moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-247, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 2 with the following:
“human sperm, zygote or embryo for the purpose of cloning a human being. ”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify my reasons for moving this amendment to Bill C-247.
During the committee's review of Bill C-247 prior to approval, some scientists from Health Canada were there to answer our questions and clarify a number of sections. On one provision in particular, namely clause 1( b ), concerns were expressed regarding the actual impact of the clause at it stands.
Indeed, according to Ms. Colvin, from Health Canada, the scope of this wording goes beyond human cloning and includes any genetic manipulation, regardless of its purpose.
The issue is not whether or not we must prohibit this type of manipulation. Bill C-247 merely seeks to prohibit human cloning. Two clauses of Bill C-247 seemed to by saying two different things, but the real and fundamental object of this legislation is simply to prohibit human cloning. Any other form of genetic manipulation should be discussed at another time.
The original intent of Bill C-247 concerned only human reproductive cloning, and that has not changed. This bill is obviously not the answer to all the issues.
However, things must be done clearly and accurately when we are legislating in the area of medically assisted reproductive technologies. There must not be any grey areas or vague provisions preventing us from knowing what is authorized and what is not. This is why I am moving and amendment which clarifies the object of this bill by amending clause 1(b) to read as follows:
No person shall knowingly
(b) alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or embryo for the purpose of cloning a human being.
On February 27, 1997, the scientific magazine Nature published a research paper that people will talk about for a long time. The creators of Dolly describe how the team of researchers succeeded for the first time in history in producing a healthy lamb from breast tissue taken from an adult sheep.
Not long after the announcement that Dolly had been cloned, it was learned that two monkeys had been cloned in Oregon from embryonic cells. This was a first for primates.
We have all heard of Dr. Richard Seed, the American scientist who has publicly announced his intention to clone humans for sterile couples. Today, a technique using cells from aborted foetuses could change the face of modern medicine.
Science is evolving at a dizzying pace, often to the advantage of society. There are also cases, however, where society itself needs to set limits for the progress of science, and the cloning of humans is one such case.
Even if Bill C-247 is adopted, it will not put an end to the debate on medically assisted reproductive techniques, far from it. This initiative must be seen as a starting point. We certainly have to start somewhere. This can lay the first brick of a wall delineating where we, in conjunction with the individuals, organizations and governments concerned, want the line drawn between what we want as a society and what we will not accept.
The key issue involved in cloning, once the possibility of cloning merely for the purposes of reproduction has been eliminated, involves mostly therapeutic considerations.
Let us imagine someone with Parkinson's disease. If human cloning were possible, an embryo could be produced from an adult cell from a patient and someone's egg. A few months later, the embryo, which would be implanted in a woman's uterus, would develop into a foetus genetically identical to the patient. The foetus is aborted, the brain cells are extracted and grafted onto the patient's brain, which will not reject them because they are identical to its own cells.
Yes, indeed, the advances in genetics mean benefits for society. But the fact that the research provides benefits must not prevent us from imposing limits on its development, according to values dear to the human race. Otherwise, certain unfortunate science fiction scenarios could become real.
Scientists wonder why not have access to various human cloning techniques in order to create full, living, but brain absent clones.
Impossible, you say. Science, however, is at the point of making this sad scenario possible. In England, they have managed to alter certain genes to transform the physiological development of animals. With this manipulation, it is now possible to prevent the development of the head, the trunk or the tail in some animals.
The same method could be applied to human embryos as well. Instead of creating and keeping a human embryo as such, it could be genetically reprogrammed so as to prevent the growth of unwanted body parts.
Can we imagine the conception of an embryo that could ultimately become a baby solely for therapeutic purposes, noble though they may be? It is not just a matter of having something be possible for it to be acceptable. The problem is controlling the new powers developed by science and technology.
In conclusion, increasingly, scientific discoveries keep pushing back the frontier of the possible. The more humanity learns about genetics and reproduction, the more it is tempted to apply these discoveries to itself.
All the possibilities that have recently come to light have tested the limits of what is morally and socially acceptable. In his book The Imperative of Responsibility , the philosopher Hans Jonas wrote that modern technology has brought with it actions on such a staggering new scale, with objects and consequences so unheard of, that the old school of ethics is no longer able to keep up.
With genetic discoveries evolving so rapidly, and human cells less and less of a mystery, it is obvious that cloning for reproductive purposes is no longer in the realm of science fiction. It is upon us.
Is this what we really want? I think not, and Bill C-247 is a response.
Having said that, it is of the utmost urgency that we take the time to consider the other technologies and possibilities that genetic engineering has to offer, those that do not produce quite the same reactions as human cloning but that will nonetheless have an impact on the very composition of the human race, such as gene therapy.
Before events overtake us, society itself must agree on a new ethical framework. We must decide how far we are prepared to venture into what was, only yesterday, beyond our reach: defining humankind.