37th Parliament, 2nd Session
Edited Hansard • Number 072
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Bill C-13: Prohibition of Human Cloning
Ms. Judy Sgro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
to set the record straight on a couple of issues that have been addressed
during the debate today.
I will begin with human cloning since it is one of the rare issues on
which the House agrees. We are united in our opposition to human cloning.
Canadians have clearly shown that they too support this goal.
The only area of disagreement seems to be whether Bill C-13's prohibition
on human cloning is complete. It is. There are no loopholes. Bill C-13
would ensure that no human cloning takes place in Canada, period. Patricia
Baird, an internationally respected geneticist and former chair of the
Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, has made this crystal
clear. Professor Baird said:
Based on incorrect science -- and I think part of what is being referred
to throughout this debate in the last few days is the issue of incorrect
science -- some have suggested that the bill doesn't ban cloning, but
in fact, on careful reading, it clearly does.
All forms of human cloning would be banned, irrespective of whether the
goal is to produce a child or to undertake research. The prohibition would
capture every cloning technique, whether currently known to us or a new
method still to be invented.
Therefore, the motions that were discussed in Group No. 2 are clearly
unnecessary in reference to Motions Nos. 13 and 40.
I will now turn to the issue of embryo research. It sometimes seems that
in the debate over the bill we are losing perspective of what it is actually
all about. Bill C-13 first and foremost is legislation that seeks to protect
the health and safety of women and men who walk through the doors of Canadian
fertility clinics, people looking to start a family or to help others
to do so.
The work we do in the House reflects the values and the principles that
we share as a nation. Canadians believe that children and families are
critically important to us. The government has made helping children and
their families a priority in its long term commitment to a better quality
of life. Healthy children, secure families and vibrant communities are
all essential in defining quality of life in Canada.
Estimates suggest that some one in seven Canadian couples face the challenge
of infertility. Many of us take the ability to have children for granted,
but for them, starting a family is not at all a simple matter. Many of
them have to turn to fertility clinics. They should be able to do so,
knowing that there are the same solid safeguards in place whether they
visit a clinic in Moncton, Toronto or Montreal. They should be able to
do so knowing that everything possible is being done to make the procedures
as safe and as effective as possible, not only for those undergoing them
but also for any children born from them.
If we want the procedures used in fertility clinics to be safe, doctors,
nurses and other health professionals must be able to learn how to do
them safely. These professionals also have a duty to improve the assisted
human reproduction procedures in ways that strengthen safety and further
protect the health of the women undergoing them and that of any resulting
children.
As the standing committee recognized, this work will sometimes require
the creation of embryos. This would be permitted under clause 5(1)(b)
but would require a licence and be subject to strict regulations and inspections,
which are currently not happening.
We as a society have accepted assisted human reproduction procedures
as a way to treat infertility. We cannot prohibit the research used to
improve the safety of these procedures. That would be analogous to saying
that we accept kidney transplants as a treatment for renal failure but
do not accept the research needed to improve the safety of the transplants.
Indeed, I urge members to support Bill C-13. A lot of it is based on
what Dr. Baird has accurately termed "incorrect science" that
we hear from many of those who continue to be in opposition.
|