Jim Abbott

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in order for the legislation to go through, the minister and the government whip must have the full co-operation of the backbenchers of the Liberal Party. I have it on good authority that the minister has been advising backbench Liberal members that whatever necessary amendments may have to be done in order to make the legislation proper will be done in the Senate after the bill passes third reading in the House.

I would like to have a simple answer. Has the minister or anyone on his behalf made those assurances in order to get people in his party on side? The answer is either yes or no.

[Points of Order, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a totally different topic. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage I bring to House's attention an issue that has risen in committee with respect to Bill S-7.

Bill S-7 passed this House and has been taken by up the committee. We are going through a process where amendments have been proposed. The committee chair has advised that the amendments are out of order but the committee continues to consider them. I draw to the attention of the Speaker a quote from page 661-662 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice which states:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled by the Chairman to be out of order. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then considered by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

Considering that this process has taken place and that amendments ruled by the committee chair to be beyond the scope of the bill are being considered, I would ask that the amendments not be allowed to go forward.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of constituents in the Canyon and Creston area of my riding. The petitioners note that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.

They call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sadomasochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Points of Order, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader has read us something that is irrelevant to my point. It is irrelevant in that the quotation that he read had to do with the fact that the question related to the personal business of Mr. Stevens. This issue does not have anything to do with the personal business of the solicitor general or certainly should not have.

My point is that the solicitor general in my judgment, and I am looking for your wisdom on this, Mr. Speaker, has clearly opened the door. As a minister that has been assigned responsibility for Prince Edward Island by the Prime Minister of Canada, he has reaffirmed in the House that he has responsibility for Prince Edward Island.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I should also be able to ask, for example, of the Minister of Natural Resources, who is the political minister for the province of British Columbia as assigned by the Prime Minister and does administrative functions on behalf of the Prime Minister with respect to that provincial responsibility, questions about what is going on in the province of British Columbia as they relate to any spending related to WED or anything of that nature in that province.

I think the solicitor general has opened the door and I would like to drive my car through it.

[Points of Order, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice of the House during question period that the opposition can only ask questions of the ministers and their area of ministerial responsibility. We have always been precluded from asking a question about the minister's responsibility with respect to province or other responsibilities that the Prime Minister has given to him.

The solicitor general, in a response to one of the questions today, made it very clear that he, as solicitor general, also had ministerial responsibility for the province of Prince Edward Island.

I would therefore ask if this does not make the case that in future the official opposition and others will be able to ask the ministers questions about their provincial responsibilities along with their other assigned responsibilities?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55. It is an interesting bill from the point of view that it contains an awful lot of what the government is so adept at, which is to sweep everything together in an omnibus bill. It is not specific. There are many very problematic parts of the bill. However until we see the regulations we will not really understand the intentions of the government.

This is so much a pattern of the Liberals that it is getting to the point where, as former Prime Minister Trudeau used to say, MPs are nobodies when they get away from the Hill. It seems to me that the current Prime Minister has taken that to mean MPs are nobodies even when they are on the Hill because we are asked to come to this place and enact omnibus legislation with few, if any, regulations. We have only the broadest intent from the government as to where it is going with the legislation and we are supposed to be prepared to cast an intelligent vote on its legislation. I say shame on the Liberals because this is absolutely a pattern, specifically with respect to Bill C-55.

I note from a comparison of the transportation issues in the bill that it really is a pale reflection of its American counterpart. The U.S. introduced, debated, amended and enacted much more comprehensive security legislation within a period of eight weeks. It has taken this government eight months just to introduce our legislation.

The problem is the bill does not get to the problem areas facing Canada. There is a problem of invalid documents. All persons who do not have documents should be detained automatically until they can prove their identity or a criminal check is run overseas. Our government does not have the intestinal fortitude required to stand up and be counted on behalf of Canadian citizens and people in this country who should be properly protected. This does not mean that any person with invalid documents should be detained automatically. If people present valid documents when they get on to an aircraft, how do they become invalid by the time they reach Canada?

There is a change in that there is no provision in the bill to send people back if they have come through a safe third country. We have said for the longest time, particularly with respect to our friends in the United States, that it does not make any sense to us that people would be in transit through the United States having landed in the United States. The difference is that they have landed in the United States and they then refugee shop and come to Canada.

Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that it was the Canadian Alliance that raised the bill and put the Deputy Prime Minister on the spot with respect to the bill and in spite of the scandalous comments that came out of the mouth of the immigration minister, we still maintained our position. Lo and behold, only a week after we brought up the issue, the government changed the rules and negotiated an agreement with the United States. Indeed, what we recommended as being just plain common sense will now be in place and we will see that people will not be able to refugee shop.

The concern I have and the reason why I specifically want to speak to the bill is that the bill invests a lot of power in the ministers through interim orders, giving the power to pass an immediate order equivalent to regulations passed by cabinet. This is a power grab. The interim orders need to be approved by cabinet 45 days after they are declared. This is 31 days more than the 14 days currently required by section 6.41 of the Aeronautics Act. Given that sweeping powers already exist in the Emergencies Act to declare a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency, the new interim orders are probably not necessary in most cases.

I am always concerned when the government sees fit to pull to itself powers that are unnecessary. I was the solicitor general critic for the Reform Party during the time of APEC when we clearly saw the Prime Minister's Office involved in running the police actions against some of the more aggressive protestors in Vancouver in 1997

I am committed to the concept that our democracy is defined as being a country where we are protected by the police but we are also protected from the police. Anytime we have politicians giving directions to police, we have the starting point of anarchy, even in a civilized country like Canada. It was this Prime Minister who was involved in that activity through his operative Jean Carle. I saw it, I heard it and I witnessed the testimony that occurred before Justice Hughes in the APEC inquiry.

I have a tremendous amount of difficulty with respect to this section of the bill. If only for this section of the bill, I would be compelled to vote against it. Giving politicians more power and the ability to move against ordinary citizens is just plain wrong.

There are some good sections to the bill. Job protection for reservists if called out “in respect to an emergency” is an important provision which has long been called for, but clarification will be required to ensure these provisions are adequate. We highly value reservists in our Canadian forces. They are men and women who are prepared to give up their time and work within their jobs around on our behalf. We must respect the fact that these people are prepared to put themselves in harms way. Therefore job protection for our reservists is a very important part of the bill.

In the bill there is little controversy about the provisions for greater sharing of information among financial institutions and regulators to comply with the money laundering act. I was involved in another parliament in the negotiation behind the scenes between political parties, particularly with respect to the money laundering act. Canada's money laundering act has the proper balance at this time. The relationship of this bill to the money laundering act is not problematic at all.

However I will restate the main reason why I wanted to speak on this issue. We must always stand on guard. Our national anthem says that we stand on guard for Canada. It is the role and responsibility of members of parliament to stand on guard for Canada. It is our role to ensure that any legislation we are involved in does not give to the government of the day any more power than it absolutely needs for us to have a proper civilized civil society.

I will oppose this legislation, but I look forward to the amendments that may occur during committee process.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to debate the issue in the main motion. It is an issue that crosses all party lines. Its is so valuable and important I hope the government and all House leaders will see fit to give members the opportunity to vote as they see fit and according to their consciences. It would be unconscionable for party discipline or any other force to silence people on this important issue.

We in our party have had an opportunity to look at Bill C-56 and are concerned about a number of issues contained in it. The bill is about improving human life. The Canadian Alliance strongly supports research to this end whenever it is compatible with the dignity and value of human life. As I said when we were debating the amendment, that is absolutely the key issue. Everyone must come to this place with great courage and look at the issue of the dignity and value of human life. It is something the Canadian Alliance will strive to protect.

Bill C-56 is about the best interests of children born of assisted reproductive technologies. The Canadian Alliance will work to protect them. The bill is about access by prospective parents to the best assisted reproductive technologies science can ethically offer. The Canadian Alliance will work to preserve this. As I said at the outset, MPs from all parties should have a free vote on the bill at all its stages.

Clause 40 of the bill says human embryos could be harvested if the new agency was satisfied it was necessary for the purpose of proposed research. The discretionary power must be reduced by defining in the bill what constitutes necessary. In my public life people have come to me to talk about various decisions that have been made in the legal system. Not being a lawyer, one of my frustrations has been looking at legislation and seeing the words necessary or intent suddenly appearing in it. Such words may be common to members of parliament but what they mean in ordinary discussion can be totally different from what they mean in an court of law. That is why the word necessary must not be left to regulations or the agency to define.

The purpose of research on human embryos is not specified in the bill. It must be restricted to creating medical therapies that assist in healing the human body. More importantly, we are looking for a delay in the passage of the bill because of the rapid changes in research that are happening as we speak. Rapid change is taking place within the whole medical community in terms of what we can learn from adult stem cells as opposed to embryonic stem cells.

The modification of the phrase from the majority standing committee report should be replaced in clause 40 of the bill with the following: “Unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that no other category of biological material could be used from which to derive healing human therapies”. This is not an incidental amendment. It is an absolutely key amendment because we must respect human life, and embryo life is human life.

To stop licensees from producing more embryos than are necessary with the ulterior motive of harvesting them for research, a new clause should be added: “No licensee will produce more embryos than are reasonably necessary to complete the reproductive procedure intended by the donors”. Again, this goes to the issue of respect for human life.

We are creative. I am dating myself when I speak about the fact that I can recall turning up to work early one morning and seeing the headline at the newsstand “Man on the Moon”. We have moved so far past that point it is unbelievable. The concept of being able to safely go to the moon, land on the moon and walk on the moon as Armstrong did was beyond my comprehension. How much further are we than that? We are 100 or 1,000 times further than that with our research.

Again, there are possibilities for research. Although it is essential research, possibilities can happen in the context of adult stem cell research, placenta cell research or other materials that do not get to the issue of terminating human life.

Bill C-56 specifies that consent of the donor would be required to use a human embryo for experimentation. The bill would leave it to the regulations to define donor. However there are two donors to every human embryo: a man and a woman. Both donors or parents, not just one, should be required to give written consent for the use of a human embryo. Both the woman and the man have the right to consent or not consent to the use of the embryo.

This is where we seem to be drifting apart as a society. We seem to be drifting away from the concept of procreation between a man and a woman in a marriage situation which results in children and what is called the nuclear family. We are now into recreational sex, which is fine. However talking about sex for procreation is considered old fashioned. That is what God created it for in the first place. If we talk about donors why do we not use the correct term which is parents? That is what they are. If one parent dissents the embryo should not be harvested for experiments.

One thing that bothers me as much as anything when it comes to legal jargon or interpretation, particularly in the political realm, is the use of euphemisms. To harvest embryos for experiments sounds terribly scientific, does it not? However what we are doing is taking human life. We are not harvesting it. We are taking human life, experimenting with it and then discarding it. Even the word harvesting is somewhat problematic from my perspective. That is why language is important. To accord the dignity and respect due to the human embryo the word parents should be substituted for the impersonal word donor wherever the bill refers to both male and female contributors to a viable embryo.

There are concerns about experiments with human beings. Stem cells derived from embryos and implanted in a recipient are foreign tissue and thus subject to immune rejection, possibly requiring years of costly anti-rejection drug therapies. Stem cells taken from embryos and injected into rats grew brain tumours in 20% of the cases. Dr. Roger Barker, a researcher from Cambridge University, said:

I don't think this will be a treatment in humans for quite some time.

In an editorial in September, 2001 the editor in chief of Stem Cells magazine stated:

I continue to think that clinical application is a long way off for at least two reasons. Prior to clinical use of embryonic and fetal stem cells, it will be necessary to thoroughly investigate the malignant potential of embryonic stem cells. In addition, a much more comprehensive elucidation of the immune response is necessary to provide the basis to prevent transplanted stem cells and their progeny from being rejected by the transplant recipient.

This is important to note. There have as yet been no successful therapeutic applications for embryonic stem cells.

We seem to be rushing forward at light speed. The health minister has said that she wants the bill through the House of Commons and on to committee so it can be considered over the summer. I am saying that we should hold on a second because there have not as yet been any successful therapeutic applications for embryonic stem cells. Therefore, why are we rushing forward at this light speed?

I think one of the greatest lessons I have learned is that when legislation comes to the House not infrequently it ends up slowing down.

In conclusion, I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to this and I look forward to the debate from the other members.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when a person comes to public life, the person has to come with certain convictions. We do not come as a blank sheet; we come as full people. We come as people who have a certain belief system, certain values. It is those values that our constituents see and those values that our constituents either vote for or vote against. Above all, when we come to public life we must have courage. We must have courage to stand and speak up on the issues that are important to us.

In the time I have had the privilege of representing the people of Kootenay--Columbia I can think of no other bill that is any more important to the very value of who we are as people and who we represent. This bill goes to the very core of our human life.

I was very impressed throughout my political career with Mr. Preston Manning. He thought things through very clearly and incisively. I would like to quote something he said in his concluding speech as he left the House.

In this country for a long time we have tended to avoid moral and ethical issues in the public arena for fear that they would divide us rather than unite us, or for fear that we would be misunderstood as trying to impose our particular values on others. Likewise, we have virtually banished expressions of religious faith largely now to the private or personal sphere because we simply do not know how to handle expressions of faith in the public arena.

This parliament will soon legislate on how to regulate the genetic revolution, one of the most exciting and potentially advantageous developments in the history of mankind. However, because that science deals with the beginnings and the intergenerational transfer of human life itself, it cannot help but have moral and ethical dimensions of the most profound kind which parliament must openly and seriously discuss. I for one think this is a good thing, not something to be feared and avoided, but an opportunity to be embraced. I want to wish this parliament openness and honesty and wisdom and success in those deliberations.

Those are very profound words from a very wise gentleman.

As I look through the papers and as I read comments, I am open to understanding where my constituents are coming from. It is very important as a member of parliament to understand where my constituents are coming from. I encourage them to speak to me. As they speak to me and express their thoughtful views about this topic, I listen with great attention and indeed with great respect. I also listen to other members in the House on whatever side of the House with respect. That is what it is all about. It is not only about respect for ourselves, but it is a respect for the most closely held values and beliefs that we have.

In doing some reading I happened across an article that was in the Calgary Sun on May 26. The article is entitled “We must not kill in the name of science” by Bishop Fred Henry. He went into the whole issue of where I see the most pressing ethical dilemma. To my mind the most pressing ethical dilemma is the issue of stem cell research on embryos. We have no idea where that research will go, particularly the research on stem cells of adult stem cells. Let me quote him directly:

So, how do we solve this ethical dilemma? Simple. We ban the easy cases, i.e., cloning of humans, creation of human-animal hybrids, and sex selection of babies for non-medical purposes. Secondly, create a new body, the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada to regulate scientific and medical use of human reproductive materials. Of course, the agency could permit research using stem cells from embryos left over from infertility treatment but scientists would have to show the use of embryos was necessary for research. Who would make this determination? The board would be appointed by the government.

According to the act, this new agency would also have another task. It would be illegal to give a financial incentive to a surrogate mother, but she could be compensated for reasonable expenses.(It takes a bit of mental gymnastics to get your head around that one.) However, you guessed it. Permissible expenses would be determined by the new agency.

The article continues:

[The people involved with this bill], bedeviled by technological possibilities, forget the materials kept in frozen storage are whole human organisms. They contain a full set of chromosomes. They are human beings at a very early stage of development. Whether or not one is a human being does not depend upon size or location in the physical world.

This is the key point and I agree with the writer totally:

They are not “potential” human life. They are precisely what human beings look like at that point of their lives. Freezing an embryo does not kill it, but merely arrests its development.

We have to be strong and forthright in having a discussion about this very problematic issue. The article continues:

Scientists have long recognized the principle that no experimental or research procedure should be conducted on human subjects if it provides no direct benefit or if risks to the subject are inordinately great.

In the case of human embryo experimentation, not only is there no direct benefit to the subject, but the embryo is killed. This cannot be done for whatever reason, even in view of the possibility that it might provide advances that would benefit others. No amount of public benefit can ever justify the deliberate killing of a human being. The argument is particularly hollow when the same results could be achieved by alternate means, such as the use of adult stem cells or stem cells derived from umbilical cords or placentas. Such research would have no ethical complications and has already shown promising results.

No human being, including the embryo, should ever be used as a means to an end; no human should be considered “surplus” or “spare”.

It is always wrong to destroy another human even to help another. Both the means and the objective must be good--there is no middle ground.

We cannot kill in the name of science.

That is where I am coming down with all the force I possibly can. There is a whole new world available to us as human beings in this entire area of reproductive technology and genetics. It is absolutely unbelievable the amount of potential there is for good in this area. I believe with all the passion I have that the research must take place in the areas where we will not be killing human life. To repeat what the writer said, and I agree with his thoughts completely, the whole issue of human life is that those so-called embryos are simply human life at a particular state put into suspended animation as a result of the procedure of freezing them.

The preamble to the bill includes the phrase “the dignity and respect for human life” and is generally stated both in the majority and minority reports of the Standing Committee on Health and clause 22 of the bill as primary objectives of the assisted human reproduction agency. Without that preamble, without the phrase “the dignity and respect for human life”, this parliament is simply sidestepping the issue.

Note that I did not say the government or the Liberals. I am not getting into partisanship here. The 301 people in this assembly representing the people of Canada have to come to grips with this issue. We cannot sidestep the issue. We either respect the dignity of human life or we do not. If we do not deal with that issue, then we are sidestepping it; we are wimps and we are walking away from the problem.

On the other side of the coin, I state again that as the representative of the people of Kootenay--Columbia, I must have full respect for other perspectives in this place. I must have full respect and listen with intelligence and integrity to the representations of the people in my constituency. I have put a stake in the ground right here. I have respect for the dignity of human life.

[Memorial Cup, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Kootenay Ice won the Memorial Cup in Guelph, Ontario.

Let us look at the team's history. In Cranbrook for only four years, the first two playing at the old Cranbrook Memorial Arena with a seating capacity of only 1,500, the Ice won the Western Hockey League championship in their second year, then moved to the new Cranbrook Recplex.

Now at 4,500 screaming fans, they decisively won the Western Hockey League championship this year. The Kootenay Ice lost their first two playoff games at home, but just like the rest of the residents in my constituency, they did not give up. They came back, first defeating Prince George, then Kelowna and then a very strong team from Red Deer.

Coached by Ryan McGill, the Ice moved on to win the Memorial Cup with a convincing 6-3 win over the Victoriaville Tigres. I wish to extend congratulations to team owner Ed Chynoweth and particularly to the players, who showed so much character in playing a controlled, disciplined, forceful style of hockey.

I was proud to be among the hundreds of Kootenay residents who went to Guelph, Ontario to cheer for the Ice. Fans and players were fire on ice.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, why would the hon. member and the heritage minister not be concerned about the fact that they do not have to tell anybody who is presently supporting their leadership campaigns when they are the people who are responsible for making decisions on the part of companies that stand to win or to lose tens and hundreds of millions of dollars? Why would they not want those companies' names on an open list so that we would know who is supporting the member in his potential leadership race?