allow life to be debased, where does it stop? What do we stand on? Where do we stand? Do we believe in the right of every Canadian to freedom or only those who have been born?

The government has refused time after time to provide legislative protection for life before birth. It has always struck me as unexplainable that the day before a baby is born it can be aborted, and that is the end of that, yet if somebody kills it the day after it is born it is murder and subject to life in prison; 25 years and no parole. It is two days apart: the day before birth and the day after birth. What was different? Nothing was different in my opinion.

The government tends to leave human embryos before birth totally without legal protection of any kind whatsoever. The more the government allows this vacuum to remain, the more science starts to use these embryos for research and the more it becomes an everyday occurrence the more we just say “Well it is already here so let it happen”.

What does this place stand for if it is not as the voice of the nation, speaking out not only for those who are alive today but those who are being born today.

It reminds me of something, more on abortion than on embryos. I listened to Cross Country Checkup a few years ago when there was a debate on abortion. I believe it was Rex Murphy who had a panel of young people. One young gentleman said on the radio that life had been tough for him. He had a single mother and he grew up with nothing to speak of, no affluence or prosperity. They struggled along but he said that he was really glad that his mother had decided not to abort him. Even though life had been tough, he said that he would rather have that than no life at all.

Now that abortion has become commonplace, if we do not stop this now, embryos for research will become commonplace.

Do they feel pain? I do not know. I am not in the medical science business. However if they do feel pain and we start taking knives to them and doing whatever else we do to them, I cannot imagine the horrors we would be inflicting upon these embryos. We leave it to science and to the scientists who are performing these research tests to tell us whether they believe that an embryo can feel pain. When it is still at the very early cell state, perhaps not, but I am sure later on the pain actually becomes something that they can feel. I would imagine that it is not something that switches on, on a particular day. I would think it is something that evolves over time during the gestation period, and the concept of pain becomes something that an embryo can deal with.

Where does this human research stop and where does it start? What is allowable and what is not?

Going way back to the dawn of history, I think we realized that life begins before birth and therefore I think it is more in line that we bring in protection for life before birth, rather than allow it to be on the researchers' tables so that they can examine these cells underneath the microscope.

We do not know what is going to happen. We should always err on the side of caution. We should always err on the side of Canadians born and unborn, potentially born. To allow this type of process to become a normal process would be debasing to our society.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches given not only today but over the months and years that we have been looking at the various aspects of Bill C-13.

I know Health Canada and various other groups have spent a great deal of time putting the bill together, and we as parliamentarians have listened with interest to the points of view of many different groups not only here in the House but also across the country.

I would like to mention three or four main concerns that many people have with the legislation, cloning being one. I am not sure who in our society wants to be cloned. I do not think society would benefit a great deal if I or the hon. member for Prince Albert were cloned. However, within the biological concepts that civilization is now discussing, there is the possibility that humans can be cloned.

We have been hearing about the great need in terms of reproductive technology. We know that many families have difficulty having children. As a result, our best medical people and many of our clinics are working toward the concept that couples who have trouble conceiving will be able to have children as a result of research and work that might be done as a result of Bill C-13.

One of the main concerns the people in my riding have is the matter of embryos. It appears that Bill C-13 does not really define what stage of life an embryo is. We know that an embryo begins at conception but in terms of the definition that we might want to use with the bill, when does an embryo change from one that may be used for scientific purposes to one that has the value of life and is allowed to develop into a human being?

The right to life groups are especially concerned that the embryo, really being the beginning of life, should not be part of any research that is being done. They believe that an embryo is the beginning of human life and should be allowed to continue to develop into a child.

More important, when we talk about producing embryos in terms of the legislation, we have to be concerned about what will become of the ones that are not used. When semen is matched up with an egg, the embryo results and if more than one is produced in terms of a couple wanting to have children, what becomes of the others? Can they be frozen and kept for later on in terms of creating a new life with a surrogate mother?

In terms of the whole concept, I hope we will debate the bill in the House and develop the best possible legislation that we can offer to the Senate. The Senate will then review the legislation at length. Hopefully, through sober thought in the other house, which is part of government, it will make changes that will be brought back to this House so we will eventually produce an act that will enable our country to have a good system of reproductive technology.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13 at this particular stage. I have had the chance to address it on a couple of previous occasions.

We in the opposition feel that regulation is needed in this field. We have heard that from a number of members debating this topic today. As many of my colleagues have said, there is concern about this because it deals with the creation and death of human life and requires some measure of public oversight on that regulation.

It should be noted that we do support a number of aspects of Bill C-13. We fully support bans on reproductive or therapeutic cloning, chimeras, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration and the buying and selling of embryos. We also support a regulatory body to monitor and regulate fertility clinics, though we want changes to the agency proposed in the bill.

As many of my colleagues have talked about the aspects of the preamble, I will focus specifically on some of the concerns we have with the bill in its current form. We support the recognition that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction should be given priority. In fact, the health committee came up with a ranking of whose interests should have priority in the decision making around the idea of assisted human reproduction and related research.

The three priorities were the following: first, children born through an AHR system; second, adults participating in AHR procedures; and third, researchers and physicians who conduct assisted human reproductive research.

While the preamble of the bill recognizes the priority of AHR offspring, and this is a good thing, other sections of the bill fail to meet the standard. Children born through donor insemination, from donor eggs, are not given the right to know the identity of their biological parents. I will address the issue of donor identity in a moment.

The bill's preamble does not provide an acknowledgement of human dignity or respect for human life. This is obviously a big issue for many people in Canada. The bill is intimately connected with the creation of human life and yet there is no overarching recognition of the principle of respect for human life. This is a grave deficiency that many people have identified.

The committee's minority report recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize human embryo as human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”. We believe the preamble and the mandate of the proposed agency should be amended to include reference to this principle of respect for human life. That would help to calm many people's fears because many people do feel that science and technology, reproductive technologies and the continuing on of research in many of these facets for improving Canadian's lives and the conditions of other people around the world is something that is very important. Clearly there needs to be some recognition of the importance of human life so people's fears that this will not be abused in the future can be calmed.

In the area of the regulatory agency, the bill would create the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada to issue licences for controlled activities, collect health reporting information, advise the minister and designate inspectors for the enforcement of the act. The board of directors would be appointed by a governor in council with a membership that would reflect a range of backgrounds and disciplines relevant to the agency's objectives. The bill in this area was amended at committee placing board members under conflict of interest provisions. That is something that is of importance.

At report stage the health minister succeeded, however, in undoing part of that amendment. Licensees remain ineligible to serve as board members but the minister removed the section requiring that board members have no pecuniary or proprietary interests in any business operating in the reproductive technologies field. That is an important change because we have seen over and over again many conflicts of interest, or alleged conflicts of interest, in this government. We would hate to see that happen in an independent body that is obviously overseeing the regulation pertaining to reproductive technologies.

Clause 25 would allow the minister to give any policy direction she likes to the agency and the agency must follow it without any questions. If the agency were an independent agency, answerable strictly to Parliament, such political direction would be more difficult. The entire clause should be eliminated in our opinion.

The Canadian Alliance proposed amendments specifying that the agency board members be chosen for their wisdom and judgment. This was a health committee recommendation in the report “Building Families”. We want to avoid an agency captured by interests and clearly, that would be a good thing. Members must be able to work together to pursue the greater good, not merely represent certain constituencies.

The Liberals rejected their own recommendation when our amendment came up during the review of Bill C-13 at committee. At report stage the health minister succeeded in deleting one of the clauses requiring board members of the assisted human reproduction agency to come under conflict of interest rules. On this point, I believe the health committee had it right. Board members should not have commercial interests in the field of assisted human reproduction or related research.

We can draw on examples here. Imagine an employee or an investor in a biotech company with a financial interest in embryonic stem cell research making decisions for Canadians on the regulations of such research, including the definition of the word necessary, as specified in clause 40. Imagine the director of a fertility clinic making regulations on limits on sperm and egg donations or number of embryos produced for IVF treatments. Such conflicts of interest need to be prevented in this legislation. This change obviously could rise in some of those unfortunate conflicts.

The health minister said that subclause 26(8) would prevent almost anyone from serving on the board, but this was clearly not the intent of the health committee in its spirit.

To move on to the issue of donor anonymity, I know it is something that many of my colleagues have addressed in the House. Although the agency would hold information on donor identity, children conceived through donor insemination or donor eggs would have no right to know the identify of their parents without their written consent to reveal it. Donor offspring would have access to medical information of their biological parents. Some of the concern with this is that donor offspring and many of their parents want to end the secrecy that shrouds donor anonymity and denies children knowledge of an important chapter of their lives.

The Liberals claim to want to put the interests of children first, but in this case think the desires of some parents should trump the needs and interests of children.

In its review of draft legislation the health committee recommended an end to donor anonymity. Even in the minority report, the CA position was that where the privacy rights of donors of human reproductive materials conflicted with the rights of children to know their genetic and social heritage, the rights of the children should prevail.

However, when the issue came up during the review of Bill C-13, the Liberals defeated an Alliance amendment to end anonymity in a close vote. I believe it was six to five on the committee.

The government attaches a higher weight to the privacy rights of donors than to the access to information rights of donor offspring. This is where the Liberals get it backwards. An identified donor is a responsible donor and if all donors had to be willing to identify, then people would donate for the right reasons. Today, one of the main motivations for anonymity is the money factor, which is unfortunate.

There are just a couple of last concerns I would like to address before concluding. One of the issues is with clause 71, which allows the grandfathering of controlled activities until a date fixed by the regulations. This clause would allow scientists to engage in a controlled activity before the act takes effect thereby avoid licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. This could result in a stampede toward controlled activities before the bill takes effect. An example would be embryonic research.

The other issue I would like to address is the chimera issue. This bill prohibits animal to human chimera. That means human embryos implanted with animal cells. However, it does not prohibit human to animal chimera, animal embryos implanted with human cells. The definition of chimera should have been amended to include both human and animal embryos in which cells of other species have been implanted. I believe Motion No. 5 to this effect was unfortunately defeated, at committee.

A Liberal motion passed at report stage would allow the reimbursement for loss of work related income for surrogates when a doctor certified that continuing to work would pose a health risk to the carrier of the fetus. We oppose the motion because it permits the commodification of human life, rent a womb, payment for children, and the health committee also wanted no such payment for surrogacy. This was another issue of concern for many people.

I conclude by saying that I hope the Prime Minister will allow a free vote on this issue. It is obviously a matter of conscience for many members and we hope that element of bringing in a free vote in this place will be respected.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this matter, because it is an extremely important issue in the current context. If we had more time, we could give the complete background of this issue.

Since we first came here in 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has many times very simply asked the government to pass a legislation regarding assisted human reproduction. We have asked the government to legislate within its jurisdiction, that isunder the Criminal Code, in order to allow provinces who wish to do so to deal with the administrative aspect of this issue once the federal government has decided to pass legislation in the area of assisted human reproduction.

Last spring, the Minister of Health finally decided to introduce Bill C-13. At one point, we asked her to split this bill, to settle the issue of the criminal aspect and to submit the issue of regulation to more extensive debate because there was no unanimous agreement on it, far from it.

So far, the minister has refused to split the bill in two. While we agree with some of the measures contained in this bill, the Bloc Quebecois members will be forced to vote against it. They will oppose the bill for numerous reasons.

Last spring, when we had a PQ government in Quebec, Mr. Legault was health and social services minister. He had clearly indicated his position. He said that in the present context of extremely rapid evolution in reproductive technologies and practices, the Quebec government agreed that there was a need to ban unacceptable practices such as human cloning. He wanted the government to act in this area.

The government went still further by saying that, unfortunately, it did not accept Bill C-13 because, once again, the federal government had not seen fit to stop where its jurisdiction left off. It was getting involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction. For ten years now we have been repeating this, and for ten years now the government has been turning a deaf ear. It acts as if it did not realize it was going beyond its limits. Then, it acts all surprised and describes the Bloc Quebecois as being opposed to everything. The Bloc is not against everything, but it is for defending the interests of Quebec. It is for defending the jurisdictions of Quebec and against the federal government's sticking its nose into our business. We have said this often enough, but the government does not want to understand.

For a variety of reasons, then, other colleagues will be rising this afternoon to speak out according to their conscience. Some others have already voiced their opinions and some of them will also be voting against the bill. I trust it will have the time to die on the order paper. This is an unacceptable bill as far as provincial jurisdictions are concerned. It represents a fundamental lack of respect for provincial areas of jurisdiction.

When we had a PQ government, perhaps the government across the way did not find it surprising that there was opposition to this bill. It told itself that this was not surprising, that sovereignists were totally against this bill because it was a federal bill.

Now, since April 14, we have a government in Quebec that has more of a federalist leaning, one that is a member of the same Liberal family as the one here. Yet this past October 8—not that long ago—the Quebec health and social services minister totally rejected Bill C-13. To have done the same as the Bloc Quebecois, and to reject this bill, he too must be a nasty separatist.

Our new branch office in Quebec City, which stands up for Quebec's rights, has also decided to stand up against Bill C-13. We made a commitment to the people of Quebec that we would come to Ottawa to defend the consensus in Quebec. What a wonderful consensus. This is what the health minister himself says, and I quote:

We have sent a clear signal to the federal government that we are very concerned about certain aspects of the bill, which we see as a clear encroachment on provincial jurisdictions.

What I think is interesting in what the minister is saying, is that he is using a word that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs like to use a lot, the word clear. He said that he sent a clear signal to the government that it was clearly encroaching on provincial jurisdictions.

The federal government must wake up and realize that, as far as we are concerned, it will not get very far with this bill. Even the Quebec minister himself would like the bill to die on the order paper, and would prefer that the bill not go forward, because it is far from ready and because, in terms of regulation, we already have a great deal of it in Quebec. We have a number of bills on this topic.

What did Minister Legault say last spring? He said that in Quebec, thought about assisted human reproduction and the development of related techniques began 15 years ago. He said that legislative and administrative measures, both for research and service delivery, had been implemented.

The provisions in Bill C-13 would change the process for designating institutions that deliver certain services exclusively. Under Bill C-13—should it be passed—the way Quebec's Civil Code views assisted human reproduction would be called into question and at least ten of Quebec's laws and regulations on this subject would be ultra vires.

We also have a different concept of access to information and the confidentiality of assisted human reproduction cases. The bill outlines qualifications required for professionals who practice assisted human reproduction and it sets out the authority to manage the storage of human reproductive material in the institutions. In some cases, the bill completely disregards the direction the Government of Quebec has taken in areas that are exclusively under its jurisdiction.

It is important for the federal government to understand that it must legislate criminal matters, because that is its responsibility. The issue of assisted human reproduction cannot continue to be left in a vacuum. The government has to change its mind entirely and get rid of clauses in the bill that encroach on provincial jurisdiction. It absolutely must do this and demonstrate good will.

The government has to realize that no matter what party is governing in Quebec, the moment the federal government interferes in Quebec's jurisdiction, Quebec's ministers and MNAs will stand up and speak out against the federal government for disregarding the Constitution that it signed. Even though we did not sign it, we are asking the government to abide by it.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-13, the assisted human reproduction act.

The recent history of the government has shown that the government likes to divide Canadians. We are already divided on lines of urban and rural demographics, and by regions. We are even divided on moral lines as witnessed by the proposed legislation regarding same sex marriage and some of the debate that has taken place in this House.

It is unfortunate that we spend so much time debating issues that divide this country.That is a question that this government and future governments need to address.

I believe this House is an instrument that should unite Canadians. If we cannot do the research and come to common sense positions, we should certainly not bring it into this House where it divides the country even more.

The other point I would like to make is that the work of the committees needs to be listened to by governments, not only today but down the road. There is no point in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money, listening to witnesses and travelling across the country, only to end up with legislation that does not reflect at all the views of Canadians, the experts of this country.

It is so unfortunate that too often to talk about divisive issues in this House rather than issues that unite this country.

Again, this is one of those social-moral issues that the country wrestles with from time to time. We know that on the science side there are advantages and benefits to research. At the same time there are moral issues that need to be addressed by this country. We cannot just throw them into one pot and hopefully make a decision that makes all Canadians happy because that will not take place.

Maybe the first way to deal with this is to call for a free vote in this House. That way members of Parliament can represent their constituents. There are 301 constituencies in this country. We all come from different regions and locations. The makeups of our ridings are different in nature.

Our constituents have the last say. Certainly, in a represented democracy that is the key. The constituents sent us here and they should have a say in terms of how this country is run and the kind of legislation we should put in place.

Bill C-13 seeks to prohibit or control reproductive technologies such as cloning and establish a new federal agency to regulate and license fertility clinics and biomedical research involving human embryos.

A bill solely addressing reproductive technologies would have easily passed over a year ago. However, since the vast majority of MPs would have voted to ban human cloning--which I am sure would have taken place in this House--it was thought that the bill could piggyback the ethically sensitive issue of destroying human embryos and still get passed. Having underestimated the significant public backlash, the bill became the subject of intense public scrutiny. That is the conflict we have today.

Initially, the concern was the ethics of destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells for research; however, as time passed, many other weaknesses of the bill were discovered.

Despite the fact that Health Canada has already corrected one error in the definition of a human clone, the bill still does not ban all known forms and techniques of human cloning. I can assure the House that the people of Dauphin—Swan River do not support human cloning. The majority of my constituents do not support Bill C-13.

The bill would permit the implanting of human reproductive material into non-human life forms. The biomedical definition of chimera involves the implantation of reproductive material from a human into an animal or from an animal into a human. However, the definition in the bill only refers to the latter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me close by saying that the health committee made 36 recommendations on the draft bill. Its report received no response and most of its key recommendations are not reflected in Bill C-13. In other words, why did we waste all that money doing the work that the committee did? The government still refused to listen to the committee. We will certainly oppose the bill.

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

I always hesitate to interrupt members, but as we draw closer to question period and we still have to do members' statements, the hon. member for Perth—Middlesex will have approximately three minutes remaining in his time when we resume the debate on this important matter.

Tecumseh

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to many Canadians, Chief Tecumseh is an heroic ally who played an essential role in saving Upper Canada. Americans view him as an honourable enemy who fought bravely to defend his people. When the Americans invaded Canada, Tecumseh fielded 800 warriors in support of the British. The U.S. invasion was a disaster. In 1813, during the battle of the Thames, Tecumseh was killed while refusing to retreat from the foe.

I know that there has been some recognition for Tecumseh in the battlefield area, but surely it is time for a full scale monument to Tecumseh, a tribute to his extraordinary vision, leadership abilities and loyalty to his land and his people.

In the United States, recently there has been a movement to recognize both sides in the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

In this case, recognition of Tecumseh at the place of his death and of the contribution of the first nations people in the War of 1812 is long overdue.

Society for Treatment of Autism

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more crushing for parents than to receive the diagnosis that their child has autism and there is no cure.

Autism is becoming one of the greatest threats to Canadian children today. In fact, it is now agreed that autism affects at least one in 300 children across Canada, but there is hope for these children. Early intensive treatment is remarkably effective at improving the lives of children with autism. This treatment can take children away from the path of institutionalization and reintegrate them with families and into school. It is a miracle, but it needs our help.

In Calgary, the Society for Treatment of Autism needs desperately to expand. This is a society that is a North American leader in the treatment of autism and it needs the support of all levels of government to end waiting lists and provide treatment and research.

I call on the government and the Minister of Health to join me in supporting this expansion. It is what the children with autism and their families deserve.

The Environment

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants entered into force on October 23, 2003. The world will be a healthier place, especially in the northern region, once we realize the full impact of this agreement.

Canada was the first to ratify the regional protocol in 1998 and led the way in developing the science that recognized the need for global action on persistent organic pollutants. The agreement aims to reduce or eliminate emissions of 16 of these pollutants, including PCBs, DDT and dioxins and furans. Most of these pollutants have been banned or restricted in Canada for years.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe is a regional economic organization that includes Canada, the United States, countries in eastern and western Europe and Russia.

I want to highlight the cooperation among the Government of Canada, aboriginal peoples, environmental non-governmental organizations, provincial and territorial governments and industry groups. This united national effort has made us stronger and more influential in the international community.

Economic Development

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a new federal development initiative needs to be put in place just for the resource regions of Quebec, along the lines of FEDNOR in northern Ontario.

This new agency's mandate would be to improve the economy of the various communities by promoting business start-ups and job creation in the context of the new economy, through programs developed in accordance with directions from promoters and economic organizations such as chambers of commerce, economic development agencies and municipalities.

I have been calling for the creation of such an agency just for the resource regions of Quebec for several years now.

Madeleine Meilleur

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of community of Ottawa—Vanier, I am delighted and proud to congratulate my counterpart in the Ontario legislature, Madeleine Meilleur, on her appointment as Minister of Culture and the Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs by the new Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty.

Incidentally, I wish to commend Mr. McGuinty for his great election campaign and for the clear mandate he has been given by the population of the province.

For more than a decade, the citizens of our riding have been witnessing the commitment of Ms. Meilleur to her community. A registered nurse and lawyer specializing in labour and employment law, she has been involved in municipal politics for the past ten years, chairing and serving on many committees and councils.

Here in Ottawa—Vanier, we were delighted when Madeleine Meilleur was elected on October 2. We congratulate her on this great personal victory. Today, everyone in the Franco-Ontarian community has good reason to be pleased with her appointment to cabinet, as she will be involved in the implementation of her party's election platform.

Sports

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, Kelowna, British Columbia has produced a world champion. Sarah Charles, a grade 12 student at Okanagan Mission Secondary School, won her title on the trampoline at the world championships in Germany.

Like hockey, baseball and football in Canada, trampoline events have a dedicated following, in European countries especially. Winning such an event is a big achievement.

Regardless of the sport, the same ingredients are required to succeed. Sarah is a role model for young people everywhere in this country. Her win is proof that hard work and determination build confidence and make our goals achievable.

I wish to extend congratulations to Sarah on her gold medal win. She has brought attention to a worthy sport and has made Kelowna and Canada proud of her.

James Gibson

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House of Commons to remember the long and rich life of Dr. James A. Gibson, who passed away last week at the age of 91.

Born in Ottawa, Dr. Gibson grew up in Victoria and graduated at the age of 18 with a B.A. in history from the University of British Columbia. Dr. Gibson was a Rhodes scholar and a graduate of Oxford University.

In 1937, he began teaching government and economics at the University of British Columbia. Early in his career, he was private secretary to Prime Minister Mackenzie King. He then would go on to serve as Dean of Arts and Science at Carleton University.

Dr. Gibson will be remembered for the significant contribution he made to education in my community of St. Catharines. He was Brock University's founding president from 1964-74, and today the library at Brock University bears his name.

A recipient of the Order of Canada, Dr. James A. Gibson dedicated 70 years of his life to higher education.

I wish to extend heartfelt condolences to Dr. Gibson's daughters, Julia Matthews and Eleanor Joly, and to his son Peter. He was a fine example of a great Canadian.

Highway Infrastructure

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the 431st day since the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec made their joint announcement in our region that the four-lane highway in the Parc des Laurentides was going ahead and that the two levels of government would share the costs.

But now, after all this time, we learn that the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement for this project still has not been signed. We are still watching the ping-pong game between the federal member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the Liberal member of the provincial legislature for Jonquière, Françoise Gauthier, as the governments volley the responsibility for these interminable delays back and forth.

Is it possible to show some respect for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and tell them, once and for all, exactly where they stand in this matter on which the Prime Minister has made a firm commitment?

William Orban

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that we have lost a great Canadian sport scientist, Mr. William (Bill) Orban, who died last weekend at the age of 81.

Mr. Orban devoted most of his life to studying the athletic capabilities of the human body, from high performance athletes to elderly people with disabilities. In the late 1950s, he devised what is commonly called the 5BX plan, the five basic exercises fitness plan, a revolutionary method which debunked the notion that a person needs sustained, rigorous exercise to become fit.

Also, his Physical Energetics Systems of Equations is the perfect fitness plan. Through a mathematical calculation of an individual's fitness potential and what is needed to reach it, the formula could have a major impact on the world of sport.

Although the loss of Mr. Orban will leave a great void in the sport science community, his prolific heritage will live on and contribute to the evolution of sport in Canada and around the globe.

Member for LaSalle--Émard

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the soon to be leader of the Liberal Party, the member for LaSalle—Émard, has always been a fan of making promises with no intention of backing them up.

In the 1993 red book, which he penned, he made such lofty promises as improving Canada's health care system and scrapping the GST. So what did he do as finance minister over the next 10 years?

First and foremost, he gutted $40 billion from the health care system. He put Canadians on life support while he intentionally took actions to increase waiting periods for critical surgeries and cancer treatment.

The GST? Ten years later, we are still paying 7%. Another broken promise.

So what does that mean today? Will he slay the democratic deficit, as he is now promising? Will he actually be able to find the province of Alberta on a map of Canada? Or will he, like the current Prime Minister, forget that there are Canadians west of Sudbury?

The best judge of a person's character is his past, and this member's past says he has no problem breaking his promises.

Minister of Canadian Heritage

[Christian Jobin, Liberal, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the important work that the Minister of Canadian Heritage accomplished last week at UNESCO's General Conference.

The minister succeeded in obtaining unanimous approval for the drafting of an international convention on cultural diversity. This important step toward the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity in the world crowns five years of international activity by the minister.

In 1998, the Minister of Canadian Heritage launched the International Network on Cultural Policy, whereby national ministers responsible for culture can explore new ways to promote cultural diversity.

Since then, working with the cultural industries, artists and Canada's provincial governments, the minister has taken a lead role on the international stage to advance the idea of a framework convention on cultural diversity and bring other countries onside.

Now, thanks to the minister's efforts, UNESCO will begin the actual drafting and negotiating process leading to the convention on cultural diversity.

Equalization Payments

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the current equalization program is supposed to ensure that provincial governments can provide comparable levels of public service at comparable levels of taxation.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, our taxes are among the highest in the nation and our levels of public services are among the lowest in the nation. Obviously, the current equalization program has failed to make the predicted improvements.

One of the reasons for the failure is that new resource revenues accruing to the provinces are clawed back almost dollar for dollar from their equalization payments and without a change in the clawback provisions have not provinces will never make significant economic and social progress.

In this session we have been asked to extend the current equalization program for one more year. What is needed is a much improved equalization program. More of the same old, same old just will not do.

ADISQ Gala

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last night, Guy A. Lepage drew on his wry humour in hosting at the Théâtre Saint-Denis the 25th ADISQ Gala to honour artists and pay tribute to talent from Quebec.

The big winners of the evening were the young artists from Star Académie, with three Félix awards.

Other winners include Cowboys Fringants, with Félix awards for Best Concert in the singer-songwriter category and Group of the Year. Ariane Moffatt won three Félix awards for her album, Aquanaute , the Félix for Album Production, Best Pop Rock Album and Best New Artist.

The highly coveted awards for Best Female and Best Male Performer went to Isabelle Boulay, who won her fifth consecutive Félix award, and Sylvain Cossette respectively. Finally, Natasha Saint-Pier walked away with the international achievement award.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates all the winners and pays special tribute to all the artists for their strong performance.

Ramadan

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mark the beginning of the month long fast in which Muslims from all over the world will abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset. I would like to wish all Muslims in Canada a Ramadan Mubarak.

Ramadan presents an opportunity for Canadians to learn more about each other. It is an opportunity to learn more about Islam and about the Muslim community in Canada.

Canadians are committed to nurturing and cherishing our diversity. We share a vision of a country where diverse backgrounds of all citizens are recognized and appreciated.

I truly hope all Canadians will share in the spirit of this holy month. Let us make Ramadan a month of reaching out and understanding for all Canadians.

Automobile Industry

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week at the industry committee we studied the auto industry and reminded the government of some important facts.

Vehicle assembly has declined by 15% since 1999. Over 7,000 jobs in the assembly sector have been lost. Two major assembly plants have closed in the past 15 months and a third is scheduled for next summer. This represents a quarter of our assembly capacity within two years.

Every job at a major auto facility supports 7.5 jobs in the total economy of Canada. Since 1990 only one new assembly plant has been built in Canada.

The Canadian Automotive Partnership Council held out the hope that the government would finally listen to industry and take action. However the minister uses it as a political shield. It is time for the minister to take some responsibility and move out from behind the shield.

Eccellenza Award

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to have an opportunity to acknowledge the celebration of the work of a distinguished Winnipeger, Mr. Joe Bova. Mr. Bova was recognized in Winnipeg by his community this past Saturday as a recipient of the Eccellenza Award.

Some 31 years ago, Mr. Bova arrived in Canada, a 15 year old Italian boy with big dreams and a full life ahead of him.

Throughout his life in Winnipeg, he established himself as an exemplary Canadian. As one of Winnipeg's most prominent business and community leaders, Mr. Bova is recognized as a leader whose legacy extends well beyond the borders of Winnipeg, influencing and inspiring the hopes and ambitions of young proteges in Manitoba, Italy and Argentina.

Mr. Bova's commitment and dedication to his community have developed into a strong advocacy for the advancement of many parts of the city. He was the visionary and catalyst for Winnipeg's Little Italy. He was a key partner in the creation of the aboriginal community's ThunderBird House in the inner city. His contributions to the Winnipeg Public Library, the Main Street Task Force and the Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation, to name a few, have personified the Winnipeg spirit.

Meritorious Service Medal

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Captain Michael Jellinek from CFB Esquimalt who has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for his efforts in responding to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Captain Jellinek was stationed at Norad Command in Colorado when the attacks occurred and helped coordinate the national aerospace defence plans in response to the attacks, playing a crucial role in allowing decision makers to understand the situation and make informed judgments.

In contrast to this the government continues to cut, destroy and undermine the personal finances of our military personnel. Just last month, it increased military rents destroying any pay raise that they possibly had coming and tried to cut the separation pay for our soldiers working in the gulf.

The government has to treat our military with respect. I ask it to stop cutting the pay of these members.

Transport

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the transition disarray in this government just continues to get worse. Last week the transport minister announced almost $700 million in additional money for VIA Rail. No sooner was he done than the new Liberal leader promptly instructed VIA not to dare spend a dime of that money. Therefore, VIA gets the green light and the red light at the same time. We do not have any idea what track the government is on.

Is VIA supposed to spend this money or not?