Debates of May 24th, 2002

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 58th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the review of the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of House committees, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 59th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding proposals on changes to the standing orders, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.

(Motion agreed to)

Questions On The Order Paper

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Points of Order

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period I asked a question with respect to the World Trade Organization.

It has come to my attention that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the House. The World Trade Organization website was broken into and inaccurate material was placed on its website. I relied on that information when I asked my question.

As soon as I found that out I wanted to clarify to the House that there was no substance to the suggestion that the WTO was being reconstituted, re-organized and so on. Therefore there was no substance to my final question in the House during question period today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-56 which is an important piece of legislation that Canadians should be aware of. Bill C-56 is a bill regarding assisted human reproduction.

There was a time when the conception of a child was that of nature, where a man and a woman created a child. Since then science has become involved. When there is difficulty in conceiving a child science has stepped in to allow other methods of reproduction to take place.

As a society we must deal with where that science has taken us. It has given childless couples the opportunity of having children but it has also put us in a position of having to deal with situations where there might be embryos created that do not eventually form a child.

The bill deals with those kinds of issues which are touchy in our society and that many people have strong opinions about. The bill tries to deal with what is prohibited, what is controlled, and establishes an assisted reproduction agency. There are many issues around those topics: whether or not this agency should report to parliament, who should be sitting on it, and whether or not it should keep information on record and report yearly to parliament on information.

Most of the debate in the House and most of the concern in society deals with the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research can be called nature's blank slates capable of developing into any of the nearly 220 cell types that make up the human body. It is this ability to replicate indefinitely and morph into any type of tissue that leads many to believe that stem cells would eventually be able to cure diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, heart disease and to even repair spinal cord damage. It is because of this potential that many are looking to stem cells as an answer to create positive change.

There are two basic ways of getting stem cells. There are non-embryonic sources of stem cells from adult bone marrow and umbilical cords after the delivery of children. The use of adult stem cells in research has shown some promise. However other research published online March 14 of this year in the journal Nature shows that adult stem cells do not morph into new tissues but rather fuse or merge their genetic material with other cells. This would indicate that we cannot stop the research on adult stem cell use. We should however ensure that it is maximized to all of its potential.

The other way of getting stem cells is through embryonic stem cell creation. Should we stop that from happening? Should we shut the door on this kind of research, should we put a moratorium on it? Many of the previous speakers have spoken about the problems with embryonic research. It can cause spontaneous tumours. It is subject to immune rejection that requires lifelong anti-rejection drugs.

Currently there is no panacea and some people are holding them out to be the end all and be all of disease control and prevention. Right now there is no panacea provided by the creation of stem cells, but there is a need for more research.

The questions that are on the table are: should this be allowed now, and should there be a moratorium put on it?

The bill would allow for more research. The scientific advancements that have taken place from polio inoculations to all kinds of other advances have allowed mankind to cure diseases. They have all been done through research of some form or another. The big question on the floor now is: do we allow embryonic stem cells to be used as part of medical research?

Most of the embryonic cells that are used for research come from unused embryos that are created in fertility clinics. When a couple goes to a fertility clinic, they provide the ovum and the sperm and these are created into embryos. It is not a process where one can take one of each and not have surplus. The process itself demands that there be multi-embryos created because the success rate is not that good on a first attempt. Often many embryos are implanted because some are rejected.

There is a surplus created of these embryos. What happens to these embryos? The debate as to whether they are a life form or not is one that has to take place. Assuming they are a life form, what happens to them? Does this life form get disposed of in a garbage can or down the toilet, or can it be used for positive purposes? That is the debate.

People would argue on both sides of this debate. People feel that the embryos should be used for a positive purpose and others feel that they are the beginning of life and therefore should be respected as such and should not be used. What is clear is that when these stem cells from an embryo are used, the embryo is then destroyed.

This debate about when human life begins and how we should be using these embryos is one that has been going on for some time. It is not a new debate. This is an issue that has been out there in discussion for a number of years. This is not the government's first attempt. I believe the government tried five or six years ago to bring in such legislation pertaining to stem cell research.

We know that human cloning is occurring, or attempts to clone humans are occurring. There has to be control. People out there want restrictions to prevent the cloning of human beings. We know that it is out there. I myself have asked my constituents a question on this issue or a similar issue two and a half years ago and 65% supported the use of embryonic cells for research.

I have recently put it out in my latest householder. My householders receive responses anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 residents in my constituency. Many of them place their comments on them. I am asking two questions of my constituents: first, do they believe that scientists should be able to use the unwanted embryos stored at fertility clinics to conduct embryonic stem cell research, and second, do they believe a human embryo should have the same rights as individuals who have already been born?

It is important that Canadians participate in this discussion. It is important that my constituents have an opportunity to share with me their values and concerns, and how they want to see this handled. Issues of this enormity on the moral and ethical values of our society need to be broadly debated and discussed. They are being discussed out there in the community. We need to be respectful of what Canadians have to say.

This is too important for 301 members to take a decision. I would hope that every member of parliament is out there talking about the issue, encouraging people to participate, and then take seriously how the people in their riding and in their communities feel about this issue. Members would be surprised how able the citizens are to sort out all of the dynamics of this legislation and make responsible and reasonable recommendations to us as their representatives.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the bill dealing with human reproductive technologies.

I will not be supporting the bill as it is now constituted. I must express my appreciation to our leader and our caucus for allowing our members to freely express their thoughts and feelings on this whole issue instead of invoking party discipline and squashing the debate. There are some important issues around the bill that people feel strongly about for a number of different reasons.

I would hope the Prime Minister and members of the government side would allow the same kind of freedom of expression and freedom to vote to their members when the bill comes to a vote. That is the democratic process and we would be better able to express the wills of our constituents and our own feelings on the issue. However, I am not terribly optimistic that will happen based upon what has happened to the bill up to this point. I am delighted to see that the government is at least making some attempt to introduce some legislation and regulations on the issue of human reproductive technology. It is long overdue.

I accept and believe the rumours we hear so often about a number of women around the world today carrying cloned embryos. At some point those cloned embryos will be brought forth as living human beings. What the result of that experiment will be anybody can guess. We are already a little late in bringing forth this legislation, but better late than never.

The primary reason that I will not support the legislation as it stands regards one of my favourite hobby horses about this place and how it works. This issue has been discussed endlessly by a royal commission which brought forth recommendations. The same issues have been before a committee for months. The committee has the ability to, and in fact did, bring forth experts on the issue from a number of places in the world to provide expert advice to help it put together a report.

As has happened so many other times, and most recently the bill on endangered species is a good example, in spite of all the time, effort and expert opinion which was presented, the bill before the House is not the result of what the committee heard. It was produced by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat somewhere and does not reflect what the experts told the committee in numerous different areas. There are some things in the bill that do reflect what the committee heard, but in so many areas, with no apparent explanation, the opinions of both the minority and majority committee reports were rejected by these bureaucrats who drafted the bill.

That is so objectionable and undemocratic. If these bills were drafted by an all party committee on the basis of the advice of the experts it subpoenaed we would have much better legislation and it would actually be a democratic process.

I am disappointed that it is not. I will continue to present that opinion on any number of issues that come before the House in the hope that somewhere in eternity the rules of the House and the protocol that governs the production of legislation will change to make it possible.

I want to talk about the whole issue of stem cell research without getting too far into the controversy. It is the most controversial part of the bill. I do not come to this part of the discussion from a religious or moral position. I prefer to approach it from an position of logic so that after all is said and done I can explain to my constituents how I voted and why. I want to vote in a way that is logical because there does not seem to be a lot of logic around the issue.

Last night the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville introduced a private member's bill for discussion in the House concerning the redefinition of human life in the criminal code. There was an instant and outrageous reaction from members of the House about the possibility of even raising the discussion. However I do not see how the government could allow embryonic stem cell research under Bill C-56 without somehow addressing the fundamental issue behind it: When does life begin and when does it deserve the protection of the law? That is not addressed at all in the bill. Yet it would allow embryonic stem cell research.

I will never understand that. It happens with the government with respect to so many issues we deal with in this place. I sat for a time on the committee that judges when private members' bills should be made votable and when they should not. It amazed me that when a particularly contentious or controversial subject came before the committee the other committee members said we could not make it votable because it was too controversial. I am always surprised when we shy away from controversial issues. I thought that was what we were sent here for: to debate controversial issues on behalf of Canadians and make laws out of the debates.

It surprises me that we would avoid the issue of when life begins and when it deserves protection. If we are to avoid this controversial issue, and that is a choice the government can make, it follows that we should ban research on embryonic stem cells because we do not want to go down the controversial road of defining when life begins and when it should be protected.

There have been extremely promising recent breakthroughs in the area of adult stem cell research, an area which is progressing faster than embryonic stem cell research. We could disallow embryonic stem cell research and instead focus our funding and attention on adult stem cell research. This would avoid the controversy of debating when life begins, the ethics of abortion and other issues.

My time is running out. I will make one other point on which I will have more time to elaborate as we go forward. The makeup of the board that would direct the legislation is seriously flawed, like so many of the boards the government brings forward. It would give the minister all power to make changes without being accountable to parliament. We need to seriously change the structure of the board to make it accountable to parliament so that the changes that are made as we go forward in the review three years from now come back to parliament and parliament's voice is heard through debate again. We will talk more about that later.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.

This is an important piece of legislation that would leave a legacy for a long time to come. What we do with it is important because we are in a sense entering into a legal vacuum. Bill C-56 would set the tone and put things in motion that would have important consequences down the road.

It is not only important that the legislation is well thought out. It is important that it is created in a way that allows it to move with the times and with people's growing sensitivity to the subject matter as public knowledge in the area grows in leaps and bounds.

One of the difficulties at the moment is that newspapers and all forms of electronic media are naturally attracted to embryonic research developments and not so attracted to adult stem cell developments. This is because we all think of adult stem cell research as traditional science. Traditional science tends to get relegated to the back burner while things like cloning are considered newsworthy and popular. However that will change because the science will have many practical implications and applications.

People have made reference to the fact that there have been recent developments. It is true that a lot more scientists are working on adult stem cells than on embryos, so the amount of effort going in is reflected in the results coming out. However it is also true that most of the positive results and developments have been through adult stem cells rather than embryonic research.

Assisted human reproduction is not something a lot of people have had to think about in a personal context. However it has touched my family in a significant way. It is an interesting juxtaposition. My younger brother is not only a leading edge geneticist at Washington University in the U.S. He and his wife are the proud parents of four beaming children who are all the products of assisted human reproduction. He is combining a lot of things. We are cognizant of all the scientific developments as a consequence of how they have affected our greater family.

My brother has pointed out some important cautions the House needs to seriously think about. First, as people who have had embryos in motion he and his wife are extremely relieved they have no embryos still in the system. There is an interesting dimension to all this. There is a never-ending argument about when life begins. For my scientist brother, a father, life begins at first cell division. He is probably one of the few people in the world who have seen their offspring at first cell division. It brings the whole question into intimate contact. The thought that there might be mothers' embryos out there for scientists to be experiment with is of huge concern to my brother and his wife. It is important that we recognize parental ownership of the materials.

We must get the legislation as right as we can. It touches on matters of life and death and on parents seeking to conceive children and build families. At the same time we must continue to promote the quest for scientific advancements to cure diseases or repair accident damages.

One interesting development shows how quickly the field is changing. My brother's family is quite young, but early on as a geneticist he recognized the value of adult stem cells which come from the umbilical cord. The cells must be taken at birth. There was a politically correct movement to denigrate people who took the cells to store and freeze for the future benefit of their children, the very children from whose umbilical cords the cells were taken. My brother saw through all that and made such arrangements for his own children. It is no longer politically correct to say it is a bad thing. Scientists have discovered it is a good thing that can guarantee medical opportunities for the children.

This reinforces my point that it is important to engage the public to stay in tune with public attitudes and ethics. That is why all the provisions in Bill C-56 that would set up the agency are weak and need to be changed. The agency needs to be arm's length from the minister and report to parliament. It needs a lot of other changes that have been recommended by the official opposition.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-56. This legislation approaches some very difficult and complex topics. When we are speaking on the legislation, it is important to identify what it is about and what it is not about.

We are talking about medical and health research, assisted reproductive technologies, stem cell research and the incredible potential that it can have to eradicate disease, create more advanced treatments and improve the human condition.

In addressing issues such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS or any of these diseases and conditions that we may be able to approach more effectively with technology and research from stem cell research, clearly it is in society's interest and the interests of mankind to develop treatments. As such I do not think there is anyone in the House who would not agree with the end result of achieving these advancements in research from stem cells.

On the issue of human cloning, as a member of a caucus of 14 we see the tremendous benefit of cloning more caucus members. However I think we will pursue more conventional means and elect more of them in the next election. We recently tried artificial ways to expand our caucus and it did not really work out that well, except in one case with which we are very pleased.

On the very serious issue of human cloning, my own view is that we are getting a little too close to playing God when we take that development to that extent. As such I agree with prohibitions against human cloning.

I support stem cell research for the benefit of medical advancement and the potential benefit to humankind of eradicating some of the diseases I mentioned.

I do not see that the abortion issue ought to be used to complicate the debate. That is a separate issue. In Canada the woman's right to choose has been legally protected for some time. That is a separate debate and I hope that members of the House will try not to link the issues of stem cell research with the issue of abortion. That is a very different debate and ought to be treated differently. In fact it damages the quality of the debate we have on this legislation to confuse the two issues.

I am pleased that in our caucus we will be having a free vote on this issue. It is a morally charged issue and one that I take very seriously. I also take seriously representations by my constituents on this issue. There are ranges of views on the issue.

When people and families need assisted reproductive technologies to facilitate childbirth and for who it is important to have access to those technologies, I take their views seriously. People who have family members who have had Alzheimer's, or MS or Parkinson's and whose lives have been impacted negatively by those diseases have strong and important opinions to express and I take them seriously.

As such, over the next period of time I will be determining whether I will be supporting this legislation or not. My belief is that this legislation does in many ways achieve a middle ground with which I am fairly comfortable. This is not perfect legislation. There are areas of the legislation I disagree with. However, as with any piece of legislation, we have to weigh and balance the pros and the cons of it.

As I say, in most ways the government has, with this legislation, struck a fairly reasonable middle ground position. As such, I am inclined at this point to consider favourably the notion of supporting the legislation.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned with Bill C-56 because of the effect the bill will have on our society and, most important, on future generations. I am concerned about the bizarre duplicities in the bill which leave important moral questions in the hands of a few or even single appointed individuals unknown to most Canadians.

I am concerned that the government has brought the bill forward in such a way as to avoid questions about life which it believes may be troubling politically. I am concerned that the government would use the promise of banning obviously abhorrent practices such as human cloning as a means of avoiding debate on a few of the more politically troubling issues surrounding stem cell research.

In his March 4 column of the National Post , Andrew Coyne exposed the tragic failure of the government to address the critical issues raised by the possibilities of science today. He began by describing the dilemma of Maureen McTeer:

On the CBC, Maureen McTeer--lawyer, feminist and freelance medical ethicist--was ticking off the reasons she opposed the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos for medical research, as would be permitted under proposed federal guidelines. She was passionate, even immoderate at times.

It was an affront to human dignity, she said. From the moment the egg was fertilized, it became part of “the human continuum.” To allow the killing of embryos before the proposed 14-day limit and not after was a specious distinction, an attempt to obscure the enormity of what we were doing by denying the humanity of the lives we were destroying. Nazi scientists, she said, shrugged that the victims of their experiments were “only Jews.”

Now we were saying “it's only a fetus.” At which point, one of her befuddled fellow panellists felt compelled to ask: “Aren't you pro-choice?”

The ethical confusion which surrounds this debate is not Ms. McTeer's alone. The Government of Canada is itself, in Mr. Coyne's words:

--twisted into the same contradictory pose: attempting to define and assert the state's interest in the rights of the fetus, while officially denying that it has any--at least, as far as that would imply any legal restriction on abortion.

Ms. McTeer attempted to square the circle this way. When it comes to a conflict between the rights of the child in utero and the rights of the expectant mother, “we have decided” that the mother's rights “trump” those of the fetus. The rights of medical researchers, on the other hand, do not carry the same weight.

That is:

A pregnant woman has an unrestricted right in law to kill the fetus she carries, right up until the moment of birth: because she does not want to interrupt her career, because she doesn't care for the father, it doesn't matter. She holds “trumps.” A scientist, however, may not do the same to another fetus in the course of extracting embryonic stem cells, even in the first 14 days, in pursuit of medical advances that--who knows?--might save millions of lives.

The logic or lack of logic inherent in the government's position on matters address in Bill C-56 make my head swim. On the one hand we would allow a woman to abort a fetus but on the other, would punish her by up to 10 years in prison for donating an unfertilized egg for use in therapeutic cloning, a process where, for example, her egg would be injected with someone else's DNA to produce an embryo from which embryonic stem cells would be extracted in the hopes of coaxing them to grow into an organ needed by the donor of the DNA.

To put it in clear, unmistakable terms, under Bill C-56 it is okay to destroy a fetus on whim but it is not okay, in fact it is punishable by 10 years in prison, if one destroys with the intent of improving someone else's quality of life.

The question is: how did the government lead us to this baffling juncture? The answer is patently obvious if one considers the principles upon which Bill C-56 is presumably based. Although they may be commendable as written, they are more remarkable for what they do not say.

Most notably absent is any clear definition of what constitutes human life or when human life begins. Unless and until these fundamental principles are clearly addressed and defined, confusion will prevail. It is virtually impossible to write a coherent and consistent bill, a bill which will withstand the challenges already being prepared by those who would clone humans and conduct other outrageous experiments.

The fundamental principles governing assisted human reproduction are matters of unparalleled significance to our society. They are in fact cornerstones of our society. They define us as people. They are matters of importance to all members of our society, those with religious faith and those with none. As my friend from Calgary Southeast noted in this place, even if we do not believe in the intrinsic sanctity of human life, surely we can all respect the dignity of human life.

There is another matter that I would like to briefly address. Let me note that although my comments will be brief, that in no way detracts from the significance of the issue.

Recently I received a communication encouraging me to support embryonic stem cell research because of the hope it offered a person's mother who is suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. I know something of Lou Gehrig's disease because I lost my mother to it. I also know that there is more hype than hope in embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research has a number of problems. Dr. Peter Andrews of the University of Sheffield in England said “Simply keeping human embryonic stem cells alive can be a challenge”. Doug Melton, a Harvard University researcher, said “In my view (human embryonic stem cells) would degrade with time”.

Human embryonic stem cells have never been used successfully in clinical trials, have a lacklustre success in combating animal models of disease and carry significant risk, including human immune rejection and tumor formation. Speaking about embryonic stem cells, Glenn McGee, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist, told M.I.T.'s Technology Review that “The potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after stem cell transplant might turn out to be a Pandora's box of stem cell research”.

In stem cell research dealing with Parkinson's disease, there have been nothing but problems. The results have been horrific. In 15% of the patients the transplanted fetal cells went out of control and produced irreversible and devastating changes in the patients' brains, resulting in muscle spasms, sucking movements and writhing, which could not be controlled by any medicine.

The case for adult stem cell research is different. The retrieval and clinical use of these cells is morally acceptable and there is no unreasonable hazard to the patient. Adult stem cells have been located in numerous cells and tissue types and can be transformed into virtually all cell and tissue types.

Multipotent adult progenitor cells are stem cells found in bone marrow in adults that can differentiate into pretty much everything that an embryonic stem cell can differentiate into. They seem to grow indefinitely in cultures without losing their characteristics and do not seem to form cancerous masses or cause tissue rejection. These cells may turn out to be the most important cells ever discovered and they can be produced in virtually limitless supply.

It is worth noting in conclusion how important this issue is to us as humans. Vaclav Havel, the president of the Czech Republic, noted:

Given its fatal incorrigibility, humanity probably will have to go through many more Rwandas and Chernobyls before it understands how unbelievably shortsighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God.

Eric S. Cohen, managing editor of Public Interest , writes:

The ancients knew better, and it is to their old wisdom that modern man must return. In both the classical and biblical vision, death awakens man to the preciousness of life; mortality awakens him to the possibility of transcendence; and constant recognition of his own imperfection reminds him of the need for restraint and repentance.

In his misplaced quest for autonomy--freedom from want, freedom from morality, freedom from death--modern man has forgotten how to see; he has turned his back on his essential nature. He treats the human experience of incompleteness--the fact of suffering, alienation, and death--as a problem to be solved, a sickness to be cured, a stirring to be forgotten. And so he forgets what his wise and wondering ancestors remembered--that man is not fully of this world; that the beginning of wisdom is not only realizing the limits of one's knowledge but the ultimate meaning of one's limits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to speak in the House on this very important and critical issue. It is very interesting when I think of the implications of the bill and all that pertains to it. Not very long ago in the House we were debating an issue that was very similarly related to the bill and that was to change the terminology in the various government codes relating to children whose parentage was not directly known. I gave a speech at that time which I think very clearly outlined my very deep commitment to the value of human life and the dignity of individuals. I stand by that as the opening premise of any statement which I make here today.

I would like to indicate that I am one who is very much in favour of medical research. This is a question that is before us here today. It has to do with the use of human genomes and their use in research and, hopefully, in increasing the quality of life for people.

I have mentioned before that I have several friends who are permanently disabled. One of them, a very dear and in fact one of my closest friends, has been very severely afflicted by Parkinson's disease. He is younger than I. He sits in his wheelchair all day. Most of the time he is unable to communicate.

You do not know, Mr. Speaker, how much I wish that there would have been a cure for that disease when he was first diagnosed some 15 years ago or that there could be a cure even now in the ongoing stages of that disease in his life. I have another close friend who suffered a severe stroke. It would be wonderful if we could have some medical research that would yield some results and that would solve the problems that these people have to deal with when they are afflicted by such a calamity.

My basic premise in rising today is certainly to underline the fact that I am in great favour of medical research. In fact, one of the things that I thought I might do at one stage in my life when I was in high school and the early years of university was to go into medical research myself since I had a sister who suffered from cerebral palsy and who in her whole life never once was able to speak, at least not a language that we understand.

I was very much interested in the neurology of the human. I thought I might want to do some neurological research. I think I would have found it fascinating to discover much more, because as a young first year biology student how much does one learn? One just barely touches the surface. I have talked to people who have studied it. I understand from them that the more we learn the more we realize how little we know, so it is a very fascinating topic. Obviously people who get into research will be going down every trail they can find which hopefully will yield some results in the area they are researching.

However, what this bill is about is actually changing the criminal code in such a way that the use of human embryos is defined in the criminal code so that people do not unnecessarily go to jail based on what they do with human embryos.

With that, I want to take another little sidebar, as we have in recent years come to call a little side trip. I think we err greatly in the definition that we apply to human life. We like to speak very impersonally of the embryo, the fetus and so on. I think that we err by not attributing to the unborn child the full degree of humanity. I think that is an error and I will tell members why: We do not value a person's life based on whether or not he or she is wanted in any other case except the pre-born.

We have a lot of government interest in social housing these days and in trying to solve the problem of homelessness. There are unknown individuals on the streets somewhere in Toronto, Vancouver or any of our cities. Nobody knows them. They are really not wanted, but we do not say they are not wanted and therefore we should end their lives instead of finding houses for them. We do not think that way, nor should we. We say that they are valuable humans and everything possible should be done in order to provide them with a dignity of life, including housing.

We do not do that with the unborn. We simply, even flippantly, use the argument that the child is an unwanted child so therefore we can end its life. I think that not valuing the pre-born child diminishes our perception of human life.

I will dare to give a personal anecdote at this time. Very close relatives of mine, my nephew and his wife, were eagerly looking forward to the birth of their second child. Unfortunately she underwent a spontaneous abortion and lost the child. Holding this little pre-born child in his hand, just a tiny replica of a full grown human, my nephew said he could not help but note that there was the full potential for a human which was not allowed to proceed.

There are many people unable to have children naturally, as we say, so they seek medical assistance. I think that is perfectly fine. They use various methods to improve their chances of conceiving a child and thereby in some cases we end up with fertilized eggs in Petri dishes and in other areas. Of course the argument is always used that those eggs are human. They must be human, because if they are not human then what else are they? I would say they are obviously the beginning form of a human life.

Again one can ask the question: When does human life begin? It obviously begins at the moment of conception. Scientifically that is totally obvious, because it is when the unity of the two elements of life come together that the dividing of the cells springs into action. That is the beginning of the formation of a human life.

Scientifically there is no disputing that, as far as I know, and yet we simply have come in our society to a place where we say until that child has fully emanated from its mother's body it is not a human and warrants no protection. Again I think that we err. We take the lower road rather than the high road when we do that.

This bill is one that deals with the excess of these fertilized eggs, or young embryos as they are called, and they are the beginning of, the potential for, a human. I would certainly make sure in any of these considerations that we define that as human and treat it with all the dignity and care any other human is entitled to. One of the flaws in the bill that I think is really significant is the flaw of the identity of the so-called donors. I would prefer to call them parents. In many cases these elements are used to provide a child for someone who is not in any way genetically connected.

This particular bill provides that they should continue to be anonymous. I have problems with that. I have encountered in my short life a number of people who, having been adopted, have gone to great lengths to find out where their roots are. This seems to be almost an innate desire.

We should amend the bill to include that people who provide the elements of human life, who are indeed the parents of potential human beings, should be identified for the benefit of the children. Those children may one day want to know who their parents were. “From whence did I come?”, they would ask. They deserve the right to know.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I always like to follow my hon. friend across the way because he speaks from the heart. He does not use notes. He has not read the Bible aloud to us or tried to put something into the bill that is not there. It is always a delight to hear his down home type of spin on everything and his personalization of the various people who affect his life. I always appreciate that and I like to follow him because I do not have notes either.

I am reminded of the Irish people during the war. They were told that they were neutral. They wanted to know who they were neutral against. Bill C-56 reminds me of that type of a scenario. It has all the elements of research and development. Some of the items of abortion have been brought in as well as some items on how to treat disease and the hope that genetic research will provide for an eradication of disease. It has elements of everything.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence I do not get an opportunity very often to express my views from both my own religion, which is Roman Catholic, and that of my family. We have two adopted children. My wife has taught in the separate school system. We believe that life begins at conception so I do not have any problem with that. It is not something I have to debate with anyone. Those are my beliefs and people should take them for what they are. I do not think anyone will ask me to vote against my conscience. If they do, then those are the breaks of the game. My conscience is my conscience and I will have to live with it.

A lot of people would like to say that if a member is a Liberal, he or she is this, or if a member is a Liberal he or she is something else. We get pushed into some kind of a slot. Sometimes if we vote against the government we are perceived as voting with the opposition. The Prime Minister has said to me on many occasions that I can vote with my conscience. That is what I am here for. However, when we are voting on something like this, Bill C-56, we must take a look at what group of people sent us here. Do they agree or disagree?

On gun control it was easy for me. I did a survey. I am a gun owner. I have hunted and had the odd deer die in front of me from various causes. I had trouble with the gun control bill because I thought that I would have to vote against it. However, when I did the survey in my riding 51% of the people were in favour of gun control and 49% were against it. I received letters with bullet holes from people who were so passionate that they wanted to let me know how they felt about it. Therefore if I voted yes or I voted no who was I serving? That is what I am dealing with here.

My constituency is evenly split. I have received many e-mails and my website has had lots of hits on it. People have sent me letters, e-mails and snail mail. All kinds of different things have come through. For every letter that I get that is in favour of the bill I get one that is against it. We have people who are sometimes motivated out of fear thinking that somehow if we vote in favour of this particular piece of legislation we are against motherhood.

There are other people who are desperate for the research because we have excellent researchers in Canada. Sometimes we tend to think that our researchers are not that prominent in the world. However, if we look at the Salk vaccine and the many things that Canadians have accomplished over the years we can see that we have excellent researchers. We must not bridle them. We must ensure that our researchers are allowed to carry on.

I have been a board of director of a hospital. I have sat on health committees. I have chaired the committee on HIV-AIDS which studied poverty and discrimination. Whether it is Lou Gehrig's disease, cancer, or whatever it is that can benefit from the research that would be involved in Canada by top-notch researchers, I would think we would all be in favour of ensuring that our research continue to be among the best in the world.

Yesterday was a full day of debate on the bill. I read the speeches given by the former leader of the opposition who quoted the Bible and members of NDP who are interested in an opposite view. Some have the same view as the former leader of the opposition. Some of our own members are divided on this issue. There is no clear path here.

Moratorium in French means to kill it. We may run into some wording problems with the Bloc because its idea of moratorium is different than the English version of moratorium. In English moratorium means to delay but in French it is a full-fledged killing. We cannot allow that word to creep in here.

A moratorium is not the answer. Somewhere along the line we will have to decide if the bill is votable according to our conscience or according to the will of our constituents. None of us are going to find a strong view from the scientific world if we are based in rural Canada. Let us face it, rural Canadians that I live with go to the big teaching hospitals in the cities. That is where most of the research is done, whether it is the London, Toronto or Hamilton hospitals that are doing great work in research.

Those hospitals are not looking at the ethics of it but certainly what the medical results could be. Sometimes that scares me because we then tend to take human life at less value than it is made for us. We must take human life at its highest amount of dollar value, but particularly emotional value. To me human life is precious from conception to natural death. If anti-abortionists or abortionists want to argue with my two adopted children, they can give a pretty good argument in favour of life from conception to natural death. That is not a problem with me in my Christian views.

I want to ensure that somewhere within the confines of the bill we are able to deal with the ethical and moral problems that we all face but with the value of the research, and the value of the strength and talent of the medical community throughout Canada. I also want to ensure that we do not put handcuffs on researchers. We must ensure research and development and embryonic research goes ahead and that it is brought to its fullest to assist life as it now exists.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will direct my comments to what I think potentially is a defect in the legislation and confine my 10 minutes to that. It is the whole question of paid surrogate parenting. A large majority of members see this as a terrible evil. I spent some time thinking about this issue and I am still trying to determine what is evil about it and wondering why we are targeting it and criminalizing it.

Let me talk about a hypothetical surrogate parenting process. We have a couple who cannot have a child because the female has a disability. Her womb will not permit her to have a child. The couple find a young female who may be attending university and needs financial assistance. They engage her services with a commercial contract and the young girl rents out her womb.

The girl receives excellent medical care. She receives the highest standards in health, diet and so on. The contract states that no alcohol and no drugs can be used and that monitoring processes are in place.

What part of that evil process has to be criminalized? The parents receive a healthy child. The girl receives badly needed financial assistance. When we pass criminal law I always try to figure out which party is injured? Is the child injured? Are the parents injured? Is the girl who rents her womb injured? Who is the victim of the crime?

What is the great moral standard that we are infringing here? Invariably in criminal law we get into morality. I went through the great Ten Commandments and I cannot in all honesty find out how this impinges on any of those Ten Commandments.

Almost everyone I have talked to say that what is wrong with this is that a woman is renting her body for money or profit. With all due respect, that is wrong and inaccurate. Most people I know who run their own businesses or work in this world obtain rent for the use of their bodies. In the NHL right now there are players who are actually brutalizing themselves in pursuit of the Stanley Cup. Boxers will inflict terrible harm upon themselves in the name of profit.

Quite honestly, I have never considered a woman carrying a child to birth as something brutal, unhealthy, wrong or immoral. I am really trying to grapple with the rationale behind this particular point.

Let us take in vitro fertilization, which I believe is legal. The people running those clinics do it for a profit. The emphasis there is on a test tube. It seems to me that what we are saying here is that it is legal if it is a test tube situation but criminal if it is a child in a womb. I have a lot of problems with that.

Let us look at it another way. What great public interest are we threatening with this process? The parents receive a healthy child and the student makes it through university with financial assistance. What great public interest does this threaten and what makes it serious enough to criminalize it? Someone needs to help me find that public interest because I do not know what it is.

When we make laws we should always look at whether these laws will be legal. I have taken a look at the charter. Section 7 states that we have the right to liberty. Section 12 states that we should not face cruel and unusual punishment. I would suggest that sending two parents to prison because they wanted a child might be cruel and unusual punishment.

We must also look at the equality provisions. Subsection 15(1) of the charter says everyone has equal benefit of the law without discrimination. One of the grounds of discrimination is physical disability. One of the hypothetical parents has a physical disability. We are walking on thin ice legally as far as I am concerned. I am not exactly sure how anyone could walk into court with a compelling reason under the charter to defend criminalizing this conduct.

Let us look at some of the side consequences. Are you folks in the House prepared to send people to prison because they want a child and get a child of their own? I am not. How would we treat the child? You have come up with the proceeds of crime provisions. You would criminalize the act because the proceed of the crime would be a child.

There are a lot of side issues. If people leave the country and rent a womb in the United States or Europe would it be a criminal offence? What would be the status of the child? We should be thinking of these things. If we make bad laws here people will find ways to deal with it.

I have one other comment on the whole topic. There are members in the House who argue vehemently this is abhorrent, wrong and terrible and must be stopped. They are some of the same people who have no problem whatsoever with abortion clinics which are for profit and which kill life. Here is a case where a couple who cannot have a child make a commercial arrangement to get their own healthy child. Are we to make that into a criminal offence? I am sorry, but I have a lot of trouble trying to figure out the logic of the argument. I wish there were NDP people here today. They are the ones who generally take that line. I would like them to explain to me the logic of the issue because I do not know what it is.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I want to remind the House of two minor things which can be problematic. First, we never speak about the absence of any member or members. We all know what our individual schedules are like. We are often called on to be in different places at different times. Sometimes we would like to be in two places at the same time but no one has been able to do it quite yet.

Second, hon. members should always make their interventions through the Chair.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I knew the rule but in the heat of my speech it escaped me. I apologize to the Chair and members of the House for overlooking that point.

There are other aspects of Bill C-56 I will comment on briefly. These comments do not deal with surrogate parenting. We are not pursuing a lot of areas that other countries are pursuing. The U.S. is debating the whole issue of therapeutic cloning. European countries are into that sort of thing and so on.

I will raise another hypothetical question. We ban stuff in Canada. A lot of us do not feel the research will go anywhere. However let us say it does. Let us say we had effective treatments for something like Lou Gehrig's disease. Can anyone in the House seriously tell me that someone who tried to seek treatment would be a criminal? Would we jail these people or something along those lines? We need to think about these things.

There is one thing history teaches us. Even if we do not agree with something, once it is out of the bottle we cannot get it back in. Science has brought lots of things into the world we do not like but we cannot put them back in the bottle. I have never seen anyone do it. We need to think about this. Banning and criminalizing things is not necessarily the answer. To have some control over the process, a lot of times we would be better off treating problems with common sense and regulation rather than leaving the whole thing open ended or criminalizing the procedure.

The surrogate parenting thing still bothers me. If a perfectly healthy person was born out of that situation what would his or her status be? Would we criminalize the whole activity? For the life of me I cannot see the logic of it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I trust I did not offend anyone in the House with my earlier remarks.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was planning to speak next, but as there is very little time left in today's agenda, I was wondering if I could ask for unanimous consent to see the clock at 1.30 p.m. and carry on with the debate at the next sitting?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for North Vancouver is not present to propose the order pursuant to the notice published in today's notice paper. The bill is therefore dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 1.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 1.30 p.m.)