Grant McNally

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, the member from Anjou who just spoke was quoted on this topic when it first came up, saying that he did not think that the government had a stellar track record on this issue, that there are millions of additional social insurance cards in circulation, that passwords have been stolen from Canadian offices abroad, and I think he even asked, “Can you ensure this won't be another bureaucratic nightmare?” In light of what the member has just said, how would my colleague respond to our other colleague?

[Petitions, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by several thousand people from my riding who are opposed to child pornography and who would like Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Petitions, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents, the first one being signed by 66 individuals who are against the slaughter of horses and the sale of horse meat for human consumption.

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Prince George--Peace River for his speech.

I want to highlight something that stands out in my mind. One of the first things that happened when I was a new member here in 1997 was a situation where a Liberal fundraiser, whose name I believe was Pierre Corbeil, was charged and then convicted of influence peddling. Somehow this individual got hold of lists of companies in Quebec that were receiving government grants. He was shaking them down for a contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada of $10,000 each. If they did not come up with the cash, surprise, surprise, they would not get the government grant for whichever particular area that happened to be.

In the last election in the year 2000 while the Shawinigate controversy was bubbling away, there was also this revelation that government grants in the Province of Quebec were being run through this parallel process of people within the Quebec Liberal Party as to who was going to get government grants. This was absolutely unbelievable.

Now the Prime Minister, on his way out the door, is trying to trumpet this piece of legislation as a way to clean up financing when really that is not what it would do at all. It would create all kinds of other difficulties, many of which were alluded to by my colleague.

I want to focus my question on one comment my colleague made, that being the cynicism that is created when $1.50 per vote goes to each political party every single year based on its performance in the last election and how that disconnect would widen because of it.

Would the hon. member elaborate on that for me and give me his thoughts on how he sees the disconnect growing because of that movement in the bill?

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we may have unanimous consent to hear the end of our colleague's speech.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question that really was asked by the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member for Brampton Centre.

During the debate of my colleague from Kootenay--Columbia, the parliamentary secretary said that the motion was too confusing and asked if the member could make it simpler.

What this motion is about is that we want to have a vote. I was wondering if the member for Kootenay--Columbia might be able to perhaps use his wax crayons or pencil crayons to spell out clearly one more time the essence of the motion for our friend across the way.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. I certainly disagree with much of what she had to say. I believe she based her evidence on a Los Angeles Times article and this whole nuclear strategy which she is proposing that is hypothetical at this point.

What is not hypothetical at this point is that yes, there are dead people, maimed people, starved people and thirsty people already in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Those things have already occurred under the leadership of that dictator in that country. We have seen what he has done to his own people. Our colleague from Elk Island outlined how Saddam Hussein even had his own sons-in-law put to death because they told the truth about his true nature and what was going on in Iraq.

I have yet to hear from members on the government side today what they propose. What is the solution? What should be done if Saddam Hussein does not comply? I would like to hear that from someone on the government side. We have not heard that at all today.

Once again we have heard from the member that we should be cautious and that war is horrible. We know that. No one wants to go to war, not one person in this country. At the same time do we sit idly by and let an evil man continue to go unchecked? What is the answer? What is the hon. member's answer to that question?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 5th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to start by giving my support to the amendments proposed by my colleague from Mississauga.

I want to talk generally about Bill C-13, the assisted human reproduction act and begin by saying that there is always an important ethical question inherent in any discussion around embryonic research.

Embryonic stem cell research inevitably results in the question that was raised earlier by our colleague from St. John's, that being the death of the embryo, early human life. For many Canadians, this violates the ethical commitment to respect human dignity and it is a hard question for many people in relation to this bill.

It is an incontestable scientific fact that an embryo is an early human life. It has the complete DNA of an adult. The DNA is present at the embryo stage. Whether that life is owed protection is really at issue. Other members made the argument that life should be protected, and I would agree with that. That is one of my great concerns with the bill. While the bill attempts to regulate human reproduction, it raises many questions of this ethical nature by members on all sides of the House.

For that reason, many of my colleagues have suggested in earlier speeches that we focus on adult stem cell research instead. In doing so we would take away the divisive nature of the embryonic stem cell research debate altogether.

Adult stem cells are a safe and proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. Sources of adult stem cells are in the umbilical cord, skin tissue, bone tissue and many others. We recently have seen some companies develop the ability to preserve the umbilical cord should it be needed in the future, not only for that baby but also for any other family member who might be in need of stem cells. That is a resourceful answer to this question as well, one that should be explored and expanded upon.

Adult stem cells are easily accessible and they are not subject to immune rejection if they are the individual's own stem cells. Embryonic stem cell transplants are subject to immune rejection because they are foreign tissues while one's own adult stem cells, which are used in different therapies, are not subjected to the same rejection question.

As my colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill just noted, adult stem cells are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, MS and other conditions.

On a personal note, our own son is battling leukemia right now and has been for a number of years. I know my colleagues in the House have been very supportive of that. I thank them for their words of encouragement and thoughtful comments and prayers. I also thank my constituents and my board at home. Our son will be undergoing a transplant very soon so this is a question that is of utmost importance to me personally. He will be receiving transplant from another donor. He will be receiving adult stem cells.

Medical technology has taken us a long way from where we once were and leads us to all kinds of promise. However we need to frame these important questions, ones that seek to put in context those ethical questions I raised earlier. If we do focus on adult stem cell research, we alleviate a lot of those questions and concerns individuals have about issues of life which have been raised and will continue to be raised.

I know my colleague from Vancouver Island mentioned earlier, and I am loosely paraphrasing, the ability to patent different technologies with embryonic stem cell and that ability to patent them was not easy to do. Thereby the whole issue of profit in developing medical technologies with stem cells becomes a driving force behind whether we pursue adult stem cell research or embryonic stem cell research. That should not be the question, a profit driven question, that leads our medical researchers down one path over another. The adult stem cell path is one that satisfies the ethical question and provides hope for many people in treating many diseases, and in the whole area of human reproduction as well.

I would urge the government, in strong terms, to focus on that path in pursing Bill C-13.

As my colleague noted, we are one of the last countries to address this question. It certainly should have been addressed much sooner. Individuals have been calling for this for many years. We are behind because of the low priority the government has put on this topic.

We should examine the bill in detail. We have pointed out the considerable problems we have with the bill, some which have been addressed through amendments. Upcoming amendments will be talked about in Group No. 6 in the next part of the debate.

Before supporting the bill, we should ask the right the questions. In asking the right questions, we must ensure that we get a bill that puts us on the right path and does not unlock doors about which we have not thought. When a bill is before us in the House, it is incumbent upon us to ask hard questions and to get it right, particularly in such sensitive area as embryonic stem cell research and assisted human reproduction. If we do not get it right now, we know the process will be long and convoluted to remedy it. We need to get it right the first time.

We are generally not supportive of the bill because there are many questions that remain unanswered. If the bill is passed in its current form, down the road it will open all kinds of unlocked doors in terms of ethical questions and in terms of putting us on the right footing.

I would encourage all members to look closely at the bill. I urge them to tell the government that it needs to put in place a framework that focuses on adult stem cell research, not embryonic stem cell research.

[Question No. 68, February 4th, 2003]

For the fiscal years 1993/94, 1994/95, 1995/96, 1996/97, 1997/98, 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001, from all departments and agencies of the government, including crown corporations and quasi/non-governmental agencies funded by the government, and not including research and student-related grants and loans, what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded in the constituency of Don Valley East, including the name and address of the recipient, whether or not it was competitively awarded, the date, the amount and the type of funding, and if repayable, whether or not it has been repaid?

(Return tabled.)

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member's words are cold comfort to the family in this case and, I would suggest, to others in similar circumstances.

The member has said that this suggestion has been discarded. He has mentioned the changes that are coming in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but as he has stated, there is a large amount of discretion left in the judge's hands.

What I am saying is that we have the ability here in the House to make those changes and enshrine them in law to make sure that those who do commit serious crimes and commit an adult crime pay with adult time. That is what should happen. We should put that into law here so that there are no loopholes, so that there is no ability for individuals who commit crimes like this not to be raised to adult court. If they commit an adult crime they should receive adult time.