Debates of Jan. 28th, 2003

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I do understand the concern that this child would know nothing of his or her medical history. However, the bill in fact does pay attention to that issue and does have clear guidelines on this. The bill as it stands proposes to ensure that the donors give solid medical history. Without agreeing to do that their donations would not be accepted. That is the first piece.

The second piece is that the solid medical history would not only be given at the time of the donation--genetic history, medical history, past history, social history et cetera--but it would also be followed up by some manner that would be devised later on so that as time goes on over the donor's lifespan, if new diseases or new genetic issues come up, that would also be known and relayed to the child or to the family whose child is born of that donation. Since there would be no payment associated with donation any more, it would ensure that the actual identity of the donor would not be known.

People would know that the person who donated, person x , had such a history and had such a problem, and that they should be careful about that in their own life and in their own medical history. However it would not be known that the person's name was Mr. or Mrs. Jones or whatever.

First, contacting the biological donor later on would have to be dealt with at the provincial level. Second, when a donor donates sperm or an egg when they are young, they may not believe that they would have someone come to them 25 years later to claim parentage, or for that matter, five people come later on in their lives to claim parentage.

This is a way of protecting the rights of all, especially and most important the right of children to know their own history and to be safeguarded in terms of how they live their lives and what treatment they need, and how they need to be assured that whatever genetic problems would not come back to haunt them. This finds that clear ethical balance that we have been seeking in the bill. I would like to speak strongly against those who would want to move further than that.

I also want to speak in support of Motion No. 72 which seeks to remove the whole paragraph that deals with who can and who cannot sit on the board or the agency. I understand the concern of many people that we do not want conflict of interest issues raised by people who sit on the board. But by removing these two sections, we still have that conflict of interest guideline in the very next clause.

This is too prescriptive. I know the committee debated this at great length, but when the committee put forward its amendment that stands in the bill right now, that amendment was so prescriptive and restrictive. I will give an example. Let us imagine a person who is well known in her community. She is well known for her good work and for her ethics. She is a member of the church. She has shown wisdom and kindness in the past. She has certain knowledge and is asked to sit on the board. However it turns out that her husband happens to work for a medical company. Medical companies would be exempt although the medical company her husband works for does not necessarily create any equipment to be used in these particular technologies, but other medical and pharmaceutical companies do. That person could not then sit on the board because of that indirect relationship.

We would be removing anybody at all who was in any way close to a person who was working in a profession that may or may not be involved in reproductive technologies but in a generic profession. Certainly, one of the problems is that we would leave ourselves with a board of people who have absolutely no expertise on this issue whatsoever. It is clear that we cannot do that. This is a very important technology. It is state of the art. It is moving constantly. There is new research coming about. We need people who have some understanding of the work, but who are not directly linked to having a licence or who own a facility, and would benefit fiscally from making decisions on the board.

We can do that with the amendments that were brought forward by the minister, by deleting certain sections but leaving very clear the sections which say that people who stand to gain financially or who are involved with doing reproductive technologies at that time should not sit on the agency. We do need people who are ethicists. We need people who are physicians. We need nurses. We need people who know somethings about these things on the full board. We need a broad spectrum of people. At this rate, we are limiting the people who can sit on the board to fur traders, I think, to people who have nothing whatsoever to do with pharmacology, medicine or science. This is a real problem.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

What's wrong with fur traders?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

This has nothing to do with fur traders. It is that they are the only people I know of off the top of my head who have nothing to do with knowledge about medicine, or reproductive technologies, as it is stated in the old bill. I am just saying that we cannot do that. We cannot remove expertise from a board of people that is set up to clearly set the guidelines that in the bill we want them to set. I wanted to speak strongly for the amendments which would ensure that we have this balance of people but that we have conflict of interest guidelines without so totally restricting most of the Canadian population.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-13 and these particular groupings of amendments.

I do think, though, that it is necessary to at least tell the House why I have a set of principles that I like to apply to a bill like this to try to help me get my head around it and get a principled approach to what is a very difficult subject, one we are all struggling with. The ethical questions raised by accelerating knowledge in this area are enormous. Just because we are now able to do something in reproductive technology does not necessarily mean we should do it. Clearly there are ethical limits to our activities, and our answers to these ethical questions help to define our society. They expose our deepest beliefs about our world, our beliefs about our own existence and our beliefs about the value of human life.

That is the scope of the types of issues here before us. I would like to talk about the criteria I mentioned earlier. The first is that we have to have a profound sense of compassion, a compassion for those not yet born and for others involved in the reproductive process. This will require a careful balancing of the interests of the various stakeholders.

The second of these criteria is clearly the particular interest of children, simply because the bill deals throughout with pre-born children. Almost every clause addresses embryos and unborn children in various progressive stages of development. There are other interests to be considered, but the interests of children are an important part of and an important criteria in this debate.

The third is an acknowledgement of the dignity of human life as opposed to other forms of life. Animal and vegetable life are wonderful, beautiful, valuable and necessary forms of life, but human life shares something different. Human life is more. It is distinct. It is different. That is why we have such a problem with human and animal cloning or combinations thereof or genetic manipulation. Human life is special.

Because I am a Christian I believe that life is a gift from God. As Václav Havel told the House during his memorable address several years ago, “Government may be an invention of man, and a necessary one, but humanity is an invention of God”. It is special. It is something different. It follows, therefore, that at all stages human life must be treated with special dignity. To be human is to be noble, something of honour, something valuable. We are not worthy of this dignity because of something we can do; we are valuable because of what we are. We are humans. All humans, at whatever stage, are important. Humanity is and of itself a priceless identity and a valuable thing.

It follows, therefore, that we have to treat the dignity of the human life in the human body, which is what we are dealing with here today. Human life, all of it, and all parts of the body have to be given special dignity and special care, which is why not just today's debate on reproductive technology but the debate on health care in general have such important issues for Canadians. They deal with humans. They deal with people. The human body is important.

The next of the criteria is the important checks and balances in our society. In our own Constitution, for example, the judiciary acts as a check and balance on the power of the legislature. In the same way, wise Canadian legislators have historically allowed the private and public sectors in Canada to balance each other, acting to ensure that the powers of both the state and the marketplace are restrained for the sake of public interest. I would like to repeat that. We want to make sure that the marketplace is respected but that it is restrained for the sake of public interest.

I would like to explain that briefly and get to these motions. We can all agree, for example, that commercial trafficking in human life is abhorrent. One only has to look at the practices of history, to the slave trade, to the selling and buying of human bodies, which is repelling to all of us. To this day we find that repugnant. By extension, I would argue that the purchase and sale of human sperm, eggs, zygotes, embryos and so on is something that we cannot leave solely to the impersonal forces of the marketplace. We have an obligation as wise legislators to put our stamp on this, to ask how far we can go. What are the limits? This is not just a free trade zone on human bodies and parts of bodies. We need some regulation. We need to control it. We need to be wise. The laws of supply and demand do not take into account ethical considerations of dignity, of compassion, of human hurt and so on. We need to protect humans from the untrammelled forces of the marketplace.

On the other hand, before I get to these amendments, let me say that the state, including our own state of Canada and the provinces, does not have a perfect track record on protecting humans. The destructive forces that were in place in the early part of the last century are not something we are proud of. There was genetic manipulation and genetic decisions were made, both on this continent and others, which we look back on and condemn and rightfully so.

The answer in all of this, as we consider these amendments, is balance. How do we take the criteria I mentioned earlier and apply them to clauses of this bill, on some of the most important issues of reproductive technology, which touch all of us and will touch us even more in the years to come?

On the first grouping, for example, in Motion No. 52 we are talking about surrogate motherhood or surrogate parenting. We believe that this again is a profound arrangement, a profound departure from what we used to consider normal reproductive behaviour. Men and women got married and had kids. That was what was possible and what was done. It was a sad case when someone could not have children, but there was not much they could do about it. Those were the old days. Now of course we know that much can be done. Much technology can be brought to bear. Childless couples will go to any lengths to have a child of their own because it means so much to them. In one sense they have a unique understanding of how valuable life is, because they are not able to have children of their own in a normal, natural way.

On Motion No. 52, we suggest that counselling for surrogacy, which is part of the bill, not be just an ad hoc, take it or leave it part of the bill, but that it be mandatory. Surrogacy is a huge step, both for the husband and for the wife who may be thinking of that sort of an arrangement, and also for the expectant mother. It brings huge, tremendous pressures to bear on relationships, on the long term stability of those relationships, on what it is going to mean to them and how they are going to handle it. This is not something where we can step up to a window, slap down $10,000 and think that the problems are solved. In many ways, the problems are just beginning.

We think that counselling for surrogacy should be mandatory. It is not something that is hit and miss. This is a big step. This is not a marketplace issue. This is not something that people can do only if they can afford it. This is something to which we as legislators have to bring a balance. The marketplace alone is not enough. We want to ensure that the best interests of the child are maintained and enhanced. One of the ways we can do that is to oppose the idea that a person can take it or leave it. We think that counselling should be mandatory. It is in the best long term interests of everyone.

Motion No. 55 talks about standardized forms and information disclosure on the use and disposal of human reproductive material. Using all the reasons I listed earlier in my criteria, if we just think for a moment, let us ask ourselves, is human life important, is it special, do we need special protection, do we want to make sure it is handled with care? Of course, and that means we want to make sure that it is not cavalier, that there are not unregistered clinics, that there are not embryos created and then tossed aside at the whim of someone in an agency somewhere. We want to make sure it is done properly. This means that we need standardized forms and procedures. We need to make sure that human life, at whatever stage, is treated with dignity. In other words, fertility clinics, which are a growing marketplace business in the country, should have standardized forms. They should have to make certain information available to users of those clinics. We want to make sure that there is proper record keeping and that proper forms are kept. This is an easy amendment to support.

Motion No. 71 is a more technical one on the makeup of the committee. Should it be fifty-fifty women and men or should it just be the most qualified? Of course we want the most qualified people to look after this. Finally, we want to make sure the people who are involved in administering these types of important life-giving and life-taking decisions do not have a conflict of interest.

We want to make sure that the marketplace alone does not drive this. One of the ways to do that is to make sure that conflict of interest guidelines are strengthened. For example, we want to make sure that people who are in charge of reproductive tissue or reproductive clinics do not also have a foot in the door on the regulations. We want to make sure that respect is given to all people.

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

Madam Speaker, I will comment on one amendment in particular, but before that, I would like to join my colleagues who have congratulated the Standing Committee on Health for the work it has done. It was given a particularly complex and difficult task. When one is dealing with a technical and scientific subject such as this, in the context of morals, it is difficult to prevent discussions from becoming very complex and emotionally charged. I would like to congratulate the members of the committee for their work.

I had an opportunity to speak to this bill during the last session, when it was known as Bill C-56. My comments today are essentially the same as they were then. I will keep them very broad, and then come back to amendment number 61, which is a new amendment.

I had expressed the hope, like some colleagues opposite, and from this side of the House, that the bill would establish a certain balance when it comes to legislating or developing a legislative framework in a very complex field, assisted reproduction, without necessarily closing every door. I had expressed some concern that, while wanting to do the right thing, I hoped that the bill was not too restrictive and that it did not prohibit everything.

We are in a situation where science and knowledge about genomes, particularly the human genome, may some day allow us to improve the situation. We may not be able to do so right now, but as a race, we will certainly try to do so. For example, we should not forgo the possibility of eliminating one of the 4,000 existing genetic diseases if it requires genetic treatment.

This was the type of concern I voiced at the time. I also recognized that since the legislation was to be reviewed periodically, we would be able to make adjustments based on scientific progress.

What I would like to comment on now is amendment number 61, moved by the member for Mississauga South. He is proposing that Bill C-13 be amended so as to add a provision that would add that, and I quote:

The Official Languages Act applies to the Agency.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I currently chair the committee, and it is as Chair that I would like to address this issue. This is an amendment that I hope will be approved by all of the members of the House, with the exception, perhaps, of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. He seems to systematically attack anything that has to do with official languages. I think it is important to comment on this amendment.

First, I think it is important to indicate the legislator's intent during debates on amendments to bills. There have been times when I have had to re-read past debates to find out the legislator's intent because it was not clear in the legislation. I think it should be said loud and clear that the legislator's intent, if I have understood it correctly, is to ensure that the agency be considered a federal institution within the meaning of the Official Languages Act. This agency would be subject ipso facto to the Official Languages Act, and everything that entails.

I would like this noted so that in years to come, if there is disagreement or uncertainty, Hansard can be consulted and the intent known.

I talked to one of the members on the committee, the member for Saint-Lambert , who also moved an amendment, Motion No. 12. It was rejected by the committee members. I preferred what she proposed because it was explicit. She proposed that the agency be considered a federal institution within the meaning of the Official Languages Act.

I think this is important. Some may think it is not necessary. I would like to take a moment to examine this because I hold the opposite view. I think it is necessary.

Over the past few years we have seen restructuring in the institution, in the federal body, with the result that some of the Government of Canada's duties are delegated to other levels of government, namely the provinces and in some cases, the municipalities.

In Ontario we saw a classic example where the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament had passed legislation handing over the administration of contraventions to provincial organizations and institutions. The Province of Ontario in turn handed it over to the municipalities.

There was a case where a legal decision was rendered by Judge Blais, where the Government of Canada had not complied with the Official Languages Act because we had delegated too many of our responsibilities in terms of respecting the Act. The Department of Justice is currently putting this right. In fact, it asked for an extension until the spring to do so. We will see that this is put right.

A study was also conducted by Mr. Fontaine, president of the Université de Moncton, entitled the Fontaine Report. The eight members of the task force did an extraordinary job, so good that the government, through the president of the Treasury Board, has now created and implemented a new policy regarding the devolution of responsibilities with regard to the enforcement of the Official Languages Act.

This was to show that there is perhaps a need, in the minds of some people, to state the rights they had already acquired. But I think that, sometimes, being explicit is not a bad thing.

This was the case, during the previous session, in the bill to amend the Immigration Act. At first, there was some reluctance about amending this legislation. The Official Languages Commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee, suggested some amendments that were finally adopted and incorporated into the act. Already, significant progress can be seen with regard to complying with the principle of the linguistic duality of Canada in relation to the Immigration Act and its implementation.

This is another example of the benefit of referring to this principle in bills such as this one. When a new agency is created, it should be subject to the Official Languages Act.

I think that we should not ignore these things, and this is why I wanted to rise and take a few minutes of my hon. colleagues' and the House's time to make this explicit.

I will summarize, if I may. I sincerely hope that the government will agree to Motion No. 61. I certainly intend to vote in favour of this amendment. I urge all my hon. colleagues to do the same because this way, legislators—meaning us, here today in the House—will clearly express their commitment to ensuring that this new agency, which will be created when this bill is passed and receives royal assent, will be considered a federal institution, subject to the Official Languages Act, with all the associated obligations, when it is called upon to serve the Canadian public by fulfilling the functions and responsibilities assigned it by the Parliament of Canada.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-13 and the amendments in Group No. 4.

There is no question that the unfolding events in reproductive technologies and some of the problems they pose are moving ahead at an alarming rate. We have seen in some of the recent newscasts that groups, cults or sects have claimed to be able to reproduce or to clone people. Such claims will probably increase as time goes on. As the technology spreads and becomes more understandable to different groups of individuals outside the medical world, there will be all kinds of violations.

I commend the committee that crafted Bill C-13 for recognizing there is a grave danger. The opening words of the bill's summary are as follows:

This enactment prohibits assisted reproduction procedures that are considered to be ethically unacceptable.

Those are the words in the bill. There are people outside the House, and maybe some might even sit in here, who might not realize what could happen, that there are people outside this environment who would do things that are ethically unacceptable. There are people who would use reproductive technologies that would not be acceptable in any way, shape or form and they would use people who were reproduced in such a fashion with this technology in an unacceptable way. There are people who would do that. I would suggest that is even happening today.

I commend the crafters of the bill for recognizing this very significant danger. The summary goes on to say:

Other types of assisted reproduction procedures are prohibited unless carried out in accordance with a licence and the regulations,

There is some control. I commend the crafters of the bill for limiting the powers of those who would fall under some sort of licence to carry out some reproductive procedures.

The creation and use of embryos for research purposes is also addressed in the bill and a privacy regime governs the collection, use and disclosure of health reporting information. Given that, we can step on to the next paragraph in the summary of the bill. It talks about the agency that will control all reproductive technology in the country.

Herein lies the importance of the agency. The agency would be granted significant powers. There is no question about it. As stated in the bill, the people who will sit on the board of directors of the agency will be selected through orders in council. That could be a concern in itself. Any time there is a selection of people for an agency that is completed by or falls within the framework of orders in council, it should be subject to some form of scrutiny.

Another agency which may not be very similar but which certainly has the same imprint as to its formulation and as far as the people who sit on the board is the Immigration and Refugee Board. Those appointments are done through orders in council.

Unfortunately, I do not see anywhere in the bill where there is a higher level of scrutiny as to who sits on the board, other than that they are appointed through orders in council. If there is, I would like someone to point it out to me. The scrutiny is through order in council. Even the individuals on the Immigration and Refugee Board are subject to a scrutiny by the immigration committee. There should be a higher level of scrutiny for everyone who sits on that board.

There will be people who will use reproductive technologies in an unacceptable and unethical fashion. There will be people who will use individuals that are reproduced in an unethical manner. We can be assured of that. I think the bill was drafted to counter any abuse that may happen and believe me, there will be abuse. There will be a strong need for enforcement.

In that sense, for those sitting on the board I would like to see further checks and balances. That agency is ultra important. Not only is the board of directors appointed in this fashion, but so is the president of the agency.

Again, where is the oversight as to the philosophical point of view of those two particular people, specifically the president and the chairperson of that board? It is very important. It is one to which Parliament should pay particular attention.

A Liberal member stood in the House and declared that the board of directors, which would also include the chairperson of the board, should be able to involve themselves in a business or maybe even hold a licence. I do not know what her total comments were, but certainly conflict of interest was not an issue for her.

Conflict of interest is a significant factor as to who sits on the board. There will be judgments made by the board. There will be directions to the inspectors to enforce certain aspects of the legislation when it becomes law. We cannot fall to that kind of argument and accept no oversight of the board of directors when it comes to the agency. This is a concern we will watch on this side of the House.

On order in council appointments and conflict of interest, no one should be tied to any business arrangement when it comes to reproductive technology and still have a position of influence as a board member or as the chairman of the board.

There is no question that we along with so many others are breaking new ground with this legislation. There is a need for reporting and in this case it is to the Minister of Health. It would be very astute of the House if that authority were placed on Parliament itself as opposed to a person who may or may not, as it was pointed out, have to report to Parliament about the procedures and the gathering of information by the agency itself.

I see some shortfalls in the legislation as it is written. However, I do agree strongly that those who crafted the bill were very much aware that there will be abusers who will attempt to capitalize not only on the reproductive technology, but also on those individuals who may grow up or come from the reproductive techniques.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very interesting discussion we are having today. I think that parliamentarians are expressing very important opinions. I believe that this debate is important in itself. I want to thank everyone who is taking part.

Now, with regard to Motion No. 72, there is a point that seems to be the subject of some confusion. I will try my best to shed a little light on this issue.

First, the government understands the concerns that led the members of the standing committee to vote in favour of what is now subsection 26(8). However, there is a tendency to stop at subsection 26(8) and to forget about subsection 26(9). I will come back to this.

This is why the government proposed an amendment that was adopted in committee, in order to ensure that members of the board of directors would not be in a conflict of interest.

This is also why we have always insisted on the need for the board of directors and its members to act with transparency and accountability.

However, the amendment proposed in committee by the government, which is now subsection 26(9), places certain requirements on all potential and current members of the board of directors.

A person is not eligible to be a member of the board of directors if they hold a licence or are an applicant for a licence or a director, officer, shareholder or partner of a licensee or applicant for a licence. These requirements are very strict and appropriate.

The members will be examining a certain number of complex and delicate issues, we all agree. Canadians must be certain that the members' work will not be affected by conflicts of interest.

However, subsection 26(8) goes too far when it excludes potential members for reasons that go well beyond real conflicts of interest. I would say that they even risk undermining the important provisions in subsection 26(2), which stipulates that “the membership of the board of directors must reflect a range of backgrounds and disciplines relevant to the Agency's objectives”.

So, the wording of subsection 26(8) remains such that it excludes complete categories of people from certain areas or fields from sitting on the board of directors. It likely excludes doctors, scientists, nurses, counsellors, ethicists, and their spouses, even if they, personally, have nothing to do with assisted reproduction. This provision would undermine the credibility of the board of directors.

The consequences of the clause in question would even be absurd. It stipulates that a person may not have any direct or indirect interest in any business that operates in industries whose products or services are used in the reproductive technologies. This would exclude lawyers, insurance agents, plumbers, electricians, accountants, paper suppliers and so on. These people would be excluded simply because their business is part of an industry that provides products or services for assisted reproduction, even if they personally do not. This restriction would exclude people who have no imaginable conflict of interest with their duties on the board of directors.

Allow me to describe a situation for members of the House and for members of the public who are listening. Imagine if the government wanted to appoint a woman to the board of directors who is not a specialist, who has been active in her area for many years. She has earned respect based on her wisdom, her good judgment, her common sense and her great knowledge. However, there is a problem. Her husband works for a company that produces medical equipment. This company does not make equipment that is used in assisted reproduction, but, obviously, other companies in the same industry do.

The candidate in question would have to be rejected, not because she is not qualified and not because she stands to benefit financially from the agency's activities. She would be rejected because she has an indirect interest in a business that is part of an industry that provides products to in vitro fertilization clinics.

This case clearly illustrates the flaws in clause 26(8). The amendment proposed would guarantee that advisers and other health care professionals in addition to scientists, ethics counsellors and their spouses could sit as directors, as long as they meet the rigorous requirements regarding conflicts of interest, which are set out in clause 26(9).

Their skills would complement those of other directors representing a variety of areas and disciplines, including lay people. This conflict of interest provision is in addition to the rigorous conflict of interest and post-employment code by which all governor in council appointees are already bound.

That is how we can be sure to have the strongest possible board of directors and it is in the interest of all Canadians and anyone who uses fertility clinics.

I hope to have shed light on this section, which seems to have caused a great deal of confusion. Once again, I would like to stress that section 9, which follows section 8, is extremely important under the circumstances.

In terms of Motion No. 52, with regard to professional counselling services, there are few circumstances in Canada where legislation, particularly federal legislation, requires people to obtain psychosocial counselling.

However, the current wording of subsection 14(2) (b) would make it mandatory not only for all donors of gametes or embryos, but also for anyone who uses any type of assisted reproduction techniques to seek professional counselling.

Many in this House are of the opinion that counselling is useful, desirable even, in all situations, but that is not what we are dealing with here. Instead, it is a matter of determining whether it is appropriate to use legislation to force people to seek counselling. I would respectfully submit that this is not appropriate.

I also feel that it would expose the legislation to challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the grounds that the State was trampling on people's freedom. If such a challenge were successful, it might put an end to all obligations to seek counselling services, which would leave no legal obligation in this area.

The amendment proposed by the government is not aimed at perpetuating the status quo. At the present time, there are a variety of approaches to counselling services in the country's clinics. Some provide them, some do not. The amendment in question would impose upon the clinics the legal obligation to make professional counselling services available.

I would like to say a few words on Motion No. 71, which might raise some questions. It deals with the composition of the board of directors of the regulatory agency. Are 50% of the board members of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency required to be women? I do not believe so. I shall try to explain.

What is important is for the most competent people to be appointed to the board of directors and to do a good job. This could mean that at one point the majority of board members could be women, but the situation could change. Let us focus on having members selected for their competency. Let us focus on the choice of competent men and women.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, U.S. Embassy.

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

Madam Speaker, the whole issue of human life, in fact of any life, is intriguing. When I was at university I carried on after high school with the study of biology. I took first year biology in university even though I was a math physics major. I always was intrigued with the idea that chemicals and minerals can come together and somehow by a divine infusion can spring into life, growth and existence.

When we think of human life there is an additional dimension to that life because of our ability to think, to feel, to anticipate and to have a whole range of emotions, to love, hate and everything in between. We have genuine affection for our children and for our parents.

Several weeks ago we had the occasion of realizing that the essence of life was more than just the molecules that form the body when we stood beside the casket of my father who passed away before Christmas. We were suddenly confronted with the reality that what was Dad's body was now no longer Dad because life had now escaped from it.

We are dealing here with a very important and, I would venture to add, sacred subject when we deal with issues of human life.

Over the last number of years, perhaps the last five decades, there have been tremendous changes in how we view human life. As a matter of fact, when I was at university I remember a young man who, unfortunately, as a medical student performed the procedure called abortion. He actually lost his ability to ever get his medical licence because he did that. That was well within my lifetime. I was in my late teens when that happened. My goodness, I cannot believe it but it was about 45 years ago. That is incredible.

At that time the Criminal Code stated very clearly that to end the life of what we now call dispassionately a fetus was a Criminal Code conviction and, if I remember correctly, it would land the practitioner in jail for a minimum of 13 years. It was a very serious thing.

As I said, in the last five decades we have undergone a massive shift in our thinking about human life. It is now almost, to some, a commodity. In this case we are dealing with the issue of improving the probability of parenthood for those who want to be parents but who cannot have children.

I often think too that if our country were a person we could properly designate it as a schizophrenic person, because I find such huge inconsistencies in the way we deal with issues of life.

I took note of the fact, being in the hospital, where on one side there is a neonatal unit in which extraordinary procedures are taken to protect and preserve the life of a newborn who perhaps was born prematurely or with some other life-threatening situation, and the nurses, the doctors and the technology were all geared toward preserving that life. In the bill and with these amendments we are talking about the technologies that are used to create that life in the first place if the normal process does not work for a couple.

However, right across the hall from that same neonatal unit is another unit where we euphemistically speak of terminating the life. We say terminating the pregnancy but it is really terminating the life. To me that is a schizophrenic reaction. On one hand we say that we will do everything possible to preserve a life and then, on the other hand, we have no compunction whatsoever of taking that same human life. That inconsistency is a huge one. I really do not know how people who work in this area can reconcile those two competing points of view.

There is another very important issue that we must address when we deal with this technology, as it is called. Mention has been made of the donors. I venture to guess that a person who has come to be simply by the technological bringing together of certain components by two donors must long for that sense of parentage. We all need to know where we come from.

There is a huge issue involved when we use technology to create human beings by bringing together anonymous donors. That question must be answered in a way that does not produce future conflict. If the legislation provides that the donors, so to speak, I call them the mom and the dad, are to be kept anonymous, then how will that individual so created ever find out their roots?

I believe adults have the right to know the source of their parentage. We must make sure that the donors who are participating in the project now recognize that 18 years down the road, say, they would be required to become known. I believe there is a very strong possibility of that. I think that withholding that information from the person who is born of these technological processes is harmful. We need to give some very careful thought to that.

Another issue that is of great importance is to control the parentage. It used to be that this was done automatically. We are not permitted by law and by convention to marry our brothers, sisters or close relatives. That was a wise decision in terms of a biological approach because of the genetics involved. If we have anonymous donors, then hopefully the young people who are falling in love and seeking to marry would know whether or not they share a genetic parentage. This is something that has to be determined.

How are we going to do that? Will we require all young people, 18 years from now, before they proceed to marriage and have children of their own, to go to an anonymous government registry? We hope it is more efficient than the gun registry. Will they be required to go to a registry to find out their actual genetic parentage and whether or not they will be permitted to marry? That is an important question and one which must be answered when we deal with these issues.

What I have done in the little time that I have had here is raise some questions. I have not offered any answers but I think these are questions that demand an answer. We must be very careful, in proceeding along this line, to know exactly what we are doing so as to preserve the genetic strength of the next generation, otherwise we run risks which are almost beyond comprehension.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be quite a bit of debate on Motions Nos. 71 and 72 proposed by the Minister of Health or her officials.

I think the confusion that arises is based upon long discussions we held at the committee. Some people seem to feel that we made some kind of mistake by putting in the fact that we did not want the board of directors to be peopled by those who might have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. Nothing could be further from the point. We put that in for a specific reason.

I have to go back to the idea of the formation of a board of directors. There are two ways to form a board of directors. The typical way, particularly typical in Ottawa, is to form a board of directors of people who are experts in the field wherein the membership reflects the stakeholders. With such a board of directors, in this particular case, one would have scientists doing this kind of research; one would have physicians who had, at some point or another, been part of fertility clinics; and perhaps nurses who had assisted in those clinics. We would probably have infertile couples or individuals from infertility groups. There are a variety of people who could be called stakeholders and who have a certain degree of expertise.

The Government of Canada has a history of putting together that kind of oversight board. On that kind of board, my experience on such a board suggests that those people are always fighting for the advantage.

In the middle of those experts, the other person who is often nominated to such a board is the ethicist. If there were one or two ethicists among 20 other people with vested interests, how many times would the ethicist's view prevail when other people have a possibility of pecuniary gain if they get their own way at the board table? My feeling is that the ethicists often become, despite their very best efforts and their wonderful training, the apologists for the board decision, which does not reflect the ethical position they presented to the board.

We ran into this problem when we were discussing the make-up of the board of directors but we were lucky enough to have on our committee at that time a man called Preston Manning. Most members will know that I personally, as a Liberal, did not agree with Preston Manning about many issues of government. As a matter of fact, I disagreed with most of his stances at election time. However, in all honesty to my colleagues in the House, I must say that having Preston Manning on the committee was a terrific asset. When we faced the possibility of people seeking pecuniary gain through assisted human reproduction and related research, he came up with the suggestion that we strike a new kind of board of directors, one that is not familiar to Parliament Hill.

When he did that of course all the officials who would defend the status quo around here rose up and said that it would never work. They tried to dissuade us of that. However one official, who shall remain nameless, encouraged us. That was the one official we heard from the Auditor General's department who felt that our idea, or Preston's idea which we adopted, was one sure way of preventing the misuse of the licensing function, the research funding function and the fertility clinics by all the associated professionals who are making a lot of money through those clinics today.

Our first thought was to have a panel of retired judges. They would have the age, the wisdom and sufficient education to understand most of the scientific matters, but the important thing would be that they would have a history of understanding the acceptable mores and ethics that most Canadians could accept. They would have a vision going forward. They would understand how Canada is different from its large southern neighbour. We felt their decisions guiding this agency would be excellent.

Later we broadened that idea. What about retired deans from universities? What about a retired dean of sociology, for example? What about a retired dean of history? What about a retired head of science at a university? The expertise would be around the table but no one who had one cent to gain. That is why we put that clause in. We were challenging the status quo with these boards of directors filled with so-called expertise, but are people driving for their institutions, clinics or points of view to win, diminishing often the input of ethicists.

We wanted people on our board, perhaps a retired professor of ethics, perhaps a retired historian who could see the history of Canada and the understanding Canadians have of themselves, sociology, social work, medicine, but no one who was actively in the field. They would have neither a direct nor an indirect pecuniary interest.

I am asking the House to go with the new idea of a new type of board of directors because the nuances, ethical, religious, scientific, the past, the future, all the things that have to be considered require a very special board of directors and not the typical one that we have been structuring around here. We are asking everyone to take that leap and to create something new because this subject is new. There has never been a board of directors about this subject and we think it takes a particular kind of person or group of people to steer this clearly. I would ask the House to defeat Motion No. 72.

In Motion No. 71 everyone will notice that the preamble and the statement at the beginning of the bill talk about the fact that no matter how one slices it, no matter what wonderful fathers we have present in this chamber or what wonderful children they have produced, a lot of the procedures that are involved with assisted human reproduction affect the bodies of women far more. Some of them are very invasive. Even the bodies of so-called ova donors are affected very seriously.

The biological mother, the ova donor, all these women, who often take a whole bunch of drugs prior to the collection of ova, are very severely affected. That is why we put in the fact that their interests must be protected and, therefore, 50% of the board should be women. It does not seem to me to be too restrictive an idea. After all, even in our political conventions 50% of the delegates from any riding association have to be women.

Surely we think that women can sit on a board of directors for an issue of such magnitude and one that affects them so deeply and not be afraid to put that in the bill. It does not say more than 50%. It does not say 50% have to be men. I do not know how it would work out, but the fact of the matter is women are affected and their viewpoints must be heard at this board table. Therefore, I would also ask the House to defeat Motion No. 71.

This is the kind of issue that leads one to look forward into the future. If this is not dealt with extremely carefully, we put at risk the Canadian gene pool: for example. What kind of a society do we want or the integrity of the human genome? These are huge concepts and to me it takes extremely wise, well educated people who are totally free of any direct or indirect pecuniary interest.

It is a different kind of board we are looking for, half women and half men, and one that is totally divorced from any personal gain of any type as it goes about making its decisions.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motions in Group 4. I commend the member who just spoke for her comments on Motion No. 72. I am certainly willing to consider her comments on Motion No. 71, although it is important to remember that men are also affected by reproductive technology, but she has done that. I appreciate her reminder and recognition of the fact that Preston Manning, who was for some time the leader of the Reform Party, played a key role in helping to craft this legislation.

I do not think there has been anything this exciting in medical research for some time as the whole issue of assisted human reproduction, and from listening to the speakers today we can tell that. There is excitement. There is actually a renewed interest in science on the part of many of our younger people because of the potential. They are already receiving benefits from stem cell research.

There are very few issues surrounded by more concern and controversy than this issue. For this reason it is the responsibility of all of us in the House of Commons to deal carefully and thoughtfully with this important legislation which regulates stem cell research activities and assisted human reproduction. That is what we are doing as we go through these amendments and move on to debate on this issue at third reading stage.

The Group 4 motions deal with a fairly wide range of issues in the legislation. Some of these have been discussed already, and I have heard some excellent debate on these issues. When considering these issues, it is important that we look at some of the base issues and the basic facts about stem cell research and the issue of adult stem cell research as compared to embryonic stem cell research.

I will to take a bit of time in considering the Group 4 motions to compare and contrast the benefits and the pitfalls of these two sources of hope, and they truly are sources of hope. As I go along, the House will see that certain conclusions can be reached about adult stem cell research as compared to embryonic stem cell research. I will start from foundation comments on these two different sources of hope.

First, adult stem cells are easily accessible, which is a huge advantage. Another huge advantage is the fact that they are not subject to tissue rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns. Ethical concerns are important in the debate on stem cell research.

On the other hand with regard to embryonic stem cell research, cells are derived from embryos and implanted in a recipient. They are foreign tissue and thus very much subject to immune rejection. In most cases that leads to years and years anti-rejection drug therapy which is a very expensive and very dangerous kind of therapy. That is the difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research.

Second, adult stem cells are being used already to treat Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and spinal injuries, while research using human embryos has not yet lead to any healing therapies. We should focus our energy and scarce resources on research that is now already making a difference. That is important to know.

If we look in contrast to stem cells taken from embryos, rats that were injected grew brain tumours in 20% of the cases. When there is that kind of response to early research, we have to wonder how long it would take to get any kind of situation where these could actually be used in the treatment of some of the serious diseases which are being tackled by stem cell research.

I just want to quote a researcher from Cambridge University on this issue. He said “I don't think this will be a treatment in humans for quite some time”. That was from BBC News on January 8, 2002.

What a thing to do to a person. Someone who is looking for a miracle cure and the hope that stem cell research can provide ends up with something like a brain tumour. There is the hope and then the terrible, bitter reality in finding that one has a brain tumour resulting from something that was hoped would be a miracle cure. There is a long way to go when it comes to embryonic research. As I have said, there already have been a lot of very positive results from adult stem cell research.

The standing committee said, “in the past year, there have been tremendous gains in adult stem cell research in humans”. We also heard that after many years of embryonic cell research with animal models, the results had not provided the expected advances.

We have heard, and I have certainly heard, from many of the companies that have invested millions and billions of dollars into stem cell research. They have placed all or most of their hope on embryonic stem cell research. Quite frankly they have been bitterly disappointed in the results, but those companies that have focused more on adult stem cell research already have had tremendous results which are very encouraging. The standing committee recognized that fact and that situation.

On the other hand, medical therapies developed using human embryos may be refused by people who do not believe they are ethically derived. Why require people who find this morally objectionable and who are extremely ill and in a very difficult situation violate their consciences to be made well if adult stem cells show at least as much promise? That seems to be the case and I will go through some of the evidence to demonstrate that.

Before I get into some of the examples, I want to point this out. In its presentation the CHIR said this that research using adult stem cells would also be eligible for funding under specific conditions, making it seem that maybe adult stem cell research has some promise as well so it will make it eligible. In fact the reality is that it seems that most of the hope is with adult stem cell research.

Canada is already the leader in adult stem cell research. For example, by supercharging adult blood stem cells with a gene that allowed them to rapidly reproduce, the team of Canadian researchers at the University of British Columbia healed mice with depleted blood systems. Someday these adult stem cells could replace bone marrow transplants in humans. What an advance and what an exciting thought that is, when it comes to people with the diseases which involve bone marrow. It would be a huge advance for them.

There are other examples. There are numerous examples of recent advances in adult stem cell research as well as the ones I have mentioned already. Researchers have found evidence that stem cells circulating in the blood stream can grow new tissue in the liver, gut and skin. Adult stem cells are therefore more versatile than previously thought. This is something that was totally unexpected by the researchers who dealt with stem cell research in the early phases. They believed that embryonic stem cells would be the cells that would be able to adapt better. Instead they found that some of the adaptation from embryonic stem cells led to some very unstable situations and some serious problems.

The University of Minnesota Stem Cell Research Institute has shown that adult bone marrow stem cells can become blood vessels. Will that not be an advancement when it can be fully developed? The researchers said, “The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy”. That was from the University of Minnesota press release of January 30, 2002.

At the Duke University Medical Centre, researchers turned stem cells from knee fat into cartilage, bones and fat cells. The researchers said, “Different clinical problems could be addressed by using adult cells taken from different spots throughout the body, without the same ethical concerns associated with embryonic stem cells”. That is very important because we could then avoid the ethical questions that result from embryonic stem cells.

I would like to conclude that on this issue the official opposition minority report calls for a three year prohibition on the experimentation with human embryos. Let us give adult stem cells a better chance. We have seen some wonderful results and we will see exciting results into the future.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here to discuss a very important issue, the pros and cons of human reproduction. There are those of us who are blessed with families. Some of us have larger families than others.

There is nothing more enjoyable than growing kids. There is nothing more enjoyable than having little ones running around the house, turning it upside down and making it a mess. There is nothing more enjoyable than hearing little feet pitter-patter around the house and seeing them grow up to be young boys and girls. There is nothing more enjoyable than attending parent-teacher interviews and learning how the children are progressing in school. There is nothing more enjoyable than attending a school play and watching children belt out in tune or out of tune their poem or their song.

I am sure that there is no more pride than watching one's children graduate from high school and/or university. Growing children are the most enjoyable pleasures of life. There are those who say “Let me see my children grow and then God you can take me away”. Therefore, there is nothing more sacred than the protection of life in all stages of development.

When does life begin? Does it begin at birth? Does it begin a few minutes before birth? Does it begin a few months before birth? Does it begin at the first trimester? I am of the view that life begins at conception. It should be nurtured and protected right from the first second that life is formed.

There are however couples who are not blessed with the pleasure of watching their children grow. There are couples who are not blessed with having a child. Yet the medical field has made strides to assist those individuals in enjoying the pleasures of parenthood. Just today in the news there was an item where a daughter gave her mother, a 55-year old lady, her ovum. She had a child with her second husband. To that family, that was an enjoyable event. There was nothing more enjoyable than the pleasure of seeing the father and the mother hold their young one.

We have surrogate mothers and male sperm donors. We have come a long way in accepting most of this new technology. However, we have entered in recent years a new phase called cloning. We have animal cloning and most recently perhaps even human cloning.

I for one say that we must proceed with caution. At this particular time I personally have concerns about that avenue that we are talking about. Technology is indeed a wonderful thing. If we did not have technology we would not have cars, we would not be able to go to space, and we would probably be stuck in the middles ages. However, when we talk about cloning there is the ethical matter. There is the matter of where do we start cloning. When we start talking about the pros and the cons of human reproduction we must proceed with caution.

I would like to add my voice that we proceed with caution. We must be careful of what we are doing in order not to hurt either a mother or a father. At this point I cannot bring myself to support human cloning or any other kind of cloning.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier this afternoon a colleague in a private conversation reminded us that this is to be a deliberative process. It is somewhat difficult, and it has been alluded to by other members already, when we have amendments thrown in at the midnight hour so to speak. They are embargoed actually until this morning, then on the floor, and we are talking on them right away.

I am not sure if this requires a change in the House orders some day down the road so that with a little adjustment we can all be aware well in advance of all these changes that go on in the course of a day and do not catch us by surprise.

The mandate of the agency in clause 21 of the bill would be to promote the human dignity and human rights of Canadians, yet this does not seem to be reflected in the preamble of the bill. The contradiction can be resolved by including the following statement in the preamble. It is taken almost word for word from the majority report of the health committee which stated:

It is hereby recognized and declared that assisted human reproduction and related research must be governed by principles and practices that respect human individuality, dignity, and integrity;

By putting that in as an outset statement would go a long way to making clear the intent of the bill.

The assisted human reproduction agency of Canada, as things stand in the bill unless it has been changed, would not be reporting to Parliament, but only to the minister. That causes concern for many of us here and members across the way have even alluded to that. We believe as a party and as individuals that it should be made an independent agency, so that we have accurate reporting to the Parliament of Canada representing the people of the nation.

Clause 25 would allow the minister to give any policy direction she likes to the agency. The agency must follow it without question. It must do the minister's bidding. The clause would ensure that in fact that direction or instruction that she gives the agency should remain secret and that it remain privy information.

The Canadian Alliance says that if it were an independent agency answerable to Parliament, a report being tabled annually to Parliament, that such political direction without the proper scrutiny would be more difficult to do. We say that the clause should be eliminated entirely.

We also notice here and others have made mention of this that members of the board should have fixed twice renewable terms of three years to ensure that the minister could not simply get rid of a non-compliant board member or, on the other hand, keep a compliant board member there forever. That was a recommendation of the majority health committee report.

We believe this could be fixed up and improved by appointing the chair of the agency for a five year term, rather than a three year period. The span of that person's chairmanship would then surpass the electoral cycle. That would minimize some of the political pressure that such a person would be in and the pressure on the agency as well.

The performance of the agency should be evaluated by the Auditor General, that august person in our democracy, rather than the agency itself. That review should be made public. Our Auditor General performs a stellar task for our country by way of shaming or commanding the government in terms of programs that it is responsible for. The Auditor General could play an important role in respect to the evaluation and the performance of this particular agency which has some major life and death issues that it deals with. The review could be made public on an annual basis.

There has been some talk by members about the licensing process. We do not want one member of this body having all the rights to determine who will have these licences. It should be a transparent and a public process. We could improve the bill by way of an insertion of that particular aspect.

The bill allows for the creation of advisory panels. We believe the bill should mandate that they include key stakeholders. Obviously it makes a lot of sense. The users of assisted human reproductive technology should be part of that. Children who are born with AHR technologies, people with disabilities, people from the medical community, and people from the faith communities could provide good ethics and good input on the whole thing.

The board should include professional ethicists and representatives of research ethics boards, private sector providers of services and private research firms, taxpayers and their representatives namely provincial and territorial governments.

That list is completely in accord with the majority and minority reports of the Standing Committee on Health.

I will now turn to the records that would be kept by this particular agency. We must keep a constant watch and monitor the agency which is moving in some new and unchartered territory. Records are crucial in terms of monitoring what happens. As it is, there are no proper reporting requirements and no reporting requirements in the bill at all. At the very least we have talked about an annual report that must be mandated to come to Parliament.

That report must summarize the activities of the agency and must include the statistics on the numbers of individual donors, the types of donations, the embryos created and destroyed, persons who undergo assisted reproduction procedures and persons conceived as a result, as well as any research projects undertaken using human embryos.

We have a suggestion that a new clause should be inserted which would specify that all embryos produced and destroyed by licensees be maintained in the registry of the agency and be identified by name rather than some vague, cloaked number but rather by name using a standard formulae, a combination of both donors names.

We believe that would accord some value, respect and dignity to the human embryo and would help to ensure that thousands of anonymous embryos are not routinely created and destroyed. That is the concern of many members of all parties in the House. It is a matter of respect and sanctity of life. We must be cautious and careful.

My remarks are hopefully instructive and may be something that members across the way on the government side in particular would take to heart as well as the minister of this particular department with respect to the structure of the agency, and also with respect to the crucial records that would be kept, such that we monitor and see what is developing with this new and important agency that is being created.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments pertaining to Bill C-13.

At the outset, let me say that I have never seen such a disregard for democracy in this place and such an arbitrary, reactionary initiative on the part of the government. We are dealing with a set of amendments that include an attempt by the federal government and the Minister of Health to negate the work of the committee.

Our committee, the Standing Committee on Health, worked very hard to try to achieve consensus, to try to build the best possible legislation and to ensure that the issues pertaining to women, children and families were all raised front and centre and given the full protection of the law. On two very fundamental issues the government has decided to negate the work of the committee. I want to reference those two issues.

The first pertains to the matter of gender parity for the new agency to be created under the legislation. It has been our assumption in the New Democratic Party, and we had thought the belief of the Liberal Party, that gender parity on all boards, commissions and agencies of government was a reasonable goal and an important initiative to reflect the role of women in our society today and to ensure that women were able to participate equally in all decisions pertaining to public policy matters in general. We had assumed that the government took that principle seriously and was prepared to ensure gender parity wherever an opportunity presented itself.

We are not dealing with just any ordinary board, commission or agency. We are dealing with an agency that will make important decisions pertaining to a very important issue facing the women of this country. Even on that score when it comes to matters pertaining directly to women's health and well-being, the government has had the gall to deny that fundamental principle and to nullify the work of the committee in terms of requesting that there be gender parity on this new agency pertaining to reproductive technologies. It is an affront, a travesty of justice and democracy in this place.

The parliamentary secretary had the gall to stand in his place today and defend the minister's amendment to nullify our proposition to ensure gender parity, forgetting and denying the fact that he participated at the committee and supported the recommendation for gender parity. What kind of democracy is at play in this place? What kind of hypocrisy is here among us?

We are talking about women's health issues. Lest anyone forget, we are talking about reproductive technologies that happen to provide ways for women to circumvent the biological causes of their infertility. We are talking about what is clearly a women's issue. It affects all of us. It affects children and families, but first and foremost we must address this matter from the point of view of women's health and well-being.

For the government to deny the possibility of ensuring that the body which will regulate in this area and make important decisions in terms of the lives of women in years to come has 50% representation of women is a disgrace. It is an archaic move on the part of the government. It is going backward in time, not forward. It is not applying the notion of full equality in our society today. It is denying this fundamental notion of gender parity in terms of decision making bodies of this nation. When it comes to an issue pertaining directly to women's health and well-being, the government has decided it is not a principle that should be upheld.

We must join together in the House to oppose that amendment by the health minister. We must hold the parliamentary secretary to task for his commitment at the committee for this fundamental principle and now his about-face move in the House today.

The motion was presented to the health committee on behalf of the New Democratic Party as a fundamental issue of concern for us and one that was respected by all members of all other parties. The Alliance may not have given it wholehearted support but I think it would not get in the way of a basic initiative on our part to ensure equal representation by women in this agency. That is an affront. That is wrong. The good faith that was built up around the bill and the support that was tendered in terms of developing a consensus has been squashed and shattered.

The support of the New Democratic Party for the bill and the kind of unilateral, arbitrary move on the part of the Liberal government and the dictatorial, insensitive, callous initiative on the part of the Minister of Health are concerns that I have today.

The other concern has to do with another fundamental issue for which we found agreement at the committee. It has to do with ensuring that the new agency dealing with reproductive technologies is not open to any possible conflict of interest.

We presented a motion that is actually a standard provision in many pieces of legislation requiring that anyone sitting as a member on the board of this new agency has no pecuniary or proprietary interest in terms of the whole area of reproductive technologies. That is a reasonable request one would think given the kinds of issues we are dealing with, given the kinds of decisions that will be made in the future that will have an impact on women, children and families everywhere.

One would think above all else we would want to ensure that there is no hint of a conflict of interest, that there is no chance for vested interests to make decisions pertaining to the lives of women and children in our country. What has the government done? It has unilaterally and arbitrarily nullified that good work and those important recommendations. After all of the work done by the health committee with the draft bill, after the clause by clause analysis of Bill C-13 and after reaching a consensus, we made important inroads and the government has denied, rescinded it and nullified that good work. It is hard to imagine any greater disregard for members' rights and privileges in the House.

As long as the government intends to disregard the majority decisions taken by members of the Standing Committee on Health and refuses to recognize the democratic process, we will not support the government on this bill. These are fundamental issues. We are talking about women's health and well-being which demand there be gender parity on the new agency dealing with reproductive technologies. We would expect that the government would be more interested than anyone else with regard to ensuring that the appearance of any kind of conflict in terms of the decision making process is not present.

In conclusion, I am very concerned about the process, the disregard of the government for democracy in this place and its disregard for the hard work of the Standing Committee on Health. I want to say in substantive terms the government has done a great disservice to ensuring the best possible legislation with the greatest possible protections for women, children and families. It has done a great disservice by not respecting fundamental issues in terms of women's health and well-being and ensuring that vested interests will not be able to fundamentally alter the course of decision making in this field.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C-13 and the Group No. 4 report stage amendments and specifically submit my comments on Motion No. 61 which reads:

That Bill C-13, in Clause 21, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 15 the following:

“(3) The Official Languages Act applies to the Agency.”

All Government of Canada agencies must and should comply with the Official Languages Act. In this debate, I would like to voice my opinion on a number of sections that appear in Bill C-13 and show why and where the Official Languages Act should be observed.

One of the objectives of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada is to protect and promote the health and safety, and the human dignity and human rights, of Canadians. Therefore it is an agency that represents the Canadian public and speaks to the public. Any agency which represents the public and speaks to the public on behalf of the government must speak in both official languages and must be able to be understood in both official languages by the public it is consulting.

With respect to its powers, section 24 provides that the agency may:

(d) consult persons and organizations within Canada and internationally.

Across Canada there are communities which speak English and others which speak French. It makes perfect sense to me to require people who will be consulting French and English speaking communities to be able to do so in the language of those communities.

The agency may:

(e) collect, analyse and manage health reporting information relating to controlled activities;

Again, to collect, analyse and manage information, one must be able to do so with the consent of the public and with information provided by the public.

Paragraph 24( f ) provides that the agency will:

(f) provide information to the public and to the professions—

Again, I am repeating myself a fair bit, but to provide information to the public requires that the public be informed in the official language of its choice, either French or English, one of the two official languages of this country. Further on, we read:

(g) designate inspectors and analysts for the enforcement of this Act;

Again, inspectors and analysts must also represent both publics, who speak both official languages of this country.

Subsection 26(1) provides that:

There shall be a board of directors of the Agency consisting of not more than 13 members—

It seems to me imperative that the board of directors consist of people who speak French or English. Again, these people must be able not only to communicate with people who speak these languages, but also to understand the reality and culture behind the French and English languages across Canada.

In subsection 26(2.1)—and I would like to make a major point off topic, if I may—it is stated that:

The membership of the board of directors shall be appointed in such a manner as to maintain a minimum of 50 per cent representation by women.

I have just heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health say that he, and the minister, want this withdrawn. I am opposed to that. This is far off topic for me, since my topic is official languages. In the preamble, there is reference to the principles of this bill. It is stated in 2( c ) that:

while all persons are affected by these technologies, women more than men are directly and significantly affected by their application and the health and well-being of women must be protected—

It strikes me as totally obvious that at least half of this board must be female, since women—I will point this out despite how obvious it strikes me—will have experienced or could experience the consequences of this bill.

In my opinion, not only must at least half of the board of directors be women, they must also represent the culture and language of the two peoples of Canada.

If these people speak both languages, they will be able to hold consultations and meetings in accordance with clause 27, which are to be held throughout Canada. They will be able to readily meet with people, whether in Quebec, British Columbia or Manitoba, and whether they speak English or French. They will be able to hold meetings and consultations with these people in both official languages.

Clause 28 of the bill asks that the provincial deputy ministers of health be entitled to attend meetings of the board of directors. Once again, in the province that I represent here, the administration speaks French. I fully expect that the deputy minister of health from my province will be able to participate in the meetings of the board in the language of his or her choice.

I could continue on other clauses found in the bill, on advisory panels for example, on the vice chair of the board and on the membership of the advisory panel. I think my point is clear: the agency must reflect Canada. The Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada must reflect the bilingual reality of our country, a reality for which we have fought hard. It has become a reality today. This agency must respect the founding people of this country, who spoke English and French, and it must also respect the Canadian tradition that was translated into the Constitution and this country's Charter or Rights and Freedoms.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in debate on the amendments in Group No. 3 at report stage of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction technologies and related research. We oppose the bill unless it is amended.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to commend the work done by our caucus members on the bill, especially our former leader, Mr. Preston Manning, who worked very hard and diligently on this issue. He worked with a passion on this issue and we recognize that.

The Canadian Alliance minority report recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”. Human embryos are early human lives that deserve respect and protection. All human beings possess the fundamental human rights of life and freedom. I will repeat the call, as per our minority report, for a three year prohibition on embryonic research to impose a three year moratorium on experiments on human embryos until the potential of adult stem cells can be fully developed. There is nothing wrong with doing that.

I strongly support and encourage health sciences research and development. I studied science when I was a student and I value the benefits of research done scientifically. However, I want to make it clear that I support stem cell research. We are calling for more funding of adult stem cell research. I will ask that the conditions of research be narrowed by requiring permission of both parents to destroy an embryo, by ensuring that creation of embryos for reproductive purposes is limited, and by identifying and reporting annually on numbers of embryos created and destroyed, et cetera.

Why do I want to limit it? Because for the benefits we would receive from embryonic research, similar benefits could be received from stem cell research. So why not give science or the scientific community a chance to develop stem cell research? That is why we need to provide a lot of funding for stem cell research: so that the same benefits can be obtained without causing any loss to human life.

I support provisions against human or therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ-line alterations, buying or selling embryos, and paid surrogacy.

Issues on which there is broad agreement are prohibitions like that on human cloning, issues of process such as the government sitting on the issue and failing to act for nine years, and the structure and accountability of the agency that is being created. Those are the issues where there is agreement.

Assisted human reproduction should be more tightly regulated, making it safer and more effective for prospective parents. I support an agency to regulate the sector. Assisted human reproduction clinics will have to be licensed and regulated by an agency created by the bill.

There are no provisions for regular reports to Parliament. This would be in Motion No. 78, which we oppose. An amendment would require the health minister to table an annual report to Parliament. We support an annual report. There must be transparency and accountability around the regulation of assisted human reproduction and its related research, but we would prefer that the agency itself produce such a report. We want an independent agency, not one directed by the health minister to produce such a report. If this amendment is amended with a subamendment replacing “the health minister” with “the agency”, I do not have any difficulty in supporting it.

The report to Parliament is important. All regulations must be laid before Parliament and automatically referred to the health committee, with the minister obligated to consider standing committee's recommendations.

I have been chairing the House and Senate Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. My observation has been that the government tables legislation which is usually very vague and shows only the intent of the government to do something. There is no substance. The substance to that legislation comes through the back door by way of regulations. About 80% of the law that we see in our country is brought in through the back door, so it would be appropriate to say that the government does not govern but rules through the back door.

In this case, the regulations are very important and must be submitted along with the legislation. They must be viewed and debated in this Parliament and then sent to committee for consideration.

Children conceived by AHR will have no right to know the identity of their parents without their written consent to reveal it. It is in the best interests of every child to know who his or her parents are. Sperm or egg donors should not be anonymous. A donor is not analogous to a parent giving up a child for adoption, because a sperm or ovum donation is intentional, with opportunity for a clear choice before the fact, whereas a choice on adoption is made after the fact, for example when an unintentional pregnancy is already in progress.

Commercial surrogacy is banned--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize to the hon. member, but his time is up.

It being 5:44 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

moved that Bill C-204, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate my private member's Bill C-204, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I have been pursuing this bill for over four years and today I have mixed emotions. On one hand I am pleased to finally bring these important amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to Parliament for discussion. On the other hand I am dismayed that the lack of democracy in this place makes the bill non-votable. An hour from now, barring a miracle, the debate will collapse. There will not even be a vote on the bill so that Canadians can hear where members stand on this issue. This is shameful.

It is more shameful that hundreds have come before me and said the same about legislation they have advocated, and hundreds more will come after. Why should we be afraid of a simple vote in our own Parliament?

Bill C-204 will amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act in four meaningful ways. First, it defines home invasion in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Second, it imposes mandatory curfews on young offenders found guilty of home invasion or break and enter offences. Third, it creates a mandatory imprisonment for repeat offenders of a minimum of 30 days. Finally and most important, it makes parents and legal guardians responsible for reporting any known breaches of a young offender's parole conditions and imposes fines and penalties of those who fail to do so.

Apart from murder and sexual assault, there is no more psychologically damaging crime than a property crime. Once a person's home has been invaded either by force of by stealth, it is hard to ever relax and feel safe again.

Most young offenders do not pursue a life of crime if they receive correct guidance early. Longer probationary periods allow for this guidance without incarceration. However, repeat offenders must be shown that their actions have consequences. Property crime, particularly home invasion, takes a terrible psychological toll on its victims. We need to put these victims first.

I would like to speak a little about the minimum sentencing requirements of the bill. Bill C-204 recognizes the fact that any youth convicted of a home invasion offence would be forced to comply with probation which shall include a curfew for a period of one year or when the youth turns 18, whichever is greater. A youth found guilty of a subsequent home invasion would face a minimum 30 day jail term.

Imposing curfews and probation is one way to help keep troubled kids off the streets. Imposing jail time for repeat offenders underscores the seriousness with which we treat these offences as a society, but punishment is not enough. At a deeper level, we do this so that we can get the youth guidance, to take them out of a negative environment and get them working on something positive.

The second step is not possible if probation conditions are not enforced. Sadly, troubled kids often come from troubled homes. Releasing them back into these bad environments often does them more harm than good. The Youth Criminal Justice Act currently allows guardians to sign an undertaking that they will report any breaches of probation to the proper authorities. Occasionally this is done but usually it is not.

As a defence attorney who worked with young offenders, it was heartbreaking to send the kids back into these very troubling environments knowing they would be back through the courts like revolving doors, and it would go on and on. If they had had these probation conditions, it is possible they could have gotten the help they needed through the courts and we could have ended the terrible cycle. That is why Bill C-204 defines the failure to report a breach as an offence and allows authorities to pursue fines of up to $2,000 and jail terms of up to six months if this occurs.

Some of my critics have asked why I would want to impose fines on the parents or guardians because some of them may not be able to control their children. I acknowledge that, but what we are saying is that it is their duty to report the breaches to the authorities. As long as they know that if the child under their care and control is in violation of a probation order and they do not report that breach, they themselves could face criminal prosecution.

There are some horrific consequences that happen as a result. One of my colleagues who is very close to this issue, the member for Surrey North, has worked tirelessly on this issue. His own son was murdered. Had this been law, it likely would have saved his son's life because the offender was out in violation of a probation order. He had breached the probation orders numerous times and nobody was reporting him.

To emphasize the necessity and importance of this bill and why I believe it needs to become law I want to tell a real life story. I would like to quote from a report of the B.C. Children's Commission. This story is a terrible one and is all too common under our current justice system.

On Vancouver Island in 1997 a 16-year-old youth with a history of violence stabbed a 17-year-old girl to death. Since 1993 the perpetrator had been before the courts 11 times. He had been given probation 11 times. The conditions of probation in almost every case included curfew, counselling and regular school attendance. Here are some of the quotes from the Children's Commission inquiry following the murder:

Subsequent to the murder... the perpetrator told the probation officer that during the Summer of 1996 he used crack cocaine heavily for a three week period with his mother--

This is another quote:

It appeared both parents contributed to the youth's criminal activities, the mother by actively encouraging him to steal for her and abetting his non-compliance with Court Orders and the father by his tacit acceptance of these transgressions.

In March 2000 the report found the following:

Great deficiencies in both the youth justice system and the child protection services left this youth at great risk of harm. Adequate intervention and treatment failed to occur. It is noted that at the time of the murder, he was simultaneously serving three sentences of probation.

I have to ask, who failed here? Was it the youth? Certainly like all of us he was ultimately responsible for his actions, but can we lay all the blame on this extremely troubled 17-year-old?

In 1990 the principal of the youth's school when he was 10 years old forwarded the following to his social worker:

This youth is one little guy that could be “saved”, given some consistent love and attention. I hope legalities and bureaucratic BS don't take precedence over what's right for him.

No one listened to that principal who was desperately trying to get this youth help. The youth's parents never gave him the help he needed. While this youth serves a sentence for murder, what penalty will these parents pay? What would other parents do if they were held criminally responsible for failure to report?

Social workers care about these kids. Police officers care about these kids. The judges at sentencing, the lawyers, probation officers all care. I have witnessed it first hand. They want to do what is right for these kids.

Although the example I have given is severe, it is important to note that most parents do care. If we get these children the help they need, maybe we can get them out of the revolving cycle of crime.

Parliament should provide the tools to punish wilful blindness to their delinquency, but also the tools to help them get their kids the guidance they need before they go completely astray.

My party is often accused of believing in only harsh justice. This is not so. We believe in fair justice. Kids who invade homes should suffer the consequences. The consequences should be fair and severe, as the situation warrants. My bill deliberately does not spell out specific curfew conditions because I recognize the judge needs to vary them in various circumstances.

Maybe we will not save all of these kids. Maybe in the example above there was simply nothing that could be done. However the vast majority of kids can be set straight on the right path.

This bill improves this in three critical ways. One, it sends a clear signal that punishment for serious crimes is necessary to protect society. Two, it demonstrates that we can tailor the punishment of young offenders to provide them long term guidance in putting their lives back together. Finally, it provides a simple but effective mechanism to the legal system to hold parents and guardians to account for failing to be active participants in the rehabilitation of their sons and daughters.

In short, it could have helped to save the lives of young offenders as well as the lives of their victims.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-204, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Bill C-204 addresses the issue of home invasion. The government agrees that home invasion by young persons is a serious issue. However the government opposes Bill C-204 because the issue has already been addressed effectively by Parliament.

Bill C-204 would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to create the criminal offence of home invasion.

Under the bill, the offence of home invasion would occur when a young person committed certain offences, such as break and enter, in relation to a dwelling house, when the house was occupied and the young person knew or was reckless about whether the house was occupied, and the young person used violence or threats of violence.

The bill sets out a minimum sentence of probation with a mandatory curfew for a period of one year or until the young person becomes 18 years old, whichever period is greater, to a maximum of three years.

Bill C-204 further provides that if a court makes a second or subsequent finding of guilt for home invasion and imposes a youth sentence, the court shall, in addition to any other punishment imposed, order the young person to serve a minimum sentence of 30 days in custody.

In addition, the bill provides that a responsible person, such as a parent or any person responsible for supervising the young person's probation, who fails to report a curfew breach would be liable to a fine of up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months.

Members may recall that Parliament recently addressed both home invasion and youth justice legislation. Parliament recently amended the Criminal Code to include section 348.1, which has been in force since July 23, 2002. This amendment reflects Parliament's recognition that home invasion is a serious issue and that Canadians are entitled to feel safe and secure in their own homes. It requires courts to consider certain offences to be more serious if there is a home invasion aspect to the offence.

Section 348.1 of the Criminal Code requires a court to consider as an aggravating circumstance that a house was occupied and that the person knew it was, or was reckless about whether the house was occupied, and used violence or threats of violence.

This consideration by the court is required for offences of forcible confinement under subsection 279(2), robbery under section 343, extortion under section 346 and break and enter under section 348. These offence provisions are the same offence provisions referred to in Bill C-204.

This new provision of the Criminal Code applies not only to adults but also young persons. Young persons are subject to the provision because the Young Offenders Act and the new Youth Criminal Justice Act incorporate the offence provisions of the Criminal Code, including section 348.1.

There is no need to create a new separate offence in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It was not long ago that the House and the Senate completed a comprehensive reform of Canada's youth justice legislation. Parliament passed the new Youth Criminal Justice Act which will replace the Young Offenders Act.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act will come into force on April 1, 2003.

As a preliminary comment, it seems to me premature at this juncture to embark upon revision of the Youth Criminal Justice Act before it has even come into force, legislation that was the subject of intense scrutiny and debate prior to its passage, without the benefit of practical experience under the legislation.

This amendment is not only premature, it is, as I have explained, also unnecessary because the issue has already been addressed by the recent addition of section 348.1 of the Criminal Code.

It is clear that Canadians want to and are entitled to feel safe and secure in their homes and communities. They want a youth justice system that protects society and responds to offences by young persons with sentences that are fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

In replacing the Young Offenders Act with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Parliament has established the legislative framework for this type of youth justice system.

A youth court imposing a youth sentence must be guided by the purpose and principles of sentencing and other factors set out in section 38 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

A fundamental principle of the act is that a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence. In brief, this basic principle of fairness means that less serious cases should result in less severe sentences and more serious cases should result in more severe sentences.

In determining the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, the court must, in relevant cases involving a dwelling house, consider the aggravating circumstances referred to in section 348.1, such as knowing that the house that was entered was occupied and using violence or threats of violence. These factors, if present, make an offence, such as break and enter, more serious and the Youth Criminal Justice Act requires that the sentence must be more severe to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

The sentencing provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act also reflect Parliament's view that judges should retain considerable discretion in determining an appropriate sentence for an individual young person.

Parliament has decided that, unlike Bill C-204, youth court judges should not be required to impose minimum sentences of probation or custody on young persons.

There is no question that home invasion by young persons is a serious issue. Parliament has recognized the seriousness of the issue and effectively addressed it.

By enacting section 348.1 of the Criminal Code, Parliament has required that if an offence involves home invasion circumstances, the court must consider the offence to be more serious and the sentences should reflect the increased seriousness of the offence.

By passing the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Parliament has made it clear that section 348.1 of the Criminal Code applies to young persons. In addition, Parliament has set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act sentencing provisions that require judges to impose sentences that include meaningful consequences that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and that reflect the aggravating circumstances of the offence.

The combined effect of these recent legislative reforms is that the issue of home invasion by young persons has already been addressed effectively by Parliament. For these reasons the Minister of Justice does not support Bill C-204.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the debate on Bill C-204 introduced by my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands will provide me with an opportunity to give a bit of an overview of the whole debate surrounding the Young Offenders Act.

Listening to the Canadian Alliance member and the Liberal member, we finally get the picture that, when it comes to law and order, the two parties are very hard line, very right wing, and do not take into consideration the whole rehabilitative aspect of justice.

At the time, there was a debate in this House led by my former colleague for Berthier—Montcalm. This debate made it very clear that, when the accent is on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures, we get results.

With the adoption of the new young offender legislation—to which the Liberal speaker referred—we have seen that the way things were done in Quebec—the only place where the law was really being enforced properly—really gave results. The Liberal Party, with the support of the Canadian Alliance, which was urging it to go still further, wanted to shunt aside this approach, which was working.

You will recall the raucous debate in the House, in committee and off the Hill, when defence lawyers, crown prosecutors, judges, social workers, police officers and police commissioners said, “Do not touch the Young Offenders Act; it is working well”.

However, carried by the right-wing wind being blown by the Canadian Alliance, the Liberal Party decided to impose one vision across the country and do away with Quebec's approach, which was working well, in order to impose a vision that was diametrically opposed to Quebec's. Bill C-204 goes along much the same lines. It seeks to toughen the treatment of young offenders even more. This falls in line completely with the Canadian Alliance's philosophy. I am not calling into question the importance of punishing and preventing crimes referred to as “breaking and entering in relation to a dwelling-house”.

However, that said, I believe the approach of the member from the Canadian Alliance—whom I respect, incidentally—is wrong.

First, it duplicates existing legislation. Second, clause 2 of the member's bill, in respect to minimal sentencing, uses the word “shall”, which is—in legal terms, as we know—imperative. Judges would be required to impose a curfew. This fails to take into consideration the circumstances and to provide any leeway for judges. This clause ignores the discretion of judges and imposes a uniform treatment without any possibility of varying it based on the circumstances.

However, it could very well happen that the circumstances would in no way justify the imposition of a curfew. In other cases, the circumstances would justify it, but it would be left to the discretion of a judge, who would base his decision on facts and law. In certain cases, an obligation to impose a curfew would very likely be counterproductive. However, what the member is trying to do here is to help young offenders put their lives back together. If this is passed, if there are such minimum mandatory sentences, the effect might be the opposite of the one desired.

The only advantage to this bill and this debate is the opportunity to set out a strict philosophy of law and order for young offenders. This philosophy, I repeat, comes from the Canadian Alliance and was imposed on Quebec by the Liberal Party. When it comes to young offenders, the Liberal Party is a watered down version of the Canadian Alliance. They share the same philosophy and the same basic principles. These basic principles, as I said earlier, are foreign to how Quebec does things.

In closing, I want to stress that this is a very good example of the fact that, in Canada today, when Quebec's values and way of doing things conflict with Canada's way, the Canadian steamroller goes over Quebec's uniqueness, Quebec's distinct character and the Quebec nation. We will not forget this when the time comes.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in this debate and to see you back in the Chair.

This bill is one which I think I can fairly say most members of Parliament would embrace wholeheartedly given the idea of parental responsibility, given the necessity I would state to hold parents in most instances responsible for the supervision and the proper accounting as to where their children are and how they are behaving.

The difficulty that I have with it at the outset is the possible criminal ramifications for a parent. I understand the way in which the bill is presented. The intent is to have these probation orders in force so that they are enforced, that is, the parents themselves will be brought before the court to require them to ensure that their children, within the definition of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, formerly the Young Offenders Act, will in fact comply with curfews, with other conditions of non-association, with not drinking or using drugs.

I have had experience, as has the mover of the motion, with the practicalities. I listened to his remarks and I congratulate him on his intent. He has had the experience, as he said, of the frustration that is felt on the part of the court, both the crown and the defence, social workers, victims services and the police, all those involved in the justice system who see these probational orders routinely flouted, that is, conditions that are in place as a result of criminal conviction, as a result of the court's real attempts to hold young people to account and to control their behaviour. Let us be very frank about what the sentence is supposed to do. In meting out those conditions, what the court is suggesting is that the anti-social behaviour has to be controlled.

The difficulty is one of vicarious responsibility. There are a number of offences in the Criminal Code that deal with this very issue. It is a tricky issue, to say the least. For example, there are Criminal Code provisions that require persons, once they begin to render assistance, to continue to render assistance. This type of legislation is akin to that. There is a new creation of a criminal offence by virtue of the Firearms Act, which in essence creates a criminal offence for not doing something. Without getting into all the lack of merits that we find in the gun registry, we know that this flawed piece of legislation will eventually collapse under its own weight due to mismanagement and ineffectiveness.

However, this type of legislation in essence criminalizes a parent's behaviour for not doing something, for not enforcing or supervising an order of the court. It is worrisome in that regard. The act, if it were to be passed, in a sense would make mandatory the imposition of these probation orders, be it a curfew or other conditions, for any young person found guilty of a home invasion and holds the parent or those responsible for the child responsible directly in relation to the enforcement of the curfew, upon threat, I am quick to add, of a criminal conviction. Those who are responsible for the child but are not the parents is another area that has to be examined closely, because we know that there are foster parent situations, there are agencies occasionally involved in the enforcement, and there are siblings, grandparents or others who would fit that definition as the person responsible for that child. The act would hold that person or group of persons directly responsible.

I agree that there are innumerable areas of improvement in this new Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is probably one of the most cumbersome and confusing pieces of legislation ever passed through the Parliament of Canada. It is a bit like the Income Tax Act. That is how complicated it is. When we were examining this bill at committee, of which you were a member, Madam Speaker, you might recall that there were judges who had difficulty interpreting sections of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is unfortunate, because we had a chance to get it right.

I am sure, Madam Speaker, that as parents you and other members of the House would be ill at ease to know that you could be held criminally responsible for the actions of your child. As much as you love that child and try to foster the very best environment, there are occasions, sadly, and we have seen them, where despite the best efforts of a parent, young people, for reasons that may be related to their mental health or related to their propensity to be involved in drugs or alcohol or their involvement with another group of youths who are on the wrong track, find themselves in the justice system and find themselves under a probation order. Again, despite the very best legitimate efforts of the parent, they break those conditions.

Sometimes those conditions are broken by a very short margin. I can think of an instance where a young person confined by a curfew misses a bus and does not get home under the curfew. Because it would be the parent's responsibility to see that the young person was in the strict parameters of a court order, this scenario could result in a parent being charged criminally. I am uncomfortable with that. It is not a stretch to suggest that it might play out that way.

The first clause of Bill C-204 amends the Criminal Code and subsection 2(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in this instance, involving break and enter and a list of offences that is outlined in the act. This clause is mainly a housekeeping amendment. It does specifically introduce a related offence into the act, which would be interpreted as adding more weight to the specific offence of home invasion, which again I am quick to embrace, but Parliament has to be extremely careful when prioritizing certain offences. In this vein we need to examine whether other offences might be considered as part of this envelope.

Second, the clause that amends subsection 42(2) is where we find the substance of the bill of the hon. member for Saanich--Gulf Islands. This clause would force the court to impose automatic probation on a young offender convicted of a crime as a condition of that probation. That is an automatic curfew. I have no difficulty with that because I believe that the offence of home invasion is so serious. I believe that the offence of home invasion often results in violent confrontations. We are going to hear in a short time from the hon. member from Surrey who, sadly, can speak from personal experience about what happened to his family in his home. This is a very real and substantive issue that is before the House.

The imposition of a curfew on a young person convicted is not necessarily a negative, by any means. In fact, it definitely would send this message of deterrence, which is one, I have found in my experience, that the government would like to stay away from. It does not like to use the word deterrent. It does not believe that this is the proper phraseology. I suggest that there is a common parlance, a common use of deterrents in courts of all levels across the country every day. The idea is that both the protection of the public and the sending of a message of general and specific deterrence are very much at the root of the bill.

The condition of probation would remain in effect for a period of at least one year, or at least until a person reaches the age of 18, to a maximum of three years. Again, this approach is a practical one. It amends the act, requiring those convicted of subsequent offences to spend a mandatory minimum of 30 days in custody. Arguably this takes away from the flexibility that currently exists for young offenders and again I suggest we would have to look at that in greater detail. It does put down firm parameters in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, where often those parameters are lacking.

The increase of a minimum of 30 days in custody for a second conviction also could be construed as a move that denotes the seriousness of this type of offence. This offence of going into a person's home is extremely detrimental and has extremely serious consequences.

However, to go back to my initial assessment, my main difficulty with the bill is the amendment that makes it mandatory for the parents reporting to a probation officer any violation of a young person's curfew. The difficulty I have is that the legislation that deals directly with the way in which the parent or guardian interacts with a child is what amounts to a disciplinary action against the parent. It seems to me to raise a question of morality.

This bill essentially is penalizing and criminalizing a type of parenting. I have great difficulty with that. It pains me to say that I could not support the bill for that reason, but unless this legislation were at least amended in such a fashion that it would make the parents' attendance at court mandatory and make it necessary for the parents to come and explain their actions or lack of actions in supervising the child, denoting where they were at the time of the offence, I cannot support the vicarious criminal liability that would flow to a parent.

I congratulate the member for bringing the matter forward. I think it is timely and important. It is an approach that is novel. I agree with the majority of the bill in substance, but that aspect of it causes me great difficulty. For that reason, until we get the bill in such a form that this clause is removed, I am afraid I cannot support the bill.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-204, which proposes to amend our laws covering certain aspects of youth property crime. I also think it is important to repeat for the record that the last time the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament the hon. member's bill was left on the Order Paper.

Just briefly on the issue of private members' business, many worthy private member's bills face the same fate of being totally ignored by the government. The bill that my colleague has finally managed to bring to debate in the House today could be easily and quickly passed into law like many other short and simple bills that individual MPs introduce. It is unfortunate that the government does not take enough of the good ideas that individual members of this place bring forward.

As for Bill C-204, the bill would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act in three meaningful ways. First, it would impose mandatory curfews on young offenders found guilty of home invasion or break and enter offences. Just for the record, my house was broken into on December 8, one week before I went home for Christmas.

Second, the bill would impose mandatory imprisonment for repeat offenders.

Third, the bill would make parents and legal guardians responsible for reporting any known breaches of a young offender's probation conditions and impose fines and penalties on those who fail to do so.

The bill would further efforts to ensure that young offenders, particularly repeat young offenders, are held responsible for their offences against persons and their property.

On the one hand, we are concerned that young offenders receive appropriate guidance and counselling once their behaviour has caused them to come into conflict with the law, but on the other hand, we need to ensure that they are held accountable for their behaviour.

The bill essentially parallels my private member's bill, Bill C-281, which proposes an amendment to the current Young Offenders Act that is in effect until April of this year.

Bill C-281 would establish stronger accountability for parents who sign undertakings to supervise court imposed conditions for the interim release of young offenders. Of course interim release is just another term for bail. Fortunately, the bill has been incorporated into the Youth Criminal Justice Act which will take effect on April 1.

I am sure members are aware of my reasons for bringing forth that particular bill. Ten years ago my family, and particularly my son, fell victim to a violent crime in 1992. It was only six months after the murder occurred that we found out that the offender, who was 17 at the time, was actually under conditions of bail. He had been released to his father under strict supervision and under a dusk to dawn curfew. The murder occurred at midnight in October. We later found out that for three months he had been consistently violating his curfew, which of course was his responsibility. He was criminally liable for that but, more than that, his father signed an undertaking before the court to supervise that curfew, which he never did. That is why I brought forth the bill that I did, and Bill C-204 parallels that because it deals with the probationary aspects.

As I said, my bill deals with the requirements for bail and reflects the measure that Bill C-204 is calling for on probation.

Holding young people accountable in the youth criminal justice system must include people, such as parents and guardians, who need to be responsible for their undertakings entered into during a period of court imposed probation. Far too often we hear of young lawbreakers violating their conditions over and over again.

Whenever our courts impose a curfew or another restriction that the young person is supposed to adhere to and a parent or guardian agrees to enforce it, there must be some recourse to hold the parents or guardians responsible for not enforcing what the court has ordered and what they have promised to do. The bill would provide the means to make these people accountable for the undertakings they have entered into with respect to the release of young offenders on probation.

The bill would establish that these guarantors would be liable to a fine of $2,000 and/or up to six months in jail if they knowingly fail to report a breach in probation conditions. This would not hold a parent criminally liable for the offence that the young person does. The criminal offence would be knowingly not living up to the conditions to which they agreed. In my view this is reasonable. In fact, I would go further and make it a hybrid offence such that the crown could proceed by way of indictment in the case of serious breaches.

If someone comes forward and guarantees a court that he or she will assist the court in ensuring that a young offender follows the court's orders and that person encounters a breach of what the court has ordered, then that person should have a legal, not just moral, obligation to report the infraction to the authorities.

In this way society is protected and the young person will receive more attention, the attention they have earned by failing to satisfy the court's orders. Hopefully the extra attention will turn the young offender around.

However if the person who pledged to the court to monitor the young offender's adherence to the court's orders fails to report the failings of the young offender, then the system breaks down because there will be no alarm sounded that the young offender is not changing his or her ways.

In conclusion, the bill will truly be of assistance in terms of protecting our citizens. It will provide a measure of deterrence to young people contemplating criminal activity. It will hold people responsible when they promise the court to supervise and fail to do so.

I urge the government to give the substance of the bill serious consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I was not originally intending to speak on the bill but my interest was piqued by the speeches. I guess I could add, as a parenthetical phrase, that I would encourage members of Parliament occasionally to come to this place and listen to and engage in these debates. That is after all what the purpose of this place should be. Perhaps by the mental stimulation that these debates could provide, if there were a lot of members here, we might come up with some new rules, regulations and laws that could better our society.

In listening to the speeches on the bill, I am particularly impressed with the idea that we must address and focus on the issues of youth justice. Statistics tell us that the number of crimes committed by youth is certainly disproportionate to their numbers in the population. We would then justifiably ask why is that so.

The House has heard my line many times before and that is I believe very strongly that it is the role of families, of homes, of churches, of schools, of everyone to instil in young people and children as they are growing up a built in compass of morality that informs their actions. People of all ages do what they believe is correct and generally will not do what they believe is incorrect or what is wrong. Somehow we have a situation where young people nowadays increasingly are doing things that by all standards are wrong, yet there seems to be no way of getting through to them.

I guess in a way this is a common sense approach. Let us do more with young people when they are young and in their formative years to instil in them a built in sense of morality.

I had a discussion with a person not very long ago on the issue of capital punishment. I said that personally it made no difference to me if we had capital punishment for murder because I was not going to murder anybody anyway. It does not matter what the penalty is. It is not the penalty that tells me that I am will not take someone's life. It is a deeply held belief and a deeply held value of human life that prevents me from taking human life. Consequently I do not need the law in that area to restrain me.

Perhaps I need the law in the area of other things, perhaps traffic actions for example, although even there I made a commitment many years ago as a young person to go through life without ever getting a speeding ticket. I am over 60, I will not say how much over, but that is only my age where I am over 60. I have been able to restrain the speed of the vehicles I have driven. To this stage in my life, I have not yet had a speeding ticket, a stop sign violation, a red light violation or any other moving traffic violation simply because I decided to obey the rules. It was built into me.

I do not say that as a matter of pride. I say that as a way of encouraging people that when they decide what they will do, it is in fact doable. All actions begin in the mind. Whether it is a criminal act, a good act, an act of charity or whatever it is, I do not believe that any actions are taken by an individual without first having been practised in the mind.

When I think of young people who engage in various illegal acts, all the way from vandalism of bus shelters to other things, somehow they first get it into their minds. I will not go on a digression now of everything that the television has taught us. I will try to avoid that, but I will say just in passing that there is little doubt in my mind that the increasing and incessant images of violence and lack of respect for each other that we see from Hollywood productions have had a profound influence on the way we treat and respect each other or disrespect each other.

My hon. colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands has brought forward a private member's bill. Of course I never speak on private members' bills without stating my jealousy of the fact that he was chosen and could bring his bill here. I have been a member now for over nine years and have never once won that lottery. Mathematically I am being discriminated against. I just want to put that on the record again. I greatly favour a system where no one would get second chances until everyone had firsts. Just like at the dinner table when we were youngsters at camp, no one got second helpings until everyone had firsts. I would like to see a method for private members' business where all the members are randomly put onto a list and do not come back until we have worked our way all the way to the bottom of the list. That is how it should be. We have an old, archaic system here.

Having gotten that off my chest, I urge all members who hear about this on the news, because this will be a clip on the news tonight, to promote the changes we are seeking for private members' business.

In this bill there is an increased emphasis on parental responsibility. I believe this is a very good principle. We have had some new youngsters born into our extended family recently. When youngsters are born, they are totally 100% dependent. Those little guys cannot even make decisions on when they eat or when they do the other things they do. All these decisions are either reflex decisions or they are made for them. A little two week old does not decide what to wear in the morning. All these decisions are made for them. However by the time that young person grown to be somewhere between age 12 to 20, all the decisions that affect their lives are made by them. I would hope it would not be at 12.

I remember having some really good discussions with my kids as they were growing up. I drummed into their little brains that as soon as they demonstrated that they could make wise decisions, I would allow them to make those decisions. They had to demonstrate it first though, and it varied. Our children were not all the same. That is not unusual at all.

One of my boys was very responsible at a young age. I actually suggested to him, when he was about 16 or so, that he should get some of his friends together, use the car, go out to the mountains for a weekend and have a little holiday. He was so proud that his dad trusted him. I said to him, “Son, I am doing this because you have earned that trust”.

One of the critical aspects of having responsible young people is to have responsible parents and to build a mutual respect between the two of them. One of the reasons I could do that was not only because my son respected me, but also because I respected him.

I will not talk about my other son, who pushed the envelope a little more, but we had those same kinds of discussions. Numerous times I made the decision for him because he was making the wrong one. He said, “Dad, I am old enough. I can decide this for myself”. I said, “Yes, but you are not deciding right. When you decide right then you can decide for yourself”. He then said that he did not have freedom of choice. I told him that he did. He had the choice to choose correctly and when he did, I would set him free. It took a little longer for him, but he turned out just fine. I cannot believe it but just a couple of weeks ago my youngest son turned 30. Can anyone believe it? He is such a fine, young man and we are very proud of him.

Here we have an issue where parents are asked to take responsibility for their children and I concur wholeheartedly. As in many other areas, if they do not do that of their own accord, then we have to have the hammer of the law which encourages them to do so. The implications that the member has put into this bill, that parents would be held responsible to help enforce the conditions of the release of young people, is totally reasonable. I would urge all members to concur that this bill should be votable and we should all vote in favour of it.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that I am pleased to see the member for Ottawa—Vanier. He had a very serious illness. Our thoughts and prayers were with him at the time and we are glad he is back with us. Hopefully all will go well.

Back to the issue at hand. I would like to touch on a few points raised by some of the other members. Again, I appreciate all the interventions. The member from the Bloc talked about the harshness and not the need for rehabilitation. That is the whole point of the bill. If young offenders are on probation, it allows the courts and the system to get them the help they need such as anger management, substance abuse programs, curfews and schools. It allows them to get the help they need as opposed to going back into a sometimes very troubling situation or whatever their surroundings. It gets them out of that. It is all about rehabilitation. We in the Canadian Alliance are trying to help these young offenders from going through the courts like a revolving door. We are trying to get them the help they need.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough made some very good points. One that troubled him was holding the parents vicariously criminally responsible for the actions of these young offenders. I want to emphasize that is not so. I agree that they need to be held accountable. If a young offender breaches curfew or whatever, those are the actions for which the young offender will be brought back before the courts and held accountable.

Where the parents could be held criminally responsible is for their own actions or their lack of actions in failing to report. I will put it in this situation. Two people are parents and, heaven forbid, their children are in this situation. They have been before the courts and have a probation order. The children say that they are not going to follow this. They break their curfew and do not come home until 11 o'clock tonight. The parents then say that they have no option but to inform their probation officer because they are legally bound by the courts to phone the probation officer and say, for example, that Johnny is not following his probation order or Johnny is not going to school. Then they ask the child if he wants to be picked up by the police in the next few days and brought back before the judge.

One can flip it around that the parents are actually being given a tool to help them with what may be a very troubled child. I throw that out. The goal is to help these children. I emphasize that.

I remember my discussions when I worked in the courts. The judge would often call the defence lawyer and the crown prosecutor back into his chambers and ask what could be done to help the child, or what could be done to ensure that he or she did not come back before these courts, or what programs did he or she need to go into. There is no question that is the goal.

I think mandatory curfews for home invasion are not harsh at all. I think that would be a very good thing particularly if they are enforced. There is even a provision in the bill that in very unusual circumstances, such as if it is a social worker, or for whatever reason the judge feels that it would not be proper to hold the parents to report, the judge can overrule that one provision. Again, this gives the judge that discretion.

This is about helping children, ensuring that we look after the victims, but ensuring that these children get the help and that the parents are held responsible if they fail to follow their undertakings.

In closing, I would ask for unanimous consent that Bill C-204 be made votable. It is very important that all members should have an opportunity to express their thoughts on this. Failing that, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House that at least the substance of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further consideration so it could be put into law. I do not care who gets credit, but it is time that we bring it into law.

I would like to thank the member for Surrey North for his contribution and the member for Elk Island for his real life stories. It is so important for all Canadians to hear their interventions.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there agreement to make the item votable?