Commons passes bill that outlaws human cloning (allows stem cell research)

[Spazito]

The House of Commons has approved a bill that outlaws human cloning, but allows stem cell research on embryos. The legislation passed by a vote of 149 to 109.

Along with human cloning, the sale of human sperm, eggs and embryos would also be illegal. But several Liberals opposed the legislation, arguing it would permit research that requires the destruction of human embryos.

<snip>

"I am respectful of those who feel that they would have liked to have seen different things in this legislation. But I think it fills a void, both legislative and regulatory void in our country around some very important issues," McLellan said.

<snip>

Parliament is expected to rise next week and there may not be enough time for the legislation to receive approval from the Senate where it faces an uncertain fate. McLellan said she believed the bill would eventually become law.

more

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1067353096255_62762296///?hub=Canada

[Maple]

1. 'Eventually'

is a long time.

[Spazito]

2. No, seeing as the liberals "own" the Senate, it will pass during the next

session and, after waiting 10 years, that is a short span of time. The big hurdle was parliament and that has now been passed, the rest is a rubber stamp.

[Maple]

3. Parliament

won't be sitting long enough likely...supposed to rise next week.

And the bill will die.

[Spazito]

4. Hmmm, did you read? The bill passed!

Just in case you DID read, you must have missed this so let me help you:

The legislation passed by a vote of 149 to 109.

[Maple]

5. Did YOU read?

Not thru the senate.

It is not law, and may never be law.

[Spazito]

6. You are being disingenuous, the Senate rubber stamps Parliament..

especially when the ruling party holds the majority in the Senate by a large majority. This will pass, much as that may dismay you, it seems.

Edited to add: Can you tell me the last bill the Senate did not pass that was sent up from the House? What year?

[Maple]

7. You are the one who posted the article

It would behoove you to read it.

The Senate can not only return a bill to the Commons, unpassed, for re-working, there may not be enough time for it to even make it to the Senate.

And after that it needs royal assent before becoming law.

Perhaps a course in civics would help you.

I am neither for nor against the bill...I said it is not yet, and may not become, law.

[Spazito]

8. ROFL, that kind of says it all, doesn't it!

It couldn't be that you will not show me why the Senate "might" not okay this is because the last time they didn't support a bill from the floor of the house is back in history and nowhere near current. Sending it back for reworking does not kill the bill unless the newly named "Conservative Party" wins the next election and that ain't gonna happen!

As to your other point, the Senate is not going to die, never to consider the bill if it does not come before them before Parliament rises this term. Again, after waiting 10 years, if we have to wait till early next year for the final okay, that is a short span of time.

Royal Assent will be given when the bill passes both the House and the Senate.

[Maple]

9. I will repeat part of your own post

"Parliament is expected to rise next week and there may not be enough time for the legislation to receive approval from the Senate where it faces an uncertain fate. McLellan said she believed the bill would eventually become law."

And yes the Senate frequently sends bills back for reworking. We've even had huge uproars about it.

If this session comes to an end...all bills die on the order paper.

And the process has to begin again. Whether it does or not will be up to Martin.

I don't know why you're so snorty about this..it's a standard process.

I have no fish to fry on the matter either way...it's simply not law as yet.

[Spazito]

10. Okay, let's try this...from the article...

"It is a fact that research is going on embryos in this country and has been explicitly permitted since 1987," Francoise Baylis, an ethicist at Dalhousie University, said.

What this bill does is establish what is already being done. Simple.

[Maple]

11. Please note:

"In theory these powers are formidable. But for over 40 years the Senate did not reject a bill passed by the House of Commons, and very rarely insisted on an amendment that the House of Commons rejected. Then, in 1988, it refused to pass the "Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement," forerunner and basis for the North American Free Trade Agreement until it had been submitted to the people in a general election. In 1989-90, the Senate insisted on amendments to an unemployment insurance bill, amendments the Commons rejected; the Senate eventually passed the bill as submitted by the House. And in 1991, the Senate simply defeated a Commons bill respecting abortion. In other cases, the Senate has not adopted bills before the end of a session, thereby effectively stopping them from becoming law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate

(This bill does not establish what is already being done btw. It specifically forbids certain things...things that could easily go ahead, and are, without a legal ban.)

[Spazito]

12. If you continue to check, and learn, you will see that most of these...

happened when the ruling party and the majority of senate members were not from the same party. That is NOT the case now. Your post just backs up what I have said, it is VERY rare that the Senate does not rubber stamp the bills sent up by the house. We, Canadians, know how our government works. Seeing as you don't identify yourself as Canadian, I can only assume you have an interest in our form of government, good for you!

[Maple]

13. Look if it's that important to you

then believe what you want to, it doesn't affect me one way or the other...however this bill could die.

The Senate frequently kills bills...as you just read.

And there are several methods for doing so.

It's a standard process to pass or kill a bill and has been since Confederation.

I am not only Canadian, I have held elected office here.

The name 'Maple' should have told you the nationality.