Mr. Speaker, Canadian Airlines has not come forward to this government with any proposal to increase foreign investment.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 34% of the vote.
Air Transportation November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Airlines has not come forward to this government with any proposal to increase foreign investment.
Air Transportation November 18th, 1996
No, Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of putting money into Canadian in this particular situation.
The hon. member opposite spoke of the employees at Canadian. I think it is important for the House to know that the Minister of Transport had this to say to the Air Transportation Association of Canada in Montreal just a couple of hours ago. He said:
I know it requires very difficult decisions from the employees-employees who have sacrificed much already. I have always been impressed by the dedication of Canadian Airlines employees, their commitment to quality, their commitment to service, and their belief in their airline. That dedication, and that spirit, will be just as crucial to Canadian's future as to its past.
Structural problems require structural solutions. The president of Canadian Airlines has brought them forward. We hope that Cana-
dian Airlines is successful and remains another one of our proud airlines in this country.
Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively to the hon. member's remarks. I would like to make some comments and then pose a question. The hon. member of the Bloc speaks passionately and asks the question: "Has this been thoroughly thought out?"
The government's plan for managing new reproductive and genetic technologies is based not on some kind of whim. It has not drawn something out of the air and created legislation. Its plan is based on extensive research and consultations with the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies and the examination of management practices in other countries around the world. Most important, the government has also consulted with no less than 50 stakeholder groups following the release of the royal commission's report on what direction should be taken.
This is something very big, says the hon. member for the Bloc. Yes, it will be. She questions the federal government's role. She called it "intervening". Her concern for parties talking together, as she put it, is being addressed by the federal government.
Given the complexity of these issues, it is inevitable that there will be differences of opinion among the many stakeholder groups involved in these issues. The medical profession will have an opportunity to present its views when Bill C-47 goes before the Standing Committee on Health.
The hon. member for the Bloc says she and her party are angry with the federal government's role in this area. However, let us remind the Bloc that it was her party that demanded not amendments to the Criminal Code but initially demanded legislation. The member cannot deny this. On October 7, 1994 the member for Laval Centre called for the government to table a bill to regulate practices connected with new reproductive technologies. As late as June 5, 1996 the member for Drummond said: "This area is in urgent need of legislation". It is legislation Bloc members want, not amendments to the Criminal Code, so it is legislation we produce.
This legislation will have its detractors but they are welcome to come before the Standing Committee on Health. They are welcome to make their presentations and views.
The parliamentary secretary for health and myself are cognizant of the fact that we do not have all the answers. That is why we have a committee system and why we invite members of the Bloc, the Reform and the public at large to come before the committee. The government wants them to examine this bill thoroughly and give their input to ensure its objectives, which are to protect the health and safety of Canadians, to ensure the appropriate use of human reproductive materials outside the body and to protect the dignity
and security of all persons, especially, I say to the hon. member for the Bloc, women and children, are reached.
Questions On The Order Paper November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I must say you look smashing in your new attire. I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response To Petitions November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour and privilege to table in both official languages the government's response to six petitions.
Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act October 31st, 1996
The hon. member across the way wonders why. He said a little earlier that he deplored playing politics with this issue. I could point to a couple of the inconsistencies coming across the floor from the member of the third party.
In September 1993 the Reform Party supported user fees, deductibles, and would eliminate universality. I remind the House of what magazine that was in: Canadian Living , September 1993. Just before the election of October 1993 the Reform party said that it was opposed to private health care and user fees. Where is the consistency there?
The member for Macleod said in the House on October 17, 1995 that medicare was bad for everyone. Can we imagine a Reform member saying medicare was bad for everyone. I am quoting from Hansard . Then on November 23, 1995 the member for Macleod said that medicare was important to all Canadians.
Where is the consistency there? If they want to start playing politics there is plenty of it, but we are not interested in playing politics on this issue. Quite frankly I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member. He is an emergency medical surgeon. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to medical stuff. He has lived it. He has breathed it. He has partaken in it. At the same time he must understand that the objectives of the bill are to protect the health and safety of Canadians, to ensure the appropriate use of human reproductive materials outside the body, and to protect the dignity and security of all persons, especially women and children.
Appropriate is the operative word we are using. We have to team up not just as researchers in the great country we call Canada but as geneticists outside Canada in other countries around the world who have done some research in this area. What may appear to the hon. member to be some kind of a broad stroke in the area of specifics in the bill are there intentionally to ensure that we are paying attention to the world when it comes to actions of speciality medicines, the actions of new research, the actions or the findings that come with research in the field of medicine. As I said earlier, we have to protect women and children. We have to protect reproductive
materials outside the body and protect the dignity and security of all people.
The hon. member spoke of in vitro fertilization. He attempted to build his case on a falsehood. He made the contention that the bill would ban in vitro fertilization. On what basis does the hon. member say this? Can he point to anywhere in the bill that says it would ban in vitro fertilization?
Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will start with my comment first and then go to the question.
Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth for his intervention on this bill. I have some concern about the type of reading material he enjoys but we all have our likes and dislikes.
I was interested too in the question from the hon. member for Jonquière who is calling for this type of activity to take place over amendments to the Criminal Code. It confused me when I heard that because on October 7, 1994 the member for Laval Centre called for the government to table a bill to regulate practices connected with new reproductive technologies.
On December 7, 1994 the member for Laval Centre said: "It is increasing clear that the commercialization of human genetic material, embryos and the fetal tissue is growing in Canada". She called for regulation in this area.
The position of the Bloc is further confused by the fact that on July 5, 1995 the government brought forward a voluntary moratorium on some of these practices and there was criticism that it was not going far enough and that there were no real sanctions against those who would continue with these types of practices.
On June 5, 1996 the member for Drummond said that this area was in urgent need of legislation. The government is doing exactly what Bloc members asked us to do.
Then they come forward with this notion that somehow an amendment to the Criminal Code is the way to go. They have to talk with one voice. They have to talk on one steady theme. They cannot be jumping all over the place when it comes to deciding whether this should take the form of legislation in a bill or amendments to the Criminal Code.
That argument aside, I was very interested in the argument put forward by the member for Hamilton-Wentworth because he did touch on-we are all exposed in one way or another-an individual who he knows with cystic fibrosis.
I went back to check it out because I was interested in the line that the member brought forward. Something like germ line genetic alteration apparently has the potential to permanently alter the human gene pool by changing the genetic structure of individuals in ways that are passed on to their offspring.
Several other geneticists in the field are against this idea. Several other countries have already investigated it. They are against it. The geneticists are not sure how these genes interact after they have been altered. They quite frankly admit that they do not have the knowledge of what happens to these genes when they are altered. It is because of that lack of knowledge that the countries and the geneticists have come together to say that currently there is still great potential for harm in this area. We are still in the research stage.
Again, when this bill comes forward-it may be void of what the hon. member is including in the bill-it does not preclude the government at this date or in a date of review two, three or four years, depending on whenever the committee decides when this bill should be reviewed, to look again at this germ line genetic alteration and say: "Okay, it is safe now. Let's bring it in as an amendment to the bill and incorporate it".
Until we know it is a safe practice, until the geneticists and other countries come together in their research to know that it will not significantly harm or further complicate the gene pool, then we have to be very cautious in the implementation of this legislation and what it contains.
Parliamentary Sibling Day October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this week marked the first Parliamentary Sibling Day here in the House of Commons.
On Tuesday, October 29, 22 of my fellow parliamentarians and I had the privilege of serving for a day as big brothers and big sisters to boys and girls from the Ottawa-Carleton Big Sisters and Big Brothers Associations.
Both organizations worked together with my office and the office of the member of Parliament for Burlington to pair a little sister or brother with an hon. member of this House.
Parliamentary Sibling Day provided these young Canadians a window to the parliamentary process and gave them a close-up view of the parliamentary precinct.
The boys and girls received a private tour of the House of Commons, met with their respective MPs, watched question period and were granted a special audience with you, Mr. Speaker, in your official chambers. As one sibling so eloquently put it: "That Speaker guy, he's pretty cool".
Parliamentary Sibling Day is an excellent example of how we in this House can work together to support young Canadians. I hope my colleagues will lend their support to the work of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters Associations right across Canada.
Questions On The Order Paper September 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.