Betty Hinton

[Firearms Registry, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have no problem with the concept of checks and balances as they relate to gun control but they do have a problem with unbalanced cheque books and billion dollar cheques for unworkable programs like firearms registration.

Canadians know that Liberals cannot grasp the difference between gun control and firearms registration. Gun control targets criminals; firearms registration targets law-abiding farmers, ranchers and duck hunters.

Will the Minister of Justice scrap his ill-conceived gun registration scheme and redirect future money to fighting crime?

[Question No. 137, March 24th, 2003]

For the fiscal years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 et 2000-2001, from all departments and agencies of the government, including crown corporations and quasi/non-governmental agencies funded by the government, and not including research and student-related grants and loans, what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded in the constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, including the name and address of the recipient, whether or not it was competitively awarded, the date, the amount and the type of funding, and if repayable, whether or not it has been repaid?

Return tabled.

[Softwood Lumber, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government was warned by the Canadian Alliance years ago that the softwood lumber crisis was looming. Forestry workers are now struggling to pay their mortgages and feed their families. The government promised forestry workers a compensation program. To date there has not been one thin dime.

Workers continue to be denied access to these funds. Why?

[Racial Discrimination, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. speaker, today we join citizens around the world in declaring our support for the noble effort of eliminating racism.

Racial and religious discrimination have been the cause of too many wars and too much human suffering and any effort, be it by the United Nations or by individuals, to eliminate those two scourges should be applauded.

We pride ourselves in Canada on our ethnic racial diversity and tolerance, and well we should. Canada should continue to hold itself up as a shining example of what racial and religious tolerance should be like.

I am proud that in my constituency there are people from every corner of the earth and we live peacefully together and enjoy our differences.

I salute the United Nations and suggest the motto for Canada should be, “It does not matter where we came from as individuals. What does matter is where we are going together as Canadians.”

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, February 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there is no party in the House that wants to speed up the resolution of land claims more than the Canadian Alliance. We have seen and experienced firsthand the awful economic impact Liberal dawdling has had on the economies of our constituencies.

There is no party in the House that wants a fair and just land claims settlement program more than the Alliance Party. We have seen and experienced firsthand the grievous financial injury done to individuals who were sideswiped by land claims and lost their grazing leases or even their private property.

No party wants an independent land claims body more than the Alliance because we know what political meddling and influence peddling can do to thwart just settlements and fair and just treatment of all concerned.

The legislation, an act to establish the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims, will not speed up the resolution of claims, particularly larger, more costly claims such as in British Columbia.

All one has to do is consider the proposed process for settlement. A first nation submits a claim to the proposed commission, at which time research funding is allocated by the commission to the first nation. All interested parties are notified and preparatory meetings are facilitated. How long that first step will take is anyone's guess, but we know how slowly the wheels of commissions can turn.

Following the first step, the Crown must decide whether to accept the claim. One would think that before allocating research money to the first nation making the claim that some decision on the validity of the claim would be made before throwing money out the window. That is not the case.

Step two has not finished. If the Crown refuses the claim after having handed over the research money, the first nation can ask for dispute resolution led by the commission. Keep an eye on that wheel to see if there is any movement. If the request for dispute resolution or dispute resolution fails, the first nation can ask the commission to refer the matter to a tribunal to ponder the validity of the claim. I should note here that we are still in what the government calls step two of this process and only just completing it.

Step three is if the claim is accepted as valid by the Crown or the tribunal, then the matter reverts back to the commission which will lead the negotiations with the first nation on the amount and the amount will never be allowed to exceed $7 million. I state again, that leaves British Columbia out of the process. However, if those commission led negotiations fail, the first nation can demand that the matter be referred back to the tribunal for a binding decision on the amount of compensation to a maximum of $7 million.

Those three steps alone could take years. Whatever happened to the speedy settlement of land claims, particularly those that are worth $7 million or less? It is not speeding anything up.

In its wording, the government uses the term “independent”. We must take issue with that. The Prime Minister will appoint the chief, the vice-chief commissioners and the other five commissioners. The Prime Minister will also appoint the chief and the vice-chief adjudicators and the other five adjudicators. He will determine what they will be paid and what their travel and living allowances will be. How independent are those 14 individuals going to be if the Prime Minister appoints them? Will they be as independent as the ethics counsellor? There will be suspicions and allegations from the outset of patronage and partiality. Those accusations and suspicions will tarnish the legitimacy and the credibility of the centre before it even gets off the ground.

It is also disturbing to read that the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims will determine its own staffing requirements. We have seen enough over the years to know that when a so-called independent body is left to determine its own staffing needs, there is an out of control bureaucracy in the making. I could cite several examples.

We also have to ask this. Who will represent the vast majority of Canadians in this new process, the other stakeholders? By vast majority I mean all the people who pay taxes. Who will stand up for the taxpayer?

A system like this that avoids accountability for government stonewalling and discourages alternative dispute mechanisms over costly court cases is a potentially huge waste of scarce and hard earned tax dollars.

We find fault in the clause that says that the centre will submit quarterly reports on the values of all settlements to the minister. It does not say that the minister will immediately turn those quarterly reports over to the House for parliamentary scrutiny. We have seen what happened to the firearms registry and how true costs were hidden by the justice department. We have seen billion dollar HRDC disasters that the department tried to hide from Parliament. We know that Canada Customs and Revenue is desperately trying to hide the true losses taxpayers are suffering from the GST fraud.

How can the House feel assured that the minister will pass on the true costs of all these $7 million maximum settlements? By true costs, I mean the settlements plus the bureaucratic costs. The question remains, where is there anything in the legislation that suggests the taxpayers have somebody standing up for them in this process?

We have heard a lot from the Liberal side of the House about transparency in government. Liberals seem to have a bit of difficulty determining what transparency and what translucency is. When we say transparency, we mean see through. They have a different version of that.

In reading this over it appears that lip service is being paid to transparency in government but nothing is being done about it. There is no transparency in the legislation. Government members on the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources voted against all the amendments that would have required the government to declare openly its reasons for deciding against a claim or for holding up the claim process. Where is the transparency in that?

As for speeding up the process, why is there no mandated timeline in the process? Why are there plenty of loopholes in here so as to permit the government to delay and stonewall. Every amendment put forward in committee to discourage stonewalling and delay was defeated by the Liberal members of the committee on orders handed down by the Prime Minister's Office.

The Liberals have, for over 100 years, treated our aboriginal people with indifference and even contempt. These half measures to make amends will be seen through by the first nation people. Maybe that is where they are talking about transparency because it is the only thing transparent in the legislation.

They know that the proposed legislation will not bring speedy resolution to their claims. They have seen the wheels of government turn and they know how long it takes to even get the wheels moving. They know how agonizingly long it will take for a full revolution of those wheels.

They will rightly feel betrayed by the Prime Minister and the author of the 1993 Liberal red book who happens to be the former finance minister. He wrote the Liberal promise that an independent claims commission would be jointly appointed by first nations and the Government of Canada.

The legislation breaks the promise of the Liberals and the former finance minister because it concentrates the power in the hands of the Prime Minister by making him the only person who can appoint the members of the centre for independent resolution of first nation specific claims.

If first nations people feel betrayed, it is no surprise. It is just one more broken Liberal promise in 150 years worth of broken Liberal promises.

The legislation is not worthy of support. That is why on this side of the House the official opposition will oppose it.

[Human Rights, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that the government waffles and dodges as it has been doing since last October. The opportunity was there in October for Canada to speak out on behalf of oppressed people in Iran.

Nothing was said to, or about, the regime that buries women up to their necks and stones them to death. We are approaching another deadline this March when the Human Rights Commission will meet again in Geneva.

What message on behalf of outraged Canadians does the government intend to take to Geneva next month to halt the atrocities against Iranian people?

[Human Rights, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, next week we herald women by celebrating March 2 to 8 as International Women's Week.

Canada could do so much more than pay lip service to this very important week by demanding that Iran cease the human rights abuses and ruthless treatment of women in that country. It is not good enough for the foreign affairs minister to say Canada will work with the government of Iran to stop the senseless execution of women who are being stoned to death. Canada should threaten to isolate Iran from the rest of the world and should threaten the use of sanctions until these atrocities end.

That Iran continues to murder women for merely attending a birthday party is intolerable. Canada must take the lead and raise this as an issue at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva in March.

If we want to make this year's International Women's Week truly remarkable, we should be taking concrete action to stop the murder and torture of women in Iran. Anything less is tantamount to sanction.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I know on this issue that is before the House there are strong moral and spiritual views. We must respect all points of view in this most serious and challenging debate. Points of view will be expressed here that flow from deeply personal experiences, whether they are of a spiritual or moral experience or from a deeply personal, sad and tragic experience.

In my own case, it was the latter that helped shape my views on this issue. Like many members present, all I bring to the discussion is my own experience. I do not pretend to have scientific knowledge, nor do the constituents I consulted on this issue. All we have is our own personal value systems and experiences to guide us.

When my husband and I began our life and family together, we were blessed with the arrival of three children. Every mother and father in this place will testify to the joy that children bring to our lives. Our first daughter was born and appeared perfectly healthy, but we soon learned that there was a small defect called biliary atresia and in her case, it was complete biliary atresia. It was, and remains to this day, incurable. We were told that most infants born with this live for only three months. We had 10 months of joy with our baby and still consider ourselves blessed for those additional months.

From our own personal perspective and from my own sorrowful experience, I can stand here and say that if there had been a cure offered, no matter how it was developed, I would have demanded access. Even if I had no scientific knowledge of embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell research, if that had been offered as a cure, I would have accepted it and thanked God for saving my daughter. No such solution was available then and tragically, there still is no cure today.

If some Canadians wonder how we in their Parliament arrive at our conclusions and our decisions, I want to tell them that many times it is from our own experience. My heart goes out to people who are stricken with chronic diseases, and to parents who learn their newborns are suffering from incurable problems. I want them to know that I would have walked through fire to save my baby and I expect nothing less of them. I would have accepted a cure, and still would, no matter what research took place to arrive at that cure.

When I stand here to talk about embryonic and adult stem cell research, I want all members and the Canadian public to know that I believe that because of my own personal experience this is not a moral choice for me. I would be lying if I stood here and said that I would have changed my mind with regard to saving the life of my own daughter. I would not have.

Since that time, and because this issue is before Parliament and the people of Canada, I have delved as deeply as possible, both personally and in terms of broadening my knowledge, into stem cell research. I have arrived at my conclusion only after weighing everything very carefully, the knowledge I have gleaned through study and my own personal experience and views.

I have concluded that the best way for us to proceed is to stay with adult stem cell research. Colleagues on all sides of the House have outlined similar reasons but I want to repeat them so there will be no doubt as to where I stand on this issue.

Adult stem cells are easily acceptable. They are not subject to tissue rejection and they pose minimal ethical concerns. Tissue rejection is a serious consideration. When embryonic stem cell research is used, there will be rejection problems. The person, infant or adult, who receives this life-giving stem cell is going to be on a regime of anti-rejection drugs for his or her lifetime.

We know we have a health care crisis in Canada and we are working to fix it. The system now and in the future could not possibly afford perhaps thousands of patients on anti-immune suppressant drugs for thousands of lifetimes.

There has been so much positive progress through research that we in the Canadian Alliance have concluded that the government has but one option. We recommend that this divisive ethical issue and debate could be avoided with a three year prohibition on embryonic stem cell research. That would give science and research into adult stem cells time to develop and make even more progress than has been made to date.

We ask, considering the tremendous progress that has already been made, why abandon adult stem cell research? There is simply not the funding available to do justice to both types of research.

The choice we face today is clear and simple. Stay with adult stem cell research and put all of our financial skill and resources behind it. Much good work has been done in this area, much progress has been made, and there are thousands of people in Canada relying on us to make the right decision.

I would like to go back to an earlier theme. I did not arrive at this decision because of my moral beliefs, although I certainly respect those. I agree that this is a moral issue but mine was not a moral decision. It was based on the evidence put in front of me and what I was able to learn through my own study, through conversations with my constituents and from my own personal experience. I am grateful to those people in my riding who came to me to relate their own painful or tragic experiences, to help me arrive at my conclusion.

I would like to relate one of the stories told to me by a constituent. It is that of a little boy of under five with diabetes. The father and I discussed this very issue and when he departed he told me he agreed with my decision to stay the course and focus on adult stem cell research. We have a moral obligation to that child and we have a moral obligation to all children in the country to do what is right.

We have an obligation to the people of Canada who suffer from Parkinson's disease. There is evidence to suggest they might be helped by adult stem cell research.

We must do the right thing and the right thing is not necessarily the fast thing. Canadians who are following this closely should know one other thing. We have committees in Parliament spending countless hours, energy and resources on issues such as this. They work together to arrive at conclusions and recommendations and bring them to the House and then, after all that work, they learn that their conclusions and recommendations are overridden and either a ministerial or bureaucratic agenda is put before the House. It takes us back to the observations of many. The Liberals are intent on making Parliament irrelevant.

I am heartened by the knowledge that there are some Liberals who are as concerned about this as we are on this side. Perhaps one day the real democrats in Canadian society will band together and make Parliament, and members of Parliament, relevant to Canadians.

In an earlier debate a colleague wondered if the government was putting the interests of drug and pharmaceutical companies ahead of the interests of Canadians. Is it not those companies that are pushing the idea of embryonic stem cell research? Would it not be companies like that that would benefit from treatments that would require lifetime prescriptions of anti-rejection drugs?

All opinions on the issue should be brought here to the House. All opinions should be considered. The vested interests should be heard as well as those with deeply held moral and spiritual values. In the end though, we as parliamentarians must make the decision. My own is to support only adult stem cell research. My hope is that it will lead to fantastic advances and miraculous cures for suffering Canadians.

My hope is that some day in the future some young mother will be told her child has biliary artesia but that she should not despair. My hope is that a future doctor will tell the young mother that due to wise considerations and decisions made by the Canadian Parliament in the year 2003, a cure for her infant is available. I hope she would offer up a prayer of thanks for us in this place because we did what was right when we were called upon to do so.

[Human Rights, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have stood in the House on numerous occasions to speak out about the human rights violations in Iran.

The Iranian government continues to refuse to sign the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Canada and the European Union will hold consultations this March in Geneva. This will be a turning point in deciding Canada's involvement in this important human rights issue.

I will be hosting a meeting next week with the former UN representative on human rights in Iran, Mr. Maurice Copithorne, and the committee for defence of human rights in Iran. This is a time sensitive issue. We cannot continue to condone the violence and discrimination by keeping silent. Every day that passes is another day of suffering.

I wish to invite all colleagues in the House to join me at the meeting on February 25, in Room 104 of the Justice Building at 1 p.m. I wish to raise their awareness and ensure their support.

[Foreign Affairs, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I currently have 49 constituents waiting for their passports, some for as long as four months. The average wait time is more than 40 working days regardless of what the minister's office, the 1-800 number, or any letters from the minister may claim. Since the beginning of January my office has had over 200 calls from people needing help.

If the minister cannot resolve a passport issue, how can I trust him to resolve the Iraq situation?