Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-304, introduced by the Reform Party member for Yorkton—Melville and entitled an Act to amend an Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. In short, it is an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights.

At first glance, the subject appears appealing. The first clause proposes the following, and I quote:

Paragraph 1(a) of An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is replaced by the following:

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

This amendment to the existing legislation removes from subsection 1(a) the freedom of enjoyment of one's property. Everyone agrees that the freedom to enjoy one's property is a democratic freedom. One question, however: Is this an unconditional, universal, freedom?

We see what the member is after in clause 3. It proposes:

The Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:

2.1 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's property.

This is a fundamental statement of this bill: the right to private property. For most of us, private property refers immediately to our home, but it includes many other things, such as a house, car, land, bicycle, to name but a few.

I am no constitutional expert. However, I know that the provinces have jurisdiction over property and civil rights. It is therefore the responsibility of the provinces to legislate in areas involving personal property.

The member's bill therefore aims at establishing recognition of the right to property in federal legislation subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights, since it applies only to federal acts and institutions.

The right to enjoyment of property is found in subsection 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. So, we may well ask what the point of the bill is and what scope does the member intend for it. I think he is attempting to initiate a general debate on the right to private property based on the following assumption: the right to private property is a natural right and one that is outside of legislation.

But many ongoing situations show that personal rights, especially in connection to property, often have to be restricted for the common good. Take for example environmental issues. Environmental and public health protection require that legislation be passed that sometimes limits property rights by imposing strict regulations on companies.

Another example everyone, at least everyone in this place, knows about is the speed limit on roads and highways. Such rules limit my enjoyment of my car's performance. Yet, careless behaviour might see me lose the use of my car. Imagine how disastrous this would be.

The Firearms Registration Act is yet another example. I had no intention of ascribing motives to the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. And I will not do so. But after hearing his remarks, it seems clear to me that, in his opinion, should the Canadian Bill of Rights be amended as proposed in his bill, the firearm registration legislation would be impossible to enforce and would entail prohibitive costs as anyone could demand a hearing before a court of law under clauses 2.1(1) and 2.1(4).

Last century, the era of dyed-in-the-wool economic liberalism, certain decisions prevented the various Parliaments in Canada from interfering with private property either by confiscating it or by destroying it without compensation. Times have changed.

In the 20th century, Parliament can establish laws, and the public has the right to judge their legitimacy and morality.

This is easily illustrated. In the case of the surplus in the employment insurance fund, the current government can try to legalize its use for purposes other than those established. Should it go so far, the public will decide on the legitimacy and morality of such misappropriation.

As you can see, we have no intention of supporting this bill, because we think that the freedom of some stops where the freedom of others starts. This is the price of living in a harmonious and responsible society.

Canadian and Quebec society will never opt for the law of the jungle.

[The Late Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, allow me, on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, to offer our sincere condolences to the family and friends of a great parliamentarian, Lucien Lamoureux, who passed away on July 16 at the age of 77.

Mr. Lamoureux was born in Ottawa in 1920. He studied philosophy at the University of Ottawa and went on to earn a law degree from Osgoode Hall in Toronto in 1945. His first experience in the House of Commons was as assistant to Lionel Chevrier when he was a minister in the governments of Mackenzie King and Louis St-Laurent. In 1954, Mr. Lamoureux left Parliament Hill to practice law in Cornwall.

He returned to the House of Commons in 1962 as the Liberal member representing the people of Stormont—Dundas. He was re-elected in 1963 and appointed Deputy Speaker. Following the 1965 election, he became Speaker of the House and remained so until his retirement from politics in 1974.

During that time, he presided over 3,010 days of debate. He left his own mark on the Chair, because, in order to ensure the impartiality of the position of Speaker, he ran as an independent in the elections of 1968 and 1972 seeking the support of all parties. Both times he was re-elected with a strong majority.

In September 1974, he gave up active political life. He was appointed Canada's ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg, a position he held until 1980. From 1980 to 1985, he served as ambassador to Portugal. After his retirement from public life, in 1985, he settled in Belgium.

Recently, Mr. Lamoureux was named an Officer of the Order of Canada, an honour he was to receive at the end of July.

Mr. Lamoureux spent many years of his life in the service of his fellow citizens and of this place of assembly.

His family and friends should be proud of his accomplishments during his career. It is an honour for me as a parliamentarian to pay tribute to this man who marked the history of the House of Commons.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the minister is unable to defend his portfolio, that he is too weak in cabinet to defend those who are counting on him and that, in the end, he is the press secretary to the secretary of state of the Minister of Finance?

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Everyone knows he is ultimately responsible for the use made of the employment insurance fund.

Since the minister has already abdicated his responsibilities with respect to the Canada Pension Plan, can he, from his seat, assure people that he will never allow his colleague in finance to misappropriate the surplus in the employment insurance fund?

[Commonwealth Games, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to congratulate Canada's 275 athletes, and more particularly the 35 athletes from Quebec, who participated in the 16th Commonwealth Games held in Kuala Lumpur from September 11 to 21.

Their performances put Canada in third place among the 68 delegations. The team from Quebec included three young people from Laval, including 13-year-old Alexandre Despatie, who announced upon arriving in Dorval last night “mission accomplished”. He was right. His gold medal in the ten metre diving competition makes him the youngest Canadian gold medal winner in the Commonwealth Games, and likely the youngest medal winner in the history of the games.

Well done, Alexandre, and best of luck on your next mission, the 2000 Olympic Games.

[Criminal Code, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I had no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing to second Bill C-247, introduced by my colleague for Drummond and entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code.

I am therefore pleased to rise today during this last hour of debate on this bill. We are debating the necessity of clearly banning the cloning of human beings.

The rapid progress made in recent years in new reproductive technologies raises crucial questions on medical ethics.

Less than year ago, Dolly the sheep was in the headlines all over the world. Scientists in Scotland translated science fiction into reality by creating a lamb from a cell taken from an adult female sheep. She subsequently gave birth to a seemingly perfectly healthy lamb. The clone, a carbon copy of the original, caused a commotion throughout the world, and reopened the entire debate on regulating the new reproductive techniques.

If applied to human beings, this technique raises important ethical questions. Scientists say that cloning does not require very sophisticated technology and could unquestionably interest some scientists or provide an opportunity for rich eccentrics to realize dreams as dangerous as they are appealing.

In this respect, I draw your attention to the work of a Chicago scientist, Dr. Richard Seed, who wants to open a human cloning clinic to produce children for sterile couples, a new kind of fertility clinic. This announcement, reported by the press earlier in the year, makes us realize the extent of the problem.

This scientist applauds the absence of legislation in the United States; there is nothing preventing him from going ahead with his project. Should his country ever pass legislation prohibiting cloning, he would do his experimenting in Mexico. This is the context in which Bill C-247 takes its full significance. The only way to counter such behaviour is to prohibit the use of this technique altogether.

Because it involves the future of mankind, who we are as human beings, our origin and the whole way we relate to each other, to allow human cloning, appealing as it may sound, is to destroy the uniqueness of each individual.

Given the speed at which new reproductive technologies were developing, in 1989, the federal government established a royal commission of inquiry—better known as the Baird commission—on the subject.

Four years, and $28 million, later the commission handed in its report: 1,275 pages and 293 recommendations, including one to ban human cloning, and I quote “We have judged that certain activities conflict so sharply with the values espoused by Canadians and by this commission, and are so potentially harmful to the interests of individuals and of society, that they must be prohibited by the federal government under threat of criminal sanction. These actions include human zygote-embryo research related to ectogenesis, cloning—”. This is from page 1022 of the Baird commission's report.

Despite the urgency and importance of the problem related to ectogenesis, it was not until 1997 that the government decided to take action and introduced Bill C-47. But came the election and the bill died on the order paper.

Since the beginning of the 36th Parliament, the government has done nothing about this issue, although the situation is evolving rapidly and more than ever demands new legislative measures with respect to new reproductive technologies.

Canada is now one of the only major western countries that has had neither the courage nor the will to pass legislation with respect to these technologies.

Following the announcement by Dr. Seed, which I mentioned earlier, some 20 European nations approved a text prohibiting human cloning and introducing sanctions. This text completes the European convention on biomedicine signed by 22 member countries of the Council of Europe.

This measure will extend to all European countries that sign the protocol and will entail serious sanctions for infractions, in particular the loss of the right to practice for offending researchers. This measure will also apply to European citizens and European corporations operating outside Europe. These concrete measures should be echoed in North America. Bill C-247 is a step in that direction.

It was no accident that the Scottish lamb was given the name Dolly. No civilized society will ever have the right to give life to infinitely reproducible dolls. Our most precious asset is our identity, our right to freedom and life in every sense of the term.

I am confident that this bill will receive the unanimous approval of the House.

[International Nurses Day, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today, May 12, the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the famous lady with the lamp, is International Nurses Day.

I salute Canada's nurses with pride and respect, particularly my colleagues, the 67,000 nurses of Quebec. I recognize their competency, their professionalism, and above all their people skills. They are called upon to share people's suffering and grief, often in difficult, even painful, circumstances.

Nurses are everywhere, in the hospitals, in the CLSCs, in the schools, in the work place, in big cities and in outlying areas, playing a key role in both prevention and cure. The slogan of the Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec is “Consult a nurse”.

That invitation will no doubt be accepted, because a CROP poll conducted in Quebec at the height of the ice storm crisis ranked nurses first among all professionals in terms of trust. You deserve our trust more than ever, and we thank you.

[Hepatitis C, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Health claim he wants to find a real solution for the hepatitis C victims, if he does not announce his intention to inject more money, when he is the one who can afford to and this is a prerequisite to a solution?

[Hepatitis C, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The federal government is announcing that it will be seeking a consensus at this week's meeting with the ministers of health on settling the hepatitis C question.

Does the Minister of Health admit that, in order to reach a consensus between the provinces, given their far from equal financial means, he will have to agree to use some of the government surplus to inject more money in order to compensate victims?

[Armenian People, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on this 83rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to express its deepest sympathy to the Armenian community and its admiration for the courage of Armenians who, for many years, suffered atrocities under the Ottoman Empire.

Unfortunately, the government opposite has always refused to recognize the Armenian genocide. Yet, the facts speak for themselves. From 1915 to 1923, close to two million Armenians were executed or deported by the Ottoman government of Turkey.

The commemoration of the Armenian genocide reminds Quebeckers and Canadians that any country that resorts to violence as a political instrument—a genocide being the most extreme form of such violence—is committing a crime against humanity.

Today, along with the Armenian community, the Bloc Quebecois remembers.