Bill C-13 (Historical)

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

An Act respecting assisted human reproduction

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Group No. 5 motions which, if passed, will amend Bill C-13.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to start by giving my support to the amendments proposed by my colleague from Mississauga.

I want to talk generally about Bill C-13, the assisted human reproduction act and begin by saying that there is always an important ethical question inherent in any discussion around embryonic research.

Embryonic stem cell research inevitably results in the question that was raised earlier by our colleague from St. John's, that being the death of the embryo, early human life. For many Canadians, this violates the ethical commitment to respect human dignity and it is a hard question for many people in relation to this bill.

It is an incontestable scientific fact that an embryo is an early human life. It has the complete DNA of an adult. The DNA is present at the embryo stage. Whether that life is owed protection is really at issue. Other members made the argument that life should be protected, and I would agree with that. That is one of my great concerns with the bill. While the bill attempts to regulate human reproduction, it raises many questions of this ethical nature by members on all sides of the House.

For that reason, many of my colleagues have suggested in earlier speeches that we focus on adult stem cell research instead. In doing so we would take away the divisive nature of the embryonic stem cell research debate altogether.

Adult stem cells are a safe and proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. Sources of adult stem cells are in the umbilical cord, skin tissue, bone tissue and many others. We recently have seen some companies develop the ability to preserve the umbilical cord should it be needed in the future, not only for that baby but also for any other family member who might be in need of stem cells. That is a resourceful answer to this question as well, one that should be explored and expanded upon.

Adult stem cells are easily accessible and they are not subject to immune rejection if they are the individual's own stem cells. Embryonic stem cell transplants are subject to immune rejection because they are foreign tissues while one's own adult stem cells, which are used in different therapies, are not subjected to the same rejection question.

As my colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill just noted, adult stem cells are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, MS and other conditions.

On a personal note, our own son is battling leukemia right now and has been for a number of years. I know my colleagues in the House have been very supportive of that. I thank them for their words of encouragement and thoughtful comments and prayers. I also thank my constituents and my board at home. Our son will be undergoing a transplant very soon so this is a question that is of utmost importance to me personally. He will be receiving transplant from another donor. He will be receiving adult stem cells.

Medical technology has taken us a long way from where we once were and leads us to all kinds of promise. However we need to frame these important questions, ones that seek to put in context those ethical questions I raised earlier. If we do focus on adult stem cell research, we alleviate a lot of those questions and concerns individuals have about issues of life which have been raised and will continue to be raised.

I know my colleague from Vancouver Island mentioned earlier, and I am loosely paraphrasing, the ability to patent different technologies with embryonic stem cell and that ability to patent them was not easy to do. Thereby the whole issue of profit in developing medical technologies with stem cells becomes a driving force behind whether we pursue adult stem cell research or embryonic stem cell research. That should not be the question, a profit driven question, that leads our medical researchers down one path over another. The adult stem cell path is one that satisfies the ethical question and provides hope for many people in treating many diseases, and in the whole area of human reproduction as well.

I would urge the government, in strong terms, to focus on that path in pursing Bill C-13.

As my colleague noted, we are one of the last countries to address this question. It certainly should have been addressed much sooner. Individuals have been calling for this for many years. We are behind because of the low priority the government has put on this topic.

We should examine the bill in detail. We have pointed out the considerable problems we have with the bill, some which have been addressed through amendments. Upcoming amendments will be talked about in Group No. 6 in the next part of the debate.

Before supporting the bill, we should ask the right the questions. In asking the right questions, we must ensure that we get a bill that puts us on the right path and does not unlock doors about which we have not thought. When a bill is before us in the House, it is incumbent upon us to ask hard questions and to get it right, particularly in such sensitive area as embryonic stem cell research and assisted human reproduction. If we do not get it right now, we know the process will be long and convoluted to remedy it. We need to get it right the first time.

We are generally not supportive of the bill because there are many questions that remain unanswered. If the bill is passed in its current form, down the road it will open all kinds of unlocked doors in terms of ethical questions and in terms of putting us on the right footing.

I would encourage all members to look closely at the bill. I urge them to tell the government that it needs to put in place a framework that focuses on adult stem cell research, not embryonic stem cell research.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about embryonic stem cells and how we should protect embryos because we are talking about protecting the children of this country.

I must say that the argument for the use of embryonic stem cells for research, ESCR, is based on three serious misunderstandings. First, the idea that the fundamental principles of ethics are appropriately based on a consensus of interested persons who express their opinions in regard to moral choices rather than on the divine law is understood by human reason and is given in Revelation.

Second, there is a failure to realize that a human being, innocent and possessing the inherent right to be protected and not killed or harmed in any way, comes into existence at the moment of fertilization of a human ovary by a human sperm. This fact had been denied by those who promote ESCR when they define the beginning of life at implantation rather than fertilization, which is a minimum of seven days. That human life begins at fertilization is attested to in current standard world textbooks and medical dictionaries. It is there; it is a proven fact.

Third, the misrepresentation of scientific and medical facts in regard to the practicality, therapeutic promise, and results in the dangers to both health and life of ESCR in comparison with adult stem cell research. Those are three misunderstandings.

There is a difference between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research. We are not opposed to the adult stem cell research, but we are certainly opposed to taking a little baby out of the womb, using it and killing it. There is no way this should be happening.

When I look around the House of Commons and see all these young people coming up on the Hill, I ask myself, would we have harmed any one of them? Would any one of us have harmed them? No, we would not, but if we allow Bill C-13 to pass we would be harming the future of our country and the young people out there, God love them, who need to be protected and need some voices.

The case against embryonic stem cell research is that a human embryo is a human being. The fact that the one cell human is a member of the human species, a human being, has been established since the 1880s and is accepted by embryological science today. The retrieval of embryonic stem cells from the human embryo kills the embryo. Since the embryo is an innocent human being and has the inherent right not to be killed or harmed in any way, it is not morally acceptable to obtain to stem cells from embryos.

We in the House of Commons are here to protect the young. We are here to protect all the people in Canada from coast to coast. However, we would not be protecting anyone if we were to allow this to happen. This is a step in the wrong direction.

There are problems and they have been spelled out by Dr. Peter Andrews of the University of Sheffield, England, who said, “Simply keeping human embryonic stem cells alive can be a challenge”. Doug Melton, a Harvard University researcher, has said, “In my view (human embryonic stem cells) would degrade with time”.

Human embryonic stem cells have never been used successfully at any time in clinical trials. They have a lacklustre success in combating animal models of disease and carry significant risk, including immune rejection and tumour formation.

This is a matter that concerns every member of the House. I do not know of any member in the House who would want to kill a child. I do not know of anyone. However, this is exactly what we are talking about when we talk about embryonic stem cell research.

We are in favour of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells have been used in many clinical trials with great success, when it comes to multiple sclerosis, severe combined immunodeficiency, Crohn's disease, cancer and others. As far as embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, we are totally, completely opposed to it.

There are two types of cloning: reproductive and therapeutic. The cloning process is the same in both types, only the intended use of the manufactured embryo is different. In the one case, reproductive cloning, the embryo is intended to be implanted and to live. In the other, therapeutic cloning, the embryo is designed to be killed. The process of producing the embryo, somatic cell nuclear transfer, is the same no matter what use is made of the embryo.

There are great problems with the bill. We have so many people coming forward with concerns and I know many of our colleagues have said that as well.

Motion No. 82 seeks to amend clause 40 to require research applicants who wish to use surplus embryos to do research on embryonic stem cells to provide reasons why they cannot use stem cells from other sources. Non-embryonic stem cells are readily available and used extensively in research with substantial success. If a non-embryonic stem cell can achieve the same research objectives then embryonic stem cells are not necessary and the application should be denied.

Motion No. 83 would add a new subclause in clause 40 to the effect that if there were insufficient surplus embryos to sustain meaningful research then no further licences should be issued for embryonic stem cell research. Since only about one in one hundred embryos can produce stem cells which meet the quality requirements of researchers it would be totally inappropriate to destroy so many when they could be made available for adoption by infertile couples.

There are so many people today who want to adopt children, who want to look after young people, and give them the foundation for their future and the future of Canada. However that opportunity would not be there if we were to allow embryonic stem cell research to take place.

It bothers me when I think about all the little children who I used to work with through the school system. I look at them today and wonder, would we have hurt any one of those children? Would we have killed those children? No, we would not and I cannot think of any members in the House, if they understand what embryonic stem cell research means, that would vote in favour of the motion without the amendments that are being put forward by our people.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues and the government. Clearly, anything is possible with good faith, and the parliamentary secretary is not the least charming member of this House.

I think that it is worth repeating that Group No. 5 of Bill C-13 is very important for parliamentarians. First, Bill C-13 is important in and of itself. We can, perhaps, remind people listening that the genesis of Bill C-13 has been fraught with difficulties; since the Baird commission tabled its report, 10 years ago, it has taken quite a while to get to the legislative stage.

Understandably, it was not easy to legislate reproductive technologies. These technologies must be carefully considered, because one in five couples in Canada experiences some form of infertility. It is clear that legislators, in proposing solutions, must come up with the right ones.

One can ask why the federal government, which is not, in principle, responsible for programs related to health and social services, intervened with regard to reproductive technologies. I understand that the federal government did so under its authority set out in subsection 91(27) of the Criminal Code prohibiting certain practices.

Furthermore, if there is an aspect of this bill on which the House is unanimous, it is that of having a certain number of practices prohibited.

On this point, the Bloc Quebecois was obviously quite comfortable. Witnesses—the parliamentary secretary will remember—came to tell the committee that we should have had fines only and summary convictions.

I think that this would have been a bit irresponsible, given the potential offences and the stakes. Imagine if, in a federal clinic or private research lab, people conducted experiments in the absence of a research protocol that had been approved by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, for example, and there were experiments in reproductive or therapeutic cloning. What kind of situation would we find ourselves in then?

All this to say that it was up to legislators to establish a link with criminal law. We have done so by prohibiting some 13 practices, including, of course, cloning for reproductive and therapeutic purposes, the creation of chimeras, and conserving an in vitro embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days. The clause contains approximately 13 practices that were agreed upon, as the member for Charlevoix knows.

That said, we were somewhat saddened, even hurt to see that the federal government took advantage of subsection 91(27) of the Criminal Code to establish an assisted human reproduction agency.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour, who seems very taken by this debate, to the fact that the regulatory agency may not have been the solution. In fact, the regulatory agency will create extremely important regulations that will interfere with existing practices in the areas of health and social services.

Allow me to provide an example for my good friend, the Minister of Labour: the preservation of sperm. Everyone knows what sperm is. There is not one person in the House who has not had some contact with sperm. Even our friends in the Canadian Alliance know about sperm, even the purest of them know what sperm is.

The issue of sperm preservation is one that is hotly debated. And it is already covered by existing regulations. Sperm cannot be donated any way, anywhere, and in any condition, without any regard for its preservation. Are we to believe that the Government of Quebec, the excellent government led by the Parti Quebecois, would have left an issue as sensitive as this one unregulated?

Of course not. There are regulations on preserving sperm and embryos. Even the practices of health care professionals are regulated. That is why, not so long ago, the National Assembly amended section 112 of the Act respecting health services and social services.

We are in an unfortunate position with regard to the government's wish to establish a regulatory agency. This agency will receive $10 million per year and will subject health professionals, at least those in Quebec—I am less familiar with the situation in Ontario and the other provinces—to two sets of regulations.

Another extremely important issue has to do with payment for surrogacy. The Civil Code has very clear provisions on this. Motherhood is an altruistic act. When a woman decides to get pregnant and to bring children into the world, it is certainly not for commercial reasons. No one wants to live in a society where children are bought and sold.

The Chair is indicating that my time is up. Time goes quickly when one is among friends. I will finish during the debate on motions in Group No. 6.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we were talking about Group No. 5 of Bill C-13, the Speaker interrupted me because we had to proceed to oral question period. If I am not mistaken, I had six or seven minutes remaining to finish my speech.

I was unable to do so within the timeline projected in the standing orders, but I think that, given the spirit of collegiality that reigns in this House, and if you were to seek it, we could obtain consent for me to continue my still much anticipated speech.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in the debate. This is a huge issue that has gone on for many years.

I would like to pay tribute to a former colleague, Preston Manning, who stayed in the House longer than he had actually planned so that he could participate in the debate in committee and in the research that was done. The House owes him a debt of gratitude. I would also like to pay tribute to my present colleague from Yellowhead, our senior health critic, who has done an amazing amount of research.

Not one of us in the House of Commons is an expert in this field. I know some members have more training than others and some have done more research than others, but I do not claim to be an expert at all in this field. However as legislators we need to be wary of what it is we are passing and what the long term ramifications will be for families, for children and for research over the next several years.

The debate would not have happened 10 or 15 years ago because we simply did not have the mechanisms and the research available to us. Interestingly enough, I find myself participating in the debate although I am not an expert on the issue and do not make any bones about that.

When I think of technology from when I was first elected in 1989 until the present, it is amazing how, because of science and technology, we are even having this debate. I watched the royal commission on reproductive technologies for some years.

Therefore, as we look at this we need to think about the positive attributes of Bill C-13. We in the Canadian Alliance share some concerns as I am sure members of the government do as well. We need to come up with the best possible legislation that will provide the best possible situation for researchers and for communicators, because this is such a huge field, as well as for adults who want to start a family but are unable to do so. Bill C-13 would affect not only families but all kinds of people right across the spectrum in our society.

When the bill was introduced I was relieved to see that cloning would be completely banned and prohibited. I was a little concerned about it beforehand because I was not sure where it was going. It is easy for people to say that research and technology is available so society might just as well move in that direction but I think that would have been a grave mistake. I believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception through to natural death. For some government to say that cloning would be allowed would be a very dangerous move.

Therefore, when the actual legislation came out I was grateful to see that cloning would not be legal. It will be interesting to see what the upshot and the ramifications of that will be on some of the groups that have claimed to have cloned a human being.

I think about what it is that we actually want to accomplish with the bill. In an all candidates forum during an election campaign if one of the voting public asked what it was we were attempting to do with the legislation I would be interested to hear what government members would have to say about that.

By introducing Bill C-13 we are attempting to accommodate what and whom? We are interested in accomplishing what? These are huge questions. When we see legislation like this that will affect real people, I think we need to be able to answer those basic questions. I am not sure I have heard an answer to those questions.

We should be saying that we are not sure what all the bill would accomplish but that some of the positive aspects of the bill are that we would be helping families who are having difficulty bearing children. We would see people with real illnesses, many of whom have been mentioned already, such as people with MS and Parkinson's. I recently met with some people with juvenile diabetes. The bill could contain practical measures that would solve some of these problems.

Of course the debate rages on about whether stem cell research with adult stem cells would be better, but with the remarkable technology and research we have these days I think we can see that there are some amazing accomplishments happening regarding both. I suspect that the debate will carry on and rage regarding stem cell versus adult stem cell research, but we need to celebrate that it is going on at all because, as I said earlier, we would not even have had this debate when I was first elected here 14 years ago.

When I think about the bill and some of the things it is going to accomplish, I must say I am concerned that the preamble of the bill does not provide an acknowledgement of human dignity or respect for human life. It seems to me that if we are going to build a foundation for all these other things, we need to have a rock solid, firm foundation about what it is that life is all about anyway. I think this would be very beneficial in the preamble of the bill, for everyone, regardless of people's feelings about it. We are not going to go off into the abortion debate about when life actually starts, but it surely starts at some time before birth. Just a general statement about the dignity of human life would be a very smart thing to have in the preamble.

I also mentioned this earlier. It is not a surprise to anyone, or a secret, and I am not ashamed to say it. I do believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception through natural death. That stems from my deep regard for life as well as my most deeply held religious beliefs. I think we need to celebrate how important this is, not just for this research to go on, but for families, for instance, for a couple who wants children but is simply not able to bear children. There are not just these kinds of issues in reproductive technologies. There is even the simple option of adoption. My younger brother Shaun is adopted and I cannot imagine what our lives and our family would be like without him.

These are possibilities for people. If we are looking at it from the family aspect, it is important for people to be able to celebrate human life. I am very grateful to somebody somewhere for giving birth to my brother Shaun. I do not know who she was and I am not sure about her mate, but I do know that he is alive and that because that human life was respected before he was born and when he was born, I have a kid brother who is now 46 years old and I am very grateful that he is a part of our family.

These are the real life emotional issues with which we have to deal when we are looking at this particular legislation. The government certainly would do well to acknowledge the dignity of human life in its preamble.

When we look at some of the things that we are grappling with in terms of genome research, in terms of how we actually write up a bill like this, I think we can see that many people have put excellent things on the table. There are many amendments coming from the opposition side. There are many amendments coming from the government side as well. Again I would caution all sides of the House to look at them on their merits and probably not pay too much attention to which political party they come from. People should take them on merit alone and define what it is we are trying to come up with, because when we bring in legislation it is going to be pretty long term. Not only is this historic, but it is leading the way for future generations as well as leading the way in what will happen with technology. We have seen such monumental steps taken in technology in the last few years, and it probably is going to continue at a pretty exponential rate.

When we put these guidelines and this legislation in place, I know how important it will be to make sure that we are on the right track. Celebrating families and human life is surely what has to be the firm and solid basic foundation of this piece of legislation. It seems to me that if we get that right, then everything else flowing out of it also will be solid and firm for future generations as we continue to work with this legislation.

Let us make it the very best we can right now. Let us get it right now so that when people come along after us they will at least say that we did something right when we brought in the legislation.

Points of Order

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the members for interfering with their business. These have to do with the report stage of Bill C-13.

On Thursday, January 30, Hansard reference 2949, on a vote on report stage Motion No. 64, the Chair called for yeas and nays but did not announce whether the yeas or nays carried. He simply concluded that the motion was carried. Because he did not say that in his opinion the yeas had it, members did not know whether five members on one side or the other side would have to stand to cause a deferred recorded vote. This is clearly on the tapes and in Hansard of last Thursday.

Subject to check by you, Mr. Speaker, or the officials, I would therefore ask that Motion No. 64 be put again when report stage on Bill C-13 comes back to the floor later today.

The second item relates to a motion of mine, Motion No. 101. In your statement, Mr. Speaker, of January 28, reference Hansard 2766, you stated that the motion was not selected because it was lost in committee. I have gone through this matter with the officials of the Journals branch and the legislative council. The amendment, which was lost in committee, is an amendment to require a parliamentary review every three years from the date at which clause 20 becomes in force.

My motion, Motion No. 101, which is on the order paper says that the review of Parliament shall be every three years, using royal assent as the date. There was confusion between royal assent and in force.

The bill as it presently stands, and it was proposed by an Alliance motion at committee, would have meant that Parliament would not have been able to review this until about five years after the date on which the bill was dealt. My motion would say that the parliamentary review would happen three years after royal asset, that would be three years after the bill is passed.

On the basis that there is a substantial difference between three years and five years, and there is a difference between in force and royal assent, I would ask that you reconsider, Mr. Speaker, the disposition, based upon the opinion of legislative council and the Journals branch, that they are in fact different, that it was not lost at committee and that since this matter would go in Group No. 6, which is still to come up, that this motion be allowed to be put as part of Group No. 6.

Let me give the short version because I know I am taking up the members' time. Motions Nos. 28, 30, 46 and 47 have been put on the report stage motions by the member for St. Paul's. I have reviewed this fully with the Journals branch and with legislative council. They are aware of the details. I would simply say that, based upon the discussions, these motions were moved by a member who was on the committee, that member had every opportunity to make such motions at committee, and that they should not have been put as report stage motions.

There is a confusion in the Journals branch that these motions were a move of a clause from one paragraph to another section of the bill. In fact the motions to delete the clauses from one section and put them in another section of the bill also require that an amendment to the addition of those clauses would be put in, saying “except as in accordance with the regulations”.

I would submit that the change or the addition of a clause requiring the addition of the phrase “except in accordance with the regulations” is a substantive resolution which is much different than simply a move. Therefore the member had an opportunity to do this in committee by defeating the first motion in committee and then adding the replacement motion in the desired spot when it came up. This is the advice I received from Mr. Yanover in the government House leader's office, and I raise it to you for consideration.

This is a very serious motion and a very serious change to the bill. I believe that due consideration should be given as it would appear that these motions are out of order and should not be on the report stage motion paper.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again speaking about the genesis of life or the beginning of life.

Some time ago I read an interesting article in which the issue of when life begins was debated. There are some who believe it begins right at the moment of conception. There are others who say that it is somewhere around the end of the first trimester or during the second trimester. Then Canada has an absurd law that states that human life does not begin until the totally formed child is exuded from the mother's body. That is a very inadequate definition, especially in view of the fact that even those who argue the viability argument, which I also reject, know that a pre-born child is viable any time between eight or nine months after fertilization. We are in a real bog when we ask when does life begins.

A very interesting statement about in vitro fertilization was made in this article by a researcher from France, whose name I unfortunately do not remember. He was speaking about in vitro fertilization and inadvertently used a phrase which settled the issue. He said that the moment that the sperm was injected into the egg, in the little Petri dish, lo and behold, cell division began and life began. He was not a pro-lifer or anything like that. He was involved in research and gave very little regard to the moral value of human life. He came to the conclusion that there was life even in that cell.

Bill C-13 deals with the whole issue of human reproduction and assisted reproduction for couples who have difficulty having children. We are dealing with the issue of cells springing to life. Once there is life, there is a special and sacred quality to that chemical mix. Suddenly there is an actual life there. It is an intriguing idea.

Inanimate objects do not have life. We stand in here surrounded by tables, desks and other inanimate things. Beautiful as the stone work is, it is inanimate. It is not living. If it someday crumbles and falls, as we believe it will sometime in the next two or three thousand years, it will be sad. If it is a nice building we will regret it, but it is not the end of the world.

I remember not long ago one of my friends was in a car accident. I did not ask how the car fared. Instead asked him if he was okay or if he was injured. I asked if anyone else had been seriously hurt or if anyone had been killed. We immediately think of the humans involved in these kinds of things. Vehicles, whether they are nice or not, are replaceable or repairable.

We recognize the presence of life in other entities. For example, for many years we have been talking about endangered species. Even when I was a youngster, I remember the talk about the expiration of the whooping crane. They were an endangered species back then and I believe they still are today, although measures have been taken to preserve them.

Many strong penalties were brought in to preserve their lives even in the embryonic stage. The penalty was very high for anyone caught interfering with a nest of whooping crane eggs. The penalty was in the thousands of dollars and even subject to jail time. It was recognized there that unhatched egg represented, even though not fully developed, another whooping crane.

When we deal with the human genome, as it is called, it is another human being. I believe that very strongly and that is the basic definition we must come to grips with and grapple with when we make decisions that are so important to us.

Using these entities then for research is part of the subject of the bill. The bill deals not only with assisted reproduction but also with research and helping to find cures for diseases and other things. An embryo is not as clearly defined as a full grown adult or at least a fully developed child at birth. It is less developed than that, along various stages, along that long continuum of cell division and development. We must recognize that it is human and we must treat it with great dignity.

All the motions in Group No. 5 were proposed by the member for Mississauga South and deal with the dignity of human life. As such, I have absolutely no hesitation but to declare that I am ready to support every one of these amendments. They are very worthy.

I presume that I will have still about three minutes left when the debate on this bill resumes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak again to Bill C-13. Yesterday I spoke to the motions in Group No. 4. Today we are dealing with motions in Group No. 5 proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga South and my colleague who spoke just before me and who went through each and every motion giving his support. In general, I do not want to go back and say the same things that he has said.

As I said yesterday, the issue of reproductive technology has created much concern among Canadians and, as such, we need to look at it. As my colleague mentioned, the former leader of the Reform Party took a keen interest in this issue while he was a member and came up with a lot of recommendations. At the same time a committee was set up to study the whole issue of reproductive technology and it came up with recommendations.

We have all been concerned about this issue for a long time but our concerns became bigger when, as I mentioned yesterday, we were advised that the first human cloning had been done by Clonaid. We are concerned that unless and until we have rules and regulations in place, we will not know in what direction this new research will go. Therefore, by introducing this bill, the government is attempting to address some of the concerns surrounding this issue.

However, as I stated yesterday, the concern we have with the bill is that it has left a lot of loopholes. These loopholes can allow the concerns people are expressing to fall through the cracks and we would not know what direction it will end up going.

Yesterday I stated my concerns about the transparency of the agency and about allowing the minister to appoint people to it who may or may not have a conflict. Even though he or she may or may not appoint people who have a conflict of interest, I fail to understand why the legislation could not include clearcut guidelines as to who can serve on those agencies because that agency, at the end of the day, will be the one that will set guidelines, rules and ethics on this subject.

There are two points on this subject that many of my colleagues have talked about. One has to do with the availability of the adult stem cell as well as research using human embryos. Unanimously on both sides of the House, no one seems to have any difficulty with adult stem cell research because of its availability and a lot of other things. However the bill also talks about using human embryos to a certain degree. I would like to read this so that those who are listening and watching television will know what the bill is proposing in reference to using human embryos.

The bill would allow for experiments on human embryos under four conditions: first, only in vitro embryos left over from IVF process can be used for research; second, embryos cannot be created for research with one exception, that they can be created for the purpose of improving or providing instructions in AHR procedures; and third, written permission must be given by the donor, although the donor in this case could be singular. As we know there are two donors, a male and a female, but all the bill mentions is a single donor. Fourth, all human embryos must be destroyed after 14 days if they are not frozen.

When we talk about human embryos, we were all human embryos. It is a matter of concern as to how far we can use human embryos. Because of this concern, there needs to be further and more thorough debate on the issue. As such, the Canadian Alliance has asked for a three year moratorium so that when the first review of the bill comes up, we can look at this and see in what direction we want go. We should go down the path of adult stem cell research first and put a moratorium on human embryo research. Then we can see where that one leads us before we venture into human embryos.

There are a lot of pros and cons to this. I am sure that there perhaps is better use of human embryos for medical purposes but I am extremely uncomfortably even with the thought of using human embryos at this given time.

The bill lays the foundation for the use of human embryos. We need to stop that at this stage, vote for the adult stem cell and wait three years, as has been recommended in committee. Then we can see where we have gone before we venture out and under what conditions and stronger guidelines we do that. I do not want the situation that has happened this year, as was stated yesterday, that somebody could announce the cloning of a human being.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair would like to take a moment before resuming debate. As we have proceeded through the debate on Bill C-13 and upon closer scrutiny of the publication of the Order Paper and Notice Paper, some clerical and typographical errors have come to light. I want to keep the House up to speed as we go through this, as they come to light and corrections are made.

For instance, in Motion No. 90, article 42(1) reads “The Agency may, in accordance with”. The line should read “The Agency shall”. The word “may” is removed and is replaced by the word “shall”.

I would like to repeat this for the French. Motion No. 90, which is a motion to amend clause 42(1), reads as follows:

“42.(1) L'Agence peut, conformément aux”

The word “peut” should be struck and replaced with the word “doit”. Line 36 would then read as follows:

“42.(1) L'Agence doit, conformément aux”

We have one other matter to deal with. I want to bring to your attention a correction to Motion No. 93 in Group No. 6 standing in the name of the member for Mississauga South.

Motion No. 93 should read:

That Bill C-13, in Clause 66, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 12 on page 33.

In French, the motion should read as follows:

Que le projet de loi C-13, à l'article 66, soit modifié par suppression des lignes 10 à 12, page 33.

Consequently, the voting table will be adjusted accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the Bill C-13 report stage motions in Group No. 5. Earlier I stood on behalf of my constituents and addressed my comments with respect to the other groupings. Bill C-13 is an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. We oppose the bill unless it is amended.

There are various amendments in Group No. 5. I will go over them one by one. It is just coincidence that all the amendments happen to be from a Liberal member, who has worked very hard on this whole issue. Likewise, the members of this caucus have worked very hard, particularly the former leader of our party, Mr. Preston Manning. Our chief senior health critic, as well as the deputy health critic, has also worked very hard on this issue as have many members from other parties.

The bill proposes prohibitions through the Criminal Code on certain assisted human reproduction practices and would authorize the regulation of other issues under licence. It would create an agency to operate a licensing regime, monitor activity and keep records.

I would like to reiterate the recommendation of the Canadian Alliance in the minority report:

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. I would request that a three year moratorium be imposed on experiments on human embryos until the potential of adult stem cells can be fully developed.

I strongly support health sciences research and development and research on adult stem cells. We must narrow the conditions of research. AHR should be more tightly regulated. I support an agency to regulate the sector. AHR clinics would have to be licensed and regulated by an agency created by the bill.

This is an international race of scientists on biotechnology, embryonic research, stem cell research and other fields of human research or biotech research, to accomplish what? To accomplish certain things, to find better cures for various diseases, cancers, MS and many other diseases. Why not do it in a way that is more efficient and without any sacrifice? That can be done by stem cell research rather than embryonic research.

The same results could be accomplished by stem cell research, or at least at the embryonic stage of scientific research we have in this field at this moment. We would like to explore the possibilities of accomplishing as much as we can through stem cell research. We are requesting a moratorium on embryonic research so that stem cell research can be fully explored. We need to completely fund the research and encourage scientists to go that route.

There are various motions that need to be specified. I would like to particularly comment on a few of the motions. Motion No. 80 specifies that research using human embryos should not only be approved by the agency, but by a research ethics board and a peer review. Also, because of the gravity of embryonic research, any extra level of oversight or review should be supported. We strongly support that motion.

We also support Motion No. 82, which places the onus on researchers to explain to the agency, “ the reasons why embryonic stem cells are to be used instead of stem cells from other sources”.

Similar to the original recommendation of the health committee, the research on human embryos can only be permitted if no other biological material is available. Since adult stem cell research is much more promising and there are no ethical problems, why not fund, develop and enhance the scientific activities in that field of scientific research? Adult stem cells are being used today to treat Parkinson's disease, leukemia, MS and other diseases. Therefore researchers should focus their efforts on adult stem cell research.

On Motion No. 89, a clause already exists in the bill which states that the agency may suspend the licence of a licensee who violates the act in accordance with those regulations. Motion No. 89 states that the agency should suspend such a licensee in accordance with the regulations. Given the gravity of assisted human reproduction, it seems appropriate that licensees found guilty of contravening the act should have their privileges suspended. That is the regulatory control we want the agency to have so that it can be effective in implementing its mandate.

Motion No. 90, which we support, adds a right of appeal to licensees who have had licences suspended for alleged violations of the act. That seems to be appropriate. In other words, we need to have effective control keeping in mind the ethical issues involved. By promoting stem cell research, I am sure we are not only exploring that field of science which could be effective without any sacrifice or damage to human life, but at the same time exploring the possibilities where stem cell research can find better cures and more diversified usage.

I support a ban on therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, the buying or selling of embryos and paid surrogacy. All these issues are very important. There is a huge area of ethical issues involved. I am sure that many of my colleagues who have already spoken on this issue have highlighted those issues.

Another concern is that children conceived by AHR will not have the right to know the identity of their parents without the written consent by the parents to reveal it. I think it is very important for future children, who will be born through this process, to have the right to know their parents.

Our party, which is more concerned about family issues than other parties in the House, want to strengthen the institution of families by taking those things into consideration. I am sure stronger families make stronger communities and stronger communities make a stronger nation. We have to look at this type of issue to strengthen the institution of families.

With regard to surrogacy, repaying surrogate mothers could result in effective commercial surrogacy. 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 the age of 21. The research highlights the importance given by the health committee, and I am sure that the government must look to that recommendation.

Surrogacy can also have profound effects on relationships between husbands and wives, within families, between the surrogate and the adoptive parents, not to mention the surrogate children themselves. All these things will affect the institution of family and the relationships of different members in the family. As I have already highlighted, it is one of the most important issues to strengthen a nation.

I will conclude by saying that we should encourage stem cell research and put a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research. All these ethical issues must be taken into consideration. Therefore I support all the motions in Group No. 5.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.

Before I begin I would like to commend the hon. member for Mississauga South for his outstanding work on this portfolio, the bill and these recommendations that have been put forward. The health committee also has done outstanding work. The health critic for the official opposition along with the member for Nanaimo—Alberni have done great work in keeping this party informed. I want to express my sincere appreciation to them.

Before I start I want to give the conclusion, because I usually get cut off before I conclude.

I have heard that diabetes is a fatal disease. I suppose I will find out some day, because I have it. Knowing that I have it and knowing that diabetes is one of the diseases targeted for possible cure through stem cell research, I still make this conclusion in spite of that. Even though there are many needed aspects to the bill, especially if amended properly, I still cannot support a bill that opens the door to the intentional destruction of innocent human life. Now I have said that. That is where I stand.

We have had information about the bill provided to us. The bill allows for human embryos to be used for experiments under four conditions: first, all embryos must be byproducts of the AHR process, not created solely for research; second, if written permission is given by the donor; third, research on a human embryo if the use is necessary; and fourth, all human embryos must be destroyed after 14 days if not frozen.

I think we are creating a great dilemma for ourselves. We all value life. Just prior to this, the member spoke of the value of human life. Not one of us would fail to value human life, especially if it is our own life. Somehow or another God has built within every one of us that desire to survive, to survive well and to be healthy. We can even observe it in the animal kingdom. If we corner an animal that thinks it is in danger of losing its life, the fight comes out in that animal like it will not be observed in any other manner. That is a natural thing.

However, we are talking about sacrificing other lives in order to benefit our lives. That is what embryonic stem cell research is permitting. We all appreciate technology. Or at least we appreciate the benefits of that technology. We like the conveniences of the modern life. We like the many things that happen because of technology. But sometimes technology goes awry. Technology becomes, in part, a curse on humanity rather than a blessing. Running in my mind is the example of gunpowder or dynamite. I have been told that its inventor is very sad to see that it is now used for such destructive purposes. Yet I come from a part of the country where there are many rocks, quite similar to what we would find in Nova Scotia, and the roads built through those hills and chiselled out of those rocks required the use of dynamite. That is a proper use of that technology. When we use it to kill and to take away other lives, that is an improper use. We appreciate it, but we do not want it to become an instrument of death such as it has in many cases.

I think back to the days of my youth. I remember growing up on the farm where we of course had a variety of animals. It was my job to take care of some of them. We had quite a number of brood sows. We raised pigs, fattened them for the market and sent them away. That was a part of our cash income on the farm. I remember that on one or two occasions in that operation we had a brood sow that took on a particularly destructive trait, which was that as soon as the newborns hit the ground she would turn around and eat at least one or two of them. When that tendency did not stop, we of course eliminated that particular specimen from our herd. We attribute that to a low animal that does not understand.

However, what are we doing as human beings when we take the lives of our own embryos, our own offspring, and excuse it because we need to find a cure for diabetes?

We cannot assist human reproduction at any cost. There has to be a limit. There has to be a place where the cost becomes too high. There has to be a place where we say stop. We all appreciate the need to assist couples who do not have children. They are childless and they are anxious about having a child in their home. We appreciate that very much. I understand the desire in the heart of these people to have children. I appreciate so very much my own children, and let me say that one of my four children was adopted. There are the means of acquiring children besides natural birth. It is not impossible for people to have children if we do not go ahead with investigating all the technology available.

The bottom line is this: assisted human reproduction, yes, but not at any cost.

Motion No. 88 is a very needed motion. I again commend the member for his work in putting forth these motions. The amendment recognizes abuses that can and do occur in some fertility clinics and the potential for abuse. I know that already some sort of limits are implied and now there are going to be more specified limits on this kind of thing, but there are always those words “as necessary” written in, which are open to interpretation.

I appreciate the remarks of my colleague who indicated that there was a need for the opportunity to do an unlimited number of fertilizations or have an unlimited number of implants. That is the cost I am talking about: not at the cost of human life. We must not create human life in order to play God, sort through it, choose the life we want and destroy the rest or even do research with it. There is a better way to avoid this dilemma. I have with me copies of three articles which emphasize the fact that non-embryonic stem cells are very promising, much more promising than the embryonic stem cells.

I see that my time is running out. It always happens, I do not know how. I will skip to another important statement, one from the Law Reform Commission of Canada in a working paper from more than 10 years ago: “It is a scientific error to refer to the human embryo or foetus as a potential human; it is a human with potential...”. If that one statement could sink through into our heads, in fact, it would change our approach to this.

The present code has a curious provision in section 206 to the effect that a child does not become a human being until it has proceeded completely from its mother's body and is breathing. Thus, far from being a proper definition of the term, it runs counter to the general consensus that the product of human conception in the womb or out of the womb is a human being. There is no question of that and we should remember that any time we allow the destruction of a human embryo.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today with pride on behalf of the riding of Cariboo--Chilcotin to speak to Bill C-13 on human reproductive technologies.

I find it interesting the manner in which the issues of great ethical and moral concern are dealt with in this place. It is not that they reach an impasse, but that after months and years of study, that study can be set aside and a whole course of action can be put in place and no one really understands the roots or origins of where the changes have come from, but one can guess.

I find it also interesting that at this particular time while we debate this serious ethical issue of the origins of life, of correcting genetic mistakes by using both adult and embryonic stem cell research, we are also in the ethical dilemma of how to conduct our affairs in another part of the world as we consider the Iraqi situation and our relationship with our allies and neighbours. These too are the result of deep moral concern and division.

What concerns me is that we come to this place and while we take part in the exercise, it is as though the end result has already been determined and the debate in the House is only filling up space. I hope there are people who are concerned about this legislation. I hope they are concerned about what it is going to accomplish. I hope there are members of the government who are carefully listening and understanding the depth of concern of people here on these moral issues.

At this moment I am concerned about the issue of embryonic research. It is an issue that divides Canadians. It is an issue that has attracted much attention. Many petitions have been tabled in the House expressing people's concerns, hundreds and hundreds of petitions representing thousands and thousands of Canadians. I wonder what benefit the petitions have been in the process of determining in which direction our country will go in setting out guidelines, in legislating the details of how this research will be conducted, of how the benefits of this research will be used.

It disturbs me when I realize that as part of the legislation there will be an agency that will not be responsible to the representatives of the people, to Parliament, but in fact will be responsible to the executive branch of the government, to the ministers at the cabinet table. In fact, that agency will be susceptible to directions from that executive group and these may be secret instructions that no one has an opportunity or a way of knowing anything about.

This really is not clarity. It is not open government. This is clouding the issue of how the morality of our people can and will be expressed. It causes deep concern for me that we cannot do this in a transparent way where everybody knows the way the decision was taken, where everybody knows the course of action that was followed, where everybody knows how the rules apply to them specifically.

It is wrapped up in a cloud and we do not entirely understand why there is this lack of clarity. Is it because of the big minds and big egos of scientists who want to put their mark on a new area of research? Is it because of commercial considerations? Does somebody have an opportunity to obtain a patent on a process or gene, or a way of harvesting the cells that are needed?

These are issues that would add a lot of light in my understanding of what we are doing and would go a long way toward settling some of the concerns I have as we discuss these issues. What we are looking at is an objectification of human life. We have been proud to say that every person is absolutely unique. We talk about the uniqueness of a person's facial characteristics, their fingerprints and their DNA, yet what are we doing? We are making people far less than subjects, subjects of God or subjects of the country. We are objectifying people and making them clones, not in the cloning process, I hope, because we are absolutely opposed to that, but in using procedures so close to it that they are very terrifying.

Life is not a tool. Life is a gift. It is a gift as much to the unborn as it is to the born, as it is to the middle aged and the elderly. Life is a precious gift. That is the basis of many of the great religions of the world and certainly of the religion of Christianity, of which I am a part. Life is precious. Human beings are subjects. Human beings are not objects to be manipulated. That is the basis of our freedom. The basis of our freedom is that we are unique, that we have a means to act independently and express that uniqueness, and that we know we are cherished for that individuality, not manipulated and not subject to destruction for somebody else's purposes, unless that is a choice someone might choose to make.

We have virtues such as courage. People have taken that individual choice and have chosen to give their life for something very special. To give a life for a life is one of the most precious things that we can contemplate, but we are trying to play God by saying that we can make life and we can take it away. It is not interesting that we do not believe in capital punishment, that we do not believe in killing people who have done bad things, but we do believe in killing people for other purposes? Ethically, I find that most disturbing.

There is another thing that disturbs me. As we consider the benefits of embryonic versus adult stem cells, there is a way of pursuing the research and avoiding so many of the ethical snags we run into by taking life, for whatever virtuous reason. It is not a life that is given. It is a life that is taken.

I was happy to hear that Quebec is setting up a clinic to take umbilical blood for the harvesting of adult stem cells. This clinic will be one of a number around the world and of two in Canada. The other one is in Alberta, I believe. That is the way we should be going. We should not be trying to satisfy the curiosity of a scientist who says this can be done. We should not be trying to satisfy the curiosity of a scientist who would like to know how to do it and have the means to do it. At what cost to our society do we take such an immoral, in my opinion, course of action?

Embryonic stem cell research has caused many problems even in the research and the results of that research. We are still trying to follow that course. At what price? For what cause? To satisfy what ego, which would take a life that has not been offered, which would kill the innocence when there has been no opportunity for productive realization of that life?

While I am pleased to speak on this, members can tell that it is a matter of great urgency and of great concern for me. I plead with those who are responsible to keep our nation whole, to preserve the integrity of our nation, our people and our course of action, because unless we do have that integrity, upon what base will we continue to grow and thrive as one of the family of nations in the world that has something to offer the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak to Bill C-13. It is no surprise that the bill has raised a number of controversies with the Canadian public. Some Canadians feel that the very use of stem cell research violates the ethical commitment to respect human dignity, integrity and life, and, in believing life begins at conception, that any use of stem cell research would be a violation of that.

There also are those who see the use of stem cell research as an advance in science and technology.

Appreciating the fact that we have these two ideologies, these two groups of people in Canadian society, the onus is on the government to tread very lightly, to be very sensitive to the different sides and the different concerns that people have, and to make sure the legislation acknowledges and deals with the concerns from various communities within Canadian society.

A lot of the proponents who would not like to see stem cell research used at all would suggest that adult stem cells are the ones that should be used. Unfortunately, we are dealing with reproductive technologies and reproductive technologies lead us into the discussion of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells kind of fall outside of reproductive technology.

However the argument is, and one that certainly can be supported, that where adult stem cells can be used in research, they should be used. The onus should be on the government to make sure that if embryonic stem cells are used for research purposes that there are some protections.

The committee on health looked at this legislation before it was presented to Parliament and came up with a number of recommendations. Those recommendations were well thought out. The committee spent a lot of time looking at it and the minister would be wise to consider some amendments to this legislation that would better reflect what the committee recommended when it studied this before coming to the House.

Some of the comments that the committee came up with were very valid. One was that the protection of the rights and the health of the children who are a product of in vitro fertilization must be a priority. The other priority has to be the parents who have gone through this process in order to have a family. There must be an understanding of the stress, not only economically but the emotional stress, that is involved when two people have to go through a scientific process in order to conceive and have a child.

The government has to be sensitive, not only to the physical attributes of what this legislation will create but also to the emotional and the psychological concerns.

The bill deals with the control of not only the development of this agency and who will sit on it, but the control of how these clinics will operate and how the research is done. There is talk about controlling the volume of material that would be available for stem cell research. These are very sensitive issues.

It is very sensitive when a government tries to say that a person can only use so many ovum, so many Petri dishes, and can only implant so many fertilized eggs when the sole purpose of it is to create a child and create a family. It is pretty touchy because there are two sides. There is the couple who, in many cases, have waited a long time to conceive and are using this as a last ditch method, and are very anxious that they conceive this child before the natural clock takes over. The sensitivity from that standpoint, along with the sensitivity of other issues, has to be addressed.

The board that has to make those kinds of judgment calls will have to be very well selected. The members of the board need to be people who have the ability to use good reason, who are wise, compassionate, understanding, as well as people who can make decisions.

The selection of the people for the board is very important. They must be able to show that they will well represent the end response to this legislation, which is the protection of the child who is created and of the parents.

Another issue that comes up in this proposed legislation is the aspect of consent. Who gives consent for the unused embryos, the unused fertilized eggs to be used for research? Is it just one of the parents? Is it the donor of the egg? Is it the donor of the sperm? Is it a joint decision? What kind of consent should be required?

I think all of us are aware of many cases that have gone through the courts where a child has been conceived by a surrogate mother and the surrogate mother decides she wants to keep the child and then it becomes a legal wrangling. We know of where they have used frozen embryos in a bank and one of the people involved has died and the other person wants to resurrect it and there is the question of do they have the right. There are legal parameters that will come into play with this proposed legislation.

It is very important that the government be very sensitive to not only those issues but to the potential issues that this proposed legislation will create.

When we go beyond consent we then start looking at the issue: does this child, who is created through a process, have the right to know the donor? I would suggest, as an adoptive parent, that there are times when the information is necessary for medical reasons. Maybe the child is perfectly happy in his or her family but finds himself or herself with some kind of genetic disorder or illness and needs to know who his or her biological parents are for medical purposes.

As I understand it, the legislation does not allow for that. How do we accommodate that which may happen and, should the proposed legislation be amended, to keep in mind that the time may come for good, scientific medical reasons why that child needs to know the donor.

I think the legislation also goes into surrogacy and the parameters of how that works. Again, it is very touchy. We have situations where we have legal contractual arrangements for paying the expenses of an individual. Will it be deemed that the individual will be paid to bear that child, or is that paying for the expenses of what that individual will go through in order to bear the child? Is that a necessary process or is that just a chosen process?

Again, we are getting into a territory that the results of the bill will have an ongoing legal implication. I hope that the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada will be made up of people who will have the ability to see through all these different issues that will occur.

The final point I want to make is that with this kind of a bill, which deals with such a touchy issue that affects all Canadians, no matter what side of the issue they are on, whether they are offended by it or whether they support it, I would suggest that it is extremely important that the agency report back to Parliament. It is not good enough that the agency would report only to the legislative branch of government.

The reason I say that is the people are connected more closely to their elective legislative branch than they are to the executive branch of government. On an issue that touches Canadians in such a human and familiar way as the reproduction of children, it is essential that the agency report back to Parliament.

In wrapping up, many amendments need to occur to this legislation to make it acceptable to all Canadians. In order for this to be accepted by all Canadians, those amendments must be seriously considered by the government during report stage.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-13.

My party has a lot of concerns about Bill C-13. My colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni has pointed out a lot of concerns and why our party would not support the use of embryonic stem cells in research. He has pointed out the alternatives and the medical scientific breakthroughs that have been made in adult stem cell research.

I want to mention some more concerns that we have. First, there are some things in the bill that we do agree with. For example, the bill does point out that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction must be given priority. We certainly would support that.

We support the bans on reproductive or therapeutic cloning, chimeras, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, the buying or selling of embryos and paid surrogacy.

We support an agency to regulate the sector, although we want changes to it that we believe are necessary.

There has probably not been a bill put to this House in the last several years that has caused me to receive more mail in my office than the issue of stem cell research. I can say that the citizens of Prince George—Bulkley Valley have overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to embryonic research over the past several months and have asked me to speak on their behalf in the House of Commons.

Embryonic research is a very ethically controversial proposal and type of medical research. It is dividing Canadians. We have witnessed that in the House with the different views of members of Parliament supposedly speaking on behalf of their ridings. We have seen the numerous petitions that have been tabled in the House calling for ethical stem cell research.

It has been pointed out by my colleagues and in petitions that embryonic stem cell research inevitably results in the death of the embryo, which is the death of early human life. For many Canadians, this practice would violate the ethical commitment to respect human dignity, integrity and life.

There is an incontestable scientific fact that supports the statement that an embryo is early human life. It states that the complete DNA of an adult human is present at the embryonic stage. Whether that life is owed protection is one of the issues we want to talk about today and one of the issues that should be present in this entire debate.

Embryonic research also constitutes an objectification of human life where human life in a way can become a tool that can be manipulated and destroyed for other ethical ends. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are a safe, proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. My colleague from Nanaimo on Vancouver Island has spoken about that at length.

There are innumerable sources of adult stem cells such as skin tissue, bone tissue, and umbilical cord blood. There is no shortage of a source for adult stem cells. We must question why some in Parliament and some in the medical community appear so determined to pursue embryonic stem cell research when adult stem cells are so readily accessible and have been proven to be beneficial in research.

Adult stem cells are not subject to immune rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns. Embryonic stem cell transplants are subject to immune rejection because they are foreign tissue. Adult stem cells used for transplants typically are taken from one's own body.

Adult stem cells are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, leukemia, MS and many other conditions, and are working very well in that type of treatment. Conversely I must point out that embryonic stem cells have not been used in the successful treatment of a single person. Given a lot of these facts, one must wonder why this drive to get into embryonic stem cell research is so ongoing.

In our minority report from the health committee we called for a three year prohibition on experiments with human embryos corresponding with the first scheduled review of the bill. It should be pointed out that the government disregarded many of the points that were made in the health committee in order to put forward Bill C-13.

When we look at the bill we see many things that were left out. Amendments pertaining to the regulatory agency have not been included in Bill C-13. The health committee recommended many things like an end to donor anonymity. That has been left out of the bill. Our minority report said that where the privacy rights of the donors of human reproductive materials conflict with the rights of children to know their genetic and social heritage, the rights of the children should prevail. That was not included in the bill. When the issue came up during the review, the Liberals defeated our amendment to end anonymity in a six to five vote, so there was a split among the government members.

The bill supposes to support the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction and that must be given a priority. We do support that. We support continued research using adult stem cells in medical research and treatment, as we have seen it being successful now.

However, our party cannot support Bill C-13 as it stands. We have amendments that we will be putting forward at different stages of the bill and we trust that the Liberals and the other members of the House will see the wisdom in our amendments and support them.