House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 87Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Division No. 87Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Division No. 87Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Division No. 87Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour will please say yea.

Division No. 87Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Division No. 87Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Division No. 87Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Division No. 87Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 88Government Orders

6 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Division No. 88Government Orders

6 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

moved that Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I was told I could have 15 minutes to introduce this bill and that I could take five more minutes at the end. I would like to know whether you would allow me 20 minutes right now, because I would take them right now.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

No. You have 15 minutes now, and five minutes only—

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

In fact, I am told that the member for Drummond may take her allotted 20 minutes right away. But before she begins, I would like to ask her who seconds the motion.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

The member for Laval Centre, Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral, seconds the motion.

I am happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-247, the purpose of which is to amend the Criminal Code. We are dealing with genetic manipulation, but to be more precise, the purpose of the bill is to have the Criminal Code prohibit cloning of human beings.

I am particularly proud because I sponsored Bill C-247. I would also like to thank my colleague from Laval Centre for seconding the motion.

Before I begin, I would like to read you an editorial by Ginette Gagnon of the Nouvelliste , who said:

Less than a year ago, the world was astounded to learn that a Scottish researcher had just produced the first adult animal clone, the famous Dolly. It appeared unthinkable that such genetic engineering could be used on humans. Now an American physicist from Chicago, Dr. Richard Seed, would like to defy scientific morals and open a lab to clone humans. The doctor, described as mad, will likely succeed in carrying out his project if the international community takes no action to stop him and more specifically to prohibit this practice throughout the world.

On February 27, the science magazine, Nature , published a report in which the authors described how a team of researchers succeeded for the first time in history in producing a healthy lamb from breast tissue taken from an adult sheep. It was a first. The main point was not the birth of the lamb, known as Dolly, it was the fact that human cloning was a possibility.

I will define a clone for people. What is it? The popular definition is that it is an organism, a person, an animal or a plant that is a completely identical or nearly identical copy of another organism in terms of appearance or function. On the biological level, it refers to a population of organisms, cells or genetically identical DNA molecules resulting from the asexual reproduction of a single organism.

Shortly after the news of the cloning of Dolly, we in fact learned that scientists in Oregon had cloned two monkeys from embryonic cells, a first among primates. One way or another, regardless of the techniques used, it is very easily imaginable that, with the rapid progress of recent years, human cloning may be commonplace before the end of the century.

People's concerns about the attempts to clone humans are therefore totally justified, even if no one has as yet advanced one single acceptable reason, from the ethical point of view, for performing such a manipulation. This, then, is the context in which I introduce Bill C-247.

By so doing, I have no delusions that I am putting an end to the debate on medically assisted reproductive techniques. On the contrary, I am aware that Bill C-247 does not offer a blanket response to all questions, nor is it intended to. In fact, if there is one lesson that can be learned from the evidence heard during the committee examination of Bill C-47, which dealt with the new reproductive techniques in general, it is that not all techniques can be put in the same basket, and they cannot be regulated as one whole. Each technique has its own specific characteristics, and raises specific questions and reflections which require different types of action.

I would like to review what has gone on in Canada in connection with the new reproductive technologies. The first government inquiry into the new reproductive technologies was the 1989 Baird Commission. Its mandate was to look into current and foreseeable progress in science and medicine relating to reproductive techniques, their repercussions on health and research, their moral, social, economic and legal consequences, and their impact on the general public, and to recommend policies and protective measures to be adopted.

Four years of studies, 40,000 witnesses and $28 million later, the Baird Commission tabled its report in November 1993. The main conclusions and recommendations were broadly similar to the foreign studies on this topic, in particular the Warlock report done in 1980 by Great Britain.

The federal government was slow to follow up on the report, preferring, unlike the Baird Commission, to extend the consultations to provincial governments. The Bloc Quebecois asked many questions in the House, in order to force the government to table the bill, which would criminalize certain practices related to the new reproductive technologies.

It was not until July 1995 that the government finally took concrete action, imposing a voluntary moratorium prohibiting nine reproductive techniques, including the cloning of human embryos.

The Bloc Quebecois, and a number of editorial writers, former members of the Baird Commission, including Patricia Baird, media, and interest groups, such as women's and religious groups, have criticized the voluntary nature of the moratorium, since certain physicians and clinics are continuing to perform techniques prohibited by this moratorium.

In January 1996, the federal government announced that it was creating a temporary advisory committee, with the mandate to enforce the moratorium, follow the development of new reproductive technologies and advise the minister.

As you might imagine, this purely voluntary moratorium has not been enforced. As an example, we could mention the advertisements that appeared in the University of Toronto's Varsity , offering to buy ova from young women for infertile couples.

In addition, some establishments continue to pay sperm donors, and physicians say some patients still ask them to retrieve sperm from their deceased husbands.

On June 14, 1996, the then federal Minister of Health, David Dingwall, introduced Bill C-47, along with a statement of principles setting out the federal government's proposed overall policy on management of NRTs. Bill C-47 included the techniques prohibited under the moratorium, and added certain others. It must be made clear, however, that these techniques were not made offences under the Criminal Code, and that as a result provincial authorities would not have been responsible for enforcing the law.

The second phase the federal government hoped to accomplish was to amend Bill C-47 to include a regulatory framework on all techniques of reproduction and genetic manipulation.

A national control and monitoring agency for the new reproductive technologies would have ensured application of the legislation, issued permits, inspected clinics and enforced the regulations. As well, that body would have monitored developments in NRTs and advised the federal Minister of Health in this area.

The Bloc Quebecois, although it approved in principle of Bill C-47, was vehemently opposed to the creation of a new national agency, and objected to the fact that there was no provision being added to the Criminal Code.

During the Standing Committee on Health, witnesses voiced a number of misgivings about the content of Bill C-47; they felt that it was too restrictive, too negative, that it was hindering research and depriving infertile couples of their only remaining option for having a child.

The most common comment made by witnesses was that it is inappropriate to put assisted reproduction procedures and genetic technologies in the same legal framework. These are, they said, different fields requiring different frameworks. Despite all these disagreements, however, there was one consensus: the necessity to take the necessary steps as soon as possible to ban the cloning of human beings.

On this point in particular, everyone agrees that there is not, at this time, any good justification for allowing the cloning of human beings, whatever the procedure used.

When the federal election was called last April, Bill C-47 died on the Order Paper , just as it was about to come back to the House for third reading. There is good reason to think the government was not unhappy to see the bill expire.

In fact, numerous criticisms raised by the scientific community with respect to the content and even the spirit of several provisions of the federal bill would have forced the government to make significant changes.

One of the results of the death of Bill C-47 is that all research and experiments in Canada are still subject to the voluntary moratorium introduced by the then Minister of Health, Ms. Marleau, in July 1995. Need I mention that urgent action is required?

In its final report, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies concluded, and I quote: “We have judged that certain activities conflict so sharply with the values espoused by Canadians and by this Commission, and are so potentially harmful to the interests of individuals and of society, that they must be prohibited by the federal government under threat of criminal sanction”.

These activities include human zygote/embryo research related to ectogenesis, cloning, animal/human hybrids, the transfer of zygotes to another species, and so on.

While the members of the international community seem unanimous in their opposition to all forms of human cloning, concerns over possible attempts at human cloning are justified. No one has yet shown that this practice does not involve serious ethical problems. Scientists, including the researchers who have cloned Dolly, have indicated they have no intention of trying to clone human beings.

However, there are a number of supporters of animal cloning. According to some, it might be possible to create strains of animals able to produce in their milk great quantities of proteins that may be useful in treating human diseases. Experiments like the one producing Dolly could also help researchers better understand human reproduction and hereditary illnesses, like cancer.

A clause in Bill C-47 prohibited human cloning. It is this clause we have incorporated in Bill C-247. It criminalizes human cloning, without however prohibiting scientific research in genetics, which may be beneficial in a number of areas.

The main clause of Bill C-247 reads as follows:

  1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 286:

286.1(1) No person shall knowingly

(a) manipulate an ovum, zygote or embryo for the purpose of producing a zygote or embryo that contains the same genetic information as a living or deceased human being or a zygote, embryo or foetus, or implant in a woman a zygote or embryo so produced; or

(b) alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or embryo if the altered structure is capable of transmission to a subsequent generation.

(2) No person shall offer to carry out any procedure prohibited by subsection (1).

(3) No person shall offer consideration to any person for carrying out any procedure prohibited by subsection (1).

Since all known and imaginable cloning techniques will still require either sperm or a human ovum, or both, banning modification to their genetic structure and their manipulation for the purpose of perpetuating genetic characteristics in other fetuses or embryos, closes the door right from the start to the process of manipulation which leads to human cloning.

Clauses 2 and 3 in the bill extend the penalties to any person offering or requesting a deliberate human cloning experiment. This also closes the door to the researchers of this world, the likes of Richard Seed, who might be tempted to offer their services in Canada, as well as to those who might be tempted to seek out their services.

On numerous occasions, the Bloc Quebecois has called on the federal government to intervene in order to forbid these practices relating to the new reproductive technologies. Numerous questions were asked in this House to spur the government into action.

We also issued two press releases in which we called for criminalization of the sale of ova, embryos and fetal tissue. In May 1994, Minister Allan Rock stated that the bill was slated for introduction that fall. The very limited voluntary moratorium followed only in the summer of 1995, while Bill C-47, which merely transform the moratorium into law, was introduced in June 1996. Now it is February 1998. Nothing has been done yet, and it is very troubling.

Finally, and at another level, it must be emphasized that the new reproductive technologies raise an extremely serious and worrisome problem for the very future of our society as we know it.

While the birth rate is plummeting, genetic medicine and the NRTs are evolving exponentially. The use of these technologies challenges our values, because it involves the very definition of the foundations of our society, our descendants.

Within the medical community itself, stakeholders do not agree on the limits that should or should not be imposed. Within the general public, there is even greater confusion because of a lack of knowledge and information.

I quote Louise Vandelac, a sociologist and specialist in this field. She wrote:

Through ignorance, indifference, naivete or defeatism, we therefore leave up to the so-called specialists something that, from the dawn of time, has ensured the survival of the species and the network of family and social relationships, procreation, filiation and their evolution, when what is at stake is nothing less than our own and humanity's transformation.

How should we react to the “dematernalization” of procreation? At what point should we call a halt to the genetic manipulation that some people would like to use to eliminate certain diseases, but that others would like to use to improve humankind?

I will conclude. I would simply like to tell you that I am deeply worried about the scientist I mentioned earlier who wants to open human cloning clinics and who said that cloning and reprogramming DNA is the first real step toward man taking his place beside God.

If that is not blasphemy, I do not know what is. I therefore ask all members in the House to give their support for Bill C-247. Our society depends on it.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Elinor Caplan Liberal Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate.

I begin by saying that I believe for one of the challenges of technological innovation, particularly in the health field, we must answer this question. Just because we can do something, should we do it and should we permit it to be done.

That is the question for us here in the federal legislature. It is also an issue that I dealt with in the provincial legislature during my time there. One of the pieces of legislation I had the privilege to introduce and carry through the Ontario legislature was the independent health facilities legislation.

Most people here probably have never heard of it. However, one of the public policy reasons for introducing that legislation was that many things were happening outside the hospitals in Ontario without the same kind of quality assurance and accountability that we had in hospital.

The reason was that technology was permitting things to be done in doctors' offices and in clinics outside the hospital that traditionally had always had to take place in hospital.

This legislation was to provide a regulatory regime that would provide public safety and quality assurance for the new technologies that were permitting things to be done outside hospital.

One of these new technologies was the whole area of reproductive technology, in vitro fertilization and so forth. To my dismay, following the passage of this legislation, the NDP government deinsured the whole area of in vitro fertilization.

The legislation, the independent health facilities act legislation, of course only applies to those services that are insured.

Therefore there is the situation occurring in Ontario and in most provinces across Canada with all the issues, ethical and moral, of cloning, sex selection, genetic manipulation; of uses for research purposes of the extra embryos, extra sperm; and sperm banks. It is an entirely unregulated environment.

There are some things that the provinces could do today if they wanted to deal with this issue as it related to uninsured services. They could move to set up regulatory regimes to begin that process.

I believe that federally we have a responsibility as well to look at these emerging issues. Much work has already been done. We know there was legislation previously tabled and I know the federal Minister of Health is planning to table legislation that will address many issues, including the issue of cloning the member has brought forward today. I think she has done the House a service in allowing us to begin this debate.

I want to make the point that I do not believe human cloning has a place in Canada. We have an effective voluntary moratorium on the use of many of these technologies. Those people with the expertise to do these things have agreed collectively that they should not do them outside a regulatory environment. It is not happening and I do not believe it will happen because they know there is legislation pending.

I say to the member and to all those who have an interest in this topic, as I do, that it is my view the legislation should be health legislation as opposed to Criminal Code. The reason I believe it should be health legislation is that this is health policy. It has to do with health issues.

Having said that, there are legal implications that I would like to put forward, those that must be considered when this kind of technology is considered.

In the test tube there is a sperm and an egg for the production of an embryo that will become a fetus, which ultimately could become a person, a baby. Who is the parent? That is one of the issues. What inheritance rights would that child have?

These issues are raised not only about that which could be produced in a Petri dish or an incubator. They are also raised because of the whole issue of surrogacy where an egg is taken from one donor, sperm from another donor and then implanted in a surrogate mother. Heaven knows what will happen in the future. We have heard it might be possible to have them implanted in a male. There could be a surrogate birth mother who is male. Does that sound impossible? Is that science fiction? Given the rapid changes in technology nothing is impossible.

We must contemplate the issues which face us in order to protect our children in the future. These are societal issues. They must be addressed comprehensively.

The issues of sex selection were dealt with in the previous bill, Bill C-47. It stated very clearly that sex selection could not be used in Canada, which I support, unless there is a very good medical reason. Some exceptions and some reasons were identified.

I know that in some cultures there is the desire to have one sex over another. I personally find it offensive that anyone would want to have a designer baby and would choose the sex of their child in advance. It would not only disturb the laws of nature, but there could also be very serious population problems on this planet if that became the norm, so I want to express my concern.

Gene therapy needs to be highly regulated. In this world in which we are living there may be in the future the opportunity to eradicate disease through gene therapy. We may be able to say that cancers can be beaten. We may be able to cure hereditary diseases through gene therapy.

These are the debates we need to have. In a regulatory environment we can do that. We need to discuss and debate these things in the appropriate forum because when we discuss these issues we also discuss our values and our beliefs. While we would like to think that our values and our beliefs are Canadian values and beliefs, we know there are some things we do not all agree upon.

The overriding public policy consideration must be the protection of those most vulnerable and the protection of our children for the future.

Something else which was addressed in the previous bill had to do with research. What kind of research are we going to permit be done with the excess embryos which are produced as a result of the extraction of eggs and the production of sperm in sperm banks?

I believe we all agree that we must ban commercial surrogacy. We must ban anyone from profiting in the trafficking of eggs and sperm. We must state very clearly that human cloning has no place in Canadian society.

We need comprehensive legislation. I know this government intends to introduce legislation hopefully in the very near future which will enhance Canadians' well-being by permitting us to make choices about their involvement with reproductive and genetic techniques. That is appropriate.

Many couples are desperate to have a child. We must understand that people want access to this technology but it must be appropriate. They must know that their choices will not include the right to do anything which is unethical or harmful to their health or to the health of their children.

I am particularly concerned that women have information about what kind of results they can expect from the use of this technology. We know that in some cases the results are questionable. We need balance to protect the individual interests of women and children.

I look forward to the legislation that will be tabled. I thank the member for bringing this debate to the House of Commons. I am pleased that I had an opportunity to participate.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Reform

Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to address this bill this evening. I thank my colleague for bringing the bill forward. It is my privilege to serve with her on the health committee. As with other members opposite, we have a particularly keen interest in the subject before us.

Some individuals would downplay the dangers of human cloning, but some pretty valid concerns have already been expressed. I am generally in agreement with this bill, but I would also make some suggestions that I believe would strengthen the bill. Again, I do commend the hon. member for Drummond for bringing the bill forward this evening.

Some play down the dangers of human cloning. They say that human beings already manipulate the natural order, so what is different about this whole thing of human cloning. Some also say that a human clone would simply be a delayed identical twin, delayed in time and that one of the twins would be younger than the other, so what it is the big deal, what is the difference here.

Some say that a clone would differ from the original subject due to environment. Identical twins are not in fact identical in all respects. Other factors such as environment and life experiences and some of the choices they make all make for a different individual over the course of the years.

Having said all that, the dangers are real. I want to highlight and quickly mention some of what we understand to be health risks to the would be clone.

The would be clone may be weaker, since cloning involves asexual reproduction. Clones would not benefit from the new gene combinations that result from sexual reproduction, those new gene combinations that come along. As there is marriage, as there is sexual liaison, that confers new strengths, a particularly important one being resistance to disease. It is necessary for the carrying on of human society. Therefore cloning could be deliberately creating someone whose immune system is thereby weaker and is inadequate. That I believe is wrong.

First then is that the clone would be weaker because of the lack of these new gene combinations coming along conferring strength, particularly that of being resistant to new diseases. That of quicker aging also is a definite risk involved here. While cloning might produce a “newborn”, the chromosomes in the original cell taken from that adult, those cells would be as old as the adult. That is why some who are involved in this area suggest that persons produced in this way might age faster than normal and may fall victim prematurely to the debilitating diseases of old age.

As well, along the lines of health again, there would be this need in this ongoing grotesque trial and error that might bring us some fairly bizarre creations through trial and error to perfect this technology on humans. The technology that produced Dolly is far from perfect. It took hundreds of unsuccessful attempts for that British team of scientists to produce Dolly. Even if it could be perfected on non-human mammals, there are differences in human cells that would require scientists to go back again and again and work on a trial and error basis. Even if it could be perfected in non-human mammals, there are differences when it comes to reproducing a human clone.

Also there are some very considerable psychological and emotional risks in the matter of human cloning. I believe cloning would create a real perverse sense of ownership in both parties.

First, in the person who decided to have a clone made, whether or not that person is the donor, there would be unusually specific reasons behind the decision to clone a child. From the very start that child would probably be viewed as existing for a purpose. Usually the purpose is that of following in the footsteps of the cloned adult.

Second, the clone might feel an obligation to fulfil some purpose for which he or she was cloned. That would be a very perverse kind of psychological and emotional risk to the individual clone as well. There would be those kinds of expectations. For example, a parent might want a child to turn out a certain way, to be a super athlete, a movie star or whatever. It is not healthy for the child. We have read about some of the devastating consequences of such expectations and how much more so when that is the very reason for bringing the cloned individual into existence.

Suppose someone who was a great athlete was cloned in order to create another great athlete, a Wayne Gretzky or someone of that sort. Should every human being not be free to pursue intellectual challenges or a career in music or other possibilities instead of being driven down a certain route by parents who had that one clone made for such a purpose in life?

Suppose parents would like to clone one of their children who is terminally ill. The child would be passing off this earthly scene and they would clone another child to make up for it. That cloned child would feel some very heavy obligation to act, behave and speak just like his predecessor as a replacement for that deceased child. It is a cruel and destructive environment in which to grow up.

Those are some of the emotional and psychological risks we have touched on briefly this evening.

If cloning were legal, then eugenics which we all disavow, and discrimination would be unavoidable. That is another problem with the issue of human cloning. There is no way to police people's motives or to detect insincerity in their stated motives.

I support the intention of this bill to ban human cloning. It is a good piece of legislation to get us on the way in our discussion of a total ban on human cloning. To date, 19 European countries have signed an anti-cloning treaty. U.S. politicians are proposing permanent bans on cloning.

I would offer for the record that this bill does not address the extent to which human DNA can be used in producing animals with human traits. There must be more discussion in greater detail with expansion on this or some other bill. It is insufficient to make human cloning illegal. There must be some detailed regulations in this growing field, this edge field, that would apply.

I have a constructive and helpful suggestion for the hon. member for Drummond and other members who will be voting on this bill. We should go further in penalizing those who would ignore the law. It is not good enough to give a simple light slap on the wrist or some fine. To me and others in the House the fine might be significant but not to some.

PPL Therapeutics, the company that produced Dolly, estimates a $1 billion market for itself early in the next decade. For companies making that kind of money, fines in the order of several hundreds of thousands of dollars will simply be a nuisance. They would be like parking tickets instead of something of real consequence or significance. We believe a fine is inadequate. If companies start generating the kinds of revenues in the billions that are indicated by that company, I believe financial penalties will not provide a sufficient deterrent.

The threat of significant and serious prison time would be an adequate deterrent for people who would attempt to break the ban on cloning. If this bill passes, the justice committee should be instructed to study what would be an appropriate prison term. There should be a significant prison term for those who would attempt to break the ban on human cloning if this bill were to pass.

With those constructive suggestions I indicate my general support for the bill. I will be trying to influence colleagues and others to that end. Again, I offer my thanks for getting this item on the agenda.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate, and I would like to offer my support for the motion by the member for Drummond to prohibit human cloning.

For members of Parliament who struggle on a day to day basis to juggle the competing demands of this job, the idea of human cloning certainly has some appeal.

How many of us have actually said if only I had a clone? I know my young sons Joe and Nick would love for me to be in two places at once. It would help respond to constituents who wonder when I am in Ottawa why I am not in Winnipeg, and when I am in Winnipeg why I am not in Ottawa.

On the other hand the idea of there being two of me, or for that matter there being two of anyone else, is darn scary. Imagine cloning in the case of the Minister of Finance. Unlike the chewing gum which promises to double your pleasure, double your fun, we would have double the cutbacks, double the pain.

What would the world be like if we were able to clone two leaders of the official opposition? Is the world big enough? What would cloning do to the term double talk? What would it all mean?

Carrying on this line of thinking, let me quote from an article written by Patricia Williams that appeared a few days ago in the Citizen . She wrote:

Imagine what the fashion industry could do with a clone with the right bone structure. Like Barbie, you could style humanity so that all the outfits finally fit. Mozart? Give his DNA a few more codas. Bill Gates and Donald Trump? There will be lots of them.

And we will need to clone more lawyers in a world where compatible organs can be “farmed”. Will questions of “harvest rights” be matters of custodial or property presumption in the new litigation of micro-territorial imperative? I paid for that kid, it is my DNA, hand over that kidney now.

It would be fun to pursue this line of argument, to follow through with such fantasy and to continue musing about the possibilities of cloning, if it were not for the fact that this is fast becoming a very serious and a very real issue as identified by the member for Drummond.

Ideas once confined to the realm of science fiction are now fast entering the sphere of possibility. This is not a frivolous issue. It is not a flight of fancy of some far off technology. That point was made very clear many years ago.

It has been noted in the Chamber that this matter has been before us in general terms for many years. The sponsoring of the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies a decade ago or more and its final report released in 1993 addressed the issue of cloning of human embryos. This is not a new issue.

The issue before us today is what is taking so long and why is Canada lagging so far behind. It has brought home the urgency of the situation. It has been brought to bear in this Chamber by recent developments, not to mention the sheep and we have all heard the Dolly jokes.

It poses for us a serious situation, especially given the fact that prior to the cloning of sheep in 1993 there were some clear developments when Washington researchers announced the successful cloning of human embryos by separating the cells of a parent embryo. At that time countries responded by banning human cloning based on the separation of human embryos. Certainly no one at that time even fathomed the idea of cloning an adult human cell. It was not thought to be on the horizon.

Today we know, based on scientific inroads in this whole area, that we have a major issue to deal with.

Time is running out. Today we heard from the Liberal member for Thornhill on this general issue almost as if it was something new before us. In fact we have had this debate in the Chamber many times before.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel and start all over again by questioning whether this matter should be in the Criminal Code or whether it should be under some separate legislative authority. The fact of the matter is this place, based on massive consultation with Canadians across the country, has agreed that we need legislation. We need to ban human cloning.

My point today is to make some appeal to the Liberal government to act as quickly as possible to bring forward a redrafted version of Bill C-47 which had very thorough debate and discussion in the Chamber.

There may have been some problems with the bill. We have had time to address those problems. The Minister of Health should not back away from the serious issues before us. He should rapidly consolidate his position, ensure that women's organizations across the country have been informed of any changes to that bill and bring forward a new piece of legislation as soon as possible. We cannot afford inaction on this matter.

As a result of developments that have happened with the cloning of sheep and with the impact of Dr. Seed's statement and claims in the United States, many countries have taken action of late. Some 19 countries in the European Union have moved to officially ban human cloning.

This tells me again that we are late in bringing forward legislation. We are behind the ball in terms of addressing some very serious concerns. I would hope that we will be able to act on that immediately, with the kind of incentive the House has received from the member for Drummond to get on with this debate and given my sense that there appears to be widespread consensus in the Chamber for actually legislating an outright ban of human cloning.

There are many questions to be addressed in this area. Let us draw on the body of advice that was received during the royal commission and in response to Bill C-47 and bring forward comprehensive reproductive technologies legislation as soon as possible. The framework is there. The general philosophical approach is there and we need to act on it.

I conclude by suggesting that drawing on the background material provided to all of us on Bill C-47 we have a comprehensive management regime that could guide us for dealing with this situation and all reproductive technology matters.

That legislation was based on three important principles, three important factors that need to be taken into account. They are the need to address the threat to human dignity, the risk to human health and safety, and other serious social and ethical issues; the dangers of commercialization of human reproduction in particular for women and children; and finally the need to ensure that the best interests of children affected by such technologies and transactions are taken into account. We have the basis. Let us act.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting day. I was on my feet earlier today on a question of privilege. In preparing for that I went through some debates that were held a few years ago in this place. I went back to 1980 to do my research. There were familiar names of people that I actually sat in the House with a few years ago. I do not think in their wildest dreams they could imagine that we would be debating an issue like this one. I do not think they would believe that science and technology could move as quickly as it has in the last number of years. That is really what we are talking about.

I listened to the members for Thornhill and Winnipeg North Centre talk about major changes that are happening so quickly in society that we cannot cope with them.

Going back just a very short number of years ago, who could imagine that human eggs and sperm could now be manipulated to create new life outside women's bodies? Just imagine.

Children, as we all well know, can be born of women who are not their genetic mothers. Another example is prenatal diagnosis which can detect genetic or other abnormalities in the embryo or fetus before it is born.

Those are the type of things we are looking at: big changes in technology that raise some pretty high moral and ethical questions.

The government that I was part of in 1989 created the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies in response to some of what members in the House have spoken about tonight. The commission established in 1989 was charged with looking at some of these issues. These issues were responded to by the government in Bill C-47.

As has been mentioned, Bill C-47 died on the order paper with the call of the election last spring. The member from Quebec who introduced Bill C-247 has basically done so in response to the death of Bill C-47. There is no question there are many similarities between the two bills. It is a highly technical bill. To be honest, I do not think any of us in the House are capable of carrying that position forward as best we can in the three short hours allocated to the member's bill.

Here are some of the concerns I have about the bill which have been expressed by people from coast to coast. The commission reported back with some recommendations that were basically based on information the commission had picked up over a number of years of listening to Canadians from one end of the country to the other, many of whom were obviously experts.

We would like to see in the bill protection with regard to sex selection for non-medical purposes. We would like to see restrictions on the buying and selling of eggs, sperm and embryos, including their exchange for goods, services or other benefits but excluding the recovery expenses incurred in the collection, storage and distribution of eggs, sperm and embryos for persons other than a doctor. This prohibition should come into force for a period of time to ease the transition from the current commercial system to an altruistic system. Germ line genetic alteration; ectogenesis which basically translates into maintaining an embryo in an artificial womb; protection of and consideration given to the cloning of human embryos; the creation of animal-human hybrids, which I believe the Reform member has just spoken on; and the retrieval of sperm or eggs from cadavers or fetuses for fertilization and implantation or research involving the maturation of sperm or eggs outside the human body are other areas of concern.

The member for Thornhill mentioned the moratorium that has been in place for a number of years. There has been a lot of good will and faith that this moratorium would work, but what we would like to see, I guess, would be prohibitions that are not contained in the moratorium. That would be the transfer of embryos between humans and other species, the use of human sperm eggs or embryos for assisted human reproduction procedures or for medical research without the informed consent of the donors, research in human embryos later than 14 days after conception, the creation of embryos for research purposes only, and the offer which almost sounds impossible, but it could happen, the offer to provide or offer to pay for prohibited services.

The other thing that I think should happen is a management regime or the development of a regulatory agency or, I should say, component. This should be introduced in any bill that comes before this House. Unfortunately, that is not part of Bill C-247.

What we would like to see is basically an omnibus bill that would take into consideration much of what we have spoken about in this House. None of us are going to disagree with the member who introduced this Private Member's Motion. I think it is time that we raised the debate. It is time that we discussed this in the House. It is time that we hold the minister's feet to the fire in his desire—I wanted to use the word promise, but I will not use it because I'm not sure it was a promise—to bring forth a piece of legislation that we could support on this side of this House.

What we are telling the minister is that we expect him to introduce legislation that would fill the void created by the death of Bill C-47 last year with some of the additions that I have just mentioned. It is a debate that is worthy of consideration. It is a debate that has to be carried out in this place and, obviously, it is a debate where expert testimony in some of these areas, you might say this cutting edge of technology—in fact, it is moving so quickly that a great deal has changed even in the last 12 months.

I believe there has to be an opportunity to discuss that, debate that, but more important, there has to be an opportunity through committee and through this House to bring in the expert testimony that will be needed to confront this multifaceted problem.

We are hoping the minister will reintroduce the legislation, allow this House to debate it and bring in the best testimony that we can, from coast to coast, to debate what I consider one of the most important issues facing Canada at this moment.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Joe Volpe LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, do I have more than two minutes left?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

You have exactly two minutes left.