House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cloning.

Topics

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and contribute to this important debate on Bill C-13. The bill is attempting to address the vast and complex issues surrounding assisted reproduction. I was one of the few members of Parliament who reviewed the legislation and listened to a range of witnesses. The witnesses represented a broad spectrum of concerns and came from all parts of Canada. I think it was important that we took the time to hear people's opinions on this proposed piece of legislation because of its direct effect on the lives of all Canadians.

Of course none of us would be here without reproduction. Many things have changed over time, and it was time that our laws attempted to address the myriad of issues. As we consider the use of more and more assisted reproduction techniques and methods, we face a number of ethical, moral and religious considerations. As I said before, it was important to hear from all these stakeholders. I think the committee did a good job of doing this, considering the timeframe and competing priorities.

Just to give the House an idea of the level of importance we place on the legislation, it should be noted that we did not have hearings into the Romanow report or the Kirby report because the Liberal members thought this bill was more important.

The members of Parliament for Yellowhead and Mississauga South have worked extremely hard to have a number of their concerns addressed. I would like to speak to a number of their amendments in a general way because I feel they all touch on a common set of concerns and themes.

Let us take Motion No. 92, for example, which calls for transparency and accountability. It also calls for public consultation on draft agreements and for the text of such agreements to be made public. I cannot blame my colleague from Mississauga South for wanting to bring transparency and accountability to the process, especially after witnessing the Liberal record.

When we look at the issue of the registry that would be required to track and monitor things such as semen donations, we can only think of the fiasco we have seen with the firearms registry. The government is wasting more than $1 billion by attempting to register law-abiding Canadians instead of focusing on criminals. I could definitely argue the merits, if there are any, of the firearms registry, but I will focus on the paper side of it for the purposes of the bill. The RCMP has said that almost all records in the firearms registry are incorrect or incomplete and cannot be considered reliable. What would happen if this were the case in a semen donation registry? Are we able to avoid repeating our mistakes?

I think a registry for semen donations is important for a number of reasons. As I highlighted last fall during question period, semen is a recognized carrier of the HIV virus. For public health reasons, we need to be able to trace a donation from beginning to end. We need to be able to assure donation recipients that all donations are screened and safe. As a former coordinator for Canadian Blood Services, I know how important it is to track donations from beginning to end, how important it is to be able to tell donation recipients just what they are putting into their bodies and that it is safe.

In the case of assisted human reproduction, we need to know who provided that donation. Those children who are the product of such techniques have a right to know who gave them life. We have to allow those children to know where their DNA, their foundation, was built. Now we may require further legislation to properly address those related concerns and obligations, but critical to all of this is an accurate registry. This is why we need transparency and accountability in the process.

Hiding government business in arm's length agencies to avoid the access to information legislation does not do this. The Canadian Blood Services, the agency created after a deadly national blood scandal, is not subject to ATI provisions. This makes it less accountable and less transparent in the eyes of most Canadians. While I am confident it does the best job it can, I also would like to see it being more open and accountable for its actions.

Openness is an important part of any democratic system. As I mentioned earlier, my colleague from Mississauga South is also asking for more public consultation and disclosure with his motions on the bill. Public consultation is a delicate issue for every level of government. Some argue that we are elected by the public to act on their behalf and that this is enough consultation for them. In fact, they often argue that public consultation is merely an abdication of responsibility, a way for elected people to achieve their goals without actually doing it themselves. They also state that public consultations provide a false sense of hope and only serve to delay the inevitable.

Others argue that electing a government representative does not mean that opinion should be sought only once every four years. They argue that a democratic system requires a consistent dialogue between voters and the person they elect. They reasonably argue that success on election day should not be interpreted as a blank cheque for four years.

Personally I like the idea of public consultations, with one big condition. Public consultation should be held only if there is an honest and genuine willingness to alter the proposal. Nothing disturbs me more than witnessing the sham of public consultations.

We see the Liberals take their budget road show across Canada ahead of the budget, but somehow what we hear from Canadians never seems to show up in the budget. Unfortunately, I have often witnessed this in parliamentary committees too. We parade a number of witnesses through the process and we debate the issues among ourselves. Then we send it to the clerk for final revision and what comes back in the final report is something none of us saw in the first place. If people are not willing to accept the input of others, they should not pretend that they are. When we are dealing with the legal, moral, ethical and religious components of assisted human reproduction, we have an obligation to seek public input, guidance and opinion.

I would like to take the remainder of my speech to discuss an issue I briefly touched upon before. This is the issue of donor identity. Many couples have trouble conceiving their own children. There are a number of reasons why, but they are not the issue here. The issue is the way they get around the obstacle. Whether it is by semen or egg donations or through a surrogate parent, a growing number of children enter the world as products of such methods.

Many couples, even those who can create their own children, decide to adopt children, and I could tell many stories of wonderful adoptive families that I know. I admire their courage and their ability to share their love with others. Nonetheless, all these children share something in common. They were given life by someone other than the people raising them.

Before I continue, I want to stress that I am not for a minute suggesting that these children are in any way incomplete or different because they may not know who their biological parents are. I just think they have the right to know who their parents are if they wish to.

The anonymity of semen or egg donations may encourage people to step forward more readily than if they had to disclose their identity, but is that necessarily good? We are finding that more and more medical problems are genetic. Knowing who one's biological parents were would be essential in fully understanding one's medical history. Most important, and this is the main reason I would like donors identified, is the issue of medical solutions. We know that when it comes to life saving bone marrow transplants it is difficult to find a match. We also know that a match most often comes from one's immediate family. Thus, knowing the donor parents would facilitate these potential life saving medical procedures. I therefore support the proper tracking and identification of donors to allow these children access to important medical information.

In closing, I would like to say that I support all initiatives that are being taken to make this bill more open, accountable and transparent. I also support the greater inclusion of public input on issues such as this and applaud my colleagues for bringing forth such matters.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is the House ready for the question?

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The question is on Motion No. 92. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

As previously agreed, the recorded division on Motion No. 92 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 94. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to make certain that the question is on Motion No. 93.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

No, I stated at the beginning that the question was on Motion No. 94.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The recorded division on Motion No. 94 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 96. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Assisted Human Reproduction ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.