André Bachand

[Regional Economic Development, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, after last fall's announcement of the closing of the asbestos mine in Asbestos and the loss of 350 jobs, we learn today that Noranda is announcing the closing of the Magnola plant, which is also in Asbestos. This closing for at least one year, which will lead to the loss of 380 more jobs, is due to the impact Chinese production has had on the drop in the price of magnesium. All of this puts the town and the area in a catastrophic situation.

I ask the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec the following. When will there be concrete action, when will a special emergency fund be created to diversify the Asbestos economy?

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

This is most unfortunate. The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is saying that they are small c conservative, in the derogatory sense of the term; he is not referring to the Progressive Conservative Party. We must be careful here.

Having said this, overall the bill is good but incomplete. Some people provided invaluable input to the committee. Because of the moral issues that some people see in this, or want to see in it, we decided to have a free vote. But I can guarantee that a majority of the Conservative caucus will support the bill.

This is an essential step. Why? Because a review will take place in three years. This is not a bill that will remain unchanged. It will be updated as we gain more experience as a result of the enforcement of its prrovisions.

It is true that we do not know what the regulations will look like. They will be very complex. The agency has yet to be created. It will surely cost more than the budget established by the government. In any case, when the government draws up a budget, things always cost more than anticipated.

Nevertheless, this is a major step toward assisted reproduction. There are members of my own family who have resorted to these techniques. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful, and it happened on a number of occasions.

The costs involved are huge. The government should also consider signing an agreement with the provinces, to see if financial assistance could be provided to these couples. There is no tax incentive for those who spend tens of thousands of dollars to have a child. There is nothing.

Perhaps it is time to look at modernizing the system. A parliamentary review of the act within three years may seem like a short timeframe, but the committee was very pleased to see the government take action. Initially, the review was to be conducted within five years. This will ensure that the legislation remains up to date. There will probably be some loose ends, because three years is a very short period of time, but we will be able to ensure that people who want children, whether it is a couple of heterosexuals or lesbians, can do so with legal protection and, perhaps, financial assistance, in a safe framework for parents and children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As you know, I am no longer my party's health critic; it is now my colleague for New Brunswick Southwest. I have followed this issue with great interest and learned a great deal in the process.

Often, we learn a bit from analyzing bills, but where assisted reproduction and all the issues surrounding it are concerned, I have really had a learning opportunity. I must say that the atmosphere within the committee was exemplary.

That said, in the first group of motions, there is one by the Progressive Conservative Party calling for the report to be submitted to the Minister of Justice rather than the Minister of Health. The reason is that, where assisted reproduction is concerned, law often takes precedence when there is an analysis of circumstances.

There is a need to ensure that the agency to be created will be at arms length. The creation of that agency will, moreover, be debated at report stage. The agency must keep a certain distance from the Minister of Health. This is a health issue, yes, but also a legal one, a point raised various times in committee.

Motion No. 11 calls for, with regard to reports tabled in Parliament, the Minister of Justice to be held responsible for ensuring that the rights of unborn children and of others, women in particular, are respected.

Yes, it is a matter of health. We know that health is a provincial jurisdiction and so the provinces too are involved. On the legal level, however, the responsibility is federal by virtue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is important for the legal status to be correct. It may seem odd to say so, but producing a child is also a legal act. It is an act of love, a sexual act, but it is also a legal act. There are certain rights and responsibilities involved.

I would like to set aside Motion No. 11 for a moment to take advantage of the opportunity provided this morning, in the short time that I have, to talk about a few points regarding this bill.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance spoke about one of them, first, the issue of sperm donors. Canada is a country that is rich in natural resources, but not in sperm. What causes me to say this? Because we import it. We produce 50% of the tomatoes we consume, but when it comes to sperm, we do not yet produce 50%, because the system is not designed this way. Sperm donation is done on a voluntary basis, as we know, as is the case with blood. In other countries, donors—whether they be blood, sperm or egg donors—are remunerated. In Canada, this does not exist. We raised this issue several times in committee.

For safety reasons, in terms of the health of mothers and children, we want to keep it this way in Canada, and I agree with that. However, we do not have the system in place to allow this. Furthermore, we want to ensure that donors are no longer anonymous. In Canada, these realities are different from those of other countries.

I had proposed that there be some sort of payment for sperm donors, that there be analysis, and that a full medical record be kept on the donor, but that the donor's name be kept anonymous. From a legal perspective, the bill does not go far enough.

How will the donor be protected? The bill does not say enough on this; it is flawed on this issue. The provinces, including Quebec with its Civil Code, have an important role to play. There is no correlation between the federal bill and the provinces; the rights of parents are not sufficiently developed.

I proposed that, to begin with, in terms of enforcement of the legislation, we retain the anonymity of sperm donors but that we also invite healthy men in this country to donate their sperm.

Some may find this funny. I remember when I proposed this report. Canada is such a rich country yet we have to import sperm. We often begin to look after our own affairs, but in a very safe manner when it comes to health.

The other important factor is that this bill raises questions about the right to life, the rights of the fetus and the rights of gays and lesbians.

Once again, perhaps because Quebec and other parts of the country are more forward looking, we have to be careful. In terms of Motion No. 4, when the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance talks about excluding lesbian couples, I find this somewhat odd.

Look what has happened in Quebec for example. I have friends who are lesbian and use the assisted reproduction system to have children. Between you and me, children born to lesbian couples are no more or less perfect than children born to heterosexual couples.

This is a reality. It would be a step back to send an anti-gay and anti-lesbian message in this bill. We cannot censor the right to life. That is what Motion No. 4 sets out to do. It would censor the right to life based on the sexual orientation of the parents. I find this appalling, but that is vintage Canadian Alliance.

Another related issue that we often talk about is the issue of family. What is a family today? The traditional family includes a father, mother and children. We know that 40% of couples are divorced. The traditional family is desirable. When we fall in love we want it to last for life.

Except that a relationship may last a few years, a few months or a lifetime.

So, the family has changed and evolved. Unfortunately, there are members in this House who have neither changed nor evolved.

[Town of Asbestos, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Asbestos have been fighting since September to save their mine and their town.

On Wednesday, close to 3,000 people, or half of the population, took part in a solidarity march.

Today, we are celebrating the temporary reopening of our mine. Thanks to the tenacity of our people, particularly Bernard Coulombe, and thanks also to NASA's space program, the town of Asbestos is breathing a little easier.

But this is no guarantee for the future. The federal government must get involved in a program for our older workers, in maintaining the mining company and getting it back on its feet, in diversifying the economy of the town of Asbestos, and in a real policy promoting the use of asbestos.

The town of Asbestos wants to live and so it shall.

[Goods and Services Tax, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the investigations by the RCMP and by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, in spite of the documents prepared for the minister advising him of the depth of the problem, the government has yet to act on the issue of GST fraud.

With all due respect to the hon. parliamentary secretary, could the Prime Minister give a straightforward answer to a simple question? How does he intend to deal with the issue of GST fraud?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec has voiced objections on the federal plan for ratification of Kyoto. This plan does not acknowledge the efforts of the provinces, Quebec included, which have already begun to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no provision whatsoever in the plan for reduction objectives by province.

Instead of a sectoral objective, why not, if as the minister claims, the provinces are necessary and mandatory for implementation of the protocol, use them as the unit of measurement for achievement of the objectives of the Kyoto protocol?

[Member for LaSalle—Émard, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance and current member for LaSalle—Émard has finally discovered the democratic deficit and, probably, we hope, seen the light on the road to Damascus.

In a speech that he delivered yesterday, the Liberal leadership hopeful was quick to endorse the principle of democratic reform. Better very late than never.

However, this is the same member who, when he was minister, remained silent on these issues and worked against his ideals, and did so for over nine years.

For example, he preferred to sway his colleagues to defeat a motion from the hon. member for Fundy—Royal on the issue of student debt. He preferred to resort to closure on 13 bills and to unveil the principles underlying his budgets outside the House.

Now, he is asking for the appointment of a real ethics counsellor who would only be accountable to Parliament. However, when he had the opportunity to do so, he voted against this measure.

This is a member who excluded himself from the decision-making level to pursue his own partisan and personal goals.

[Committees of the House, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, members on this side of the House have opened up their doors and their hearts to people faced with a review of their disability tax credit. Some were reduced to tears, of course, because they live on a very low income.

In our riding offices--I know you have experienced that personally, Mr. Speaker--some absolutely incredible cases come up. When it is about an administrative issue, an administrative decision at the expense of tens of thousands of disabled people in this country, I find that somewhat disgusting.

We have to deal with that. Representatives if all the groups of persons with disabilities, notably in Quebe, have said “What is happening? What is this all about? What is the reason for all thist? Is it to be good administrators?” Good administrators at the expense of disabled people? We will remember this, 33 months from now.

[Committees of the House, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from South Shore for letting me speak first. If you agree and if everyone agrees, I will share my time with the member for South Shore.

The House will recess tomorrow, for the summer. Members will take some time off to rest with their families. The calendar says that we will be done tomorrow. We will have a chance to spend some quiet time with our friends and families, and everything will be fine.

In the meantime, some persons with disabilities are no longer eligible for the disability tax credit. Several of our colleagues here in the House have mentioned, in their speeches, the fact that they have had people in their office who used to claim the disability tax credit and who can no longer claim it because of the new rules.

I will give just one example, although there are many. There is a man in my riding who had his leg amputated just below the hip. As far as I know, there is no chance that it will grow back. He used to be eligible for the disability tax credit.

This man was asked to go to his see his doctor and have him fill out the new form based on the new criteria and the new definitions. What hurt this man—and we are still fighting for him—is that the form asks if the person can go a few dozen metres with or without a cane, a walker or crutches.

What was the doctor supposed to do? He said “With a cane or a walker, sure he can move around even though he has only one leg”. That made him ineligible for the disability tax credit. His leg has not grown back. It is unbelievable that the government can tell that man that he is no longer entitled to his tax credit. He has lost a leg, and it is just like telling him that he is no longer disabled.

I think the biggest handicap is on the other side of the House. When the government gets to the point of cutting the disability tax credit, I think that is where the handicap is.

Reviewing applications implies that people have cheated the system. This is not true, but bureaucrats are trying to find clever ways of keeping people from qualifying for the tax credit.

Why? Because of one or two, or a few cases of fraud, they are penalizing everyone. They are putting these people through stress by telling them that they are no longer really disabled. The disabled are telling themselves “I am no longer really disabled. I am missing a leg; I am in a wheelchair; I am no longer really disabled”. “I have Down's syndrome: I am no longer really disabled because my trisomy is low enough that I can manage on my own a bit”.

This makes no sense. It is the ultimate example of a government without a heart. And we are going to bat for these people in our ridings.

When we speak to Revenue Canada employees, they tell us “I am not really supposed to talk to you about this, but I will tell you what I think. It makes no sense at all, but we have to implement the new rules. We know that the person is missing a leg and is disabled, but these are the new rules and the decision comes from higher up”.

But we are right there and see these cases, and we are going to bat for them. The disabled say “What is going on? What did I do wrong? I am disabled; what did I do to the government that it is cutting my credit and questioning my disability?”

Doctors say “We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Obviously, the leg has not grown back in 15 years”. Even if the disabled person goes to St. Joseph's Oratory, they are still in their wheelchair, and even if they douse themselves with St. Joseph's oil, nothing has really changed.

People are in a difficult position, as are the doctors, and must deal with this pressure. Quebec's college of physicians says “We must apply the rules; we have no choice”. So, the doctor says to his client “Sorry, I cannot help you. I must fill in the forms according to the new definitions and the new questionnaire”.

This does not make sense. We are struggling, and the government has a surplus in the billions of dollars. Officially, it is $6 billion. Between you and me, we know it is a lot more because it has put $2 billion here and $3 billion there in various foundations and other things like that. We will recall the budget of last December, in which the government promised to create a new infrastructure fund and to put $2 billion in it if it had the money. It got the money, billions of it.

I am not saying that is not important, but now it is going after the most vulnerable members of society, people who are disabled through no fault of their own, and it is questioning their situation. It is insinuating that they may be defrauding the system. It is putting added pressure on physicians and health care workers. It claims it only wants to review the situation.

The committee report was very critical. As we know, yesterday and a few weeks ago, we discussed committees' reports and recommendations. Members on both sides of the House put their heart and soul in their work. They dedicate hours and hours, days, weeks, months to their work. They put together fine reports and recommendations, but the government looks at them and says “Forget it”.

All it is doing is keeping the opposition busy and making government backbenchers believe they can make a difference and their work in committee as legislators is very important. As the House is winding down, we have another example of that.

The committee went very far, demanding that a letter of apology be sent. However, if the government can give me the assurance today that it will rectify the problem, as requested by my colleagues in the House—we are talking about a regulation and it is up to the minister to decide—we might forego the apologies. If the problem is rectified, we will let it go at that. We will not hit them over the head as they did the disabled. We are more tactful than that.

But are they going to address the issue? Will they wait until the queen's visit or the prorogation of the House to do it? Will they wait until the new Minister of Finance tables his first budget, which could be a budget with a heart and make the government more caring? I doubt it.

We can act right away. This is not a piece of legislation, just an administrative decision. There is no need to ask the House or the Senate to urgently pass a bill. The government made an administrative decision when reviewing the cases, and it denied eligible people what they were entitled to. It can make a quick decision to address the problem successfully.

On this beautiful day in the national capital, it is a shame to end a session with this kind of discussions. I cannot believe it. This government has no vision and no strategy for Canada, as I often say. The only vision and strategy it has is for the Liberal Party of Canada, period.

When the most vulnerable in our society are being accused, and pressure is put on health care professionals because there may have been a few cases where tax credits should have been denied, I think it is time for a few things to change.

I congratulate my colleague who moved this motion this morning, and I urge the government to take action in the interest of those we on this side are representing in the House.

[Health, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the quality of our health care system is a top priority for Canadians. The system is subject to all sorts of pressures, not the least of which is the ability to get new drugs that are capable of saving lives to market.

Canadians are concerned about the government's lack of responsibility on a number of fronts. There has been no shortage of examples of late where we have seen the government spend money without having the necessary safeguards in place.

These two elements combined lead to a clear lack of responsibility when it comes time to approve new drugs.

More specifically, there is within Health Canada a complete review and approval process for drug registration so that these drugs can be marketed and made available to those who really need them. While the approval period is supposed to be 345 days, in fact, it is 714 days, one year more than in the United States.

We need answers. That is why the minister must table an annual report to parliament containing the number of drugs that were approved, the periods required for approval and explanations for any delays. This is a matter of health for all Canadians.