Gurmant Grewal

[Statutory Instruments Act, January 31st, 2003]

moved that Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am pleased to rise to speak on my private member's bill, Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act.

I would like to thank the hon. member for seconding the bill. The last time the bill was in the House it was seconded by the Liberal member for Scarborough Southwest. I had originally planned for a member from the NDP, the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, to second it, but I appreciate his intention to support it. That is how things have gone. I very much appreciate it.

I first introduced the bill last June, known as Bill C-202, and then reintroduced it in October after prorogation of the House. Last time I had the support from all parties. I am very happy that members from different parties will be speaking to the bill and I look forward to them supporting it.

The bill provides for a disallowance procedure for all statutory instruments or delegated legislation, commonly known as regulations, subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Its enactment would ensure that Parliament would have the opportunity to disallow any statutory instrument made pursuant to authority delegated by Parliament or made by or under the authority of the cabinet.

Disallowance is one of the traditional means at the disposal of the legislature to control the making of delegated legislation. A disallowance procedure gives parliamentarians an opportunity to reject a statutory instrument made by a delegate of Parliament.

For the information of those watching the debate on television, statutory instruments give form and substance to legislation. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details” or sometimes in the fine print. However, in this case, the devil is in the regulations.

We know that 20% of the law in the country stems from legislation debated and passed in the legislature, and in this case in Parliament. The remaining 80% of the law is made up of regulations. Members of Parliament passionately debate proposed legislation in the House and after debate we vote either yea or nay, depending on the merit of the proposed law.

Regulations, on the other hand, receive virtually no debate in the House or in the other place, no public study or input, or even media scrutiny. This is an affront to democracy.

The Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations does the only scrutiny, and that too is only limited scrutiny, of regulations of Parliament. Members of Parliament and Senators on the committee, legal counsel and staff work very hard scouring through thousands of papers on dry, technical and legal subject matter as part of their thankless task of reviewing regulations or statutory instruments.

The committee is generally misunderstood and ignored, but it is an essential watchdog, protecting democracy, controlling bureaucracy and holding the government to account. If I may say so, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is a non-partisan committee, or at least less partisan and more objective than other committees of Parliament.

The committee does not judge regulations on the basis of policy matter, general merit or necessity. Its study of regulations is instead limited to the questions of validity and legality, and members follow uniform and clearly defined criteria in their examination.

The committee works meticulously and, with the complex nature of its undertaking, work proceeds at a slow pace. The inevitable result, especially considering the large volume of regulations introduced each year, is a huge backlog of work in progress. Staff and resources allotted to the committee are nowhere near adequate.

I am four term co-chair of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee representing all members in the House, and speak from personal experience. The committee works to improve and correct defects in the regulations. Its ultimate weapon, however, is to disallow defective regulations. This is a weapon only used when strictly necessary. In a case where the joint committee considers that a regulation should be revoked, it makes a report to the House of Commons containing a resolution to the effect that a regulation, or a part thereof, should be revoked. Once that report is tabled in the House, the applicable procedures will depend on a decision by the responsible minister.

Unfortunately, the current disallowance procedure is seriously defective. The procedure resulted from a recommendation of the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons, the McGrath Commission, in 1986. Before that time there was no general disallowance procedure in place at the federal level in Canada. The government of the day placed a disallowance procedure in the Standing Orders with the intention it would remain there on an experimental and temporary basis until such time as a decision could be made to its effectiveness.

If a success, it was the intention of the government to implement a statutory procedure. Temporary is of course a relative word, but it should not mean indefinitely. In the last 16 years we have seen the effectiveness of having a disallowance procedure but still nothing has been done to give it a statutory footing. This experiment has been going on for 16 years. It is about time we conclude that experiment and look at the success of the disallowance procedure and put it on a statutory footing.

I will explain why it is not on a statutory footing. My bill would put it on a statutory footing and thereby increase the effectiveness of parliamentary control or delegated legislation.

The current procedure limits the possibility of disallowance to those statutory instruments that are made by the governor in council or by ministers of the crown. As a result, a considerable body of delegated legislation created by quasi government agencies or boards, for example by the CRTC, the National Energy Board, CIHR, the Canadian Transportation Agency or even the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, is not subject to the disallowance procedure. Thus, a large number of delegated legislation or laws escape the control and scrutiny of Parliament.

This is a consequence of the choice made in 1986 to implement the disallowance procedure by means of amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons rather than by legislation. When the Standing Orders were amended to accommodate the disallowance procedure, it was not on statutory footing. It should have been done by legislation.

The present procedure relies on the executive to take further action, not on Parliament, to give effect to an order that an instrument to be revoked. A statutory procedure eliminates the need for this and guarantees compliance with the decision of the House to disallow a statutory instrument or regulation.

Mr. Speaker, you might remember that in 1992 the Subcommittee on Regulations and Competitiveness noted the deficiencies in the present procedure and recommended that it be replaced by a statutory procedure covering all statutory instruments, not just selected instruments.

I think all members will agree that it is desirable that all statutory instruments subject to review by Parliament under the Statutory Instruments Act be subject to disallowance. There is no reason why a regulation made by the governor in council or a minister can be disallowed by Parliament while a regulation made by some other delegate of Parliament cannot.

Parliament delegates authority to quasi agencies and boards to make regulations but does not have authority to scrutinize them, disallow them or correct them or to see their validity or legality. How can Parliament give authority but not have control over those regulations that completely escape the scrutiny of Parliament?

The procedure only applies to the House of Commons and not the Senate. That is another serious issue which needs to be reviewed because Parliament contains both houses. The other place and this place need to work together on disallowance procedure.

Another defect of the current procedure is that it relies on the co-operation of the governor in council or the minister concerned to carry out a disallowance after the House of Commons has ordered it. An order of the House of Commons cannot affect the revocation of a regulation. The authority that made the regulation to be disallowed must still formerly intervene to revoke that regulation following the making of a disallowance order.

While the House could deal with the matter as one of contempt of Parliament, there are no other legal sanctions or even consequences that arise from a failure to comply with a disallowance order. For instance, a report can be tabled in the House for disallowance and concurred in but there is no guarantee that regulation or statutory instrument will be disallowed because it depends on co-operation from others. Even though it could be contempt of Parliament, there are no legal repercussions after that. It is pathetic.

As a matter of law and order of the House of Commons that a particular regulation be revoked is not binding on the author of the regulation and cannot be enforced by a court of justice. Under the status quo procedure, the revocation of an instrument disallowed by the House of Commons would ultimately depend on a decision of the governor in council or the appropriate minister to obey the order of the House of Commons or not. The will of Parliament does not impose upon the decision of Parliament.

Placing the disallowance procedure on a statutory footing, as this bill recommends, would remove the need for a regulation making authority to take subsequent action to give effect to an order o the House, thus eliminating the potential for conflict between the legislature and the executive.

Proposed subsection 19.1(9) is a new provision. By putting the disallowance procedure on a statutory footing, the procedure also would be made more efficient as there would no longer be a need for the House of Commons to address an order of the cabinet ordering the revocation of a statutory instrument. The legislation itself would now deem a disallowed instrument to be revoked.

By eliminating the need for further action by the governor in council or the minister who adopted the disallowed instrument, compliance with a disallowance decision would be improved by eliminating any possibility of a regulation making authority not complying with a disallowance order of the House.

It seems a little complicated and technical, I know. However those veteran members of the standing joint committee will understand and I am sure that other members have a fairly good idea of what I am saying, though it is a dry topic and a little technical and complicated.

Bill C-205 provides that the revocation of a regulation does not take effect before the expiration of a 30 day deadline. By doing so, the bill would ensure that the regulation making authority responsible for the disallowed regulation would have an opportunity to take measures to mitigate any negative impact that the revocation might have, including the enactment of alternative regulations.

So the 30 day period will give the opportunity to mitigate any negative impact, by disallowing that particular regulation, that it can have on the industry, on safety, or on other issues. Again, it will also give the opportunity to the regulation making authority to enact an alternative regulation or to correct the defect and so on.

Proposed subsection 19.1(10) provides for a situation in which a minister has filed a motion to reject a proposed disallowance and the motion is not adopted. In that case, proposed subsection 19.1(9) would deem the regulation or other instruments to be revoked at the expiration of 30 days from the day on which the motion to reject the disallowance was considered but failed to obtain the approval of the House.

As members of the House of Commons, elected representatives of Canadians from coast to coast, it is our duty to protect democracy. It is incumbent upon all of us in the House, irrespective of political affiliation, to make the disallowance procedure more transparent and more effective.

This is a non-partisan issue. The last time the bill was in the House, it was the Liberal members who seconded it. All opposition parties in the committee are represented, including the governing party. On the other side, senators are there. We had a discussion about this. Our legal staff is involved in it and there is almost unanimous consent. I cannot say unanimous because I have not spoken to each and every member, but the members in the committee have an intention to have a disallowance procedure.

By providing a clear legislative basis for the current disallowance procedure, Bill C-205 would, first, allow Parliament's authority to extend to all instruments subject to review under the Statutory Instruments Act instead of only those made by the governor in council or a minister. Second, it would remove the necessity for additional action on the part of the regulation making authority in order to give effect to an order of the House that a regulation be revoked. How simple it would be if we had a disallowance procedure on a statutory footing.

Bill C-205 thus not only gives effect to recommendations made by numerous parliamentary committees that have studied the matter, but it would both strengthen the current disallowance procedure and make the procedure more effective by putting it on a statutory footing.

Members from across party lines, including senators, have voiced their concerns on the bill. I have support from small, medium sized and large businesses, various organizations and stakeholders, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and various Chambers of Commerce. There is wide support even in the industry.

I am certainly aware that regulations reforms are needed and that there is room for improvements and amendments and strengthening of the bill, which can take place when it goes to the committee. Let us send it to the committee.

I wish to thank the members from all parties who will be speaking to Bill C-205, as well as the many senators who are supporting the bill, including my co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, Senator Hervieux-Payette, who extended her support.

It is very important to restore transparency and democracy in parliament. This private member's bill is a non-partisan issue and I am optimistic that all members of the House will support it, as it has been a long overdue initiative.

I am sure that since this initiative is in the best interests of all parliamentarians and the public in general, members from all parties will enthusiastically support it and send it to committee for further action. I am open to recommendations and amendments to the bill.

[Justice, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Bhullar, a constituent of Surrey Central and a Canadian citizen, is pleading for justice for her husband.

Proud of our Canadian values, when we travel abroad we promote respect for human rights and justice.

However, injustice can happen anywhere. People have been wrongfully convicted and executed in the U.S. In Canada, Mr. David Milgaard was wrongly convicted and sentenced but later was proven innocent after spending many years in jail.

Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar has been sentenced to death in a controversial trial based on a confession extracted under duress and a death threat.

Even the presiding and dissenting judge has stated that Mr. Bhullar could not conspire to murder someone since no one else is charged in this case. No one can conspire with oneself. None of the 133 witnesses identified Mr. Bhullar as a culprit. Even the German government has revised its decision and accepted him as a political refugee.

I call on the Canadian government to use its diplomatic means to urge Indian authorities for amnesty or for a fair retrial.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the Bill C-13 report stage motions in Group No. 5. Earlier I stood on behalf of my constituents and addressed my comments with respect to the other groupings. Bill C-13 is an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. We oppose the bill unless it is amended.

There are various amendments in Group No. 5. I will go over them one by one. It is just coincidence that all the amendments happen to be from a Liberal member, who has worked very hard on this whole issue. Likewise, the members of this caucus have worked very hard, particularly the former leader of our party, Mr. Preston Manning. Our chief senior health critic, as well as the deputy health critic, has also worked very hard on this issue as have many members from other parties.

The bill proposes prohibitions through the Criminal Code on certain assisted human reproduction practices and would authorize the regulation of other issues under licence. It would create an agency to operate a licensing regime, monitor activity and keep records.

I would like to reiterate the recommendation of the Canadian Alliance in the minority report:

That the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that the Statutory Declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”.

Human embryos are early human lives that deserve respect and protection. I would request that a three year moratorium be imposed on experiments on human embryos until the potential of adult stem cells can be fully developed.

I strongly support health sciences research and development and research on adult stem cells. We must narrow the conditions of research. AHR should be more tightly regulated. I support an agency to regulate the sector. AHR clinics would have to be licensed and regulated by an agency created by the bill.

This is an international race of scientists on biotechnology, embryonic research, stem cell research and other fields of human research or biotech research, to accomplish what? To accomplish certain things, to find better cures for various diseases, cancers, MS and many other diseases. Why not do it in a way that is more efficient and without any sacrifice? That can be done by stem cell research rather than embryonic research.

The same results could be accomplished by stem cell research, or at least at the embryonic stage of scientific research we have in this field at this moment. We would like to explore the possibilities of accomplishing as much as we can through stem cell research. We are requesting a moratorium on embryonic research so that stem cell research can be fully explored. We need to completely fund the research and encourage scientists to go that route.

There are various motions that need to be specified. I would like to particularly comment on a few of the motions. Motion No. 80 specifies that research using human embryos should not only be approved by the agency, but by a research ethics board and a peer review. Also, because of the gravity of embryonic research, any extra level of oversight or review should be supported. We strongly support that motion.

We also support Motion No. 82, which places the onus on researchers to explain to the agency, “ the reasons why embryonic stem cells are to be used instead of stem cells from other sources”.

Similar to the original recommendation of the health committee, the research on human embryos can only be permitted if no other biological material is available. Since adult stem cell research is much more promising and there are no ethical problems, why not fund, develop and enhance the scientific activities in that field of scientific research? Adult stem cells are being used today to treat Parkinson's disease, leukemia, MS and other diseases. Therefore researchers should focus their efforts on adult stem cell research.

On Motion No. 89, a clause already exists in the bill which states that the agency may suspend the licence of a licensee who violates the act in accordance with those regulations. Motion No. 89 states that the agency should suspend such a licensee in accordance with the regulations. Given the gravity of assisted human reproduction, it seems appropriate that licensees found guilty of contravening the act should have their privileges suspended. That is the regulatory control we want the agency to have so that it can be effective in implementing its mandate.

Motion No. 90, which we support, adds a right of appeal to licensees who have had licences suspended for alleged violations of the act. That seems to be appropriate. In other words, we need to have effective control keeping in mind the ethical issues involved. By promoting stem cell research, I am sure we are not only exploring that field of science which could be effective without any sacrifice or damage to human life, but at the same time exploring the possibilities where stem cell research can find better cures and more diversified usage.

I support a ban on therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, the buying or selling of embryos and paid surrogacy. All these issues are very important. There is a huge area of ethical issues involved. I am sure that many of my colleagues who have already spoken on this issue have highlighted those issues.

Another concern is that children conceived by AHR will not have the right to know the identity of their parents without the written consent by the parents to reveal it. I think it is very important for future children, who will be born through this process, to have the right to know their parents.

Our party, which is more concerned about family issues than other parties in the House, want to strengthen the institution of families by taking those things into consideration. I am sure stronger families make stronger communities and stronger communities make a stronger nation. We have to look at this type of issue to strengthen the institution of families.

With regard to surrogacy, repaying surrogate mothers could result in effective commercial surrogacy. Becoming a surrogate is a very serious matter, to the extent that the health committee saw fit to amend the bill to prohibit surrogacy for women under the age of 21. The research highlights the importance given by the health committee, and I am sure that the government must look to that recommendation.

Surrogacy can also have profound effects on relationships between husbands and wives, within families, between the surrogate and the adoptive parents, not to mention the surrogate children themselves. All these things will affect the institution of family and the relationships of different members in the family. As I have already highlighted, it is one of the most important issues to strengthen a nation.

I will conclude by saying that we should encourage stem cell research and put a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research. All these ethical issues must be taken into consideration. Therefore I support all the motions in Group No. 5.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the chicken is dancing with the elephant or the dinosaur, but we definitely need to look at this issue more seriously. This is not an issue with which we want to play politics. It is serious and sensitive.

Talking about institutions, they can be sustainable only if they are viable institutions or if they have a base on which they can stand. If the population base is small, the revenue from the property owned by first nations will be small. How will those institutions stand?

To be reasonable, the government has to have a plan which stands on a factual basis rather than a hypothetical situation. Creating a window dressing but not accomplishing anything will not work in this case.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important issue and also a pitiable situation in which our first nations people find themselves. Their living conditions are third world country conditions.

If we look into the overall situation, whether we are talk about the life expectancy, or lifestyle, or income, or suicide rates, or educational level or health care facilities available to them, first nations communities have been ignored for so long that the lack of development which has taken place has caused them to have lesser opportunities available to them to compete in Canada.

We have ignored human rights and property rights issues for too long. I agree with the hon. member that they do not have equal opportunities to compete for success in life. We need to provide them with those opportunities. How can we provide them? Let us look at how governments have treated them over the last 100 years.

In the last 25 years or so, almost a quarter of a century, government has been in the process of negotiating treaties. What has happened? The government has a very tough position in dealing with the treaties. The first nations communities have been negotiating and relying on consultants and lawyers. The federal government is funnelling lots of money but moving at a very slow pace. For 25 years or so, government has accomplished very little.

I am sure the minister has created an institution which helps only the lawyers and consultants. Hundreds of lawyers are working on the treaties on both sides. Why can we not have a straightforward and reasonable approach to providing facilities and opportunities for the first nations that have been suffering for so long?

Funnelling lots of money without accountability is a serious issue. The money does not reach the grassroots first nations people. It does not reach those people who are suffering. It is consumed only at the high or top level. This cycle of continuous dependency and vicious cycle must stop. We must look forward to providing reasonable opportunities for first nations, treat them as equal Canadians, give them equal responsibilities and equal rights. That is the way to go rather than create institutions, bureaucracy, lawyers and consultants.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, thank you very much for correcting my seconding the amendment. I did not realize that the previous amendment was moved by the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

Before I answer the question, I would like to comment on what he said during his participation in the debate. He tried to imply that the Canadian Alliance was racist, or covered us with that blanket statement, and that comes from time to time from our political opponents for political reasons.

However let me make it absolutely clear. This is the only party in the House which strongly believes in the equality of all Canadians. It is the Liberal government whose policies, from time to time, have been based on race, whether it is discriminatory head tax on immigrants or fisheries based on race. In one code the first nations people are given lesser sentences simply because of the origin of race. The system as such is based on the policies from this weak government. However the Canadian Alliance believes in equality. I am very proud to be associated with it and to follow up on the issues of equality.

Coming back to the question, this is thoughtful thinking from the hon. member and I appreciate the concern he has brought forward. Whether the missing clause will have serious effects is debatable. I would urge the hon. member to make that amendment and then we will review it. Since I have not seen the amendment yet, I cannot comment on it.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to debate Bill C-19, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

Canada is one of the richest countries in the world, yet our aboriginal people live in third world conditions. The plight of first nations is a painful embarrassment to Canada. As members might know, the life expectancy of registered Indians is seven to eight years shorter than the national average. Suicide rates are twice the national average. Aboriginal peoples have an average income that is 75% less than the national average in Canada. Unemployment rates are 10 times the national average.

School dropout rates are higher and educational attainment is lower than that of any other ethnic group in Canada. First nation reserves are rife with violence, physical and sexual abuse and suicide. Unhealthy living conditions and overcrowded housing with inefficient heating and inadequate water supplies are all too often a fact of life. First nations peoples are caught in a cycle of dependency and poverty. This vicious cycle has been going on for decades.

The federal government annually spends some $7 billion on aboriginal peoples, yet their living conditions fail to improve. There is something wrong. It must be addressed. The conditions in which our first nations live and the conditions that surround their life cycle are completely unacceptable.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development claims that Bill C-19 will provide the tools for economic development and for improving the quality of life on reserves. It is wishful thinking that Bill C-19 will do such a thing. I do not think Bill C-19 is strong enough to address the needs or hopes of aboriginals; it will not improve the lifestyle of natives on reserves.

The first nations fiscal and statistical management act would create four new institutions: the first nations finance authority; the first nations tax commission; the first nations financial management board; and the first nations statistical institute. Let us quickly look at each of these institutions in turn.

First, this first nations finance authority would allow first nations to establish a self-directed financial authority capable of issuing bonds and providing low interest, long term debt financing for capital projects by collectively guaranteeing the creditworthiness of participating members. Bands will collectively guarantee each other's creditworthiness, making loans available to bands for infrastructure and capital projects.

This first nations finance authority is not forecast to break even until 2010. How much the government would spend in operating this bureaucracy is absolutely unknown. We do not have any idea of how much it is going to cost. Bonds would receive an investment grade ranking, not because credit agents have faith in the self-generated earnings of bands but because they have faith in continued government transfers.

Before they can become borrowing participants, bands must meet specific financial criteria. I can guarantee that only a few will qualify. The bill would not offer any help to the vast majority of bands. It seems the finance authority is the government's attempt to avoid funding aboriginal infrastructure.

The first nations tax commission would grant bands approval to enact property tax systems on reserves. Currently the minister has the authority to approve tax bylaws. The commission would be comprised of six first nations commissioners, three non-native commissioners and a head commissioner. I am sure there is room for the government's patronage appointments there.

The initial capital costs and subsequent operating budgets of the first nations tax commission have not been disclosed. We do not have any idea of the cost. In light of recent revelations of gross overspending by the government, whether it is the gun registry or other things, hon. members will excuse me if I am reluctant to support any legislation without a full cost analysis.

The first nations financial management board would provide professional advice to those first nations that have entered the first nations finance authority borrowing pool. It would provide training and services related to policy development for all first nations. We have not been told how much it would cost to set up and operate this board.

The first nations statistical institute would provide statistical data and analysis of the social, economic and environmental condition of first nations. In the first three years of operation the first nations statistical institute is budgeted to cost over $13 million. However, taxpayers are already paying close to $600 million per year for the same services provided by Statistics Canada. Why the duplication? Why create another board or institute that would duplicate the services provided by a taxpayer funded statistical institute, or Statistics Canada? The institute I am talking about would duplicate work already done by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Statistics Canada. If first nations require better data, then let us provide it through existing agencies.

By creating this statistical agency, the Liberals would once again be creating separate, race based institutions that would fail to provide relief to community members who need it most. I emphasize race based institutions.

We have been seeing on a continuous basis the false initiatives coming from this weak, arrogant Liberal government. These initiatives follow the tradition of being race based, whether we talk about policies on fisheries, taxation, natural resources, the environment or even justice. When will the government understand the concept of equality for all Canadians? Let us not create different tiers of Canadians. Let us treat all Canadians equally. This is the time we must do that.

The first nations fiscal and statistical management act is asking first nations to tax their members and lease their reserves to meet the desperate socioeconomic needs of their communities. In effect the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is forcing band councils to administer their own poverty.

Bill C-19 would mean that buildings and land could be subject to property tax if a first nation decides to go ahead and participate in the first nations finance authority. I very much doubt that the system would work. However, how it would work remains to be seen because on most reserves the first nation owns all the major buildings such as band offices, schools and band halls. In many cases there may not be much property that qualifies as taxable. When a first nation owns all the property, including the houses, it does not create much of a tax base, so this argument is not sound. The argument does not stand by itself because of the sheer volume of the revenue it will generate.

Let us remember that the vast majority of first nations have small populations. Of the 600 first nations that receive funding from Indian Affairs, 70% have less than 1,000 members and 45% have less than 500 members. We are talking about a population base that would not be sustainable to generate that revenue. We agree that a lot of communities have a crucial need for infrastructure such as communities living on reserves where there is no or dismal infrastructure development. Reserve communities have a crucial need for infrastructure money.

Poor facilities contribute to poor living conditions and are holding back development. Without proper roads and services reserve communities are passed over for economic projects. They cannot compete with surrounding communities where tremendous development has taken place, but next door on the reserve there is no development taking place, at least economic development.

In the north first nations reserves exist side by side with towns and villages and yet the economic development takes place off the reserve and not on it.

I will give an example from my own constituency. In Surrey Central the only access to Barnston Island Reserve is by ferry. The government is imposing a levy on the ferry service. Because it is an island there is no other way of communication. There are a few families who live on the island. Many of them are in the vegetable and farming business. Employees who work there must go from the mainland to the island. Even the different trucks and other vehicles going there carrying supplies for the reserve must use the ferry service, but the government is now imposing a levy on the ferry service. The residents are very upset and rightly so because they are being discriminated against. While other communities have roads and bridges this island only has a ferry that has been running for many years. Why are my constituents living on the island discriminated against? The government must review again the imposition of this levy.

Last year Indian Affairs spent over $900 million for on reserve infrastructure such as roads, schools, water and sanitation systems. Infrastructure costs are only going to increase. Money must be spent to bring conditions on reserves up to standard. Meanwhile, there are future needs that must be met if the first nations are going to become economically self-sufficient and sustainable communities.

The population of aboriginal people in Canada is growing at a more rapid pace than that of the non-aboriginal Canadian population. Indian Affairs projects that the existing Indian population would exceed 790,000 by 2008. How are our first nations going to meet the needs of their growing population if they start with such a limited tax base? Can we expect them to have enough infrastructure development by the revenue they would raise, which is in doubt, and then be able to reinvest into the communities and have the infrastructure development take place?

First nations are beginning a 100-yard dash a mile behind the starting blocks. We do not expect them to accomplish this without reasonable conditions that could be brought into the legislation. First nations must have the ability to raise their own revenue if they are to become independent, set their own priorities, and meet the needs of the people. They need to break away from their dependence upon government funding, that vicious cycle of dependency.

However, before that can happen the groundwork must be in place so that economic growth would occur. Providing that groundwork is the responsibility of the weak, arrogant Liberal government. The millions of dollars this act proposes to spend on four new institutions that I described would service but a few first nations. The money would be better spent providing clean water, sewers, housing, and better education and health care.

The act authorizes first nations communities to tax, borrow and gather data at the expense of priorities like health, education and social services. How do we expect the standard of living to improve? How do we expect that the violence, unemployment rates, health services and other evils would be eliminated? It would provide limited benefits to a small number of first nations communities at a substantial cost to Canadian taxpayers.

A majority of first nations have already rejected Bill C-19. The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar, who is the lead critic for the official opposition, has done tremendous work on this issue. I am sure that the House will be listening to his advice. I support the hon. member's amendment to withdraw the bill and refer the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

To conclude, I move, seconded by the member for Portage--Lisgar:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“and that the Committee report back to the House no later than June 13, 2003”.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to complete my remarks on Bill C-13 on assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.

We oppose the bill unless it is amended. Before I continue my remarks I will summarize what I said yesterday.

The Canadian Alliance minority report recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”. All human beings possess the fundamental human rights of life and freedom. I also said that it is in the best interest of every child to know who his or her parents are. No sperm or egg donors should be anonymous.

AHRs, assisted human reproduction clinics, would have to be licensed and tightly regulated. All regulations must be laid before Parliament and automatically referred to the health committee.

I also stated that I strongly support and encourage health sciences research and development, and research on adult stem cells. Thus, we are calling for more funding of adult stem cell research. I support provisions against human and therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, gene line alteration, buying or selling of embryos, and paid surrogacy.

Commercial surrogacy would be banned but the expenses of surrogate mothers could be repaid. Thus, surrogate mothers could result in effective commercial surrogacy. That is why we oppose Motion No. 52.

The health minister wants to undo the amendments made at committee which would make counselling for surrogacy mandatory and which were supported by the Canadian Alliance. It waters down the intent of members of the health committee that such counselling be required, ideally by a third party and not by a fertility clinic.

Becoming a surrogate is a very serious matter to the extent that the health committee saw fit to amend the bill to prohibit surrogacy for women under age 21. Surrogacy can have profound effects on relationships between husband and wife, within families, between surrogate and adopting parents, and most important, on the surrogate children themselves. Therefore counselling should be mandatory. I wonder why the health minister is not explaining or defending her amendment.

We also oppose Motion No. 72. The minister again wants to undo the committee amendment requiring board members of AHR agencies to come under conflict of interest rules. Board members should not have commercial interests in the field of AHR or related research, for example, fertility clinics, biotech companies, et cetera.

Imagine an employee or investor in a biotech company with a financial interest in embryonic stem cell research making decisions for Canadians on the regulation of such research, including the definition of the word “necessary” as specified in clause 40. Or imagine a director of a fertility clinic making regulations on the limits of sperm and egg donations or the number of embryos produced for IVF treatments. Such conflicts of interest need to be prevented in the legislation. The minister needs to explain and defend these amendments.

In a nutshell, we oppose the bill. On the particular motions I mentioned, I indicated whether we support or oppose them. I would like to make clear that I support stem cell research but we would like to put a moratorium on embryonic research for a period of three years.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in debate on the amendments in Group No. 3 at report stage of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction technologies and related research. We oppose the bill unless it is amended.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to commend the work done by our caucus members on the bill, especially our former leader, Mr. Preston Manning, who worked very hard and diligently on this issue. He worked with a passion on this issue and we recognize that.

The Canadian Alliance minority report recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”. Human embryos are early human lives that deserve respect and protection. All human beings possess the fundamental human rights of life and freedom. I will repeat the call, as per our minority report, for a three year prohibition on embryonic research to impose a three year moratorium on experiments on human embryos until the potential of adult stem cells can be fully developed. There is nothing wrong with doing that.

I strongly support and encourage health sciences research and development. I studied science when I was a student and I value the benefits of research done scientifically. However, I want to make it clear that I support stem cell research. We are calling for more funding of adult stem cell research. I will ask that the conditions of research be narrowed by requiring permission of both parents to destroy an embryo, by ensuring that creation of embryos for reproductive purposes is limited, and by identifying and reporting annually on numbers of embryos created and destroyed, et cetera.

Why do I want to limit it? Because for the benefits we would receive from embryonic research, similar benefits could be received from stem cell research. So why not give science or the scientific community a chance to develop stem cell research? That is why we need to provide a lot of funding for stem cell research: so that the same benefits can be obtained without causing any loss to human life.

I support provisions against human or therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ-line alterations, buying or selling embryos, and paid surrogacy.

Issues on which there is broad agreement are prohibitions like that on human cloning, issues of process such as the government sitting on the issue and failing to act for nine years, and the structure and accountability of the agency that is being created. Those are the issues where there is agreement.

Assisted human reproduction should be more tightly regulated, making it safer and more effective for prospective parents. I support an agency to regulate the sector. Assisted human reproduction clinics will have to be licensed and regulated by an agency created by the bill.

There are no provisions for regular reports to Parliament. This would be in Motion No. 78, which we oppose. An amendment would require the health minister to table an annual report to Parliament. We support an annual report. There must be transparency and accountability around the regulation of assisted human reproduction and its related research, but we would prefer that the agency itself produce such a report. We want an independent agency, not one directed by the health minister to produce such a report. If this amendment is amended with a subamendment replacing “the health minister” with “the agency”, I do not have any difficulty in supporting it.

The report to Parliament is important. All regulations must be laid before Parliament and automatically referred to the health committee, with the minister obligated to consider standing committee's recommendations.

I have been chairing the House and Senate Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. My observation has been that the government tables legislation which is usually very vague and shows only the intent of the government to do something. There is no substance. The substance to that legislation comes through the back door by way of regulations. About 80% of the law that we see in our country is brought in through the back door, so it would be appropriate to say that the government does not govern but rules through the back door.

In this case, the regulations are very important and must be submitted along with the legislation. They must be viewed and debated in this Parliament and then sent to committee for consideration.

Children conceived by AHR will have no right to know the identity of their parents without their written consent to reveal it. It is in the best interests of every child to know who his or her parents are. Sperm or egg donors should not be anonymous. A donor is not analogous to a parent giving up a child for adoption, because a sperm or ovum donation is intentional, with opportunity for a clear choice before the fact, whereas a choice on adoption is made after the fact, for example when an unintentional pregnancy is already in progress.

Commercial surrogacy is banned--

[Multiculturalism, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Christmas is around the corner and Canadians are ready for the festivities. Christians should be proud of their religion. It is a time for giving and helping those less fortunate, but the spirit of the season has been bruised by unnecessary political correctness.

The Royal Canadian Mint replaced the 12 days of Christmas with the 12 days of giving. Toronto city hall replaced its Christmas tree with a holiday tree. Statistics Canada speaks of the December experience. Canadian Heritage removed Easter and Christmas from its calendars. The PMO interfered by removing references to Jesus in the memorial service for the Swissair tragedy at Peggy's Cove.

I am a non-Christian and a visible minority. I am not in any way offended when Christians celebrate Christmas. Cultural tolerance and ethnic equality should not mean diluting anyone's faith.

It is time we moved from tolerance to acceptance. We should mutually appreciate and respect each other's traditions, and I wish to say Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone.