Larry Spencer

[Canadian Flag, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to speak today in defence of our national symbol. I am disturbed to think that we cannot find it within ourselves to make laws giving us authority to protect our national symbol.

We have many different symbols. We promote them. We have religious symbols that we understand. We know what they mean. There is an identity that comes with those religious symbols. They have a meaning behind them. There are very important messages contained within those symbols.

Not only do we have symbols of religion, we also have symbols of reward and achievement. Those symbols, those badges and medals, are worn proudly by our military men and women. There are even certain rules and conditions under which they may wear those medals and under which others may not. We recognize their importance. They are not important because they are valuable, not in their right by themselves. They are important because of the achievement or merit that earned an individual that medal.

There are other symbols that are very precious to some of us. Every day I wear on the finger of my left hand a symbol of my commitment to my wife in marriage. It is an important symbol to me. My wife would not like it if I took it off, desecrated it, cut it in half, threw it away and those kinds of things. She would be offended by that. She would want to defend that symbol in some way. Yet we simply allow people to do what they want with our national symbol. We allow them to stomp it in the dirt, rub it in the ground, burn it, wrap their garbage in it, do whatever they want with it. That is not an honourable way to treat our symbol.

Members opposite will recall an incident that happened in the House a few weeks ago. A member of ours picked up the golden symbol sitting on that table. What a fuss that caused. What a fuss there was just because he touched that sacred symbol of the Mace and lifted it over his head in protest of the lack of democracy in this place. We defended that symbol by disciplining that member. He was put outside the bar. He was made to stand at the bar and apologize to the House for his inconsideration in regard to that symbol.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the symbol on your right, the red and white one, is much more important and much more valuable than this symbol over here. That symbol represents the whole nation. It represents our national sovereignty. Only nations should be able to fly a flag which indicates that they stand as independent nations on their own, making their own decisions, making their own laws and providing for their own citizens. The flag is a symbol of that. It is a symbol of our freedom, that which we are able to enjoy as citizens in this country.

People come to Canada and live under the symbol of the maple leaf and know that they are in a country that stands for freedom. Freedom is not bought cheaply. It comes with a high price. I do not believe that we need to let the symbol of our freedom be tromped upon cheaply. There needs to be a price. We need to protect the symbol of our sovereignty and our freedom. It is a symbol of our national identity. We are proud of who we are. We are proud of this nation. We are proud that we are different from other nations in the world. We pride ourselves on being different from the United States. That is our identity.

That maple leaf is a symbol, perhaps, of beauty. I remember my first trip to the Gatineau hills last fall. As I drove on the west side of the hills and the sun was shining at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, those maple trees lit up and were aglow in a fluorescent red that was as beautiful as the red on our flag. The flag reminds us of the beauty of our land, the fruitfulness of the sweet syrup that comes from the maple tree, the sweetness of our land. It is a symbol of that. It goes beyond the maple tree and beyond the maple syrup and speaks of the sweetness of the land that we need to protect, and we need to protect that symbol as well.

National pride: Do we not have any national pride? We are so upset when someone else suggests that we do something, when someone else suggests that we guard our borders in a certain way or suggests that we might pass certain laws. We are so wounded in our pride to think they are pushing us in some way, yet we do not have the spine to stand up when someone desecrates our national symbol and say that it is against the law and therefore something will be done about it.

I cannot understand why we cannot have enough pride to protect our national symbol. I would have been proud to vote for the bill should it have been votable. It is a shame for us to be denied the opportunity to vote for this great symbol of our land and to see it revered with the respect with which it should be.

[Human Resources Development, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, these businesses did not create jobs at all. They actually lost jobs.

Yesterday the minister admitted that another company, Placeteco, also received grants of $1.2 million and is now employing 47 people, another net loss of 123 jobs. If the Prime Minister keeps on helping his cronies, soon no one will be working in Shawinigan, not even the Prime Minister.

Why would the Prime Minister support businesses that were clearly not viable? Was it because they were his political friends?

[Human Resources Development, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to waste taxpayer money in an unprecedented fashion. Let us add up the money wasted on just two of the Prime Minister's cronies: $900,000 in the BDC loan, $451,000 in TJF grants and $224,000 in back taxes. That is nearly $1.6 million.

The audit says a visit by an HRDC Shawinigan official resulted in an inquiry whether HRDC ought to seek some recovery of the funds it had provided. How much did the government recover on behalf of Canadian taxpayers?

[Health, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at this moment we have thousands of Canadians on surgery waiting lists. One of my own constituents has been waiting for surgery for a year and has been told to expect to wait another six months. This is on the priority list.

There are burdensome costs to these patients on waiting lists. Many continue to endure much pain and suffering, bear the financial burden of more prescription drugs, endure decreased physical ability and suffer the loss of income because of additional sick days off work. This is unacceptable.

We are not living in a third world country. We live in one of the most progressive countries in the world and yet we do not provide adequate health care for our own people. This is one more issue the Liberal government has failed to address. Liberals are caught up in the defence of their own corruption and are bogged down with endless studies.

Canadians are left with a government incapable of responsible action. How can it defend its virtual inaction in dealing with the health care crisis when it is costing our constituents on a daily basis?

[Protection of the Unborn Child, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my goal is not to enter into the abortion debate. My goal is to exercise my personal right to reflect my own personal views in spite of the intimidation these days of anyone who wants to speak for the rights of the unborn. We are oppressed on every side to keep quiet and not say anything. Why is that? This is not right. We are being fought because so many understand that what is going on is not right.

There are differing opinions. There is the embryo, the fetus, the baby, the child, the adolescent and the adult. At what point do we say that it is a human being? Maybe I should say that anyone who is not at least 60 does not have the status of human being because I am over 60. Where do we draw the line?

We know and we understand according to science that when a sperm and an egg come together they grow and develop. Scientifically that is life. What is it if it is not human life? If it is human life, what is it and how is it that we can we so glibly dismiss it as garbage? How can we do that? How can we just stick our heads in the sand and say we want our rights?

What if I, a man, impregnated a woman and said “A part of my body is in you. I don't want it there. Adios. Out of here with you, woman.” I know that is a little absurd and that is way over the edge, because that would be taking a human life. Yes, it is funny. It is really funny.

I once read a very old book that stated “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”. I think we have a perfect example of that when we refuse to look at the reality of what a fetus-embryo-child is: even the definition we have in the criminal code states if it proceeds “in a living state, from the body of its mother”. I used to think that was because once it breathed it then became a human being. I am surprised that it states that even if it has not breathed, even if it does not have its own circulation, just if it is all the way out, it is a human being. I guess, then, that even if the doctor has pierced the skull and taken out the living parts of the baby, what comes out is no longer a human being. I do not understand that. I do not understand how it can be a baby outside and just five seconds before when it was inside it was not. How is that?

How is that? Human life is human life. We need to face this issue. Where does it come from? I happen to believe that we have so very little to do with human life that when an egg and a sperm come together it is not because we have been so intelligent and able to do something that a life is created. It is because a creator is involved that life is there. Life is not given by air. It is given by a creator. For us to deny the fact that this is life at any stage of the development of an embryo or a fetus is absurd. It does not make good sense. Logic is totally gone.

I sympathize with and understand the need for a woman to be able to protect her health. There are considerations there, but let us give some consideration to assigning to life human status when, I believe, the creator has done it.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the member who just spoke for actually addressing the government.

I thought this side of the House was the opposition. I thought our place was to call the government to account. I am really confused as to what is the priority down there because the hon. leader with whom the member split time spent the time dressing down the official opposition. It seems that she has not got it clear in her mind who she is. It appears that she has taken on the position of being the official opposition to the official opposition.

Where is the NDP's priority? Will we hold the government not only to good policy, but carrying out the policy and keeping its promises in a good administration? What is the hon. member's feeling on that?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in that case, then, the government member should consider very seriously what they do at committee to implement a few good amendments in order to alleviate some of these different problems. As I have said, there are some good half steps, but the half that is left out is a bad one.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why that would be, but I can understand why the government would be in such a hurry to implement embryonic research. I believe seriously that there is a fear that adult stem cell research will progress so rapidly that the need for embryonic research will be nil. I think the potential in all that I have read is that the adult stem cell research would be much more valuable.

I think people have been led to believe that adult cells were too limited in availability. I think we have been hoodwinked into believing that we have to go with the embryonic stem cell research to have stem cells available, but science is proving this is not true. According to what I have read, embryonic stem cells are more elastic than adult stem cells. In other words, they are not as predictable as to what we can do with them. They even have a tendency to go out of control and do things that they were not intended to do. That has not been found to be true of adult stem cells.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity today to speak to this issue. This debate goes right to the heart of an extremely important matter. It is extremely important I believe in my riding, in my province, in our country and indeed around the world because we are debating the issue regarding the most fundamental principle of all and that is the principle of human life.

I want to address some of the questions with which we are forced to grapple. I will not try to answer those questions but I do want to mention them because sometimes even the mention of a question brings something to light that we have not thought of before.

The first question is what exactly is human life? When does it begin? When does it end? Do we have the right to decide to end it for our own personal gain? Can we create human life to destroy it for a so-called greater good? Is the intentional destruction of human life ever justified? Can we decide which human embryos live and which ones die? Is it ethical to destroy a human embryo at one stage but not at another? Is a human embryo outside the womb worth more than one inside the womb? Who has the right to decide when an embryo is actual human life? Are the rights of women over their embryos greater than the rights of scientists over embryonic specimens? Can one be paid to create a human life and at the same time be paid for ending it?

Those are some of the questions. I will not attempt to answer them but I will acknowledge that many refrain from thinking about, let alone answering, these fundamental questions because of the fear of the logical outcome of their thought process; principally that the union of a sperm and an egg is the genesis of all human life.

If a fertilized human egg is not a human life then what is it? Would we call it a potential for life? Scientists will tell us that a cell's ability to duplicate itself indicates that it is living. A human cell capacity to reproduce itself demonstrates that it is alive. If it is alive and reproducing, then what is it reproducing? Is it not human life? Of course it is. It could not be any other kind of life. Life produced by a human must indeed be human life.

When we think back to those very rudimentary things, we understand what we are talking about; the sacrifice of human life. What then is the status of an embryo created by the union of human sperm and a human egg? It must be human life even in a Petri dish. At the risk of being politically incorrect, which I suppose I have already blown, I must say that it is a human life.

A man and a woman who furnish the necessary ingredients for reproduction can only create that which is human. It is impossible for them to create anything else from their own bodies. Can a scientist then create anything but a human life through the union of a man's sperm and a woman's ovum in a Petri dish? I think not.

There was a recent headline in the Post which read “Does a fetus have rights, or doesn't it?” I might ask the question: if it does have rights, then when? If it does not have rights, then when and why?

It is interesting to note that our neighbour to the south, the United States, has recently been challenged by George Bush, the president, the ensure that the unborn child receives protection by granting it the right to health care in the prenatal stages.

Secretary Thompson said:

Prenatal services can be a vital, life-long determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Bush administration on that bold measure in the advancement of prenatal health care. I would like to ask our health minister whether she would consider such a thing for Canada.

The government has previously identified fetal alcohol syndrome, among other things, as being a real problem in our country and for that I want to commend it. However, how can the government justify taking steps to help prevent FAS in the country without acknowledging that it is doing so because the unborn child in a mother's womb is a human life worth preserving and keeping healthy? Or is it doing it simply as a possible cost saving measure for health care in later years? I would hope it is doing it for the value of the human life involved.

This leads to another fundamental question that faces us today. Is intentionally ending a human life justified by saving another? No one can deny that some of the most heroic acts of bravery and human courage have come from someone's willingness to die in order to save another's life. Arguably the most famous person in the history of the world once said “There is no greater love than to give one's life for his friend.” However the giving of one's life to save another is only heroic and an act of love when it is done voluntarily. How can the taking of human life be justified when it is done without the express consent of the one whose life is being taken, especially when there are alternatives?

As many witnesses testified during the hearings of the health committee, the prospect of adult stem cell research is equally promising without the ethical and moral implications of embryonic stem cell research.

Professor Gordon Giesbrecht of the University of Manitoba stated:

Destructive embryonic research is not necessary on practical grounds. Adult stem cells can now be extracted from post-natal tissue, such as the placenta and blood from the umbilical cord, as well as from living humans and even cadavers. In contrast to earlier beliefs, these post-natal cells have a biomedical potential as great as, or even greater than, embryonic stem cells. Advances in this area are proceeding at a rapid pace.

Claims for embryonic stem cell advantages over adult stem cells are unsubstantiated. There are no current clinical treatments based on embryonic stem cells, and there are in fact very few published successes using animal models of disease.

I encourage the government to adopt some of the recommendations that we brought forth as a party. First, that the recognition of the human embryo as “human life” be in the final legislation. Second, that resolution of conflicts between “ethical acceptability” and “scientific possibility” be settled in favour of the ethical course. Third, that there should be a three year prohibition of embryonic stem cell research to be revisited in three years, therefore giving a strong endorsation of adult stem cell research. Fourth, that there be the paramountcy of the rights of children to know their heritage.

In wrapping up I will mention again perhaps in simpler words why I do not support this bill at this point.

The first reason is the bill encourages embryonic stem cell research while at the same time thereby discouraging adult stem cell research. The very fact that this is given so much prominence will in fact promote its implementation.

The second reason is that in doing that, the bill would also encourage the proliferation of the production of excess embryos created through assisted human reproduction technologies and shuffled off for research purposes. If we left that gate closed for a little while and emphasized the research on adult stem cells, we would be much further ahead.

The third reason is it does not grant the right to children to know who their parents are. It takes some good half steps but I cannot support it fully in its present form.

[Divorce Act, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for too long the government has poorly served the best interests of children and families. Last month we were shocked to see this government vote not just once but twice against increasing the protection of children from sexual predators. Just last week, by refusing to table meaningful changes to the Divorce Act, the government has once again shown that families are not its priority.

After years of consultation, millions of dollars, hundreds of witnesses, a joint House-Senate report and a justice department paper still thousands of Canadian children are being denied access to both parents in a winner-take-all justice system. When parents divorce they never divorce their children. New legislation is needed now to allow children of divorced parents to have a meaningful relationship with both parents and both sets of grandparents.

The government is stalling on this issue. It continues to ignore committee reports and recommendations, do its own thing and let the children suffer.