Maurice Vellacott

[Employment Insurance, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government study released last month says that young people are among the hardest hit by the unemployment insurance reforms.

For example, students who work part time and earn over $2,000 a year—not a lot of money—have to pay EI premiums but have no chance of receiving benefits because they are full time students.

Since these students in effect have no coverage, why is the government forcing them to pay insurance premiums?

[Employment Insurance, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a government study released in March showed that students are among those hardest hit by the changes to the employment insurance program. For example, students who work part time while in school who have no chance of collecting benefits are still forced to pay inflated premiums.

The most shocking thing we have learned is that those responsible for this problem are themselves students. There are three of them.

One is the Minister of Finance, a graduate of the school of accounting sleight of hand.

Another is the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, a member of the school's debating society who is skilled in the art of defending positions dictated by others.

Lastly, there is the Prime Minister, the schoolyard bully, who sees no need for studies like the one released in March. Such studies only get in the way of stealing the lunches of weaker students.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition is with respect to the Senate.

These petitioners ask that in view of the fact that Canadians deserve an accountable Senate responsible to the wishes of the Canadian people, a house that will act as a sober second thought in law making, they call on parliament to accept the results of a Senate election.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is with respect to medically unnecessary abortions. These increase health risks for women undergoing this procedure. Opinion polls indicate consistently that Canadians do not support tax funded abortions.

The petitioners urge that there be a referendum to ask voters whether they are in favour of government funding for medically unnecessary abortions. The petitioners uphold the sanctity of life for all preborn.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in respect to young offenders.

These petitioners, about eight pages in total, simply ask that there be a more serious approach taken to crimes of young offenders and more serious consequences and proper punishment for the crimes committed by young offenders.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for granting my request.

I present a petition with some 1,000 names. It is necessary to get this in. The petition is asking for the rejection of the recommendations of the MacKay task force report pertaining to the entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.

The petitioners urge the government not give in to the pressure of the banks on this matter at present or in the future.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask, being that we jumped over petitions because of the previous motion in the House, if I could have unanimous consent to present some petitions I would like to very quickly and urgently table in the House. There may be others who have that same request. I will get through them quickly. Could we have unanimous consent for that?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I happened to read a letter today from a lady who was talking about the inequities in the Canadian Income Tax Act. She made the point that she wanted the choice to stay at home and care for her children during their critical years. She also said, “If I am in the home, if I am in the kitchen, it is my own choice. If I am pregnant, the Reform Party most assuredly had nothing to do with it. If I am barefoot, however, the Liberal Party has made a major contribution to my condition”.

I would like the member to respond to this whole issue, particularly on the matter of the Reform proposal for an increased spousal equivalent that would be allowed for a dependent child of a single parent.

[Taxation, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, by taxing single income families unfairly the Liberal government has placed its ravenous appetite for tax revenues above the well-being of society.

In some countries governments permit children to be abused through child labour. Instead of ensuring that children receive an education, those governments look the other way, forcing children to punch the clock every day.

However, Canadians believe that a basic education is important enough to justify staying out of the paid workforce for a certain period of time.

Likewise, the majority of Canadians believe that the task of caring for our children, the next generation of Canadians, is important enough to justify a parent's decision to stay out of the paid workforce for a certain period of time.

The Liberal government seems to hold the view that if a person is not taxable, their contribution to society is less valuable. A vast majority of Canadians reject that view.

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there are some categories of genetic manipulation which Bill C-247 responds to and some which it does not. However, the broad concept of genetic manipulation can be broken down into several categories and sub-categories.

The unamended Bill C-247 dealt with cloning and germ-line manipulation. The unamended bill prohibited two kinds genetic manipulation, cloning on the one hand and germ line genetic changes on the other.

We were supportive of the bill in its original form, prior to the amendments. We have some reservations with respect to some very important parts of the bill which were removed.

Most of us understand what cloning is about because of news reports on Dolly, the very first cloned animal. With respect to the second practice, we believe that subclause 1(b) of the unamended bill should be retained. It reads:

No person shall knowingly

(b) alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or embryo if the altered structure is capable of transmission to a subsequent generation.

Whenever genetic manipulation results in changes that can be passed on to the next generation—and not all genetic manipulation has that result—it is referred to as germ-line or genetic alteration. This bill prohibits that kind of alteration. It does not address non-germ-line genetic alteration that has no consequences for subsequent generations.

I want to speak to the purpose of the prohibition of germ line changes, which is found in the second part of the unamended bill. The intention of subclause 1(b) in the unamended bill was to prevent scientists, and rich parents as their clients, from altering human beings who would then pass on their new gene structures to subsequent generations, since that would result in the engineering of the human race. Put differently, its purpose was to prevent all artificial tinkering with the human gene pool.

The purpose of the second prohibition of the unamended bill was to prevent eugenics. We all know about that. That has been described and talked about before. We believe that there are some real flaws and major moral and ethical problems with moving in that direction.

There are implications in Bill C-247 for research on gene therapies. The member from the Bloc acknowledged the concerns expressed at committee stage by the Liberal member from East York who argued that the bill might prevent researchers from finding cures for genetic disorders. Briefly, the unamended version allows individuals to be treated for genetic disorders as long as the treatment does not result in the possibility of their offspring carrying the genetic alteration. That provision was in the unamended bill.

In other words, the gene therapy must not involve changes at the germ line. It is very important to make clear that the unamended bill does not affect current gene therapy or current research on gene therapy. Present day gene therapy, called somatic cell gene therapy, involves manipulating cells in the body, except the reproductive cells. It involves the insertion of a gene into the patient. As we have said, the germ line is not affected.

The germ line genetic alteration prohibited in the unamended bill would involve replacing affected genes in reproductive cells—the sperm, the egg, a zygote or an embryo—with unaffected genes. It is not feasible in human beings at present. It is really still the stuff of science fiction. Some believe that technological advances may one day make germ line changes feasible.

That is why we need the unamended Bill C-247, the prohibition of germ line genetic alteration. The germ line changes would involve unacceptable health risks for the individual. The risks associated with germ line alteration are much greater than those surrounding what is called somatic cell gene therapy since any mistakes would affect all of the embryo cells. An inserted gene could interfere with other vital gene functions or conceivably activate genes associated with cancer development or other disorders. It would be kind of like making one move on a chessboard. If we make a move on a chessboard it affects the values or the functions of the other pieces. It changes the rest of the scenario.

These risks have caused some to propose a solution, one that I find ethically unacceptable. Some suggest that germ line genetic alteration is not necessary since it is only needed when an embryo is found that is abnormal. It is pointed out that it is an easy thing to simply discard such embryos and implant only healthy embryos. Therefore we would be using aborted fetuses, discarding those embryos that we did not want and implanting only healthy embryos. Therein lies some of the beginning of the problems with not having this as a prohibition on germ line genetic alteration.

We need the unamended bill to be retained because germ line changes would involve an unacceptable health risk for the larger society. Altering the genetic make-up of the human genome does more than risk the future of the individual involved and the germ line. The fact that humankind possesses a certain amount of genetic mutation is what is believed to provide the reservoir of the species to adapt to changes in environmental circumstances.

The human genome has incurred constant but subtle changes to its structure in response to environmental demands. That has resulted in certain recessive disorders which actually enhance a person's ability to exist under certain conditions.

An example of this is the gene for sickle cell anemia that provides resistance to malaria. It is impossible to determine the possible benefits or risks of seemingly aberrant genes as the scope of their interaction with other genes and gene products remains unknown.

We need to retain Bill C-247 in its unamended form because germ line changes, if possible, someday would lead to eugenics. Contrary to what many suppose, the line separating therapeutic and non-therapeutic genetic alteration is very fuzzy. Any introduction of germ line changes to address the most debilitating of childhood diseases, like cystic fibrosis, would prepare society for changes intended to address genetic mutations whose impacts would be delayed until adulthood, until much later along. A predisposition to diabetes, heart disease, asthma and various forms of cancer fall into that category.

At a later point germ line changes would be used to inoculate people against various infectious agents such as HIV. Then germ line changes to address problems such as mental diseases and anti-social behaviour would be attempted, and the list goes on and on from there. Some commentators believe that ultimately genetic enhancements of all sorts that have nothing to do with health would then be attempted.

The unamended Bill C-247 is right. It is an appropriate bill to ban germ line genetic changes. It is foolhardy to hold out germ line changes as the means to eradicate genetic disorders. The potential risks involved range from the creation of even worse disorders or the inadvertent loss of important traits we currently possess to the collapse of social structure and ideals, following a disregard for the overall, most important, all-embracing concept of the sanctity of life.

I would very much support, as I believe our party does, the retention of all of Bill C-247 in its unamended form.