Debates of March 26th, 2003

Question No. 163

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Three key public and private sector institutions hold the requested information: the Department of National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada and Maritime Life. Compiling the data requires extensive interdepartmental and public-private sector coordination, and a manual search of existing and archival files. As a result, the information requested cannot be gathered during the time period allotted to respond to Order Paper questions.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 130 and 147 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 130

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

For the fiscal years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, from all departments and agencies of the government, including crown corporations and quasi/non-governmental agencies funded by the government, and not including research and student-related grants and loans, what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded in the constituency of Calgary West, including the name and address of the recipient, whether or not it was competitively awarded, the date, the amount and the type of funding, and if repayable, whether or not it has been repaid?

Return tabled.

Question No. 147

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

With regard to the answer provided to Question 47 by the Minister of National Defence on January 27, 2003, regarding the rubric “Losses of Public Property Due to an Offence or Other Illegal Act” for the Department of National Defence as listed on page 3.24 of Volume II, Part II, of the Public Accounts of Canada 2001-2002 and the cases of theft listed thereon; of the information not provided yet which represents approximately $127,000 of the $220,000 addressed in Question 47: ( a ) what was stolen in each individual case; ( b ) what was the value of each individual item; ( c ) what was the location of each theft; and ( d ) were any charges laid?

Return tabled.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North has a point of order in respect of questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, on January 23, Question No. 107 in my name was answered by the minister. Since that time I have looked into the answer that was provided, only to determine that it was not an answer.

I asked two questions. First: “How many federal government departments have access to the firearms registry?” The response I received was that only two had direct access. That was not the question I had asked.

Second: “What level of personnel have access to the firearms registry?” Again I was given a response that included direct access, which was not what I had asked, and it was very vague as to who had other access. In both cases, I am no further ahead.

I went to the CPIC website and got more information than I got out of the response to my question on the Order Paper.

I would ask the Speaker to rule that Question No. 107 be put back on the Order Paper for the minister to answer because I do not know any other way in which the Speaker can rule that does not give a green light to the government to not respond to our Order Paper questions with an answer that is meaningful. I would ask for a ruling from the Speaker, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was not made aware of my hon. colleague's dissatisfaction with his answer until this moment. I do not recall the question or the answer to the question as there have been many over the past couple of months. I would endeavour to look into this and I would like to reserve the opportunity to make an argument on it after I have had a chance to do so.

[The Speaker]

I think I can relieve the hon. parliamentary secretary's mind a little bit. There are two things. The Chair does not have much regard to, shall I say, the quality of either questions or answers. Some I am sure are pretty good and some are pretty rotten, but the Chair forms no opinion whatsoever on these matters and does not examine the questions or answers with a view to their quality or lack thereof.

It would be inappropriate for the Chair to somehow suggest that he agrees with the hon. member for Vancouver Island North that the question he got was a pile of rubbish. It is not for the Chair to make that kind of determination even if the Chair had an opinion on that, and, as the hon. member knows, the Chair has so few opinions these days that it is very difficult to come up with something on a question of that kind.

However, he is free to put his question back on the Order Paper. There is nothing in the rules that says he cannot ask the same question again or make a minor change in the wording of it, put it on the Order Paper and seek another response. He does have some assistance now from the parliamentary secretary who has said that he will look into the matter and get back to him. Perhaps after hearing from him he will be so satisfied that he will not even want to do that, but the option is his. As long as he does not have four on already, which is the maximum, he can put it on.

If I could pass on a trick that I know works sometimes, one of his colleagues, who does not have four on, might put it on for him, if that is the block, and away he goes and gets another answer for free. It is a real bonanza in that sense, and I am sure the hon. member would know that. I invite him to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded him by the rules rather than rely on a point of order to get the Speaker embroiled in the question of whether or not an answer was satisfactory, because of course the Chair has no opinion on the quality of either.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notice of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 18 consideration of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 3.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my amendment to report stage Motion No. 86 of Bill C-13.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment to Motion No. 86 withdrawn)

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

Mr. Speaker, as we enter into this next stage of the debate on Bill C-13, specifically Group No. 3 amendments, I want to highlight several important issues.

The debate is a very important one. Frankly, I have been somewhat disappointed with the importance this issue has had in the past for Canadians all across the country and has sparked such little interest among the majority of members in the Chamber, for this debate will set the future for reproductive technology.

Yes, legislation can be changed but realistically how often does it ever happen? We just need to look perhaps at the most flawed legislation in Canadian history, the Indian Act. It is over 135 years old and the only changes to it over all that period of time have been relatively minor.

Yes, there are proposed changes before the House now on Bill C-13 but they are a long way from completion and yet the known problems have been in place since even before the legislation was drafted.

As the elected members of Parliament we have a responsibility to truly debate the issues of the day. Bill C-13 has strong science, health and moral implications within it. It is an arm of science that has been moving so incredibly quickly that I predict that there are many issues that we have not even considered at this time.

These issues will exist, not out of ignorance but simply because the technology of what we cannot do or even contemplate today will have the potential of changing for tomorrow. Let us not trap ourselves in a legislative box that we cannot get out of and adequately deal with in the future.

Therefore, I urge all members of the House to carefully consider the amendments and look to the future. As elected officials we are chosen by our constituents to represent them and to provide leadership here in this place.

I wish to speak specifically to this group of amendments and then make some closing comments on Bill C-13 at this time.

I will be opposing Motion No. 28 which deletes prohibitions on surrogacy in order that the prohibitions can be dealt with in the regulations. Unfortunately, the regulations are lost from the scope of Parliament. Yes, they are published and there is a procedure for the public to table support or opposition to them, but the fact is that they are not debated in Parliament. I cannot, therefore, support the notion that surrogate mothers should receive some form of compensation.

I note that the health committee report “Building Families” was united in wanting to end commercial surrogacy. It may seem altruistic but I do not support the premise of payment for children. These same principles apply to Motions Nos. 29 and 30.

While on the issue of surrogacy I would like to voice my opposition also to Motion No. 46 which would allow exceptions on prohibitions on procuring a surrogate, arranging a surrogacy and inducing a female to become a surrogate, namely, “except in accordance with the regulations”. As I have mentioned previously, I oppose leaving controls on commercial surrogacy to the regulations, for Parliament is the best place to have these debates and make these decisions.

Likewise, I oppose Motion No. 49. Opening the door to payment for gametes or in vitro embryos by leaving this to the regulations is not the correct way to proceed on this issue.

I must also oppose the motion to open the door to compensation to surrogates for work related loss of income as proposed under Motions Nos. 51 and 95. The health committee heard testimony that compensation for such expenses could be greatly inflated. There are just too many outstanding questions and issues surrounding this particular issue and, on this basis, the health committee recommended there be no such compensation for surrogacy. Surrogacy must be altruistic, not simply done for payment.

I support the premise of Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 39 which would prohibit the purchase of fetuses or fetal tissue, any part of the embryo or the transfer of ownership of embryos or reproductive materials.

I believe that life begins at conception and therefore cannot nor should not be bought and sold. Life is a precious gift from God and one that cannot be reduced to the level of a common commodity that can be bought and sold on the open market or profited through the stock exchange.

Motion No. 44 is an interesting one and worthy of support. Rather than the destruction of embryos, they could be adopted. Embryo adoption is a possible alternative to the destruction of or research on so-called excess embryos, though not without its own complications, I admit. This is an area that could have future consequences. As I mentioned earlier, let us not trap ourselves in a legislative box that we cannot get out of or adequately deal with in the future.

I feel strongly about Motion No. 45. I support this motion which specifies that there should be no research on embryos for reproductive research except as provided in the regulations. I oppose research on human embryos for any purpose and therefore support this motion.

Due to scheduling of committee travel, it appears that this may be my last opportunity to speak to Bill C-13. Therefore I would like to offer some additional thoughts on this important matter.

I have the privilege of knowing two very dedicated people on this important issue. Shirley Pratten, who lives in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan, and her daughter Olivia have both appeared before the standing committee on more than one occasion along with Health Canada officials and interested media. They particularly urge the House to move to an open gamete donation system.

I remind members of the House that the committee talked to several international researchers and professionals who spoke about the success of open systems in other countries such as Sweden, Austria and New Zealand. It is also my understanding that Australia and Holland are moving along in that direction over a two year transition period.

Hon. members of the House should also know that should Bill C-13 go through as it is currently written, that is legalizing anonymity, there will then be a legal challenge in British Columbia where adoption records are open. Discussions have already taken place with one of the lawyers who was involved with opening the adoption records in British Columbia and he is keen to take this on, with the adoption community in this country firmly behind him. With this in mind, there are several offspring in British Columbia who will be part of this challenge.

In short, I believe that if Bill C-13 is passed without change, there will be a serious court challenge starting in the province of British Columbia and probably continuing on through the Supreme Court of Canada. I wonder if the government really wants this. Is this in the best interests of Canadians?

I have stated before and repeat now that the bill is about improving human health. I am reminded that this is not only about physical health, but also emotional and psychological health. If members of the House deliberately deny people the knowledge to know where they have come from through an anonymous system, I believe that we are knowingly compromising their psychological health.

I have some insights into the adoption process, having one adopted child and two through private guardianship, so I know of what I speak. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard the emotional and psychological health as well as the physical health of Canadian citizens. We need to put the interests and protection of the children conceived through reproductive technology first. Let me repeat this because I believe that this is tantamount to our discussions today and throughout the debate in the past few weeks. We need to put the interests and protection of the children conceived through reproductive technology first.

I acknowledge that Bill C-13 states that this is in the preamble, but it fails to address this need in the bill by sanctioning an anonymous system. Anonymity is not in the best interests of the people who are being conceived. If we really mean that we need to put the interests and protection of children conceived through reproductive technology first, then the bill must actually do what it says it will do.

There are of course very strong lobby groups that attempt to influence the government and the legislative process. In this case the government is not only allowing the desires of some parents to come before the needs of the children, it is also putting the desires of the medical profession above the children.

It would appear that the government has caved in to the terrific power of the medical lobby whose interests in keeping the status quo are both self-serving and for financial motivation. It will take a strong government to stand up to the medical lobby and endorse the standing committee's recommendations on all aspects of the legislation. I really question whether the present government is strong enough to accomplish that.

I realize that my time is nearly up in addressing Bill C-13 but whether my time is up or not, when the House passes this legislation, the legislation will become the law of the land for the foreseeable future. Whatever we pass today and after third reading will have long-lasting consequences.

In the continuum of witnesses, who is most important? It is always the children. I urge all members to seriously consider this as we vote on this issue today.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-13 at report stage. This is a very important bill.

I want to point out to members that the bill and the amendments can strongly affect Canadians with disabilities by supporting the drive that biotechnology firms are creating in the medical marketplace toward producing the perfect baby. I will return to this issue at the end of my address. I would first like to talk about the progress of the work on the bill that the NDP has tried to accomplish.

This is my first opportunity to speak to this legislation. I want to add my voice to all of the voices of Canadian women who know that the need for legislation is urgent. This urgency is underlined by recent sensational news stories about experimentation with human cloning.

The urgency for me has also been brought home by a recent conversation which I had with a health expert who informed me that there are hundreds of new assisted reproductive technologies and drugs that are aimed at the Canadian market and will be arriving in the next year. We really cannot afford to leave this very critical area of public health to the mercy of the biotech market.

During the committee's examination of Bill C-13, New Democrats attempted to introduce amendments to strengthen the bill in areas that we believed needed improving. Some of our concerns were addressed, but several important proposals were voted down by the Liberal majority on the committee.

My caucus colleague proposed 13 amendments during committee stage and succeeded in gaining several improvements to the bill. We wanted the protection of the health and well-being of women added to the principles. We wanted the donors to be provided with independent information before participating and that the public be informed of the risk factors relevant to infertility. As well, we wanted the board of the assisted reproduction agency of Canada to consist of a minimum of 50% women. We wanted the addition of a comprehensive conflict of interest clause governing the board as well.

We were unsuccessful in adding the precautionary principle to make safety an overriding concern. The committee also voted down our amendment to tighten up the commercial sale of reproductive materials and to make the agency more accountable by stipulating what it would do rather than what it may do. We tried and failed to facilitate donor identification in recognition of the needs of children born through reproductive technology.

If the government had seen fit to simply follow the wisdom of the committee which had spent time, expertise and energy to review the bill, we would be seeing improvements to this legislation. Sadly, we are seeing steps backward instead.

We have seen the failure to include the basic safety provision of the precautionary principle to safeguard women's health, together with the reversal of our gender parity and conflict provisions for the agency's board. Measures needed to keep biopharmaceutical corporations at bay has left the NDP no choice but to vote against the bill at third reading. This is despite our desire to have a long overdue regulatory framework in place as soon as possible.

I would like to re-examine the principles involved here.

Our first concerns were for health protection. Women involved in reproductive technologies ought to be assured that the drugs and treatments they take are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. As well, they must have access to independent information and counselling at critical times when they may be vulnerable to promoters of technologies that may put their health at risk. We succeeded, although not in as decisive wording as we had hoped, with the formal acknowledgement that the health and well-being of women must be protected in the application of these technologies.

We were not successful however in securing that protection through the instrumental inclusion of the precautionary principle in the bill. We sought to include the precautionary principle in the principles and application and interpretation sections and again in clause 13 through which it would have been applied to all controlled activities covered by the act.

To further the objective of informed decision making by those participating in reproductive technologies, we proposed, and it was accepted, to require all those licensed under the act to provide donors in advance with independent information provided by the assisted human reproduction agency.

Commercialization is another of our big concerns with Bill C-13. Much of reproductive technology remains the private reserve of giant life sciences and drug corporations with patent protection taking precedence over the public good and with private for profit interests dominating the field.

We attempted to tighten up the bill's prohibition against commercial gain by extending the ban on purchasing ova and sperm to include offering them for sale. This would correspond to the treatment given embryos under the bill. The amendment, as well, was defeated by the Liberals.

I would like to return for a minute to concerns that persons with disabilities have around this bill and the whole issue of reproductive technology, biotechnology and the new era we have entered of designer babies.

I would like to raise some important issues which have been posed to me with regard to the whole issue of prenatal genetics testing.

I have spoken with women who have received prenatal testing. This testing has shown, for example, high possibilities of giving birth to a child with Down's syndrome, or a child with spina bifida or with a cleft palette. After this testing has been done, they find themselves presented with a barrage of very negative counselling about the need for termination.

This is a very disturbing situation because what we are seeing is thousands and thousands of times each year in doctors offices women being faced with decisions around terminations of pregnancies without being given the kind of honest and neutral counselling about the values of having a child with a disabilities and about persons with disabilities who are living and contributing in the world.

The question that is raised as soon as we realize we have the ability to “screen out” Down's syndrome, cleft palette, spina bifida and bipolar disorder is this. What does that mean to the people who now live on the earth, who live among us and who are in our families who have disabilities? What does that mean to the value that they see given to their own lives?

I would like to take this opportunity to read a declaration which has been put forward by the Disabled Persons International on this subject, which I think is very germane to the topic. It states:

The right to live and to be different.

Up until now most of us have been excluded from debates on bioethical issues. These debates have had prejudiced and negative views of our quality of life. They have denied our right to equality and have therefore denied our human rights...

We are full human beings. We believe that a society without disabled people would be a lesser society. Our unique individual and collective experiences are an important contribution to a rich, human society.

We demand an end to the biomedical elimination of diversity, gene selection based on market forces and the setting of norms and standards by non-disabled people.

Biotechnological change must not be an excuse for control or manipulation of the human condition or biodiversity.

In closing, I and my party believe in that declaration. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has put forward a very strong private member's motion on the importance of a national strategy around genetics and genetic counselling which will bear in mind and keep front and centre the value of persons with disabilities and will respect the dignity of their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member from the NDP who just spoke. I certainly agree with her in terms of the slope we go down when we want to do away with because there is some risk of somebody being disabled. In addition, not only diminishing the value and the life of a disabled person, often they are wrong. We have often found them to be perfectly healthy babies with no defect or disability at all. That is why we cannot go down that road.

I am thankful to have the opportunity to express why changes to Bill C-13 are required to restore dignity to human beings, as well as to remove the possibility of future problems in interpretation due to some ambiguous terminology and a restricted view on the progress of science as reflected in this bill. Particularly, I wish to draw the attention of the House to support Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36, 39, 44 and 45 in Group No. 3 which are crucial to the positive outcome of the bill.

I remind the House that one of the overall goals of the bill is to ensure that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction are given priority. We must remember that these children, who are born through assisted human reproduction, do not gain their status as human beings through the process of birth. Rather, in fact, their humanity existed from conception on, when their genetic makeup was intricately formed in the womb of their mother.

I draw members' attention to this because, when dealing with the ethical questions that are presented before us today, we must not limit our good intentions to the well-being of a human after birth, but also before birth, when they are subject to these very medical procedures that we are discussing today. This means that Bill C-13 should treat all stages in life with the same respect and care that we show one another.

I would especially urge the House to consider Motion No. 45, as sponsored by the member for Mississauga South. The motion specifies that there must be no research on embryos for reproductive research, except as provided in the regulations. Under the current wording of the bill, research and experiments can be taken on a human embryo provided that it is “necessary”. That is a slippery word and a flawed word.

We are well aware that what one person deems or judges to be necessary might be completely different from another person's definition, from my definition. With such an important decision, with a human being's life at stake, how can we allow such ill-defined terms to remain in the bill? It is an embarrassment to the House.

Once again the bill leaves open the possibility to be interpreted according to the desires of the individual or the institution that wishes to benefit from the experimentation on human embryos.

By not at all permitting the experimentation or harvesting of embryos, we would be recognizing that human life always deserves dignity, even at its earliest stages, from conception on. We have no right to conduct any experiments that do not benefit the subject and especially without even having their consent. We recognize that crucial principle when we look with horror at the experimentation done in the concentration camps in Europe during World War II. We said no experimentation without the consent of the subject. Why do we now permit this experimentation based on our justification of what we consider as progress? If it was wrong then back during the days of Nazi Germany, then it is wrong now.

By closing the door to embryonic experimentation, we are by no means closing the door entirely to the promising future of adult stem cell research. There are fascinating studies that are clearly showing the effectiveness of adult stem cells as treatments for many diseases that make life so difficult.

For example, a study reported by New Scientist Journal in January 2003, as well as a study by Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota, revealed that special cells could be isolated from the bone marrow of mice and could then be turned into virtually any type of tissue. New Scientist Journal also reported that autopsies on four women revealed that stem cells in bone marrow could develop into brain cells. Originally it was believed that they could only form blood or bone cells. The point is simply that with the promising discoveries related to adult stem cell research why are we even discussing experimentation on human embryos?

Bill C-13 is also flawed in that it allows the use of non-human life forms in the human reproductive process. Cows and others are involved here. That would really be a degradation of the intrinsic value of humanity. Furthermore Canadian society recognizes, and rightly so, that there is a clear difference in the value of the genetic makeup of humans and that of non-humans. Clear guidelines must be in place for all stages of humanity and all forms of genetics so that there is no confusion between human and non-human life forms. The dignity of humanity also applies to the very core of our genetic makeup.

Bill C-13 permits the combination of the human genome with that of a non-human species when permitted by a licence. That is a very dangerous process and the unknown implications can be detrimental to humanity. Transgenic or recombinant gene research poses a grave threat to the integrity of the human gene pool. This bill is intended, as we said before, to benefit humanity and, as such, must ensure that any desire to combine the human genome with a non-human genome must not be permitted since it would desecrate the value and sanctity of human life.

The possibility of combining the human genome with that of an animal or other life forms contradicts one of the main purposes of this very bill, which is to preserve and protect human individuality and diversity and the integrity of the human genome. How can humanity and the human genome be protected if it is combined with other types of genomes?

It is of utmost importance that this bill does not in any way permit other possible forms of cloning either. Dr. Dianne Irving, professor of philosophy and medical ethics and also the former bench research biochemist for the National Institute of Health, was asked by the clerk of the House of Commons health committee to present an analysis of this legislation. She makes it very clear that due to the absence of necessary and relevant accurate scientific definitions, as well as the linguistic loopholes that exist in the bill, it can allow many forms of cloning techniques on humans.

If this bill fails to address the multitude of techniques for producing a human clone or if it improperly defines a technique and then restricts itself to that one improper definition, it is possible that future cloning techniques will not be addressed by this legislation. That will open the door to cloning in Canada, even if that was not the intention of Bill C-13.

Dr. Irving also makes it very clear that only internationally approved scientific terms and definitions, as approved by the International Nomina Embryological Committee, should be used to produce a bill that is not open to a vast array of misinterpretations or misuse. By supporting certain amendments that are before the House today in Group No. 3, we will help ensure the well-being of Canadian society by trying to prevent deviations from the intention of this bill.

The progress of science in this realm does not automatically entitle us to make use of whatever we are capable of doing . The scientific community works hard to make these discoveries, but it is our responsibilities as elected members of the House to ensure that guidelines are put in place so that these amazing discoveries work to benefit humanity rather than pose a risk of harming it. For these reasons, it is essential that we support Motion No. 45 to ensure only ethical research on humans.

I would like to now address Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 39 in Group No. 3. These motions ensure that the purchases of fetuses, fetal tissue and embryos or parts of embryos are prohibited. Human life is not a commodity that we can buy and sell. It would be outrageous if we even considered the sale of babies. Why then does this bill allow for the sale of human beings at a yet younger stage? The legislation of the government must in no way contribute to an industry of selling humans or human parts. In good conscience, how can we allow the commodification of human life? I urge the House to support Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 39 to show that we believe in the value of persons of all ages in our society, those who are pre-born as well.

In good conscience we must oppose a number of the motions that are presented in Group No. 3 as well. I would like to draw attention specifically to Motions Nos. 28, 29, 30, 46, 49, 51 and 95. These motions would allow payment for surrogacy. We must not allow commercial surrogacy in Canada. As a government, we should be seeking to promote the health of Canadians. We must not allow an industry of selling reproductive materials and promoting an industry of commercially using humans to advance reproduction.

In conclusion, I urge the House to consider the implications of this bill as it stands. Without adopting Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36, 39, 44 and 45 in Group No. 3, it is open to some pretty serious and negative consequences that defeat the intention of this bill because of some very vague, ambiguous terminology. We need to make wise laws that chart the direction for us and our future generations. We must not only look at the ground before us as we walk but into the horizon to avoid the stumbling blocks that will hinder us later.

I urge the House to change Bill C-13 to uphold the dignity of human life and remove the possibility of future problems due to our restricted vision of the progress of science.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just to make it clear what we are debating today, it is the Group No. 3 amendments on Bill C-13, which deals with human reproductive technology and other issues, extremely important and sensitive issues.

I want to start by referring to a particular motion in Group No. 3, Motion No. 45. There are some others related to it. Motion No. 45 specifies that no research on embryos or reproductive research should be done except as provided specifically in the regulations. I think that this is extremely important and I want to talk a little about why I see this as an extremely important and sensitive issue and why it is such an important amendment, which simply must be made, I believe, before we can pass the bill in good conscience.

I certainly have concerns, as do many colleagues in the Canadian Alliance and certainly some members in other parties. When we are looking at this whole issue of embryonic research, we are getting into an ethical area that is extremely difficult to deal with. It is a sensitive and very emotional issue and members can understand why. It does divide Canadians. We have seen that through several different petitions that have been tabled in the House. These petitions have pointed out the divisions in Canadian society which have to do with this issue.

When we look at the issue of reproductive technology, it is such an exciting issue to even talk about because the potential of the research in this area, the potential cures, the potential for dealing with very difficult diseases that our friends, our families, and people we know in our communities are suffering from, is almost unimaginable. It is truly an exciting area to be talking about. To me, it seems that it simply is not right to put this very difficult ethical issue into the mix when it is unnecessary, and I want to explain that.

Embryonic stem cell research inevitably results in the death of an embryo, which is early human life. For many Canadians this violates a very important ethical commitment to the respect of human dignity, human integrity and human life. I believe, as do many Canadians, that it is an incontestable scientific fact that an embryo is early human life. The complete DNA of an adult human being is present at the early embryo stage. Whether that life is owed protection or not is an issue that is in some debate and brings up this controversial ethical issue, which again I argue is completely unnecessary to bring into the mix. Again I want to explain why I say that.

I say that because adult stem cell research has proven to be so successful. In spite of the fact that research has been done on human embryos for a much longer period of time, and I know that some very large companies have invested millions and millions, probably billions, of dollars on embryonic research, it has not borne results. There has not been one cure. Not even one individual has been dealt with in an effective way to lessen the symptoms of a disease, to make it easier for a person to live with a terrible disease. There is not one example of that.

Yet with adult stem cell research, which has been dealt with for a much shorter period of time, and it is new research by all measures, there have been terrifically exciting results from it. Knowing this, why do we want to get into the difficult ethical issue? What the motion calls for is a three year moratorium on research on embryonic stem cells. It seems like a very reasonable approach. It stays away from the ethical issue and it encourages research on an area that has proven to be so successful, that is, adult stem cell research.

There are so many advantages to adult stem cell research and I just want to talk a little about them. Adult stem cells have proven to be safe. They are a proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. The sources of adult stem cells are, and this is important to note, umbilical cord blood, skin tissue and bone tissue. It is quite broad. It can certainly be obtained from any human quite easily.Adult stem cells are easily accessible and are not subject to immune rejection.

This is one of the real drawbacks of the research that has been done so far on embryonic stem cells. First, in all cases they are obtained from another human being and there is a rejection problem. Any individuals receiving embryonic stem cells into their bodies will have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. They are very expensive drugs that have quite a remarkable impact on the body. They are not something to be taken lightly. That problem of immune rejection is a very serious problem, a problem we do not find with adult stem cell research simply because adult stem cells come from the same human being who is being treated.

There is a very important distinction between the two that has proven to be a remarkable advantage and that I think will lead to a future in adult stem cell research which simply will not be there in embryonic stem cell research. Of course we have found from the embryonic stem cell research done to date that the cells are so unstable that very strange things happen, including completely unanticipated tumours in experiments done with animals where embryonic stem cells were used. That type of thing is caused by the instability of the cells themselves. Adult stem cells simply do not have that problem.

I think it is important to note again that embryonic research has not led to a single cure to date, whereas already adult stem cells have been extremely successful, in spite of the shorter research period. I think that should lead us to do what the committee called for originally, which was to put in place a three year moratorium on embryonic stem cell research. By that time, I would suggest, it will be clear that there will be no need and in fact no reason to use embryonic stem cells for research.

For those reasons, I want to again encourage all members of the House to support Motion No. 45 from Group No. 3, which deals with this very important issue.

There is one other issue I want to deal with. There are several motions in Group No. 3 that deal with the issue: Motion No. 28, put forth by the member for St. Paul's; Motions Nos. 29 and 30; and there are some others as well that were put forth by members of the Liberal Party.

Motion No. 28 is a motion which would delete prohibitions on surrogacy in order that they can be dealt with in regulations. I am a person who believes that if there is an issue of this magnitude to be dealt with, this issue of surrogacy, that issue should be dealt with in the legislation itself, not in regulation where it can be manipulated quite freely by the civil servants dealing with the issue. I simply do not think that is acceptable. I think Canadians expect parliamentarians, on important issues like this, to in fact have them dealt with in legislation, not in regulation.

I will oppose Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30.

I know that my time is up, but I really want to encourage members of the House to support Motion No. 45 and to oppose Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30. These changes, along with some others, are extremely important and if they are dealt with we can have an extremely exciting piece of legislation that will lead to unbelievable things in the future. Those of us who see our family members, our friends and people in our community with diseases like Parkinson's disease can at least look with hope to some remarkable cures in the near future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-13. I have spoken to all of the other groups, I believe, and I am taking an active interest in this bill. At this time I would like especially to commend my colleague from Yellowhead for his tremendous efforts on this very opaque bill that involves of course great questions of moral import as well as areas of science which normally are not the purview of members of Parliament. I would also like to commend my hon. friend opposite from Mississauga South for his efforts and the many constructive amendments which he has brought forward.

Let me turn, then, to the motions before us and say that first there are Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30, all of which jointly and separately seek to eliminate the prohibition in the bill against paid surrogacy. It is my view, and in fact it was the unanimous view of all five parties at the Standing Committee on Health's review of the original draft of Bill C-13, that legislation ought indeed to prohibit paid surrogacy. There is a very broad consensus on that point in this place and indeed among expert witnesses who have appeared before parliamentary committees on this question.

Why is that the broad consensus? Because there is something fundamentally offensive with the notion that the act of human reproduction can and should be commodified, that it can and should become a market service, that to compel somebody, through financial incentive, to bear someone else's child in a sense cheapens the invaluable act of motherhood upon which a price cannot be placed. Of course paid surrogacy would likely lead to many abuses, where low income women would be, in a sense, financially exploited for the rental of their wombs. It seems to me that this would open the doors. Were we to permit it and pass these amendments in Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30, it would be denigrating the inherent dignity of women and the reproductive process. For those reasons, I will oppose these three motions.

I also would like to specifically note that Motion No. 29 seeks payment for legal services in arranging surrogacy, et cetera. It seems to me that we ought not to be concerned about lawyers' fees in commodification of the process of human reproduction; rather, we should be concerned about human dignity, both of women and of nascent human life itself.

I also will support Motions Nos. 32, 33 and 36 in the name of the member for Mississauga South, which seek to prohibit the purchase of fetuses or fetal tissue or fetal parts and which add a prohibition on the sale of fetuses or fetal tissue. Similarly, Motion No. 39 would prohibit the transfer of ownership of embryos or reproductive materials, thereby supporting the goal of preventing commodification around assisted human reproduction.

The notion that we can and should be able to buy and sell human beings, living or deceased, or the parts of their bodies, reflects a fundamental philosophical error in terms of our understanding of what man is. Human beings are different in kind from all other living species. Human beings are different because they possess an inviolable dignity which is not granted by the state or a court and which cannot be traded on any market.

It is an inviolable dignity understood in theological terms expressed by all of the great religions as human beings created in the image and likeness of God, and understood in secular philosophical terms as the only rational being which possesses a special and inherent dignity which cannot be violated.

Regardless from which theological or philosophical perspective one comes, except for a brutally cold Huxleyan and utilitarian perspective, it is in my view impermissible to see the human body as a commodity to be chopped up and sold on the market to the highest bidder, which the bill currently permits with respect to embryos, fetal parts, et cetera.

I will support Motion No. 44 as a provision that adoption of embryos should be restricted, except as provided in the regulations, that is to say that we should carefully govern the transfer of the ownership of embryos as currently worded in the bill. The biological parents would theoretically be permitted to transfer ownership of their child, which is the embryo. It is the successful result of the reproduction of their genetic material and it is a nascent human being.

I believe that this nascent human being, by virtue of being a human being, is created within a family, meaning by and within the relationship of a mother and a father. It is therefore wrong and impermissible to trade or exchange its ownership to a biological laboratory which wishes to experiment on and/or destroy that nascent human life. This would create greater regulatory oversight of embryonic adoption.

I am strongly in support of the principle of embryonic adoption where the idea is to give that embryo the opportunity to realize its potential as a full human being through implantation into the womb of a mother who is infertile and who seeks a fertilized embryo. There have been hundreds of cases of successful embryonic adoption and implantation in the United States, not paid surrogacy but embryonic adoption, which vitiates the argument put forth by the Minister of Health that so-called surplus embryos created ostensibly for reproductive purposes will be thrown in the trash if they are not used by researchers. The cases in the United States make it plainly clear that there is an alternative to destroying these embryos and that alternative is embryonic adoption, properly governed and regulated.

I will also oppose Motions Nos. 46, 49, 51, and 95, which again seek to liberalize the bill with respect to surrogacy and again to commodify the reproductive process.

In closing, I am hopeful that all members have taken very seriously the time of debate that we have had on these amendments and will vote with their conscience tonight. I hope that all members will vote in a free vote. In particular, I call for members to look closely at my motion, Motion No. 17 in Group No. 2, which seeks to ban the odious practice of embryonic stem cell research and to assert thereby the inalienable dignity of innocent human life.