Monique Guay

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is very important. As we know, it concerns assisted human reproduction. I can understand that there are divergent opinions on this matter. I know that some members of the House oppose this project for religious or other personal reasons. I do not share their views. However, we must divide the issue and see the positive and the scientific side of assisted reproduction. As I was saying, it is not simply a religious question or a question of conscience; one very important aspect is that, with assisted reproduction, we can help families or people who truly need help.

I will give the House a little scenario. For some years now, a cluster of technological developments have made the headlines. From Dolly the sheep to the debate about cloning human embryos for therapeutic purposes, the exciting buzz of biotechnology is taking us down previously unexplored paths. The fact that today we have some ability to deconstruct matter and, to some extent, reconstruct a living being, means that we are confronted with new problems, whose extent we still do not comprehend. These new possibilities require increased vigilance and solid ethical examination, in order to ensure that we do not overstep certain boundaries. In order to do this, a new legal language, new concepts and a new political approach are required.

Over the years, many parliamentarians, including a number from the Bloc Quebecois, have exposed the legal vacuum surrounding assisted reproduction. Again and again, we have revived the debate by calling on citizens and experts to express themselves and by demanding that the federal government impose socially acceptable limits as soon as possible. Still, we must admit that it is difficult to strike a balance between a solid ethical position that respects human dignity and the need to meet therapeutic needs.

We must decide overall how we view life and what kind of technological progress we want. Society has to make some choices, and it is high time for this debate to move into the public arena, so that everyone can have their say. Recently tabled legislation on assisted human reproduction by the federal government is a good first step in stimulating this discussion and, at the same time, relaunching a social debate temporarily shelved.

I want to review the highlights of this legislation. On May 9, the Minister of Health introduced this highly anticipated legislation on assisted human reproduction. It seeks to protect the health and safety of individuals using assisted reproductive technologies to start a family, to prohibit unacceptable activities, such as human cloning, and to regulate assisted reproductive technologies and related research. The assisted human reproduction agency of Canada, which will be created under this legislation, will issue licences for research, monitor such activities and oversee the application of the legislation on assisted reproduction.

Safety must, to some extent, be ensured. In order to ensure the health and safety of those who turn to assisted reproduction, this bill stipulates that individuals thinking of donating an ovum or an embryo for assisted human reproduction or research purposes must give their informed consent in writing before any procedure. Children born through the use of reproductive material will have access to medical information on donors, but will not necessarily have access to their identity, donors being free to decide whether or not to divulge their identity.

The legislation would also prohibit unacceptable activities, such as the creation of human clones for any reason whatsoever, i.e. for purposes of reproduction or for therapeutic purposes. The legislation would also prohibit creating an in vitro embryo for purposes other than creating a human being or improving assisted reproduction procedures, creating chimeras or hybrids for reproductive purposes, providing financial inducements to a woman to become a surrogate mother, and buying or selling human embryos or providing property or services in exchange.

I would like to present an overview of the pros and cons as set out in the various arguments we have heard throughout the discussions on human cloning. The arguments of those in favour of stem cell research fall into four main categories: historical, medical, humanitarian and legal-political.

Let us begin with the historical arguments. In the 1970s, there was vocal opposition to DNA research. After the establishment of government guidelines, however, not only was there good monitoring of research, but research also led to the development of human insulin for diabetics.

As for the medical arguments, many are of the opinion that embryonic stem cell research has a huge potential for curative medicine.

Humanitarian arguments are usually advanced by associations such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, based on their belief that such research is indispensable to improving the situation of those with the disease. Some experts point out that there are hundreds of frozen embryos in fertility clinics throughout Canada that have become useless, whereas they could have been used to help find treatments for such diseases as cancer, diabetes and Parkinson's disease.

Now for the legal-political arguments. Certain women's groups and certain legal experts argue that, in our current legal framework, the Supreme Court has been obliged, since 1988, to recognize that not only is a fetus not a human being—which civil law also acknowledges—but that it cannot be considered viable before the 20th week of gestation. Thus, if a fetus is not a human being, then tissues from it are not tissues from a human being.

Now for the arguments against. Research on human embryonic stem cells is controversial, mainly because it involves destruction of the embryo used. According to the Catholic Church, the creation of embryos for research purposes and the use of embryonic stem cells are actions contrary to the will of God, for whom reproduction must always be a conjugal act. Since the embryo is a potential human being, according to the Church it must have a special moral status. Moreover, numerous associations have expressed the fear that cloning, initially justified as a means to a cure for certain very rare diseases, will eventually become widespread and lead to the production of designer babies.

I will give a background on where we stand. The Bloc Quebecois has been studying this issue for several years; we have had major discussions and extensive debate to ensure that the bill would protect human beings, and that the use of embryos would stop short of human cloning. At the same time, certain jurisdictions must also be protected.

Now, for our party's position; we have been defending this issue and talking about it amongst ourselves for many years. We also realize that Bill C-13, if adopted, would interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction with respect to health. That is unacceptable to us.

My colleagues from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and from Drummond have done extraordinary work in the Standing Committee on Health. They tried to move amendments to ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions would be left alone, but, to no avail, since they were all lost.

For us, this is not a religious question, but a question of jurisdiction and the administration of justice. We do not want this bill to change the rules for health in Quebec. Quebec manages its own affairs quite well and we want it to stay that way. We are against this bill.

[Employment Insurance, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the unemployed of Charlevoix are resolutely awaiting an announcement from the Minister of Justice. They are demanding that he announce, as soon as possible, an extension of the transitional employment insurance measures scheduled to expire on October 11. A true employment insurance policy is not a series of temporary measures. The government knows that, sooner or later, it will have to review its program.

In the meantime, what is it waiting for before announcing the continuation of the transitional measures?

[Day Care Program, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years the Government of Quebec has had a $5 a day day care program, which makes Quebec the envy of all of the Canadian provinces.

The federal government did not contribute to it, but has managed to deprive the taxpayers in Quebec of pretty close to $1 billion since the program was inaugurated in 1998.

Since families pay only $5 daily per child, rather than $25 or $30, their child care tax deductions are reduced accordingly.

Who is mainly responsible for this injustice? The former finance minister, the very same one who masterminded the 1993 Liberal platform and proposed major investments in daycare. A promise that was not kept.

The masks are beginning to fall away, and we can now see that, despite his efforts to show he is different, the future Liberal leader is no more than a carbon copy of the present Prime Minister.

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that Statistics Canada would make such mistakes. The report states that 40% of seasonal workers are not entitled to employment insurance and, furthermore, that the majority of these workers are women.

What concrete actions does the Minister intend to take in order to immediately improve the treatment of women in the workforce, particularly those who are seasonal workers?

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first the Canadian Labour Congress and now Statistics Canada has confirmed what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying for years: the employment situation of women is not improving but worsening.

What will it take for the Minister of Human Resources Development to do something, when all the signs are pointing in the same direction and telling her that things are getting worse for women?

[Taxation, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week, in a speech to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the former finance minister candidly admitted that once he has his new job, he will wage unrelenting war on the monster of accumulated debt, in the same way Ottawa attacked the deficit in the 1990s.

After touring everywhere in Quebec and Canada promising heaven and earth, now he has taken off his mask. The future Liberal leader confirms that once he has the reins of power in his hands, he will not hesitate to attack the unemployed by transforming employment insurance premiums into employment taxes, and continuing to refuse benefits to six out of ten unemployed people.

In so doing, he is also confirming that he will not hesitate to chop transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and social services, in order to reach his goals.

What he did not say, however, is why he prefers to take advantage of the tax haven in Barbados rather than be a part of the collective effort to reduce the debt by paying his income tax in the country he aspires to lead.

[Anna Lindh, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on September 10, the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Anna Lindh, was killed in a Stockholm store. She would probably have been her country's next prime minister. Today, eloquent tributes were paid to her at the Stockholm city hall. The terrible attack on her took place just four days before Sweden voted in a referendum on whether or not to adopt the Euro.

The mother of two, Ms. Lindh was elected to the municipal council of her hometown at the age of 20. She became Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1998, after four years in the environment portfolio.

She constantly stressed that collective security and a collective future were dependent on cooperation, self-sufficiency and independence. Her legacy will be a foreign policy founded on the respect of human rights.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes the people of Sweden to know that all Quebeckers share their grief.

[Canada Labour Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and I toured more than 30 ridings in Quebec to meet with union representatives and to raise awareness of the need for federal legislation that is as effective as the anti-scab legislation in Quebec.

All the stakeholders unanimously applauded and supported my bill, which is designed to prohibit the use of scabs. Adopting Bill C-328 will correct the injustice suffered by the workers at Cargill, Vidéotron, SECUR, Société du Vieux-Port and that the workers at Radio Nord Communications in Abitibi have been suffering for more than ten months.

In a few weeks parliamentarians in this House will be asked to participate in an historical vote. In a show of solidarity, I call on parliamentarians and the public to sign the petition that is circulating throughout Quebec and Canada in support of workers.

[Quebec National Holiday, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, “Rêver bleu”, the theme of the Fête nationale du Québec, reflects the legitimate aspirations of Quebeckers to provide a platform for the seven million voices that make us unique on this continent.

A platform to tell you about my country. And my country is Quebec, with all its scrapes and bruises, its longing for a time that was and its tender hopes for the future.

My country is the sound of hearty laughter and an all-encompassing view of the world. It is the desire to be part of a community and to create a place where all can thrive.

My country is the lands cleared by our ancestors, shaped over time and reshaped through the dreams and energy of the young.

My country is a delight to the eye. From Îles-de-la-Madeleine to Abitibi, from Lac-Saint-Jean to the Laurentides, from Beauce to Ungava and Joliette to Charlevoix—all of Quebec invites you to join in the festivities.

[Employment Insurance, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle—Émard has also stated that victims of the softwood lumber crisis should be treated the same way as workers in Toronto who have suffered in the SARS crisis.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development finally admit that workers who are victims of the softwood lumber crisis should be treated with as much consideration as those who are victims of the fisheries or SARS crises, and finally do something concrete, as the Bloc Quebecois is asking and as the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard has suggested?