Val Meredith

[Canada-U.S. Border, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, another piece of hype in the government's throne speech is its claim to the free flow of people, goods and commerce at our borders. The reality at the border crossings in my riding is mile long backups and two to four hour delays. Is it the government's position that two to four hour delays constitute the free flow of goods?

[Canada-U.S. Border, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on three separate occasions the government has announced that it would sign a new border accord with the United States only to subsequently announce each time that the ceremony had been cancelled.

This is typical of the Liberal government's relationship with the United States. It has no idea what the relation should be, little idea of what it should not be, and the occasional minor signing ceremony to pretend that we are getting somewhere.

Because the government has been unable to get its act together, this summer my constituency which contains the two largest border crossings west of Windsor-Detroit can look forward to border lineups between two and four hours long. These lengthy lineups will occur despite the fact that the crossings are in the process of implementing NEXUS.

It is time for the government to develop an end-game strategy in its relationship with the Americans, forget these little signing ceremonies, and quickly implement a program that is both secure and promotes the easy movement of goods and people across our borders.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Cumberland--Colchester mentioned that the auditor general is an independent officer of parliament and reports to parliament. I believe the information commissioner and the privacy commissioner also report directly to parliament. How easy would it be for the government to change the way it does business with the ethics counsellor? How easy would it be for that ethics counsellor to be changed to an ethics commissioner who reports to parliament?

[Petitions, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are concerned with the violence and sexual exploitation that is seen on television.

The petitioners are humbly requesting the House of Commons to legislate the CRTC to reduce the sexual and violent content contained in the basic cable and satellite packages.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member is saying about the civil service having a couple of masters.

My question to the hon. member is how do we hold that civil service, the deputy ministers and the ministers, accountable for situations? The supposed scandal of the Groupaction is only one department. I found out today there has been three audit reports done, one on heritage, one on HRDC and one on public works, that found missing information from files and contracts that were let without proper procedures being followed.

The hon. member mentioned that the rules and the treasury board guidelines are there. How do we hold the civil servants accountable and how do we hold the ministers accountable for running the show, because the buck does stop with the politician?

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

You did not pay your last gas bill.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

And that really bothers you does it not?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-56 which is an important piece of legislation that Canadians should be aware of. Bill C-56 is a bill regarding assisted human reproduction.

There was a time when the conception of a child was that of nature, where a man and a woman created a child. Since then science has become involved. When there is difficulty in conceiving a child science has stepped in to allow other methods of reproduction to take place.

As a society we must deal with where that science has taken us. It has given childless couples the opportunity of having children but it has also put us in a position of having to deal with situations where there might be embryos created that do not eventually form a child.

The bill deals with those kinds of issues which are touchy in our society and that many people have strong opinions about. The bill tries to deal with what is prohibited, what is controlled, and establishes an assisted reproduction agency. There are many issues around those topics: whether or not this agency should report to parliament, who should be sitting on it, and whether or not it should keep information on record and report yearly to parliament on information.

Most of the debate in the House and most of the concern in society deals with the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research can be called nature's blank slates capable of developing into any of the nearly 220 cell types that make up the human body. It is this ability to replicate indefinitely and morph into any type of tissue that leads many to believe that stem cells would eventually be able to cure diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, heart disease and to even repair spinal cord damage. It is because of this potential that many are looking to stem cells as an answer to create positive change.

There are two basic ways of getting stem cells. There are non-embryonic sources of stem cells from adult bone marrow and umbilical cords after the delivery of children. The use of adult stem cells in research has shown some promise. However other research published online March 14 of this year in the journal Nature shows that adult stem cells do not morph into new tissues but rather fuse or merge their genetic material with other cells. This would indicate that we cannot stop the research on adult stem cell use. We should however ensure that it is maximized to all of its potential.

The other way of getting stem cells is through embryonic stem cell creation. Should we stop that from happening? Should we shut the door on this kind of research, should we put a moratorium on it? Many of the previous speakers have spoken about the problems with embryonic research. It can cause spontaneous tumours. It is subject to immune rejection that requires lifelong anti-rejection drugs.

Currently there is no panacea and some people are holding them out to be the end all and be all of disease control and prevention. Right now there is no panacea provided by the creation of stem cells, but there is a need for more research.

The questions that are on the table are: should this be allowed now, and should there be a moratorium put on it?

The bill would allow for more research. The scientific advancements that have taken place from polio inoculations to all kinds of other advances have allowed mankind to cure diseases. They have all been done through research of some form or another. The big question on the floor now is: do we allow embryonic stem cells to be used as part of medical research?

Most of the embryonic cells that are used for research come from unused embryos that are created in fertility clinics. When a couple goes to a fertility clinic, they provide the ovum and the sperm and these are created into embryos. It is not a process where one can take one of each and not have surplus. The process itself demands that there be multi-embryos created because the success rate is not that good on a first attempt. Often many embryos are implanted because some are rejected.

There is a surplus created of these embryos. What happens to these embryos? The debate as to whether they are a life form or not is one that has to take place. Assuming they are a life form, what happens to them? Does this life form get disposed of in a garbage can or down the toilet, or can it be used for positive purposes? That is the debate.

People would argue on both sides of this debate. People feel that the embryos should be used for a positive purpose and others feel that they are the beginning of life and therefore should be respected as such and should not be used. What is clear is that when these stem cells from an embryo are used, the embryo is then destroyed.

This debate about when human life begins and how we should be using these embryos is one that has been going on for some time. It is not a new debate. This is an issue that has been out there in discussion for a number of years. This is not the government's first attempt. I believe the government tried five or six years ago to bring in such legislation pertaining to stem cell research.

We know that human cloning is occurring, or attempts to clone humans are occurring. There has to be control. People out there want restrictions to prevent the cloning of human beings. We know that it is out there. I myself have asked my constituents a question on this issue or a similar issue two and a half years ago and 65% supported the use of embryonic cells for research.

I have recently put it out in my latest householder. My householders receive responses anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 residents in my constituency. Many of them place their comments on them. I am asking two questions of my constituents: first, do they believe that scientists should be able to use the unwanted embryos stored at fertility clinics to conduct embryonic stem cell research, and second, do they believe a human embryo should have the same rights as individuals who have already been born?

It is important that Canadians participate in this discussion. It is important that my constituents have an opportunity to share with me their values and concerns, and how they want to see this handled. Issues of this enormity on the moral and ethical values of our society need to be broadly debated and discussed. They are being discussed out there in the community. We need to be respectful of what Canadians have to say.

This is too important for 301 members to take a decision. I would hope that every member of parliament is out there talking about the issue, encouraging people to participate, and then take seriously how the people in their riding and in their communities feel about this issue. Members would be surprised how able the citizens are to sort out all of the dynamics of this legislation and make responsible and reasonable recommendations to us as their representatives.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. An independent ethics commissioner should have the power through legislation, not only to report to parliament, but to actually enforce some kind of sanction, whether it is a fine or having members resign their seats or whatever.

There must be some way that an independent commissioner could have some influence, some impact. The way to do that would be through legislation that would allow a series of sanctions. In less serious situations it could be a minor fine or it could have a member being called to the bar to apologize to the House. In more serious cases it could request a member to resign his or her seat because of ethical behaviour.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that earned a response, but the hon. member is quite right. There is enough evidence out there to indicate there is a serious problem here.

Canada should be holding itself up as an example internationally as to how good government can run without influence peddling, without corruption and patronage graft. We can show the rest of the world how it can be done properly, but we have a long way to go to clean up our own act.

It is the government of the day that must clean up its act to give the right impression, not only to the international community, but to the Canadian voters who have lost confidence in the integrity of their government.