Leon Benoit

[National Defence, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, General Ross, the head of international security policy for the Canadian military, reportedly offered his resignation because of the government's decision to send troops back to Afghanistan. The government should always ask military leaders whether a mission is manageable, but the head of the army learned of the decision to send troops into Afghanistan only minutes before the minister announced his decision.

Why did the government leave our top military leaders out of the loop when it came to a decision to send our troops into harm's way?

[National Defence, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what the former finance minister did is slash $29 billion from defence spending. Now department sources say they are only going to get $2 billion to $2.4 billion over the next three years.

That is not enough. Our forces need at least $2 billion to be added to the base budget for next year to cover the $1.5 billion military deficit and to start rebuilding our military to fight the war on terrorism.

Will the current finance minister invest enough in the next fiscal year to reverse the erosion of the Canadian Forces, or will he be satisfied to merely slow down the decline?

[National Defence, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister managed to accomplish something that no enemy force in Canadian history ever could. He has brought the proud Canadian Forces to their knees. He slashed $29 billion from defence spending in the last nine years.

Will the current finance minister promise Canadians to start to undo the damage done by the former finance minister, the phantom from LaSalle--Émard?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the Group No. 6 amendments to Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.

The issue has a lot to do with stem cell research. Most members have referred to stem cell research. I have never had so much reason to be optimistic about medical research in my lifetime than has been caused by the whole issue of stem cell research. It is an exciting opportunity to finally find treatments and cures for some of the more serious diseases that we face as human beings.

Probably every one of us has someone in our family who is suffering from a disease and we are all desperately hoping for a treatment or a cure for that disease. We all should be very optimistic about the potential of stem cell research and I think we are. It is something to be excited about. I know I am, as is probably everyone who is taking a look at this. It is therefore important that we get it right.

In the Group No. 6 amendments we are talking about government oversight of the legislation. It is a very important aspect of the legislation. Before I get into talking about that, I want to look at the changes these amendments would make to the bill should they be passed.

One of the most critical and difficult aspects of the bill, as the former speaker said, is the issue of whether or not we should be moving into the area of embryonic stem cell research. Most companies which put money and resources into this type of research at first put them into embryonic stem cell research because it seems that there is so much potential in that area. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on research on embryonic stem cells. So far, unfortunately, researchers have come up empty handed in that category.

On the other hand, research using adult stem cells, stem cells which are readily available and are clearly far more stable than embryonic stem cells, has shown not only a lot of promise, but has already delivered, at least in the early stages, some treatments and cures. That is very exciting. From the testimony the committee heard and from information I have heard and read, clearly the most promise comes from adult stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research carries some obvious problems. The cells have proven over time to be very unstable, which has caused problems. For example in laboratory testing on mice, many have developed brain tumours when embryonic stem cells were used because of the cells being so unstable or for other reasons. If embryonic stem cells are used in the human body, we do not know whether the recipient, the person who is hoping to have a cure or a treatment that will help him live with a very serious disease, will be required to take anti-rejection drugs for a long time and possibly for the rest of his life. These drugs of course have a negative impact on the individual and they are also very expensive.

There are a lot of serious problems attached to embryonic stem cell research. Another very serious difficulty in using embryonic stem cells for research is that many people feel for religious reasons or moral reasons that it is an improper use of human life to use human embryonic stem cells in research. We have already seen promising and quite amazing results from adult stem cell research. There is so much potential there. Let us focus our resources on that and stay entirely away from this moral dilemma we face. Why have that split, why allow this research to go on when it causes that split in society?

I would suggest that there will be people desperately ill, looking for a cure or a treatment, who will be forced to go against their moral values and positions on this issue because they are desperate for a cure. Again, the adult stem cells show a lot of promise. We have already had some wonderful things happen with adult stem cells. Let us focus on what the Canadian Alliance and I believe the committee suggested. First, there should be a three year moratorium on research with embryonic stem cells. We should focus on adult stem cells. I am absolutely certain we will see some wonderful results in the future.

I think that this is the way to go. Unfortunately the legislation has not properly dealt with it. In the Group No. 6 amendments, Motion No.103 put forth by the Canadian Alliance health critic points to part of the problem when it comes to government oversight. The motion shows that there is a problem with government transparency and accountability, because too many decisions will be allowed to be made behind closed doors just through regulatory changes, which usually go unmonitored. Certainly at the time there is no pre-approval given to them in most cases.

Motion No. 103 would delete clause 71 of the bill as it is before the House right now. Clause 71 allows grandfathering of controlled activities “until a day fixed by regulations”. It is grandfathering control behind closed doors by order in council, in effect by the cabinet or in reality by the minister. Already we are dealing with an extremely sensitive issue. Many say that it allows humans to almost become God. When we are dealing with such sensitive issues I do not think it is proper that one individual, such as the minister, should have the kind of control that is allowed in the bill. This is an issue of openness, transparency and accountability.

As clause 71 is currently worded, it allows scientists who engage in a controlled activity once before the act takes effect to thereby avoid licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. But if it is wrong in the future, why is it not wrong now? Why would they be allowed once to get around the regulations that are supposed to control in the way that Parliament and, hopefully, Canadians want? Why would we allow this one time avoidance of the issue?

This could result in a stampede toward controlled activities, especially embryonic research, I suggest, before the bill takes effect, just so scientists can be involved in this activity once. I think that this shows clearly the moral dilemma in having the minister in effect control this. Some of the concerns to do with that are I think quite obvious.

The current clause is really a get out of jail free card. This is the way our critic has referred to it. I think that is a fairly accurate description, as it allows the governor in council to exempt these controlled activities through regulation instead of having legislation passed in the House that clearly states what we will do and what we want to do.

Our argument is that the controlled activities should not be grandfathered. That is what Motion No. 103 would do. It would prevent them from being grandfathered. There are important reasons why controlled activities otherwise require licences and why violations are subject to prosecution. That is why they are there in the first place. They are not there for a frivolous reason. They are there for a very important reason: because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life, a very serious and sensitive issue indeed.

We do not want to do anything to stand in the way of this effective research that is taking place. In fact, just the opposite: We want to have legislation that will allow that to happen as freely as possible, only putting in place the restrictions that the committee of the House of Commons put forth on behalf of Canadians. That is what I know the committee certainly attempted to do and in large part I think the committee did it effectively. Unfortunately, this is one part where it simply was not done effectively. There is not a proper transparency. There is not a proper accountability with the way the government has chosen to stray from the committee's recommendations and to put this in the legislation.

This is a concern that I see the government becoming involved in, well beyond this legislation. I do not have time to talk about that now, but when we look at it we can see that it is the same type of doing things behind closed doors that is very common with the government. The war in Iraq is an example. The government's statement to the public for some time has been that there would be no war, period. Then it was that there would be no war unless the UN sanctioned it, while all the time the government knew that it would in fact--

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 5th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, as I said when I started my presentation just a few minutes ago, I am happy to once again be speaking to Bill C-13 and specifically to the Group No. 5 amendments.

It is interesting that all of the amendments in this group are from a member of the governing party. He was very dissatisfied with much of what was and was not in the legislation when it came before the House. He did not feel that it accurately reflected what the committee said in some cases, and he felt that it just was not suitable legislation to deal with such a sensitive, serious and important issue. Because of that, the member brought forth these amendments and I believe all of them will be supported by most, possibly all, Alliance members. These amendments are important to producing better legislation than that which the government has tabled.

It is important for people to take a careful look at what Bill C-13 really is about. It is of course, in very basic terms, about human reproductive technology. It is, as I have said before in presentations, an issue which carries with it some very controversial matters, at least in the way it has been presented to the House.

One of those matters, which I spoke to last time, is whether stem cell research should be allowed immediately on embryonic stem cells as well as adult stem cells. What I said in my presentation last time is that so far, against all predictions, the best results in terms of stem cell research have come in the area of adult stem cell research.

The research has not been focused on adult stem cell research for long. It has been focused for much longer on embryonic stem cell research and, quite frankly, the corporations involved in doing the research fully expected the best results to come from embryonic stem cells. They felt that strongly enough that they put their money into embryonic stem cell research, but reality has shown something entirely different. First of all, it has shown that research on embryonic stem cells has not been productive. There is not one cure or effective treatment to date coming from research done on embryonic stem cells. I am sure that some of the corporations that were involved are extremely disappointed. Of course they are going to continue to push the issue because if they put millions and even billions of dollars into embryonic stem cell research, then they certainly are going to want results to come from that research.

We have seen a much newer type of research on adult stem cells being far more effective. Just over the few months that it has been concentrated on, we already have had some incredible results. We already have found effective treatments in some areas and some things that are very close to cures in other areas, and I think it is really exciting.

I want everyone to know that our party fully supports stem cell research. We think there is an almost unimaginable potential for dealing with some of the most serious diseases and problems that Canadians face and that in fact people around the world face. It is exciting. Anybody who is really interested in science, who has a scientific approach to things and likes to let their mind go sometimes and imagine what can be done, has to be excited about stem cell research, not only about the potential but about how already after such a short time of research the results from adult stem cell research are just remarkable.

It is exciting and I think Canadians should expect that legislation which regulates stem cell research would in no way inhibit that research which is most likely to bring those exciting results.

Our party also says, in fact, that we should not allow research on embryonic stem cells to continue until we can be quite certain that adult stem cell research will not bring about the cures being sought. One of the main reasons we have said to stay away from the controversial issue of using embryonic stem cells is the whole issue of pro-life and pro-choice. This is one of the most divisive issues in the country. What we say is let us not make this legislation something that brings that type of division to the country or that exacerbates that division. Why do we need that? I do not think we do.

Let us give it three years and look at the results from adult stem cell research. So far there have not been exciting results from embryonic stem cell research. In fact, we have seen some huge problems with embryonic stem cell research. It has been found that embryonic stem cells are too unpredictable and during experimentation brain tumours have been produced in mice. There is just too much instability in this. I do not think we would want to try such uncertain cures on humans until such a time that they are well proven. In the meantime, with all the exciting results coming from adult stem cell research we should go full bore with that. I believe that in three years we will probably find that this is where the research should be focused.

My party has talked about some of the problems we have with the bill but there are things we support in the bill as well. It is important to make it very clear that we fully support the bans on reproductive or therapeutic cloning, chimeras, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, buying and selling of embryos, and paid surrogacy.

We also support having an agency to regulate the sector, although we want changes to that agency. From what I have seen and heard, everyone in the House supports the agency and it is only a matter of how we think it should operate. That can be extremely important. We have to get it right when setting up this agency. There are some amendments to the legislation that deal with this.

We do have concerns about human embryonic research and I have talked about the controversy this causes as well as its instability. Last time, I talked about some of the remarkable and exciting cures that have been found through adult stem cell research.

We also have concerns about the regulatory agency. I will mention a few of the highlights. The bill would create the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada which would issue licences for controlled activities, collect health reporting information to advise the minister, and designate inspectors for the enforcement of the act, which I think we all feel is important. The board of directors would be appointed by the governor in council with a membership that reflects “a range of backgrounds and disciplines relevant to the Agency's objectives”.

One of the highlights of the regulatory agency, which was amended at committee, is that it would require board members to have no financial interests in any business “regulated or controlled” by the act. The health minister is now trying to undo these conflict of interest provisions. We certainly do have a problem with that, as I think most members of committee do who dealt with this issue in depth. When we are looking at this regulatory agency, we should not see the health minister, who is the minister responsible, entirely overruling without any appropriate explanation the good work the committee did. Yet that is what we have seen.

When it comes to this agency we have to undo the harm being done by the minister. We have to respect the committee in that regard. We have to deal with some of these important issues and I will be speaking about some of them later.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 5th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Group No. 5 motions which, if passed, will amend Bill C-13.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad when we hear that kind of commentary from the member. The broad generalization she has given about men not caring for children is simply not true. All most men want is to have access to their children after divorce. She is saying that is simply not true. Working with that foundation, we have no hope of working out an arrangement that will work for the children after divorce. This truly is shocking.

In the 1998 committee report, “For the Sake of the Children”, it called for shared parenting because it found, after listening to both men and women, fathers and mothers who had gone through divorce, that the best thing for the children was to have both parents involved, unless there was some special reason why one parent should not be involved. However the member kind of brushes all that aside.

Does the member believe that report said the right things and really did point out what was best for children? If she does believe that, why is she not pushing for the government to implement that in the legislation. That is what the committee came up with.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am somewhat shocked by what I just heard. The statistic that only 7% of fathers are interested in their children after divorce is quite shocking coming from the member because it simply is not true, it is inaccurate and not a reality.

As with many fathers, the happiest time in my life was when I was sharing in the parenting of my children. I am talking about the very active sharing in the parenting of our children. I think the member ought to check out the statistics a little more.

However she went beyond that and said that it was clear to her that most men simply did not take an interest and that they really did not want to be involved in parenting. What a shocking base to come from when we are looking at an issue as important as this.

I want to ask the member a question straight out and I would like her to give a straight answer? Does she feel that both parents should have equal access to the children following divorce?

[National Defence, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the committee has an important job to do, to weed out inefficiencies in the Canadian military. Canadians will want to know what the committee finds so that the government can finally get on with the job of fixing the problems that it identifies.

Will the minister commit to making this report public?

[National Defence, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has announced his advisory committee on administrative efficiency. The chair of the committee is Harold Stephen who, in his bio, is noted to have experience in successfully restructuring bankrupt corporations. Why does the government allow its military to deteriorate so badly that it needs a bankruptcy expert to fix it?