Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill and the amendment. I have to candidly admit that this is not a mathematical subject and so I cannot stand here as a good expert on this matter. But I can read. I have read the bill and I have some concerns specifically about the amendment.
Members will find it unusual that we actually stand up in report stage and speak specifically to an amendment that is proposed at report stage. We will hold off the debate on the whole bill until the whole bill comes back to the House.
I want to talk about the amendment that is before us right now. It seems to me that it is, if not redundant, slightly different from the clause before it. Perhaps just to give some clarity for those people who do not have the bill before them, in Bill C-247, section 286 of the Criminal Code is to be amended:
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.
When I look at that, unless I do not understand, I see the definition of cloning. They are taking genetic information from a living or a dead person and putting the genetics together to produce a new person.
This clause suggests that shall not be done. Also it specifically says it cannot be implanted. That implies that it cannot be done in a Petrie dish or in a human being.
The amendment that we have before us changes the very next clause. I will read the original:
No person shall knowingly alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or embryo if the altered structure is capable of transmission to a subsequent generation.
My colleague has given a very good explanation of the implications of that. We favour that restriction as well. In other words, we are not about to get into genetic manipulation to produce a new form of human being, a new species or subspecies of our race.
It is good to be against that lest somebody takes it upon themselves to create everybody from here on in with a Reform genetic structure. That would perhaps make too much of a good thing.
The amendment actually calls for the striking out of those words. The motion as amended would be that “no person shall knowingly alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or embryo for the purpose of cloning a human being”.
Unless I missed something, this is a redundant second way of stating what the first said. It is pretty well the same thing. The only difference is that the first one said manipulate and this one says alter.
We should be careful here because in making this change we do two things. If we adopt this amendment, the one thing we change is that we no longer restrict the manipulation or the altering of the genetic structure of one of these basic building blocks of life. We no longer restrict it from being done and carried on from generation to generation.
The other thing we do is merely introduce what appears to be a redundancy. I am afraid that if we have two clauses in a bill that becomes law with slightly different wording, all this does is give big business to the legal beagles around the country. It adds to uncertainty.
My view on the actual amendment of striking these words and replacing them is that it ought not to be done. Therefore I recommend strongly that members in the House of Commons reject this amendment.