Brian Fitzpatrick

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will direct my comments to what I think potentially is a defect in the legislation and confine my 10 minutes to that. It is the whole question of paid surrogate parenting. A large majority of members see this as a terrible evil. I spent some time thinking about this issue and I am still trying to determine what is evil about it and wondering why we are targeting it and criminalizing it.

Let me talk about a hypothetical surrogate parenting process. We have a couple who cannot have a child because the female has a disability. Her womb will not permit her to have a child. The couple find a young female who may be attending university and needs financial assistance. They engage her services with a commercial contract and the young girl rents out her womb.

The girl receives excellent medical care. She receives the highest standards in health, diet and so on. The contract states that no alcohol and no drugs can be used and that monitoring processes are in place.

What part of that evil process has to be criminalized? The parents receive a healthy child. The girl receives badly needed financial assistance. When we pass criminal law I always try to figure out which party is injured? Is the child injured? Are the parents injured? Is the girl who rents her womb injured? Who is the victim of the crime?

What is the great moral standard that we are infringing here? Invariably in criminal law we get into morality. I went through the great Ten Commandments and I cannot in all honesty find out how this impinges on any of those Ten Commandments.

Almost everyone I have talked to say that what is wrong with this is that a woman is renting her body for money or profit. With all due respect, that is wrong and inaccurate. Most people I know who run their own businesses or work in this world obtain rent for the use of their bodies. In the NHL right now there are players who are actually brutalizing themselves in pursuit of the Stanley Cup. Boxers will inflict terrible harm upon themselves in the name of profit.

Quite honestly, I have never considered a woman carrying a child to birth as something brutal, unhealthy, wrong or immoral. I am really trying to grapple with the rationale behind this particular point.

Let us take in vitro fertilization, which I believe is legal. The people running those clinics do it for a profit. The emphasis there is on a test tube. It seems to me that what we are saying here is that it is legal if it is a test tube situation but criminal if it is a child in a womb. I have a lot of problems with that.

Let us look at it another way. What great public interest are we threatening with this process? The parents receive a healthy child and the student makes it through university with financial assistance. What great public interest does this threaten and what makes it serious enough to criminalize it? Someone needs to help me find that public interest because I do not know what it is.

When we make laws we should always look at whether these laws will be legal. I have taken a look at the charter. Section 7 states that we have the right to liberty. Section 12 states that we should not face cruel and unusual punishment. I would suggest that sending two parents to prison because they wanted a child might be cruel and unusual punishment.

We must also look at the equality provisions. Subsection 15(1) of the charter says everyone has equal benefit of the law without discrimination. One of the grounds of discrimination is physical disability. One of the hypothetical parents has a physical disability. We are walking on thin ice legally as far as I am concerned. I am not exactly sure how anyone could walk into court with a compelling reason under the charter to defend criminalizing this conduct.

Let us look at some of the side consequences. Are you folks in the House prepared to send people to prison because they want a child and get a child of their own? I am not. How would we treat the child? You have come up with the proceeds of crime provisions. You would criminalize the act because the proceed of the crime would be a child.

There are a lot of side issues. If people leave the country and rent a womb in the United States or Europe would it be a criminal offence? What would be the status of the child? We should be thinking of these things. If we make bad laws here people will find ways to deal with it.

I have one other comment on the whole topic. There are members in the House who argue vehemently this is abhorrent, wrong and terrible and must be stopped. They are some of the same people who have no problem whatsoever with abortion clinics which are for profit and which kill life. Here is a case where a couple who cannot have a child make a commercial arrangement to get their own healthy child. Are we to make that into a criminal offence? I am sorry, but I have a lot of trouble trying to figure out the logic of the argument. I wish there were NDP people here today. They are the ones who generally take that line. I would like them to explain to me the logic of the issue because I do not know what it is.

[Government Contracts, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, breaking the rules seems to be a regular routine with the government. Canadians deserve better.

The government is now covering its backside by terminating one of the contracts with Nordic Industries, replacing the management team at Agriculture Canada in Saskatoon, and negotiating a settlement.

Why is the government giving Nordic Industries settlement moneys for termination of an illegal contract?

[Government Contracts, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, government rules require that construction contracts in excess of $40,000 must be tendered. Agriculture Canada, in awarding two contracts to Nordic Industries of Saskatoon, clearly violated these rules.

Could anyone in the government explain why the agriculture department broke these rules in awarding these contracts?

[Telecommunications, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect example of the government's mixed up priorities.

The Canadian Police Association has lobbied the government to protect children and to stop the club med prison system. Instead, the government wants the RCMP to swoop into rec rooms of law-abiding Canadians.

Would not negotiating a new arrangement with the United States be a more appropriate response to the issue of grey market satellite users than calling in the RCMP?

[Telecommunications, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, according to recent press reports, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage will be vigorously pursuing grey market satellite users.

When the RCMP's precious resources are being used to investigate the Groupaction affair, why does the government want to use RCMP officers to crack down on Canadians who apparently, according to the government, are making the mistake of watching the wrong television channels in their living rooms?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at yesterday's industry committee meeting the minister credited the technology partnerships Canada program with rewarding innovation.

However, according to government reports Ontario and Quebec received 86% of all technology partnership funding, Alberta received less than 2%, New Brunswick received less than 0.5% and Saskatchewan received absolutely zero. The government obviously believes there is no innovation in Saskatchewan and this is why it continues to shaft Saskatchewan as well as Alberta and New Brunswick.

Ernest & Young recently completed a report on the Alberta technology sector. It is growing rapidly and it is healthy. However its single biggest problem is raising investment capital. Yet technology partnership has limited Alberta to less than 2% of the funding.

TPC is a failure because it favours one region of the country over another.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to folks involved in the industry and trying to figure out the real problems behind this sort of dispute, a message that comes back to me is that the NAFTA really is not a free trade agreement. It is not working. The dispute settlement mechanism contained in it is not an effective mechanism for dealing with disputes, and so on.

That being the case, I pose a question to my colleague on this front. Is the government considering opening up the whole North American Free Trade Agreement and renegotiating it so we can get a true free trade agreement with some effective mechanisms?

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one of the main goals of foreign policy is to aggressively defend vital national interests. When it comes to the aerospace sector of the economy, the government has been very aggressive and diligent in advancing and protecting the interests of the aerospace industry. It literally goes over Niagara Falls to protect that industry.

However, when it comes to agricultural trade and international trade issues pertaining to agriculture and softwood lumber, to use one of Harold Ballard's phrases, I think the government has been rather wimpish. I think Harold used the analogy that a certain player could go into the corner with eggs in his pocket and come out of the corner and the eggs would not be broken. I would say that in these two areas the government has totally failed those sectors. It has not been aggressive. It has been a wimp. It is clear to everyone who stands back and objectively looks at this. The government consistently gets top marks for hot air and zero marks for action.

I have a question for the member. Why is the government so weak and ineffective in negotiating and protecting the agriculture and softwood lumber sectors when it seems to be so effective in protecting and advancing the interests of the aerospace sector?

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to rhetoric I would give the minister an A plus. When it comes to results however, I would give the minister a failing grade for nine consecutive years. Talk about Liberal government decay. Talk about it.

When is the minister going to announce an effective program to protect our farmers against these new subsidies?

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during a debate in the U.S. congress this week, Congressman Nick Smith from Michigan said that the attempt to cap farm subsidies had utterly failed. In short, Congressman Smith said that the U.S. farm bill provides unlimited farm support for the next six years.

What is the Liberal government going to do to protect Canadian farmers from these new American subsidies?