Reed Elley

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his very kind remarks at the beginning of his speech and I want to reciprocate by saying that I think he is also a very hard working member. In fact I would venture to say that almost all members of parliament are hard working.

I rise once again to hold the government to account for its lack of strong action on behalf of the Canadian softwood lumber industry. I have spoken with constituents from my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan who are astounded with the government's lack of response toward the softwood lumber duties and tariffs. I would suspect, without having conducted a scientific poll, that they would be very much in agreement with the motion which we are presenting here today:

That this House has lost confidence in the government for its failure to persuade the U.S. government to end protectionist policies that are damaging Canada's agriculture and lumber industries and for failing to implement offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and lumber sectors.

While my riding has an agricultural base, it is relatively small in comparison to the softwood lumber industry so I will focus my remarks on that area. I recently did a count of how many times I have spoken out on softwood lumber since I was first elected to the House in 1997. This will be my sixth major speech on this topic. I have had six member's statements and sixteen press releases. I have written countless letters to constituents and ministers, including invitations to visit Nanaimo--Cowichan, and I have given dozens of interviews with local newspapers and radio and television outlets. This is a hot topic in my riding.

There is no other subject that I have spoken more about and yet it seems there is no other subject that the government has done less about. The constituents of Nanaimo--Cowichan whom I see in the streets, at the stores and at community events all ask the same question: Why is the government not doing something to resolve this situation?

It is a simple issue to understand. The United States, for all of its grand talk about being a free trading nation, really is not. It is a protectionist country and will do everything to protect its own citizens, businesses and economy. In many ways, of course, we would find that admirable. However, it flies in the face of everything the United States says publicly to Canadians and to the rest of the world.

I agree with the premise that we do not want to have ongoing subsidies, trade wars and undue tariffs and duties at the 49th parallel, so what is the real problem here? May I suggest that the problem is that this government and ultimately this Prime Minister really have very little credibility, sway or force in Washington, D.C.? Is it any wonder that Canadians as a whole have lost much confidence in the government? When it has no effective voice with its largest trading partner, the Canadian people lose confidence in the government itself.

The government cannot say it was not warned about all of this by the official opposition. Time after time, year after year, long before the agreement expired, Canadian Alliance members, and the Reform before them, have risen in the House to ask questions, raise negotiating points and ask for the government's plan of action and details on how it was dealing with the changes to the softwood lumber agreement. For the most part all we received was the “don't worry, be happy” routine.

In the past, the secretary of state called the people of B.C. nervous Nellies when they raised public concerns. The Minister for International Trade stated that no jobs have been lost due to the current softwood lumber problems. When that sort of thing is heard in my riding, heads begin to shake.

The government does not seem to get it. I have challenged and invited members to tour my riding and meet some of the real people who have been affected by the government's lack of response. The people of Nanaimo--Cowichan, indeed all Canadians, should be nervous, nervous with the lack of response from the government concerning softwood lumber.

The minister needs a serious reality check when he says that no jobs have been lost. According to Human Resources Development Canada in my riding, there were over 725 new employment insurance claims up to the end of March 31 of this year that were directly related to the softwood lumber industry, and an estimated further 2,000 jobs lost through the spin-off effect of the regional economic downturn. These numbers do not reflect the people who have taken retirement from the industry altogether, who have taken a job in another industry or who have moved out of the area. Sadly, there have been many people in that last category. That is just in my riding alone.

With the 27% duty in effect, local mill owners and managers are now looking at their remaining staff. Employees are living on the edge, expecting the layoff axe to fall at any moment. These are people who are being thrown out of their careers through no real fault of their own.

The loss of confidence in the government has evolved through empty promises and platitudes stemming from the inability of the government to negotiate in a strong and forthright manner with the United States. Yes, I believe in free trade and negotiated settlements, but when we come to the negotiating table we must approach it from a position of strength and have something to trade.

My colleagues and I suggested long ago that we needed to put ourselves in a stronger negotiating position. We have heard that echoed somewhat by some of our own government ministers from B.C. Schoolyard children know this lesson well. They know that to trade their bag of marbles for someone else's hockey stick may require an incentive such as their baseball as well.

Canadians know that we have other resources that the Americans want. California not only wants our B.C. hydro, it needs it. Another hot summer of rolling brownouts and blackouts shutting off air conditioners will drive the point home. Chicago and the midwest would sure like to have our natural gas to heat their homes during the cold, windy months of January and February. The American energy companies are actively looking for ways to put in pipelines from Alaska to the southern 48 states.

Simply put, the time for this is long past, and we need to start negotiating and playing hardball at doing it. Why can we not protect and build our Canadian economy, save Canadian jobs and expand our softwood lumber industry? What does the government not understand?

Previous governments and many Canadians worked hard to develop a rules based free trade agreement with both the United States and Mexico that would bring some guaranteed access to their markets and keep Canadians working. Yet in this present dispute, our government has failed to keep even the market share in softwood lumber we had previously in the United States and has allowed it to be taken over by non-NAFTA countries such as Sweden and Brazil, which now are reaping the rewards of our hard work. That is simply unacceptable.

The U.S has attempted to tarnish the forest practices of all Canadians. Canada's timber supply is mainly through crown land, compared to the American system which is over 50% private woodlots. While the Americans want a Canadian public auction process, the government has failed to point out that most wood sold in the U.S. is brokered through private deals, not public auction.

The government has failed to adequately point out that while the Canadian softwood lumber industry has regularly upgraded equipment and technology, much of the American industry has not. In turn, the government has failed to point out that American softwood lumber policy is being run largely by lobbyists for private U.S. companies. Need I remind the House that some of these lobbyists work for companies which have profits that are individually far greater than those of even our biggest companies combined?

I come back to the fact that I have twice invited the Minister for International Trade and his parliamentary secretary to visit my riding for a reality check. So far they have been conspicuous no-shows. It is due to this lack of inaction on the part of the government to put a personal face to this economic tragedy that my constituents, and Canadians alike, see this as another failure on the part of the government. It is a part of restoring confidence in government to help Canadians.

I will be voting in favour of the motion, reflecting, I believe, the attitude of my constituents:

That this House has lost confidence in the government for its failure to persuade the U.S. government to end protectionist policies that are damaging Canada's agriculture and lumber industries and for failing to implement offsetting trade injury measures for the agriculture and lumber sectors.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important debate, crucial to two very important segments of our economic production and there is hardly a government member in the House to listen to it. I think we ought to call in the members.

And the count having been taken:

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is very aware that my riding has been very hard hit by this. There are four Doman mills in my riding. I know that he has had extensive conversations with the chairman and CEO of that particular industry, Rick Doman. I know that Mr. Doman has been asking the government for a long, long time for loan guarantees.

It is all right to talk about market diversification. It is all right to talk about spending $20 million to educate the Americans about how good our forest practices are and what is going on. All of that kind of stuff does not help the immediate problem in my riding of mills shutting down and workers being laid off. I have constantly asked the government, ministers of the crown, to come up with extra protection for our workers, but we get nothing.

Will the minister from British Columbia, purporting to represent British Columbia industries, give us some hope that our workers will come out of this without losing their shirts and their homes?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to participate in this important debate today now that we have an amendment before the House stating that the House declines to give second reading to Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, since the principle of the bill does not recognize the value of non-embryonic stem cell research which has had great advancements in the last year.

The amendment gives me an opportunity to further expand on some of the comments I made earlier today in terms of my concern that the bill, as it is presently before the House, does not represent the broad bases of science that are available to us in Canada and around the world particularly relating to stem cell research. Those of us who have concerns about the bill would like to bring to the attention of hon. members that the legislation should be sent back to committee for a more balanced approach in terms of the best science we can get from embryonic and adult stem cell research.

All of us want to see cures for some of these debilitating diseases, diseases that can be terminal such as ALS and others. I would not want to be responsible for not allowing the science to go forward within some kind of regulatory framework that would allow for a cure, if indeed there was a cure, to be found through adult stem cell research. We do have an ethical dilemma surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells. We do not have the same kind of dilemma with adult stem cell research.

I must say I was struck by the comments of my hon. colleague from Hamilton, a former McMaster graduate who I went to school with. I was taken by his comments about the use of adult and embryonic stem cells and particularly, the fact that we would not want to see any stone left unturned in this whole debate to allow the science to go forward. Indeed, he made the comment that if a life had to end to give new life to someone else, he would be in favour of that.

I am in favour of seeing tissue and organ donation come forward. The only thing I want to say to him about that is that the fetus and embryo do not have a choice. They do not have the opportunity to make a choice as to whether or not they will be a donor, in effect giving life to someone else through their death. We do have an ethical concern surrounding that issue and we need to spend more time on that. I am sure hon. colleagues will take that into consideration when they are thinking about this issue.

We have talked about the issue of ALS, Parkinson's and others. An article in the Reuters News Agency on April 8, 2002, stated:

A transplant of his own brain cells have treated a man's Parkinson's disease, clearing up the trembling and rigid muscles that mark the disease, researchers reported on Monday.

The researchers believe they isolated and nurtured adult stem cells from the patient's brain, cells that they re-injected to restore normal function.

“We definitely need to do more studies,” said Dr. Michael Levesque of the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who led the study. “This is the first case that shows a promising technique may work. It is an experimental procedure and has to be investigated further before it becomes accepted procedure.”

More than two years after the experimental treatment, the man has no symptoms of Parkinson's, an incurable and fatal brain disease that starts with tremors and ends up incapacitating its victims.

That is fantastic. If indeed we are seeing those kinds of advances in medical research today and if in this case, as in some others we could cite, it has come about because of medical research with adult stem cells, then it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to ensure we do all we can to bring all of the research available in this field into the legislative equation. We must not go overboard on one aspect of stem cell research which seems to be the case in the present legislation.

There is also the whole business of donor consent. Those children who are born through artificial insemination do not at the present time have access to the medical records or the background of the donors. The legislation is absolutely faulty in that regard.

I recently spoke on the telephone with a constituent back in Nanaimo. This young lady is 20 years of age. She is wonderfully healthy and a productive member of society who is the result of artificial insemination. Her concern is that she does not have access to the medical records and histories which could be helpful to her as she goes into adulthood and wants to raise her own family.

The government, through this legislation, is unwilling to open the door to this particular kind of thing. Her suggestion was, and I pass it on to the rest of the members of the House and particularly to the committee, that we should only be considering donors who are willing to be identified to those who, at the age of majority, need to have this kind of information about their birthing parents in terms of artificial insemination.

There are a number of considerations that come into play. When we compare it to adoption there is indeed legal recourse for finding out this kind of information. People who at this point in their lives want to find out where the egg or the sperm came from that created them through artificial insemination need to have the same access to that kind of information that people who were adopted have. Indeed there should be a level playing field in that area.

There is a real need to clarify some important points in this legislation. We are hoping that when it goes back to committee it will indeed be prepared to accept amendments that bring this legislation into an even stronger position to protect those who are looking for protection in the bill and who are looking for cures that at this point are not available.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Bill C-56 is a piece of legislation that has been long in coming. Canadians have been calling for legislation since 1993 when the royal commission on new reproductive technologies reported.

This issue has a long history. In July 1995 minister Marleau introduced a voluntary moratorium on some reproductive technologies. In June 1996 the government introduced a bill prohibiting 13 uses of assisted reproductive and genetic technologies but allowed the bill to die on the order paper at the time of the 1997 election. Draft legislation was thereafter submitted to the health committee on May 3, 2001 for consideration. The committee presented its report entitled “Building Families” in December 2001.

In March 2002 the Canadian Institutes for Health Research pre-empted any legislation by parliament by publishing rules to approve funding for experiments on human embryos and aborted fetuses. Funding was put off for one year following opposition protest of that particular move.

I wish to make it clear that the Canadian Alliance strongly believes in the improvement of human health. We support research wherever it is compatible with the dignity and value of human life. We will work to protect the value of human life and the best interests of children born of assisted reproductive technologies as well as ensuring that prospective parents have access to the best assisted reproductive technologies that science can ethically offer.

On such an important issue members of all parties should have the right to a free vote on the bill. It is important that we hear from Canadians on this issue and then, when in possession of all the facts, be able to vote free from party discipline on this important subject.

There are parts of the bill that I am pleased to see. I support the bill in regard to reproductive technology and the legislative framework it would create for this important subject. I do not wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater because there are parts of the bill which I cannot support.

I hope the committee will truly flex its political muscles and allows amendments to be passed so that we might at the end of the day be able to support the legislation.

What concerns me about the legislation? I believe we run the serious risk that donor insemination creates divided families. Recently Maclean's magazine published a six-page article entitled, “Who's my birth father?” In it the journalist states that with the exception of a few instances, “approximately 14,000 Canadians born by donor insemination in the past two decades are locked in a system that protects the donor anonymity.” The article stated that, “until recently, physicians even encouraged parents not to tell their children how they were conceived.” The remainder of the article contained numerous stories of children born by donor insemination who were demanding to know who their biological fathers were. In Canada over one million families are single parent homes and approximately 900,000 of these parents are mothers.

Too many children in Canada have little access to their natural fathers and I fear that the bill will only cause these numbers to increase and not serve in the best interest of children born of assisted human reproduction. Children born through donor insemination must have access to information about their biological fathers.

Another area of concern is the issue of stem cell research. There have been considerable advances in this area of medical technology. It proves to be a promising field that could lead to revolutionary discoveries. However, in this piece of legislation Canadians are only getting half the story. Legislation based on only half the story may lead to many sufferers of terminal diseases never seeing a cure.

This is the case when we rely too heavily on embryonic stem cells as the cure all for these debilitating diseases. Simply put, there are other sources of stem cells other than embryos. For the information of the House today, I have reviewed some of the available research on this issue. I have learned that scientists and doctors across the country are discovering stem cells taken from sources such as placentas, umbilical cords, bone marrow and even human fat are equally as capable as those collected from embryos.

For instance, a team of researchers from the University of Alberta have recently isolated and extracted healthy islet cells from an adult pancreas. These are cells that produce insulin. They have successfully transplanted the cells into the pancreas of 25 people suffering from juvenile diabetes.

There are other examples. For instance, a researcher from McGill University also discovered that stem cells collected from adult skin was capable of growing into brain cells and other tissue.

Then again, researchers found evidence that stem cells circulating in the bloodstream could grow new tissue in the liver, gut and skin. Adult stem cells are therefore more versatile than previously thought.

Finally, University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute researchers showed that adult bone marrow stem cells can become blood vessels. The researcher said “The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy”.

The Duke University Medical Centre researchers turned stem cells from knee fat into cartilage, bone and fat cells. The researcher said: “different clinical problems could be addressed by using adult cells taken from different spots throughout the body, without the same ethical concerns associated with embryonic stem cells”.

These are only a few examples of successful advances that have been made in the area of adult stem cell research. Why then would the Liberal government put all its eggs in one basket, so to speak, in the bill, fail to acknowledge that even though scientists have been working for over 20 years with embryonic stem cells without any significant breakthrough in treating disease and seemingly pay no regard to the scientific breakthroughs that are happening within Canada and around the world in adult stem cell research?

Derek Rogusky, director of research at Focus on the Family, has stated that:

While embryonic stem cell research holds out a faint hope for Canadians suffering with disease, adult stem cell research is already changing lives for the better. Building on these successes, not the challenges of embryonic stem cells, is where we should be investing our tax dollars.

Stem cell research is a relevant issue to the bill and Canadians are eager to have the government take action. I suggest that the Liberal government take seriously the recommendation made by the Canadian Alliance to call for a three year prohibition on research on human embryos in order to realize the full potential of adult stem cells. This research thus far has only proven successful and therefore suggests that its future is bright.

The standing committee has said:

--in the past year, there have been tremendous gains in adult stem research in humans. We also heard that, after many years of embryo stem cell research with animal models, the results have not provided the expected advances. Therefore, we want to encourage research funding in the area of adult stem cells.

The official opposition's minority report called for a three year prohibition on the experimentation with human embryos, to allow time for the use of adult stem cells to be fully explored. It recommended:

--that the government strongly encourage its granting agencies and the scientific community to place the emphasis on adult (post-natal) stem cell research.

The House must acknowledge the use of adult stem cells and the significant advances that have already been made in this area. I therefore urge the government to implement the three year prohibition of experimentation on human embryos. While this is important legislation that has been long coming, let us not rush it through only to create new problems. People who suffer from debilitating diseases deserve the best science, certainly the best cure and indeed the best legislation. Let us do the job right if we are going to do it at all.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for sharing his feelings on this very important landmark bill before the House on reproductive technology.

Does my colleague have any kind of light to shed upon a certain part of this whole debate? My understanding is that the members of the health committee met and heard from many expert witnesses who gave testimony on whole area. They heard from a number of scientists who indeed said that the development of adult stem cell research was moving along at a fairly fast pace and that the results coming from this superceded that which was coming from maybe 20 years of embryonic stem cell research. They said that when people used their own adult stem cells as opposed to embryonic stem cells, particularly in terms of organs, the rejection factor was practically nil. They also said there was a cost for anti-rejection drugs when embryonic stem cells were used.

The committee then came back with an almost unanimous report that indicated that there should be some kind of moratorium on embryonic stem cell research at this point so that we could really see the good results of the adult stem cell research.

If that was the case, why then was there this huge shift, between the time when the report was written and the legislation was tabled on the part of the government, to move away from that recommendation of the committee? I do not know if the hon. member has any elucidation on that subject?

[Shorter Work Week, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in today's debate on the motion that the hon. member has brought forward, which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should take all public policy and legislative steps necessary to encourage the adoption of a shorter work week and reduced work time in the public sector, federally regulated industries, and the private sector as a whole.

While I am certain that the member has put the motion forward in all good faith, I have not found convincing evidence that justifies the need for such an action. He has put forward some of the standard points on the issue where I am afraid that the numbers simply do not add up.

The most common work week bantered around over the past two decades has been 30, 32 and 35 hours of work per week. Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that research by Statistics Canada in the year 2000 showed that across all industries the average weekly hours for employees paid by the hour already averaged 31.6 hours per week.

When all work hours are averaged, last year the Christian Science Monitor reported that Canadians worked 42.2 hours, in the 29th position behind countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, China and the United States. The global average is 44.6 hours per week. This clearly has an effect on our overall competitiveness and productivity as a nation. When we are not competitive and our productivity drops, we surely suffer economically as a nation.

Let us clearly recognize that there have been atrocious records in the past of 12 hour days and six day work weeks. While I do not currently believe in the need for a shorter work week, neither do I believe that we should endorse the 72 hour work week that Charles Dickens so eloquently wrote about in the 19th century.

There are some very negative effects of the shortened work week that I want to put on the record. In the March 14, 1994 issue of Maclean's magazine, it was reported that most Canadians now working reduced hours are also earning less as a result. This cannot be helpful to those families who are struggling financially.

While the shortened work week has been touted as the solution for those companies that are in financial crisis, it would also appear to have been short term at best. Furthermore, many of the efforts to have a shortened work week have been controversial. One of the results has actually been a division among workers themselves pitting those with jobs against those without, leading to a potential social upheaval.

Internationally, Business Week reports that France, and the hon. member has already mentioned the French experiment, has found that the shortened work week has resulted in higher expenses for the more highly skilled workers. Furthermore, the move to a shortened work week has also resulted in a discouraging investment in research and development in high tech industries.

The very basis on which we can grow and develop new business opportunities is limited because of a move to shorter work weeks. I certain that irony does not escape members of the public.

Finally, the International Monetary Fund working paper states that under a shorter work week a reduction in the legal work week may induce a degree of downward wage flexibility and that a decline in output cannot be ruled out. This is now what the member wants as a result of such a motion.

In April 1994 the Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a ballot with its 100,000 members on the question. It asked if the work week should be shortened as part of a national job creation strategy. In framing this question, the CFIB summarized the issue this way.

As industrialized countries struggle with stubbornly high unemployment rates, some countries, including Canada, are looking at shortening the work week as part of their job creation strategy. Some current discussions focus on a four day work week. Supporters say that at a time when governments and large firms are downsizing, it makes sense to redistribute existing employment to get more people working. Reducing the work week would mean fewer people would be on welfare; that is reducing welfare costs and cutting government spending. A shorter work week with more people working would lead to increased productivity.

On the other hand, opponents say it would only redistribute existing work and not create new jobs. Existing employees would be reluctant to agree to take less pay. There would be an increase in total payroll costs for employers, further deterring real job creation. While large firms could reallocate jobs, this is not often feasible for small firms. It would need new legislation and entail major compliance problems.

The CFIB membership answered the question “Should the work week be shortened?” as part of a national job creation strategy as follows: 16% were in favour; an overwhelming majority of 75% were opposed; and the remaining 9% were either undecided or had no interest in the issue at all.

These are the people who would have struggle to make it work from the employer's perspective. Granted this may be different than the view of the employees. However, if the employer struggles to see how the shorter work week would work for them, any such proposed changes are doomed to be unsuccessful.

I find also that the member's motion is somewhat disrespectful of the role that the private sector has separate from the federal government. I know that this member has been involved in the trade union movement in the past. It surprises me that his motion would call for the involvement of the federal government in areas where it has no real jurisdiction. I am certain that this member would be up in arms if a motion were being debated that called for some form of interference in the role of unions.

I believe that the hours of work are best left to be negotiated between employees and employers. At times the representatives of the employees will be the unions. At other times employees will represent themselves, through professional associations and the like. Employers will sometimes be the government and other times will be the private sector. I believe that we must recognize that each situation will be different.

Currently there are many professions that work extended hours for shorter work weeks, such as the police, firemen and ambulance attendants. Many other industries are subject to change due to fluctuations in the market. Softwood lumber employees in my own riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan are unfortunately very familiar with that.

In the long term the Canadian Alliance wants to create an economic climate in which businesses can thrive and grow and with their success create quality job opportunities for Canadians. We would do so by providing deep, broad-based tax relief and ensuring a stable monetary policy.

The Canadian Alliance would also encourage the entrepreneurial sector by eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing government interference in the labour market. We also would foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad and eliminating the interprovincial trade barriers that plague our country.

We would withdraw government from areas of the economy where the private could deliver the same services more efficiently and would end the unfair practice of providing subsidies to industry, businesses and special interest groups.

Having said all that, I certainly want to thank the member for bringing the issue forward for debate. However I would encourage employers and employees alike to work toward a balancing of the personal needs of employees with the corporate needs of the employer.

If a business does not make a profit, the business will ultimately close, throwing employees out of work and reducing the tax base for various levels of government. Conversely, if employees are not satisfied in their work and feel that they are not earning a reasonable wage or salary as well as not being treated fairly, they will leave to find employment elsewhere. In my view, neither option is acceptable. The relationship between employees and employers must be symbiotic. They must rely on each other and live together in a relationship that they can jointly build.

I would encourage all employees and employers to discuss issues such as shorter work weeks and other important issues in an open and forthright manner during whatever negotiations take place. I believe this is the more appropriate venue rather than through government interference.

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question after a short observation.

He seemed to infer in his speech that it is quite possible there would be objections to raising the age of consent because there may be some segments of our society where the cultural norm is to allow children to participate in sexual activity at a much younger age than 14.

First, I would be interested in knowing if he has any information about the segments of our society that allow that to take place. I personally do not know of anyone who would be happy for that to take place. Second, if indeed that was a standard that we were using in terms of the age of consent, is he really inferring that we could have some kind of patchwork quilt of law-making across the country where we would allow one segment of society to have its own rules and another segment of society to have other rules? Do we not make laws so that they apply equally across the country?

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one concern we see raised all the time by people is their perception that government, particularly of the federal government, is reactive rather than proactive. The government fails to discern the trends of our society and the way things are going. It does not bring in laws or create programs or whatever that are proactive and that build for the future. Instead it waits for crises to develop, whether it is an economic crisis that finally brings us to the point where we need a balanced budget, or a military crisis where finally we need the proper kind of equipment for soldiers or a moral crisis where finally the government is forced to take action to bring legislation in line with something that is seriously affecting the moral fabric of our society.

As an opposition party, we are attempting to focus the issue, which is the sexual predators who prey upon our children. That is why we brought the motion to the House. We want the government to do something about it.

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my hon. colleague across the way. I know the hon. member would like us to separate the two issues but I do not see how we can do that.

The Robin Sharpe case brings this whole issue into focus for us. It was that judgment of the supreme court which brought us to this juncture in the road as we look down it into the future. The two issues are inseparably linked in my mind and in our motion because of that.

The issue of describing something is an issue that was left very much hanging by the Supreme Court of Canada. If we can do anything at all through this motion to further discussion and as a parliament help the government to craft legislation that would bring into sharp focus the law concerning the description of sexual acts perpetrated upon children by sexual predators and help our law enforcement people, our courts, our social workers and all those people who are involved in the outfall of what happens when children are the victims of sexual predators, then that would be good and it would further the cause. I really do not think we can separate the two.