Antoine Dubé

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, November 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, we have noticed that most of the members taking part in this debate were from Ontario. We understand why.

The largest concentration of automakers is found in Ontario. In a way, we cannot blame the Ontario Liberal members for defending the interests of their province. At the same time, Quebec members, like me, cannot be blamed for defending Quebec's interests, not only the interests of Quebec but those of the other provinces as well. Ontario is somewhat in a minority position on this issue.

Earlier, the hon. member for Mercier talked about the businesses and the refineries located in her riding. I have the same situation in my riding of Lévis, where the Ultramar refinery, one of the most modern and the second best performing refinery in North America, is located. Even though it performs well and as such is less threatened than the one mentioned by the member for Mercier in the Montreal area, its managers have told me that if this bill passes as it is, that will have an impact on the refinery, on the jobs and most of all, as we should not forget, on car owners.

As for Quebec, the impact could reach $7 million, as was mentioned in a newspaper article this morning. I think it is a lot more, because some people want to change the rules in the interests of Ontario where all the automakers are located. But it is also for another reason.

What do they want to replace MMT with? Ethanol. Who are those most in favour of ethanol? Again, Ontario members. We have nothing against those who stand up for the interests of their riding, of their region; but we also have the right to stand up for the interests of ours. We can see that the bill only takes Ontario's interests into account. That is unacceptable.

Since I have only ten minutes, I will state ten facts that the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute pointed out in a letter in answer to the Automobile Club people.

The first point mentioned in the letter is the following: "The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and its members are not opposed to prohibiting MMT and have pledged to withdraw this product should there be any evidence", and here comes the important part, "that the presence of this substance in gasoline is a threat to health or to the environment".

This is the problem. No harmful effect was demonstrated. If it was proven that MMT is dangerous, or that manganese, which is one of its elements, is dangerous, what would Health Canada or the Department of the Environment do? They would ban this product. This bill, however, merely seeks to prohibit its use in gasoline. A product is either toxic or it is not. The fact is that neither the health department nor the environment department banned this product.

Second point: "Car manufacturers never clearly and factually proved that MMT could adversely affect the operation of catalytic converters". This has not been proven.

Third point: "Health Canada formally, publicly and in writing, stated that there was no proof whatsoever that MMT was a threat to the health of Canadians".

As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I checked this out. A study commissioned by Health Canada reveals that only one manganese-related death was ever recorded in the world. This death, which occurred in 1941 in Japan, was not linked to MMT but to manganese, and a considerable dose was involved.

That was the only case ever recorded. Health Canada has experts who maintain that, in quantities such as those currently found in MMT, manganese is not dangerous. Not only is it not dangerous, it is necessary to neutralize certain products in gasoline and prevent pollution. In other words, it makes certain gasoline products less

polluting. It is used not only to reduce the octane number, but also to keep in check other pollutants found in gasoline.

Fourth point: "Putting MMT in gasoline helps reduce toxic emissions". This is what I just told you about.

Fifth point: "At the recent conference of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Energy, eight provinces opposed Bill C-29. Moreover, the premiers of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan wrote the Prime Minister, asking that the bill be withdrawn. As for Quebec, the National Assembly unanimously approved a motion asking for the withdrawal of Bill C-29". This motion was adopted by all the parties, including the Liberal Party of Quebec. From time to time, members of the Liberal Party of Canada should listen to their provincial counterparts. But they do not.

Sixth point: "On the federal level, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister for International Trade have come out against Bill C-29." Obviously, they were swallowed up by cabinet solidarity at that point, and so nothing more has been heard from them, but they had already indicated their opposition to the minister.

Seventh point: "Bill C-29 banning international trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of MMT constitutes a violation of NAFTA-this is the written opinion of Gordon Ritchie, former Canadian NAFTA negotiator-and of the interprovincial trade treaty". That means there is a risk of prosecution, and I believe some legal challenges are already in the works.

Eighth point: "The automobile makers have refused our organization's proposal to have a fully independent body examine and report on the situation".

If a complete, independent, exhaustive study proved that there is indeed a danger, then we in the official opposition would also respect the findings. The official opposition is opposed, but this is because the government has not proven its case.

What are they doing instead? Yesterday, a motion was adopted to gag the House by limiting the duration of the debate, in order to get this bill through quickly. This attitude is becoming increasingly common, and the opposition objects. When someone wants to gag democracy, they try to paralyze the opposition. They try to rush bills through when the Christmas or summer break is coming up. As usual, the Liberal government is still trying to put one over us, thinking that we will soon forget about it, because it is nearly time for the Christmas parties to begin. But this is serious.

Ninth point: "Banning MMT constitutes a threat to the competitiveness of the Quebec refining industry, and would be contrary to the interests of Quebec drivers".

The tenth and last point is that the government stubbornly insists it is right in this case. The Deputy Prime Minister began this debate when she was Minister of the Environment in 1995, obviously also putting the interests of Ontario first. She started it, and the government tabled a bill. Now it has less and less faith in its evidence, as it has really not proven anything. The only way to proceed then is to push it ahead as fast as possible, by gagging the House, so that it can get its way as usual.

Former Social Credit leader Réal Caouette sometimes had some good quotes. He used to say: "The government has your good at heart, and it will manage to get its hands on your goods as well". That is what the government has on its mind with this bill. The heck with the financial consequences, it says, the heck with the consequences for hundreds, even thousands of jobs. It thumbs its nose at all of this.

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Mercier, one can see that she has gotten a reaction from the other side, the government side. When there is that kind of reaction, it is because there is some uncertainty as to what is being advanced.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I am pleased to speak during this debate on the new reproductive technologies, and the commercial operations-I must call them for what they are-commercial operations relating to human reproduction.

Before going any further, I would like to call attention to the work of the two official opposition critics who have spoken out in turn against the Liberal government in this matter. I refer, of course, to the work of the present critic, the hon. member for Drummond, and that of the hon. member for Laval-Centre. Since our arrival here, this has been a part of the debate in the House of Commons.

Let us recall what the hon. member for Mercier has already mentioned: that this amendment to the Criminal Code has been wished for and called for since 1977. There was the Baird Commission, created in 1989. The commission members produced four years worth of studies, deliberations and reports. Perhaps we ought to point out that there were some little problems within this commission, some resignations by commission members. It was pretty costly, I will not say very costly, but pretty costly, at $28 million.

Mind you, the commission heard 40,000 witnesses; there are not a lot of precedents for this. No provincial government, at least none in Quebec, has ever heard so many witnesses. They heard many, many people. The commission eventually delivered close to 300 recommendations and finally, in the fall of 1993, a huge, 1,435-page report.

Two years passed between 1993 and July 1995. The fall of 1993 coincided with the election of the Liberal Party, which now forms the government. During those two years, nothing much happened. Some statements were made but nothing of any consequence happened. In the summer of 1995, there was this so-called voluntary moratorium. A voluntary moratorium.

When a problem is as important as this one, the word "voluntary" raises a number of questions.

In fact, a number of questions were raised in the House, and two ministers provided a response. To illustrate what the hon. member for Mercier just mentioned, for a while, it was the Minister of Justice who answered the questions. We know that at the time, the Minister of Justice considered amending the Criminal Code. Opposition members like the hon. member for Drummond and the hon. member for Laval-Centre were in favour of this kind of intervention. They were in favour of a bill that would amend the Criminal Code.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. The government took a different approach, and it was the Minister of Health who introduced the present bill which is legislative in nature but, in addition, creates a federal agency, and I may recall the proceedings of the committee and the debate around these proceedings.

We in the opposition are aware of the importance of the problems affected by this bill. So much so that we wanted a bill that would amend the Criminal Code. We agree there were a lot of problems with this bill. It is a bill that could be very complex because the problems are complex. The bill touches on ethical, moral, medical and scientific considerations. Many other areas are affected by this bill, but there is also the whole question of the problems of infertile couples who want children.

This issue is not trivial; it is extremely important. In spite of a voluntary moratorium, we were still seeing ads in papers, mostly university papers, promoting trading in ova and sperm and dealing with every aspect of human reproduction, which shows that this voluntary moratorium did not work. This is why we, in the opposition, want to see the Criminal Code amended.

When reviewing a bill, each member has his or her way of assessing things. For my part, I always try to answer the following five questions: Does the bill clarify matters? I will answer this later. Second, is the bill all encompassing? Does it cover all the issues? When you first look at a bill with only 13 clauses and a few pages, you might wonder, on a primary level, if it is all encompassing. I will get back to this later.

Third, will this bill be effective? Because a bill which is not effective and is unenforceable is nothing more than wishful thinking. I must certainly ask myself this question.

Fourth, does this bill respect jurisdictions? I will say more on this later. I point out that, under the Constitution, health is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Fifth, does the bill respect individual rights? We have a charter of rights and freedoms. It is former Prime Minister Trudeau who developed it and enshrined it in the Constitution. This question must be asked from this perspective.

I will try to answer all five questions.

First, does it clarify matters?

No. On some aspects, yes, on some others, no.

First, let us look at the definitions. Earlier, I did more research in addition to the research I had done previously by looking in the two dictionaries available to us. Some people we consulted, for example, the physicians tell us that some definitions correspond, that they are correct. Others tell us that the definitions used present a problem.

When, at the start of a bill, the definitions are problematic in terms of medical research, of medicine or of sciences, there is a slight problem. This means that it is not very clear.

Another striking problem is the inconsistency between the French and the English titles. In one language, it is called "manipulation génétique", in the other, genetic technologies. "Manipulation", technologies, in the case of such a crucial subject, I wonder if particular attention should not be paid to those terms. Of course, as members of the Standing Committee on Health, we shall be in a position to ask questions and suggest some clarifications at the proper time. This is not a trivial issue.

Also, there is no distinction made between assisted reproduction and fundamental research. Those are two different things. The first one refers to care and treatment, the second one to medical research in genetics. Those are two distinct areas and to treat them without distinction is dangerous.

Another question is: Is this bill complete? After so much study and so many pages of committee reports, we would think that it should be complete, but it is not because, first, it leaves a lot of room to rules and, second, it also leaves a lot of room for interpretation by the new federal agency that will be created of new rules.

Bill C-47 is an incomplete legislation that is far from meeting the expectations raised by the government. Even in the information paper, the government tried to set limits and protect health.

On page 48 of this document, we see that the government intends to start the third and most complex phase of its plan to manage new reproductive technologies, that is, the development of regulations. This clearly indicates that the biggest part remains to be done, because the 13 clauses of the present bill are not enough to give it its full dimensions.

I have here a letter from the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, which wrote to all members of the Standing Committee on Health, to say:

If this bill is approved without any amendment, it will have very bad consequences for medical and scientific communities-

I can understand its point. It concluded that: "-this legislation did not receive all the consideration that is usually given to bills as important as this one".

When a bill is said to be complete, one should feel that opinions have been heard from every angle. I will stop here.

Is the bill in question effective? We answer no. If the government had wanted this bill to be effective, as the hon. member for Mercier said earlier, as the hon. member for Drummond asked for many times, this bill would have had to change the Criminal Code.

This is not what it does. It purports to create an agency and leaves a lot of room for interpretation and for regulations that will elude this House and the legislators.

The bill also brings other legislation that is parallel to the Criminal Code, that is being added to the rest.

Already, it is not simple for the federal government and the provinces to operate together in this country, especially in sometimes shared, sometimes exclusive jurisdictions. The federal government is adding a new dimension, another agency to further complicate things.

We realize the trend is always the same. We saw it in the motions put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga-South today and on many occasions. Essentially, what we feel is a willingness to centralize the federal authority. Speaking about jurisdictions, this perpetuates a federal interference in an area belonging to Quebec and the provinces.

The announced creation of a national agency is unacceptable. Yet another agency. Recently, an agency was created to inspect food. We are talking about all areas. Every time the government has legislated in the past three years, its first reaction was to intervene through national standards or guidelines or, more subtly,

through a federal agency responsible for implementing the rules set by a minister. It does not always do so, but it very often does.

This agency could take advantage of the rather vague provisions and definitions in the bill to extend its activities to areas other than new reproductive technologies. This supposedly independent agency would in fact have to comply with the standards set by the Minister of Health.

Fifth, there are individual rights. In an article published in Le Devoir , Josée Legault raised some questions:

In this context, would it not be preferable to better monitor current practices instead of taking the risk of making them impractical, if not criminal?

She asked this question. It is not necessarily our opinion, but it is an opinion that must be heard.

She went on to say:

In addition, the first time an infertile woman or couple is fined or sued, Ottawa may well find itself trapped in its own charter of rights.

We on this side of the House are not sure this review was done properly. What Josée Legault says is her own opinion.

In any case, it is about time the Liberal government legislated in this area, although we would have preferred that it do so by amending the Criminal Code. We do not understand why this is not the case and we are very disappointed. This bill, which the Standing Orders prevent me from showing you, is quite thin, only 13 clauses for such an important, multidimensional problem in terms of values.

I do not know if my female colleagues in the official opposition would allow me to use this phrase, but I will take the risk; I feel that, as far as the new reproductive technologies are concerned, the elephant has just given birth to a mouse.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate you on your appointment, since this is the first time I have risen in this House while you are in the chair.

The public must have realized by now that the official opposition has been spending a lot of time adding subtlety and drawing attention to one important factor: the famous guidelines. Whether they are called guidelines, national standards or national goals, they are all the same to me. They reflect the federal government's intention, its one constant goal, which is to set criteria and to impose them on the provinces. The Reform Party's proposal goes in the same direction. The Reform Party goes even further than the Liberal Party. It wants the guidelines to be tabled in the House of Commons. Therefore, the federal government would reign supreme.

I am not a former history professor like my hon. colleague from Mercier, but I have read a lot of books on this topic, as I imagine many Canadians and Quebecers have done.

Recently, I was rereading Mr. Lacoursière. What is Canada made of? What is Canada? What is the Canadian Confederation? What is the Act of 1867? It was the unification of Upper Canada and Lower Canada to form Confederation. Then two former British colonies joined in, and that gave us the four founding provinces of the Canadian Confederation.

At the time, according to the spirit and the letter of the agreement, there was to have been not only a federal Parliament, but also provinces that would work together to try to forecast and structure the future of the country, its social climate and that of its member states.

But then, we have to recognize that the current government continues a heavy practice. No need to list all the bills that have been passed here, but what do we see in most of them, in the major ones? There were national standards concerning post-secondary education. There were also national standards concerning student loans. Concerning health care, we all know the five famous guidelines which the federal government insists that we follow in spite of cuts in the provincial spending and in the transfers to the provinces.

What is the impact of all these measures? The provinces are obliged to cut health care. Free education and access to education are called into question. Apart from the cuts to unemployment insurance, certain vested rights of the provinces, including Quebec, are called into question.

And always these same guidelines. Sometimes, it is a question of principle, but we must be cautious with matters of principle. The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, has a responsibility to criticize, to see to it that words really say what they mean to say in the bill and to anticipate applications down the road.

Obviously, the concept of federalism of the members opposite and the third party is very different from the one Quebecers have always had. The federal government always prevail over the powers and responsibilities of the provinces, while, as I said, there was originally a spirit of equality, a balance of powers.

Unfortunately, this Prime Minister's Liberal government increasingly takes advantage of all opportunities to monitor, limit the powers and dictate the guidelines of the provinces. This touches upon the most distinct elements of the Quebec society, since families and children are its future, because we do not want to remain silent each time the current federal government tries to put the Quebec government in its place.

The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm rightly reminded us that we get married under the civil code and that Quebec is the only province to have a distinct civil code. And we divorce under the federal system? That is completely nonsensical. However, I can understand why members from other provinces do not see any problem in that. They are not in the same situation as Quebec because they have no civil code, they have the same system as the federal government.

To them, it does not make any difference if you get married under the provincial system and you get divorced under the federal system. I understand. That is one of the problems of federalism as

it exists now. I have travelled a lot outside Quebec, and we are always faced with the same misunderstanding. Even the most fair-minded people do not understand our situation. One day, you will have to recognize that our system in Quebec is different from that of the other provinces. That is what we have been telling you and that is why many of us are taking part in this debate today, to show you once again that we are different. You have to understand that.

We are different and we want to stay that way. We understand what is good and what is not. There are extraordinary principles in this bill, but the problem is in the way they are applied.

That is the area where, suspicious as we are, we are concerned about inequities. And with good reason. Bill after bill, we keep proposing amendments that would help Quebec feel more comfortable in the federal system, but the government keeps rejecting them each and every time. We were showered with love a few days before the referendum, but we can see that, one year later, those sentiments have cooled off somewhat.

So we have to repeat over and over again, as we are doing today, that we are different. From now on, we want laws that reflect our differences, our culture, our special way of doing things. It is as simple as that. It is not an aggressive message. We are not saying that the other provinces are wrong not to attach that much importance to this issue. But, to us, it is very important.

And it is not only for us. Since we are talking about children here, we are talking about the future, and when we talk about the future, we must take all the necessary precautions to make sure that those who will come after us recognize the important work we are doing today. That is why, once again, we must explain to our colleagues from the two other parties in this House that we are indeed different.

[The Tobacco Industry, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister himself recognized, in a letter to the Du Maurier concert listeners, the importance of the funding provided by tobacco companies to artistic activities, will the heritage minister agree, like the Prime Minister, that the investment of $60 million made by these companies is indispensable to the staging of several major cultural and sporting events?

[The Tobacco Industry, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

This morning, some 20 organizers of major cultural and sporting events sent a cry for help. The survival of their events will be in jeopardy if the government passes a bill prohibiting sponsoring by tobacco companies.

Will the minister guarantee that her government will not take any measures that would jeopardize major cultural and sporting events such as the Montreal jazz festival, the Just for Laughs festival, or the international film festival in Toronto or in Vancouver?

[Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn to speak to this important topic which demonstrates-and I shall, if I may, start my speech by recalling this fact-that in this area, Canadian federalism is hardly the ideal model.

We get married under provincial jurisdiction and we get divorced under federal jurisdiction. The result, in the course of this debate on the motions, on federal guidelines, is that a large part of the population has been overlooked. There is an increasingly widespread phenomenon in our society and I am referring to the increase in common law marriages, common law spouses who are not married. If these people have children, they are not subject to these provisions, which creates a third group. This is rather incredible.

As we keep reminding the House, all this should be placed under the jurisdiction of a single government, the one that is closest to us. Because this is a very vital part of the social fabric, it should under provincial jurisdiction.

People will say: That is the way it is. The fact remains that the situation is there. And just because it is there does not mean we should not try to change it. We wish it would change, except that meanwhile, we cannot object and ask for guidelines that would take into account these different situations.

More and more frequently, people are moving, either from province to province or even out of the country. Today, it would be unacceptable to have standards that would be so different that children who are supposed to benefit under the new system would be penalized with respect to their vital needs because support payments would not follow the same guidelines.

This set of amendments can be interpreted any way you like. In any case, we in the Bloc Quebecois object because this goes against the amendments we proposed previously, those in Group No. 1. We see words like "including" used in the bill to get around the

guidelines. Parties in this House who are against our position are trying to water down the debate, to restrict the benefits and, in the final instance, to penalize those we want to help, in this case the children.

I am not an expert on the topic, but as a parliamentarian who is concerned about the well-being of his fellow citizens and as a former member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I am very disturbed by all the poverty that exists in our communities. We can never repeat often enough that one child out of five in Canada lives in poverty. This happens most often in single parent families where the mother has to manage the family budget. Unfortunately, throughout the world today, and in Canada as well, the gap between rich and poor is broadening. The incomes of the poorest and the most vulnerable among us are going down, not up. There are children who lack the necessities of life.

Studies, including some major analyses and studies, clearly show that during the first years of his or her life, a child requires not only proper nutrition, but must also the proper emotional environment-not only maternal but also paternal. My opinion as a man is that, when it comes to child support, men must continue to assume their responsibilities. This is more than a financial matter.

However, finances remain an important aspect because when those responsible for managing the family budget do not have the necessary resources, the absolute minimum, the future of our children becomes a concern. This can have serious consequences, not only on their health, but also on the way they trust society.

They may grow up with feelings of frustration, which is not healthy for a society. It is not healthy for the equality of opportunities.

This is why I wanted to address this issue. We can never stress enough that those who must benefit, those who must get our attention, are the children. If we want them to be healthy, to be involved in a healthy way in the future of society, whether it be in Quebec or Canada, social measures are required to ensure them of equal opportunities.

[Income Tax Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga South, whom I know well as we both sit on the Standing Committee on Health. I have often had discussions with him and I know that he is a kindhearted man. This is not the kind of motion that can be rejected out of hand.

I say this with certain reservations, however. The motion could not be approved without any amendments either, as it may involve changes to programs.

Our listeners must realize that the federal government, and the provinces as well, may decide to go one of two ways. The first and more familiar one is through programs, by providing grants, funding public services or supporting quasi-public services for seniors, families and so forth, but always through funding. This is often the budget item that attracts the most attention.

What the hon. member for Mississauga South is proposing today is a tax credit for those who provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, or the aged. There is nothing wrong with that.

Of course the federal and provincial governments alike should help these people, especially if they are using incentives, a positive approach instead of creating obligations. Only those who can, and really have the means to do so, provide such care. It is proposed to provide tax credits, which means giving a little more to those who give their time to improve the well-being of preschool children or persons who have become incapacitated.

I would like to focus on the disabled. I imagine most members have organizations dedicated to the disabled in their ridings. In my riding, there is one that has been around for many years-I even worked for them before getting elected-and its goal is to help the disabled get integrated into society or at least ensure that they live at home instead of being institutionalized.

This involves some support from either close family members or anyone willing to help, be it out of friendship or kindheartedness. They need someone to provide some support.

The same could be said about the aged. For some years now, it has been the policy, in Quebec at least, to help the aged, even those who are progressively more incapacitated, live at home as long as possible. To this end, they are provided with access to home care and other services. But despite these efforts, all their needs are not met, and that is where a family member can make a valuable contribution.

Let us also take a look at the consequences of the move toward ambulatory care. In Quebec, some families are hit harder than before in the sense that limiting hospital stays acts as an incentive to let the patient go home as quickly as possible, but there has to be someone to give them a hand after they leave the hospital.

So, the period in question can be very short, but it can also be rather long. Therefore, the tax credit formula suggested by the hon. member deserves consideration. Indeed, when a person requires regular care over a period of a few months, but only for an hour or two per day, we should encourage people to provide such care at home, instead of taking the person to the hospital.

However, this solution poses a number of problems, and the hon. member for Joliette mentioned some of them at the beginning of the debate. We do have some reservations and concerns. Should the government accept the proposal made by one of its members, would it result in an attempt to make a change? We do not want to sound overly distrustful but, given this government's pattern in its attempts to make changes, we have learned to become distrustful of these attempts, and for good reason.

Does it mean that some expenditures should be eliminated at the same time? This is unfortunately the case. I am referring to the transfers to the provinces, more specifically to the new Canada social transfer, which we have been hearing about since last year. All the moneys paid to the provinces for health, post-secondary education and social assistance now come out of this single fund. All these sectors have been grouped together, However, the government took this opportunity to significantly reduce the amounts transferred. In the case of Quebec, the shortfall will total billions of dollars. Those who are watching us are very familiar with the process: the federal government targets our provincial government, which then has no choice but to make cuts, including in the health sector. Indeed, people must realize that such cuts are the result of a reduction in transfer payments.

Personally, I would find it hypocritical on the federal government's part to suddenly be generous by granting more tax deductions and credits to caregivers if, at the same time, it kept making cuts in transfers to the provinces. These things must be explained to our fellow citizens. My three years in this House have taught me to be suspicious and critical of the government's actions, which is the role of the official opposition.

I know the hon. member who tabled the motion. He is a very generous person. I also know the hon. member who spoke before me, and I realize that government members have good intentions. However, what would the government do with such a motion? Would it use it as encouragement to continue making cuts in transfers to the provinces, cuts that affect precisely those people whom the hon. member for Mississauga South wants to help? These are the reservations I have.

As for the member's intentions and the value of his proposal, one cannot oppose such a positive approach, whereby ordinary members of society, that is people close to a sick person, would look after this person. In fact, we must encourage it.

Since my time is running out, I will conclude by underscoring this point. I do not want my speech to be interpreted as an unconditional acceptance of a change that would reinforce the government's tendency to impose cuts on the provinces, while maintaining very strict conditions, including the five conditions relating to health.

Given these conditions, provincial governments are forced to cut into the health care sector, which is high profile, while the federal government, through a tax deduction and credit system, would do just the opposite. This seems hypocritical and unacceptable.

[Labour Relations, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since it has always been said that this would not be included in the labour code, I have trouble understanding the minister's reply. Are we to understand him to be saying that the use of scabs does not aggravate labour disputes and that antiscab legislation would not help to establish and maintain civilized negotiations?

[Labour Relations, November 1st, 1996]

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

Following an incident that took place in 1995 during a labour dispute involving Ogilvie Mills in Lachine, a strikebreaker was found guilty of assaulting a striking worker and leaving him with a permanently disabled wrist.

So as to avoid other violent incidents during labour disputes covered by the Canada Labour Code, will the minister admit that the federal government should follow the lead of Quebec and of British Columbia and pass antiscab legislation?

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, even though I studied that topic in detail, every time I listen to the hon. member for Laval Centre, I learn something new. She gave us an extraordinary historical background to this issue, not only by telling us what she witnessed in this House, the vague and virtuous answers provided by the former Minister of Health, but also by highlighting the report of the Baird commission. She reminded us that the commission heard some 40,000 witnesses.

I know that the hon. member for Laval Centre has read the report, so I do not want to bore her with that, but what she is saying is that this very bulky report has resulted in a very slim bill of only a few pages. The report dealt with a significant issue, but only led to a bill so slim as to look trivial for such an important and a serious issue. I would like the hon. member to comment on this.