Debates of Feb. 11th, 1999

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It being 5.30 o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are two motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation).

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.

I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-247, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 2 with the following:

“human sperm, zygote or embryo for the purpose of cloning a human being. ”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify my reasons for moving this amendment to Bill C-247.

During the committee's review of Bill C-247 prior to approval, some scientists from Health Canada were there to answer our questions and clarify a number of sections. On one provision in particular, namely clause 1( b ), concerns were expressed regarding the actual impact of the clause at it stands.

Indeed, according to Ms. Colvin, from Health Canada, the scope of this wording goes beyond human cloning and includes any genetic manipulation, regardless of its purpose.

The issue is not whether or not we must prohibit this type of manipulation. Bill C-247 merely seeks to prohibit human cloning. Two clauses of Bill C-247 seemed to by saying two different things, but the real and fundamental object of this legislation is simply to prohibit human cloning. Any other form of genetic manipulation should be discussed at another time.

The original intent of Bill C-247 concerned only human reproductive cloning, and that has not changed. This bill is obviously not the answer to all the issues.

However, things must be done clearly and accurately when we are legislating in the area of medically assisted reproductive technologies. There must not be any grey areas or vague provisions preventing us from knowing what is authorized and what is not. This is why I am moving and amendment which clarifies the object of this bill by amending clause 1(b) to read as follows:

No person shall knowingly

(b) alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or embryo for the purpose of cloning a human being.

On February 27, 1997, the scientific magazine Nature published a research paper that people will talk about for a long time. The creators of Dolly describe how the team of researchers succeeded for the first time in history in producing a healthy lamb from breast tissue taken from an adult sheep.

Not long after the announcement that Dolly had been cloned, it was learned that two monkeys had been cloned in Oregon from embryonic cells. This was a first for primates.

We have all heard of Dr. Richard Seed, the American scientist who has publicly announced his intention to clone humans for sterile couples. Today, a technique using cells from aborted foetuses could change the face of modern medicine.

Science is evolving at a dizzying pace, often to the advantage of society. There are also cases, however, where society itself needs to set limits for the progress of science, and the cloning of humans is one such case.

Even if Bill C-247 is adopted, it will not put an end to the debate on medically assisted reproductive techniques, far from it. This initiative must be seen as a starting point. We certainly have to start somewhere. This can lay the first brick of a wall delineating where we, in conjunction with the individuals, organizations and governments concerned, want the line drawn between what we want as a society and what we will not accept.

The key issue involved in cloning, once the possibility of cloning merely for the purposes of reproduction has been eliminated, involves mostly therapeutic considerations.

Let us imagine someone with Parkinson's disease. If human cloning were possible, an embryo could be produced from an adult cell from a patient and someone's egg. A few months later, the embryo, which would be implanted in a woman's uterus, would develop into a foetus genetically identical to the patient. The foetus is aborted, the brain cells are extracted and grafted onto the patient's brain, which will not reject them because they are identical to its own cells.

Yes, indeed, the advances in genetics mean benefits for society. But the fact that the research provides benefits must not prevent us from imposing limits on its development, according to values dear to the human race. Otherwise, certain unfortunate science fiction scenarios could become real.

Scientists wonder why not have access to various human cloning techniques in order to create full, living, but brain absent clones.

Impossible, you say. Science, however, is at the point of making this sad scenario possible. In England, they have managed to alter certain genes to transform the physiological development of animals. With this manipulation, it is now possible to prevent the development of the head, the trunk or the tail in some animals.

The same method could be applied to human embryos as well. Instead of creating and keeping a human embryo as such, it could be genetically reprogrammed so as to prevent the growth of unwanted body parts.

Can we imagine the conception of an embryo that could ultimately become a baby solely for therapeutic purposes, noble though they may be? It is not just a matter of having something be possible for it to be acceptable. The problem is controlling the new powers developed by science and technology.

In conclusion, increasingly, scientific discoveries keep pushing back the frontier of the possible. The more humanity learns about genetics and reproduction, the more it is tempted to apply these discoveries to itself.

All the possibilities that have recently come to light have tested the limits of what is morally and socially acceptable. In his book The Imperative of Responsibility , the philosopher Hans Jonas wrote that modern technology has brought with it actions on such a staggering new scale, with objects and consequences so unheard of, that the old school of ethics is no longer able to keep up.

With genetic discoveries evolving so rapidly, and human cells less and less of a mystery, it is obvious that cloning for reproductive purposes is no longer in the realm of science fiction. It is upon us.

Is this what we really want? I think not, and Bill C-247 is a response.

Having said that, it is of the utmost urgency that we take the time to consider the other technologies and possibilities that genetic engineering has to offer, those that do not produce quite the same reactions as human cloning but that will nonetheless have an impact on the very composition of the human race, such as gene therapy.

Before events overtake us, society itself must agree on a new ethical framework. We must decide how far we are prepared to venture into what was, only yesterday, beyond our reach: defining humankind.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to amend Bill C-247. I feel that this change will clarify the intent of the bill and represents an improvement over the original wording.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I also support Bill C-247 itself, although with some regret. I have no hesitation in supporting the intent and content of the member's bill. My regret stems from the fact that we are here today dealing with a private member's bill instead of comprehensive government legislation. I also regret that we are only addressing one lone aspect of the many critical issues developing around reproductive technology.

It was 10 years ago that new reproductive technology was critical enough for the government of the day to appoint a royal commission to investigate. The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies spent four years gathering information and formulating 293 resolutions. Among these was a recommendation to prohibit seven specific activities under the Criminal Code. Cloning was one.

By the time it issued its report in November 1993, the royal commission had travelled to 17 centres across the country. Two thousand Canadians participated in these hearings. Six thousand more phoned in their views on toll free lines that had been set up and 15,000 more responded to commission surveys. The commission spent $28.3 million during this massive consultation. What do we have to show for all this?

When the commission's report was released, the New Democratic Party called on the government for quick action to implement its recommendations. We challenged this government to convene a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial health ministers to establish a common framework for moving forward but that came to naught.

Instead in 1995 this government asked researchers and health practitioners to observe a voluntary moratorium on cloning and a number of other practices. Needless to say this misguided substitute for comprehensive legislation went nowhere. Only in 1996 did the Liberal government finally introduce legislation, Bill C-47, that would have among other things banned human cloning. Bill C-47 died on the Order Paper the next year and was never reintroduced.

The Liberal government has been silent on cloning and indeed all reproductive technology ever since. To let these issues that impact so seriously on the lives of Canadians, especially women, go this long without action is intolerable. There were problems with Bill C-47, there is no doubt about it. But that does not mean the minister just withdraws in fear never to be heard of again.

How can the government say one day that cloning and 12 other practices are so serious they should be criminalized and the next day through its inaction say it is not important any more. It is important. It is important to many Canadians. The response to the royal commission showed that.

Not only do Canadians want action, they want the government to stop dithering around and act now. They realize that it is going to be a lot more difficult to regulate reproductive technologies after the fact.

Cloning is no longer just science fiction. Everyone remembers Dolly the cloned sheep. Rats, cows, monkeys have all recently joined that circus. Now others, both professionals and amateurs, have declared that they are working on human cloning.

American Dr. Richard Seed, who has attracted a great deal of media attention with his cloning enthusiasm has announced he will open a clinic in Japan specifically for the purpose of human cloning. He has $15 million in backing.

Last fall a group of Korean scientists proudly announced that they had successfully taken human cloning one generation of cells closer to reality.

There is a claim by a Massachusetts laboratory that a nucleus from a human cell was inserted into a cow's egg which then progressed to the 32 cell stage before it was destroyed.

These are just the experiments that have been publicized.

Organizations have sprung up, like Clonaid, with money and hundreds of volunteer couples who, for a variety of reasons, are more than willing to risk experimentation.

What is this government waiting for?

The health minister has a wealth of information to draw upon from the royal commission and the debate around Bill C-247. There is nothing standing in his way. He could quite quickly consolidate his position on reproductive technology, consult stakeholders, including women's organizations, about his proposals and bring in new legislation.

We must send a clear message to the scientific community that its efforts on human cloning are not welcome in Canada. Canadians have unequivocally told the government that human cloning is not acceptable. They have also, in good faith, come out to hearings, filled out questionnaires and written letters indicating their views on other reproductive technology issues. The government has once again shown an appalling lack of leadership.

In an effort to fill that leadership void I am here today in support of private member's Bill C-247. With the passage of this bill one of the many reproductive technology issues will have been dealt with in parliament. We can only hope that the government will then finally see fit to do the responsible thing and introduce comprehensive legislation to address the rest.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are some categories of genetic manipulation which Bill C-247 responds to and some which it does not. However, the broad concept of genetic manipulation can be broken down into several categories and sub-categories.

The unamended Bill C-247 dealt with cloning and germ-line manipulation. The unamended bill prohibited two kinds genetic manipulation, cloning on the one hand and germ line genetic changes on the other.

We were supportive of the bill in its original form, prior to the amendments. We have some reservations with respect to some very important parts of the bill which were removed.

Most of us understand what cloning is about because of news reports on Dolly, the very first cloned animal. With respect to the second practice, we believe that subclause 1(b) of the unamended bill should be retained. It reads:

No person shall knowingly

(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.

Whenever genetic manipulation results in changes that can be passed on to the next generation—and not all genetic manipulation has that result—it is referred to as germ-line or genetic alteration. This bill prohibits that kind of alteration. It does not address non-germ-line genetic alteration that has no consequences for subsequent generations.

I want to speak to the purpose of the prohibition of germ line changes, which is found in the second part of the unamended bill. The intention of subclause 1(b) in the unamended bill was to prevent scientists, and rich parents as their clients, from altering human beings who would then pass on their new gene structures to subsequent generations, since that would result in the engineering of the human race. Put differently, its purpose was to prevent all artificial tinkering with the human gene pool.

The purpose of the second prohibition of the unamended bill was to prevent eugenics. We all know about that. That has been described and talked about before. We believe that there are some real flaws and major moral and ethical problems with moving in that direction.

There are implications in Bill C-247 for research on gene therapies. The member from the Bloc acknowledged the concerns expressed at committee stage by the Liberal member from East York who argued that the bill might prevent researchers from finding cures for genetic disorders. Briefly, the unamended version allows individuals to be treated for genetic disorders as long as the treatment does not result in the possibility of their offspring carrying the genetic alteration. That provision was in the unamended bill.

In other words, the gene therapy must not involve changes at the germ line. It is very important to make clear that the unamended bill does not affect current gene therapy or current research on gene therapy. Present day gene therapy, called somatic cell gene therapy, involves manipulating cells in the body, except the reproductive cells. It involves the insertion of a gene into the patient. As we have said, the germ line is not affected.

The germ line genetic alteration prohibited in the unamended bill would involve replacing affected genes in reproductive cells—the sperm, the egg, a zygote or an embryo—with unaffected genes. It is not feasible in human beings at present. It is really still the stuff of science fiction. Some believe that technological advances may one day make germ line changes feasible.

That is why we need the unamended Bill C-247, the prohibition of germ line genetic alteration. The germ line changes would involve unacceptable health risks for the individual. The risks associated with germ line alteration are much greater than those surrounding what is called somatic cell gene therapy since any mistakes would affect all of the embryo cells. An inserted gene could interfere with other vital gene functions or conceivably activate genes associated with cancer development or other disorders. It would be kind of like making one move on a chessboard. If we make a move on a chessboard it affects the values or the functions of the other pieces. It changes the rest of the scenario.

These risks have caused some to propose a solution, one that I find ethically unacceptable. Some suggest that germ line genetic alteration is not necessary since it is only needed when an embryo is found that is abnormal. It is pointed out that it is an easy thing to simply discard such embryos and implant only healthy embryos. Therefore we would be using aborted fetuses, discarding those embryos that we did not want and implanting only healthy embryos. Therein lies some of the beginning of the problems with not having this as a prohibition on germ line genetic alteration.

We need the unamended bill to be retained because germ line changes would involve an unacceptable health risk for the larger society. Altering the genetic make-up of the human genome does more than risk the future of the individual involved and the germ line. The fact that humankind possesses a certain amount of genetic mutation is what is believed to provide the reservoir of the species to adapt to changes in environmental circumstances.

The human genome has incurred constant but subtle changes to its structure in response to environmental demands. That has resulted in certain recessive disorders which actually enhance a person's ability to exist under certain conditions.

An example of this is the gene for sickle cell anemia that provides resistance to malaria. It is impossible to determine the possible benefits or risks of seemingly aberrant genes as the scope of their interaction with other genes and gene products remains unknown.

We need to retain Bill C-247 in its unamended form because germ line changes, if possible, someday would lead to eugenics. Contrary to what many suppose, the line separating therapeutic and non-therapeutic genetic alteration is very fuzzy. Any introduction of germ line changes to address the most debilitating of childhood diseases, like cystic fibrosis, would prepare society for changes intended to address genetic mutations whose impacts would be delayed until adulthood, until much later along. A predisposition to diabetes, heart disease, asthma and various forms of cancer fall into that category.

At a later point germ line changes would be used to inoculate people against various infectious agents such as HIV. Then germ line changes to address problems such as mental diseases and anti-social behaviour would be attempted, and the list goes on and on from there. Some commentators believe that ultimately genetic enhancements of all sorts that have nothing to do with health would then be attempted.

The unamended Bill C-247 is right. It is an appropriate bill to ban germ line genetic changes. It is foolhardy to hold out germ line changes as the means to eradicate genetic disorders. The potential risks involved range from the creation of even worse disorders or the inadvertent loss of important traits we currently possess to the collapse of social structure and ideals, following a disregard for the overall, most important, all-embracing concept of the sanctity of life.

I would very much support, as I believe our party does, the retention of all of Bill C-247 in its unamended form.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased as well to rise in the House and have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to genetic manipulation or what is more commonly known as human cloning.

I look forward to taking part in this debate. This is a very laudable initiative that has been taken by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. The amendment is one that has been clarified by her remarks and by the amendment put forward, and the bill is certainly a very positive one that we in the Progressive Conservative Party embrace.

I commend the member for Drummond for her efforts in sponsoring the bill. The issues surrounding human cloning and development to the use of reproductive technologies touch upon many moral and ethical concerns, but we in parliament cannot shy away from challenges that are presented by the leaps and bounds presently occurring in scientific research.

As mentioned by other speakers, Bill C-247 would amend the Criminal Code by adding after section 286 a prohibition for genetic manipulation that leads to human cloning. This in and of itself is an important and necessary step.

It is no easy task to bring forward a private member's bill, particularly to this stage in the legislative process. Bill C-247 is a very timely motion in light of recent technological developments that have resulted in, among other things, the first successful cloning of sheep. I am not talking here about the new Liberal re-election strategy.

As was once thought impossible becomes reality, we as lawmakers must be prepared to act in advance of other new reproductive and genetic technologies, which are NRGTs for short.

While not making too partisan a point I wish to point to the former Progressive Conservative government's positive contribution to this issue. When our party formed the government we had the foresight to lay the groundwork on the development of policy options which reflect on this matter.

In 1989 the P.C. government of the day established a royal commission on new reproductive technologies chaired by Patricia Baird. The Baird commission's mandate was to examine the social, medical, legal, ethical, economic and research implications for new reproductive and genetic technologies with particular regard to their implications for women, reproductive health and well-being.

Following extensive consultation with Canadians the Baird commission report tabled its findings and the new Liberal government in November 1993 had that in hand. That was five years ago. Now the commission has highlighted the need for the federal government to adopt a comprehensive public policy on new reproductive and genetic technologies.

In response to the Baird commission the Liberal government announced a voluntary moratorium on NRGTs in 1995 and that continues to stand today. As other members have pointed out, the effectiveness of this moratorium has been seriously undermined due to its voluntary nature.

In 1996, for the record, the Liberals recognized the weakness of the moratorium and introduced Bill C-47, the Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act. This law prohibited 13 specific practices: the cloning of human embryos; the buying and selling of eggs, sperm and embryos including their exchange for goods and services for other benefits; germ line genetic alterations; the transfer of embryos between humans and other species; the creation of human animal hybrids; and the use of human sperm eggs or embryos for assisted human reproductive procedures or for medical research without the informed consent of the donor or donors.

Those were among the initiatives. This comprehensive list was certainly a welcome attempt to restrict the misuse of new reproductive technologies. However sadly the bill died on the order paper.

The Liberal government committed to developing in consultation with the provinces, territories and stakeholders additional legislative means. However that did not occur. The Liberals did not consider Bill C-47 to be a priority and since it died on the order paper, we have not seen any reintroduction. I again commend the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois for taking such initiative.

Furthermore, as with so many other pieces of important legislation that died on the order paper from the previous government, the Liberals have yet to introduce anything even remotely similar to Bill C-47. We have remained in a vacuum with nothing but a flimsy, practical, unenforceable moratorium.

Thankfully the member for Drummond has taken this initiative and has attempted to fill the void left by the government's inaction. Thankfully it appears that the government is prepared to put partisanship aside and support this worthwhile measure.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I am pleased to reiterate our support for Bill C-247. This legislation draws a very clear line in the Criminal Code against human cloning. There is a very eerie and perhaps unnatural black hole that we must be cautious about leaping into without knowledge of where we are going.

It is important to note that although Bill C-247 is an important first step to fill the void left by the Liberals, there are plenty of other legislative initiatives that have to be taken by the government.

Indeed out of the 13 specific procedures that would have been prohibited by the government's legislation in the last parliament, only two are proposed for prohibition under Bill C-247. Furthermore, this bill does not include a national regulatory regime with a mandate to enforce controls on improper genetic testing.

The Liberal government, therefore, has an obligation to introduce a comprehensive piece of legislation similar in content to what was introduced in the previous parliament. This would build on the great merits that are presently before the House in the means of Bill C-247.

Along with completing the work that has been commenced by the member for Drummond, any legislation from the government should also reflect the emerging consensus for a national regulatory regime to manage the field of reproductive and genetic technologies. This regime must also be managed in a way that will protect the health and safety for those most affected and those most affected, as was previously referred to by the member from the New Democratic Party, are for the most part women. Women are the ones who will be most affected by this area of scientific change.

We are approaching the third anniversary of this government's tabling of the Human Reproductive and Genetics Technologies Act. In light of this dubious anniversary, I hope the government will soon stop dragging its heels on this important issue and follow the example set by the member for Drummond and introduce wide ranging legislation to control new reproductive and genetic technologies.

The health minister was very active, although perhaps misdirected, in his previous portfolio as minister. I encourage him to start moving in the direction set by the member for Drummond.

I commend the member for this action. I give her the support of the Progressive Conservative Party and we hope this bill will receive the unanimous support of all members in this House.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

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.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as all members in the House have acknowledged, the federal government has been concerned with the issues of cloning and germline genetic manipulation for some time.

In 1993 the report of the royal commission on new productive and genetic technologies recommended banning these practices and bringing forward a regulatory environment. The government followed up immediately with a call for a moratorium on these and other practices in 1995. That moratorium is in place and exists today.

As a result of Bill C-47, the government understands the concerns that Canadians have about the variety of egregious technology, those things that we are worried about, not just cloning and germline genetic manipulation.

We acknowledge the widespread desire for a comprehensive regime to govern the unacceptable and regulate the acceptable technologies.

The committee discussed Bill C-247.

There is general agreement in principle that human cloning should be banned. That was originally in the government Bill C-47 and recommended by the commission that was established. There are many days in this place where I think all members would like to have a clone of themselves so we could be in two places at the same time. That is a joke. We know that the idea of having a complete replica of any human being, not just in this place but anywhere, is not only scary but it is the kind of serious ethical dilemma that we are all very clear on.

I want to be very clear that we do not support the ability to clone humans. We support a ban on human cloning. At the same time, in speaking to this amendment before us today, we recognize that this is a very complex issue. What is proposed in this bill is a Criminal Code prohibition. What we believe is required and what this amendment points out is that we need not only prohibitions but a regulatory regime.

What concerns me is the amendment that has been placed today by the member for Drummond because it points out that we have concerns, as I believe she has, with the original wording of the bill. We do not want to, for example, stop research on those technologies that I referred to as acceptable, the kind of technologies that would lead to a perfect match for bone marrow to cure leukaemia or a perfect match of a valve to fix a heart or the perfect match of an organ.

I therefore say to the member and to all members that the fact that this amendment has been placed at this time in the House is of great concern to me. We have to think very carefully before we try to frame complex legislation by amendment in this House of Commons.

I have received communications from experts in this field following the discussion at committee. Dr. Arthur Leader, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and medicine, the chief of the division of reproductive medicine at the University of Ottawa, and president of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, would like to appear before the committee to express his concerns and reservations.

In speaking to this amendment I believe we cannot support this amendment at this time without having further discussion and debate of the implications that it would have on this very important topic.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill.

As has been stated by a number of members, I think of how critical these kinds of issues are. It is good for us to reflect for a moment on the impacts on some of the new technologies and new developments that are almost exploding out there.

On these technologies, be it in the biotechnology area, on the Internet or in other things, this House often wrestles with key issues of what is in the public interest and how do we as custodians of the public trust serve the people who put us here effectively.

My primary and underlying concern on this bill is the requirement for us to ensure that public safety, as these new technologies come forward, has been properly addressed. I think of some of the developments in pharmaceuticals and even in food additives in the past that we were told were safe, that supposedly were tested. People took the experts at their word and either took the medication or consumed the product with very grievous results.

Sometimes we are so concerned and compassionate to quickly bring a product to market that may help those who are suffering or who are facing a very traumatic physical illness or life threatening illness. It is incumbent upon all of us to be very cautious. In our compassion to meet the short term need we may in fact cause a very serious disaster.

It is within that context that I support the bill and I support the unamended bill.

As these things come forward in the future, as they will for us to deal with, the overriding concern we must all have is what is in the public interest. Let us make sure that the controls are in place to allow the experts and those who develop these things to do all the appropriate testing, the long term testing so that we do not in our zeal to meet the needs of those who are facing life-threatening diseases actually cause more trouble than good.

We know that sometimes even those involved in research and the medical field are not always Snow White. There can be instances of abuse or exaggeration and exaggeration upon exaggeration. This is why we as custodians of the public trust must tread very carefully and slowly in this area.

I would suggest this is not just with respect to the area of human genetics and cloning but also in all kinds of biotechnology. Today some of the most grievous weapons in the world are biological weapons. When we start to manipulate the gene structures of plants and animals and other types of things, we have to be careful that the appropriate controls are in place, that if an accident or a mistake happens there are ways to shut it down quickly. We have seen what various viruses can do and what a tragedy it would be if it was a man-made problem that caused the deaths of millions.

At the same time, I am not saying that we should not explore this, but do it carefully. There may be developments that would solve the bone marrow transplant issue and many of the other tragic life-threatening things we see today. We do need to move into this arena I would say, but very cautiously and very carefully so that we can maximize the long term benefits to the people we are here to serve. We must make sure that we are not putting any of them at risk.

I commend the member for the bill. I commend all the members of the House who have spoken on this so eloquently. I think my comments have encapsulated what many of the members have said, that we do need to step carefully into this arena and make sure that we are taking every precaution. As we do in pharmaceuticals, certainly we need to do the same thing in this arena.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

I will now lay Motion No. 2 before the House.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-247 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 3 the following new clause:

“2. This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously extremely frustrated with this amendment, which reads as follows:

1. This act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the governor in council.

For clarity, for the benefit of the public, this means that, if passed, the bill will not be allowed to follow the normal course and the government will be able to set the date when it should come into force, that is probably never as the government is likely to introduce its own bill to take all the credit—because we all know how much this government craves visibility—for prohibiting human cloning.

The purpose of this amendment is basically to make the coming into force of the ban on human cloning subject to a government order. On the surface, this amendment may seem totally innocuous, while in fact it has a great deal of importance, because we cannot afford to wait much longer. Immediate action is required. We know how slow and superficial the government has been on this issue. This kind of amendment is tantamount to blocking the coming into force of the prohibition on human cloning.

Ten years ago, already, the Baird commission was established. The commission clearly indicated that it was urgent that we act and legislate on reproductive technologies, one of which is human cloning. Four years of studies, 40,000 witnesses and $28 million later, the Baird Commission tabled its report in November 1993. We are now in 1999. Ten years after the Baird commission was set up, no clear rules have yet been established to regulate medically assisted reproductive technologies.

Then, we had a voluntary moratorium which was ridiculed by all the opposition parties and by all the relevant organizations. This is unthinkable: a voluntary moratorium. We are supposed to have a monitoring committee, but it never released any report, and we have a voluntary moratorium. Who is checking in the labs to see what scientists are doing in terms of genetic and cell manipulation to perhaps clone human beings? Such research is already being conducted in some labs, but does that mean it is not going on in Canada? We cannot assume that. Therefore, this voluntary moratorium is meaningless. As I said, people were totally indifferent to it.

Then we had the advisory group set up by the government to monitor the implementation of the moratorium and the developments in NRTs, and to advise the Minister of Health in this area. As I said earlier, we never heard from that monitoring agency.

On June 14, 1996, the then Minister of Health introduced Bill C-47. During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Health, witnesses told us they had a number of reservations about the bill, because it was inappropriate and did not deal with what should have been regulated. These people told us certain things, including the fact that human cloning and genetic manipulation are two completely different issues and that they should be dealt with separately.

The bill died on the Order Paper. It was fine with the government to have it die on the Order Paper, because it did not know what to do with it. So, we were promised that the government would come back, at some point in time, with a bill that would be more acceptable to the scientific community and to the population as a whole.

We have been trying to ask questions at times, but the answers are always vague. We are told to wait, as the minister said today when we put the question to him. We are told that appropriate legislation will soon be introduced.

We have been waiting for 10 years. We have been hearing about this issue for 20 years. We have had 10 years of promises but nothing has been done yet.

The Bloc Quebecois has introduced Bill C-247, which, at least, would be a first step. We are very conscious of the fact that it does not solve the whole issue of assisted reproductive technologies, but it would at least prohibit human cloning, which is just around the corner.

I recommend that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health read what is being written on this subject and she will see that human cloning is just around the corner. It is not a matter of waiting to hear what the scientists have to say. It is here; the studies have been done. So why does the government not prohibit human cloning under the Criminal Code? Incredibly enough, it refuses to do so. It continues to wait, but for what? For another scandal like the tainted blood scandal?

Nothing has been done in Canada to fill the legal and moral void surrounding medically assisted reproduction even though the international community has been working for several years to set acceptable limits in this field. Again, Canada is not keeping pace.

Members of the international community seem unanimous in their opposition to any form of human cloning. Concerns about possible cloning attempts are legitimate. No one has yet been able to show that this can be done without creating serious ethical problems.

The scientific community, even the researchers who succeeded in cloning Dolly, have stated that they have no intention of trying to clone a human being in future. It is obvious that, regardless of how stringent the legislation is that governs such research activities, the issue of human cloning involves the international community.

In this connection, the President of France, Jacques Chirac, recently stated that the main problem with cloning was an international one, in that this practice must be banned world-wide, right now, not two or three years down the road.

First, UNESCO adopted a universal declaration on the human genome and human rights which bans the cloning of humans in article 11. The World Health Organization also asked member states to take steps at the legislative and legal levels to ban human cloning.

In March 1997, while I was present, it passed a resolution stating that the use of cloning for human reproduction is not ethical, because doing so violates certain fundamental principles of medically assisted procreation, including respect for human dignity and protecting the security of human genetic material. I could also tell you about the European countries.

In the United States—Canada often looks to the United States for guidance—President Clinton spoke out against cloning and announced that the government would not fund any project involving its use.

Where is our Prime Minister's statement on human cloning? We hear it will be coming soon. Soon.

A number of countries in Europe and Asia have adopted measures to ban human cloning or are in the process of doing so. We must do our part to close the door on these practices, and Bill C-247 must be passed so it can be applied immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 4, I asked a question in this House but did not get an answer—