Debates of Jan. 28th, 2003

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my amendment is to delete subclause 2(e). Clause 2 is the statement of principles that is supposed to underlie the whole of Bill C-13. The statement of principles in clause 2 begins with:

The Parliament of Canada recognizes and declares that

and then these declarations are listed. They include:

(a) the health and well-being of children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use;

Subclause 2(f) reads:

(f) trade in the reproductive capabilities of women and men and the exploitation of children, women and men for commercial ends raise health and ethical concerns that justify their prohibition;...

Subclause 2(g) states:

(g ) human individuality and diversity, and the integrity of the human genome, must be preserved and protected.

I propose to delete subclause 2(e) which I note at this point was added in committee. It was not part of the original drafting and that subsection reads as follows:

(e) persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status;

Before dealing with my main points I want to stress that this amendment was added in committee. It was inserted at the committee stage. It was not included in the original bill as presented by the government.

This means that the principle in subclause 2(e) was not necessarily part of the fundamental ideas considered when the bill was initially drafted.

If we want to articulate a statement of principle in terms of access to IVF procedures, it should reflect a commitment to limit access to natural and secure families. If we as parliamentarians are committed to passing a bill that protects the best interests of children we should be making decisions that are consistent with the scientific data, and I will cite some in the time that I am allotted.

Providentially, last Friday the Globe and Mail , which is hardly a hot bed of radical conservative sentiment, reported on yet another study which demonstrates the higher incidence of negative outcomes in children who are raised in single parent family situations.

This is not a slight against single parents, but it is rather an indication that they are real heroes; those who are in those situations and those who are 24/7 parents. Many single parents are the victims of circumstances not of their own doing, such as death of a spouse or various other factors. I emphasize that many single parents do a valiant job against the odds. However, that is the point. They are fighting against the odds.

Many will tell us that all things being equal they would rather not be doing the job of parenting on their own. They would rather have someone else assist them in that most crucial of all roles. Most single parents either find themselves living in poverty, on welfare to be able to stay home to raise their children, or sacrificing a huge amount of time during which they would rather be caring for their children instead of working full time to make ends meet.

Notwithstanding the cruel effects of the government's oppressive tax regime, two parent families have greater flexibility in the choices they can make for raising their children and living above the poverty line than does a single parent.

The recent Globe and Mail article which reported on a study published last week in The Lancet , a British medical journal, reported that children growing up in single parent families were twice as likely--this is some of the difficult and disturbing but nevertheless very thorough results that came out--as their counterparts to develop serious psychiatric illnesses and addictions later in life. Experts say that the latest study is important mainly because of its unprecedented scale and follow-up. It tracked about one million children for a decade into their mid-20s.

There was also a Swedish study released by Sweden's national board for health and welfare. Some of the findings of the study were that children of single parents were twice as likely as others to develop a psychiatric illness such as severe depression or schizophrenia, to kill themselves or attempt suicide, or to develop an alcohol related disease. The study also found that girls were three times more likely to succumb to drug related diseases such as addiction if they lived with a sole parent, and boys were four times more likely.

Those are somewhat disturbing results but very thorough in that one million children were tracked for a long period of time through their mid-20s.

Another Swedish study found that adults raised in single parent homes were one-third more likely to die over the 16 year study period than were adults from intact families. I want to emphasize that we are talking about functional, healthy families, because people right away sometimes want to make a comparison with a dysfunctional family, and I would say that is not a fair comparison.

This and numerous other studies were discussed in a book published in 2001 written by Linda Waite and renowned researcher Maggie Gallagher. In the book entitled The Case For Marriage the authors examined hundreds of studies that cast light on how family formation affected children's health. In their conclusion they say divorce appeared to be literally making some children sick. For example, one study tracked the health of children before and after their parents' separation. The authors found that divorce made it 50% more likely a child would have health problems.

My colleague from the government side, the member for Mississauga South, has for many years openly addressed the benefits to children of intact families. He has pointed out that study after study showed that children from stable family environments had better lifelong health outcomes than children who were not in those relationships. That does not mean that a kid coming from a bad or broken home, or a lone parent situation cannot turn out to be healthy. We have wonderful examples of that, even possibly colleagues and members across the way. That is a real tribute to the parents who raised those children. They turn out to be healthy, well adjusted, contributing members of society, and they are truly heroes. However, the probabilities are very clear in terms of the overall spectrum.

Early last year a report by Britain's centre for policy studies produced data showing a sharp distinction in the effects on children of marriage over those of cohabitation. The research, “Broken Hearts Family”, chronicles the decline and the consequences for society. It found out that while over 50% of cohabiting couples break up within five years of having a child, only 8% of married couples split after a child is born and the children from single parent families are more than twice as likely than those from two parent families to experience some form of mental disorder. The research also found that children of both lone and cohabiting parents are more likely to suffer physical abuse than the children of married couples and are more likely to turn to drugs, to commit crime, and to run away from home.

The internationally respected Heritage Foundation in the U.S., in a study in April of last year, showed the significant impact marriage had in protecting mothers and children from domestic abuse. Among the findings of the study were that children of divorced or never married mothers were 6 to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious abuse than children raised by biological, married parents, and that the rate of abuse was six times higher in step families. It was 14 times higher in the single mother family and 20 times higher in cohabiting, biological parent families. Ottawa Families , a community newspaper distributed free in the National Capital Region, recently reported on data provided by the Toronto based Institute for the Study of Anti-Social Behaviour in Youth. It noted the important role that fathers play in the lives of their children:

Kids are more inclined to exhibit violent behaviour if their biological father is absent from their lives, according to a study released by the Institute for the Study of Anti-Social Behaviour in Youth. The presence of a stepfather does not change this behaviour.

Very few people question the essential importance of mothers in the nurturing and raising of children. This quote points to that solid body of research that demonstrates the vital role that fathers play in the best interests of parenting, the need for a biological or adoptive parent, a mom and a dad.

I am running out of time so I will not be able to say much about the issue of same sex parents but the same arguments would apply. Same sex relationships are equivalent to cohabitation, or at least that is the argument made by gay people. Using their very own leverage that they have exerted on the courts and legislatures to extend benefits to their relationships, those cohabitation facts would apply as well. I do not claim to be original with respect to that.

I would like us to delete that subclause because of the overwhelming scientific evidence. I believe that Parliament wants to make a statement about access to in vitro fertilization. It should be one defining limited access. If we do not delete this subclause we abandon the best interests of children for the sake of a remarkably narrow ideological agenda that is increasingly being exposed as errant by the international scientific community.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the report stage debate on Bill C-13 deals with assisted reproduction and related technologies. I have four report stage motions in Group No. 1. I would like to address each one to relate to the House precisely why these motions are there as each of them in their own right is extremely important.

Motion No. 6 seeks to amend the definition of donor. Presently the bill that came out of committee states that in regard to an embryo the donor would be a person who is specified in the regulations. In regard to gametes, the sperm and the egg, the donor would be the human being who contributed those. I ask the question, why is it that the donors of the sperm and the egg that created the embryo are not the owners and, therefore, the donors?

One of the fundamental principles of the bill is the non-commodification of human beings. This definition would lead us to believe that the donor of an embryo has to be someone other than the genetic mother and the father of that embryo. Motion No. 6 seeks to establish that the donor of an embryo would be the donor of the egg and the sperm which created that embryo. To do otherwise would in fact transfer the ownership of a human life from one person or persons to others. This is a total contradiction of one of the fundamental principles of the bill.

Motion No. 5 has to do with the definition of chimera. Chimera is basically a multiple joining of embryos where, for example, one had genetic material from two embryos and put them together or one had a human embryo and non-human cells and put them together. These are something more than a basic embryo.

The bill seeks to define chimera. However I noticed that one of the items it did not address was whether or not chimera included transferring human reproductive material into an animal. The bill in fact is silent. The current definition of chimera is silent on whether it is permissible to put human genetic material into an animal. Members should think about it. If the purpose of the bill is to ensure that we are not mixing human and non-human species of genes, then we should clearly amend the definition of chimera with the related clause to mean that in the bill one is not permitted to mix human and animal reproductive material.

The reverse is in the bill, that one cannot put animals into a human embryo, but any activity which would take human reproductive material and combine it with any non-human reproductive material or cells or anything like that would be totally inappropriate and should be corrected in the bill.

Motion No. 9 wants to expand the definition of embryo to include polyspermic embryo. I do not want to get too technical, but this basically is an embryo, with its chromosomes et cetera, that has been affected by more than one sperm. From what I understand from the experts it means that this embryo would not ultimately be viable but is still living. It is like a disabled person. It is like someone who has disabilities. I am sure there are parallels with born children.

By including the polyspermic type of embryo in the family of embryos generally, it would ensure that research on these disabled embryos or non-viable embryos would be covered under the same rules dealing with other human embryos. That is basically to say a human embryo is a human embryo regardless of its abilities or disabilities. That is the purpose of this. I hope the health officials will look carefully at that. They may know that Françoise Baylis recommended that.

I believe that the final report stage motion in Group No. 1 is Motion No. 10 which has to do with defining the human genome. As laid out in the report stage motion, it is the entire DNA sequence of the human species. It is not presently defined. There are very serious concerns about the possibility of polluting the human genome by the combination of non-human and human cells, et cetera. The bill makes reference to human genome but the definition of it is not there and I seek to have that introduced.

Those are the four motions. I hope that I will have the support of the parliamentary secretary, the health minister and others to make those important changes to protect the integrity of the principles on which this bill was based.

In the remaining discussions on the other groups, one issue that will come up often will be the existence of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research guidelines for pluri-potent stem cell research. This agency of the Government of Canada is responsible for public funding of research on a broad variety of matters, including stem cell research.

In these guidelines, which I would be happy to provide members, it says that people donating sperm or eggs for the purpose of in vitro fertilization who also specify that if there are any embryos created and stored that they subsequently do not need for reproductive purposes, must give their informed consent for research purpose. These guidelines go very extensively into the disclosures that have to be made by a fertility clinic and by subsequent researchers as to the authorized uses.

Presently the bill before us does not designate or specify what informed consent constitutes. Informed consent is just relegated to what we always understand, which is informed consent as in the laws of Canada. This material, the guidelines of the CIHR, clearly lays out the importance of having a clear idea for the providers of gametes as to what the terms and conditions are for the use of their reproductive materials if they are not used for their own reproduction purposes. If they are to be used for research, these guidelines say that the donors of the gametes must know. In fact these guidelines say that the researcher has to disclose their conflict of interest, their commercial relationships and all kinds of these things to the gamete providers prior to the donation even being made.

The bill as it comes out says that the donor of an embryo could be somebody other than the parents. It is totally contrary to the guidelines of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I think we will find in the debate that there are very serious differences between what the Canadian Institutes of Health Research will operate starting on April 1 of this year in terms of public funding and what this bill says.

I believe it is incumbent on the government to explain the real status of these guidelines. We cannot have two different rules of the game. We will either respect the peer review process, the tri-council policy statement or the CIHR guidelines with respect to reproductive technologies, informed consent, commercialization, non-commodification and all other aspects which are clearly laid out. I hope the government will lay out and explain to the House the status of these guidelines on this very important bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before I go to the next speaker, I would like to clarify the decision made earlier this morning regarding Motion No. 11 standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Clark. By unanimous consent the House agreed that the motion would be moved by Mr. Hearn, seconded by Mr. Borotsik. Therefore Motion No. 11 is debated as part of Group No. 1, which we are debating right now.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is the subject of our debate this morning. The title of the bill is an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. One of the first amendments we will be considering in this block today is about the very title, and we will be addressing that momentarily.

This bill has been a long time coming and Canadians have certainly been interested in the debate. If we go back historically, as we heard the member from Winnipeg earlier describe, interest in this area goes back at least 10 years to the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies. It travelled the country, studied the issue indepth and made some widespread and strong recommendations that regulations be brought in to control and regulate this area of assisted human reproduction because of the epidemic of many couples who were having trouble conceiving and naturally having their own children. This involves rather invasive procedures to help a woman who is infertile to ovulate and produce ova that can then be fertilized and reintroduced or by a variety of reproductive technologies help a family to have a child.

When the health committee took the draft legislation from the minister, it was heralded as a real breakthrough for democracy. Rather than receiving legislation and then coming to committee to try to change and alter it, the minister of health of the day referred in draft form the legislative package, the ideals of the government in terms of which way this legislation should go, and left it to committee to consult Canadians and come up with recommendations on how we should proceed. I was pleased to serve on that health committee, and we did indeed hear from many Canadians. We heard from scientists, interest groups and infertile couples.

The bill covers a wide range of subjects and I will talk about them briefly. It is a very complex subject and it is very wide in its scope. We are talking about issues such as surrogacy. We are talking about the import and export of gametes. We are talking about the related research that comes out of this, such as words like the member for Mississauga South just used, chimera, words that are not commonly used on the street in Canada and that even many members of the House likely would find confusing. On committee we spent a lot of time discussing the ramifications, the parameters and what the language really meant. There are very complex issues associated with the bill.

Our committee titled its report on the draft legislation, “Building Families”. We wanted to ensure that the focus of this technology was about helping people who were having difficulty, because of reproductive failures, to build the families for which they so longed. That I think was the focus that we hoped all members would retain. Somehow we feel that we have gone a little off track in some areas of the bill on that ground. If the focus is building healthy families, we want ensure that all aspects of the bill drive in that direction.

The bill also deals with related research. One of the very important spinoffs that comes out of this is the issue of embryos for research, the promise of stem cells for the potential for healing and the tremendous breakthrough. Although it has taken 10 years to get us to this point, perhaps one of the benefits that comes from that lengthy delay is that we have had access to information on the stem cell debate that other jurisdictions and other countries that considered this before us did not have.

We now have today information about the tremendous potential within our own bodies to harvest cells that can offer the cures that were promised from embryos but without the complications, not only morally but scientifically and clinically, that come from taking cells from embryos which require the necessity for anti-rejection drugs. As well we have the moral dilemma of using embryos that were intended to become human beings for other purposes such as research and the implications that has. We hope to address that further in a later block on this issue.

There are many challenging issues associated with this research. Another issue of course in “Building Families” is the children, keeping the focus on the children who would be produced from these technologies and whether we would adopt in Canada an open system or a closed system of donation. Nations before us have gone away from a closed system of anonymous donors which has created real problems for the children produced from the technology. We hope to address that in more detail as we get further into this debate on other blocks of amendments.

The issue of whether we pay surrogates or how we would reimburse people who help another person deliver a child is also a very challenging. The committee wanted to ensure that this was not turned into a commodification exercise, one that turned into another industry with great dollars and people choosing it as a career using their bodies to produce children for other people. We wanted to keep it altruistic and an initiative to help people, not one for profit or vulnerable to being exploited for commercial purposes.

In this block of amendments one important issue which has come up is the fourth amendment by the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin. It has to do with the preamble. It is a very important issue. I will read subsection (e) at the top of page 2 which was added at committee. It said that the purpose of it was to help people with failed reproduction to have healthy children. The following words were added at committee, that:

persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status;

I believe the member has raised a very valid issue in bringing forth a motion to delete these words because they take the bill in a direction that was not intended from the beginning. The bill is intended to help those with failed reproductive challenges, not those who have healthy reproductive system but who look for a way to circumvent nature and have a child another way. I feel that is not the intent of the bill and therefore we support the motion. We hope all members will support it and keep the bill on track for the purposes for which it was intended.

Very sensitive issues will come up on the importing of gametes. We have to ask why we would import sperm from other countries such as the United States. We do not know from where it comes. Health Canada purports to certify it is safe but we have heard evidence that we are importing sperm from U.S. prisons. That shocked most members on committee and I believe it would shock most Canadians. If we are trying to ensure a healthy, wholesome effort to help people with tragic circumstances, why would we allow anonymous donations from other countries that we cannot possibly control or regulate except to examine the product and try to determine whether we can detect something wrong with it. We feel we have no shortage of reproductive material in Canada. There are 33 million of us. We have the resources among us. We should not be importing sperm from other countries.

There are many items like this in the bill that need to be debated and Canadians need to be engaged. I am disappointed that the amendments I brought forth at committee on this subject, and in fact amendments we brought forth to be discussed at report stage, have been disallowed by the chair. It seems the government is determined to keep this current system in place with the flaws and risks that leave Canadian women exposed to the import of gametes from other countries. That is a disappointment.

We will be discussing more of these issues as we get further into the debate and I hope that all members will take these matters seriously.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As you know, I am no longer my party's health critic; it is now my colleague for New Brunswick Southwest. I have followed this issue with great interest and learned a great deal in the process.

Often, we learn a bit from analyzing bills, but where assisted reproduction and all the issues surrounding it are concerned, I have really had a learning opportunity. I must say that the atmosphere within the committee was exemplary.

That said, in the first group of motions, there is one by the Progressive Conservative Party calling for the report to be submitted to the Minister of Justice rather than the Minister of Health. The reason is that, where assisted reproduction is concerned, law often takes precedence when there is an analysis of circumstances.

There is a need to ensure that the agency to be created will be at arms length. The creation of that agency will, moreover, be debated at report stage. The agency must keep a certain distance from the Minister of Health. This is a health issue, yes, but also a legal one, a point raised various times in committee.

Motion No. 11 calls for, with regard to reports tabled in Parliament, the Minister of Justice to be held responsible for ensuring that the rights of unborn children and of others, women in particular, are respected.

Yes, it is a matter of health. We know that health is a provincial jurisdiction and so the provinces too are involved. On the legal level, however, the responsibility is federal by virtue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is important for the legal status to be correct. It may seem odd to say so, but producing a child is also a legal act. It is an act of love, a sexual act, but it is also a legal act. There are certain rights and responsibilities involved.

I would like to set aside Motion No. 11 for a moment to take advantage of the opportunity provided this morning, in the short time that I have, to talk about a few points regarding this bill.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance spoke about one of them, first, the issue of sperm donors. Canada is a country that is rich in natural resources, but not in sperm. What causes me to say this? Because we import it. We produce 50% of the tomatoes we consume, but when it comes to sperm, we do not yet produce 50%, because the system is not designed this way. Sperm donation is done on a voluntary basis, as we know, as is the case with blood. In other countries, donors—whether they be blood, sperm or egg donors—are remunerated. In Canada, this does not exist. We raised this issue several times in committee.

For safety reasons, in terms of the health of mothers and children, we want to keep it this way in Canada, and I agree with that. However, we do not have the system in place to allow this. Furthermore, we want to ensure that donors are no longer anonymous. In Canada, these realities are different from those of other countries.

I had proposed that there be some sort of payment for sperm donors, that there be analysis, and that a full medical record be kept on the donor, but that the donor's name be kept anonymous. From a legal perspective, the bill does not go far enough.

How will the donor be protected? The bill does not say enough on this; it is flawed on this issue. The provinces, including Quebec with its Civil Code, have an important role to play. There is no correlation between the federal bill and the provinces; the rights of parents are not sufficiently developed.

I proposed that, to begin with, in terms of enforcement of the legislation, we retain the anonymity of sperm donors but that we also invite healthy men in this country to donate their sperm.

Some may find this funny. I remember when I proposed this report. Canada is such a rich country yet we have to import sperm. We often begin to look after our own affairs, but in a very safe manner when it comes to health.

The other important factor is that this bill raises questions about the right to life, the rights of the fetus and the rights of gays and lesbians.

Once again, perhaps because Quebec and other parts of the country are more forward looking, we have to be careful. In terms of Motion No. 4, when the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance talks about excluding lesbian couples, I find this somewhat odd.

Look what has happened in Quebec for example. I have friends who are lesbian and use the assisted reproduction system to have children. Between you and me, children born to lesbian couples are no more or less perfect than children born to heterosexual couples.

This is a reality. It would be a step back to send an anti-gay and anti-lesbian message in this bill. We cannot censor the right to life. That is what Motion No. 4 sets out to do. It would censor the right to life based on the sexual orientation of the parents. I find this appalling, but that is vintage Canadian Alliance.

Another related issue that we often talk about is the issue of family. What is a family today? The traditional family includes a father, mother and children. We know that 40% of couples are divorced. The traditional family is desirable. When we fall in love we want it to last for life.

Except that a relationship may last a few years, a few months or a lifetime.

So, the family has changed and evolved. Unfortunately, there are members in this House who have neither changed nor evolved.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

They are conservative.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

This is most unfortunate. The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is saying that they are small c conservative, in the derogatory sense of the term; he is not referring to the Progressive Conservative Party. We must be careful here.

Having said this, overall the bill is good but incomplete. Some people provided invaluable input to the committee. Because of the moral issues that some people see in this, or want to see in it, we decided to have a free vote. But I can guarantee that a majority of the Conservative caucus will support the bill.

This is an essential step. Why? Because a review will take place in three years. This is not a bill that will remain unchanged. It will be updated as we gain more experience as a result of the enforcement of its prrovisions.

It is true that we do not know what the regulations will look like. They will be very complex. The agency has yet to be created. It will surely cost more than the budget established by the government. In any case, when the government draws up a budget, things always cost more than anticipated.

Nevertheless, this is a major step toward assisted reproduction. There are members of my own family who have resorted to these techniques. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful, and it happened on a number of occasions.

The costs involved are huge. The government should also consider signing an agreement with the provinces, to see if financial assistance could be provided to these couples. There is no tax incentive for those who spend tens of thousands of dollars to have a child. There is nothing.

Perhaps it is time to look at modernizing the system. A parliamentary review of the act within three years may seem like a short timeframe, but the committee was very pleased to see the government take action. Initially, the review was to be conducted within five years. This will ensure that the legislation remains up to date. There will probably be some loose ends, because three years is a very short period of time, but we will be able to ensure that people who want children, whether it is a couple of heterosexuals or lesbians, can do so with legal protection and, perhaps, financial assistance, in a safe framework for parents and children.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my views at this stage of Bill C-13.

First, I would like to mention, like the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the groundwork done by the hon. member for Drummond. She introduced a private member's bill on this subject several times. Of course, the throne speech ensured that all the bills died on the Order Paper. However, her interest in this issue is long-standing. I remember working with her on the Standing Committee on Health. She was already making representations on this.

This issue itself is not new, since, in 1989, the then federal government appointed the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, known as the Baird commission. This commission, after having spent or used $28 million and questioned over 40,000 witnesses, which was phenomenal, tabled a report in 1993.

In 1995, this government implemented a voluntary moratorium on the issue, not that that made much difference. This became significant with regard to public opinion in 1997, when British scientists succeeded in cloning a sheep they named Dolly.

This has caused so much concern to scientists and officials worldwide, including UNESCO, that in November 1997 this UN organization issued a universal declaration on the human genome and human rights. According to UNESCO, human cloning is an attack against human dignity and, as such, must be prohibited.

We have witnessed recent events, after the three announcements by Clonaid, a firm associated with the Raelian movement, and all the publicity surrounding these announcements.

This bill was introduced last December, belatedly, if you ask me. It was not for lack of studies. As I said, it has been under consideration since 1989. Why have waited so long? Granted, this is a sensitive issue. But at the same time—because it was and still is a sensitive issue—it was important that the Parliament of Canada look into it. It is now doing so. Better late than never, I suppose. The issue is now before Parliament.

At this stage, we can say that the bill to prohibit reproductive technologies, or cloning, is pretty clear. As the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska just said, it remains a debate about values. He is right about that. We can feel it even in our ridings, regardless of our affiliation.

In my riding, supporters of my party have different opinions, and they have made them known. There are also people who, while they do not support our political option, share their concerns with me as their MP. This is great, because that is how I have always envisioned the role of member of Parliament. First and foremost, as representatives of our ridings here in Ottawa, we must take a stand on bills or motions, as we are now.

I have always shared the member for Drummond's concerns about cloning. However—and I am not implying that she will disagree with what I am about to say—I feel it is both prudent and correct to leave open the possibility of stem cell research.

This can, of course, turn into a debate among experts, particularly concerning the point at which an embryo ceases to be an embryo and becomes a fetus, and so on. There are criteria in the legislation, which we shall address a little later on.

The idea of research being authorized by ministerial order is both pertinent and appropriate, since it is known that there are a number of diseases, such as Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and others, for which research might one day find a remedy or rather a solution.

Of course, there would have to be guidelines, ones that were as specific as possible, because we must not allow things to be done indirectly because people do not want them done directly.

In this connection, there are many in my riding who share my view that it is wise to address the issue of research within a very precise framework, not for the purpose of human cloning but rather to allow stem cell research with a view to finding solutions for certain illnesses.

That was the view I wanted to express at this stage of the debate, both for myself as an MP and also for the riding I represent, in connection with this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this very important bill. During the holidays, I received calls for a great many people in my riding. The media also sought my opinion on the publicity done by Clonaid over the Christmas period.

I told my constituents and the local media that I was against human cloning. There was also the issue of the use of human embryos for research purposes. Bill C-13 is addressing to a fair extent concerns I had in my heart about human cloning.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute and congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his excellent work on this issue in the Standing Committee on Health and for the insight he has given Bloc members into this bill. I also wish to join him in congratulating my hon. colleague from Drummond.

I want to point out that, sometimes, if opposition members were not there to question the ruling party and confront them with the aggravating circumstances found in society, governments would often get pretty set in their ways. Over these past years, my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, has repeatedly raised the point with all Liberal health ministers that the government ought to take action to prohibit human cloning. In 1989, the Baird commission was established. Four years later, in 1993, it tabled its recommendations. The government has done nothing ever since.

On a personal note, my nephew is a cancer researcher in Montreal. Every time we get together, he tells me, “You cannot imagine how fast research in this field is advancing”. He also said, “You parliamentarians will have to be up on what is going on right now; you are already falling behind”.

I think, therefore, that this bill reassures Canadians and Quebeckers that human cloning will finally be made illegal in Canada. In my opinion, human conception does not begin with taking DNA. As a woman, I think that human conception begins when a sperm and an egg meet. I am very religious and, according to my principles, human beings are created by God. He gives us the ability to give birth to other human beings.

Many people in my riding wanted me, as the member for Jonquière, to take a stand. So it is with pleasure that I tell them what that stand is, because I am sure that many of them are listening to me today. I told them that I was going to speak this morning in the House on Bill C-13 to tell them that, finally, the government has decided to ban human cloning.

In fact, I support the objections raised and the reasons why this bill should be passed. Bill C-13 proposes banning, for any reason, unacceptable practices such as creating human clones. It also prohibits the creation of an in vitro embryo for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving assisted reproduction procedures, the creation of human and non-human hybrids for the purpose of reproduction, the provision of financial incentives to induce women to be surrogate mothers, commercial surrogacy, and selling or purchasing embryos or offering property and services in exchange. Bill C-13 bans these practices.

This bill also authorizes the regulation of assisted procreation activities and related research such as research into the causes of infertility and improving fertility techniques. We are seeing that women are increasingly unable to procreate. This will authorize research to determine the exact cause.

Research will be allowed into problems that are unrelated to fertility, such as birth defects, as well as to find treatments for serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease and cancer.

Two of my friends passed away over the holidays, one from cancer and the other from Alzheimer's. I would have liked to have seen more research on embryonic stem cells because it has been proven that this is how scientists will make the greatest advances in finding cures for illnesses.

However, it should be noted that the bill proposes to rigorously regulate stem cell research. This is why I say that a code of ethics will be required to guide this process.

It was clear from Clonaid's announcement during the holidays that ethics were in short supply. The odd thing is that although they told us they had cloned three humans, we have not seen them yet.

I think a stop must be put to all this. We must follow the lead of the European countries. In 1998, President Clinton had also declared a five-year moratorium on human cloning.

We are going further. I think that the bill will pave the way for discussion with the provincial governments since they are responsible for health.

It will foster the well-being and safety of all Canadians and Quebeckers. It is with pleasure that I add my voice to that of my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and tell him and the people of Quebec that human cloning will be prohibited in Canada when this bill is passed.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak against Motion No. 7. A great deal of concern has been expressed that when we talk about who owns the gamete, as was discussed in some of the amendments, we are removing the decision making. If we say that the donor owns all the decisions and makes all the decisions with regard to any offspring born of a gamete, then we are taking--

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am pleased to be here today for such a very important debate but I think it is incumbent upon the government to make sure that it shows enough interest to have a minimum quorum of people in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There is a quorum call. Obviously there is no quorum and the bells shall not ring more than 15 minutes.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. We now have quorum. When the call was made, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre had nine minutes left in her speech.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking with regard to motions that have been made in this group which try to ensure that the biological parent remains the one who makes all the decisions about a child born of a gamete or sperm or egg donation. The point we are trying to make in this piece of legislation is to ensure that the person who receives that gamete, when that child is born, will be building a family with that new family. We cannot have another donor or somebody else make decisions for what happens to the child within this new family.

We have heard members across the way speak about building families. If a new family is built, then that new family becomes the child's family. There cannot be decisions about what happens to a child made by the person who donated what at the end of the day turned out to be a donation of reproductive material that they no longer have any sort of control over because it has become a child in a new family.

We want to be very careful that we do not take away the rights of parents who now have children as a result of reproductive technology, because they are going to be parents and they need to be able to live like parents, to bring up their children, to care for those children and to form a family. That is the slippery slope that we are worried about with some of these motions.

The other point is that some of the motions also seek to stop research. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is the first time that we are setting guidelines and regulations for very important and ground-breaking research. We do not want to inhibit research, yet we certainly do not want to allow research to carry on galloping at a pace without any regulations and without any way of defining the guidelines within which that research will take place. We must have research. Research will allow us to look at assistance for people with Parkinson's, for people with congenital abnormalities that are coming about in the future, for a whole host of things that we now deal with as diseases which create mortality and cost human life.

We have to continue to do research. Research is important if we are to move the agenda forward. How we set ethical regulations and guidelines that would frame that research is what the bill is seeking to do, not to throw research out the door and stop us from moving forward. I want to speak against some motions that will do that, because I think what we are in danger of doing is being extremely retrogressive and not allowing for any movement forward with regard to good science.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-13. This of course is a bill of great moral gravity which, if passed, will have tremendous implications for the legal status of human life as it is assaulted by new and emerging technologies and as we seek to harness those technologies to advance the dignity of human life in certain respects.

It is unfortunate that this legislation has been so long in coming. Of course, as we heard in debate earlier, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies was appointed in 1989. It is now nearly 14 years after that date. Indeed, many of the horrific Frankenstein-like technologies which were at that time of an almost fictitious nature have now apparently become all too real.

Today, unfortunately, this and previous governments have avoided taking swift enough action on some of the issues addressed in the bill upon which there is a broad social, moral and ethical consensus, such as banning cloning and banning human-animal hybrids and the like.

I would also like to say at the outset that I regret that the government has chosen to ignore the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health, which spent nearly a year in an exhaustive review of draft legislation. That committee of course recommended that the bill's provisions be split between those on which there was a general consensus, such as the prohibition of cloning and animal-human hybrids, and more contentious and difficult issues, such as the treatment of embryonic stem cell research, upon which there still is no social consensus. Had the bill been split, I believe that all members of the House speedily could have passed legislation restricting these most offensive practices, while more closely debating the need for statutory protection for nascent human life and the prohibition of creating life for the purpose of manipulating it and destroying it.

Let me further say at the outset that the bill is not founded on sound philosophical principles. It is imperative in a legislative exercise of this importance that first philosophical principles be established explicitly in the bill, preferably in the preamble, as a guide to us as legislators, to the regulators who will interpret and apply the bill and indeed to the courts who will adjudicate it.

For instance, the bill fails in its preambular section or anywhere else to assert the sanctity of human life per se. The bill clearly fails to assert the inviolable dignity of the human person. The bill fails to attribute to nascent human life, embryonic human life, the clear status of human life, let alone of personhood. Therefore, I believe, as do many who have critiqued this legislation, that it is founded on weak principles which will lead to weak application of the law if passed.

Let me turn to the amendments in Group No. 1 now before the House. I have no objection to the first and second amendments put forward by the Minister of Health, which are technical in nature. I would like to speak in favour of Motion No. 4 brought forward by my colleague from Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, which seeks to remove from the bill the language in clause 2, paragraph (e), which states:

persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status;--

I object to the inclusion of this provision, and not because I support unjust discrimination because indeed I do not, but I do believe that we discriminate, if that word is properly defined, to make choices. We choose to give preferential options in legislation every day in this place to advance the social good. That we might call just discrimination, discrimination in favour of a social good. The social good in whose favour I think we ought to discriminate is the social good of the human family.

I submit that the focus of this legislation ought not to be the putative rights, the rights claims, of adults who seek to benefit from certain reproductive technologies, but rather the human beings, the children, who will be created by these technologies. It is their rights and their best interests which ought principally to govern this legislation, not the whims of individuals already seeking to use this reproductive technology.

In this respect I believe it is a self-evident and essentially irrefutable fact of human history, sociology and anthropology that the human family with a mother and a father is, generally speaking, the best environment in which to raise children, children with a sound and loving environment. That of course can be provided in non-traditional families, but the evidence is overwhelming that children benefit most, on average, in a family that includes a mother and a father. I believe that the focus of the bill ought to be to give that kind of environment to the children whose lives are in part created through reproductive technology. I will vote in favour of Motion No. 4.

Motion No. 5 put forward by my hon. colleague from Mississauga South is critically important, because it seeks to clarify that chimera may include animal-human hybrids. The definition of chimera in clause 3 now states “an embryo that consists of cells of more than one embryo, foetus or human being”, but this motion would amend that to include “a non-human embryo into which any cell of a human embryo, human foetus or human being has been introduced”. We know that there are researchers who seek to explore animal-human hybrids, and this of course has very troublesome ethical, moral and physiological implications, which I think the bill clearly should prohibit and which Motion No. 5 seeks to do.

Motion No. 7 clarifies the definition of a donor and makes it clear that ownership of an embryo cannot be transferred away from its human parents. This, I think, is the intent of the bill. The motion is a positive way to clarify its intent.

Motion No. 9 seeks to extend protection to polyspermic embryos, about which the bill as currently worded is mute. Essentially, polyspermic embryos are deformed embryos. I would hope that this Parliament has learned the lessons of the history of eugenics in the 20th century and understands that imperfect or flawed human lives deserve statutory protection, which is what Motion No. 9 seeks to do.

My time is coming to a close, so I will simply say that I look forward to speaking to other groups of amendments. I hope the government will take serious consideration of the thoughtful amendments that colleagues have brought forward.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to speak to Bill C-13 at report stage. This is a critically important bill. We deal with a lot of important issues here but this bill talks about life itself, the definition of how life can be created and how it is handled after it is created. A wide range of issues need to be addressed.

In addressing the amendments in group one, I will aim my comments mostly at the issues of donors and the control of them. Some of the amendments deal with that.

The bill is really about improving human life. We strongly support that and the research to that end, but it has to be done keeping in mind the dignity and value of human life. The Canadian Alliance as the official opposition will work to protect that dignity and value. What more important thing could we possibly address ourselves to?

It is about the best interests of children born from assisted reproductive technologies. I will address some of my comments to that. It also addresses access by prospective parents, that they should have access to the best technology available, but done ethically and with the value of human life front and centre.

When we get into the issue of donors, it really becomes complex. There is no limit on how many times a person can donate to reproductive technologies. A donor could make multiple donations and could have dozens or even hundreds of genetically related children. This is all right if everybody is healthy and everything goes well, but the donor may be unhealthy and it may not be detected at the time but it may show up later. There needs to be some limitation on how many times one person can be involved in donating.

The Standing Committee on Health made a recommendation both on the number of donations from the same donor and on the number of babies born through that same donor. The government must put something in the bill to require those limits.

As we look at the rights of a child to know his or her heritage, let us think about the number of people who have been adopted. I have had an experience in this. An adopted person needed to know the medical history of the biological parents because of some medical problems that had arisen. Not only is it important for peace of mind but it is important medically. Doctors sometimes ask about a family's medical history so they know what to look for. When a person does not have that information it creates a problem. In the instance with which I am familiar, the person was able to find out this information. It was of great help to the person to know what the history was. There were some things that were immediately disregarded and there were other factors that could have an impact. It was important to know that information.

What this bill means to do is to stop that. In the preamble the bill states that the health and well-being of children born through the application of these technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use. Certainly that statement needs to be made. We agree with this but the government does not. The bill protects donors by giving them complete anonymity but does not protect children who need to know their heritage. That needs to be addressed and it has not been.

The agency that is going to be established to deal with the records will have all of this information. The information has to be given but it will not be forthcoming. At present it will not be given out.

I firmly believe that children have the right to know what their heritage is and in some instances it is critically necessary for medical reasons. That is why anonymous donors of sperm or ovum should not be allowed. It is critical that the records be complete so that down the road, if questions arise about health issues, they can be answered. They cannot be answered if anonymous donors are allowed.

Reproduction should take place within the context of a human relationship and should not be divorced from that. That is something we have to be very careful of. If we remove all of the human aspect to this, then where are we? If we do not know who the donors are and cannot go back on that in years to come, it takes out all of the relationship that is built around the creation of life. It can remove a whole group of people from those who know their lineage. It creates further problems in society.

The bill goes directly contrary to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health which said that it believes that only donors who consent to have identifying information released to offspring should be accepted. It went on to state:

We feel that, where there is a conflict between the privacy rights of a donor and the rights of a resulting child to know its heritage, the rights of the child should prevail. We need a system of responsible donation and greater public awareness. We want to end the current system of anonymous donation.

That recommendation came from the Standing Committee on Health. However as in many instances, committees meet, bring forward expert witnesses from all aspects of the issue and when recommendations are put forward, they are ignored by the government.

I feel very strongly that we need that amendment in, that a child created has the option of knowing his or her history and lineage.

We get back to the point about adopted children who want to discover what their origins are but are unable to do so. I have a lot of sympathy for those people. As I have stated, someone very close to me was able to find the biological parents and put at ease some of the health issues.

A whole section of society will be unable to do that. They will be a separate class of people, those whose history starts from the day they are born. They will not be able to go back any further than that to find out where they came from. I have English, French and Scottish heritage. Those people will be unable to do that.

We also think that a donor who is not anonymous is a responsible donor. There would be certain responsibilities that went along with becoming a donor. If people had to be willing to be identified, they would be donating for the right reasons. That is so important to the whole moral aspect of what is being proposed here.

Unfortunately, one of the driving forces for anonymous donations is money. If we factor that into this whole system then it will really become bizarre. If it becomes a commercial enterprise in that payment can be received for however many fertilized eggs are developed, that opens a whole new can of worms.

We certainly support some of the amendments in this group. We will not be supporting Motion No. 11, but we will support other ones. It is important that this debate take place and that Canadians realize there that much needs to be done to the bill before it becomes law.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the merits of Bill C-13 on human reproductive technology.

It is hard to believe that the government has taken so long to even begin addressing this important issue. It was 10 years ago that the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies reported. Since that time the government, at best, has paid lip service to this issue. In the meantime technology has been changing rapidly and there has been no legislation to regulate the industry. Indeed, the government has shirked its duty and once again has relied on outside agencies to set quasi regulations rather than be proactive and set legislation in place. We are very glad we are at this point in the debate in the House today.

I am proud to say that some of the strongest voices on this important issue come from my own riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan. Shirley Pratten and her daughter Olivia have appeared before several standing committee meetings. They have expressed their opinions in a clear and concise manner and have added immeasurably to the debate. On behalf of all members I want to thank them for their insight and commitment to this important issue.

Simply put, the bill is about improving human health. As a member of the Canadian Alliance, as a father and a foster parent, I strongly support research that is compatible with the promotion of dignity and the value of human life. I would like to speak to some of the amendments that are before us today.

The preamble sets the tone for the remainder of the bill. In turn, I believe that the preamble should state unequivocally that the bill refers to the promotion and the protection of human life. I find it ironic that while Bill C-13 deals with the creation of human life, the preamble does not even reflect this, so I urge the House to adopt that amendment.

I would urge also that the House adopt the proposed subclause (h) in clause 2 which would recognize that persons with disabilities can lead full and satisfying lives and enrich the lives of those around them. We must simply ensure that reproductive technologies are not to be used as a tool for eugenics. The screening of in vitro fertilization embryos for the purpose of eliminating those cells that may contain some disease or disability simply is not acceptable. It sends a terrible message to the disabled community of Canada. It is very important to recognize that disabled people are not lesser persons than the rest of us. We need to see that the House clearly states this in the legislation.

I have had the pleasure of being a foster parent to over 145 children and the adoptive parent to three. All of these children have added much to our family. I firmly believe that families are the cornerstone of our society and that adoption is an alternative means of building families, one with many benefits for all involved and one that should be recognized in the bill.

I note that in clause 3 there is only recognition for one donor. Let us remember that there are two parents for each embryo. This clause should be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 2 with the recognition of each biological parent of the embryo. Any decision making with respect to in vitro embryos should not rest with only one donor.

I also strongly support the proposed amendment to clause 5 which calls for the deletion of lines 33 and 34 on page 4. The existing clause would allow for the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures. Simply put however, we oppose the creation of embryos for research purposes. Life should not be created in order for it to be destroyed.

One of the more important issues that the bill has denied concerns the identity of donors. In turn, I support the amendment to clause 18 on page 12 that calls for the recognition of the donors' identities.

We are all unique individuals, yet we are all a product of our biological parents. It is important to allow children born through donor eggs or sperm to know the identity of their biological parents. Under the existing draft of Bill C-13, this is prohibited. Donor offspring and many of their parents want to end the secrecy that has shrouded donor anonymity and currently denies children the knowledge of an important chapter of their lives.

Liberals have made the claim that they want to put the interest of children first, but in this case they have allowed the desires of some parents to trump the needs and interests of all the children conceived through reproductive technology. In reality, the government has attached a greater weight to the privacy rights of donors than to the access to information rights of donor offspring. In doing so, I believe that the government has this backward.

Listen to some of the statements that Olivia Pratten made to the health committee when she appeared before it on October 25, 2001, and told committee members what it felt like to be conceived through an anonymous donation. She said:

I have never had access to any of my medical or genealogical histories. I don't even know if I have any half-brothers or half-sisters. I'm quite doubtful my doctor ever maintained proper records, and even if he did, it's unlikely they still exist...With the fact that I don't have my medical information, and it's very unlikely I ever will, I almost feel like I was created in a back alley. It's like I wasn't good enough or wasn't worth keeping the records for...an anonymous system violates our human rights, as stated in article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to “undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity.

Canada, incidentally, ratified this convention in 1991.

She went on to state:

As for myself, born of an anonymous system, I'm completely in the dark about my donor. I have no possible way to find him or find any information about him... I'm always left pondering, trying to put the pieces together of who this man was and how this relates to who I am today. If I could somehow know who he was, it would not alter the essence of who I am. I know that already, but it would alter the way that I look at myself.

I would like to see a system where donors cannot donate unless they are willing to be identified if the child requests this when he or she comes of age at 18. The donor enters the program knowing this before donating. After all, he entered into this voluntarily; as offspring, we never asked to be put into this situation.

Those are elegant words from Olivia Pratten.

I believe that Olivia has provided a great deal of wisdom in those and the other statements she made to the standing committee and we should certainly heed them.

The very last issue that I wish to make comment on today refers to clause 70 and the proposed amendment. This amendment calls for a three year prohibition on experiments with human embryos, corresponding with the first scheduled review of the bill. Embryonic stem cell research is ethically controversial and it divides Canadians.

I have received hundreds of e-mails and petitions from concerned Canadians stating their opinion on this particular matter. Today during petitions we heard from four different members all tabling Canadians' wishes for a focus on adult stem cell rather than embryonic stem cell research. Let us remember that embryonic stem cell research inevitably results in the death of an embryo, an early human life. For many Canadians, this violates the ethical commitment to respect human dignity, integrity and life itself. It also constitutes an objectification of human life, where life becomes a tool which can be manipulated and destroyed for other, even ethical, ends.

I have come to learn that adult stem cells are easily accessible, are not subject to immune rejection and are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions.

I believe that the government has been far too long in addressing this issue. I am pleased to see it come forward, however, I must urge all members that if we are going to address this issue, let us be certain that at this time we get it right. The current draft of Bill C-13 does not have it right in many respects and it requires change. Now is the time to correct it. I hope members in the House will have the intestinal fortitude to do it.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments which include the title. I am not sure whether someone has talked about the title and what happened to the original title, but the original title of the bill was “an act respecting assisted human reproduction”.

Someone might ask why it is important that the title has been changed. What happened was that the committee, without the approval of anyone it seems, changed the title to assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. It seems to me that part of the purpose for that was to put the emphasis more on technology and to take the discussion and the debate away from what the bill really is about, which is human reproduction. I think that is an important change just in the tone of the debate.

When we look at the title of the bill and what is in the bill we see that the bill's original title, “an act respecting assisted human reproduction”, was appropriate. I think it should be returned to that. That proposal was made but it may be difficult to get that changed now.

In looking at the bill we see that the bill is about improving human health. The Canadian Alliance strongly supports research to this end, obviously. Who does not? However it has to be compatible with the dignity and value of human life. What we are talking about here is human life and human reproduction.

The Canadian Alliance will strive to protect the dignity and value of human life. We have seen in Parliament over the past nine years that there have been certain members of Parliament from all parties who have focused on protecting the dignity and the value of human life. However, as a political party, certainly the Canadian Alliance has focused on that more so than any other political party. That is important to our members.

The bill is important not only for Canadian Alliance members of Parliament but for Canadians generally. I am pleased to see members from other political parties who understand that and to hear them speak out very strongly on that throughout the debate at second reading and now at report stage. I am sure it will be carried through to third reading.

If we look at the essence of the bill it is about the best interests of the children born of assisted reproductive technologies.

The Canadian Alliance will continue to work hard, as our critics have, as others who have had input into the legislation have and as our former leader, Preston Manning, did as he worked through committee, over the months and months that led up to this bill, taking care of every detail. The Canadian Alliance will continue to work to protect the children born of assisted reproductive technologies. To me that is the essence of the bill. I do not think the title properly reflects that.

The bill is also about the prospective parents and the best assisted reproductive technologies that science can ethically offer. The Canadian Alliance will work to preserve that access to prospective parents which is also important.

When it comes to dealing with this issue, it will be extremely important, and I think most Canadians would agree, that all MPs from all parties have a free vote on the bill at all stages.

The bill was brought forth by the government but it is too important a bill to be dealt with through party whips. The essence of the bill deals with human life and reproduction. It is about protecting the children born of reproductive technologies or assisted by reproductive technologies, and it is about the parents of these children. It is the type of issue that should be dealt with and settled entirely by each member of Parliament voting to represent their constituents on the issue.

I know that many members of Parliament from the governing party and the official opposition have done a lot of work with their constituents on this issue. They have had a lot of debate on the issue, more debate than we probably have had on most of the legislation that has passed through the House. They have had that debate and have heard from their constituents. There is obviously no other appropriate way to deal with this other than to have a free vote. I cannot stress that too much. It may sound like I am belabouring the point but it is a point that has to be made clearly. If we see a whipped vote, then I think each MP who accepts that should have to answer to his or her constituents on it because it is that important.

When we look at the legislation we see that dealing with the research of human embryos is a key part of the legislation which is what makes it so important. Clause 40 says that human embryos can be harvested if the new agency satisfies itself that it is necessary for the purpose of proposed research. However this discretionary power must be reduced by defining in the bill what constitutes necessary. I think that is something that must happen. I know we are not yet speaking to the group that deals with clause 40 but when looking at the title this certainly is a connection that should be made. It must not be left to regulations made by the agency.

We have seen too much of that in legislation where, instead of dealing with the hard issues in legislation, the government leaves the issues out of the legislation and then deals with the sensitive issues through regulations so that it is not open to public debate nearly as much. I do not think that is an appropriate way to handle issues like this. I think Canadians are looking for clear definitions on words like necessary when looking at the issue of research involving human embryos.

The purpose of research on human embryos is not specified in the bill. The purpose must be restricted to creating medical therapies that will assist in healing the human body. It is not specified in the bill what the purpose of research on human embryos really means and it certainly should be.

A modification in the phrase from the majority standing committee report should be placed in clause 40 of the bill. It would read “unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that no other category of biological material could be used from which to derive healing human therapies”. This is an important amendment and one which I hope would be supported by all members in the House.

I see my time is up. I am looking forward to speaking to the other groups of amendments as they come before the House, as well as to third reading of the bill. To me this is clearly the most important legislation that the House has dealt with and will deal with for some time.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague who just rose to address the bill.

The Canadian Alliance presented something in the order of 100 amendments that we felt would make this a better bill and more adequately suit the needs of society that are being requested and looked at here. If my count is right, I think something like three or four of our amendments were accepted in a very minor way, which is a great tragedy because there was a tremendous amount of research, reason and consultation with our constituents on those amendments. The amendments, a couple of which I will refer to, would not have taken away the possibilities that are available to us as human beings in this particular bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I think it is important for the House to know that the reason for the amendments not being accepted was that the committee members of the health committee were not permitted to make them. That is no reflection on the quality of the amendments. The member should be aware that the Speaker made that very clear when he addressed the House this morning on these motions. The member should withdraw his remarks.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Thank you for the reminder. The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the interjection. I will not be withdrawing the remarks and I am glad the hon. member opposite did reflect on the quality of our amendments.

In my view and in the view of constituents who contacted me about this particular bill Canadians, being trusting, rightly or wrongly of our process here, feel that things are moving along in a proper fashion with the bill. But of Canadians who raised and brought their concerns forward, their concerns could have been addressed in a way that would not have been harmful or destructive to the issues that are being presented.

I will give an example. One of the fundamental aspects of the bill is that it presents Canadians with a moral dilemma, do we allow life to be created for the purpose of destroying it, for the purpose of research or of coming up with some kind of product, albeit a healing product, or something else? Do we allow life to be created for the purpose of then destroying it?

That is an ethical and moral dilemma which confronts, bothers and troubles many Canadians. It could have been avoided simply by saying that research and development in this area would be focused on non-embryonic cells. Twenty years of animal cell research on embryonic cells shows that there is an astonishing lack of possibility and progress in terms of developing healing properties through embryonic cells. Non-embryonic cells are absolutely available. They are less prone to requiring a lifetime of immune rejection therapy that would be required if embryonic cells were used. They are more able to be controlled for a certain purpose whether they are directed toward diabetes related issues, Parkinson's or whatever it may be. There is greater control and possibility of healing properties through non-embryonic cells.

There are more problems just on the physiological side by using embryonic cells and by the government insisting that embryonic cell research can go ahead in this way. It plunges millions of Canadians into this moral dilemma. It could all have been avoided if the government had said it would focus on non-embryonic cell research.

The question of donors is something that is a concern to many Canadians. Witness after witness came forward from all over the country saying that the issue of donors should be addressed. We proposed an amendment that would have allowed children born through donor eggs or sperm to know the identity of the biological parents and the bill prohibits that. There are a couple of concerns about that.

We know for instance that criminals, in certain prisons, even in the United States, are able to donate into that particular donor bank. That, literally, would allow the possibility that somebody could be receiving the donation from, let us say a criminal or convict in a jail cell in Mississippi. I am not saying anything pejorative about where the jail cell is but I am suggesting that at the very least recipients should have the opportunity to know that and then make a judgment on whether they should be the recipient of such a donation from such an individual. At the very least, leave that up to the recipient to decide.

Not only that. As we well know genetic health information is important for health issues that could arise later on in life. There is more than compelling evidence to show that it is important that we have access to our own genetic code for the purpose of confronting, and hopefully overcoming, future health difficulties.

The government has refused to allow that to happen. Donor offspring and many parents want to end the secrecy that shrouds this donor anonymity and denies children an important chapter of their lives. The Liberals claim to want to put the interest of children first. I will not attack that claim at face value; I want to accept it at face value. However, if that is true then in this case one would think that the desires of some parents should be acknowledged related to the needs and interests of children. The government is attaching a higher weight to the privacy rights of the donors than to the access of information rights of donor offspring. Frankly, that is all backward.

These are just two areas of concern that we heard from people across the country that could have been addressed without serious detriment to the bill. In fact our society would have benefited, first from the avoidance of the excruciating moral dilemma which I have addressed, and from having access to information that could be not just valuable but possibly lifesaving later on in life.

These are two examples where the government has failed the people of Canada, which could have been addressed. We hope that at sometime in the future, upon reflection, the government would look to these areas brought forward by Canadians and bring these changes into being.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has come to my attention by reviewing all of the documentation that one of the motions which I had submitted for report stage purposes has been inadvertently left out and replaced by another. It has to do with the definition of chimera, I believe it is report stage Motion No. 5.

I understand, since the deadline for submitting the report stage motions was 6 p.m. yesterday, that the officials and their support staff were here until 6 a.m. to try to put this together. I understand how this can happen and I suspect that there are some other items.

I also note that with the groupings that we were advised of this morning, that in Group No. 2 I have 10 minutes to speak to 14 motions. I could not even read them in 10 minutes. I believe that if I had an opportunity to talk to the legislative counsel and to the Speaker that there could be some accommodation at least for splitting a group into subgroups so that at least a minute or two could be spent on each motion.

Our staff is not available because they have gone home to sleep. We need to sort this matter out because we have some other contradictions or issues, and I know members are concerned about what happened to their motions, We are trying to get it settled.

I wonder if the House would agree to defer the further consideration of Bill C-13 report stage motions in Group No. 1 until these questions could be asked of the appropriate staff or officials to get clarification so that members will know what they are talking about.

I cannot address 14 of my report stage motions, which I spent a lot of time during the Christmas break developing, in only 10 minutes. I think the grouping is unfair and in fact will constitute a breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament to do my job.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order because I think it is very valid.

As of 10:30 this morning I had an opportunity to look at the different groupings and how they were put together. When we look at some of the subject matter in Group No. 2 particularly, it is understandable that my hon. colleague would be upset because of the 14 amendments that he put forward. I know it was difficult for him to speak during committee as we went through this.

The dynamics and the differences in Group No. 2 are also quite significant. To give 10 minutes to speak to that wide a variety of subject matter in Group No. 2, I would suggest is a breach.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I listened attentively to both presentations and I will take the matter under advisement. It will be reviewed by the Speaker as well as by the clerks. In my opinion, if the member has 14 amendments that he wants to speak about then 10 minutes is definitely not enough time. However, let us wait and see what the Speaker has to say about it.