Peter Goldring

[Homelessness, February 20th, 2003]

Well, the mayors are happy, Mr. Speaker, but are the homeless people happy?

Only a Liberal would applaud waste and three years of spending with no real improvements. Only Liberals would applaud the failure of one of its own ministers.

If the money did not create homes, more shelter space, and lower the homeless numbers, where did the $753 million go?

[Homelessness, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, $753 million was spent over three years, supposedly to help the homeless. It could have helped build 30,000 homes for homeless people but it built none. Shelter space is no more than when the program began. The homeless count is up nationally by 40%. Transit stations were open for emergency shelter and a man died this winter in Red Deer.

This colossal failure to help the homeless is a shameful risk of human lives. Will the finance minister call for a review of the homeless funding wastage before committing more money?

[Badger Flood, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a disaster has befallen the town of Badger in Newfoundland and Labrador this week. Waist deep flood waters drove 1,100 residents from their very homes. Houses and vehicles, half submerged, were abandoned to the ravages of nature. With a sinister twist, nature's torment of the town of Badger continues as a winter deep freeze has it locked in an iron grip of ice, unyielding but for the hope of an early spring thaw.

The surreal appearance of the deserted, abandoned town of Badger today belies an even more destructive hidden force soon to be released by warm weather.

All citizens should open their hearts to demonstrate support for our fellow Canadians' plight in the spirit shown by the Hay West initiative last summer: Canadians helping Canadians.

A campaign is underway to help the residents of Badger. I call upon all parliamentarians and all citizens of Canada to get involved and show the community of Badger that we truly do care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13. We support a number of the aspects of the bill. We fully support bans on reproductive and therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, buying and selling embryos and paid surrogacy. We support an agency to regulate the sector although we do have several changes that we would like to make to it.

The health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction must be given a priority. Human individuality and diversity and the integrity of the human genome must be preserved and protected. We support the recognition that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction should be given priority.

The health committee has already come up with a ranking of whose interests should have a priority in decision making around assisted human reproduction and related research. The first priority should be to children born through assisted human reproduction. Next should be the adults participating in assisted human reproduction procedures. Finally, in the list of priorities would be the researchers and physicians who conduct the research.

While the preamble recognizes the priority of assisted human reproduction offspring, other sections of the bill fail to meet this standard. Children born through donor insemination or from donor eggs are not given the right to know the identity of their biological parents. The bill's preamble does not provide an acknowledgement of human dignity or respect for human life. The bill is ultimately connected with the creation of human life and yet there is no overarching recognition of the principles of respect for human life. This is a grave deficiency.

Our party's minority report recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase respect for human life. We believe that the preamble and the mandate of the proposed agency should be amended to include reference to the principle of the respect for life.

There are a number of amendments that have been proposed and it is worth reviewing them and going through the amendments one after another.

Motion No. 92 would place reasonable requirements on the equivalency agreements where the health minister negotiates with the provinces. This amendment was a health committee recommendation in “Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families”. Transparency and accountability in this area are needed. The public must be consulted on draft agreements and the text of such agreements must be made public.

Motion No. 93 would delete subclause 66(5) which says that if a proposed regulation is being altered after initial tabling it need not be laid before Parliament once again. Since the regulations initially must come before Parliament, it is inconsistent that the amended regulations need not come to Parliament once again.

Motion No. 94 would remove the ability of the governor in council to make regulations respecting transgenics, which are animal human combinations.

Motion No. 96 is a procedural amendment respecting a Canadian Alliance amendment passed in committee. Our amendment, now clause 15, specifies that a licensee who transfers an in vitro embryo to another licensee shall notify the agency of the transfer in accordance with the regulations. The minister's amendment follows from our amendments mentioned in accordance with the regulations.

Motion No. 98 is rather a minor amendment specifying reference to “the” appropriate committee of each House rather than to “an” appropriate committee, minor but still necessary. What is important is that the regulations shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons, something that our party has fought for and won at committee. Previous wording said regulations may be referred to House committees. We have fought for enhanced accountability and transparency.

Motion No. 99 would make minor changes to the wording of the French version of clause 66.

Motion No. 100 would require equivalency agreements to be renewed whenever there is a change in any relevant federal or provincial legislation. This seems appropriate and reasonable. For example, if Bill C-13 is ever amended to enable children conceived through donor insemination to know the identity of their biological parents, any equivalency agreements that may be in place should also be renewed to reflect such a change.

Motion No. 103 would delete clause 71 which would allow the grandfathering of controlled activities until a day fixed by the regulations. As currently worded, this clause would allow scientists to engage in controlled activities once the act takes effect, thereby avoiding licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. This could result in a stampede toward controlled activities, for example, embryonic research, before the bill takes effect.

The current clause would allow the governor in council to exempt controlled activities through regulations. Controlled activities must not be grandfathered. There are important reasons why controlled activities otherwise require licences and why violations are subject to prosecution because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life.

At the very least, the bill should specify a time limit on grandfathering and not leave it simply to the regulations.

Motion No. 104 specifies that the grandfathered activities should only be permitted as long as such activities have no change in scope or purpose. The intent here is to prevent researchers from changing the scope of activities after they have qualified for grandfathering under the bill.

Motion No. 105 is similar to Motion No. 104, but adds a requirement that grandfathered activities should require a licence if there are changes to the scope or purpose of such activities.

Motion No. 106 specifies that controlled activities should only be permitted for 90 days after the coming into force of this act. A 90 day limit on grandfathering is far superior to the open-ended “until a day fixed by the regulations” statement.

Embryonic research is ethically controversial and divides Canadians. Embryonic stem cell research would inevitably result in the death of the embryo, early human life. For many Canadians this violates the ethical commitment to the respect of human dignity, integrity and life.

An incontestable scientific fact is that an embryo is early human life. A complete DNA of an adult human is present at the embryo stage. Whether that life is owed protection is really what is at issue here. Embryonic research also constitutes an objectification of human life, where life becomes a tool which can be manipulated and destroyed for other, even ethical, ends. Adult stem cells are a safe, proven alternative to embryonic stem cells.

Sources of adult stem cells include: umbilical cord blood, skin tissue and bone tissue. Adult stem cells are a safe, proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are easily accessible. They are not subject to immune rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns. Embryonic stem cell transplants are subject to immune rejection because they are foreign tissues. Adult stem cells used for transplants are typically taken from one's own body.

Adult stem cells are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, MS and other conditions. Embryonic stem cells have not been used in the successful treatment of a single person. Research should focus on this more promising and proven alternative.

Our minority report called for a three year prohibition on experiments with human embryos, corresponding with the first scheduled review of the bill. Bill C-13 says embryonic research can be undertaken if the agency is satisfied that such research is necessary.

During its review of draft legislation, the health committee recommended that such research should be permitted only if researchers can demonstrate that, “no other biological material can be used for the purpose of the proposed research with the promotion of healing therapies as its object”.

I hope this important bill receives the utmost consideration and that due consideration and attention are given to the proposed amendments. The amendments are a very necessary part to our party voting in favour of the bill.

[Homelessness, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a man has died in Red Deer because of a failed federal homeless policy. Three years and practically no new shelter space, absolutely no new affordable, independent living homes for single persons, and $753 million squandered for what. The homeless counts are up nationally. In Edmonton the homeless were lodged in public transit stations.

Will the Prime Minister stop the carnage, investigate the waste and redirect the resources to build safe, secure housing for homeless single persons?

[Acadian People, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, while the Acadians claimed that they were neutral, nearly 200 Acadians were found within the walls of the French battlement of Fort Beausejour when it fell to the British during the first battle of the offensive. With this discovery of deceit, the frustrated British gave the Acadians one last chance to truly swear loyalty to the Crown. Again, the Acadians refused.

The first Acadian expulsion began at Fort Beausejour. Britain then adopted an allegiance or expulsion position as a matter of strategic self-interest supported by the evidence of apparent duplicity in the Acadian pledge of neutrality. In the fall of 1755, an estimated 6,000 Acadians were expelled. Between 1755 and 1763 over 11,000 of the estimated Acadian population of 15,000 had been deported, mostly to Louisiana.

With modern value judgments and the conflict resolution techniques that most are familiar with today, it is easy to view the expulsions as an onerous, horrendous resolution to what was nonetheless at the time perceived to be a dangerous threat to social order. The Acadians would not demonstrate the degree of loyalty the British needed to be assured that social order would be maintained.

Had the Acadians of 1755 been promised freedom of language and religion in return for their oath of allegiance to the British Crown, it is very possible that most would have sworn their loyalty, expulsions would not have happened and a mass tragedy would have been averted.

The Quebec legislature has passed a motion asking the British monarchy to officially recognize the role of the British royalty in the expulsion, while Premier Bernard Landry, himself of Acadian descent, refers to the expulsions as a “crime against humanity”. Mr. Landry is trivializing the term “crime against humanity” in applying it to these facts.

While there is no disputing the historical fact that the expulsions took place, such actions at the time were both internationally acceptable and viewed as being relatively moderate. Far more grave actions could have been taken, from internment to the execution of persons viewed as traitors or disloyal to the governing authorities.

It should be noted that an appreciation of the negative consequences of the Acadian expulsions was an integral component to the royal deliberations that formed the Canada that we know today. Through the Treaty of Paris in 1763, signed by the Kings of England, France, Spain and Portugal, the religion and language of former French subjects in what is now Canada, was to be permitted. The first action taken by the new leadership established bicultural beginnings of Canada that have since grown to our wonderful multicultural country of today.

Then, in 1764, Acadians who wished to return were invited to do so if they were willing to pledge loyalty to England. An estimated 1,500 to 3,000 eventually returned and joined an estimated 3,000 who had hidden to avoid deportation. Francophones of Acadian descent now number approximately 250,000 in New Brunswick, 35,000 in Nova Scotia and 5,000 in Prince Edward Island.

Regret for the Acadian expulsions is already tacitly expressed by the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, as well as by the subsequent invitations extended to Acadians to return. The Queen could do no more than acknowledge the well-known historical facts of the time, including the tacit expressions of regret. Rather than dwell on national apologies, we should celebrate Canada's true royal beginnings. Through the Treaty of Paris, European royalty's enlightened vision of a bicultural beginning to a new world nation became a reality and guided that nation to become the multicultural Canada of today, a nation of two official languages and hundreds of unofficial languages.

Let us celebrate our royal beginnings, our royal presence and relish in the knowledge that this will also be guiding our future. Let us not deny our past but let us not apologize for it either.

[Acadian People, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, as a member of Parliament representing the constituents of Edmonton Centre-East I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 238 concerning the Acadian people.

During the Queen's Jubilee visit to Canada between October 4 and October 15, 2002, many Canadians of Acadian descent listened to her words carefully, particularly when she was visiting New Brunswick. It was hoped that the Queen would acknowledge the Acadian expulsion between 1755 and 1762. It is important to note that an apology was not requested, but rather an acknowledgement that a wrong had occurred. Seemingly the issue relates more to a formal acknowledgement of an historical fact rather than a wrong.

Certain acts can be viewed as wrong in the absolute. Genocide is a prime example. Other acts, be they the conviction and hanging of Riel or the Acadian expulsion, must be viewed in context. That which may appear to be reprehensible today may be viewed as understandable behaviour when viewed in the context of time many years ago.

It must be remembered that the primary motivation for the expulsion of the Acadians was the refusal to swear allegiance to the British Crown. At the time the British Crown was not particularly welcoming to Catholicism and was regularly at war with France, then a bitter enemy and in competition with Britain for domination of North America.

For Acadians who had fought for or supported France a refusal to swear an oath to the British Crown was often a matter of military honour in addition to concerns as to loss of religion, language and culture. Acadians attempted to balance their refusal to swear allegiance to Britain with a promise of neutrality in any future conflict between Britain and France.

For the British a promise of neutrality at the time was suspected to be insincere. An oath of allegiance to the crown was a much more serious promise of fidelity, certainly much more than an oath of fidelity to the Crown of Canada made today by separatist politicians and even by some federal civil servants.

Indeed, in the summer of 1755, during a major British offensive in North America against New France, the suspicions proved to be well founded. The Acadian settlements stood between the British and the French.

[Richard Healy, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Richard Healy, a former member of Canada's armed forces, passed away this week at the age of 62.

Richard volunteered in my office to help raise funds for Canadian World War II veterans of the Battle of Ortona. These veterans wished to hold a Christmas memorial dinner with German war veterans 55 years after the battle known as the “Stalingrad of Italy”. Veterans Affairs refused to support this event.

With Richard's assistance and the many others who helped, over $200,000 was raised. The Christmas dinner was held in 1998 and a life-size bronze monument to the battle, called the Price of Peace, stands in Ortona, Italy, all paid for by individual citizen donors.

Richard Healy was a quiet and kind person with a commitment to justice for our veterans. A life is ultimately measured and valued by its good deeds. In that respect, Richard Healy's life was very rich. He will be missed by many here on Parliament Hill.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the disastrous national energy program costs hundreds of businesses thousands of jobs and leaves families in turmoil due to failed Liberal Ouija board economic planning. We all want a clean environment. The Kyoto costs are not explained and not detailed. Provinces and businesses have not had their say. The members for Edmonton West and Edmonton Southeast must stand up with Albertans and say no to Kyoto.

How could the government have the audacity to ask Canadians to buy into the unexplained Liberal, shoot from the lip, Kyoto plan? How?

[Homeless Awareness, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, depriving the mentally challenged and the sheltered poor, decent, and affordable independent housing is disgraceful, particularly when funds were available to help.

Some $753 million for the homeless have been squandered, but no independent living homes have been built. None. The in at dusk and out at dawn emergency shelters keep the mentally challenged and the disadvantaged shackled to a treadmill of shelter misery.

The homeless minister's new, architecturally resplendent high-rise emergency shelters are full and the national homeless count still climbs. The homeless are the victims of a failed Liberal housing shelter strategy and an inadequate minister of the homeless. This winter the luckiest of the homeless will be forced to endure overcrowded insecure shelters. The unlucky will die in the street.

On this national homeless awareness day the homeless do not need Liberal ministerial hugs and debilitating emergency welfare shelters. The homeless need homes.