Reed Elley

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 11th, 2003]

It is my pleasure to rise again on Bill C-13 as we now debate the Group No. 5 amendments. I believe that the bill is actually one of the most important bills that the House will debate in this session and perhaps in this Parliament.

While the government has been tardy in bringing forward this debate since the 1993 royal commission, I caution the government not to attempt to rush through this legislation without allowing full debate and with every aspect of the bill being carefully looked at.

This legislation will greatly affect the lives of many present and future Canadians. We must take the issue very seriously and fully understand the implications that go with it. We are not discussing the price of a commodity or the engineering of a highway. We are debating legislation that affects the day to day lives and, even more, the very history of individuals. We must not and cannot take this lightly. We must ensure that we get it right.

I currently have some very strong concerns that the government has once again failed in its duty to the Canadian people. For instance, the current wording states that embryonic research can be undertaken “if the Agency is satisfied” that such research is “necessary”

I am very concerned with this wording and what the definition of “necessary” may include. When we permit such subjective language to become legislation that involves an issue such as reproductive technology, I believe that we permit the possibility of abuse and personal hidden agendas. While the health committee recommended that such research should be permitted “only if” researchers can demonstrate that no other category of “biological material can be used for the purpose of the proposed research”, the amendment offered by the Canadian Alliance restores the health committee recommendation and specifies that “healing therapies” should be the object of such research.

While I personally do not believe that embryonic research is acceptable at all, when it is being used for the development of cosmetics or drugs I believe that the practice breaches all moral and ethical boundaries.

With regard to the Group No. 5 amendments, I would like to speak to each of them in turn.

Motion No. 6 calls for the replacing of line 31 on page 2 with the following:

with the applicable law governing consent and that conforms to the provisions of the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March, 2002, as detailed in the Regulations.

The amendment expands the definition of consent to include provisions made in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research stem cell research guidelines and has my full support. I believe that while Parliament must have the ultimate decision making authority in Canada, we must rely upon the expertise, the advice and the recommendations that professionals truly can provide to us.

Motion No. 80 calls for the replacement of line 5 on page 21 with:

proposed research and the Agency has, in accordance with the regulations, received approval from a research ethics board and a peer review.

Again I support the motion. The amendment specifies that research using human embryos should be approved not only by the agency but by a research ethics board and a peer review. Even by being as thorough as we possibly can throughout this debate, the technology is developing so quickly that we do not know what issues will arise in the near or long term future. It is therefore imperative that the legislation include the requirement of an ethics review. The seriousness of embryonic stem cell research requires us to support any extra level of oversight or review.

The next amendment proposed, Motion No. 81, specifies that Bill C-13, in clause 40, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 21 the following:

(2.1) No person may use an in vitro embryo that was in existence before the coming into force of this Act for the purpose of research unless it conforms to the criteria set out in the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March, 2002, as specified in the Regulations.

Again, as parliamentarians we must review and use the recommendations that come from expert witnesses and groups such as the CIHR. The clause adds further controls on the use of human in vitro embryos for research, namely that those in existence before the coming into force of this act shall not be used unless they conform to Canadian Institutes of Health Research guidelines. Again I fully support the motion.

Motion No. 82 calls for an amendment to clause 40 by adding after line 5 on page 21 the following. Again this is referred to as subclause 40(2.1):

A person who wishes to undertake research involving stem cells from in vitro embryos must provide the Agency with the reasons why embryonic stem cells are to be used instead of stem cells from other sources.

This amendment places the onus on researchers to explain to the agency the reasons why embryonic stem cells are to be used instead of those from other sources. This is similar to the original recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health that research on human embryos be permitted only if no other biological material is available.

Once again I want to remind the House how very frustrating it is for members of committees to do a thorough job, to make almost unanimous recommendations that are sent on to the minister, and then to have many of those recommendations and amendments simply thrown out. It thwarts the democratic situation in the House and once again adds to the democratic deficit that we have in this country.

I wish to remind the House that adult stem cell research is much more promising and does not involve the ethical problems that surround embryonic stem cells. I remind hon. members that adult stem cells are being used today to treat Parkinson's, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and many other ailments. The results from adult stem cells have been very positive, whereas the use of embryonic stem cells has been very problematic and has not shown the same process.

Of course we also have the problem of rejection. The use of embryonic stem cells requires the use of massive doses of anti-rejection drugs. That is not the case, of course, for adult stem cells. We often can use our own adult stem cells and bank them accordingly. I strongly recommend that researchers should focus their efforts on adult stem cell research and avoid the ethical and moral dilemmas that can arise from using embryonic stem cells.

In the same vein, Motion No. 83 calls for the following amendment:

The Agency shall not issue a licence under subsection (1) for embryonic stem cell research if there are an insufficient number of in vitro embryos available for that research.

Embryos should be used for the creation of life, not destroyed in the process. I support the amendment.

I support Motion No. 86, which states that clause 40 should be amended by adding after line 21 on page 21 the following:

Every licence involving deriving stem cell lines from in vitro embryos must include, in the prescribed form, the obligation on the licensee to provide the Agency with samples of the resulting stem cell lines.

This amendment attempts to control potential co-modification of human life or stem cell lines by requiring licensees to submit samples of derived stem cell lines to the agency.

Motion No. 88 calls for a series of additional clauses relevant to in vitro fertilization procedures. This amendment recognizes abuses and the potential for abuse that can and does occur in some fertility clinics.

In turn it would require the agency to establish limits for IVF procedures on: the number of ova that can be harvested or fertilized, the number of IVF embryos that can be implanted at any one time, the number of embryos that can be stored for later use, and the length of time that an embryo can be preserved.

I note that the Standing Committee on Health did recommend that limits be placed on these activities. Furthermore, the amendment seeks to protect the health and well-being of women and children. That certainly has my full support.

Motion No. 89 would revise clause 42 to be amended from “the agency may” to say “the agency shall”. The remainder of clause 42 reads:

...in accordance with the regulations, amend, suspend or revoke the licence of a licensee who contravenes this Act or the regulations or the terms and conditions of the licence or who fails to comply with any measures ordered to be taken under this Act, and may prescribe conditions for the restoration of a suspended licence.

I believe that this amendment has merit and is relative to the issue at hand. Given the gravity of assisted human reproduction it seems appropriate that licensees found guilty of contravening the act should have their privileges suspended.

Lastly, I support Motion No. 90 that adds a right of appeal to licensees who have had licences suspended for alleged violations to the act. If the regulation has the right to suspend, it is appropriate that the right to appeal is equally available.

The amendments that we are discussing today make up an integral part of the total package concerning reproductive technology. I believe they are reasonable and worthy of serious consideration by all members of the House.

[New Brunswick, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, residents of New Brunswick have been hit hard by the ravages of an ice storm. Initially power was cut to 63,000 homes and businesses sending them into a cold darkness, and 27,000 still remain powerless. Now the weather forecast is calling for further severe winter storms to hit the Atlantic coast, adding to the bad news that New Brunswickers have faced.

Residents have been forced to take up temporary quarters in hotels, motels, with friends or neighbours or in emergency shelters. We understand what these brave people are facing. Frozen water lines, displaced families and lost business revenues are only some of the hurdles that people are dealing with.

I salute the hydro crews who have been working around the clock to restore power. Also the Red Cross volunteers and the host of caring friends, neighbours and even strangers who are reaching out to each other during this trying time.

It is during times like this that we see the very best qualities of our fellow human beings rise to the surface. Whether it be during the recent avalanches in my home province of B.C., the floods in Manitoba and Quebec or the ice storm in central Canada, we need each other.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of New Brunswick, and on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, I wish them all the best.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting that we can have so many different interpretations of the bills that come before us. We already have heard from one of our hon. colleagues that this is an immigration bill. Now we have heard from our hon. colleague that somehow this has something to do with a left wing socialist agenda, and we heard it well from him.

He made an astonishing statement, too, much like the previous member who talked about the bill as an immigration bill. He said that the community's job is to raise kids. For the life of me, I do not understand how he can say that. I would really like him to elaborate on what he meant by that. Surely he did not mean that communities can raise children better than parents can. Surely he did not mean that day care can raise children better than parents can.

If we truly believe that it takes two people, a mother and a father, to do the best parenting jobs available, to raise children in this society, how could he make those statements? I really would like to know.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am quite astonished that the member was dealing with immigration matters. I had no idea that this bill dealt with immigration matters to such great extent. I guess I will have to go back and take a further look a the bill.

In any case, I do agree with one thing that my colleague said when he talked about bringing families together. Of course the bill deals with what happens when families are split asunder. In fact, if the government were truly interested in keeping families together, even after a divorce, as best it can, I would ask my hon. colleague a question.

I will preface my question by saying that I had a constituent visit me just recently who had gone through a very terrible divorce. The judge in the situation gave his orders in terms of custody and access. There was a certain access agreement that could take place but, unfortunately, the mother had moved the children 2,000 miles away. The access orders have never been carried out and there is no hope that this gentleman will ever see his children. There is no way that there are any teeth in the law for the court to enforce that access order.

The bill says a lot about support enforcement but it says nothing about access enforcement. Would the member agree that the bill is deficit in this area by not addressing that very important subject?

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague's position on this issue, I have some concern about the way in which she has phrased some of her words and comments.

It is quite clear that the tragedy of divorce is the fact that two people cannot get along together, and that has gone on obviously for a period of time, which has led to irreconcilable differences and a split in the marriage.

However for her to make comments, which, from my point of view, tend to continue this kind of unhealthy tension, that men are not prepared to be part of the care of their children once a divorce has taken place and that somehow this is a myth, goes against the reality of the changing world in which we live.

A great deal of change is going on in the kinds of roles that men and women play in our society. Both men and women are often the breadwinners in the family. Fathers are showing much more interest in the care of their children. The very fact that the joint custody and access committee brought these recommendations to the floor of the House shows that there is a genuine concern to change things.

Does my hon. colleague not see that perhaps there is a place now for us to look at shared custody and access that would truly bring both men and women into a shared role even beyond divorce?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before I commence my comments on the Group No. 3 amendments, I want to make a comment on today's confusion in the House, which has led us to this point. I am sure that all members of the House realize that the legislation is probably one of the most important and ground-breaking pieces of legislation to come before the House in a number of years, because it is opening up huge new frontiers to us. It is important not only for us today but for the future of all Canadians who are not yet born. We need to get this right. It is very important for us to be able to not allow the special interest groups or particular biases of any of us to interfere with this process.

I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone else who is in the chair, will be able to give us full flexibility to deal with this issue. The matter raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South certainly is bang on as far as I am concerned. We need to take the time to hear from all sides on this issue, particularly those who worked so long, and to not make an end run around the legitimate committee process, in which so many members worked for so long, to make sure this is done right.

Having said that, I would like to look at Group No. 3 amendments and related matters as they affect the whole bill.

The mandate of the agency in the bill, at clause 21, is to “promote...the human dignity and human rights, of Canadians”, yet as we stated in our comments on the Group No. 1 amendments, this is really not reflected in the preamble of the bill. If there were a different statement of principle in the bill itself, it would affect the kind of regulatory agency there is and even the purpose and aims of that regulatory agency. The contradiction could be resolved by, for instance, including the following statement in the preamble. By the way, this is taken almost word for word from the majority report of the health committee. It states:

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

I suggest that the inclusion of such a statement in the preamble would go a long way toward setting the proper boundaries for the regulatory agency.

I know from having sat on a number of committees in the House how frustrating it is for us to do a lot of work in which members sometimes in the heat of the debate do have some heated exchanges, but where at the end of the day the good of country is put before all of that. The members come together in some kind of opinion that should be carried through on with legislation. To have the government of course then just ignore those particular unanimous or near unanimous recommendations of committees is a devastating thing. Again, let us get this right and take the time to do it.

Another matter is that the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada will not, according to the legislation, report to Parliament, only to the minister. We have had other situations in other quasi-government agencies where this has been the case. It circumvents the responsibility of Parliament to be the final judge and arbitrator of what is happening according to government agencies. This should be an independent agency that reports to Parliament.

Clause 25 allows the minister to give any policy direction she likes to the agency. The agency must follow it without question. The clause also ensures that such direction would remain secret. If it were an independent agency, answerable to Parliament, such political interference and direction would be far more difficult. We are suggesting that this entire clause should be eliminated for the good of the future work of the agency.

Members of the board should have fixed, twice renewable terms of three years to ensure that the minister simply cannot get rid of a non-compliant board member or keep one on forever. This again was a recommendation of the majority health committee report and should be implemented.

The performance of the agency should be evaluated by the Auditor General rather than the agency itself. Of course in the last number of weeks and in past years, we have seen how important the work of the Auditor General is, not only in terms of uncovering wasteful practices of government departments and agencies but also in making sure that the original intent of the agencies and the government departments that receive taxpayer money are actually kept on track. That kind of review by the Auditor General of course would be made public. We feel that there should be transparency in that regard.

As my colleague from Yellowhead has already suggested, the creation of new fertility clinics, for instance, also should be a very transparent process. The licensing of these new clinics should be something that all of us can see as that process moves on.

In the passing of any new legislation, there is of course the possibility for a particular sector of our economy to perhaps make more money than it used to. It is quite possible that the passing of this legislation will create a fairly lucrative business for a number of related agencies, along with job opportunities. We have to realize that the bill and the setting up of the new fertility clinics could become very big business. Money would become very much a part of that, for example, in regard to the whole role of surrogate mothers and some members wanting to allow surrogate mothers to charge for their services. All of this becomes very much a concern if it turns into a big business and takes out the aspect of really majoring in the public health and good of the country.

The bill also allows for the creation of advisory panels. We believe the bill should mandate that they include some key stakeholders. We would suggest these: the users of assisted human reproductive technology; children born with the assistance of AHR technologies; and people with disabilities. The disability community has had a fairly emotional yet rational response, I believe, to the possibility of new reproductive technologies taking place in this country. I have a little daughter who is quite severely disabled. Certainly one would want to protect the interests of that community, which often finds itself very vulnerable in the face of government regulation and society as a whole. We would suggest that people with disabilities have a large role to play on these stakeholder committees. We would also suggest the following: the scientific and medical communities; the faith communities, to discuss the ethical dilemmas that surround this; professional ethicists and representatives of research ethics boards; private sector providers of services and private research firms; taxpayers and their representatives; and, of course, the provincial and territorial governments.

This again is in accordance with the majority and minority health reports of the standing committee and we would hope that members of Parliament would see fit to include these recommendations in the law.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada, incidentally, ratified this convention in 1991.

She went on to state:

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

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

Those are elegant words from Olivia Pratten.

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

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

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

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

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

[Petitions, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two other petitions that have been signed by 138 petitioners who are concerned about private members' bill, Bill C-415. In their opinion it would add sexual orientation to a current list of identifiable groups, that this would then have the capacity under the Criminal Code to brand the Bible and other sacred religious books as hate propaganda, and that this would indeed then be a matter of religious freedom.

The petitioners would ask that Parliament halt the passage of Bill C-415, ensuring that religious freedom remains unfettered in Canada.

[Petitions, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, on behalf of over 500 constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, to present four petitions.

Two of the petitions were signed by 378 constituents in which they ask that the government please take all the necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children be outlawed.

[Persons with Disabilities, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise on behalf of the Canadian Alliance and as a father of a disabled child to endorse the theme of the United Nations 2002 International Day of Disabled Persons.

This day draws attention to persons with disabilities and serves as a reminder to all parliamentarians that certain laws need to change to ensure that there is a fair and level playing field.

Today I am also pleased to welcome to Parliament Hill Mr. Michael McCulloch and his father Peter. Mike and Peter live in Duncan, B.C., in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, and are part of the large community of disabled persons and their caregivers from all across Canada.

Today is the day to celebrate the many achievements of persons with disabilities, but more needs to be done. For instance, we need a broad review of the federal tax system, which now gives a greater tax break for business lunches than for the purchase of new wheelchairs.

Federal departments need to be forced to respond to complaints from people such as the one filed two years by disability groups over the VIA Rail purchase of used passenger rail cars that had inadequate access for persons with disabilities.

These are only two of the many issues which face disabled persons today, yet they still face their futures with great courage and in the face of great odds. I salute them.