Maud Debien

[Quebec's Senior Citizens Week, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since this is Senior Citizens Week in Quebec, I take this opportunity to salute all senior citizens in Laval and Quebec and to thank them for their contribution to our society's development.

Two years ago, the federal government announced a seniors benefit program that would provide minimum annual payments of $11,420 to a person living alone, and $18,440 for a couple, which is clearly below the poverty line.

With the support of Bloc Quebecois members, seniors groups have questioned the formula used to calculate these benefits. They have criticized the federal government for jeopardizing the financial independence of elderly women and penalizing seniors with other sources of income.

We want the Minister of Finance to follow up on these concerns. Seniors can be assured that we will be vigilant during the review of that program.

I wish you all a good week.

[Division No. 158, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, about 10 days ago, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution asking the federal government to amend its bill on the millennium scholarship fund, so as to respect Quebec's unique student loans and grants program.

Over the next few minutes, I will explain why the representatives of the people of Quebec asked Ottawa to unconditionally withdraw from this area and to provide full financial compensation to the Quebec government.

Let me first discuss the federal government's unconditional withdrawal from education. Many reasons justify such a measure, but it is always worth repeating them.

First, under the Constitution, education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We can never say it too often. The federal government argued that its initiative is not related to education, but to the funding of education. Yet, it is clear that the federal program interferes in the education sector by evaluating scholarship recipients and asking them for an activity report.

Second, the issue is even more sensitive in the case of Quebec which, as you know, is not a province like the others, even though some refuse to recognize that fact. Again, anything relating to language, culture and education is vital to Quebec's national identity.

Finally, the federal government's project is a waste of time, money and resources. Indeed, the Quebec government has been administering its own loans and scholarships program for 34 years. It has the expertise and the necessary infrastructures to ensure the smooth operation of a new scholarships program. Why create a new structure, the millennium scholarship foundation, and provide it with the required staff and mechanisms, when everything is already in place in Quebec?

Such shameful duplication is condemned so strongly that a consensus quickly developed in Quebec to have all student scholarships administered by the Quebec government.

This leads me to discuss the second Quebec claim, that is the transfer to the Quebec government of the financial resources reserved for Quebec, so that it can implement an additional scholarship program if needed.

The main reason for this is the current imbalance between the federal government's financial resources and those of the provinces.

In February 1957, ten years before he became Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote the following: “The total wealth at the disposal of the Canadian tax system needs to be divided between the federal government and the provincial governments so that each may do as it sees fit with its share”.

In other words, each level of government must have its share of taxes so that it may meet its constitutional responsibilities. The present Prime Minister would do well to read what his mentor had to say on this.

The federal government does, however, have greater powers of taxation than the provinces. This problem dates back to the beginnings of Confederation, worsening as the provinces began to develop programs to meet the growing needs of their populations in the areas of health, education and welfare. Instead of splitting tax resources differently with the provinces, however, the government of Canada offered to co-finance programs under certain conditions.

Worse yet, the federal government did not settle for controlling the provinces' exercise of power. Often, solely in order to raise its profile, it wants to be the one to control a program in an area of provincial jurisdiction. As we know, very often it does this by taking advantage of its spending power.

What is the millennium scholarship foundation but just one more abuse of the federal spending power, despite this government's promise to limit spending in the aftermath of the 1995 referendum?

The present Prime Minister of Canada is launching unprecedented assaults on the provinces. Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau supported the Quebec premier in his opposition to the federal grants to universities in the 1950s. On this he wrote the following: “If a government has such a superabundance of revenue that it undertakes to provide part of the common wealth which does not fall under its jurisdiction—that government is conspicuously guilty of going against the principle of proportional taxation”.

Judging by these words from a Quebecker who cannot be labelled a separatist, the Government of Canada collects too much taxes compared to the provincial governments. This is no doubt the reason the Minister of Finance is trying to camouflage his budget surplus. Every year he has underevaluated his taxation revenues, overestimated his reserve for contingencies, and as a result exaggerated the size of the federal deficit. Today, he is trying to include in the 1998-99 budget expenditures that would be made over a period of ten years. What will he invent tomorrow to interfere, once again, in areas under provincial jurisdiction?

The federal government now has more money than it needs to fulfil its responsibilities. That money is not the federal government's money. First of all, it is the money the provinces should have received through transfers, which were cut by several billion dollars. It is also the money of the workers, whose EI contributions were diverted. Finally, it is the money of taxpayers from Quebec, Alberta, New Brunswick and all the other Canadian provinces where the federal government collects taxes.

If there is a need for scholarships, the provinces must meet that need themselves. The federal government just has to give them part of the fiscal base so they can collect the necessary taxes directly or, as a former premier of Quebec used to say, “to give them back their loot”. But, as we can see, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In other words, the federal government should withdraw from the area of scholarships with full compensation to the provinces, as demanded unanimously by the members of the National Assembly of Quebec. As a matter of fact, that is the intent of the amendments to the bill that were brought forward by my colleague, the member for Quebec. It is so convenient to attack the separatists when things are not going well in the Canadian system.

But if there is a sovereignist movement in Quebec, is it not primarily because the Canadian federation is not working? If it is not working, is it not mainly because the federal government is infringing upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, which is leading to costly overlap?

To answer these questions, let me remind the House of what the late political analyst Léon Dion wrote in 1980: “The political stability of our country relies on Quebec being granted control over all linguistic and cultural matters as well as the financial means to develop and implement the programs it would see fit to promote in these areas as suitable for its own people.”

Canada is a dysfunctional entity. For the last 50 years, Canadian federalism has moved away from the model developed by its founders, since respect for the autonomy of the provinces is at the heart of the 1867 pact.

The Millennium Scholarship Foundation is but another example of this distorted federalism. Since negotiations are underway to allow the Government of Quebec to regain exclusive control over scholarships, it would be appropriate to suspend the implementation of the millennium scholarship program.

However, the federal government seems to be too concerned about its political visibility and not enough about the welfare of the students to support the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition concerning nuclear disarmament.

The petitioners consider that the proliferation of nuclear armament is a threat to the health and survival of human beings and their environment. In addition, they state that Canada and the signatories of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons reaffirmed their commitment in May 1995 to pursue negotiations with a view to halting the nuclear arms race.

More specifically, the signatories are calling on Parliament to support the conclusion by the year 2000 of the international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

[Indonesia, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

At a time when there is growing public pressure to demand that the dictator in Indonesia leave, we learn that a rebellion is brewing within his government.

Jakarta is now the scene of bloody riots. What concrete action, other than simply trying to book seats on commercial flights, does the government intend to take to bring home safely and as quickly as possible any Canadians and Quebeckers who may still be in Indonesia?

[Monsignor Juan Girardi, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we were saddened to learn yesterday of the death of Monsignor Juan Girardi, the Guatemalan assistant archbishop and human rights activist.

Monsignor Girardi, who was brutally assassinated, had just presented a scathing report on the holocaust suffered by the Guatemalan people during the civil war that lasted over 36 years. His death could jeopardize the fragile peace accords signed by the factions a year and a half ago.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to pay tribute to this brave man, who was able to warn the international community about the horrors of the armed conflict in Guatemala.

Once again, the long road to respect for human rights has been sullied by the blood of innocent victims who have sacrificed their lives to defend a fundamental right.

We extend our sympathies to the people of Guatemala.

[Human Rights, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what is the logic behind the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian government's desire to create another commission of inquiry, when the Canadian representatives on the international civilian commission dispatched to Chiapas have been trying to meet with him for more than a month now?

[Human Rights, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

For some time now, the Mexican government has been expelling all foreign observers from Chiapas, among them two Quebec women. As a result, the Minister of Foreign Affairs called for explanations from the Mexican government, and those explanations were totally unconvincing. For the Prime Minister, the incident is closed, but at the same time the Minister of Foreign Affairs is proposing the creation of an international commission of inquiry into the human rights situation in Chiapas.

Since the Prime Minister was insisting that human rights be on the agenda of the Summit of the Americas, can he tell us what exactly the Canadian position is on this matter?

[Corporate Taxation, April 20th, 1998]

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

Two years ago, with much fanfare, the Minister of Finance announced the creation of a committee to examine corporate taxation. Now, he has once again hastily tabled this committee's report just before the House adjourned.

Are we to understand from the minister's actions that this report will once again be shelved?

[National Head Start Program, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by going over the wording of Motion M-261 introduced by my colleague for Esquimault—Juan de Fuca, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the program is implemented by the year 2000.

Far be it from me to question the good faith of the hon. member for Esquimault—Juan de Fuca and his noble intentions to prevent child and youth crime. We are all concerned about giving children a good start in life. We are all concerned about crime among young people, especially the fact that it is on the increase.

Either in their role as MPs or in their professional activities, all of the members in this House have been in a position to observe cases of youth crime. We all agree that the deep-seated causes of this must be dealt with seriously.

Once again, however, the Bloc Quebecois is forced to point out that this motion falls within an area of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, and that it inaugurates new national standards and directives we do not support.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore opposed to the mechanisms proposed by the hon. member for Esquimault—Juan de Fuca to fight youth crime. We believe the provinces are better placed to identify and assess community needs and to put into place programs and various types of intervention with young people.

We know, and experience has shown, that each province has its own particular philosophy about the prevention of youth and adult crime. It may be a question of identity and culture. We have only to think of the debates in the House regarding the Young Offenders Act. It became clear that members' attitudes, reactions and solutions with respect to this legislation differed enormously.

The same is true in this debate. Quebeckers and Canadians often see things differently, as is evident from their approach to social issues. By setting up a comprehensive program such as the one proposed by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the federal government would not only be interfering in areas of jurisdiction where it has no business, but would not be helping children and young people whose situation requires an adapted approach.

If the other provinces wish to have the federal government intervene and set up programs to keep youth from turning to crime, we respect that choice. Quebec's choice must also be respected.

It must be pointed out that a good start has already been made. I was most astonished to hear the Reform member who spoke before me just now speak about the Bloc Quebecois' paranoia, because we are opposed to this bill.

If Reform members were to come to Quebec and find out what is being done, they would perhaps not hold these views about us.

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, Quebec has already taken the lead in this area. In his health and welfare policy, the Quebec minister of health and social services has made the elimination of youth crime a priority. What we have seen is that there has been no increase in the number of young offenders in recent years, but that their offences have become much more serious in nature.

In addition, the causality and risk factors underlying this major change in youth crime have been identified. These include single parenthood, the absence and desertion of the father, poverty, drug addiction, social exclusion, school adjustment problems, the company of other young offenders, parental crime and conjugal conflicts. The causes are numerous and they were clearly identified.

Finally, Quebec advocates five priority measures to reduce the prevalence and seriousness of delinquency by the year 2002: making fathers more accountable; strengthening the father-child relationship; taking action in the school environment; supporting flexible interventions instead of rigid ones; seeking a better balance in the funds earmarked for boys and girls who are experiencing difficulties; giving special attention to girls and, among other initiatives, adjusting any new measure and action related to the Young Offenders Act.

As you can see, the approach taken by Quebec stakeholders speaks for itself. They identified the problems, along with their causes and risk factors. Then, they proposed solutions while also setting realistic goals. This approach reflects the reality of Quebec society, and more specifically that of young offenders.

This action plan was part of the national priorities on public health, on which all stakeholders were consulted, including the health and social services network, community organizations, professional groups, municipalities, and the education, environment, transport, justice and recreation sectors. All took part in the development of the program. Since it is the result of a consensus, the program is based on joint action and is very flexible. This would unfortunately not be the case if Quebec had to implement a program designed and developed in some federal administration back room.

Let us tell it as it is. In what way would the federal government be in a better position to resolve the problems facing young children when poverty has been on the rise ever since this government took office? There are serious child poverty problems in Canada. There are 1.5 million poor children whose basic needs are not met and who do not have what is needed to get a good start in life.

But remember that where there are poor children, there are poor parents. A study released in March by the economist Pierre Fortin showed that 58% of the unemployed who are not eligible under the employment insurance plan have no choice but to go on welfare. These individuals cannot qualify for EI benefits. They are therefore forced unto social assistance and on the way to living in poverty.

What has the government done to help eliminate child poverty? Not much. In fact, it has cut transfer payments to the provinces, attacked the unemployed from all sides to increase surpluses in the employment insurance fund and supported the finance minister in his accounting operations. Injecting a measly $425 million in the child tax benefit program will certainly not help children get out of poverty in the short term.

This centralizing policy which the Reform Party is putting forward will once again prove to be useless and expensive because of the overlap it will create in Quebec.

We must avoid falling in this trap at all cost. The federal government and the Reform Party must understand once and for all that Quebec can look after its own business and take care of its own problems as well. It does not need big brother looking over its shoulder to achieve its goals.

As I mentioned earlier, Quebec has already taken the lead in dealing with youth crime. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca should come and see what is being done in this respect. Perhaps the members of the Reform Party would then change their minds.

[Criminal Code, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last February, my colleague, the member for Drummond, introduced Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation).

This bill builds on the report tabled by the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies created in March 1989, commonly known as the Baird commission. The primary purpose of this commission was to analyze the impact on our society of genetic manipulation, pre-selection of sex, the phenomenon of surrogate mothers and artificial insemination. This study had long been demanded by a Canadian coalition of feminist groups.

It was another four years, and millions of dollars, before the commission tabled its report, and then only after going through some rough patches, as the House will recall. The government then imposed a voluntary moratorium in July 1995 and subsequently introduced Bill C-47, which died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

That government bill contained an important flaw, however. It did not criminalize human cloning. Today, we therefore find ourselves in a legal vacuum where only the voluntary moratorium applies.

The bill now before us deals with a very important issue, because its purpose is to prohibit human cloning, that is to say, the replication of human beings, in Canada. The chair of the royal commission, Mrs. Baird, also called on the federal government to bring in legislation in this regard. However, since the election, the government has been slow to take action.

It is therefore urgent, and if it is the pleasure of the House to pass this bill, Canada will follow the example of many countries, including the United States, Italy, Norway, Australia and France, which have already passed legislation prohibiting human cloning.

Many international bodies have passed similar resolutions. They include the Council of Europe, the British parliamentary commission on science and technology and UNESCO's Universal Declaration on the Human Genome.

Finally, the World Health Organization has declared that the techniques that produced Dolly the sheep cannot be used on humans.

It is interesting to note that the World Health Organization did not want to prohibit commercial ownership of cloning techniques. It protested only against the use of cloning in human reproduction.

In Quebec, consideration of the subject continued too. The commission set up for the task by the college of physicians proposed respect for the absolute precedence of human integrity and dignity over technical success, especially at the beginning and the end of life.

As you can see, the various experiments at the frontiers of science and life have given rise to a major ethics debate.

Recently, the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep by a group of Scottish researchers has revived the debate. What makes Dolly the sheep such a special case and why has it attracted so much attention?

Dolly is not the result of traditional fertilization involving the combination of the genetic material of two creatures of opposite sex. Rather, Dolly is the result of asexual laboratory reproduction of a single parent. In other words, Dolly was created from a single cell, that of the mother.

We have to admit that, from a purely scientific standpoint, this discovery is quite extraordinary. Professor Charles Thibault, a French specialist in biological reproduction, said that understanding nuclear fission and then fusion meant a better understanding of matter. Mastering cell division meant better understanding the living, in his opinion.

Great scientific discoveries have improved the lives of men and women. They have also enabled us to kill one another. Does the new race to clone mean progress for humanity by separating it into two species—the natural and the reproduced, the real and the false, the weak and the strong? This is what the bill introduced by my colleague from Drummond is attempting to answer.

It has the advantage of making cloning a criminal act, without prohibiting scientific research in genetics, which must also be closely monitored. For some researchers, for instance, animal cloning and its application to human beings is of particular interest to the pharmaceutical companies, needless to say, for the manufacture of drugs, organ transplants, and research into hereditary diseases and cancer.

Animal application of cloning would make it possible to rear perfect animals or to save endangered species. To quote Libération , “the race to clone all species is on. Now it is international, with the British and Americans in the lead, and commercial, of course. What is involved now is improving techniques for fast and efficient transgenic cloning—in order to provide humanized organs and drug-proteins. A major industrial and medical undertaking”.

There is no denying it, successful cloning is now part of our reality. Yet it is opening the door to the cloning of all superior animals, up to and including man. This is where the bill of my hon. colleague for Drummond fits in, and this is where the question arises: are they going to be cloning men, women and children?

According to the French publication Libération , American clinics already have in hand “catalogues of sperm donors and egg donors, with the physical and intellectual characteristics of each , so that a genetic cocktail may be concocted which will come as close as possible to producing the ideal baby”.

The same newspaper also reported the implantation of frozen embryos and the “terrifying image of supermarkets where one would go and choose one's ready-to-wear baby like a frozen hamburger”.

We must not fall into the trap of considering human beings merely based on their genomes. Are we prepared to live in a society in which it would be possible to create armies of identical individuals, for a specific purpose, such as to ensure a stock of livers, hearts or lungs to be transplanted into other individuals born as a result of true fecundation?

The newspaper goes on to say that this would lead to “a society in which the most incredible scenarios would become reality: a dictator duplicates himself ad vitam aeternam, a dead child is reborn in her mother's womb, a woman delivers a baby that is her husband, her father, even herself”, and so on.

We are fascinated by science and technology, by irresistible challenges and incredible achievements. But there is also a human being, with a body and a mind, whose genes are only the foundations.

This major debate has to do with ethics, with the reversal of the natural order, with individual freedom and with values.

While all major discoveries bring about significant benefits, they also present potential dangers. According to the same newspaper, there is already a disturbing split. “The rich already send their children to the best schools. Tomorrow, they will want genetic improvement, better health and more advantages to help their children succeed”. Yet, democratic societies have always used science and technology to try to reduce the perverse effects of these inequalities.

Is this the type of society we want? I do not think so. We must reflect on this. Where do science and medicine stop? Where does the temptation to legitimize a eugenist project begin? It is a fine line.

To adopt this bill is to refuse to cross that line, which is so fine but which can have huge consequences for our own mutation and that of human beings in general.