Jeannot Castonguay

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the amendments in Group No. 5.

First I would like to remind this House that Bill C-13 addresses the wish of all Canadians to know that the use of human embryos will be subject to the strictest supervision necessary. The use of an embryo, without exception, will require authorization from the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada.

Motions No. 6, 81, 82 and 86 are not necessary because they do not add anything to the agency's ability to decide who will be granted or denied authorization, and why. Let us not forget that researchers will have to convince the agency that the use of an embryo is necessary for the research they want to conduct. Bill C-13 will allow research using an embryo as long as it is in accordance with the regulations. These regulations are intended to allow beneficial research. This is also a government responsibility. That is the balance struck by Bill C-13.

With this bill, the door to research using embryos is locked. Only the agency will have the key to open that door. The agency will have to be accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian public any time it does so. Without Bill C-13, the door is wide open to research using embryos. At the present time, anything is allowed because there are no controls. This is a huge void that we wish to address, and that we must address.

There is one thing I would like to make clear. The purpose of Bill C-13 is not to control research with embryonic stem cells, let alone adult stem cells. The purpose of Bill C-13 is to control the use of surplus human embryos. That is the objective. For example, we want to control whether or not a researcher may derive stem cells from a surplus embryo. It was created for reproductive purposes. The couple can decide that they no longer need it for reproductive purposes and allow it to be used for research.

When stem cells are derived from the embryo, they lose they initial essence in that they can no longer become embryos. This is a scientific impossibility, as indeed are the polyspermic embryos addressed by Motion No. 9.

Since derived stem cells cannot become embryos, they do not, therefore, come within the scope of Bill C-13. The source of embryonic stem cells, meaning an in vitro human embryo, does.

I would add a word here about the need for research using the two types of stem cells, adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Bill C-13 does not hinder research on adult stem cells. It does not change existing government subsidies for this type of research.

The government is hearing what scientists are requesting, which is that all types of stem cell research be allowed. I shall quote Dr. Freda Miller, an internationally renowned adult stem cell researcher, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health and said:

My...fear...is that my work with adult stem cells...would be used as a rationale for halting the work on human embryonic stem cells. Then, if the adult stem cells don't come to fruition, we're left with nothing...but by allowing the co-development of both sources, you're expediting the potential therapy that will be derived from adult stem cells, so that maybe one day we don't have to use the embryonic stem cells therapeutically.

I would like to be clear about Motion No. 88. If it is passed, doctors will be required to treat each of their patients the same way. This is an unacceptable approach that could put the health and even the life of some Canadians at risk. Motion No. 88 is reckless. It goes well beyond the scope of Bill C-13.

In terms of the guidelines for Canadian Institutes of Health Research, even the criteria and requirements set out in the document entitled Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research: Guidelines , will be subject to the regulations of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

The legislation does not have to comply with the guidelines; rather, the reverse. That is not the case right now because such legislation does not exist. Therefore, it is important to pass Bill C-13 as soon as possible.

[Heart Disease Awareness Month, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to inform the House and Canadians that February is Heart Disease Awareness Month.

Heart disease, the leading cause of death in Canada, is responsible for 36% of all deaths in Canada, approximately 80,000 Canadians, each year. This is a terrible toll.

Health Canada is proud of its 15-year collaboration with the Canadian Heart Health Initiative, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Coalition for High Blood Pressure Prevention and Control, and numerous other organizations dedicated to encouraging healthy living for Canadians.

By eating right, keeping physically active and not smoking, we can control the major risk factors and prevent or slow down the onset of this disease.

By working together, we can reach our objective of eliminating this modern epidemic of heart disease and improve the quality of life of all Canadians.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very interesting discussion we are having today. I think that parliamentarians are expressing very important opinions. I believe that this debate is important in itself. I want to thank everyone who is taking part.

Now, with regard to Motion No. 72, there is a point that seems to be the subject of some confusion. I will try my best to shed a little light on this issue.

First, the government understands the concerns that led the members of the standing committee to vote in favour of what is now subsection 26(8). However, there is a tendency to stop at subsection 26(8) and to forget about subsection 26(9). I will come back to this.

This is why the government proposed an amendment that was adopted in committee, in order to ensure that members of the board of directors would not be in a conflict of interest.

This is also why we have always insisted on the need for the board of directors and its members to act with transparency and accountability.

However, the amendment proposed in committee by the government, which is now subsection 26(9), places certain requirements on all potential and current members of the board of directors.

A person is not eligible to be a member of the board of directors if they hold a licence or are an applicant for a licence or a director, officer, shareholder or partner of a licensee or applicant for a licence. These requirements are very strict and appropriate.

The members will be examining a certain number of complex and delicate issues, we all agree. Canadians must be certain that the members' work will not be affected by conflicts of interest.

However, subsection 26(8) goes too far when it excludes potential members for reasons that go well beyond real conflicts of interest. I would say that they even risk undermining the important provisions in subsection 26(2), which stipulates that “the membership of the board of directors must reflect a range of backgrounds and disciplines relevant to the Agency's objectives”.

So, the wording of subsection 26(8) remains such that it excludes complete categories of people from certain areas or fields from sitting on the board of directors. It likely excludes doctors, scientists, nurses, counsellors, ethicists, and their spouses, even if they, personally, have nothing to do with assisted reproduction. This provision would undermine the credibility of the board of directors.

The consequences of the clause in question would even be absurd. It stipulates that a person may not have any direct or indirect interest in any business that operates in industries whose products or services are used in the reproductive technologies. This would exclude lawyers, insurance agents, plumbers, electricians, accountants, paper suppliers and so on. These people would be excluded simply because their business is part of an industry that provides products or services for assisted reproduction, even if they personally do not. This restriction would exclude people who have no imaginable conflict of interest with their duties on the board of directors.

Allow me to describe a situation for members of the House and for members of the public who are listening. Imagine if the government wanted to appoint a woman to the board of directors who is not a specialist, who has been active in her area for many years. She has earned respect based on her wisdom, her good judgment, her common sense and her great knowledge. However, there is a problem. Her husband works for a company that produces medical equipment. This company does not make equipment that is used in assisted reproduction, but, obviously, other companies in the same industry do.

The candidate in question would have to be rejected, not because she is not qualified and not because she stands to benefit financially from the agency's activities. She would be rejected because she has an indirect interest in a business that is part of an industry that provides products to in vitro fertilization clinics.

This case clearly illustrates the flaws in clause 26(8). The amendment proposed would guarantee that advisers and other health care professionals in addition to scientists, ethics counsellors and their spouses could sit as directors, as long as they meet the rigorous requirements regarding conflicts of interest, which are set out in clause 26(9).

Their skills would complement those of other directors representing a variety of areas and disciplines, including lay people. This conflict of interest provision is in addition to the rigorous conflict of interest and post-employment code by which all governor in council appointees are already bound.

That is how we can be sure to have the strongest possible board of directors and it is in the interest of all Canadians and anyone who uses fertility clinics.

I hope to have shed light on this section, which seems to have caused a great deal of confusion. Once again, I would like to stress that section 9, which follows section 8, is extremely important under the circumstances.

In terms of Motion No. 52, with regard to professional counselling services, there are few circumstances in Canada where legislation, particularly federal legislation, requires people to obtain psychosocial counselling.

However, the current wording of subsection 14(2) (b) would make it mandatory not only for all donors of gametes or embryos, but also for anyone who uses any type of assisted reproduction techniques to seek professional counselling.

Many in this House are of the opinion that counselling is useful, desirable even, in all situations, but that is not what we are dealing with here. Instead, it is a matter of determining whether it is appropriate to use legislation to force people to seek counselling. I would respectfully submit that this is not appropriate.

I also feel that it would expose the legislation to challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the grounds that the State was trampling on people's freedom. If such a challenge were successful, it might put an end to all obligations to seek counselling services, which would leave no legal obligation in this area.

The amendment proposed by the government is not aimed at perpetuating the status quo. At the present time, there are a variety of approaches to counselling services in the country's clinics. Some provide them, some do not. The amendment in question would impose upon the clinics the legal obligation to make professional counselling services available.

I would like to say a few words on Motion No. 71, which might raise some questions. It deals with the composition of the board of directors of the regulatory agency. Are 50% of the board members of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency required to be women? I do not believe so. I shall try to explain.

What is important is for the most competent people to be appointed to the board of directors and to do a good job. This could mean that at one point the majority of board members could be women, but the situation could change. Let us focus on having members selected for their competency. Let us focus on the choice of competent men and women.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this morning to speak on Bill C-13. For several months, the committee worked very hard and vigorously on this bill to try to come up with a reasonable bill that would meet the needs of Canadians. Today, we are finalizing details and putting forward legislation that meets the needs of Canadians.

Some will say that the government did not listen to the committee. Personally, I had the privilege of sitting on the committee from the beginning and I would say we had very interesting discussions, which were quite spirited at times. Views were expressed in all earnestness by committee members. Consequently, we have today a bill that reflects the committee's position. I do not agree that anyone tried to push without earnestly listening or considering what others had to say. I therefore differ on this.

As regards Motion No. 4 currently being debated, here is a great example of the extent to which committee members listened to the presentations. This is why we feel we ought not to support Motion No. 4. We feel that in an advanced society like ours, there should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It used to be the case 50 years ago, but in our advanced society, we are recognizing that individuals are entitled to their particular sexual orientation; we cannot even tell whether it is a matter of choice or whether such is their nature.

I am very pleased to participate in the consideration of this bill in the House of Commons in order to finalize a number of details. I am convinced that all parliamentarians will have a chance to take part in the debate. All are welcome to express their opinions on this bill.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am a federal member, but I also worked in health care for more than 26 years. I believe that there are also people at the federal level who know what Canadians need.

That said, it has always been our intention to collaborate with the provinces. As I mentioned earlier, we will continue to do so, to collaborate and to try to establish common goals together. I repeat what I said earlier. We do not intend to micromanage or to meddle. However, we will have to be accountable to Canadians about how the money invested in health care is being spent. I want to reassure the hon. member that we will do this. I am convinced that the first ministers will reach an agreement on common goals and on the importance of being accountable to Canadians.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete my colleague's question. The question that he asked in the House at that time was clear. I will even take the time to read it, “How dare the federal government interfere in the management of health care across Canada when it is not even able to properly manage what comes directly under its jurisdiction?”

I will certainly inform the member of our position with regard to health care. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to his question. He has suggested that the federal government wishes to intrude upon the proper business of the provinces and territories in managing and planning health care delivery. The facts do not support the assertion that the federal government is, or has any intention of, micromanaging the health care system.

We have received the report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care, and our first response has been to sit down with the provincial and territorial health ministers to discuss the recommendations made by Mr. Romanow. We are looking to find common ground and identify the priority areas that are important to all the provinces and to the federal government and on which we can reach an agreement with the provinces and territories. This has always been our intention and this is the goal that the health ministers and first ministers are striving to achieve.

Again, we stand ready to make new investments that will assist the provinces and territories to continue to develop their health care systems to meet the present and future needs of Canadians.

We firmly believe that pointing fingers at one another will lead us nowhere and that we need instead to work together toward common objectives. That is what we intend to do and that is what the first ministers will be discussing when they meet on February 4 and 5 of this year.

We believe in the importance of partnership. Gone is the time when every jurisdiction was just looking out for itself and pointing fingers. I can assure the member that we do not intend to micromanage the health care system with the provinces. However, Canadians want to know how investments in health care will be used. I believe that we all have an obligation, whether at the federal or provincial level, to be accountable to Canadians, and we will do that. I am sure that, working with the provinces, we will succeed in reaching our goal.

[The Environment, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is going to be honoured today by the Sierra Club for his commitment to the Kyoto protocol. He will be awarded the John Fraser Award for Environmental Achievement.

This award is in recognition of the scope of the environmental initiatives put in place by the Liberal government.

Canada has played a lead role in the Kyoto protocol negotiations. Future generations will reap the rewards of the steps taken throughout the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Prime Minister has shown his determination to enhance the health and well-being of Canadians, and to ensure a future for our children and grandchildren. Preservation of the environment is an important legacy. This honour is richly deserved.

Congratulations and thank you, Prime Minister. Holiday greetings to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all our colleagues in the House.

[Tobacco Industry, December 12th, 2002]

It is clear that in deciding whether or not to ban the term “light” from cigarette packages, we will have to make sure that the decision is not made in isolation but in a global context to reflect the overall complexity of this issue. This is what we will do.

[Tobacco Industry, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question and I thank my hon. colleague for having raised it in the House. It is also a very complex question.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am very happy to hear my hon. colleague state that statistics can be made to say whatever we want them to. This is frequently what happens when the provinces talk about the federal government's contribution of 14%, when it is quite clear that this is not the case.

That said, I am not entirely in agreement with my hon. colleague about needing to live in the past and stir up stories from the past. I believe that we have to look forward and improve the current system. We know quite well that there are problems. There will always be problems. We are human, we do not live in a perfect world

However, we took steps in the right direction when we decided to work together with the provinces to become more accountable to Canadians. We are on the right track and we will continue in this direction under the current government.