Jim Gouk

[Transportation, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has stated on numerous occasions that the air security tax is justified because those who use air travel must pay all the costs associated with it.

That being the case, how does the minister justify providing almost $3 billion to VIA Rail since 1993 to subsidize those who choose to travel by rail?

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I was recorded on the last vote, but I wish to be recorded as opposed on this one.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, given that the hon. member is from Vancouver, I point out to him that there is a very successful company in Vancouver called the Rocky Mountaineer. It is an absolute success story in the private sector. It brings large amounts of foreign tourism dollars into Canada and Vancouver. It probably has an impact in his riding.

The Minister of Transport is now looking at having Via Rail return to the southern route through British Columbia in direct competition with the Rocky Mountaineer, Via having sold this to it in the first place. During the budget the Minister of Finance said that there needed to be a reduction in program spending and was looking to save openly $1 billion. Via Rail has been given $3 billion by the government since the Liberals took office in 1993. Its ongoing operational subsidy is half a million dollars a day.

Given that it would compete directly with a Vancouver company and given that the minister wants to reduce program spending, does he feel Via Rail would be a good place to start, to cut off that subsidy, go to the private sector that said is interested in running Via Rail and let it compete with market forces the way the minister brags that the transportation sector should do?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out that there are a lot of problems in the world right now. We are sending our military to deal with these problems. We recently sent out one of our navy frigates. When the hon. member refers to drunken sailors he is slamming our military.

[Canada Elections Act, February 17th, 2003]

What a great idea.

[Public Service Modernization Act, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

This is a very important debate. The minister is listening attentively and I believe that you should seek to ensure that there is a quorum present in the House.

And the count having been taken:

[Justice, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, many violent criminals have been given conditional sentences, like the men who raped a woman and then were let off by a judge who outrageously stated she considered their Haitian heritage.

The former justice minister, now the Minister of Industry, in response to our complaints stated that it was never the intention that conditional sentencing should apply to violent offenders

Given this position, why will the government not amend the Criminal Code to eliminate conditional sentencing for anyone convicted of violent offences, as I have asked for in Bill C-347?

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I know it is a long way down there to where the fifth party sits, but I still thought the members would be able to hear what the Canadian Alliance has been saying.

Both the speaker who just spoke and the Conservative's one sole member from what is considered western Canada have said that the Canadian Alliance is for the status quo. I do not know where they were hiding when the Canadian Alliance made it extremely clear that its members support the bill's concept of doing away with big corporate, union and organization donations, but instead of going to the taxpayer's purse, they should be replaced by having people who are shareholders of those corporations make individual donations, and by having the workers who contribute their money to the unions instead deciding whether or not they wish to contribute and, if so, to whom.

I would ask the hon. member if he supports that kind of concept. Does he think that corporations still should be allowed to give large sums of money to political parties? Or indeed, does he support what the government is proposing, which is that we replace these corporations and unions by just forcing the taxpayer to pay us money whether they want to or not?

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed part of the member's speech. I do not think he addressed this question, but I will ask in any case and perhaps he can clarify it for me.

The Canadian Alliance position is that we agree with the concept of not allowing big corporations and union organizations to make massive donations to political parties, but we also do not believe that those donations should be replaced by the taxpayers' purse.

If corporations were prepared to give money and that has been cut off, that should be replaced by people who are shareholders in the corporation, let us say, should they choose to donate to a particular party. Likewise, with union organizations, we say that it should be replaced by the union workers who are members of that organization choosing individually to donate to political parties or individuals. That would be the replacement rather than going to the taxpayers' purse and having them donate whether they want to or not.

Would he agree with that kind of replacement of the funds?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1993, when I first came to the House, I made my maiden speech. I said that we were not here to argue and debate just for argument's sake and that we were not here to oppose for opposition's sake. I said that if the Liberal government came forth with a bill that was good, we would support it. If it had a bill which had some merit but needed some fixing, we would try to provide constructive criticism and some logical amendments that would strengthen and improve the bill. I said that only when the government had a bill that was totally without worth, would we strongly oppose it and vote against it.

This bill has some merit but it also has a lot of problems. As a result of those problems, many people, both in the Canadian Alliance Party and others, are trying to find ways to fix what we believe are the errors in the bill. I would suggest that it is not only us who believe there are errors in the bill, but a great deal of the Canadian public believes that as well.

The title of the bill is an act respecting assisted human reproduction. I draw the attention of members to the word “respecting” because that is the purpose of the bill. It is about respecting human beings and the whole process of reproduction. However there are some things in it that are very scary and we need to deal with these.

One concern I have, aside from any ethical or moral question, is the whole question of embryonic versus non-embryonic stem cell research. We have had a great deal of proven success with non-embryonic research, more commonly referred to as adult stem cell research. A lot of cures already have been developed. There are very few problems from adult stem cell treatment because the stem cells of the person being treated can be used and there is no rejection of those cells.

In the case of embryonic stem cell treatment, one would have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of one's life. Members probably have heard personally on more than one occasion, and I know through friends of mine alone, of people who had transplants of various organs, which are quite commonplace now. Not only were they on a regime of anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives, but in some cases the transplanted organ was rejected in spite of those drugs and they had to go through the entire process again.

What happens when something like stem cells are injected into a body and they are rejected? When an organ is rejected it is removed and the person goes back onto support machinery, if that is deemed appropriate, until such time as another transplant can be tried, hopefully this time more successfully. What happens to the body when injections of DNA and things which are created from stem cells are rejected? That is something for which I do not have an answer.

However my concern with the bill is this. If we do not ensure that we direct our research toward non-embryonic stem cell research where we have had more proven success, in fact our only successes, we may suddenly open the door to a more diversified expansion of research. This would mean that fewer people would be devoted to areas where we have had success and would switch to a new field which is completely unknown.

Yes, there may be some successes to be had somewhere down the road, mixed with all the problems that may or may not still be negatives. However we know we have success in non-embryonic stem cell research. The bill should make it clear that is where the weight of future research should be directed. This will ensure that our scarce research dollars are devoted to areas where we are most likely to have success.

I have said that a lot of Canadians also agree with the fact that there are some things in the bill that are very concerning. As of this morning, I have almost 1,000 letters from Canadians supporting the various amendments dealing with the prevention of killing embryos for research and strengthening the ban on human cloning. We are here to represent the needs and concerns of our constituents, the people of Canada. To do that, we need to listen to what they say and we need to reflect that in bills that are brought forward and in the amendments made to those bills.

Some amendments to the bill have been proposed by the Canadian Alliance. However the ones we are debating and supporting largely come from Liberals who recognize weaknesses in the bill. They want to support their party but say that there are things in the bill that must be fixed.

The people who have written letters are concerned about research into embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. They are saying that if they are to support the bill there will have to be changes. In fact they clearly are saying that if they do not get these amendments, then their elected representatives should be voting against this bill. I assure the House and I assure them that if these amendments are not passed we will indeed vote against the bill.

As to the specific motions in Group No. 6, Motion No. 93 deletes a clause which would allow a proposed regulation to be altered without laying it before Parliament. Think about that. This is supposedly important enough, and it certainly is, to bring this matter before Parliament and to have great debate. Obviously there is a great deal of controversy, yet the government is saying that, once passed, it can alter it. In other words, it can change something and it does not have to bring it back before Parliament.

Think about how concerned Canadians are now with the things that are brought here and that have received their the input. In essence this is what the government is saying to Canadians. The government members hear their concerns but rather than dealing with those concerns by making the amendments, amendments which the main body of the Liberal Party supports and which have been brought forward in response to the desires of Canadians, they are going to ram the bill through. Then they are going to ensure that there is a provision in the bill so future changes can be made without having the hassle of bringing it before Parliament and subjecting themselves to input of the Canadian people. It is despicable that anyone would even consider such a thing.

Motion No. 94 removes the ability of the governor in council to make regulations about transgenics. By this time I am sure everyone is well aware of what transgenics are. That is a mixture of human and animal genes. Perhaps a few cabinet ministers would have to go along with this, but why would anyone in the House or anyone else want to make a specific regulation that says that the government can make regulations or change things in a bill, which deals with such an incredibly controversial thing as transgenics, without it coming before Parliament and without subjecting it to the scrutiny of the Canadian people? With what I have just said, we probably have the answer.

I hope all members in the House will say that they have had a lot of input from Canadians on the bill and that they have listened carefully. I hope they will inject their own thoughts into this. I hope the Liberals will strongly consider that a lot of these amendments have come from within their own caucus and that they are supported widely by other people in Parliament from other parties and by Canadians. Do not turn away the people of Canada who are concerned about what is in the bill or what should be in the bill and is not.

I am thankful for this opportunity. I hope this debate continues until people realize that we have to pass something that we can all live with, something that respects human dignity. As the title of the bill says, it is an act respecting human reproduction. Let us ensure that the respect is indeed in this bill.