Reed Elley

[Petitions, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in and around Nanaimo, British Columbia who are concerned about Bill C-415 and the fact that this would add sexual orientation to the current list of identifiable groups in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code of Canada, that this would in effect have the capacity to silence those who have moral disapproval of a certain sexual practice and that it should not be judged to be promoting hatred toward that person.

The petitioners ask that Bill C-415 be halted.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking a good deal today about the use of embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells. In my reading of the literature as I have researched this, it seems clear to me that the use of adult stem cells, in terms of research and the kind of successes that adult stem cell research has had in terms of treating diseases like Parkinson's, MS and other debilitating diseases, has been quite remarkable.

My understanding is there has not been a single medical advance due to the use of embryonic stem cells and that there is a huge rejection problem with the use of embryonic stem cells because the donor is completely unrelated to the recipient. Whereas, for example, if people bank their adult stem cells, using them themselves when they might have a medical concern, there is no problem of rejection.

The pharmaceuticals have a huge stake in this, in terms of the production of anti-rejection drugs in the use of embryonic stem cells, and have been one of the more aggressive parts of our society in the promotion of embryonic stem cell research.

Would the member like to comment on that because this something that a lot of Canadians do not realize?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank my hon. colleague on the government side for all the hard work he has done to not only educate the members of the House but, indeed, the Canadian population on the seriousness of this issue.

I, like my colleague, cannot vote in favour of the bill for many reasons, one being that nowhere in the legislation does it allow the offspring of someone who has been created by in vitro fertilization to actually know the name and history of the father or mother. It is usually the father, of course. A constituent in my riding, Olivia Pratten, has lobbied long and hard to get this included in the legislation. She is 20 years of age at the moment and would like to know something about her father. She has no recourse within the legislation to ever know anything about her father.

I do not know whether my hon. colleague knows this, but my understanding is that there will be a court challenge to this part of the law should Bill C-13 pass and that it is planned to take this as far as the Supreme Court of Canada to right the wrong that is in this very flawed legislation.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on that and comment on the kind of cost this would be to people's lives and to taxpayers as they have to take these things through the courts to change a bad law.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as we enter into this next stage of the debate on Bill C-13, specifically Group No. 3 amendments, I want to highlight several important issues.

The debate is a very important one. Frankly, I have been somewhat disappointed with the importance this issue has had in the past for Canadians all across the country and has sparked such little interest among the majority of members in the Chamber, for this debate will set the future for reproductive technology.

Yes, legislation can be changed but realistically how often does it ever happen? We just need to look perhaps at the most flawed legislation in Canadian history, the Indian Act. It is over 135 years old and the only changes to it over all that period of time have been relatively minor.

Yes, there are proposed changes before the House now on Bill C-13 but they are a long way from completion and yet the known problems have been in place since even before the legislation was drafted.

As the elected members of Parliament we have a responsibility to truly debate the issues of the day. Bill C-13 has strong science, health and moral implications within it. It is an arm of science that has been moving so incredibly quickly that I predict that there are many issues that we have not even considered at this time.

These issues will exist, not out of ignorance but simply because the technology of what we cannot do or even contemplate today will have the potential of changing for tomorrow. Let us not trap ourselves in a legislative box that we cannot get out of and adequately deal with in the future.

Therefore, I urge all members of the House to carefully consider the amendments and look to the future. As elected officials we are chosen by our constituents to represent them and to provide leadership here in this place.

I wish to speak specifically to this group of amendments and then make some closing comments on Bill C-13 at this time.

I will be opposing Motion No. 28 which deletes prohibitions on surrogacy in order that the prohibitions can be dealt with in the regulations. Unfortunately, the regulations are lost from the scope of Parliament. Yes, they are published and there is a procedure for the public to table support or opposition to them, but the fact is that they are not debated in Parliament. I cannot, therefore, support the notion that surrogate mothers should receive some form of compensation.

I note that the health committee report “Building Families” was united in wanting to end commercial surrogacy. It may seem altruistic but I do not support the premise of payment for children. These same principles apply to Motions Nos. 29 and 30.

While on the issue of surrogacy I would like to voice my opposition also to Motion No. 46 which would allow exceptions on prohibitions on procuring a surrogate, arranging a surrogacy and inducing a female to become a surrogate, namely, “except in accordance with the regulations”. As I have mentioned previously, I oppose leaving controls on commercial surrogacy to the regulations, for Parliament is the best place to have these debates and make these decisions.

Likewise, I oppose Motion No. 49. Opening the door to payment for gametes or in vitro embryos by leaving this to the regulations is not the correct way to proceed on this issue.

I must also oppose the motion to open the door to compensation to surrogates for work related loss of income as proposed under Motions Nos. 51 and 95. The health committee heard testimony that compensation for such expenses could be greatly inflated. There are just too many outstanding questions and issues surrounding this particular issue and, on this basis, the health committee recommended there be no such compensation for surrogacy. Surrogacy must be altruistic, not simply done for payment.

I support the premise of Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 39 which would prohibit the purchase of fetuses or fetal tissue, any part of the embryo or the transfer of ownership of embryos or reproductive materials.

I believe that life begins at conception and therefore cannot nor should not be bought and sold. Life is a precious gift from God and one that cannot be reduced to the level of a common commodity that can be bought and sold on the open market or profited through the stock exchange.

Motion No. 44 is an interesting one and worthy of support. Rather than the destruction of embryos, they could be adopted. Embryo adoption is a possible alternative to the destruction of or research on so-called excess embryos, though not without its own complications, I admit. This is an area that could have future consequences. As I mentioned earlier, let us not trap ourselves in a legislative box that we cannot get out of or adequately deal with in the future.

I feel strongly about Motion No. 45. I support this motion which specifies that there should be no research on embryos for reproductive research except as provided in the regulations. I oppose research on human embryos for any purpose and therefore support this motion.

Due to scheduling of committee travel, it appears that this may be my last opportunity to speak to Bill C-13. Therefore I would like to offer some additional thoughts on this important matter.

I have the privilege of knowing two very dedicated people on this important issue. Shirley Pratten, who lives in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan, and her daughter Olivia have both appeared before the standing committee on more than one occasion along with Health Canada officials and interested media. They particularly urge the House to move to an open gamete donation system.

I remind members of the House that the committee talked to several international researchers and professionals who spoke about the success of open systems in other countries such as Sweden, Austria and New Zealand. It is also my understanding that Australia and Holland are moving along in that direction over a two year transition period.

Hon. members of the House should also know that should Bill C-13 go through as it is currently written, that is legalizing anonymity, there will then be a legal challenge in British Columbia where adoption records are open. Discussions have already taken place with one of the lawyers who was involved with opening the adoption records in British Columbia and he is keen to take this on, with the adoption community in this country firmly behind him. With this in mind, there are several offspring in British Columbia who will be part of this challenge.

In short, I believe that if Bill C-13 is passed without change, there will be a serious court challenge starting in the province of British Columbia and probably continuing on through the Supreme Court of Canada. I wonder if the government really wants this. Is this in the best interests of Canadians?

I have stated before and repeat now that the bill is about improving human health. I am reminded that this is not only about physical health, but also emotional and psychological health. If members of the House deliberately deny people the knowledge to know where they have come from through an anonymous system, I believe that we are knowingly compromising their psychological health.

I have some insights into the adoption process, having one adopted child and two through private guardianship, so I know of what I speak. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard the emotional and psychological health as well as the physical health of Canadian citizens. We need to put the interests and protection of the children conceived through reproductive technology first. Let me repeat this because I believe that this is tantamount to our discussions today and throughout the debate in the past few weeks. We need to put the interests and protection of the children conceived through reproductive technology first.

I acknowledge that Bill C-13 states that this is in the preamble, but it fails to address this need in the bill by sanctioning an anonymous system. Anonymity is not in the best interests of the people who are being conceived. If we really mean that we need to put the interests and protection of children conceived through reproductive technology first, then the bill must actually do what it says it will do.

There are of course very strong lobby groups that attempt to influence the government and the legislative process. In this case the government is not only allowing the desires of some parents to come before the needs of the children, it is also putting the desires of the medical profession above the children.

It would appear that the government has caved in to the terrific power of the medical lobby whose interests in keeping the status quo are both self-serving and for financial motivation. It will take a strong government to stand up to the medical lobby and endorse the standing committee's recommendations on all aspects of the legislation. I really question whether the present government is strong enough to accomplish that.

I realize that my time is nearly up in addressing Bill C-13 but whether my time is up or not, when the House passes this legislation, the legislation will become the law of the land for the foreseeable future. Whatever we pass today and after third reading will have long-lasting consequences.

In the continuum of witnesses, who is most important? It is always the children. I urge all members to seriously consider this as we vote on this issue today.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in my hon. colleague's comments.

As I look at the budget I have every sense that this is a feel good budget that has been produced somewhat by the government's acceptance of the Canadian Alliance's fiscal prudence approach over the years. The government has indeed accepted our proposals to cut down the deficit and bring us into balanced budgets. There is no question that the government is now rewarding itself through a lot of incredible spending in this budget.

One thing I have heard from a number of people who are cautious about this budget is that even though our economy has done well in comparison to other G-7 nations and certainly in comparison to the United States, we depend so much on the American market, 85% of our exports go there. What happens if the American economy suddenly takes a huge dive? We would be no longer able to export to the Americans because they would not be buying.

Does the member know of any contingency plan on behalf of the government that would account for this kind of scenario taking place and in light of this free spending budget?

[Petitions, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with child pornography. It is signed by 43 petitioners asking that the House adequately address the problem of child pornography in Canada so that it would in no way, shape or form be legal at all.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present two petitions from constituents in my riding in the greater Nanaimo area.

The first petition deals with the employment insurance program. The petitioners state that over $35 billion in unpaid insurance benefits have been taken out of the program by the federal government since it started the EI program and that in 1999 the EI program paid more money to the Department of Finance than it did to people who were unemployed.

The petitioners ask that Parliament enact legislation that would modernize the employment insurance program according to the plan proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress.

[Persons with Disabilities, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last November the House unanimously agreed to a supply day motion that called for the Minister of Finance to act on the disability tax credit

I have heard from the disability community that they are sick and tired of coming to Ottawa with hat in hand for over 10 years to beg the government to create a level playing field for Canadians with disabilities and getting virtually nothing.

The minister promised wide consultation before he initiated new DTC regulations. That has not been done and he is bringing them in through the back door.

When will he get it right, complete the full consultation process and do what he promised Canadians who are disabled he would do?

[Liberal Government, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, our world is once again being thrust into a very dangerous situation where the outbreak of war is possible. For many years, because of my own personal beliefs as a Christian, I have found myself unable to support our country being a part of armed aggression.

Even though I feel this way, it is the right of every member of Parliament to have the opportunity to express not only his or her own feelings but also those of their constituents on this very crucial matter, and not only to express themselves in debate but to have a vote in the House before we decide to commit Canadian troops and resources.

Yesterday the Liberal government prevented the elected representatives of the people from doing that when it voted against our Canadian Alliance motion.

It is shameful to think that the Prime Minister and indeed his potential replacement, the phantom member for LaSalle—Émard, continue to block any democratic reform of our government institutions. The list is lengthy and includes closure on debate, overturning standing committee recommendations, not allowing private members' bills to be votable and the list goes on and on.

Surely Canadians are becoming as frustrated as I am about the lack of democracy in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for her excellent speech and I particularly want to echo her sentiments and concerns with regard to the bill and to people with disabilities.

I have a little child who is in a wheelchair and I am always very conscious of legislation like this that could possibly interfere with the vulnerability of people who find themselves in this position in our society.

This is a very important bill. It brings forward moral dilemmas like this for us. One of the huge moral dilemmas that it raises for me is the whole issue of embryonic stem cell research; notwithstanding the fact that I think perhaps there is a lot of pressure from the multinational pharmaceuticals to continue and increase the research with embryonic stem cells because of the need for anti-rejection drugs, whereas adult stem cells do not require that kind of drug therapy. Notwithstanding that, we have the whole question of human life itself.

It brings a moral dilemma to many Canadians and to many of us in the House. In a speech earlier today my hon. colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, for whom I have a good deal of respect, spoke about his moral dilemma. We have spoken about it privately. He said that the dilemma for him was that if these embryos were human life how should we approach that in this instance in terms of reproductive technology. I may want to speak to him further about this, but he seemed to come to the conclusion that one should come down on the side of embryonic stem cell research and that embryos would provide opportunities for much needed research to heal diseases. He said that if this little innocent life, and I presume he was saying that if that innocent life could express itself and somehow speak to us about this, it would want to help in this way. I found it somewhat startling that he would think that an embryo, which has the potential to live a very full life, would willingly decide to be aborted to be involved in embryonic stem cell research.

What that kind of reasoning does not take into account is the fact that it is quite possible that in the past we have indeed aborted and destroyed embryos that could have grown up to be great Canadian scientists who would find the cures for the very diseases that we are hopefully trying to cure.

I think there is something wrong with that argument. It just seems to hide the real fact that the legislation would allow the production and use of embryos that had their lives terminated. We have to ask ourselves whether that is a correct moral decision for us to make. I suggest that it is not and that there is something wrong with that kind of philosophy.

Then again that is only one of the many reasons that the bill is so important and the debate surrounding it is so important. We have to take the time in the House to get this right. A number of members have said over and over again that we have to take the time to get this right. We are walking down a path that the generations behind us will then be forced to walk upon. We are making decisions for countless Canadians who have not yet been born.

Motion No. 6 calls for the replacing of line 31 on page 2 with the following:

“with the applicable law governing consent and that conforms to the provisions of the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March 2002, as detailed in the Regulations.

This amendment expands the definition of consent to include provisions made in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research stem cell research guidelines and certainly has my support. Why? Because I believe that while Parliament must have the ultimate decision making authority in Canada, we must rely upon the expertise, advice and recommendations that professionals can provide for us in this very important matter.

Motion No. 80 calls for the replacement of line 5 on page 21 with the following:

--proposed research and the Agency has, in accordance with the regulations, received approval from a research ethics board and a peer review.

Again I support the motion. The amendment specifies that research using human embryos should not only be approved by the agency, but by a research ethics board and a peer review.

Even by being as thorough throughout this debate as we possibly can, we simply see that the technology is developing so quickly that we do not know what issues will arise in the near or long term future. It is very important that this legislation include the requirements of an ethics review. The seriousness of embryonic research requires us to support any extra level of oversight or review.

I must note the fact that the Speaker has reorganized the amendments themselves and I do agree with this step. However I also note the number of amendments that are within this group alone. I am certain every member here today would have relished the opportunity to speak at even greater length. Perhaps even further groups could have been made, thus allowing even greater debate on these issues. However I go back to the motions.

I intend to support Motion No. 92. I agree that we should place reasonable requirements on equivalency agreements that the health minister negotiates with the provinces. This was a recommendation from the health committee report entitled “Building Families”, and it is a valuable addition to the legislation. We must ensure that full transparency and accountability is a part of the process, that the public is consulted on all draft agreements and that the texts of these agreements are released to the public.

I also support Motion No. 93 which deletes clause 65 entirely. The governor in council should not have the power to make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes of the bill. This is what the 301 members of Parliament and their respective standing committees are elected to do.

There are important reasons why the controlled activities in the bill require licences and why any violations must be subject to prosecution. We are of course dealing with the creation and manipulation of human life. This is not something that any of us can take us lightly.

In turn cabinet should not be permitted to exempt certain activities through regulations. This defeats the democratic process and should not allow a get out of jail free card, in effect. In short I believe that this is a very serious subclause and should therefore be deleted.

Members of the Canadian Alliance will also be supporting Motion No. 94. This amendment removes the ability of the governor in council to make regulations respecting transgenics, which is the subject of clause 11. For those who do not know what transgenics are, transgenics are animal-human combinations and I believe that they are ethically wrong. On any level of which I can think, they are simply wrong.

Motion No. 96 is a procedural amendment that respects a Canadian Alliance amendment which was passed at committee. This amendment, now clause 15(3.1), 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 amendment's inclusion of “in accordance with the regulations” and will therefore have my support.

Motion No. 100 calls for equivalency agreements to be renewed whenever there is a change in any relevant federal or provincial legislation. This seems appropriate and reasonable and has my full support. 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. Without such a clause the legislation may be in disagreement with itself.

The next several motions are all closely aligned with each other. Motions Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106 all have my support. Included in these amendments is the allowance of the grandfathering of controlled activities until a day fixed by the regulations. Under the current wording, this clause would allow scientists to engage in a controlled activity once before the would act take place, therefore avoiding licencing requirements and prosecution provisions.This could result in a virtual stampede toward controlled activities, that is, embryonic stem cell research, before the bill takes effect. I do not believe controlled activity should be grandfathered.

There are important reasons why controlled activities otherwise require licences and why violations should be subject to prosecution. They require utmost attention because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life as does this whole bill.

I ask my colleagues to take these amendments under consideration and vote according to their conscience.