Bill C-13 (Historical)

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

An Act respecting assisted human reproduction

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report stage amendments in Group No. 4 to Bill C-13, the reproductive technology bill.

As has been mentioned before, our concern is that this new agency be held accountable, and that it have transparent procedures and processes that would allow Canadians to follow-through on how this legislation would affect them, and how the government would respond to the new changes in the legislation.

We are concerned with the changes that the minister has made that go contrary to the recommendations that came from the health committee when it studied this reproductive technology bill in great detail. The health committee was quite clear that this was going in a new direction, and that there were some practices and procedures that would cause some concern to Canadians. The committee was concerned that there be protection and some control over how this technology would be used.

The committee was quite upfront with how it saw the agency that would oversee this legislation. It was concerned how the agency would run its business, be held accountable and responsible, and report to Parliament. The minister, for whatever reasons, wants to hold control within her own department and within her own person over the response to Parliament and the accountability factor.

We have problems with that. We feel that in order for something to be accountable and transparent there is a need to separate it from politics as much as possible. There is a willingness on the part of this party to see that this agency be somewhat removed from the minister so it can do its job, look at the technology, look at how the bill would be utilized, how the regulations would be upheld, and respond in kind to that.

There was a concern felt by committee members that because of the issue there needed to be a presence of the female gender on the board. The committee felt it was important that women have the ability to be part of monitoring reproductive technology regulations in legislation. For some reason, and I find it quite surprising, the minister felt that was not necessary. She felt that an all male board would suffice. Even more startling, she felt that an agency consisting of one person might suffice. That causes us some concern.

There must be greater detail as to how this agency would be put together, who would become members and who it would represent. I for one think it is important that an agency of this nature dealing with the subject of reproductive technology be representative of some of the different groups of people with the knowledge and ability to monitor what happens from this day forward. The agency should have some medical persons on it. It would be sensible to have some scientific representation. It should have some lay representation, representing ordinary citizens and how they would feel on these issues. That is something we would like to see changed to better reflect what the health committee recommended in the first place.

We would like the minister to reconsider how she would form this agency and who she would appoint. We would like the minister to ensure that a female would be sitting on the board. Now would be the time to address these concerns and to amend the legislation to ensure that these concerns are considered.

Another concern that our party is expressing is that when people want to build a family and have children, and they use the new reproductive technologies that they are fully made aware of what options they have available to them. Different reproductive technologies are becoming more and more accessible. More individuals are aware that they can use these technologies to start a family. I am not sure that there is full disclosure as to what their options are, what processes are involved, and what some of the legal ramifications might be.

The Canadian Alliance feels that there should be some set-up where these individuals have not only available to them, but are encouraged to understand the legal issues. Mandatory is a harsh word. They should go into reproductive technology process with the full knowledge of what it means.

I do not think it is too much to ask that the minister ensure that all information is made available so that individuals would not end up in an unforeseen situation or one that they did not know about.

I will broaden the discussion by saying that we have seen where this has happened with pharmaceutical drugs, where individuals were referred to the use of a pharmaceutical drug without knowing in depth what the side effects might be and what harm could be caused. Now we are seeing a ramification in the legal perspective of how not having full disclosure of the risks taken come back through the courts. This is a very expensive process when something happens and a person was not made aware of what could happen.

We must take the same direction with reproductive technology that we should have taken with pharmaceutical drugs and the mandatory provision of the medical people to advise patients of what the risks are. We could avoid many legal parameters if issues were dealt with up front. If making it mandatory is the only way it can be done, then perhaps that is how the procedure has to be done.

Thus we could ensure that the individuals who are taking advantage of reproductive technologies know what they are getting into. I do not think that would be too much to ask. It is something that as we get into this whole new field that will change day by day, that we can provide that kind of background and knowledge to individuals seeking this method.

We are looking for change through Group No. 4 amendments. The two issues would be the agency and how it is put together, who is sitting on the agency and how it would report to Parliament, not the minister. The other issue is the mandatory counselling of every individual who is taking advantage of reproductive technology, or some kind of sharing of knowledge so that they fully understand and accept the dimensions of the procedures they would be undertaking.

I wish to encourage the government to have an open mind and not to shy away from making amendments to legislation to broaden it and make it more definitive, to change it so that it is a better piece of legislation, so we can avoid some pitfalls that we may find in the future simply by taking our time and doing it properly the first time.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House of Commons in the new year on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East. I am very happy to speak to Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.

As we all know, at the beginning of the year the Clonaid company said that it had cloned a human being, the first cloned baby. This sent shock waves around the world. All religious leaders and people who want dignity given to human life were shocked and stunned by the news. I was stunned also. I hope we do not go along with that research.

The bill is an attempt to not go toward the route of cloning, but the route of research, the route of human reproduction technology. There are a lot of consequences for this research.

We tried to draft this in a bill in committee. A committee researched the issue and presented its report. The report indicated that we needed to address the issue and bring in rules and regulations and try to stop the free-for-all research which has the potential of going in the direction that society in general does not want to go and respect the basic principle of human life.

The government presented Bill C-13 to try and address the issue. While the intent is there to have some control and some rules and regulations, some sort of ethical behaviour and ethical dimensions to this point, nevertheless like anything else the government does, it is job that has only been half done. The bill tries to do everything and in the process, it ends up doing nothing. That is the essence of why the Canadian Alliance opposes Bill C-13.

My colleague has presented many amendments. We hope that these amendments will be accepted and will make the bill stronger. Then we can address all the issues and ensure that there are no loopholes or cracks in the system. This is a subject that is creating a tremendous amount of debate among Canadians.

In Motion No. 72 the government has created an agency that will be given the mandate to create some ethical guidelines as well as rules for doing research on stem cells, whether they are embryonic or adult stem cells.

The problem as usual is there seems to be a lack of commitment by the government. It is somehow afraid to take a tough stand. There are no conflict of interest guidelines. The minister has the power to appoint anyone to the board.

If the minister appoints a person who falls under the conflict of interest rules, what stops that person from having a conflict, such as working for a biotech company? Of course, the minister will say that it is not possible and they are going to do due diligence. But again what is the problem? Why can it not be put in the bill to make it transparent that a person who has a conflict of interest will not be appointed to the board? That is clear, plain and simple. Yet that is missing, and it gives the authority to the minister.

Canadians know very well the record of the government on transparency. They know about the boondoggle in the gun registry.

This afternoon the government introduced the bill on political party financing. In the dying days of his regime, the Prime Minister is now bringing in this legislation. He wants to leave a legacy but he has opened up to the fact that his Kyoto legacy is going off on a tangent and his African legacy is having severe problems. He wants to create that as a legacy, despite opposition from his own members. He is talking about bringing in transparency, but the government's record on transparency has left Canadians shaking their heads. With this bill, it is again showing up here.

It is amazing how the government is so afraid to step into the area where people are held more accountable. I do not know what the government is afraid of. The Prime Minister will not give accountability even to his backbenchers. Look at the vote we had on choosing the committee chairmen. The Prime Minister is the one who had problems with that.

The government's record on transparency and allowing openness is on the record and Canadians will not buy into it. The same thing is happening on the subject of stem cell research, which is a subject of the future. The potential for research and for finding cures for many of what ails the human race through stem cells is tremendous. There is a desire to see that this research carries on, but in a manner that is acceptable to the Canadian people. We do not want to go down the road of what we heard when that company came out of nowhere and said it had cloned a human being.

It is critically important as we debate this bill that we in the official opposition point out what we think are the flaws of this bill. Therefore, it is difficult for us support the bill.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to complete my remarks on Bill C-13 on assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.

We oppose the bill unless it is amended. Before I continue my remarks I will summarize what I said yesterday.

The Canadian Alliance 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”. All human beings possess the fundamental human rights of life and freedom. I also said that it is in the best interest of every child to know who his or her parents are. No sperm or egg donors should be anonymous.

AHRs, assisted human reproduction clinics, would have to be licensed and tightly regulated. All regulations must be laid before Parliament and automatically referred to the health committee.

I also stated that I strongly support and encourage health sciences research and development, and research on adult stem cells. Thus, we are calling for more funding of adult stem cell research. I support provisions against human and therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, gene line alteration, buying or selling of embryos, and paid surrogacy.

Commercial surrogacy would be banned but the expenses of surrogate mothers could be repaid. Thus, surrogate mothers could result in effective commercial surrogacy. That is why we oppose Motion No. 52.

The health minister wants to undo the amendments made at committee which would make counselling for surrogacy mandatory and which were supported by the Canadian Alliance. It waters down the intent of members of the health committee that such counselling be required, ideally by a third party and not by a fertility clinic.

Becoming a surrogate is a very serious matter to the extent that the health committee saw fit to amend the bill to prohibit surrogacy for women under age 21. Surrogacy can have profound effects on relationships between husband and wife, within families, between surrogate and adopting parents, and most important, on the surrogate children themselves. Therefore counselling should be mandatory. I wonder why the health minister is not explaining or defending her amendment.

We also oppose Motion No. 72. The minister again wants to undo the committee amendment requiring board members of AHR agencies to come under conflict of interest rules. Board members should not have commercial interests in the field of AHR or related research, for example, fertility clinics, biotech companies, et cetera.

Imagine an employee or investor in a biotech company with a financial interest in embryonic stem cell research making decisions for Canadians on the regulation of such research, including the definition of the word “necessary” as specified in clause 40. Or imagine a director of a fertility clinic making regulations on the limits of sperm and egg donations or the number of embryos produced for IVF treatments. Such conflicts of interest need to be prevented in the legislation. The minister needs to explain and defend these amendments.

In a nutshell, we oppose the bill. On the particular motions I mentioned, I indicated whether we support or oppose them. I would like to make clear that I support stem cell research but we would like to put a moratorium on embryonic research for a period of three years.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in debate on the amendments in Group No. 3 at report stage of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction technologies and related research. We oppose the bill unless it is amended.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to commend the work done by our caucus members on the bill, especially our former leader, Mr. Preston Manning, who worked very hard and diligently on this issue. He worked with a passion on this issue and we recognize that.

The Canadian Alliance 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”. Human embryos are early human lives that deserve respect and protection. All human beings possess the fundamental human rights of life and freedom. I will repeat the call, as per our minority report, for a three year prohibition on embryonic research to impose a three year moratorium on experiments on human embryos until the potential of adult stem cells can be fully developed. There is nothing wrong with doing that.

I strongly support and encourage health sciences research and development. I studied science when I was a student and I value the benefits of research done scientifically. However, I want to make it clear that I support stem cell research. We are calling for more funding of adult stem cell research. I will ask that the conditions of research be narrowed by requiring permission of both parents to destroy an embryo, by ensuring that creation of embryos for reproductive purposes is limited, and by identifying and reporting annually on numbers of embryos created and destroyed, et cetera.

Why do I want to limit it? Because for the benefits we would receive from embryonic research, similar benefits could be received from stem cell research. So why not give science or the scientific community a chance to develop stem cell research? That is why we need to provide a lot of funding for stem cell research: so that the same benefits can be obtained without causing any loss to human life.

I support provisions against human or therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ-line alterations, buying or selling embryos, and paid surrogacy.

Issues on which there is broad agreement are prohibitions like that on human cloning, issues of process such as the government sitting on the issue and failing to act for nine years, and the structure and accountability of the agency that is being created. Those are the issues where there is agreement.

Assisted human reproduction should be more tightly regulated, making it safer and more effective for prospective parents. I support an agency to regulate the sector. Assisted human reproduction clinics will have to be licensed and regulated by an agency created by the bill.

There are no provisions for regular reports to Parliament. This would be in Motion No. 78, which we oppose. An amendment would require the health minister to table an annual report to Parliament. We support an annual report. There must be transparency and accountability around the regulation of assisted human reproduction and its related research, but we would prefer that the agency itself produce such a report. We want an independent agency, not one directed by the health minister to produce such a report. If this amendment is amended with a subamendment replacing “the health minister” with “the agency”, I do not have any difficulty in supporting it.

The report to Parliament is important. All regulations must be laid before Parliament and automatically referred to the health committee, with the minister obligated to consider standing committee's recommendations.

I have been chairing the House and Senate Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. My observation has been that the government tables legislation which is usually very vague and shows only the intent of the government to do something. There is no substance. The substance to that legislation comes through the back door by way of regulations. About 80% of the law that we see in our country is brought in through the back door, so it would be appropriate to say that the government does not govern but rules through the back door.

In this case, the regulations are very important and must be submitted along with the legislation. They must be viewed and debated in this Parliament and then sent to committee for consideration.

Children conceived by AHR will have no right to know the identity of their parents without their written consent to reveal it. It is in the best interests of every child to know who his or her parents are. Sperm or egg donors should not be anonymous. A donor is not analogous to a parent giving up a child for adoption, because a sperm or ovum donation is intentional, with opportunity for a clear choice before the fact, whereas a choice on adoption is made after the fact, for example when an unintentional pregnancy is already in progress.

Commercial surrogacy is banned--

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C-13 and the Group No. 4 report stage amendments and specifically submit my comments on Motion No. 61 which reads:

That Bill C-13, in Clause 21, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 15 the following:

“(3) The Official Languages Act applies to the Agency.”

All Government of Canada agencies must and should comply with the Official Languages Act. In this debate, I would like to voice my opinion on a number of sections that appear in Bill C-13 and show why and where the Official Languages Act should be observed.

One of the objectives of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada is to protect and promote the health and safety, and the human dignity and human rights, of Canadians. Therefore it is an agency that represents the Canadian public and speaks to the public. Any agency which represents the public and speaks to the public on behalf of the government must speak in both official languages and must be able to be understood in both official languages by the public it is consulting.

With respect to its powers, section 24 provides that the agency may:

(d) consult persons and organizations within Canada and internationally.

Across Canada there are communities which speak English and others which speak French. It makes perfect sense to me to require people who will be consulting French and English speaking communities to be able to do so in the language of those communities.

The agency may:

(e) collect, analyse and manage health reporting information relating to controlled activities;

Again, to collect, analyse and manage information, one must be able to do so with the consent of the public and with information provided by the public.

Paragraph 24( f ) provides that the agency will:

(f) provide information to the public and to the professions—

Again, I am repeating myself a fair bit, but to provide information to the public requires that the public be informed in the official language of its choice, either French or English, one of the two official languages of this country. Further on, we read:

(g) designate inspectors and analysts for the enforcement of this Act;

Again, inspectors and analysts must also represent both publics, who speak both official languages of this country.

Subsection 26(1) provides that:

There shall be a board of directors of the Agency consisting of not more than 13 members—

It seems to me imperative that the board of directors consist of people who speak French or English. Again, these people must be able not only to communicate with people who speak these languages, but also to understand the reality and culture behind the French and English languages across Canada.

In subsection 26(2.1)—and I would like to make a major point off topic, if I may—it is stated that:

The membership of the board of directors shall be appointed in such a manner as to maintain a minimum of 50 per cent representation by women.

I have just heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health say that he, and the minister, want this withdrawn. I am opposed to that. This is far off topic for me, since my topic is official languages. In the preamble, there is reference to the principles of this bill. It is stated in 2( c ) that:

while all persons are affected by these technologies, women more than men are directly and significantly affected by their application and the health and well-being of women must be protected—

It strikes me as totally obvious that at least half of this board must be female, since women—I will point this out despite how obvious it strikes me—will have experienced or could experience the consequences of this bill.

In my opinion, not only must at least half of the board of directors be women, they must also represent the culture and language of the two peoples of Canada.

If these people speak both languages, they will be able to hold consultations and meetings in accordance with clause 27, which are to be held throughout Canada. They will be able to readily meet with people, whether in Quebec, British Columbia or Manitoba, and whether they speak English or French. They will be able to hold meetings and consultations with these people in both official languages.

Clause 28 of the bill asks that the provincial deputy ministers of health be entitled to attend meetings of the board of directors. Once again, in the province that I represent here, the administration speaks French. I fully expect that the deputy minister of health from my province will be able to participate in the meetings of the board in the language of his or her choice.

I could continue on other clauses found in the bill, on advisory panels for example, on the vice chair of the board and on the membership of the advisory panel. I think my point is clear: the agency must reflect Canada. The Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada must reflect the bilingual reality of our country, a reality for which we have fought hard. It has become a reality today. This agency must respect the founding people of this country, who spoke English and French, and it must also respect the Canadian tradition that was translated into the Constitution and this country's Charter or Rights and Freedoms.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments pertaining to Bill C-13.

At the outset, let me say that I have never seen such a disregard for democracy in this place and such an arbitrary, reactionary initiative on the part of the government. We are dealing with a set of amendments that include an attempt by the federal government and the Minister of Health to negate the work of the committee.

Our committee, the Standing Committee on Health, worked very hard to try to achieve consensus, to try to build the best possible legislation and to ensure that the issues pertaining to women, children and families were all raised front and centre and given the full protection of the law. On two very fundamental issues the government has decided to negate the work of the committee. I want to reference those two issues.

The first pertains to the matter of gender parity for the new agency to be created under the legislation. It has been our assumption in the New Democratic Party, and we had thought the belief of the Liberal Party, that gender parity on all boards, commissions and agencies of government was a reasonable goal and an important initiative to reflect the role of women in our society today and to ensure that women were able to participate equally in all decisions pertaining to public policy matters in general. We had assumed that the government took that principle seriously and was prepared to ensure gender parity wherever an opportunity presented itself.

We are not dealing with just any ordinary board, commission or agency. We are dealing with an agency that will make important decisions pertaining to a very important issue facing the women of this country. Even on that score when it comes to matters pertaining directly to women's health and well-being, the government has had the gall to deny that fundamental principle and to nullify the work of the committee in terms of requesting that there be gender parity on this new agency pertaining to reproductive technologies. It is an affront, a travesty of justice and democracy in this place.

The parliamentary secretary had the gall to stand in his place today and defend the minister's amendment to nullify our proposition to ensure gender parity, forgetting and denying the fact that he participated at the committee and supported the recommendation for gender parity. What kind of democracy is at play in this place? What kind of hypocrisy is here among us?

We are talking about women's health issues. Lest anyone forget, we are talking about reproductive technologies that happen to provide ways for women to circumvent the biological causes of their infertility. We are talking about what is clearly a women's issue. It affects all of us. It affects children and families, but first and foremost we must address this matter from the point of view of women's health and well-being.

For the government to deny the possibility of ensuring that the body which will regulate in this area and make important decisions in terms of the lives of women in years to come has 50% representation of women is a disgrace. It is an archaic move on the part of the government. It is going backward in time, not forward. It is not applying the notion of full equality in our society today. It is denying this fundamental notion of gender parity in terms of decision making bodies of this nation. When it comes to an issue pertaining directly to women's health and well-being, the government has decided it is not a principle that should be upheld.

We must join together in the House to oppose that amendment by the health minister. We must hold the parliamentary secretary to task for his commitment at the committee for this fundamental principle and now his about-face move in the House today.

The motion was presented to the health committee on behalf of the New Democratic Party as a fundamental issue of concern for us and one that was respected by all members of all other parties. The Alliance may not have given it wholehearted support but I think it would not get in the way of a basic initiative on our part to ensure equal representation by women in this agency. That is an affront. That is wrong. The good faith that was built up around the bill and the support that was tendered in terms of developing a consensus has been squashed and shattered.

The support of the New Democratic Party for the bill and the kind of unilateral, arbitrary move on the part of the Liberal government and the dictatorial, insensitive, callous initiative on the part of the Minister of Health are concerns that I have today.

The other concern has to do with another fundamental issue for which we found agreement at the committee. It has to do with ensuring that the new agency dealing with reproductive technologies is not open to any possible conflict of interest.

We presented a motion that is actually a standard provision in many pieces of legislation requiring that anyone sitting as a member on the board of this new agency has no pecuniary or proprietary interest in terms of the whole area of reproductive technologies. That is a reasonable request one would think given the kinds of issues we are dealing with, given the kinds of decisions that will be made in the future that will have an impact on women, children and families everywhere.

One would think above all else we would want to ensure that there is no hint of a conflict of interest, that there is no chance for vested interests to make decisions pertaining to the lives of women and children in our country. What has the government done? It has unilaterally and arbitrarily nullified that good work and those important recommendations. After all of the work done by the health committee with the draft bill, after the clause by clause analysis of Bill C-13 and after reaching a consensus, we made important inroads and the government has denied, rescinded it and nullified that good work. It is hard to imagine any greater disregard for members' rights and privileges in the House.

As long as the government intends to disregard the majority decisions taken by members of the Standing Committee on Health and refuses to recognize the democratic process, we will not support the government on this bill. These are fundamental issues. We are talking about women's health and well-being which demand there be gender parity on the new agency dealing with reproductive technologies. We would expect that the government would be more interested than anyone else with regard to ensuring that the appearance of any kind of conflict in terms of the decision making process is not present.

In conclusion, I am very concerned about the process, the disregard of the government for democracy in this place and its disregard for the hard work of the Standing Committee on Health. I want to say in substantive terms the government has done a great disservice to ensuring the best possible legislation with the greatest possible protections for women, children and families. It has done a great disservice by not respecting fundamental issues in terms of women's health and well-being and ensuring that vested interests will not be able to fundamentally alter the course of decision making in this field.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-13 and the amendments in Group No. 4.

There is no question that the unfolding events in reproductive technologies and some of the problems they pose are moving ahead at an alarming rate. We have seen in some of the recent newscasts that groups, cults or sects have claimed to be able to reproduce or to clone people. Such claims will probably increase as time goes on. As the technology spreads and becomes more understandable to different groups of individuals outside the medical world, there will be all kinds of violations.

I commend the committee that crafted Bill C-13 for recognizing there is a grave danger. The opening words of the bill's summary are as follows:

This enactment prohibits assisted reproduction procedures that are considered to be ethically unacceptable.

Those are the words in the bill. There are people outside the House, and maybe some might even sit in here, who might not realize what could happen, that there are people outside this environment who would do things that are ethically unacceptable. There are people who would use reproductive technologies that would not be acceptable in any way, shape or form and they would use people who were reproduced in such a fashion with this technology in an unacceptable way. There are people who would do that. I would suggest that is even happening today.

I commend the crafters of the bill for recognizing this very significant danger. The summary goes on to say:

Other types of assisted reproduction procedures are prohibited unless carried out in accordance with a licence and the regulations,

There is some control. I commend the crafters of the bill for limiting the powers of those who would fall under some sort of licence to carry out some reproductive procedures.

The creation and use of embryos for research purposes is also addressed in the bill and a privacy regime governs the collection, use and disclosure of health reporting information. Given that, we can step on to the next paragraph in the summary of the bill. It talks about the agency that will control all reproductive technology in the country.

Herein lies the importance of the agency. The agency would be granted significant powers. There is no question about it. As stated in the bill, the people who will sit on the board of directors of the agency will be selected through orders in council. That could be a concern in itself. Any time there is a selection of people for an agency that is completed by or falls within the framework of orders in council, it should be subject to some form of scrutiny.

Another agency which may not be very similar but which certainly has the same imprint as to its formulation and as far as the people who sit on the board is the Immigration and Refugee Board. Those appointments are done through orders in council.

Unfortunately, I do not see anywhere in the bill where there is a higher level of scrutiny as to who sits on the board, other than that they are appointed through orders in council. If there is, I would like someone to point it out to me. The scrutiny is through order in council. Even the individuals on the Immigration and Refugee Board are subject to a scrutiny by the immigration committee. There should be a higher level of scrutiny for everyone who sits on that board.

There will be people who will use reproductive technologies in an unacceptable and unethical fashion. There will be people who will use individuals that are reproduced in an unethical manner. We can be assured of that. I think the bill was drafted to counter any abuse that may happen and believe me, there will be abuse. There will be a strong need for enforcement.

In that sense, for those sitting on the board I would like to see further checks and balances. That agency is ultra important. Not only is the board of directors appointed in this fashion, but so is the president of the agency.

Again, where is the oversight as to the philosophical point of view of those two particular people, specifically the president and the chairperson of that board? It is very important. It is one to which Parliament should pay particular attention.

A Liberal member stood in the House and declared that the board of directors, which would also include the chairperson of the board, should be able to involve themselves in a business or maybe even hold a licence. I do not know what her total comments were, but certainly conflict of interest was not an issue for her.

Conflict of interest is a significant factor as to who sits on the board. There will be judgments made by the board. There will be directions to the inspectors to enforce certain aspects of the legislation when it becomes law. We cannot fall to that kind of argument and accept no oversight of the board of directors when it comes to the agency. This is a concern we will watch on this side of the House.

On order in council appointments and conflict of interest, no one should be tied to any business arrangement when it comes to reproductive technology and still have a position of influence as a board member or as the chairman of the board.

There is no question that we along with so many others are breaking new ground with this legislation. There is a need for reporting and in this case it is to the Minister of Health. It would be very astute of the House if that authority were placed on Parliament itself as opposed to a person who may or may not, as it was pointed out, have to report to Parliament about the procedures and the gathering of information by the agency itself.

I see some shortfalls in the legislation as it is written. However, I do agree strongly that those who crafted the bill were very much aware that there will be abusers who will attempt to capitalize not only on the reproductive technology, but also on those individuals who may grow up or come from the reproductive techniques.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will comment on one amendment in particular, but before that, I would like to join my colleagues who have congratulated the Standing Committee on Health for the work it has done. It was given a particularly complex and difficult task. When one is dealing with a technical and scientific subject such as this, in the context of morals, it is difficult to prevent discussions from becoming very complex and emotionally charged. I would like to congratulate the members of the committee for their work.

I had an opportunity to speak to this bill during the last session, when it was known as Bill C-56. My comments today are essentially the same as they were then. I will keep them very broad, and then come back to amendment number 61, which is a new amendment.

I had expressed the hope, like some colleagues opposite, and from this side of the House, that the bill would establish a certain balance when it comes to legislating or developing a legislative framework in a very complex field, assisted reproduction, without necessarily closing every door. I had expressed some concern that, while wanting to do the right thing, I hoped that the bill was not too restrictive and that it did not prohibit everything.

We are in a situation where science and knowledge about genomes, particularly the human genome, may some day allow us to improve the situation. We may not be able to do so right now, but as a race, we will certainly try to do so. For example, we should not forgo the possibility of eliminating one of the 4,000 existing genetic diseases if it requires genetic treatment.

This was the type of concern I voiced at the time. I also recognized that since the legislation was to be reviewed periodically, we would be able to make adjustments based on scientific progress.

What I would like to comment on now is amendment number 61, moved by the member for Mississauga South. He is proposing that Bill C-13 be amended so as to add a provision that would add that, and I quote:

The Official Languages Act applies to the Agency.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I currently chair the committee, and it is as Chair that I would like to address this issue. This is an amendment that I hope will be approved by all of the members of the House, with the exception, perhaps, of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. He seems to systematically attack anything that has to do with official languages. I think it is important to comment on this amendment.

First, I think it is important to indicate the legislator's intent during debates on amendments to bills. There have been times when I have had to re-read past debates to find out the legislator's intent because it was not clear in the legislation. I think it should be said loud and clear that the legislator's intent, if I have understood it correctly, is to ensure that the agency be considered a federal institution within the meaning of the Official Languages Act. This agency would be subject ipso facto to the Official Languages Act, and everything that entails.

I would like this noted so that in years to come, if there is disagreement or uncertainty, Hansard can be consulted and the intent known.

I talked to one of the members on the committee, the member for Saint-Lambert , who also moved an amendment, Motion No. 12. It was rejected by the committee members. I preferred what she proposed because it was explicit. She proposed that the agency be considered a federal institution within the meaning of the Official Languages Act.

I think this is important. Some may think it is not necessary. I would like to take a moment to examine this because I hold the opposite view. I think it is necessary.

Over the past few years we have seen restructuring in the institution, in the federal body, with the result that some of the Government of Canada's duties are delegated to other levels of government, namely the provinces and in some cases, the municipalities.

In Ontario we saw a classic example where the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament had passed legislation handing over the administration of contraventions to provincial organizations and institutions. The Province of Ontario in turn handed it over to the municipalities.

There was a case where a legal decision was rendered by Judge Blais, where the Government of Canada had not complied with the Official Languages Act because we had delegated too many of our responsibilities in terms of respecting the Act. The Department of Justice is currently putting this right. In fact, it asked for an extension until the spring to do so. We will see that this is put right.

A study was also conducted by Mr. Fontaine, president of the Université de Moncton, entitled the Fontaine Report. The eight members of the task force did an extraordinary job, so good that the government, through the president of the Treasury Board, has now created and implemented a new policy regarding the devolution of responsibilities with regard to the enforcement of the Official Languages Act.

This was to show that there is perhaps a need, in the minds of some people, to state the rights they had already acquired. But I think that, sometimes, being explicit is not a bad thing.

This was the case, during the previous session, in the bill to amend the Immigration Act. At first, there was some reluctance about amending this legislation. The Official Languages Commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee, suggested some amendments that were finally adopted and incorporated into the act. Already, significant progress can be seen with regard to complying with the principle of the linguistic duality of Canada in relation to the Immigration Act and its implementation.

This is another example of the benefit of referring to this principle in bills such as this one. When a new agency is created, it should be subject to the Official Languages Act.

I think that we should not ignore these things, and this is why I wanted to rise and take a few minutes of my hon. colleagues' and the House's time to make this explicit.

I will summarize, if I may. I sincerely hope that the government will agree to Motion No. 61. I certainly intend to vote in favour of this amendment. I urge all my hon. colleagues to do the same because this way, legislators—meaning us, here today in the House—will clearly express their commitment to ensuring that this new agency, which will be created when this bill is passed and receives royal assent, will be considered a federal institution, subject to the Official Languages Act, with all the associated obligations, when it is called upon to serve the Canadian public by fulfilling the functions and responsibilities assigned it by the Parliament of Canada.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-13 and these particular groupings of amendments.

I do think, though, that it is necessary to at least tell the House why I have a set of principles that I like to apply to a bill like this to try to help me get my head around it and get a principled approach to what is a very difficult subject, one we are all struggling with. The ethical questions raised by accelerating knowledge in this area are enormous. Just because we are now able to do something in reproductive technology does not necessarily mean we should do it. Clearly there are ethical limits to our activities, and our answers to these ethical questions help to define our society. They expose our deepest beliefs about our world, our beliefs about our own existence and our beliefs about the value of human life.

That is the scope of the types of issues here before us. I would like to talk about the criteria I mentioned earlier. The first is that we have to have a profound sense of compassion, a compassion for those not yet born and for others involved in the reproductive process. This will require a careful balancing of the interests of the various stakeholders.

The second of these criteria is clearly the particular interest of children, simply because the bill deals throughout with pre-born children. Almost every clause addresses embryos and unborn children in various progressive stages of development. There are other interests to be considered, but the interests of children are an important part of and an important criteria in this debate.

The third is an acknowledgement of the dignity of human life as opposed to other forms of life. Animal and vegetable life are wonderful, beautiful, valuable and necessary forms of life, but human life shares something different. Human life is more. It is distinct. It is different. That is why we have such a problem with human and animal cloning or combinations thereof or genetic manipulation. Human life is special.

Because I am a Christian I believe that life is a gift from God. As Václav Havel told the House during his memorable address several years ago, “Government may be an invention of man, and a necessary one, but humanity is an invention of God”. It is special. It is something different. It follows, therefore, that at all stages human life must be treated with special dignity. To be human is to be noble, something of honour, something valuable. We are not worthy of this dignity because of something we can do; we are valuable because of what we are. We are humans. All humans, at whatever stage, are important. Humanity is and of itself a priceless identity and a valuable thing.

It follows, therefore, that we have to treat the dignity of the human life in the human body, which is what we are dealing with here today. Human life, all of it, and all parts of the body have to be given special dignity and special care, which is why not just today's debate on reproductive technology but the debate on health care in general have such important issues for Canadians. They deal with humans. They deal with people. The human body is important.

The next of the criteria is the important checks and balances in our society. In our own Constitution, for example, the judiciary acts as a check and balance on the power of the legislature. In the same way, wise Canadian legislators have historically allowed the private and public sectors in Canada to balance each other, acting to ensure that the powers of both the state and the marketplace are restrained for the sake of public interest. I would like to repeat that. We want to make sure that the marketplace is respected but that it is restrained for the sake of public interest.

I would like to explain that briefly and get to these motions. We can all agree, for example, that commercial trafficking in human life is abhorrent. One only has to look at the practices of history, to the slave trade, to the selling and buying of human bodies, which is repelling to all of us. To this day we find that repugnant. By extension, I would argue that the purchase and sale of human sperm, eggs, zygotes, embryos and so on is something that we cannot leave solely to the impersonal forces of the marketplace. We have an obligation as wise legislators to put our stamp on this, to ask how far we can go. What are the limits? This is not just a free trade zone on human bodies and parts of bodies. We need some regulation. We need to control it. We need to be wise. The laws of supply and demand do not take into account ethical considerations of dignity, of compassion, of human hurt and so on. We need to protect humans from the untrammelled forces of the marketplace.

On the other hand, before I get to these amendments, let me say that the state, including our own state of Canada and the provinces, does not have a perfect track record on protecting humans. The destructive forces that were in place in the early part of the last century are not something we are proud of. There was genetic manipulation and genetic decisions were made, both on this continent and others, which we look back on and condemn and rightfully so.

The answer in all of this, as we consider these amendments, is balance. How do we take the criteria I mentioned earlier and apply them to clauses of this bill, on some of the most important issues of reproductive technology, which touch all of us and will touch us even more in the years to come?

On the first grouping, for example, in Motion No. 52 we are talking about surrogate motherhood or surrogate parenting. We believe that this again is a profound arrangement, a profound departure from what we used to consider normal reproductive behaviour. Men and women got married and had kids. That was what was possible and what was done. It was a sad case when someone could not have children, but there was not much they could do about it. Those were the old days. Now of course we know that much can be done. Much technology can be brought to bear. Childless couples will go to any lengths to have a child of their own because it means so much to them. In one sense they have a unique understanding of how valuable life is, because they are not able to have children of their own in a normal, natural way.

On Motion No. 52, we suggest that counselling for surrogacy, which is part of the bill, not be just an ad hoc, take it or leave it part of the bill, but that it be mandatory. Surrogacy is a huge step, both for the husband and for the wife who may be thinking of that sort of an arrangement, and also for the expectant mother. It brings huge, tremendous pressures to bear on relationships, on the long term stability of those relationships, on what it is going to mean to them and how they are going to handle it. This is not something where we can step up to a window, slap down $10,000 and think that the problems are solved. In many ways, the problems are just beginning.

We think that counselling for surrogacy should be mandatory. It is not something that is hit and miss. This is a big step. This is not a marketplace issue. This is not something that people can do only if they can afford it. This is something to which we as legislators have to bring a balance. The marketplace alone is not enough. We want to ensure that the best interests of the child are maintained and enhanced. One of the ways we can do that is to oppose the idea that a person can take it or leave it. We think that counselling should be mandatory. It is in the best long term interests of everyone.

Motion No. 55 talks about standardized forms and information disclosure on the use and disposal of human reproductive material. Using all the reasons I listed earlier in my criteria, if we just think for a moment, let us ask ourselves, is human life important, is it special, do we need special protection, do we want to make sure it is handled with care? Of course, and that means we want to make sure that it is not cavalier, that there are not unregistered clinics, that there are not embryos created and then tossed aside at the whim of someone in an agency somewhere. We want to make sure it is done properly. This means that we need standardized forms and procedures. We need to make sure that human life, at whatever stage, is treated with dignity. In other words, fertility clinics, which are a growing marketplace business in the country, should have standardized forms. They should have to make certain information available to users of those clinics. We want to make sure that there is proper record keeping and that proper forms are kept. This is an easy amendment to support.

Motion No. 71 is a more technical one on the makeup of the committee. Should it be fifty-fifty women and men or should it just be the most qualified? Of course we want the most qualified people to look after this. Finally, we want to make sure the people who are involved in administering these types of important life-giving and life-taking decisions do not have a conflict of interest.

We want to make sure that the marketplace alone does not drive this. One of the ways to do that is to make sure that conflict of interest guidelines are strengthened. For example, we want to make sure that people who are in charge of reproductive tissue or reproductive clinics do not also have a foot in the door on the regulations. We want to make sure that respect is given to all people.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting day so far but, my goodness, I have to protest the confusion related to these amendments. We started this morning with 107 proposed amendments. We were not allowed to see them until the very first thing this morning. Then the Speaker ruled a bunch of them out of order and so on. Then they were grouped and regrouped. Frankly, for members to debate intelligently on some of these amendments, it takes a bit of time to read and understand what is the intent of each amendment. Surely there has to be a better way of conducting business in the House rather than leaving members to scramble, as we have had to.

Having said that, we are now involved in debate on what was Group No. 3 of these amendments which now has been renamed Group No. 4, and indeed there are some important amendments to be considered here. The majority of them deal with the regulatory agency.

For those just tuning in to this debate, Bill C-13 is the bill relating to reproductive technology. It is a very broad bill and contains a lot of areas of concern to Canadians, such as the cloning of human beings, which most Canadians agree is not a way they want to go, therapeutic cloning, chimera and the importing and exporting of human gametes.

When we talk about chimera, what on earth do we mean by that? We are talking about the mixing of human and animal reproductive materials or the mixing of human and animal genes. We might ask why anybody would want to go there.

There are a lot of very important issues related to this bill. The Raelians are now claiming to have cloned I think three or four human beings. One wonders where on earth they are going with this. Obviously most Canadians are concerned about this and we want to see appropriate legislation brought in to prevent this kind of thing happening, but we also want to ensure that we get the legislation right.

With Canada dealing with this matter later than other nations, we have the opportunity to do it right. We have information that other nations did not have and the obligation is on us to ensure we use that information to create the best law to protect Canadians and to ensure that the offspring of this reproductive technology are the focus and not just a consequence of the act.

One of the first amendments in the renamed Group No. 4 is Motion No. 55 brought forward by the member for Mississauga South. The motion deals with the forms that the regulatory agency shall use. It also deals with detailed information. I will quote part of it. Subclause (2) of the motion reads:

The information referred to in subsection (1) shall specifically include

(a) details on the option to give embryos up for adoption; and

(b) the facts related to what percentage of embryos donated for embryonic stem cell research are likely to produce stem cell lines that would meet the research quality requirements.

This raises the question of embryonic stem cells and how these will be used in research. The motion raises one of the fundamental concerns that many of us on committee had, which I want to address briefly.

The purpose of this bill is to help people who have failed reproduction and have gone through the agonizing ordeal of trying to produce the family they want so desperately. Many of us are concerned that we are asking people who are most vulnerable, because of their desire to produce a family, to also be the ones to make a decision on the so-called surplus embryos or embryos that have been conceived from their bodies and intended to produce children. They are asked to be produced or donate the spare embryos for research purposes.

Although the bill purports to say that we shall not create embryos for research, I am concerned that there is an incentive for industry to do exactly that, to create surplus embryos so they can be used for research purposes.

Although the bill says that we shall not do research on embryos over 14 days old is to forget that those cells were destined to become a human being. Some researchers have said that when we kill an embryo to extract the stem cells and then use those cells they will have a measure of immortality because they can be frozen and cells drawn out of them could be used repeatedly for research purposes,

Today we have options available to us. We know that adult cells taken from our own bodies have the potential to produce the cures many people with serious illnesses are looking for. We can tap into those either from our own bodies or in cases where that is not possible from umbilical cord cells for example.

I am concerned that the bill would put the most vulnerable people, those desperately trying to produce children, in the position of having to release their intended offspring for research purposes. If we were to make informed decisions in the House based on the scientific information available we could avoid putting them in that position.

Motion No. 64 talks about risk factors associated with infertility. This amendment was debated in committee and states:

“the professions respecting assisted human reproduction and other matters to which this Act applies, and their regulation under this Act, and respecting risk factors associated with infertility;”

We feel it would be incumbent upon the agency that would be created to inform Canadians of the risks associated with infertility and that should not be forgotten. This agency, like a good doctor, should be trying to work itself out of business by creating a healthy patient that does not need its services. Risk factors associated with infertility should be a focus for this agency and they should be articulated. This agency should be advancing public knowledge on how to avoid infertility in the first place.

My colleague from Calgary who spoke earlier addressed Motion No. 71. This motion would delete a motion put in at committee specifying the gender of members qualified to serve on committee. I agree with his comments that this is inappropriate. Members should be selected for this committee based on merit and not on their gender or ethnicity et cetera.

My colleague from Calgary and the member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot rightly addressed the issue dealing with conflict of interest in Motion No. 72. The committee was quite concerned about this agency. It felt this agency should not be composed of people related to the industry itself, but rather people from society who have demonstrated an ability to deal with complex issues and who are not necessarily from the industry. The last thing the committee wanted was a club of people with vested interests in the industry to be the ones regulating it and reporting back to the minister and not to Parliament on such important issues to Canadians, and issues that have such profound ethical implications.

Subclause 26(8) that the minister wants to strike says:

No member of the board of directors shall, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in industries whose products or services are used in the reproductive technologies regulated or controlled by this Act.

That was debated in committee. It is important for Canadians that we do not have a conflict of interest set up by people serving on this regulatory agency with the powers it would have. I am puzzled why the minister wants to take that subclause out. We wonder where she is going with that. I am pleased to hear that members on the other side of the House agree with us that this is not acceptable. We also feel that this agency should report to Parliament not just to the minister.

We also note in this section that the minister would be able to change regulations without reporting to Parliament and make recommendations to the agency.

Therefore we have this relationship between agency and minister and minister and agency where changes to regulations could take place without consulting Parliament, and therefore without even consulting Canadians who might be concerned about the implications of such decisions.

I hope that members will consider seriously that there are amendments here that should be rejected and there are others that should be supported. I hope members will think beyond perhaps what the whip tells them to do and take these matters seriously.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on old Group No. 3 which is now Group No. 4. You are, as always, ingenious in the Chair, sir, to have resolved this problem in such a fashion.

I would like to commend my colleague from Mississauga South for having raised this matter so that we can address the very substantive amendments before the House in Groups Nos. 2 and 3.

Group No. 4 deals with the agency created by Bill C-13, the agency created by Parliament, which would report to the Minister of Health in implementing the bill. Because the bill is such a matter of great importance, the agency would be endowed with very significant powers, powers over life and death and how they define and apply the statutory principles of Bill C-13.

For that reason, the Standing Committee on Health sought, I believe through unanimous consensus, in its report to the draft bill which preceded this legislation, to have that agency report, not to the minister but rather to Parliament.

Let me quote from the submission made recently to the Standing Committee on Health on Bill C-56, now Bill C-13, presented by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. They say in their submission that:

The Committee’s recommendations for a Regulatory Body that is a “semi-independent agency, directed by a Board that reports directly to the Minister of Health, and with mechanisms that ensure accountability to Parliament” seems to achieve a good balance between independence and accountability. In establishing the Agency, the Bill appears to have overlooked reporting to Parliament, or is it assumed that the Minister will report to Parliament? Given what is at stake in the assisted reproductive technologies and related research, accountability to Parliament would seem essential.

I concur with the Conference of Catholic Bishops and with the Standing Committee on Health in its full report. These powers are too great simply to be endowed to an agency which reports to the minister and not to Parliament. I regret that amendments to this effect were not accepted by government members when put by my colleague from Yellowhead at clause by clause at committee. I further regret that such amendments have not been deemed acceptable by the Chair at report stage here. However we in the official opposition will continue to work for greater accountability on the part of the agency.

Let me address some of the specific motions that are before the House in this group.

First, the minister has brought forward Motion No. 52 which seeks to undo amendments made at committee making mandatory counselling with respect to surrogacy. Clause 14(2) of the bill, as currently worded, states:

Before accepting a donation of human reproductive material or of an in vitro embryo from a person or accepting health reporting information respecting a person, a licensee shall

(a) inform the person in writing of the requirements of this Act respecting, as the case may be,

(i) the retention, use, provision to other persons and destruction of the human reproductive material or in vitro embryo, or

(ii) the retention, use, disclosure and destruction of the health reporting information;

(b) ensure that the person [that is to say, the surrogate] receives professional counselling services in accordance with the regulations;

Motion No. 52, in the name of the health minister, seeks to eliminate this provision which would ensure informed consent. I cannot understand why the minister would be against a statutory requirement that potential surrogate mothers must be informed of all risks associated with the procedure by the licensee. It makes no sense to me at all, particularly when one reads in the preamble of the bill that one of its objectives is indeed at subsection 2(d) of the bill, which states:

the principle of free and informed consent must be promoted and applied as a fundamental condition of the use of human reproductive technologies;

If parliament is saying that informed consent must be promoted in the preamble then we ought to be consistent and require licensees to provide that information before surrogates can offer their consent.

There are number of technical motions in this grouping, Motions Nos. 53, 55 and 60, with which I have no objection. Motion No. 61 seeks application of the Official Languages Act, which of course is a standard statutory measure. Motion No. 64 has minor wording which I do not oppose.

I support Motion No. 71 in the name of the health minister which seeks to eliminate an amendment by the committee which says that, at clause 26(2.1):

The membership of the board of directors [of the agency] shall be appointed in such a manner as to maintain a minimum of 50 per cent representation by women.

On liberal bases, I find offensive the idea of assigning gender quotas or quotas of any other nature in a bill. I believe, and I think most Canadians would agree, that people should be appointed based solely on merit and their competence and not on what their gender or ethnicity happens to be. I believe my colleagues in the official opposition will support the minister's amendment to say that appointments should be based not on arbitrary criteria like that but in fact on merit. It would be a very dangerous precedent if this motion found its way into the bill because it would then become a Trojan horse for all sorts of other quotas, very brazen gender quotas, in bills. It would undermine the principle of merit in government appointments.

I want to dwell on Motion No. 72 that would undo the requirement of board members of the agency to come under conflict of interest rules. This is very interesting. My colleague for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock spoke to this. He said he could not understand why the government would be opposed to a provision preventing agency appointees who have a conflict of interest such as an ownership for instance in perhaps a laboratory that performs technologies regulated by the agency or perhaps a pharmaceutical company that produces material used by practitioners who are regulated by the agency. It makes very little sense to me. The current provision which the Minister of Health seeks to eliminate can be found at clause 26(8) of the bill. It states:

No member of the board of directors shall, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in industries whose products or services are used in the reproductive technologies regulated or controlled by this Act.

That seems fairly straightforward and sensible. I believe it was an all party consensus to include the conflict of interest provision. I believe my colleagues in the official opposition will vote against elimination of this provision prohibiting conflict of interest.

Let me turn finally to some of the measures which ought to have been included in this section on the agency but were not because the government voted against such amendments put forward by the official opposition at committee stage.

For instance, we believe that the mandate of the agency should include the protection of life. It is very peculiar that at clause 22 of the bill we sought an amendment to say--

[The Speaker]

The second point of order concerns motions in Group No. 2.

The hon. member for Mississauga South contends that 10 minutes is insufficient for him to speak to the 19 motions he has in that group.

In this, he is supported by the hon. member for Oakville who argues that the 27 motions in Group No. 2, relating as they do to “prohibited and controlled activities”, go to the very heart of the debate on assisted human reproduction. She contends that 10 minutes per speaker to address the full gamut of motions is insufficient.

The Chair is aware of the limits that members have to deal with at report stage; until now, I have based my decisions on report stage on the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) and I have tried to abide by the guidelines set out in my statement of March 21, 2001.

However, it cannot be denied that there is always an element of subjectivity in making these decisions.

As Marleau and Montpetit specifies, “Motions are grouped according to content if they could form the subject of a single debate”.

In reviewing the motions now in Group No. 2, I have concluded that the group can be split into two groups: the first relating to motions respecting activities that members seek to prohibit; and the second relating to motions respecting activities that members seek to control.

Accordingly, the debate at report stage of Bill C-13 will proceed with the motions originally placed in Group No. 2, regrouped as follows: in new Group No. 2, motions relating to the prohibition of activities: Motions numbered 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 to 24, 26, 27, 40 and 47; in new Group No. 3, motions relating to controlling activities: Motions numbered 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 39, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51 and 95.

Subsequent groups are re-numbered accordingly. Thus, the House is now debating, ipso facto, Group No. 4, with new Groups Nos. 5 and 6 to come.

A revised voting table will shortly be available with the Clerk.

I thank hon. members for their representations on this subject.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-13, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 28 on page 2 with the following:

“introduced;

(b) an embryo that consists of cells of more than one embryo, foetus or human being; or

(c) a non-human embryo into which any cell of a human embryo, human foetus or human being has been introduced.”

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for Mississauga South concerning report stage of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.

The first point of order concerns Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South. The hon. member has said that the text of this motion is not the text he intended to submit.

Having checked with my officials, I understand that while this might not be the text the hon. member intended, it is indeed the text that was submitted to the Journals Branch, duly signed by him. Accordingly, I do not find any irregularity in the matter and will therefore have to put the question to the House.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of items in the bill that bother me and that would make me want to support the amendments to the bill.

I noticed in the agency part of the bill that the minister in Motion No. 72 has actually moved to delete 10 lines on page 17. It appears to me that she is endorsing the conflict of interest part of this agency that we are fighting against. In other words, she would be endorsing the fact that anyone who sat on a pharmaceutical board, who was involved in research and could make a profit from the bill, would be allowed to do so with that particular deletion. I would have to look for a lot of clarification on that before I could consider that to be a good amendment.

I believe that conflict of interest to this House is an issue that we all take extremely seriously and that we should look at in the light that whether it is upcoming legislation that involves corporate donations or whether it is a simple thing like a ticket to a hockey game from a corporate sponsor for a member of Parliament, a person may ask “What is the next thing?”.

According to what I read in Motion No. 72, “That Bill C-13, in Clause 26, be amended by deleting lines 10 to 17 on page 17”, it would allow conflicts of interest among the board. I do not think that is right.

I also want to comment on the standardization, the forms and the agency that would be being formed here: the terms, conditions, options and so forth in Motion No. 55 in the name of the member for Mississauga South. The motion includes:

details on the option to give embryos up for adoption; and

the facts related to what percentage of embryos donated for embryonic stem cell research are likely to produce stem cell lines that would meet the research quality requirements.

I have an adopted daughter. We have spent an inherent amount of time being private detectives trying to find out her history. No history is available, at least none that I know of. I searched everything from the birth mother's OHIP number, the old Ontario hospital insurance number, to searching CPIC to see if the person has a driver's licence but none of those exist. I have gone down the path of trying to find the history of someone in my own family. It is for their information not for mine. I am quite happy to accept everyone as they are.

However the fact is that she wants to know her lineage, her roots and what the possible connections could be genetically that cause us to be in certain forms, such as whether one keeps a good head of hair, like the member from Calgary, whether one is bald, or whether one is allergic to peas or to something else. Some of these things cannot be found out until it actually happens, whereas if there is genetic information available one can be on the lookout for it.

In my own case, all the men in the O'Reilly family, previous to me coming along, all died in their late forties and early fifties. No one knew why until we researched it and found out that there was a genetic problem that sets in around the age of 45 to 47 where blood pressure starts to elevate. Back in the forties and fifties blood pressure was not something that anyone looked at as a problem. Being able to trace that, knowing what to look for, seeking the proper medication and doing the things that can be done, we can preserve and make our lives longer.

I am most interested in the fact that transparency not be removed from the bill, that it be very transparent and that people will be allowed to know the health and the history of their parents.

As we go through the bill and the amendments to it, we should keep in mind that this bill deals with life itself. It deals with the reproduction of human beings. It deals with what can happen with the recent scandal over Clonaid and those people who pretended they cloned someone. We need to make sure that when we examine the bill that we examine it all the way through and that we look at every clause, not taking a particular line because someone is a right wing fanatic, or someone is a religious lunatic, or someone is maybe standing up for the rights of the unborn.

We have to look at the rights of people who, like myself, have adopted children. I think those children have a right to know their background. They have a right to know what they can expect in their growing years and what they can expect to find out from their genetics.

In conclusion, I just want the House to know, and certainly the people who have phoned my office with concerns about the bill, that we are reading it and going through it line by line. I look forward to debating Group No. 2, which, by the way, I cannot read because it is messed up. I hope we get to the bottom of that and find out that it is placed properly. I seconded the motions from the member for Mississauga South. I did it not just to fill in the numbers but because I believe in what he has brought forward.