Pierrette Venne

[Canada Pension Plan, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I vote no on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on the amendment which was negatived on the following division:)

[Firearms Registry, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Friday, the government unveiled its action plan to correct what is wrong with the firearms registry. Among the measures announced is the transfer of responsibility for the Canadian Firearms Registration Program from Justice to the Solicitor General.

Can the minister explain what makes the Solicitor General more competent than he to administer this program, or is this more a way of ducking questions about a scandal that might hurt his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Highway Infrastructure, February 18th, 2003]

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

Last Friday, Longueuil mayor Jacques Olivier indicated to me that the economic development of the new city was stagnating because businesses will not move there or investment further in the area until the uncertainty surrounding the extension of highway 30 has been cleared up.

Could the Minister of Transport tell us what the timeframe is for the extension of highway 30?

[Riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak for the first time as an independent member of the Bloc Quebecois because, during the past year, I had very little opportunity to speak in the House. I must confess that getting assigned a new seat is a bit like getting a promotion because it has put me closer to the Chair.

I would also like to take this opportunity to reassure the constituents of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert about my new status. I want to tell them that there is no cause for concern, that I am no less conscientious and determined than I have ever been in representing them over the past 14 years.

I intend to take every available opportunity the Chair grants me to keep after the government on issues that are important to me, such as extending highway 30 and transferring the Saint-Hubert airport to Longueuil.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will enjoy listening to me as much as I will enjoy making my views known.

[Cabinet Shuffle, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after being pressured for several months because of a series of scandals, the Prime Minister was forced to make an urgent cabinet shuffle, the second one in four months, and he demoted the minister of public works.

Yet, this minister had been appointed in January to clean up the department after the controversial Alfonso Gagliano left, in the midst of accusations of political interference.

With this new shuffle, the Prime Minister is once again hoping to clear his government of the multiple accusations that are being levelled at it.

But no one will be fooled. This is a cosmetic shuffle, a sad attempt to divert people's attention from the real problem, which is the corruption that plagues this government. We all know that the real problem remains and the Prime Minister can rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois will get to the bottom of things.

[Child Predator Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-437. I must say that I have found it extremely difficult to take a position on this issue because of the distinction that must always be made between the purpose of good legislation, i.e. protecting children, and the means used by that legislation to achieve that purpose, i.e. creating a new system or a new status for those who commit sexual offences against children. If someone is found to be a child predator, he would now have to serve his full sentence, with no possibility of early release or parole.

It is only after long reflection on the fundamental purpose of Bill C-437, which is to protect children, that I declare myself in favour of Bill C-437 in principle—and only in principle. I do not, however, support the means used by this bill to attain the aforementioned goal of protecting children.

To begin with, it is impossible not to be sensitive to the welfare and especially the safety of children, who must be protected against any attempts to commit sexual offences against them and must most certainly be protected from possible attacks by sexual predators.

We have only to look at the dictionary definition of predator, an animal naturally preying on others, and link it up with child to realize immediately the extremely great risk that a sexual predator may pose to any human being, whether male or female, and that this risk is even greater when a child sexual predator is involved because, as we know, a child is defenceless.

Everyone will remember the terrible tragedy which took place in Belgium some years back when child sexual predator Marc Dutroux was arrested for kidnapping and murdering several young children. The public will also remember the 1996 White March in which 300,000 Belgian men, women and children demonstrated against all forms of pedophilia and against those crimes which could have been prevented if a rigorous system of surveillance had been put in place to thwart people like Marc Dutroux.

We do not need to look to other countries to seek out examples of these terrible predators. We need look no further than our own, where we have the recent cases of two sexual predators in Ontario, Paul Bernardo and his wife, and of Conrad Brossard in Quebec, who is alleged to have just recently committed his latest heinous crime against a Trois-Rivières woman. These cases are proof that no civilized society is safe from the hideous misdeeds of these monsters, who must be made incapable of perpetrating any further acts, in order to protect potential future victims.

There are not many means of neutralizing these dangerous beings, who represent a danger not only to society as a whole but also and particularly to potential victims. They can be sentenced to death, as they are in the United States and many other countries, or they can be imprisoned, in countries like Canada where the death penalty has been abolished.

In the latter case, however, the whole issue of the potential rehabilitation of these sexual predators crops up, with the eventual possibility of their being released on parole. That possibility stirs up enormous fears if a child predator is concerned.

Many people are absolutely convinced that child predators are never cured and remain an ongoing danger, because of the phenomenon of recidivism.

That fear is what has prompted the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt to propose Bill C-437, when he learned that notorious child sex offender Karl Toft had just been released. According to the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, the Saskatoon Regional Psychiatric Centre was forced to accept what the sponsor of Bill C-437 describes as this “pedophile found guilty of 34 sexual attacks on young boys, whose victims could ultimately number in the hundreds”.

The member went on to say:

Studies prove that pedophiles are incurable and are a threat to our children. They belong behind bars. The Liberal government has refused to make child predators subject to an automatic dangerous offender designation when they are sentenced, which would ensure that they remain in prison indefinitely”.

Therefore, even though the goal of Bill C-437 is eminently laudable, the means used to attain this goal pose serious problems and are ill-adapted to the fundamental principles of our criminal law system. In fact, the definition of child predator offence is unclear in that it does not define rigorously enough the seriousness of the sexual offences contemplated and how much criminal behaviour must tolerated before someone is found to be a child predator, with the very serious ramifications that may ensue. The proposed legislative wording seems to allow for the term child predator to be applied retroactively, contrary to the usual custom that legislation not be retroactive. For these two reasons, the bill is not acceptable in its present form.

In addition, this bill creates a special system for child predators. I see no reason to exclude women or men from this form of protection against sexual predators, for their lives surely deserve just as much attention from the legislator as do those of children. We have only to think of the fifty or so women in the Vancouver area who have allegedly been kidnapped and murdered to realize that all human beings, men, women and children, must be protected against predators and that this protection must not be limited solely to children.

It must also be pointed out that proposed section 753.11 in Bill C-437 provides for a dubious and unusual system requiring the Minister of Justice to monitor whether an offender is in breach of an order against him. A simpler and more effective system of administrative monitoring should be provided for, if required.

Finally, we must ask ourselves whether the existing criminal code system is not entirely sufficient to cope with the admittedly very serious situation of child sexual predators, and whether it is really necessary to create this special new system solely for children.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, I believe I mentioned in my speech earlier that we were sorry that the current bill did not exclude stem cell research from the Patent Act. I therefore mentioned this oversight earlier.

The Bloc Quebecois is also calling for a public morality clause in the Patent Act in order to exclude certain patents. I think that this may answer the member's question.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are two questions here, the first having to do with Quebec and its position on stem cell research. I must point out to the member that this was only a consultation document. It therefore cannot be said that the Government of Quebec took a definitive stand on this subject.

As for stem cell research per se, I wish to emphasize that in this case and in the bill before us, it is really a system which functions by exception. I therefore think that in this regard, the member opposite is not pressing hard enough.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in this debate on Bill C-56, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction. It is certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation to have been introduced recently in the area of health, but it is also a very delicate bill that will surely be very controversial.

However, the various aspects of this controversy on the legitimacy of this bill, which was much anticipated by the medical and scientific communities, will not prevent our party from supporting, at least in principle, Bill C-56 which, as clearly stated in clause 2, sets out the fundamental principles of assisted human reproduction, and I quote:

1. The Parliament of Canada recognizes and declares that

(a) the benefits of assisted human reproductive technologies and related research for individuals and for society in general can be most effectively secured by taking appropriate measures for the protection and promotion of human health, safety, dignity and rights in the use of these technologies and in related research;

(b) the health and well-being of children born through the application of these technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use;

(c) while all persons are affected by these technologies, women more than men are directly and significantly affected by their application;

(d) the principle of free and informed consent must be promoted and applied as a fundamental condition of the use of human reproductive technologies;

(e) trade in the reproductive capacities of women and men and the exploitation of children, women and men for commercial ends raise health and ethical concerns that justify their prohibition;

(f) human individuality and diversity, and the integrity of the human genome, must be preserved and protected.

Based on these fundamental principles and taking into account the activities that are prohibited in the bill and those that are regulated, Bill C-56 can be summarized as follows.

It prohibits the creation of human clones for any purpose as well as the transplantation of a human clone into a human being.

It permits certain research to be carried out using stem cells from human embryos, while at the same time banning the creation of embryos for the purpose of carrying out such research.

It prohibits commercial activity involving surrogate mothers, and payment of sperm or egg donors, as well as the buying and selling of human embryos.

Finally, it prohibits the sexing of human embryos solely for the purpose of deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

In order to attain the objectives set for assisted reproduction, and in order to make it possible to control activities around these objectives, Bill C-56 creates a new body. The assisted human reproduction agency of Canada will be responsible for regulating fertility clinics and researchers in this area.

In particular, this federal agency will authorize researchers to use stem cells from human embryos, but only when required for such research. Like any body with responsibility for monitoring a specific area, the agency in question will have all the necessary powers to implement the policies and objectives defined by Bill C-56 and its regulation and to inspect the facilities in question, and to monitor application of the law and regulations and initiate proceedings relating to offences under the act.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the government has reached a reasonable compromise between the American position with its restrictions on human embryo research and the British position, which goes too far and allows researchers to create embryos solely for research purposes. This latter practice, of creating embryos for study and research purposes, will be prohibited in Canada under the legislation being proposed in Bill C-56, if it is passed in its present form. Researchers will also be required to apply for authorization from the new assisted reproduction agency in order to gain access to surplus embryos from fertility clinics that are no longer needed by them.

With this we are getting to the most difficult moral issue raised by this bill on human embryos: the use for research of those that are no longer needed.

For some, research on embryos is reprehensible from an ethical point of view, because an embryo is a human being. For others, an embryo is not yet a true human being, a view that was shared by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the bill will allow for the establishment of ethical standards for research on stem cells and embryos, and of valid requirements for research authorizations, the monitoring of research laboratories and fertility clinics, so that the fundamental issue of the respect for life can be reasonably monitored and dealt with.

We feel that it is better to have a valid legislative framework, with true control by the new assisted human reproduction agency of Canada, which will be created under this legislation, than to remain in a regulatory void that can lead to all kinds of abuse, as may be the case right now.

Moreover, the definitions of “human clone”, “embryo”, “ in vitro embryo”, “foetus”, etc., found at the beginning of Bill C-56, in clause 3, are explicit and restrictive enough to allow for the anticipated monitoring of assisted human reproduction.

It should also be pointed out that Bill C-56 is an important measure for all those who need assistance in the area of human reproduction, something which affects the fate and destiny of mankind.

However, assisted human reproduction will not be the only benefit resulting from this legislation. Indeed, according to a number of experts in genetics, research on embryos and on stem cells from excess embryos—again, it must be emphasized that only excess embryos can be used, and only if a researcher can clearly demonstrate that he cannot conduct his research with other biological material, before he can get an authorization from the agency—could allow us to fight terrible diseases such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and probably others.

These are definitely laudable objectives and we must regulate research in this area, so that these objectives can be achieved and so that science can continue to make progress in our country, under a tight implementation and monitoring framework, and under principles that are recognized by experts in research, by Canada's health research institutes, and by Canada's health research funding agencies.

However, while Bill C-56 has some merits, it also has flaws and I want to mention some of them.

Even though Health Canada is supposed to consult the provinces regarding the regulations governing research and activities related to assisted reproduction, we must ensure that this promise is respected. It is critical that Canadian policy be developed in concert with the provinces and that there be unequivocal recognition that it is an area of shared jurisdiction.

The proposed legislation grants the regulatory and monitoring agency a very broad mandate which gives it significant powers. Yet, nothing guarantees the independence of the agency's board from the Minister of Health. The agency, which reports to the Minister of Health, will advise the minister, and will be headed by a board of directors made up of no more than 13 members who reflect a range of relevant backgrounds and disciplines.

Since it is up to the regulatory agency, and not the provinces, to enforce the regulations, it is important to ensure that the board is representative of Quebec.

Two observers—one representing the federal government and the other representing the provincial governments—will discuss issues of common interest with the board.

Once again, we must ensure that this observer understands and defends the interests of Quebecers. No regulatory body can be completely effective without a fair representation of the provinces on its board.

One clause of the bill stipulates that all of the regulations be introduced in the House for approval and that the committee consider the bill and propose amendments. Among the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Health, there was a proposal that the bill include provisions comparable to clause 42.1 of the Tobacco Act, provisions that require that proposed regulations be referred automatically to the standing committee. The relative clause in Bill C-56 does not go this far. Given that for this bill, the regulations are equally, if not more important than the bill itself, we must ensure this recommendation made by the committee is respected.

Contrary to the Bloc Quebecois' requests and the committee's recommendations, the bill does not amend the Patent Act in order to exclude human genetic material.

In particular, we must define the scope of clause 25 of Bill C-56, which reads as follows:

1. (1) The Minister may issue policy directions to the Agency concerning the exercise of any of its powers, and the Agency shall give effect to directions so issued.

(2) Policy directions issued by the Minister may not affect a matter that is before the Agency at the time they are issued and that relates to a particular person.

(3) Policy directions issued by the Minister are not a statutory instrument for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.

This power given to the federal Minister of Health seems completely excessive and clearly implies that the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada could lose its independence in favour of the minister, and despite all other qualified stakeholders: the content of clause 25 must therefore be clarified in order to bring it into line with the requirement that the agency responsible for monitoring this field be independent.

Finally, Bill C-56 affects all members of parliament with respect to their personal beliefs, religious or not, with respect to human life, the protection of human life, and especially with respect to what constitutes a human being, and for this reason I strongly suggest that the vote on Bill C-56 be entirely free, without party lines. Members will thus be able to vote freely, according to their conscience, without any constraints, for the benefit of all and for the good of democracy.