House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 70% of the vote.
Krever Inquiry November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Liberals have stalled, blocked and gagged the Krever inquiry so that families will not find out the reasons for tainted blood. Their lawyers say that cabinet secrecy prevents the release of vital documents to Krever in the interest of national security.
What possible public interest is this weak health minister protecting?
Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act October 31st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I am directing my remarks today to Bill C-47, an act respecting human reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to human reproduction.
This is an important subject touching on moral, ethical and scientific issues and economic issues as well, plus the role of the state in private lives. It is also a subject I have a personal interest in. I have dealt with infertile couples, helped by test tube procedures in my own medical practice, helping them to fulfil their fondest dreams to have a family. I cannot forget the joy, the excitement and the satisfaction of those individuals as they were successful in having their children.
This is not an academic or dispassionate subject but one that has a personal interest for me. Since it also touches upon life itself and my personal and strongest beliefs as a Christian individual, I put these practices into my personal belief structure that life is not just an accident, that there is a higher authority.
Let me start by saying that Reform's approach on a bill like this one is very specific. There is a moral component to this bill. I state my position as a Reform MP, provide the facts to my constituents, determine the position of my constituents, and vote their wishes if a clear consensus is evident. I want the Canadian public to know that I am in the process of doing that right now. My householder is going out with a questionnaire on human reproductive technology.
The objects of the bill are threefold: (a) to protect the health and safety of Canadians in the use of human reproductive materials or assisted reproduction, other medical procedures and medical research; (b) to ensure the appropriate treatment of human reproductive materials outside the body in recognition of their potential to form human life; and (c) to protect the dignity of all persons, in particular, children and women, in relation to uses of human reproductive materials. Those are noble goals, but how shall we reach those goals?
The bill has prohibited a number of things. The prohibitions are strenuous. The first prohibitions are almost science fiction procedures that are possible but not plausible for most Canadians, such as the fusion of human and animal egg and sperm, the implanting of a human embryo into an animal. These activities are abhorrent to most Canadians. Strong controls are reasonable in these areas.
The second area of prohibitions are the attempts to control assisted reproduction by making commercialization of these practices illegal. These activities today are controlled by self-regulating professional bodies with standards for licensing, training, technology and ethics. The actual things being controlled in this area are much more available to Canadians. For instance, sperm donation is currently available. Donors are paid for their donation. That would not be allowed under the bill. Under the bill a sister could not bear a family member an infant, be a surrogate mother, and receive compensation for time lost at work. In the bill as well an altruistic woman could not donate extra eggs to receive services she could not otherwise afford.
Controls are probably necessary in this area. How stringent should they be? Some of these decisions are personal and private.
Many consider such decisions to be too private for governmentto intervene.
Since the science fiction procedures and the assisted reproduction procedures are not of the same magnitude, the bill should reflect that significant difference. A division of the bill would be useful.
On enforcement in the bill, criminalization, penalties for breaking the prohibitions are very severe: $500,000 fine and 10 years of imprisonment for breaking some of the prohibitions. On the regulatory apparatus that will likely follow the bill, we have had a discussion paper laying that out. The bill is quite vague. Clause 12 says the minister can designate anyone he wants to be an inspector or an analyst. Clause 13 says the governor general can make regulations unspecified. These are big powers and big issues. It sounds like: "Just trust me and all will be well".
First, I accept the principle that these technologies require regulation by law. In principle I accept the bill at this stage of the debate.
Second, I urge the government to divide the bill along the lines of science fiction procedures on one hand and the commercial aspects of childless couples on the other.
Third, I do not accept the premise without more discussion that harsh penalties and criminalization are necessary or advisable in this area.
Fourth, I remain sceptical that government monopolistic regulation is the only or the ideal way to control such activities.
Fifth, I have gone over the reproductive consultation process which was very thorough. In Bill C-47 and the proposals that will follow I find many definitions and phrases that are vague, such as human dignity and protecting the dignity of all persons. To leave that undefined for me is very difficult. By whose definition do we look at dignity?
I present these thoughts for other members' consideration and review. My colleagues and I will carefully review the bill at committee hearings.
Health Care October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, representatives of 44,000 Canadian doctors appeared in front of the finance committee this week. What did they ask for? I quote: "Stop the devastating health care cuts". They gave the Liberals a failing grade on medicare. They asked for a reinfusion of funds into medicare. Strangely that sounds a bit like Reform's fresh start on medicare.
Will the minister steal another plank from the Reform Party, do exactly what the Canadian doctors have asked and reinfuse more money into medicare?
Health Care October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, one of the main promises the Liberals made in the red book was to preserve medicare. What they actually delivered slyly was a dissection of some $3 billion per year out of that program. The result is that this year there is $395 million less in Quebec for hospital care.
Will the health minister admit that every woman suffering from breast cancer who is on a waiting list today is on a longer waiting list because of those cuts?
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent suggestion. It is one which I believe most members of the House would say is a step toward the democratic process.
Should there be a partisan consideration? There should not. The Chair should be independent, and a free, open and democratic election would be ideal.
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, it is nice to get some praise from my colleague across the way.
Let me go back to the original promise from the Reform Party on medicare. Our original promise was deficit reduction that would not take a penny from medicare. As the deficit got worse, in our taxpayers' budget we projected $1.5 billion from the Canada health and social transfer, which the Liberals brought in as an obfuscation measure in my view, over three years, while my colleagues cut $4.3 billion over two years.
As the deficit reaches the point where it gets to zero, as we are able to take those funds that are currently going into interest payments, as we shrink government down to a lean and mean government rather than a fat, bloated government, we will be able to preserve medicare. Reformers simply say to our colleagues let us see them trim down the government so that we can save this program.
They say their program will produce an increase of funds for medicare. How much? How many dollars? Reformers have found $4 billion per year to put back into medicare and post-secondary education. Their promise is a paltry promise.
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explore that a little further. The reason I came to Parliament was that medicare as far as I was concerned was under some stress. I did pay attention very closely to the promise and watched the funding reductions for medicare.
Reformers have quite a different view of deficit reduction. We believe deficit reduction must have a purpose. That purpose is to support and promote the most important social programs that we have, medicare being number one, post-secondary education being number two. As we reduce those funds down to zero and get the interest payments settled down so that they are no longer an oppressive burden, cutting things like the MP pension plan and transfers to favourite businesses of the government, we can provide more money for medicare.
The promise is straightforward and a promise that Reformers will keep. When the budget is balanced we will put $4 billion of the lost money back into medicare and post-secondary education.
I ask my colleagues across the way who have not kept their promise on medicare to adopt that. Put that money back into medicare. Take a page out of the Reform Party fresh start book. Medicare is more important than partisan considerations.
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, back to the independence of the Chair. As you will recall, this debate took place. We asked for and continue to ask for a member of the opposition parties to sit as deputies in the Speaker's chair. I suppose it will take another government to come in from the opposition that really intends to keep its promises for that to take place.
If the independence of the Chair was important in opposition, why is it not important now? I speak to a lot to the youth in high schools. Those kids have become cynical about the whole political process when they hear promises made in opposition which are not kept in government. How many promises have not been kept? We could give a litany of those promises which have not been kept. But this one for sure has not been kept.
How would Reformers be different? What could I say to a youthful high school student in Cobourg, where I was last week, about how could they be certain Reformers would keep their promises? We have made a host of promises in our new platform launch. For instance, we have promised that once the budget is balanced $4 billion will be returned to health care and education.
A high school kid would ask: "Why should I trust you? Why in heaven's name would I listen to you? You are just saying that to get elected and once you are elected, you would break your promises". Reformers have a guarantee on our promise which is very specific. We believe and will institute a promise which is so important to the kids across the country that I am going to say it as plainly as I can. Reformers would submit to the Canadian public the right to be able to fire a liar. That is as plain and as clear as I can state it. A promise made in the fresh start campaign which is unkept will enable the Canadian public to fire the liar.
The example I use in my high school class is one that relates directly to them. I say to them, during the election campaign I, the member for Macleod, decide that there needs to be a restoration facility for old Camaros in a building that is currently unoccupied. I found money from Japan. The Japanese love our old cars. They are going to come over here and provide the money for this facility. This facility, motor work, upholstery work, painted body work, will all provide jobs for the high school students in this school. There will be advertising and some tourism. We have calculated very accurately that the total numbers of jobs will amount to 217. There is also enough money in this promise to build a small hotel near the abandoned and unoccupied old airport. That hotel would provide for the purchasers of that Camaro a place to stay. They want to come over and view their very own cars that go through the restoration process before they take delivery of it. This involves another 30 or 40 jobs.
There will be a spinoff from that. There will be bus tours that will go from this facility and travel around the country. I promise all these things if I am elected: Camaro restoration facility. We will be there for sure.
Oh boy, they scrub their hands and say: "Finally somebody thinks about the kids". They elect me and five minutes after election I say: "Ah, sorry kids, the money ran out. The Japanese investors walked away. This is the hardest thing I ever had to say to you as my electors, but I cannot keep my promise".
I ask the students: What should happen to that politician? It does not take them 15 micro seconds to answer: "Fire the liar. Recall. Turf him out. Boot him". They look right at me and say: "You had better not make that kind of promise".
Here we have that kind of a promise. "In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party two of the junior Chair officers should be from the opposition". I will state publicly that I would vote for a member of the official opposition as a matter of principle on this issue. This is not a matter of partisanship.
I was very pleased to first come into Parliament and have the Speaker of the House elected. I considered that to be a significant step forward in the democratic process. I was reasonably pleased to see this commitment of the Liberals in opposition to take these steps when in government.
One of the most significant results of the McGrath round of procedural reforms was the decision that the Speaker should be elected by secret ballot by all members. This has gone a long way toward assuring members of the independence of the presiding officer.
The three deputy Speakers, however, remain, in effect, government appointees. As a consequence, when one of the junior officers is in the Chair, his or her independence
and authority is less well established. Their authority would be greatly enhanced and the non-partisan nature-
-evidence if we had individuals from the opposition as deputy chairpersons.
How long will it take to have promises kept? I suppose it will take only as long as the Canadian public will put up with the sort of unkept promises that we have had. How much spin can the government put on the red book when its members say that 78 per cent of the promises have been kept? I have gone over the major promises in the red book. Let me list a few of them. The jobs, jobs, jobs one I think is difficult to pin down. There have been some jobs from the infrastructure program, temporary jobs though they were.
Let us talk about a few of the other things: stable funding to the CBC, not kept; day care spaces for Canadians, not kept; medicare protection, $3 billion per year in provincial transfers dropped, not kept; on and on they go, major promises, not minor promises.
This one I suppose could be called a minor promise. It is so easy to keep. Simply accept a member of the opposition in the position of deputy chair. I repeat, for those individuals who say no politician will keep their promises, recall is the method to assure that happens. If a politician does not keep his or her promise we should be able to fire a liar.
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I would be happy to withdraw.
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, back to the independence of the Chair-