Carol Skelton

[Agriculture, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that the agriculture minister would like to give himself a pat on the back after seeing recent Statistics Canada reports on cash receipts for farmers. While the numbers appear positive for the year, the reality is that continued drought and low commodity prices will guarantee that incomes for Canadian producers will once again fall in 2002.

The incomes of Saskatchewan producers in 2002 will be half of what they were in 1978. Input costs continue to rise and incomes continue to fall.

While Canadian producers are struggling to survive, the government continues to talk about solutions. Agriculture in Canada has been hurting for years. It is time for the government to stop talking and start acting. Instead of rewarding its political friends, the government must focus on Canadians.

Agriculture is a national industry and must be a national concern. Canadian agriculture deserves the attention of the government.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today being Thursday, it is my duty at this time to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what business he has for the remainder of today, tomorrow and next week.

[Government of Canada, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during debate on an Alliance motion on government corruption this week the Prime Minister promised to bring an ethical package in for ministers. The House is still waiting.

The government has turned the House of Commons into Dr. Seuss' “waiting place” from Oh, The Places You'll Go! Dr. Seuss warns against a most useless place, the waiting place, for people just waiting.

I give the House Dr. Seuss' House of Commons for Liberals in waiting:

Waiting to reward a political hack, to fill the senate, or receive a kickback, Waiting for the summer to come, for people to forget, to hide under the sun, Waiting for a leadership race--or waiting around for another disgrace, Waiting to hire a minister's ex-squeeze, the stench might go away if we create a good breeze, Waiting for a cheque to cash, a priest to pray, or a bigger stash - everyone is just waiting.

Canadians have waited long enough, and as the auditor general said, they deserve better.

[Petitions, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House of Commons which was started in my riding of Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar on which there are names of people from right across Canada.

It states that the disability tax credit, having been taken away for no apparent reason from the numerous disabled persons, be reinstated without delay. It is a grave injustice to state that a disabled person is no longer deserving of the DTC. The removal of DTC creates monetary hardships for many of the disabled who face higher cost of living expenses than Canadians without disabilities. The petitioners request that parliament reinstate the DTC.

The original petition, which began in my riding, had over 3,600 names within a month. I salute the people for bringing it forward. I ask the House of Commons to look at this seriously.

[Disability Tax Credit, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last week to meet with members of various disability advocacy groups who voiced their concern over the government's treatment of the disabled in Canada.

I was presented with a petition containing over 3,600 names. This petition calls for the immediate reinstatement of those individuals who were deemed ineligible for the disability tax credit. A recent project undertaken by CCRA led to the exemption of thousands of Canadians. Over 100,000 disabled Canadians received letters telling them they were no longer deemed disabled. The tone and implications of these letters were both insulting and frustrating to the thousands of Canadians who rely on the disability tax credit.

The mandate of the CCRA states: “We are committed to provide fairness to our clients and to protect their rights through our fairness policies.” Disabled Canadians deserve a better government.

[Government Appointments, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano should not be Canada's representative in Denmark. The auditor general said that he broke every rule in the book when he was a minister of this government. Mr. Gagliano does not represent Canadian values.

Will the Prime Minister rescind Mr. Gagliano's appointment right now?

[Government Appointments, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano should not represent Canadians in Denmark. Today the Toronto Star stated:

There is ample evidence that Gagliano does not belong on the public payroll.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and rescind Alfonso Gagliano's appointment now?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure why the government would do that. I just think the government wants control of it and is pushing ahead whether we want it or not.

Margaret A. Somerville is a Samuel Gale professor of law at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. She said:

We still don't know if the medical benefits of such stem-cell research can only be achieved by using human embryos. All schools of ethics require that we must exhaust less ethically sensitive approaches to a goal before we are justified (if we ever are) in taking more ethically controversial paths.

That is from a renowned scientist and professor, a lady who has done a lot of research into the matter. I think that explains it. I am not sure why the government is taking this approach.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we were speaking before about adult stem cells and the same usage of them from the umbilical cord. Adult stem cells can be used. Researchers are making great strides with adult stem cells. Every hour they are finding new things. That is why we fully believe that researchers should be funded adequately for the discoveries they are making.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak today to Bill C-56, the assisted human reproduction act.

Canadians have waited a long time for comprehensive legislation on this important issue. However in our haste to have legislation in place we should not overlook some important changes that need to be made. Inadequate legislation would not benefit Canadians. Bill C-56 would affect researchers, the medical field and Canadians afflicted with diseases such as Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis.

Amazing discoveries are being made in Canada and other countries in the field of stem cell research. It is important that the field be well regulated. The official opposition believes in the importance of stem cell research. The therapeutic possibilities that can be derived from it are promising and of great importance to many Canadians.

Adult stem cell research has offered hope for many in recent months. It is important to focus on and pursue the possibilities that can result from it. However adult stem cell research is being put on the back burner while embryonic research is being promoted. There is limited proof that this shift in focus is warranted. Adult stem cell research offers great possibilities without being plagued by the difficulties surrounding embryonic research. These include tissue rejection and the need for anti-rejection drugs, issues of supply, and ethical questions.

Canadian researchers at McGill University in Montreal have made great discoveries lately in the area of adult stem cell research. Their findings are promising and should be pursued. The positive results of the experiments have been surprising even to the research staff. Freda Miller, the scientist in charge of the experiments, is quoted as saying:

We gave it two months. But it worked right from the beginning. Every step of the way it's been an “I can't believe that it's true” experience.

This shows that adult stem cell research holds great promise and should be promoted. However embryonic research poses many ethical questions and should be approached with caution. A three year prohibition of embryonic stem cell research would not only allow for further discussion of the issue. It would allow an opportunity for further adult stem cell research.

The standing committee's report on stem cell research states that due to advances in the research, funding should be focused on adult stem cell research. It says advances in embryonic stem cell research have not been as great. The report states:

--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.

Available resources should be focused on the most productive area. In this case it is adult stem cell research.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research states that funding for adult stem cell research should be available under specific conditions. The CIHR appears to be limiting funding options for adult stem cell research. The CIHR should not limit an area of research that is already providing promising results.

To provide adult stem cell research the time and funding it needs, a three year prohibition of embryonic research would be beneficial. A precautionary approach to embryonic research would be best. As the former minister has said:

--there must be a higher notion than science alone...that can guide scientific research and endeavour. Simply because we can do something does not mean that we should do it.

Where there is a conflict between ethical questions and scientific advancement, ethics should prevail.

In recent years the government has off-loaded the responsibility of health care and health funding to the provinces. This has been done while slashing funding to the provinces. Provincial participation in research and development in the area of stem cells is important as the provinces have jurisdiction in the area of reproductive technologies.

While the government assures us that there will be provincial involvement in the consultation process, the provinces are not offered a voice on the board of the proposed assisted human reproduction agency of Canada. To not allow the provinces a voting voice on the board is a mistake.

Again recommendations from the standing committee have been ignored. An equivalency agreement between the provinces and the federal government must be established. This is a highly sensitive area of research and every effort should be made to ensure that specific provincial views and concerns are addressed.

Provinces should not be forced to follow areas of research with which the majority of their residents do not agree. Provinces should not be mandated to allow embryonic research when their residents and government have hesitations with regard to that area of research.

To ensure that the wishes of the provinces are adequately addressed and heard, they must be allowed to appoint a voting designate to the board of the new AHRAC. Not only must the provinces have a vote on the new board, but also those with direct interest in the research mandated by the board. It is important that the AHRAC board does not become yet another level of bureaucracy but fully represents the interests of Canadians.

Others that should be included in the consultation and advisory processes include representatives from medical and scientific communities, children born through adult human reproduction, people with disabilities, taxpayers, service providers, provinces and territories and other groups that are directly affected by research and therapies derived from stem cell research.

While this area of research holds incredible promise, it also contains the possibility for abuse. For this reason there must be guidelines in place and assurances of accountability.

As this bill is currently written, the new board is accountable and answerable only to the minister. It has been made abundantly clear in recent months that leaving accountability in the hands of a minister in the government is a mistake. This new board must be answerable to parliament. Allowing the minister alone to make policy decisions in this area is misguided. Any policy directions should be made with the full participation of parliament.

This legislation needs to be changed to allow for all regulation changes to be sent to the health committee. The health committee must be allowed the opportunity for full examination and inquiry into any proposed regulation changes. Again accountability is the key. Decisions being made at the whim of the minister are not adequate, democratic, fair or wise.

Currently there is a level of secrecy allowed the minister in this bill. Changes of policy can be made without consultation or input by parliament or the health committee and are not subject to being recorded in the Canada Gazette . If this legislation is to be truly effective and in the best interests of all Canadians, openness and accountability must be set out in legislation.

The area of stem cell research is highly sensitive. Every effort must be made to ensure absolute accountability. There is little confidence that leaving accountability solely in the hands of the minister is best for Canadians or for the future of research.

This is the beginning of a new day for science in Canada. The promises of research into stem cells offers great hope for many. I would again suggest that we approach this important issue with caution. We must ensure that the legislation that is passed is beneficial to all involved.

It would be tempting for the government to push this bill through. We have waited years for this legislation but it is important that we take the time to make it right. We as the people's representatives have an obligation to all Canadians to ensure that legislation passed in the House meets the needs of Canadians. I do not believe that the bill, as currently written, will adequately accomplish that goal.