*   *   *

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, Canadian Alliance) moved:

 

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review the current definition of “human being” in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and report (a) whether the law needs to be amended to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child so as to provide appropriate legal protection for a child before as well as after birth; and (b) whether the law should be amended so that an unborn child is considered a human being at the point of conception, when the baby's brain waves can be detected, when the baby starts to move within the womb, or when the baby is able to survive outside the womb.

    He said: Mr. Speaker,a little over a year ago on March 22, 2001 we debated my Motion No. 228 to reword the definition of a human being in the Criminal Code of Canada. One Liberal MP and one Bloc MP refused my two motions for unanimous consent. The first would have made the motion a votable item. The second would have referred it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    Today with Motion No. 392 I am not trying to redefine a human being. I am trying to convince the House the issue is important enough to be referred to committee to be reviewed and reported back to parliament. Motion No. 392 is self explanatory. It urges:

 

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review the current definition of “human being” in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and report (a) whether the law needs to be amended to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child so as to provide appropriate legal protection for a child before as well as after birth; and (b) whether the law should be amended so that an unborn child is considered a human being at the point of conception, when the baby's brain waves can be detected, when the baby starts to move within the womb, or when the baby is able to survive outside the womb.

    I do not know why my motion was not made a votable item. Maybe it makes so much sense the subcommittee on private members' business thought it did not need three hours of debate to make a decision. I guess we will see in a few minutes.

    Why is the issue so important that it needs to be studied by the justice and human rights committee? There are a few reasons. First, all my constituents told me it was important to them. Last July I had a professional polling company conduct a scientific survey of my constituents. Some 75% of them said Canadian law should be amended so the definition of human being includes unborn children. They objected to the current definition of human being in section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It reads as follows:

 

(1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

 

(a) it has breathed;

 

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

 

(c) the navel string is severed.

    According to the current criminal code definition of a human being, which is scientifically incorrect, a baby must emerge completely from the birth canal before it becomes a human being. It is obvious to the vast majority of my constituents that a baby is a human being before it is born. This is what they object to.

    Only 12% of my constituents thought the definition of a human being did not need to be amended. Those who thought section 223 of the Criminal Code needed to be amended answered the second part of my question this way: Some 56% indicated that an unborn baby should be a human being in Canadian law from the moment of conception; 16% indicated that this should be so from the time the child's brain waves can be detected; 7% indicated it should be so from the time the child starts to move in the womb; and 9% indicated it should be so from the time the child is able to survive outside the womb. An unscientific household survey in my riding produced similar results.

    Second, the issue is important enough to warrant serious review by the standing committee because of the overwhelming response of the general public. Since Motion No. 392 was selected in the private members' business lottery a month ago I have received literally thousands of letters, e-mails and faxes from citizens telling me what they think about the contents of my motion. There have been so many responses I could make a lectern out of them if I wanted to. We are receiving hundreds of responses each day. In the last couple of weeks we have only had time to tabulate the results from 3,511 responses. Many members are getting the same information from their constituents.

    This is what Canadians are telling their members of parliament: Of 3,511 respondents, 3,450 or 98% said they were not satisfied with the current definition of human being in the criminal code; 3,421 respondents or 97% said the definition should be amended to protect the unborn child from the point of conception; 21 respondents said it should be amended to protect an unborn child from the point when the baby's brain waves can be detected; 3 respondents said it should be amended to protect an unborn child from the point when the baby starts to move in the womb; only 7 respondents said it should be amended to protect an unborn child from the point when the baby is able to survive outside the womb; and 12 respondents said it should be amended to protect an unborn child from the point when a child is developing inside the womb.

(1735)  

    Third and most important, the matter should be referred to the committee because of the cold, hard statistics from Statistics Canada. StatsCan reports show that since 1988 more than a million babies have been the victims of therapeutic abortions. If we did not hear anything else here today, is that not reason enough to have the human rights committee review the current definition of a human being?

    During last year's debate on my previous motion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health bragged about the government's policy governing research using gametes, zygotes, embryos and fetuses. Only the Liberal government could be so two faced and hypocritical. A year ago according to the government zygotes, embryos and fetuses had the right not to be used for research but a perfectly healthy baby growing inside a perfectly healthy mother had no rights whatsoever.

    Yesterday National Post editorials editor Jonathan Kay pointed out that after introducing the bill on assisted human reproduction the Liberal government is still confused. Mr. Kay said the proposed legislation was “morally incoherent”. He quite correctly pointed out that under the current definition of a human being in Canadian law a woman is “free to create an embryo if all she wants to do is abort it”, but the new legislation proposed by the health minister would make it a crime to create a human embryo for the purpose of saving a life.

    The moral incoherence of the Liberal government was pointed out a year ago by a number of members in the House. The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest in Ontario spoke eloquently in support of my motion. He said:

 

Do you not find it interesting, Madam Speaker, that on the one hand it is perfectly acceptable and legal in Canada at the present time to kill an unborn child at any point of its development, right up until it comes out of the womb, yet on the other hand we are wringing our hands about the ethics of experimentation on zygotes? Where is the logic in that? How can it be logical to permit a third trimester abortion at eight months without blinking our eyes and wring our hands about whether or not a fertilized egg is going to be flushed down a scientist's drain?

    The hon. member for Mississauga South in Ontario and then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services also spoke in support of the motion. He said:

 

All one needs to do is go to a baby shower and ask what everyone is celebrating.

    The minister pointed out that in a number of jurisdictions in the United States chronic drinking during pregnancy is a criminal offence. This stands in stark contrast to the law in Canada where unborn children have no rights at all.

    The hon. member for Dewdney--Alouette in B.C. pointed out the hypocrisy of the legal definition of a human being during his remarks. He said:

 

We know that in one room we may have a doctor performing microsurgery with the latest technology to save the life of what some may call a fetus, an unborn child who might be six months in its development, while in the very next room we might have somebody else in a very similar situation having the termination of a pregnancy or an abortion. That is a big dilemma. How do we explain that? How do we deal with that?

    The Department of Health is not helping resolve the moral incoherence. On the department's website the words child and fetus are used interchangeably in 175 documents. The words baby and fetus are used interchangeably 56 times.

(1740)  

    The Department of Health further confused the issue in its response to my access to information request. Last year I asked the department for documents, reports and correspondence that provide evidence that abortions are medically necessary.On March 8, 2001, the department responded:

 

I regret to inform you that after a thorough search of all likely record holdings, departmental officials have confirmed that they have no records relevant to your request.

    No records. Is that not amazing? More than 100,000 unborn babies lose their right to life every year and the Department of Health does not even have one document that says abortions are medically necessary. If they are not medically necessary or therapeutic, why are we performing them? Why are taxpayers paying for them?

    Last month I asked the Department of Health for documents, reports and correspondence in the department with respect to the total death risk by women having an elective abortion compared to women carrying their baby to term. The department's response to this question was just as unbelievable as the one last year. The health minister's bureaucrat said:

 

I regret to inform you that following a thorough search the department must confirm that it has no records relevant to your request.

    No records. Can any member believe that?

    The department does not have any documents showing that abortions are medically necessary, nor does it have any documents showing that abortions are medically risky. Is not one of the main purposes of the Department of Health to advise Canadians about what medical procedures are medically necessary and which ones pose a health risk?

    Talk about burying heads in the sand and moral incoherence. Recently the Minister of Health contributed even more to the moral incoherence of the government's position. On May 10, the National Post reported that the justice minister had this to say about the fate of so-called surplus embryos at Canadian fertility clinics:

 

“Do you know what happens to them?” she asked reporters. “They go in the garbage. So, the donor can choose to have them thrown out, which is quite clearly their right, or they can also chose to let those surplus embryos be used for the purposes of medical research,” she said.

    Talk about a slippery slope. What does the minister think happens to more than the 100,000 aborted fetuses every year? That is right, Madam Minister, they are thrown in the garbage. In a CBC Newsworld interview on March 4, 2002, ethicist Maureen McTeer had this to say about research on human embryos:

 

In terms of research on embryos, you want to talk slippery slope, that was the argument used in Nazi Germany; these are only Jews. Now we are saying these are only embryos.

    At least the Canadian Alliance position is morally coherent. The official opposition minority report on reproductive technologies recommended:

 

That the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that theStatutory Declaration include the phrase “respect for human life.”

    Most Canadians believe it is time to end this moral incoherence. In fact it is 14 years overdue. It is time to have a House of Commons committee review the current definition of a human being. That is all my motion is asking. A far less convincing reason, but a reason nonetheless, for referring this matter to the human rights committee is Canada's failure to comply with one of the terms and conditions of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

    I am no big fan of the United Nations. I find most of the articles in the UN convention on the rights of the child a gross intrusion on parental rights and liberties and most articles are definitely not in the best interests of the child. However the Liberal government chooses to cherry pick sections from the UN convention on the rights of the child. It ignores sections that would violate the government's policy on moral incoherence. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which Canada signed, states:

 

--the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.

    In Canadian law there is simply no protection for a child before birth. The Government of Canada has never met its legal obligation to this section of the UN convention. The government cannot discharge its legal obligations under this international agreement, an agreement the federal government and 10 provinces have ratified, unless and until it amends the definition of a human being.

    Therefore, I request unanimous consent of the House to make the motion a votable item.

 The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville.

    The motion calls for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to review the current definition of a human being in subsection 223(1) of the criminal code. The motion raises the issue of the point at which a fetus becomes a human being and whether the current definition of human being complies with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

    I cannot support the motion. The views of Canadians diverge significantly on the rights of the fetus. The very question raises a whole host of issues with moral, social, economic, health and legal implications. Achieving consensus on an issue that touches on so many fundamental values in Canadian society is an extremely difficult task.

    The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville raises the issue of whether the current definition of a human being is consistent with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which Canada ratified, does not address the issue of when a child's life begins. It was not an oversight but rather recognition of the fact that each country must determine the issue for itself based on a balancing of a number of fundamental values.

    The Supreme Court of Canada commented on the rights of the fetus in two key decisions: the Dobson decision and the Winnipeg Child and Family Services decision.

    In the latter decision, the supreme court questioned whether a pregnant woman could be confined and treated against her will in order to protect the fetus. The court held that child protection was an area of provincial responsibility, particularly if the decision affected provincial child welfare laws. The court also held that any attempt to address the rights of the fetus must be balanced with the rights of the pregnant woman.

    We have reached a delicate balance in Canada. The definition of a human being in the criminal code states that:

 

A child becomes a human being with the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother...”

    The criminal code provides a certain degree of protection to the fetus by stating that a person commits homicide by killing an unborn child in the act of birth, under certain conditions. For example, section 238 creates the offence of killing an unborn child in the act of birth. This offence applies even though the child has not yet technically met the definition of a human being.

    These provisions properly balance the need to protect the fetus and the circumstances of the pregnant woman, her rights, interests, and claim to protection in Canadian society. Any change to the definition of human being in the criminal code could have the effect of criminalizing abortion.

    When the provision of the criminal code dealing with abortion was struck down by the supreme court in January 1988, parliamentarians endeavoured to find a basis of agreement that respected differing opinions and constitutional guarantees. Members will recall that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, was defeated in the Senate on January 31, 1991, on the basis of a 43:43 vote.

    The absence of a criminal law on abortion does not mean that a legislative or legal vacuum exists. The delivery of abortion services is currently regulated by provincial governments who are responsible for the delivery of health care services, and by the standards set by the medical profession itself.

    The majority of Canadians are satisfied with this division of regulatory responsibilities and that abortion is regulated as a health and medical matter, and not a criminal matter.

 Motion No. 392 clearly touches upon some of the most fundamental moral, social, economic, health and legal questions. These questions often come down to our own fundamental and personal values. It is the responsibility of the government to examine these fundamental questions and strive to achieve some balance between the competing views.

    This is what parliament and the provincial legislatures have done since 1991 on the issue of abortion. This is precisely the same approach of the government on the issue of when a child becomes a human being. We believe that a majority of Canadians are comfortable with this approach. We have balanced the rights of the fetus with the rights of the pregnant woman. We have done so in a way that is consistent with our international obligations. We have also committed not to criminalize a woman's right to make choices regarding her physical and mental health.

    Given the delicate balancing that was required to get to where we are today, I cannot support opening up the definition of a human being in the criminal code. For these reasons I am unable to support the motion.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne--Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I rise to address a motion which seeks to recognize the fetus as a human being.

    The first time, a similar motion was presented by the same colleague from the Canadian Alliance. This first motion was not moved for debate in the House because the Bloc Quebecois, mindful of the interests of Quebecers and Canadians, opposed presenting a bill to, “define a 'human being' as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required”.

    Today, the same member is bringing up once again a debate that I had thought had been settled some time ago. He is moving a motion that would have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review the current definition of human being to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child, obviously with a view to taking a position against abortion.

    We believe that this debate has had its day. Moving such a motion serves no purpose. The motion reads as follows:

 

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review the current definition of “human being” in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and report—

    Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides that a child becomes a human being “when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother”. This is what the member told us earlier. The section continues “whether or not it has breathed, it has an independent circulation, or the navel string is severed”. I think that the wording is very clear.

    The motion before us asks that the committee:

 

—report (a) whether the law needs to be amended to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

    Nowhere in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is there any reference to the conception of the embryo, or fetus, to its development, or even to gestation. Nor is there any definition of pregnancy. I think that this is the important point. It is interesting to note that the United Nations convention gives as a definition, in its first article, “a child means every human being below the age of 18 years”.

    Article 5 provides that every child has the inherent right to life, and that states parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. This is important: the survival and development of the child.

    In its preamble, the United Nations convention says:

 

that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding;

 

that, in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration;

 

that due account must be taken of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child.

    So, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides legal protection after birth. This is what the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will discover when they study the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is no mention of “before” birth.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be here to participate in this debate. It is an interesting question about defining the human being and is one that has seized this place with regard to Bill C-56 on reproductive technologies. It allows us to raise some very important points about the abortion question. We should never be afraid to raise those issues or to understand what the fundamental issues are.

    With regard to research, the tri-council policy statement, which was made in 1998 and reflected an international standard with regard to research on human beings, concluded that there should not be any research on an embryo once it hit 14 days. The reason is that at that point the embryo has proceeded far enough that it is past the primitive streak. It has a spinal cord. It has a fixed DNA. It cannot split into a twin. In fact it has all of the characteristics that it will have throughout the rest of its life if it were allowed to be in a nurturing environment and to develop further into another form of a human being. A human being does in fact look like an embryo at the beginning and it looks like an adult usually in an aged state in a later part. Human beings look different throughout their years. Therefore we should never be afraid to discuss the fundamentals.

    With regard to Bill C-56, one of the issues is whether we would permit embryonic stem cell research. There are those who believe that human beings begin at conception, and I am one of them. Dr. Françoise Baylis, a medical doctor and ethicist with Dalhousie University and a member of the governing council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, has appeared before Standing Committee on Health. She has said that in all our discussions and in all our legislation we should always remember that the embryo is a human being and it is a member of the human species. Therefore we do have research and medical testimony to this place that in fact an embryo is a human being.

    The fact that there was a tri-council policy statement in 1998 that recognized a human being at least by day 14 has had no effect on the abortion debate. Anyone who feels that this issue is a matter of abortion should not be threatened by this discussion simply because of other views or opinions with regard to when a human being exists.

    I thank the member for bringing the issue forward and not being afraid to discuss sensitive but important issues of the day.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my goal is not to enter into the abortion debate. My goal is to exercise my personal right to reflect my own personal views in spite of the intimidation these days of anyone who wants to speak for the rights of the unborn. We are oppressed on every side to keep quiet and not say anything. Why is that? This is not right. We are being fought because so many understand that what is going on is not right.

    There are differing opinions. There is the embryo, the fetus, the baby, the child, the adolescent and the adult. At what point do we say that it is a human being? Maybe I should say that anyone who is not at least 60 does not have the status of human being because I am over 60. Where do we draw the line?

    We know and we understand according to science that when a sperm and an egg come together they grow and develop. Scientifically that is life. What is it if it is not human life? If it is human life, what is it and how is it that we can we so glibly dismiss it as garbage? How can we do that? How can we just stick our heads in the sand and say we want our rights?

    What if I, a man, impregnated a woman and said “A part of my body is in you. I don't want it there. Adios. Out of here with you, woman.” I know that is a little absurd and that is way over the edge, because that would be taking a human life. Yes, it is funny. It is really funny.

    I once read a very old book that stated “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”. I think we have a perfect example of that when we refuse to look at the reality of what a fetus-embryo-child is: even the definition we have in the criminal code states if it proceeds “in a living state, from the body of its mother”. I used to think that was because once it breathed it then became a human being. I am surprised that it states that even if it has not breathed, even if it does not have its own circulation, just if it is all the way out, it is a human being. I guess, then, that even if the doctor has pierced the skull and taken out the living parts of the baby, what comes out is no longer a human being. I do not understand that. I do not understand how it can be a baby outside and just five seconds before when it was inside it was not. How is that?

    How is that? Human life is human life. We need to face this issue. Where does it come from? I happen to believe that we have so very little to do with human life that when an egg and a sperm come together it is not because we have been so intelligent and able to do something that a life is created. It is because a creator is involved that life is there. Life is not given by air. It is given by a creator. For us to deny the fact that this is life at any stage of the development of an embryo or a fetus is absurd. It does not make good sense. Logic is totally gone.

    I sympathize with and understand the need for a woman to be able to protect her health. There are considerations there, but let us give some consideration to assigning to life human status when, I believe, the creator has done it.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not support the motion that is being debated tonight. My statement will be very simple.

    I have had the opportunity to hear the statements of some of the members in the House, particularly those of the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the member for Terrebonne--Blainville. I appreciate their considered statements and views and I appreciate the suggestions they made. In particular, I appreciated those statements made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre as to the kind of issues on which the time of the House of Commons could be best used in order to get on with the business of providing quality of life for our children here in Canada and elsewhere. I support wholeheartedly the statements made by the member for Terrebonne--Blainville and the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

    Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the reason this motion is necessary is that in Canada there is currently absolutely no legal value ascribed to human life prior to full delivery from the birth canal.

    In the Sullivan and Lemay case some 15 years ago, a child was almost completely born but still had part of its body remaining in the birth canal and was inadvertently killed by a midwife. The court ruled that the midwife could not be held culpable for criminal negligence because a child seven-eighths of the way to being completely born had less legal status than we give to protected non-human vertebrates.

    There was the pellet gun case, as it was known, here in Ottawa about six years ago. A distressed and emotionally disturbed mother attempted to kill her unborn child in the ninth month of pregnancy by firing a pellet gun into her womb. Miraculously the child survived. Criminal authorities were not able to obtain a prosecution for attempted assault to that child even though it was in the ninth month of development because our law allocates precisely no legal status or rights of any kind to what every single one of us in this society would recognize as a human being.

    Some members have said that a delicate balance has been reached that is supported by public opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canada is the only country in the democratic world which permits an unborn child to be destroyed for any reason or no reason up to full delivery from the birth canal and in every single instance at public expense. This is not a delicate balance. This is an indelicate, extreme legal status quo that we have with respect to unborn human life and it is not supported by public opinion.

    Roughly 20% of Canadians in public opinion polls would ascribe full legal protection to the unborn in every instance. Some 30% would permit the destruction of the unborn at any stage of pregnancy. The other 50% of Canadians in the middle would seek what they would characterize as a delicate balance to prohibit the destruction of the unborn for reasons other than grave health necessity, for conception as a result of rape or incest, et cetera.

    I submit that the motion seeks to develop that balance, that social consensus. It provides a range of different options at which time this parliament could recognize the inception of rights and legal protection for the unborn.

    Those who pretend that the status quo in Canada is somehow a balance, which as the Prime Minister said during the election represents a consensus or social peace, ignore the fact that this country alone in the civilized world has seen fit to suggest that a child seven-eighths of the way from full delivery from her mother's birth canal is just a meaningless blob of cells and possesses no human rights.

    If we are the civilized, generous and tolerant nation which we claim to be, then we ought to welcome in love and protect in law all human life.

    The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

[Translation]

    It being 6:30 pm, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

    (The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)