Leon Benoit

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments which include the title. I am not sure whether someone has talked about the title and what happened to the original title, but the original title of the bill was “an act respecting assisted human reproduction”.

Someone might ask why it is important that the title has been changed. What happened was that the committee, without the approval of anyone it seems, changed the title to assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. It seems to me that part of the purpose for that was to put the emphasis more on technology and to take the discussion and the debate away from what the bill really is about, which is human reproduction. I think that is an important change just in the tone of the debate.

When we look at the title of the bill and what is in the bill we see that the bill's original title, “an act respecting assisted human reproduction”, was appropriate. I think it should be returned to that. That proposal was made but it may be difficult to get that changed now.

In looking at the bill we see that the bill is about improving human health. The Canadian Alliance strongly supports research to this end, obviously. Who does not? However it has to be compatible with the dignity and value of human life. What we are talking about here is human life and human reproduction.

The Canadian Alliance will strive to protect the dignity and value of human life. We have seen in Parliament over the past nine years that there have been certain members of Parliament from all parties who have focused on protecting the dignity and the value of human life. However, as a political party, certainly the Canadian Alliance has focused on that more so than any other political party. That is important to our members.

The bill is important not only for Canadian Alliance members of Parliament but for Canadians generally. I am pleased to see members from other political parties who understand that and to hear them speak out very strongly on that throughout the debate at second reading and now at report stage. I am sure it will be carried through to third reading.

If we look at the essence of the bill it is about the best interests of the children born of assisted reproductive technologies.

The Canadian Alliance will continue to work hard, as our critics have, as others who have had input into the legislation have and as our former leader, Preston Manning, did as he worked through committee, over the months and months that led up to this bill, taking care of every detail. The Canadian Alliance will continue to work to protect the children born of assisted reproductive technologies. To me that is the essence of the bill. I do not think the title properly reflects that.

The bill is also about the prospective parents and the best assisted reproductive technologies that science can ethically offer. The Canadian Alliance will work to preserve that access to prospective parents which is also important.

When it comes to dealing with this issue, it will be extremely important, and I think most Canadians would agree, that all MPs from all parties have a free vote on the bill at all stages.

The bill was brought forth by the government but it is too important a bill to be dealt with through party whips. The essence of the bill deals with human life and reproduction. It is about protecting the children born of reproductive technologies or assisted by reproductive technologies, and it is about the parents of these children. It is the type of issue that should be dealt with and settled entirely by each member of Parliament voting to represent their constituents on the issue.

I know that many members of Parliament from the governing party and the official opposition have done a lot of work with their constituents on this issue. They have had a lot of debate on the issue, more debate than we probably have had on most of the legislation that has passed through the House. They have had that debate and have heard from their constituents. There is obviously no other appropriate way to deal with this other than to have a free vote. I cannot stress that too much. It may sound like I am belabouring the point but it is a point that has to be made clearly. If we see a whipped vote, then I think each MP who accepts that should have to answer to his or her constituents on it because it is that important.

When we look at the legislation we see that dealing with the research of human embryos is a key part of the legislation which is what makes it so important. Clause 40 says that human embryos can be harvested if the new agency satisfies itself that it is necessary for the purpose of proposed research. However this discretionary power must be reduced by defining in the bill what constitutes necessary. I think that is something that must happen. I know we are not yet speaking to the group that deals with clause 40 but when looking at the title this certainly is a connection that should be made. It must not be left to regulations made by the agency.

We have seen too much of that in legislation where, instead of dealing with the hard issues in legislation, the government leaves the issues out of the legislation and then deals with the sensitive issues through regulations so that it is not open to public debate nearly as much. I do not think that is an appropriate way to handle issues like this. I think Canadians are looking for clear definitions on words like necessary when looking at the issue of research involving human embryos.

The purpose of research on human embryos is not specified in the bill. The purpose must be restricted to creating medical therapies that will assist in healing the human body. It is not specified in the bill what the purpose of research on human embryos really means and it certainly should be.

A modification in the phrase from the majority standing committee report should be placed in clause 40 of the bill. It would read “unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that no other category of biological material could be used from which to derive healing human therapies”. This is an important amendment and one which I hope would be supported by all members in the House.

I see my time is up. I am looking forward to speaking to the other groups of amendments as they come before the House, as well as to third reading of the bill. To me this is clearly the most important legislation that the House has dealt with and will deal with for some time.

[Iraq, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian military performs well in spite of the government, not because of it.

This week, officials from the foreign affairs and defence departments are heading to Washington to discuss missile defence. The foreign affairs minister is opposed to missile defence but the defence minister says that the government has yet to determine what role, if any, it wants to play in defending Canadians from missile attacks. This is just another foreign affairs issue on which the government is confused.

Which Canadian position, if any, will the government be taking to Washington?

[Iraq, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians never want war but they do recognize the need to be prepared for it.

The government has neglected Canada's military to the point where it may be unable to use, threatened or real, military force to remove the threat posed by tyrants like Hussein. No matter what the government's actual position is on Iraq, what is the Canadian military ready and able to contribute to international efforts to make Saddam Hussein disarm?

[Canadian Forces, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, Canada's loyal opposition, to thank the men and women of the Canadian forces for helping to keep Canadians safe and secure. I especially want to remember all of our troops who will spend Christmas far from loved ones so that we in Canada may enjoy our holidays with our loved ones in safety and peace.

More than at any other time in this generation, Canadians have come to appreciate freedom and democracy, and that we cannot take them for granted. The commitment of Canada's military personnel to upholding these values and to keeping our country safe and secure is deeply appreciated. Canada deserves the very best, and in our military personnel it has the very best.

I am sure all members of the House will join with the Canadian Alliance as we thank all of the men and women in the Canadian forces for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. We pray that those overseas during the holidays will be kept safe from all harm. May God bless them all.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on the Kyoto accord today. The ratification of Kyoto is an extremely important issue. However in listening to the speeches over the past few days, a lot of what has been said has really nothing to do with the Kyoto protocol.

Many members referred to saving the planet. Any of us who have seen an environmental problem which is a threat to the planet obviously would do anything at any cost to save the planet. However, that is not what this is about. Today in the 10 minutes that I have I will to try to explain what Kyoto is about, what it would do in dealing with any real pollution problems and briefly what the economic impacts could be. I think those are the things Canadians want to know about.

First, Kyoto targets only carbon dioxide and to a much lesser extent methane and nitrous oxide. Combining these with water vapour creates the greenhouse gases that help control the temperature to some extent on the earth's surface. Kyoto is talking about those are the greenhouse gases.

Second, clearly carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Plants depend on carbon dioxide to grow. If we wish to grow plants for food, they need carbon dioxide. To raise our animals we need plants that use carbon dioxide to grow. Clearly CO

2

is not a pollutant and it should not be referred to as that.

Some government members have said that by controlling CO

2

we are also controlling some real pollutants. These members acknowledge that CO

2

is not a pollutant. They say that if we are controlling CO

2

because of the basket of pollutants that is released, CO

2

being part of other substances being released and are real pollutants, then the Kyoto protocol, if implemented, would help deal with real pollutants.

If those real pollutants are what the government is concerned about, then why do we not put in place a policy that deals with them directly and not just as some ancillary or auxiliary part of an agreement? This has nothing to do with the Kyoto protocol. Why not focus on real pollution.

I will argue and make the point that if Kyoto is implemented, it will lead to greater pollution of the planet.

First, with the U.S. out of the agreement, pollution in greenhouse gas emissions would actually rise if Canada were to implement the treaty. Many energy intensive operations in the United States use a far higher percentage of electricity generated from relatively high polluting, coal fired stations than is the case here in Canada.

Second, if we are to ratify Kyoto, when the United States has said it will not, we will be exporting industry and jobs to the United States, where the U.S. will be using coal which will pollute our atmosphere in a very real way. Therefore Kyoto will actually lead to an increase in pollution.

What is worse, many industries will move their operations away from Canada to developing countries which have little or no control over serious pollutants which threaten human health and the national environment. Countries such as China, India, Brazil are exempt from emissions controls. In fact, nations exempt from Kyoto's provisions or are not ratifying it produce 80% of the emissions of greenhouse gases and a much higher portion of actual pollutants as well. If we are to export industry from Canada to these developing nations, we are in fact leading to the pollution of this planet, not the opposite.

Third, there is a real concern that the actions necessary to implement radical carbon dioxide reductions would result in technological switching to emissions with higher pollution. Therefore, if we were to implement this agreement, we are in fact increasing the pollution of the planet.

Fourth, economists say that Kyoto could lead to a recession in Canada and, as with every recession in any developed country, this recession would lead to a reduction in existing environmental programs. Clearly the money would not there in the economy to pay the taxes which would be used on dealing with genuine environmental problems.

The implementation of Kyoto in Canada will lead to higher pollution of the planet. The debate I have heard on this issue ignores these clearly fundamental points which have to be made.

All of this is being talked about because of what I would call bad science. There is only a small fraction of climate scientists who are prepared to commit themselves to the idea that humans are causing significant climate change. Many eminent scientists, including meteorologists who study weather patterns, claim that any warming we are experiencing falls well within cyclical norms. This is something the government does not often talk about, but it is a reality.

From looking at glacial ice cores they have found that what is happening right now with CO

2

levels falls within norms that have been reached over the past few hundred thousand years. They have also found that the CO

2

levels now are not as high as they have been at times over the past few hundred thousand years.

To my knowledge, unless there was a human race before us that I do not know about, man was not involved in raising those CO

2

levels a few hundred thousand years ago, yet the CO

2

levels were higher then than they are now.

This whole debate on the Kyoto issue is taking place due to bad science. There are a lot of other examples and quotes from people such as Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a former Environment Canada scientist, who has said the same type of thing. The environment minister, the Prime Minister and other people who claim that the blizzards, droughts and all those things somehow come from an increase in greenhouse gases, I believe, are being fundamentally dishonest with Canadians.

Scientists argue that is not the case. I do not think it is healthy for debate when people in the government make radical, extreme statements like that because factually speaking, it is simply not the truth. How can ministers, people who are supposed to be responsible, make those kinds of claims? I would argue they cannot, in good judgment.

I stress that if implemented, Kyoto will damage our environment further and that this whole thing is based on bad science. I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about what the fallout of implementation of Kyoto could mean.

Many people back home say Kyoto is just another national energy program, which damaged Alberta in a way that very few Canadians understand. My brother lost a rapidly developing business directly as a result of the national energy program. Family members lost jobs as a result of the implementation of the national energy program. It hurt Alberta, and Saskatchewan to some extent, in a way that is hard for anyone else to understand.

Is Kyoto like the national energy program? No, it is different. Although it will hurt Alberta more than any other province, it will hurt every single Canadian across the country. That is what makes it different from the national energy program.

We can look at how it will hurt. According to experts, the cost of the average home may increase by $30,000. That is the figure being used. Every individual, including those on fixed incomes, may see their electricity bill increase 100%. The cost of fuel at the pumps over the next few years probably will double according to many of the experts. Other costs that people have every single day just to survive will increase dramatically due to the implementation of Kyoto.

All that, combined with the reality that Kyoto will make pollution worse and not better, and that it is based on very doubtful science at the best, should lead us to not support the government when it pushes ratification of Kyoto through next week.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech the member talked about contaminants that are affecting the health of people from her constituency. I think that is something that the government certainly should be dealing with.

It is ironic, I think, that this member would talk about the importance of dealing with the problem of contaminants affecting the health of her constituents and at the same time support the Kyoto agreement, because the Kyoto protocol has nothing to do with the contaminants she is talking about. It has zero to do with that.

Kyoto also has nothing to do with acid rain, nothing to do with the smog over Toronto or any of our Canadian cities, and nothing to do with any types of pollutants that are in our water, our soil and our air. It has only to do with carbon dioxide and the other small amounts of greenhouse gases which combine with water vapour. Water is the single largest greenhouse gas. The theory is that is causing global warming. It is unproven. She is supporting an agreement that deals with this unproven science about increasing temperature and yet in her speech she was talking about contaminants, which are absolutely not included in the Kyoto agreement. They have nothing to do with it.

Why does this member not support the position taken by the official opposition and others, which is to put government resources into dealing with real pollution problems like acid rain, pollution over our cities, smog and the types of pollution she is talking about, if it is in fact man-made? Why is she not encouraging the government to put money into those resources, deal with those very real environmental problems and forget about for now, at least until the science is clear, something that is so uncertain as whether man is causing global warming?

I would like to ask the member why she does not support that.

[Petitions, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the other group of petitions is on behalf of petitioners in my constituency. The petitioners call on Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Petitions, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two groups of petitions to present here. The first group of petition ask that no bail be allowed for accused murders who are caught by eye witnesses in the act of committing crimes and that only maximum sentences be given under those circumstances.

This group of petitions was spawn from the death of Dana Fair in Lloydminster a couple of years ago.

[National Defence, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that in fact that process has been announced and now it has been stopped by the minister.

By not providing investment where it is needed, the government has reduced the benefit of the money that has been allocated to defence. For example, because the government does not invest in new ships or in helicopters, the effectiveness of each billion dollar frigate is a fraction of what it should be.

Could the minister explain to Canadian taxpayers why the government simply refuses to make investments that would multiply the effectiveness of the funding that it spends now on national defence?

[National Defence, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister says that he is making the case to cabinet for an increase in funding for the Canadian Forces. However, the finance minister says that in order to increase funding he needs to know exactly where the money is needed, where it is going to go and what its strategic purpose is. Now the opposition has learned from sources inside the Department of National Defence that the minister has halted work on the defence review.

How does the defence minister expect to make the case for more funding to the finance minister when he has halted the process which would provide the information that the finance minister needs?