Karen Redman

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56, an act representing assisted human reproduction, provides a legislative balance that protects the health and safety of Canadians and their children and offers new hope for those who wish to conceive a child but have been unable to do so.

These are not easy issues on which to build a legislative framework. There is currently no comprehensive federal or provincial legislative framework governing assisted human reproduction procedures and related research.

The legislation we have before us today is the product of thorough consultation and review on this very sensitive topic. It is based on Canadian values and reflects a consensus on some very complex and very challenging issues.

We are aware Canadians have strong and differing views on the issues centring on assisted human reproduction and this legislation must be reflective of the diversity and requisite sensitivity needed in dealing with this. The legislation also needs to establish clearly defined boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not.

We will not accept the creation of life for reasons other than building a family. Cloning human beings is equally as intolerable as modifying an embryo to suit our personal preferences. We will not put a price tag on sperm, eggs, embryos or the process of pregnancy. These are not goods or services suitable for commercialization.

The proposed act, Bill C-56, addresses the needs of infertile couples who wish to make use of assisted human reproduction process in a safe, regulated environment. Children are indeed a blessing. As a mother of four I can stand before the House and say that it is my proudest moment of anything I will accomplish in life being the mother of four children.

However I am sure we all know couples who have encountered difficulties in building a family. We have seen their frustration as well as their disappointment and it is heart-rending. The truth is approximately one in eight Canadian couples faces the challenge of infertility. A core principle of the proposed legislation is free and informed consent. Any procedure to assist human reproduction as well as AHR related research would require prior written consent of the donors based on the most current information on AHR as to how they would make that informed decision.

Important aspects of Bill C-56 are the provisions to ensure reproductive technologies are safe and healthy options. The proposed legislation will create regulations on the licensing of clinics, the proper handling of eggs, sperm and embryos as well as the number of children that could be born from a single sperm or egg donor.

This is not intended to limit a person's options but rather to ensure the well-being of all involved. Bill C-56 proposes to give children of assisted human reproduction full access to all medical information about their donor parents. As adults they could have access to the information about the identity of their donor parents, provided the donors have also consented to the release of this information.

Bill C-56 proposes to bring Canada up to date with measures taken in other major industrialized countries. We have drawn on the best practices as well as the experience from countries around the world.

Canada's approach is based on Canadian values and speaks to the growing problem of infertility and our increasing reliance on assisted human reproduction.

Bill C-56 would establish the first ever regulatory regime for Canadian fertility clinics. The legislation would prohibit the creation of in vitro embryos for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving assisted human reproduction procedures.

Until now these facilities have operated without regulation. Under the legislation there will be rules on informed consent as well as information in general. Couples who turn to in vitro fertilization or other AHR procedures need reliable information about the technology, the treatment as well as the chances for success.

Another one of the regulatory objectives of Bill C-56 is to ensure that promising research involving in vitro human embryos which are no longer needed for the purposes of reproduction is conducted in a manner consistent with Canadian values.

Research using in vitro embryos may answer many questions about the causes of infertility. It may also advance the development of treatments for spinal cord injuries, diseases like juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's or cancer.

As we know, embryonic stem cell research is not without controversy. Stem cells are immature precursors of cells that eventually will mature into specialized tissue such as heart, muscle, brain or spinal cord. It does however raise profound concerns about how to balance scientific progress with public safety and how to balance deeply held moral and ethical views that are inherent throughout this entire debate.

The legislation would ensure that promising research related to assisted human reproduction takes place within a regulated environment, an environment where health and safety come first and where Canadian values continue to be respected. The only acceptable source of embryos would be from fully informed couples. It would be up to the couple to choose whether their unused embryo would be discarded or donated to research or to other infertile Canadians.

To monitor and enforce the regulations set forth in this act, the proposed legislation creates the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada. This agency operates as a separate organizational entity from Health Canada and reports to parliament through the Minister of Health.

The legislation we see before us today is a product of extensive transparent review processes. It is the result of more than a decade of consultation, considering the difficult issues that face Canadians. The former Minister of Health took the unprecedented step of first submitting draft legislation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in order to engage in input from all Canadians. These consultations will continue with Bill C-56 as it makes its way through the legislative process.

Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, is meaningful, balanced legislation that is both respectful to Canadian values and to progress enabling research.

This is a beginning, not an ending. I remember very well being a member of the health committee when we looked at xeno transplantation. We had outstanding leading medical ethicists come and talk to us on these very troubling and moral laden questions. I have every confidence that this is a basis upon which we as a government and Canadians can build regarding this very important topic and move forward.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to admit that I do not believe in governing by polls, however the Alliance colleague opposite wants to misrepresent what I thought was a badly worded poll.

I can think back to an earlier Bloc member who took his chair and walked out of this place because he was objecting to the disparity between the rich and poor in this country. I really tried to make the segue from that action to that issue. I would tell my hon. colleague opposite that I had the same problem with the frustration and the misguided attempt by someone who had otherwise been a credible colleague. This hysterical action had little to do with the fact that he was trying to draw attention to private members' legislation.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member opposite was listening closely. I am sorry if I have a soft voice and I am shorter but we come in all shapes and sizes in the House.

I would point out that the eight point plan the Prime Minister tabled today indicates we are taking corrective action. At no point in my speech did I say we were perfect. We should be judged by what we have done. Regarding HRDC, we dealt with it. We called the auditor general in. We reacted to the auditor general's report and we will continue to do so.

That is what will give Canadians confidence, not only in the government but in this place of democracy which represents all of us. The eight point plan would cover off so many of the objections and concerns of the members opposite that I am surprised they are even able to rise and ask questions.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the supply day motion. It is not that most speeches I deliver in the House do not have a lot of passion in them, but this is probably the most personal speech I will ever deliver in the House.

We come as 301 individuals to this place and we are clearly divided by partisan policies and philosophies. I believe that we are basically united in our will to make the nation a better place for all Canadians. We reflect very much the diversity of Canadians in this House through our different religions, ethnicity, careers and life experiences. I know that I serve with doctors, accountants, lawyers and former educators. We even have a member who is currently a member of ACTRA.

We each enter this House with a desire to contribute to public policy as well as to serve the public's best interest. That is true on all sides of the House. Members are elected to serve, not because of their economic credentials, business success or academic achievements. Instead, the majority of the members in the House are here because the people they represent believed that they were the best candidate to represent their interests in this place. Entrusted with the public confidence we are empowered to take a seat in this House and we must earn that trust every day.

On every occasion that my schedule permits, I visit school children and I always tell them that this seat does not belong to me. It belongs to the constituents of Kitchener Centre. This is an incredibly historic place that we have the privilege to serve in. We must earn that trust every day and the government does that.

The eight point plan outlined by the Prime Minister today would build on the significant steps that we have taken since first being elected to earn the trust and confidence of Canadians. The government has been consistent in its efforts to raise the bar on the standards of ethics in government.

We introduced a conflict of interest code for public office holders. We created the post of the ethics counsellor, the first of its kind in a Commonwealth country. We made substantial reforms to the Lobbyists Registration Act, increasing transparency and casting the light of day onto the lobby industry.

We also increased the frequency of the auditor general's report to four reports per year. That is up from one in previous governments. We expanded the role of internal departmental audits to publicly identify and publicly correct administrative errors. The government has never shied away from its convictions that the system can and should be better. When it is necessary we call in the auditor general and examine the systems. If it is warranted, we ask the RCMP to investigate.

I must comment, as many of my Liberal colleagues have, on the courage and the leadership shown by the Minister of Human Resources Development. I admire the courage of her convictions in identifying a problem that existed within the grants and contributions program within her department. It was an internal audit which happens all the time in government departments.

Human Resources Development Canada is a huge department. One in three Canadians is touched by the services of this department. As a result of her dealing upfront and head on with the issues that were identified, she devised a six point plan and brought it forward to the House that remedied that program's shortcomings.

The real work of parliament goes far beyond the sound bites that people catch when they happen to tune in to the 6 o'clock news and listen to question period. Aside from the histrionics and the competition for the sound bite and the elbowing amongst the five parties, this House does a lot of productive work. We do work in committees. We do person to person and government to government outreach in substantive programs around the globe as is fitting of members who represent the government and the people of Canada.

This House is a very historic place. It is representative of the democratic processes which are how we define ourselves as a nation. These processes must transcend any individual, any party or any government. These aspects come and go, but this institution remains the best of Canada.

I cannot help but reflect that recently an Alliance colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, admitted that he entered the House, grabbed the Mace and waved it over his head for publicity. It is historic in its inappropriateness of behaviour in the House. I worry about the integrity of this place. I am saddened to see that kind of political opportunism being taken.

Currently there are attacks on a minister and his character. Those attacks denigrate this place, our role as representatives and our communities. The member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell is somebody for whom I have a great deal of respect. He is a fellow graduate of the University of Waterloo which he accomplished while serving in this place.

I happen to be the mother of four children. I finished my education while continuing to be an at home parent. The member accomplished no mean feat when he continued to be dedicated to the public good while personally getting his degree. I am proud to serve with my caucus colleagues.

Politicians from every party need to take responsibility for the way Canadians view our political system. As the Prime Minister told the House in 1994, trust in institutions of government is not a partisan issue, but something all of us elected to public office have an obligation to restore. Ethics, trust and integrity are not partisan issues. They matter to all Canadians. They are essential if we as a parliament want to keep earning the trust of Canadians and ensure their faith in democracy.

I will do something that might be a little bit shocking for those of us who have served on the Hill. I want to speak about the dedication of the bureaucrats who make the business of the House and the business of Canada move forward. I recall my goodbye speech when I was a councillor in the city of Kitchener. I took a moment to reflect on the people who served the public at that level of government. They are often drawn into public service for very much the same reason that we in public life are drawn, because they feel that they can do something that is in the public's best interest.

We are not looking for glory or riches, because truly there are faster and shorter roads to that than serving the public interest. Bureaucrats do their best to work within the system. If the system is not working, it is a political responsibility to rectify that and it is a responsibility that the government takes very seriously.

Canada is known worldwide as a good place to do business. In no small part it is thanks to the trustworthy political system. We do not wrestle in the aisles as in some systems of government. I am confident that the government will continue to take steps to make the Government of Canada open, transparent and characterized by ethics and integrity. However it is something that is the responsibility of all elected members in the House.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government will continue to do what it has done since 1997 and that is continue to consult with Canadians.

The plan that Alberta brought forward had many ideas that we can support but the federal government wants to continue to deal with climate change through the Kyoto process. This is substantive negotiation. All through the month of June we will continue to consult with Canadians and stakeholders and in the fall we will come forward with a plan that has consensus.

[Waterloo County & Area Quilt Festival, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to invite Canadians to the seventh annual Waterloo County & Area Quilt Festival which is now underway until May 26.

Billed as the largest quilt festival in North America, the festival is truly a regional festival that celebrates the art and heritage of quilting. The festival welcomes approximately 35,000 people to more than 40 events taking place in 10 communities.

Quilting is now the number one recreational artistic pastime of men and women throughout North America. The festival brings together local, national and international quilters and their artworks for all to enjoy.

The 2002 quilt festival includes educational programs; the Canadian Heritage River Quilt Celebration and the Grand River Quilt Collection; world class quilt artists; South African and Newfoundland quilt art; and the Ontario Mennonite Relief Sale quilt auction. The Waterloo County & Area Quilt Festival relies on approximately 4,000 volunteers logging over 10,000 hours annually.

I invite everyone to visit the Waterloo County & Area Quilt Festival.

[Health Care Spending, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out something that is important in the species at risk legislation. It does respond to the needs of rural Canadians. The bill was formed with rural input. There were over 155 consultation sessions. The majority of these involved rural Canadians in many different parts of Canada. They talked, we listened. We adjusted our policy then we talked and listened some more.

I refuse to accept any criticism that Bill C-5 is not rural friendly legislation because it simply is not true. The key to effective species at risk legislation is the support and the co-operation of those Canadians who depend on the land for their livelihood. There is an overwhelming consensus across the country, especially by rural Canadians, that the government should pass the bill because it puts the co-operative principle first. Legislation will not protect species unless Canadians act on it.

We have the appropriate balance. It is built on co-operation not coercion. The bill is based on building trust not looking tough. The bill and the overall strategy itself is an opportunity for rural Canadians.

[Health Care Spending, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has said, and will continue to say, that the government is committed to making compensation regulations soon after proclamation of the proposed species at risk act. The government has never stated otherwise. Those who have tried to make it sound otherwise are not correct.

The Minister of the Environment has also said, and will continue to say, that we agree that compensation should be provided to anyone who suffers a loss from an extraordinary impact of the critical habitat prohibitions in a fair and reasonable way. We cannot be more definitive than that.

Can any member across the floor tell me at this precise moment exactly how much to pay for 3.6 hectares of land that cannot be used for cultivation for four weeks because it is a nesting site for the Bicknell's thrush? Will the birds soon fledge and fly away, and will the nest be abandoned? Can there be a cultivation a few weeks later and then a time out for nesting the following year? Can we use a law to determine the market value of what might have been cultivated? No, we cannot put this down in law.

We must be realistic about the term fair market value. This term may be relevant when applied to land acquisition and land expropriation situations but it probably has little relevance for almost any situation that could arise under the species at risk act. Concepts such as fair market value are relevant considerations in quantifying the impact on a case by case basis but determination of the level of compensation should not be limited to this concept alone.

Compensation for restrictions on the use of land is a complex issue. The government needs to have the practical experience in implementing the stewardship and recovery provisions of SARA and in dealing with the question of compensation. Establishing a definitive approach without the needed experience may well end up excluding some legitimate claims. This is a very important point. For now, determinations of compensation will be made on a case by case basis. When we have the experience we can prescribe a more definitive approach. As the Minister of the Environment has stated, and will do so again unequivocally, that does not mean there is no compensation.

Work has already begun to develop general compensations that will be ready soon after SARA is proclaimed to enable any person to make a claim, if needed.

The government is committed to do a thorough consultation with everyone who can help us gain the necessary experience and who has a stake in a fair and effective system.

To provide further certainty that we intend to honour our commitment to landowners and others the government withdrew Motion No. 109 on compensation regulations. Because of this change the governor in council would now be required to make regulations necessary for the provision of compensation under the act.

There is opportunity in the legislation. There are provisions for compensation in the legislation. There is a consensus from rural Canadians because they told us what they wanted and we listened to what they said, and we acted on it. It is time to end the posturing and deal with the facts. It is time to pass the legislation.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I believe Canada has implemented a very credible and effective program for monitoring the activities of foreign fishing vessels operating in NAFO regulatory areas. We will also press NAFO member countries to take action in response to evidence of violations committed by their vessels. We believe this is an appropriate approach that deals with partnership and will continue to be effective as we monitor some of these disturbing trends.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, non-compliance in NAFO regulatory areas conducted by foreign fishing vessels has been a longstanding concern for Canada. Indeed information provided to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by NAFO shows that non-compliance continues to be a significant problem and, as a matter of fact, appears to be on the rise. Canada presented an analysis of the data at the last NAFO meeting. The analysis clearly showed that there was a disturbing trend of increased non-compliance by vessels of some NAFO member countries. The information was obtained by analyzing NAFO observer reports.

Fishing vessels of all NAFO contracting parties must carry aboard fishery observers as required under NAFO's conservation and enforcement measures. Each member state is responsible to hire and deploy the observers for its own vessels. Observers check key fishing restrictions such as location fished, catch composition and fishing gear used. A report of their observations is filed with NAFO after each fishing trip. These reports are an invaluable source of information. As a matter of fact, it was the analysis of these reports that showed the trend of increased non-compliance. Canadian officials will continue to review and analyze these reports very carefully to identify further trends and non-compliance issues that need to be addressed.

Canada does not solely rely on fishery observer programs to monitor fisheries in the NAFO regulatory area. Canada has made a major commitment to produce surveillance and inspection of fishing activities by other means. This includes a very extensive air surveillance program and patrol vessel capability operated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This capability enables Canada fisheries officers in their role as NAFO inspectors to monitor the whereabouts, movements and activities of foreign fishing vessels.

Patrol vessel coverage is a key element of all our NAFO surveillance and enforcement programs. DFO has dedicated the use of a large offshore patrol vessel, the Leonard J. Cowley to NAFO patrols. The vessel is used as a platform for Canadian fisheries officers acting in their role as NAFO inspectors to conduct boardings and inspections of foreign fishing vessels to verify compliance.

Information gathered by air surveillance patrols and from observer reports helps direct patrol vessels so that inspections can be conducted in the most cost effective and strategic manner. At sea inspections are conducted so that such things as bycatch, mesh sizes, catch size limits and fishing apparatus can be inspected firsthand. When suspected infractions are found the member state is promptly notified so that appropriate follow up action is taken.

Other Canadian coast guard vessels are sometimes utilized by NAFO patrols. DFO also has an agreement with the Department of National Defence whereby naval vessels conduct a certain number of fishery patrols each year. These patrols often take place in NAFO regulatory areas with DFO fisheries officers deployed.

All this inspection is only worthwhile if there is follow up. We are determined as a government to use the most effective monitoring and follow up processes that are available because we take this topic very seriously.