Debates of May 14th, 1998

Supply

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's remarks, but I would like again to pick up the question of the reserve.

I agree with my colleague. He gave the example of citizen soldiers in our cities, but it seems to me that many of the peacekeeping operations that we have around the world are best served by a judicial mix of regular soldiers and citizen soldiers. Very often the troops are dealing with civilians and it is good to have combat-ready troops, but it is also good to have troops who may be combat-ready but who live in normal communities.

The other aspect of that, of course, is that the reserve provides a presence for our armed forces in all the communities across the country and it ties in with the cadets. I heard the member's remark about the increase. I had heard that we were perhaps the only one of the G-7 nations with fewer reserve troops than regular troops. I wonder if my colleague knows if that is true and I wonder if he would comment further on how we might develop a larger, more diverse, effective reserve force.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's question is, we need to make more of a financial investment.

We already have the infrastructure because the armouries are there, but if we invest in another 10,000 reservists and the equipment they require we will more than recoup that investment in the savings we make on intercity problems. It is not that we are taking off the street kids who would otherwise be involved in crime. It is not that at all. When we take young people into the Canadian forces in a reserve capacity what happens is that they go back into their communities with their uniforms and they become a part of the community. It is like the Boy Scouts. They return to their communities and they have a tremendous role to play.

We saw the value of the reserves, of the citizen soldiery, in the ice storm incident and in the problem we had with the floods out west.

It is a worthy investment. Let us agree on all sides of the House that we can conclude this debate by saying there is consensus on all sides of the House to invest more in the reserves and to do more for the young people of Canada. It will promote the nation, it will promote the flag and it will make Canadians that much more proud of themselves.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker made some comments with respect to the submarines about which I was very intrigued. He did not seem to be all that enthused with the decision to go with the Upholder submarines.

The defence committee recently had the opportunity to tour the HMCS Okanagan , one of the current submarines in our fleet. Commander Dermot Mulholland was delighted about the fact that they are very cheap. He said it was like a dream buy for the Canadian forces. They are extremely quiet and they are faster than the current submarines, the Oberon class submarines. They will also give us an opportunity to train well with the Americans.

What problem does he see with the Upholders? Many people think it is a great deal?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Upholder is the Shawinigan . Vessels like the Shawinigan are more than a match for vessels like the Upholder, and the Shawinigan costs a lot less.

The reason the Upholder is a good investment, and I support the government on this, is that we need to have modern submarines in order to play games with the Americans. Basically that is what it amounts to. In order to stay abreast of any submarine warfare we have to have the latest in technology and the Oberon class of submarines is the latest in technology.

I also note that the purchase of the British submarines is basically an exchange deal for time on Canadian ranges for British troops. It is not so much a dollar investment as it is a military exchange with the United Kingdom.

In the end, in tomorrow's world, smaller is better, although I do support, in principle at least, the purchase of the four British submarines.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I appreciate the efforts of the Conservative Party for presenting this motion today. The motion reads:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian Forces.

I expected that we would have heard from speakers from all parties in the House today that in fact that leadership is missing. We have indeed heard as we travelled with the defence committee, of which I am a member and of which many of the members who have spoken are members, that there is a lack of leadership on the part of the government when it comes to the Canadian forces.

I will talk about this leadership from a couple of points of view. First, I will give a clear demonstration of the lack of political leadership by making two key points and then I will demonstrate the lack of commitment by talking about one particular case involving the military's most important assets, people.

First, the lack of political leadership can be clearly demonstrated in several ways. Let us start with funding. Money is not everything. Putting more money into the military is not going to solve many of the problems that we have in the Canadian military today. However, funding has dropped below a critical level which does not and will not allow, even with proper management, Canada to sustain the kind of military force that it needs to provide the basic security that Canadians expect for our country. Funding has dropped from $12.5 billion in 1992, just before this government took office, to $9.3 billion this year.

Clearly this government, as it has over the past many years, as all governments have over the past 30 to 35 years, found the military to be an easy target. Because of the lack of commitment shown to the military by the top leadership in this country the general public does not get too excited when the military is cut. That situation is changing due to the involvement of the men and women in our forces in some of the key natural disasters that have taken place. But funding has been cut from $12.5 billion to $9.3 billion.

Other than funding, a complete lack of support on the part of our Prime Minister and this government has been shown in several ways. For example, when was the last time we heard the Prime Minister say that we need a strong military to provide basic security for this country? I challenge anybody to remember that. I certainly cannot and I doubt that anybody in this House can. It has not happened. The Prime Minister is not committed to having a strong military. When was the last time we heard the Prime Minister say that the men and women of the forces are doing a great job? We saw a little bit of that when the men and women of the forces were involved in the ice storm, in the floods and in peacekeeping.

The Prime Minister seems to completely miss the point that the primary role of our forces is to provide security for Canada as a sovereign nation. The lack of belief on the part of governments over the last 30 years that we need a strong military force to provide that basic security has led to the situation we see today.

That contrasts dramatically with what we see in the United States. I point to our neighbour to the south. There are a lot of things they do not do right, in my judgement, but one thing the president certainly does is acknowledge the need for a strong military to protect that country. Occasion after occasion he points to the men and women who have served so well. We could point to the men and women in the Canadian forces in the same way because they have served well.

I want to talk about the lack of commitment by bringing the attention of this House to a specific case which was dealt with in committee about three weeks ago. I will quote the chief of defence staff who was at the committee meeting in a minute. However, first, I want to set this up.

A woman by the name of Mrs. Dolhan phoned me. I talked to her for some time. This is an extremely serious situation which I believed would be dealt with. It involves Master Corporal Dolhan who is a member of our forces. He was parachuting under very unsafe conditions. He was one of eight out of eleven in that particular jump who fell into trees. He was injured. There was a bungled rescue attempt to get him out of the tree. He ended up in the hospital. The comments made by him and his wife were that they have had absolutely no support from the military. That is sad.

I brought this case to the attention of the chief of defence staff in committee about three weeks ago. The chief of defence staff, General Baril, said this:

This is one of the examples that we are taking, that when an accident happens we've got to cover all angles. We have only one chance of maintaining and furthering the confidence of the men and women who are serving and if we miss it, we miss it for a long, long time and we hear stories that Col. McLellan has heard. We will never be able to repair the damage that was done, but on that case I think that I can assure you that we got the bull by the horn on this one.

She is not an unreasonable person. All she is asking for are some very minor expenses to be covered, expenses that are not minor for her. These are expenses to cover the mileage when she takes her husband to the hospital which she has to do at least twice a week, coverage for some child—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House resumed from April 1, consideration of the motion that Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing to second Bill C-247, introduced by my colleague for Drummond and entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code.

I am therefore pleased to rise today during this last hour of debate on this bill. We are debating the necessity of clearly banning the cloning of human beings.

The rapid progress made in recent years in new reproductive technologies raises crucial questions on medical ethics.

Less than year ago, Dolly the sheep was in the headlines all over the world. Scientists in Scotland translated science fiction into reality by creating a lamb from a cell taken from an adult female sheep. She subsequently gave birth to a seemingly perfectly healthy lamb. The clone, a carbon copy of the original, caused a commotion throughout the world, and reopened the entire debate on regulating the new reproductive techniques.

If applied to human beings, this technique raises important ethical questions. Scientists say that cloning does not require very sophisticated technology and could unquestionably interest some scientists or provide an opportunity for rich eccentrics to realize dreams as dangerous as they are appealing.

In this respect, I draw your attention to the work of a Chicago scientist, Dr. Richard Seed, who wants to open a human cloning clinic to produce children for sterile couples, a new kind of fertility clinic. This announcement, reported by the press earlier in the year, makes us realize the extent of the problem.

This scientist applauds the absence of legislation in the United States; there is nothing preventing him from going ahead with his project. Should his country ever pass legislation prohibiting cloning, he would do his experimenting in Mexico. This is the context in which Bill C-247 takes its full significance. The only way to counter such behaviour is to prohibit the use of this technique altogether.

Because it involves the future of mankind, who we are as human beings, our origin and the whole way we relate to each other, to allow human cloning, appealing as it may sound, is to destroy the uniqueness of each individual.

Given the speed at which new reproductive technologies were developing, in 1989, the federal government established a royal commission of inquiry—better known as the Baird commission—on the subject.

Four years, and $28 million, later the commission handed in its report: 1,275 pages and 293 recommendations, including one to ban human cloning, 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 actions include human zygote-embryo research related to ectogenesis, cloning—”. This is from page 1022 of the Baird commission's report.

Despite the urgency and importance of the problem related to ectogenesis, it was not until 1997 that the government decided to take action and introduced Bill C-47. But came the election and the bill died on the order paper.

Since the beginning of the 36th Parliament, the government has done nothing about this issue, although the situation is evolving rapidly and more than ever demands new legislative measures with respect to new reproductive technologies.

Canada is now one of the only major western countries that has had neither the courage nor the will to pass legislation with respect to these technologies.

Following the announcement by Dr. Seed, which I mentioned earlier, some 20 European nations approved a text prohibiting human cloning and introducing sanctions. This text completes the European convention on biomedicine signed by 22 member countries of the Council of Europe.

This measure will extend to all European countries that sign the protocol and will entail serious sanctions for infractions, in particular the loss of the right to practice for offending researchers. This measure will also apply to European citizens and European corporations operating outside Europe. These concrete measures should be echoed in North America. Bill C-247 is a step in that direction.

It was no accident that the Scottish lamb was given the name Dolly. No civilized society will ever have the right to give life to infinitely reproducible dolls. Our most precious asset is our identity, our right to freedom and life in every sense of the term.

I am confident that this bill will receive the unanimous approval of the House.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to genetic manipulation. I congratulate the member for Drummond for her efforts in sponsoring this bill.

Bill C-247 would amend the Criminal Code by adding after section 286 a prohibition for genetic manipulation that could lead to human cloning. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has hit the nineties and it is a scary thought that science has advanced at such a rate that this has become a reality, that in a science lab a person might have the ability to create human life.

I think once again we find ourselves in the position in government and in parliament to try to keep up to the quickly advancing rate of science. As technology continues to advance we too must advance and turn our minds to this situation.

This bill is very timely in light of the recent technological advancements and developments that have resulted in, among other innovations, the successful cloning of a sheep. As we have seen, what once was thought to be completely impossible becomes reality. We as law makers must be prepared in advance of other new reproductive and genetic technologies.

Unfortunately the government in this instance has been slow and I want to remark on the steps it has taken. The Progressive Conservative Party did have the foresight to lay the groundwork for developing policy options with respect to this matter.

In 1989 the Progressive Conservative Party of the day had established a royal commission on new reproductive technologies and that commission's mandate was to examine the social, medical, legal, ethical and economic considerations and implications for new reproductive and genetic technologies. In particular, it was to examine the area and implication of women's reproductive health and well-being.

Following extensive consultations with Canadians the commission reported its findings to the new Liberal government in November 1993, more than four years ago. The commission stressed at that time the need for the federal government to adopt a comprehensive public policy on new reproductive and genetic technologies.

In response to that commission the Liberal government announced a voluntary moratorium on the nine NRGTs in 1995, which continues to stand to this day.

In 1996 the Liberals tabled Bill C-47, the human reproductive and genetic technologies act, which prohibited 13 practices including cloning, transfer of embryos between humans and other species and surrogacy arrangements. Unfortunately the Liberals did not consider the legislation to be a priority and it died on the order paper with the calling of the election last summer.

As with so many other pieces of legislation that died on previous order papers, the Liberals have yet to reintroduce Bill C-47. Again, hats off and praise to the member for Drummond. Through her private member's bill she has attempted to fill a void that was left by the government's inaction in this area.

On behalf of the Conservative Party I am pleased to say that we support Bill C-247, the legislation that would draw a clear line in the Criminal Code and set parameters in the area of human cloning. Moreover, since the government has already recognized that there was a need for some form of regulatory regime for reproductive and genetic technologies, I hope government members will join with those in the House in opposition who are in support of this bill. They have taken what I would describe as baby steps in this direction in the past in response to the report I spoke of earlier and were moving in that direction. This in essence provides a vehicle to do that.

It is important to note, however, that although Bill C-247 is an important step to fill the vacuum there are still plenty of legislative measures that need to be put in place and addressed by this government.

Out of the 13 specific procedures that would have been prohibited by the government's legislation had that bill passed in the last parliament, only 2 are addressed and proposed in this private member's bill. Furthermore, Bill C-247 does include a national regulatory regime with a mandate to enforce controls on improper genetic testing.

The Liberal government has a responsibility to introduce comprehensive legislation similar to and based in principle on that initial report, similar in content to what was before the House in the last parliament.

Along with complementing the work of the member for Drummond, any legislation the government introduces should also reflect an emerging consensus for the need for a national regulatory regime to manage the field of reproductive and genetic technologies. This regime should also be allowed to be managed in a way that would protect health and safety for all those affected.

Canada is very much in need of guidelines in this area. Next month will mark the second anniversary of the government's tabling of the human reproductive and genetic technologies act and I encourage the government to stop any delay in bringing this important issue back before the House and follow the example set by the member for Drummond and introduce legislation to control new reproductive and genetic technologies.

Most important, avoid any abuse or forays into this area without some guidelines and parameters that would be firmly established by legislation.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue because I believe it is a classic example of the value of Private Members' Business.

I congratulate the member for Drummond for bringing the bill forward. It addresses one portion of an issue that was covered in Bill C-47, the bill that died on the order paper as a result of the last election which purported to make all kinds of fixes to issues of human reproductive technology.

One of the problems with our present system of government sponsored legislation is that the government tries to get, and rightly so, as much bang for its buck as it can. It prepares omnibus bills that address entire issues.

For instance, Bill C-20 is a very elaborate bill that is looking at amendments to the Competition Act. There is a group of bills that look at whole issues that are debated in very grand style. Sometimes they occasionally come to grief because they try to fix so many areas that many flaws are discovered and the bills fail. Bill C-47 on human reproductive technology is a case in point.

What killed it for me was that it wanted to stop genetic research which would have in effect led researchers along avenues that would have corrected genetically inheritable diseases like muscular dystrophy. We had this incredible situation where a law was coming down the pike that would have stopped cloning of human beings, which we all agree is frightening and something we should at least have a very long moratorium on. By the same token it would have attempted to kill research in areas very much in the public interest that hopefully would alleviate human suffering.

The problem is that the government—and I do not mean it as a criticism of the government—traditionally in the parliamentary system has always come down with big bills.

Where I think Private Members' Business has a tremendous role is doing exactly what the member for Drummond is doing with her bill which looks at one urgent issue. That urgent issue is that at least Canadian society and at least this MP, if I may so, are not prepared to have research go forward which could possibly lead tomorrow to the cloning of human beings. That is a frightening concept.

Not that we can make jest of it, but there are certain members of the opposition I would only want one copy of. If we had multiple copies of them I think we would all be very worried. That aside, the reality is that we are not yet sufficiently sophisticated as human beings to play God. I do not think we can afford to go back into the science fiction books and actually produce multiple copies of the same human beings. Quite apart from religious ramifications it would raise huge ethical dilemmas.

I cannot even begin to imagine the ethical problems that would confront society in the process of choosing who would be copied. Who would it be? Would it be some top politician? Would it be some artist? Who would be the first to be cloned? Then how would we prevent people being copied illicitly who might be carrying genes or characteristics that are reprehensible yet have the money to copy themselves? It is an absolutely unacceptable concept.

The difficulty is we know now that it is possible, or if not possible it is immediately on the horizon. The member for Drummond recognizes this. Discarding all the controversial aspects of Bill C-47, she focused on the one thing that I think most Canadians would absolutely agree with, that we must at least have a moratorium now on the cloning of human beings.

The government's objection, as I understand it, is that the bill would put the restriction and the penalty in the Criminal Code. This is not an appropriate place for this type of penalty. We can give the government the benefit of the doubt on that. The government has to be very concerned about tradition, the appropriateness of legislation and its effect.

I must say I tend to support the member for Drummond on this issue. We must remember that if it goes into the Criminal Code it will only be a temporary measure until we can come back to the issue. Maybe it will take us a year. Maybe it will take us two years. Maybe it will take us ten years, but we can come back to the issue with a more comprehensive bill on reproductive technology.

Quite frankly I do not think we will have an easy ride with any new omnibus legislation on the subject. We need the bill to make very clear that the country does not tolerate and will not tolerate attempts to clone human beings. We can be open to other forms of genetic research because we have to, because it is in the interests of humanity to encourage our scientists to continue with genetic research, but we should draw a line in the sand.

The bill does it. It puts it in the Criminal Code but probably only temporarily and later we can move it to a more appropriate place.

This is a classic example of Private Members' Business which raises an important issue, offers Canadian society and the government a way of putting on the back burner a very difficult and emotional issue and sets it aside for now until society knows better how to address it.

I have to say the member for Drummond has done us a service by bringing the issue before the House and I thank her for it.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul in debating Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code on the subject of genetic manipulation. Of course the subject matter has a profound impact on our human race, on our very humanity.

The essence of our being was shaken when a little more than a half a century ago, in 1944 to be exact, research scientists in the United States observed for the first time a human egg being fertilized in a glass dish outside the womb of a mother. Thirty-four years following that scientific milestone the first live birth of a child, having its beginnings outside the human body, occurred in England.

It was international news at the time, but at once it raised many fundamental societal questions. I therefore understand that today we are debating 20 years later this issue in the Chamber in the bill before us.

I congratulate the member for Drummond on her initiative. I concur in principle with the thrust of the bill, its prohibitions on the cloning of the human embryo and of genetic manipulation that could allow the transmission of an altered genetic structure to a subsequent generation.

My intervention is in the nature of a friendly submission. I have a reservation. How will the single focus, enshrining in the Criminal Code one point of the very broad and complex reproductive technology issue, be seen?

In preparing for this debate I revisited the two volume report produced by the royal commission on new technologies that I may have the guidance of its work and its wisdom. The royal commission on new reproductive technology chaired by Patricia Baird issued its final report entitled “Proceed with care” on November 15, 1993. It contained 293 recommendations.

Before I proceed further allow me for greater clarity to define certain terms in the language of human biologists. First I go to the fertilized egg before implantation as it develops during the first 14 days. An embryo refers to a developing human organism after implantation in the uterus until about eights weeks after fertilization and a fetus refers to the human organism at the beginning of the ninth week after fertilization until the time of birth.

Why did I define these terms? The terms embryo donation, embryo transfer and embryo research are inaccurate since they all occur with zygotes and not with embryos in the language of human biologists. However the terms continue to be commonly used and we understand them in this context.

Embryo research since the milestones in 1944 and 1978 has raised questions about the ethical and legal status of the embryo and about how society's respect for human life should apply to the situation. Concerns have been expressed about the potential impact of embryo research on women and on society.

The royal commission was given the mandate to examine how new reproductive technologies should be handled in our country. Some 40,000 people were involved in the work on the report “Proceed with Care” from which I quote:

Commissioners have set out a blueprint for how Canada, with its unique institutions and social make-up, can deal with new reproductive technologies, regulate their use, and ensure that future developments or use are in the public interest.

It continues:

At the same time, it will ensure that only ethical and accountable use of technology is made, and demonstrate that Canadians have wisdom, humanity, and compassion in the way they choose to use technology.

The 293 recommendations were categorized into three general categories: first, recommendations regarding the need for criminal legislation to set boundaries around the use of new reproductive technologies in Canada; second, recommendations regarding the establishment and operation of a national reproductive technologies commission to manage new reproductive technologies within these boundaries; and, third, other recommendations addressed to existing federal departments and agencies.

With respect to criminal legislation and relevant to the bill before us, certain activities according to the commission “conflict so sharply with the values espoused by Canadians and by this commission, and are potentially harmful to the interests of individuals and of society, that they must be prohibited by the federal government under threat of criminal sanction”.

My problem with the bill in terms of a submission is that the actions defined by the commission include human zygote-embryo research related to ectogenesis; cloning; animal-human hybrids; transfer of zygotes to another species; maturation and fertilization of eggs from human fetuses; sale of human eggs, sperm, zygotes, fetuses and fetal tissues; and advertising for or acting as an intermediary to bring about a preconception arrangement.

What then will be the implication if out of this two volume report we pick one or two items and say we will criminally prohibit it at this point? Might it be implied wrongly that the others are sanctioned? I am worried about that. I submit that we ought to use an approach that is integrated and comprehensive.

The issue raised by the bill before us is of profound importance to all Canadians. How we deal with it, as suggested by all the speakers, is a reflection of our credo and faith as Canadians.

It is in this spirit that I say again I concur with the principle of the bill. It is also in this spirit that I offer my reservation and why I would prefer that the bill before us not proceed at this time but be taken into account as we await the government's more comprehensive response and integrated response to this very delicate human issue that transcends political partisanship and challenges us to a more thorough, careful but urgent look as we prepare our parliamentary response.

In conclusion, this response may not be limited only to criminal legislation but should encompass the totality of the recommendations contained in the two volumes of “Proceed with Care”, the full report of the royal commission.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I have to say I will be speaking against the bill and I encourage my colleagues to give serious thought to my arguments.

I am not opposed to the idea of prohibiting cloning. I think everyone agrees on this point, and that is not where the problem lies with the bill introduced by the member for Drummond.

I would draw your attention to the second part of page two. I will quote from it, if I may, and then list my reasons for opposing it. The second part would necessarily prohibit the following, that is:

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

I would like to take a step back and perhaps put into perspective why I think we should not approve such a measure.

In 1990 the international community launched what is called the human genome project, an exercise of some 52 countries over 15 years that had as an objective to map out the human genome, our entire chromosomes, the entire sequencing, the 100,000 or so genes that are contained in human chromosomes.

Canada participated in that effort up until last year to the tune of $21 million over five years, $1 million from the National Research Council, $1 million from the Medical Research Council, and the balance from Industry Canada. That has now lapsed and Canada is no longer at that table. I think we should be back at that table and I encourage the government to consider that.

The project is going so well that it is quite possible that by the year 2002 the entire human genome will have been mapped out. Why is that significant to this? There are about 4,000 genetic diseases known. It is quite probable that we, the human species, will have the ability to isolate the genes that cause these 4,000 genetic diseases and cure them. There are two ways of doing that. One is the somatic approach which means that we can cure the individual and it does not get transmitted into the next generation, which is fine but then we would have to do it for every person who is born with that genetic disease.

There are possibilities that we could cure some of these diseases for good. To put this into the Criminal Code now would prohibit Canadians benefiting from such advances when they come.

My colleague from Hamilton—Wentworth was saying this could be in 10 years. The odds are very good that some of these diseases will be curable long before 10 years from now. I would hesitate to put in the Criminal Code something which would prevent us from curing genetic diseases and transmitting that cure from generation to generation.

I am not against the intent of prohibiting human cloning but I certainly would not want us as parliamentarians to prohibit the curing of diseases permanently. That is what we strive for.

I caution my colleagues in support of this bill.

We are entering a new era, that of genetics. We have had a number of eras, but, in three or four years, we will have the capacity to understand our genes. Naturally, there are benefits associated with this, as there are also monstrous disadvantages we cannot yet imagine.

We need not necessarily preclude the possibility of passing on a genetic correction from one generation to another. I think I also agree with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. What has to be done, and what the government must do, and the responsibility is its, is to draft framework legislation for the whole issue of genetics.

We must be able to set controls on this enhanced knowledge and to reap its benefits. Naturally, we must ban anything that can be very harmful. I think everyone can agree on that. Instead of passing a bill like this one, I call upon the government to act and to strike a parliamentary committee if necessary.

Yet we must admit, dear colleagues, that we are on the verge of an absolutely amazing era. As parliamentarians and as legislators of this country, we must take the bull by the horns and create a legislative framework that will indeed ban such things as the cloning of human beings, without banning the possibility of correcting genetic diseases or curing them definitively. We must not make that error.

I apologize for getting a bit more carried away than usual, but these are things I believe in. Well intentioned as the bill may be, I believe it is a mistake to put such limitations in the Criminal Code at this point in time.

I trust that serious thought will be given to this, and that instead of making this mistake, we will collectively do what must be done, which is to make a pre-emptive strike and to create a framework which will enable us to benefit from this new knowledge and to eliminate the possibility of the human race doing itself harm.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until Monday, May 25, 1998, after Government Orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a matter I have raised in the past about employment insurance eligibility.

Employment insurance is in a crisis. At the moment, fewer than 40% of unemployed Canadians are receiving benefits and yet the surplus in the employment insurance fund is over $15 million.

On March 10, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development when the situation would be critical enough to cause him to act. When the percentage of those eligible for EI benefits is down to 25% or 15%? What would it take to get this government to revise its eligibility criteria for employment insurance?

The minister said he was concerned about the situation but did not understand why the proportion of unemployed people who qualified for benefits was so low. Is the government blind or simply stupid? It changes the EI eligibility criteria to make it harder to get benefits and then wonders why people do not qualify. After a year the government is wondering why people do not qualify.

I would like to repeat the minister's response. He said this:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst would do well to start learning about his own region. The employment insurance participation rate in the Atlantic region is 75%. The participation rate in the province of New Brunswick is over 80%.

I can guarantee you that I am familiar with my region. My hon. colleague across the floor, the Minister of Human Resources Development, is not.

That is why I invited the Minister of Human Resources Development to come to Acadia. The local newspapers back home supported this, and even ran political cartoons showing the Minister of Human Resources hitchhiking his way to Acadia.

If he did get down to our area and saw the poverty in which people are living, he would not be long in noticing that his 80% figure does not exist. Absolutely not. What is more, the New Brunswick minister of human resources development, a Liberal, has called the employment insurance changes terrible, and has said that fewer people would be eligible for EI, so more would end up on welfare.

Those are the words of a Liberal, the New Brunswick minister of human resources development, and a Liberal like those members on the other side.

Last week, moreover, another Liberal, minister of intergovernmental and aboriginal affairs and acting minister of education, Bernard Thériault, said that the crisis in Acadia was the fault of the employment insurance changes. How can the minister and the government not have any social conscience toward the people of Canada?

Ours is not the only area affected. Look at Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Gaspé, and parts of northern Ontario. Or northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan. I am just back from B.C., and they had the same problem there too.

I am calling upon the government, once and for all, to examine its conscience and do the right thing for Canadians, do what Canadians want to see done. That $15 billion in the bank should go back to the people it belongs to, in other words back into the pockets of the workers.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned about unemployed workers and we continue to develop policies to improve their prospects.

However, we realize the problem is more complex than the hon. member is suggesting. For example, labour market changes such as increases in long term unemployment between 1990 and 1994 played a significant role in the decline in the proportion of unemployed who receive benefits.

Simply providing passive income support through regular EI benefits could never be a sufficient response to the problem we are going through. We understand Canadians would not be satisfied with a step backward to an obsolete system. Instead, the federal government is working with the provinces to provide real solutions for unemployed Canadians. We will create more jobs by using a three year, $300 million transitional job fund. That is now in place using general revenues to serve high unemployed areas.

To date the fund has already created 30,355 jobs throughout Canada, 8,067 in Atlantic Canada alone. We will also spend an additional $800 million per year on active employment benefits under EI, bringing federal funding to more than $2.7 billion annually by the year 2001.

We are co-operating with provincial and territorial governments to deliver these benefits in the best possible way. Labour market development agreements are now in place or are under discussion in all provinces and territories. Decisions on the best way to help the unemployed get back to work must benefit from the knowledge and insights of those who most closely are in touch with local markets.

We have confidence that these measures will be successful in helping the unemployed return to productive employment. As employment growth continues and the number of unemployed falls, the ratio of beneficiaries to unemployed should rise again. Nevertheless we are carefully monitoring the recent declines in this ratio. The department is conducting an analysis of the situation and the results will be released in a paper in 1998. We will use that to make decisions for Canadians in the future.