Bill C-56 (Historical)

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

An Act respecting assisted human reproduction

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity as well to rise on this important occasion, one that we have been anticipating for years. In fact this dates back many years now. When the Prime Minister came in and assumed office in 1993, there were some fundamental issues then. Here we are almost nine years later dealing with this.

It seems very strange that we are doing this in almost a hurry up fashion before the House rises for the summer. In fact there is even talk of prorogation. We certainly have to question how important this is to the government, in light of recent events. I am sure the government has some concerns about this but one would hate to think that this might be some sort of tactic to toss it in to get flaming issues off the back burner. Nonetheless, we do need to look at this but not in such a hurried fashion. We should really study this.

Ten or fifteen years ago we would not have even had this debate because the technology was not available to determine some of these very sensitive but important ethical and technological questions. We certainly need to deal with it because the advances in medicine have been absolutely phenomenal.

I would like to take the few minutes I have to talk about the important and amazing breakthroughs taking place with non-embryonic stem cell research or adult stem cell research if that is a synonym. Then I would like to talk about what the whole argument is, where the road will lead us and what is the definition of human life. I would like to use that as my thesis and discuss for a few moments how important it is to say that the Canadian Alliance supports stem cell research. Again the breakthroughs in medicine and research have been just absolutely phenomenal in these last few years, and we are able to celebrate that.

Having said that, it is not all done because there are breakthroughs daily, weekly, monthly, in terms of stem cell research and exciting things are happening all the time. It is not a closed book.

If we bring in legislation to say that we will go down the embryonic stem cell research route without fully realizing and celebrating the importance and amazing breakthroughs taking place with non-embryonic stem cell research, then it seems to me we would be cutting ourselves short, cutting the Canadian public short and cutting short the people whose lives are depending on this.

There have been tremendous breakthroughs with Parkinson's disease and MS. We had the ALS people here on the Hill not long ago. These are real people who have real names, real faces, real families and whose lives can benefit so much by this.

It would be premature for us to say that the government has all the answers and that we will go down this path when we have not fully explored the path of adult stem cell research. Because of these exciting breakthroughs, it would be essential for us to say that there would be a three year review, as the government has said. That is terrific but I hate to be cynical but this. Those of us who have been around more than three years have watched some of these reviews. A few of us have seen a few three year cycles in this place. The Canadian Alliance is calling for a three year moratorium on this so we can see, in the long term, some of the scientific advances being made in this area.

Adult stem cell research, or non-embryonic stem cell research, has three benefits. There are probably lots more but we could talk about three of them. First, the cells are readily accessible and there are plenty of us around.

Second, they are not subject to tissue rejection. These are cells that have gone on and in some cases some much longer than others. There is tremendous potential and realization. If the cells are not subject to tissue rejection, what a wonderful thing. We could do the stem cell research and testing. Because these are not embryonic stem cells, people would be able to move ahead because there would be no tissue rejection, which is important and can be devastating to many transplant patients.

Third, it poses minimal ethical concerns. I am sure that every one of us would agree that there are huge ethical concerns here. As I mentioned earlier, this was not even a factor 10 or 15 years ago. We did not have the potential for these kinds of things so it was not a real ethical dilemma. However it now is.

We get into the very question of what is important and what is essential for us to realize in terms of embryos are embryos and when do we stop saying that an embryo has been developed by parents. Let us not just call them donors, because whoever they are, they have names, faces, families and loved ones as well. When does it leave that path and swap over to the path of getting at it and farming these things for pure scientific research or use as donors.

We talk about that and the transition from embryonic stem cell research to what is the definition of human life, because I think that is with what all of us probably struggle. I know the committee, which did tremendous work, discussed that I am sure at length and had to come up with what human life really was and when did it start. Those questions have been asked for a very long time. I will not get into that debate.

I just want to show a couple of examples of how thankful I am and how strongly I believe, because of DNA and because of all kinds of other factors, that life begins at conception. If we look at the DNA of any embryo, that is again technology which has only been perfected or advanced in the last several years. DNA does not start at birth. It does not start at 27 weeks gestation. It does not start at 13.5 days. It starts at the moment of conception. That, with scientific research to back it up, is when life really starts. Then we get down the road to whether we start farming these things or do we celebrate that as human life.

Let me tell the House about my brother, Sean, who is adopted. He came to our home when I was about six years old and he was about two or two and a half years old. All of a sudden I had a brother. I am very grateful that somebody, somewhere, who was in a difficult situation, chose to give him up for adoption. Because of that I ended up with a brother. I do not pay any attention to the fact that he is adopted or that he has different DNA than any of the rest of us. It does not matters. What matters is that somebody, somewhere realized that this was a human life.

He is now a living, breathing human being. He is my brother, he has been for a very long time and I am glad for that. That is the real life, the real face, the real people issue of this for which I am grateful. He has been my brother forever and will continue to be. I am grateful that somebody, somewhere realized that although he was just an embryo then, he was still a human being.

Let me talk for a couple of minutes about something I read in the newspaper yesterday. When we talk about when human life really starts, we think it has to have so much weight or so much gestation or whatever. There was a story about a little girl. The newspaper named her Pearl because it could not give her real name. This took place in France. She was born in February. She weighed 10 ounces. This is an absolute record of a living, breathing person who was born at 10 ounces.

I think about a pound of butter. I am not too good with math, but I think about my palm pilot and how I can bounce it around in my hand. It feels a little bit less than a pound of butter so maybe it is 10 ounces, I do not know. The palm pilot people would know, but it is not very big. If we hold 10 ounces in our hands, it is not very big. Yet there she is. She came home from the hospital this weekend. She weighs four pounds, four ounces now. She is a real live human being. That to me is exciting.

That is what we need to debate and celebrate; that human life begins right at the moment of conception, because that is when our DNA starts. That is where little baby Pearl started. She has gone home from the hospital now and I am sure she will give great joy and satisfaction to her family.

I will just wrap up by saying, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, since the principle of the Bill does not recognize the value of non-embryonic stem cell research which has had great advancements in the last year”.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the two previous members who spoke to the legislation. They made some very thoughtful comments.

I rise today to address Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction. The legislation deals with some very difficult medical, scientific and ethical issues.

The bill has been expected for a long time, ever since the royal commission on new reproductive technologies reported in 1993. It is of course a direct response to the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health which reviewed draft legislation and made a series of recommendations on December 12, 2001.

I would like to publicly commend all members of that committee for their work, particularly our health critic, the member for Yellowhead, and the former member for Calgary Southwest, the former leader of the opposition, Mr. Preston Manning.

As the two previous speakers said, this is one of the most important issues we will discuss during this parliament. What does the bill do specifically? The proposed bill prohibits unacceptable practices, such as creating a human clone for any purpose, reproductive or therapeutic purposes; identifying the sex of an embryo created for reproductive purposes except for medical reasons, such as sex linked disorders; creating human/non-human combinations for reproductive purposes; paying a woman a financial incentive to be a surrogate mother, commercial surrogacy; paying donors for their sperm or eggs or providing goods or services in exchange; and selling or buying human embryos or providing goods or services in exchange. The official opposition generally supports these measures.

I would like to point out in particular the prohibition of sex selection for reproductive purposes. In 1994, as an assistant to the former MP for Surrey North, I had the opportunity to work on a private member's motion that sought to do exactly this. I commend the government for finally putting forward this measure in legislation.

The legislation would also establish the assisted human reproductive agency of Canada. This agency would operate as a separate organizational entity from Health Canada reporting to the Minister of Health. It would have up to 13 members on a board of directors reflecting a range of backgrounds and disciplines. I would suggest that whoever determines the agency, such as the minister, should consider someone like the former member for Calgary Southwest, Preston Manning, as a member on that board.

The agency would also be responsible for licensing, monitoring and enforcement of the act and its regulations. It would maintain a donor offspring registry. Finally, it would provide reliable information on assisted human reproduction to Canadians.

Our main concern about the agency is that it would report to the Minister of Health. We question whether it would have the independence required of such an agency to be truly effective.

The most contentious issue in the bill is obviously embryonic stem cell research, in particular, the fact that excess embryos would be used for research purposes. The bill would prohibit the creation of embryos solely for research purposes, something which I very much support.

I want to respond to the previous speaker whose comments I felt were well thought out. If we were to allow excess embryos from IVF, how could we be sure that they were not created simply for research purposes?

The member also indicated that the embryo was life and that if an excess embryo were created and subsequently killed, through death would we not seek to help other lives? That is partly true ethically, but the question is, are we unwillingly killing an embryo? This is not a willing person giving his or her life in a defensive situation for another life. There is no consent and that is something we have to consider.

This is a very difficult medical issue. My uncle is a diabetes researcher in Edmonton. I know many scientists are looking at embryonic stem cell research and see a lot of possibilities in it. They are looking at helping people through this research.

My main concern with this legislation and with other bills that come before the House is the lack of guidance by first principles. The majority report of the health committee suggested we include in the preamble of the legislation the phrase “the dignity of and respect for human life”. That has to be in the bill at the very beginning. We have to be guided by that first principle.

That was stated in both the majority report from the Liberals and the minority report from the official opposition. It should be included in clause 22 of the bill as a primary objective of the new agency.

That brings me to the biggest question we face, which is the question behind the bill. It seems that many people do not want to answer the question of the distinction between a human life, human being or human person. It is interesting to note that philosophers in ancient times always defined terms in the preamble or before they even got down to the serious work. That is what we have to do here. We have to define these terms.

The definition of a human being under section 223(1) of the criminal code, as it is currently written, states:

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.

Frankly, that definition is unacceptable to me and it is unacceptable to most ethicists and people in the medical community in Canada.

I would draw the attention of the House to a question Mr. Preston Manning asked during the health committee discussion on this draft bill. He wanted to know what the moral status of the embryo as captured by the legislation should be and how we would establish and define that moral status in law? That was an excellent question.

Ms. Françoise Baylis, from Dalhousie University's department of bioethics, gave the following response:

In philosophy, we would refer to this as an essentially contested concept. There is no answer to it because it is not a matter of fact, and there are no more facts to put on the table that will resolve the question, though there are more facts about human development.

The first thing to recognize in the legislation and in all of your conversations is that embryos are human beings.

Her response contradicts the definition that is currently in the criminal code.

She went on to state:

That is an uncontested biological fact. They are a member of the human species. What is contested is their moral status. The language we use there is technical and that's where we talk about persons.

She has distinguished between a human being and a human person.

She went on to state:

I think what becomes very clear is that when you are talking about embryos you don't need to have a debate about whether or not they are human or human beings. The answer is yes.

She said that debate had been decided. She said that it was a biological claim and stated:

The term “person” however is not a biological term. It is not a term about which there are facts. It is a moral term, a value laden term about which people will disagree and they will then point to facts and try to tell you that their definition is the right one.

I think that was a very illuminating exchange between Preston Manning and Françoise Baylis. That to me is the crux of the issue here. If it is, as she said, decided that the embryo is in fact a human being but it is not technically a human person, then that is what our debate should be about today.

If we all agree that the embryo is a nascent human life but it is not necessarily a person, what is it that distinguishes a human person from a human being? What characteristics or criteria do we use? When do embryos become persons and what is the distinction?

In researching this I went through some of my old essays. One essay was by the Canadian philosopher, George Grant, one of the most pre-eminent philosophers this country has ever seen. In discussing another issue, he said that we have to think as a society about what it is that is common to us as a species but unique to us as a species so that we can stand up and say there is a charter of rights in which we as human beings have a right to life. We do not do that. The definition in the criminal code is simply biological, not ethical. That is a debate we should have.

The reason the Canadian Alliance and the official opposition are very hesitant about embryonic stem cell research is not only because of the potential of adult stem cell research but because it is part of our conservative philosophy that we define things, as Aristotle did, not simply as they are, not simply looking at what they are today but at what they will potentially be. That was his famous concept of actus et potentia in which we examine an acorn, not just look at it but examine it, knowing that it will become an oak tree. We also look at an embryo not just as an embryo but we look at it knowing that it will become a human being.

In conclusion, I encourage all members to deliberate on these very difficult medical, scientific and ethical issues.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity in the debate to reply to some of the comments made by my colleague opposite. I respect absolutely the position that has been taken by the opposition and some Liberal members on the issues raised by Bill C-56, particularly as they pertain to stem cell research.

The member opposite in a very reasoned argument suggested that perhaps society is moving too quickly on this whole matter of experimenting with embryonic stem cells and the potential that they show and that surely first we should exploit, as a government, as a society, as scientists, the potentials of adult stem cells that may be taken from elsewhere in the body and may indeed with research be proved to be as effective as embryonic stem cells in addressing some of the illnesses that we have such hope these new procedures will cure eventually.

My problem with the argument is simply this. It is an ethical one, indeed. I think the whole debate is an ethical issue. If embryonic stem cells, taken as part of the procedures in which they would otherwise be discarded, because no one is in favour of creating embryonic stem cells deliberately for the purposes of research, but given that embryonic stem cells are now being routinely discarded, if we do not encourage the scientists to carry on research with these embryonic cells, and if we as my colleague opposite suggests and set that issue aside and concentrate on adult stem cells, what if we are delaying the procedures and the opportunities of people who have debilitating illnesses from becoming well?

For instance, I have a relative who has Parkinson's disease. It is very difficult to watch somebody who is close suffering from a disease for which we know there is no present cure. When I look at him, I am very anxious that a cure be provided for him before the Parkinson's disease reaches such an advanced state that it really debilitates him.

A person in my community suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease. That person has shown incredible courage in the way he has managed that disease over 10 years. He is really exceptional in the sense that he has lived far longer than anyone expected. He is completely paralyzed. It may be a matter of weeks or months, but it is a very short time in which that disease will finally kill him.

My difficulty is that if there is reasonably good scientific thought to the effect that embryonic stem cells may offer a better road to curing people of these terrible diseases, and we do not know for certain but the possibility is there, I feel very strongly that we have an ethical obligation to take advantage of that opportunity as it sits right now.

A problem with the idea of delaying, as was suggested in the minority report of the opposition to the health committee report, and I do not dispute the sincerity with which it made that report, is that there will be people who will die. There will be people whose diseases will advance enormously if we may find out in retrospect that embryonic cells are better and more effective in bringing about the cures that we hope from the stem cell research. That is my dilemma. I am not sure we can wait.

I would like to make one other point. There has been some reluctance to address the moral issue, the faith issue, that is lurking behind the whole debate on embryonic stem cells. There are a great many Canadians who as a matter of faith believe that life begins at conception and that part of the resistance to using embryonic cells for research is this whole idea that we are dealing with cells that have to do with the fundamentals of an individual human being.

I can only say how I react to that. I can accept that life may begin at conception. When a procedure occurs in which death follows that life, although these cells may be only a week old, they have to be discarded. That is death and I would submit that if in death those cells which we might regard as human beings can be used to give life, is that not what we all should want? I do not know how to express this very adequately, but I feel very strongly that the greatest gift that a living human being can give is the gift of life to another human being. If that gift of life is given at the moment of death then I think morally it is correct.

My difficulty in the bill is that I acknowledge the commitment and the passion that is felt by the people debating on all sides, and I have been reading the Hansard , but in the end with me it is an ethical and moral issue. In deciding, when the legislation does come before me for a vote, I will have to support the idea that when life gives over to death and that death gives opportunity to life, and I know where my vote will be.

The legislation, in supporting the limited use of embryonic cells always with the understanding these are discarded cells, ethically, at least for this person, the only choice that we have is to support what is in the legislation.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Bill C-56 is a piece of legislation that has been long in coming. Canadians have been calling for legislation since 1993 when the royal commission on new reproductive technologies reported.

This issue has a long history. In July 1995 minister Marleau introduced a voluntary moratorium on some reproductive technologies. In June 1996 the government introduced a bill prohibiting 13 uses of assisted reproductive and genetic technologies but allowed the bill to die on the order paper at the time of the 1997 election. Draft legislation was thereafter submitted to the health committee on May 3, 2001 for consideration. The committee presented its report entitled “Building Families” in December 2001.

In March 2002 the Canadian Institutes for Health Research pre-empted any legislation by parliament by publishing rules to approve funding for experiments on human embryos and aborted fetuses. Funding was put off for one year following opposition protest of that particular move.

I wish to make it clear that the Canadian Alliance strongly believes in the improvement of human health. We support research wherever it is compatible with the dignity and value of human life. We will work to protect the value of human life and the best interests of children born of assisted reproductive technologies as well as ensuring that prospective parents have access to the best assisted reproductive technologies that science can ethically offer.

On such an important issue members of all parties should have the right to a free vote on the bill. It is important that we hear from Canadians on this issue and then, when in possession of all the facts, be able to vote free from party discipline on this important subject.

There are parts of the bill that I am pleased to see. I support the bill in regard to reproductive technology and the legislative framework it would create for this important subject. I do not wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater because there are parts of the bill which I cannot support.

I hope the committee will truly flex its political muscles and allows amendments to be passed so that we might at the end of the day be able to support the legislation.

What concerns me about the legislation? I believe we run the serious risk that donor insemination creates divided families. Recently Maclean's magazine published a six-page article entitled, “Who's my birth father?” In it the journalist states that with the exception of a few instances, “approximately 14,000 Canadians born by donor insemination in the past two decades are locked in a system that protects the donor anonymity.” The article stated that, “until recently, physicians even encouraged parents not to tell their children how they were conceived.” The remainder of the article contained numerous stories of children born by donor insemination who were demanding to know who their biological fathers were. In Canada over one million families are single parent homes and approximately 900,000 of these parents are mothers.

Too many children in Canada have little access to their natural fathers and I fear that the bill will only cause these numbers to increase and not serve in the best interest of children born of assisted human reproduction. Children born through donor insemination must have access to information about their biological fathers.

Another area of concern is the issue of stem cell research. There have been considerable advances in this area of medical technology. It proves to be a promising field that could lead to revolutionary discoveries. However, in this piece of legislation Canadians are only getting half the story. Legislation based on only half the story may lead to many sufferers of terminal diseases never seeing a cure.

This is the case when we rely too heavily on embryonic stem cells as the cure all for these debilitating diseases. Simply put, there are other sources of stem cells other than embryos. For the information of the House today, I have reviewed some of the available research on this issue. I have learned that scientists and doctors across the country are discovering stem cells taken from sources such as placentas, umbilical cords, bone marrow and even human fat are equally as capable as those collected from embryos.

For instance, a team of researchers from the University of Alberta have recently isolated and extracted healthy islet cells from an adult pancreas. These are cells that produce insulin. They have successfully transplanted the cells into the pancreas of 25 people suffering from juvenile diabetes.

There are other examples. For instance, a researcher from McGill University also discovered that stem cells collected from adult skin was capable of growing into brain cells and other tissue.

Then again, researchers found evidence that stem cells circulating in the bloodstream could grow new tissue in the liver, gut and skin. Adult stem cells are therefore more versatile than previously thought.

Finally, University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute researchers showed that adult bone marrow stem cells can become blood vessels. The researcher said “The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy”.

The Duke University Medical Centre researchers turned stem cells from knee fat into cartilage, bone and fat cells. The researcher said: “different clinical problems could be addressed by using adult cells taken from different spots throughout the body, without the same ethical concerns associated with embryonic stem cells”.

These are only a few examples of successful advances that have been made in the area of adult stem cell research. Why then would the Liberal government put all its eggs in one basket, so to speak, in the bill, fail to acknowledge that even though scientists have been working for over 20 years with embryonic stem cells without any significant breakthrough in treating disease and seemingly pay no regard to the scientific breakthroughs that are happening within Canada and around the world in adult stem cell research?

Derek Rogusky, director of research at Focus on the Family, has stated that:

While embryonic stem cell research holds out a faint hope for Canadians suffering with disease, adult stem cell research is already changing lives for the better. Building on these successes, not the challenges of embryonic stem cells, is where we should be investing our tax dollars.

Stem cell research is a relevant issue to the bill and Canadians are eager to have the government take action. I suggest that the Liberal government take seriously the recommendation made by the Canadian Alliance to call for a three year prohibition on research on human embryos in order to realize the full potential of adult stem cells. This research thus far has only proven successful and therefore suggests that its future is bright.

The standing committee has said:

--in the past year, there have been tremendous gains in adult stem research in humans. We also heard that, after many years of embryo stem cell research with animal models, the results have not provided the expected advances. Therefore, we want to encourage research funding in the area of adult stem cells.

The official opposition's minority report called for a three year prohibition on the experimentation with human embryos, to allow time for the use of adult stem cells to be fully explored. It recommended:

--that the government strongly encourage its granting agencies and the scientific community to place the emphasis on adult (post-natal) stem cell research.

The House must acknowledge the use of adult stem cells and the significant advances that have already been made in this area. I therefore urge the government to implement the three year prohibition of experimentation on human embryos. While this is important legislation that has been long coming, let us not rush it through only to create new problems. People who suffer from debilitating diseases deserve the best science, certainly the best cure and indeed the best legislation. Let us do the job right if we are going to do it at all.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I knew the rule but in the heat of my speech it escaped me. I apologize to the Chair and members of the House for overlooking that point.

There are other aspects of Bill C-56 I will comment on briefly. These comments do not deal with surrogate parenting. We are not pursuing a lot of areas that other countries are pursuing. The U.S. is debating the whole issue of therapeutic cloning. European countries are into that sort of thing and so on.

I will raise another hypothetical question. We ban stuff in Canada. A lot of us do not feel the research will go anywhere. However let us say it does. Let us say we had effective treatments for something like Lou Gehrig's disease. Can anyone in the House seriously tell me that someone who tried to seek treatment would be a criminal? Would we jail these people or something along those lines? We need to think about these things.

There is one thing history teaches us. Even if we do not agree with something, once it is out of the bottle we cannot get it back in. Science has brought lots of things into the world we do not like but we cannot put them back in the bottle. I have never seen anyone do it. We need to think about this. Banning and criminalizing things is not necessarily the answer. To have some control over the process, a lot of times we would be better off treating problems with common sense and regulation rather than leaving the whole thing open ended or criminalizing the procedure.

The surrogate parenting thing still bothers me. If a perfectly healthy person was born out of that situation what would his or her status be? Would we criminalize the whole activity? For the life of me I cannot see the logic of it.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I always like to follow my hon. friend across the way because he speaks from the heart. He does not use notes. He has not read the Bible aloud to us or tried to put something into the bill that is not there. It is always a delight to hear his down home type of spin on everything and his personalization of the various people who affect his life. I always appreciate that and I like to follow him because I do not have notes either.

I am reminded of the Irish people during the war. They were told that they were neutral. They wanted to know who they were neutral against. Bill C-56 reminds me of that type of a scenario. It has all the elements of research and development. Some of the items of abortion have been brought in as well as some items on how to treat disease and the hope that genetic research will provide for an eradication of disease. It has elements of everything.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence I do not get an opportunity very often to express my views from both my own religion, which is Roman Catholic, and that of my family. We have two adopted children. My wife has taught in the separate school system. We believe that life begins at conception so I do not have any problem with that. It is not something I have to debate with anyone. Those are my beliefs and people should take them for what they are. I do not think anyone will ask me to vote against my conscience. If they do, then those are the breaks of the game. My conscience is my conscience and I will have to live with it.

A lot of people would like to say that if a member is a Liberal, he or she is this, or if a member is a Liberal he or she is something else. We get pushed into some kind of a slot. Sometimes if we vote against the government we are perceived as voting with the opposition. The Prime Minister has said to me on many occasions that I can vote with my conscience. That is what I am here for. However, when we are voting on something like this, Bill C-56, we must take a look at what group of people sent us here. Do they agree or disagree?

On gun control it was easy for me. I did a survey. I am a gun owner. I have hunted and had the odd deer die in front of me from various causes. I had trouble with the gun control bill because I thought that I would have to vote against it. However, when I did the survey in my riding 51% of the people were in favour of gun control and 49% were against it. I received letters with bullet holes from people who were so passionate that they wanted to let me know how they felt about it. Therefore if I voted yes or I voted no who was I serving? That is what I am dealing with here.

My constituency is evenly split. I have received many e-mails and my website has had lots of hits on it. People have sent me letters, e-mails and snail mail. All kinds of different things have come through. For every letter that I get that is in favour of the bill I get one that is against it. We have people who are sometimes motivated out of fear thinking that somehow if we vote in favour of this particular piece of legislation we are against motherhood.

There are other people who are desperate for the research because we have excellent researchers in Canada. Sometimes we tend to think that our researchers are not that prominent in the world. However, if we look at the Salk vaccine and the many things that Canadians have accomplished over the years we can see that we have excellent researchers. We must not bridle them. We must ensure that our researchers are allowed to carry on.

I have been a board of director of a hospital. I have sat on health committees. I have chaired the committee on HIV-AIDS which studied poverty and discrimination. Whether it is Lou Gehrig's disease, cancer, or whatever it is that can benefit from the research that would be involved in Canada by top-notch researchers, I would think we would all be in favour of ensuring that our research continue to be among the best in the world.

Yesterday was a full day of debate on the bill. I read the speeches given by the former leader of the opposition who quoted the Bible and members of NDP who are interested in an opposite view. Some have the same view as the former leader of the opposition. Some of our own members are divided on this issue. There is no clear path here.

Moratorium in French means to kill it. We may run into some wording problems with the Bloc because its idea of moratorium is different than the English version of moratorium. In English moratorium means to delay but in French it is a full-fledged killing. We cannot allow that word to creep in here.

A moratorium is not the answer. Somewhere along the line we will have to decide if the bill is votable according to our conscience or according to the will of our constituents. None of us are going to find a strong view from the scientific world if we are based in rural Canada. Let us face it, rural Canadians that I live with go to the big teaching hospitals in the cities. That is where most of the research is done, whether it is the London, Toronto or Hamilton hospitals that are doing great work in research.

Those hospitals are not looking at the ethics of it but certainly what the medical results could be. Sometimes that scares me because we then tend to take human life at less value than it is made for us. We must take human life at its highest amount of dollar value, but particularly emotional value. To me human life is precious from conception to natural death. If anti-abortionists or abortionists want to argue with my two adopted children, they can give a pretty good argument in favour of life from conception to natural death. That is not a problem with me in my Christian views.

I want to ensure that somewhere within the confines of the bill we are able to deal with the ethical and moral problems that we all face but with the value of the research, and the value of the strength and talent of the medical community throughout Canada. I also want to ensure that we do not put handcuffs on researchers. We must ensure research and development and embryonic research goes ahead and that it is brought to its fullest to assist life as it now exists.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned with Bill C-56 because of the effect the bill will have on our society and, most important, on future generations. I am concerned about the bizarre duplicities in the bill which leave important moral questions in the hands of a few or even single appointed individuals unknown to most Canadians.

I am concerned that the government has brought the bill forward in such a way as to avoid questions about life which it believes may be troubling politically. I am concerned that the government would use the promise of banning obviously abhorrent practices such as human cloning as a means of avoiding debate on a few of the more politically troubling issues surrounding stem cell research.

In his March 4 column of the National Post , Andrew Coyne exposed the tragic failure of the government to address the critical issues raised by the possibilities of science today. He began by describing the dilemma of Maureen McTeer:

On the CBC, Maureen McTeer--lawyer, feminist and freelance medical ethicist--was ticking off the reasons she opposed the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos for medical research, as would be permitted under proposed federal guidelines. She was passionate, even immoderate at times.

It was an affront to human dignity, she said. From the moment the egg was fertilized, it became part of “the human continuum.” To allow the killing of embryos before the proposed 14-day limit and not after was a specious distinction, an attempt to obscure the enormity of what we were doing by denying the humanity of the lives we were destroying. Nazi scientists, she said, shrugged that the victims of their experiments were “only Jews.”

Now we were saying “it's only a fetus.” At which point, one of her befuddled fellow panellists felt compelled to ask: “Aren't you pro-choice?”

The ethical confusion which surrounds this debate is not Ms. McTeer's alone. The Government of Canada is itself, in Mr. Coyne's words:

--twisted into the same contradictory pose: attempting to define and assert the state's interest in the rights of the fetus, while officially denying that it has any--at least, as far as that would imply any legal restriction on abortion.

Ms. McTeer attempted to square the circle this way. When it comes to a conflict between the rights of the child in utero and the rights of the expectant mother, “we have decided” that the mother's rights “trump” those of the fetus. The rights of medical researchers, on the other hand, do not carry the same weight.

That is:

A pregnant woman has an unrestricted right in law to kill the fetus she carries, right up until the moment of birth: because she does not want to interrupt her career, because she doesn't care for the father, it doesn't matter. She holds “trumps.” A scientist, however, may not do the same to another fetus in the course of extracting embryonic stem cells, even in the first 14 days, in pursuit of medical advances that--who knows?--might save millions of lives.

The logic or lack of logic inherent in the government's position on matters address in Bill C-56 make my head swim. On the one hand we would allow a woman to abort a fetus but on the other, would punish her by up to 10 years in prison for donating an unfertilized egg for use in therapeutic cloning, a process where, for example, her egg would be injected with someone else's DNA to produce an embryo from which embryonic stem cells would be extracted in the hopes of coaxing them to grow into an organ needed by the donor of the DNA.

To put it in clear, unmistakable terms, under Bill C-56 it is okay to destroy a fetus on whim but it is not okay, in fact it is punishable by 10 years in prison, if one destroys with the intent of improving someone else's quality of life.

The question is: how did the government lead us to this baffling juncture? The answer is patently obvious if one considers the principles upon which Bill C-56 is presumably based. Although they may be commendable as written, they are more remarkable for what they do not say.

Most notably absent is any clear definition of what constitutes human life or when human life begins. Unless and until these fundamental principles are clearly addressed and defined, confusion will prevail. It is virtually impossible to write a coherent and consistent bill, a bill which will withstand the challenges already being prepared by those who would clone humans and conduct other outrageous experiments.

The fundamental principles governing assisted human reproduction are matters of unparalleled significance to our society. They are in fact cornerstones of our society. They define us as people. They are matters of importance to all members of our society, those with religious faith and those with none. As my friend from Calgary Southeast noted in this place, even if we do not believe in the intrinsic sanctity of human life, surely we can all respect the dignity of human life.

There is another matter that I would like to briefly address. Let me note that although my comments will be brief, that in no way detracts from the significance of the issue.

Recently I received a communication encouraging me to support embryonic stem cell research because of the hope it offered a person's mother who is suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. I know something of Lou Gehrig's disease because I lost my mother to it. I also know that there is more hype than hope in embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research has a number of problems. Dr. Peter Andrews of the University of Sheffield in England said “Simply keeping human embryonic stem cells alive can be a challenge”. Doug Melton, a Harvard University researcher, said “In my view (human embryonic stem cells) would degrade with time”.

Human embryonic stem cells have never been used successfully in clinical trials, have a lacklustre success in combating animal models of disease and carry significant risk, including human immune rejection and tumor formation. Speaking about embryonic stem cells, Glenn McGee, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist, told M.I.T.'s Technology Review that “The potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after stem cell transplant might turn out to be a Pandora's box of stem cell research”.

In stem cell research dealing with Parkinson's disease, there have been nothing but problems. The results have been horrific. In 15% of the patients the transplanted fetal cells went out of control and produced irreversible and devastating changes in the patients' brains, resulting in muscle spasms, sucking movements and writhing, which could not be controlled by any medicine.

The case for adult stem cell research is different. The retrieval and clinical use of these cells is morally acceptable and there is no unreasonable hazard to the patient. Adult stem cells have been located in numerous cells and tissue types and can be transformed into virtually all cell and tissue types.

Multipotent adult progenitor cells are stem cells found in bone marrow in adults that can differentiate into pretty much everything that an embryonic stem cell can differentiate into. They seem to grow indefinitely in cultures without losing their characteristics and do not seem to form cancerous masses or cause tissue rejection. These cells may turn out to be the most important cells ever discovered and they can be produced in virtually limitless supply.

It is worth noting in conclusion how important this issue is to us as humans. Vaclav Havel, the president of the Czech Republic, noted:

Given its fatal incorrigibility, humanity probably will have to go through many more Rwandas and Chernobyls before it understands how unbelievably shortsighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God.

Eric S. Cohen, managing editor of Public Interest , writes:

The ancients knew better, and it is to their old wisdom that modern man must return. In both the classical and biblical vision, death awakens man to the preciousness of life; mortality awakens him to the possibility of transcendence; and constant recognition of his own imperfection reminds him of the need for restraint and repentance.

In his misplaced quest for autonomy--freedom from want, freedom from morality, freedom from death--modern man has forgotten how to see; he has turned his back on his essential nature. He treats the human experience of incompleteness--the fact of suffering, alienation, and death--as a problem to be solved, a sickness to be cured, a stirring to be forgotten. And so he forgets what his wise and wondering ancestors remembered--that man is not fully of this world; that the beginning of wisdom is not only realizing the limits of one's knowledge but the ultimate meaning of one's limits.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-56. This legislation approaches some very difficult and complex topics. When we are speaking on the legislation, it is important to identify what it is about and what it is not about.

We are talking about medical and health research, assisted reproductive technologies, stem cell research and the incredible potential that it can have to eradicate disease, create more advanced treatments and improve the human condition.

In addressing issues such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS or any of these diseases and conditions that we may be able to approach more effectively with technology and research from stem cell research, clearly it is in society's interest and the interests of mankind to develop treatments. As such I do not think there is anyone in the House who would not agree with the end result of achieving these advancements in research from stem cells.

On the issue of human cloning, as a member of a caucus of 14 we see the tremendous benefit of cloning more caucus members. However I think we will pursue more conventional means and elect more of them in the next election. We recently tried artificial ways to expand our caucus and it did not really work out that well, except in one case with which we are very pleased.

On the very serious issue of human cloning, my own view is that we are getting a little too close to playing God when we take that development to that extent. As such I agree with prohibitions against human cloning.

I support stem cell research for the benefit of medical advancement and the potential benefit to humankind of eradicating some of the diseases I mentioned.

I do not see that the abortion issue ought to be used to complicate the debate. That is a separate issue. In Canada the woman's right to choose has been legally protected for some time. That is a separate debate and I hope that members of the House will try not to link the issues of stem cell research with the issue of abortion. That is a very different debate and ought to be treated differently. In fact it damages the quality of the debate we have on this legislation to confuse the two issues.

I am pleased that in our caucus we will be having a free vote on this issue. It is a morally charged issue and one that I take very seriously. I also take seriously representations by my constituents on this issue. There are ranges of views on the issue.

When people and families need assisted reproductive technologies to facilitate childbirth and for who it is important to have access to those technologies, I take their views seriously. People who have family members who have had Alzheimer's, or MS or Parkinson's and whose lives have been impacted negatively by those diseases have strong and important opinions to express and I take them seriously.

As such, over the next period of time I will be determining whether I will be supporting this legislation or not. My belief is that this legislation does in many ways achieve a middle ground with which I am fairly comfortable. This is not perfect legislation. There are areas of the legislation I disagree with. However, as with any piece of legislation, we have to weigh and balance the pros and the cons of it.

As I say, in most ways the government has, with this legislation, struck a fairly reasonable middle ground position. As such, I am inclined at this point to consider favourably the notion of supporting the legislation.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.

This is an important piece of legislation that would leave a legacy for a long time to come. What we do with it is important because we are in a sense entering into a legal vacuum. Bill C-56 would set the tone and put things in motion that would have important consequences down the road.

It is not only important that the legislation is well thought out. It is important that it is created in a way that allows it to move with the times and with people's growing sensitivity to the subject matter as public knowledge in the area grows in leaps and bounds.

One of the difficulties at the moment is that newspapers and all forms of electronic media are naturally attracted to embryonic research developments and not so attracted to adult stem cell developments. This is because we all think of adult stem cell research as traditional science. Traditional science tends to get relegated to the back burner while things like cloning are considered newsworthy and popular. However that will change because the science will have many practical implications and applications.

People have made reference to the fact that there have been recent developments. It is true that a lot more scientists are working on adult stem cells than on embryos, so the amount of effort going in is reflected in the results coming out. However it is also true that most of the positive results and developments have been through adult stem cells rather than embryonic research.

Assisted human reproduction is not something a lot of people have had to think about in a personal context. However it has touched my family in a significant way. It is an interesting juxtaposition. My younger brother is not only a leading edge geneticist at Washington University in the U.S. He and his wife are the proud parents of four beaming children who are all the products of assisted human reproduction. He is combining a lot of things. We are cognizant of all the scientific developments as a consequence of how they have affected our greater family.

My brother has pointed out some important cautions the House needs to seriously think about. First, as people who have had embryos in motion he and his wife are extremely relieved they have no embryos still in the system. There is an interesting dimension to all this. There is a never-ending argument about when life begins. For my scientist brother, a father, life begins at first cell division. He is probably one of the few people in the world who have seen their offspring at first cell division. It brings the whole question into intimate contact. The thought that there might be mothers' embryos out there for scientists to be experiment with is of huge concern to my brother and his wife. It is important that we recognize parental ownership of the materials.

We must get the legislation as right as we can. It touches on matters of life and death and on parents seeking to conceive children and build families. At the same time we must continue to promote the quest for scientific advancements to cure diseases or repair accident damages.

One interesting development shows how quickly the field is changing. My brother's family is quite young, but early on as a geneticist he recognized the value of adult stem cells which come from the umbilical cord. The cells must be taken at birth. There was a politically correct movement to denigrate people who took the cells to store and freeze for the future benefit of their children, the very children from whose umbilical cords the cells were taken. My brother saw through all that and made such arrangements for his own children. It is no longer politically correct to say it is a bad thing. Scientists have discovered it is a good thing that can guarantee medical opportunities for the children.

This reinforces my point that it is important to engage the public to stay in tune with public attitudes and ethics. That is why all the provisions in Bill C-56 that would set up the agency are weak and need to be changed. The agency needs to be arm's length from the minister and report to parliament. It needs a lot of other changes that have been recommended by the official opposition.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-56 which is an important piece of legislation that Canadians should be aware of. Bill C-56 is a bill regarding assisted human reproduction.

There was a time when the conception of a child was that of nature, where a man and a woman created a child. Since then science has become involved. When there is difficulty in conceiving a child science has stepped in to allow other methods of reproduction to take place.

As a society we must deal with where that science has taken us. It has given childless couples the opportunity of having children but it has also put us in a position of having to deal with situations where there might be embryos created that do not eventually form a child.

The bill deals with those kinds of issues which are touchy in our society and that many people have strong opinions about. The bill tries to deal with what is prohibited, what is controlled, and establishes an assisted reproduction agency. There are many issues around those topics: whether or not this agency should report to parliament, who should be sitting on it, and whether or not it should keep information on record and report yearly to parliament on information.

Most of the debate in the House and most of the concern in society deals with the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research can be called nature's blank slates capable of developing into any of the nearly 220 cell types that make up the human body. It is this ability to replicate indefinitely and morph into any type of tissue that leads many to believe that stem cells would eventually be able to cure diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, heart disease and to even repair spinal cord damage. It is because of this potential that many are looking to stem cells as an answer to create positive change.

There are two basic ways of getting stem cells. There are non-embryonic sources of stem cells from adult bone marrow and umbilical cords after the delivery of children. The use of adult stem cells in research has shown some promise. However other research published online March 14 of this year in the journal Nature shows that adult stem cells do not morph into new tissues but rather fuse or merge their genetic material with other cells. This would indicate that we cannot stop the research on adult stem cell use. We should however ensure that it is maximized to all of its potential.

The other way of getting stem cells is through embryonic stem cell creation. Should we stop that from happening? Should we shut the door on this kind of research, should we put a moratorium on it? Many of the previous speakers have spoken about the problems with embryonic research. It can cause spontaneous tumours. It is subject to immune rejection that requires lifelong anti-rejection drugs.

Currently there is no panacea and some people are holding them out to be the end all and be all of disease control and prevention. Right now there is no panacea provided by the creation of stem cells, but there is a need for more research.

The questions that are on the table are: should this be allowed now, and should there be a moratorium put on it?

The bill would allow for more research. The scientific advancements that have taken place from polio inoculations to all kinds of other advances have allowed mankind to cure diseases. They have all been done through research of some form or another. The big question on the floor now is: do we allow embryonic stem cells to be used as part of medical research?

Most of the embryonic cells that are used for research come from unused embryos that are created in fertility clinics. When a couple goes to a fertility clinic, they provide the ovum and the sperm and these are created into embryos. It is not a process where one can take one of each and not have surplus. The process itself demands that there be multi-embryos created because the success rate is not that good on a first attempt. Often many embryos are implanted because some are rejected.

There is a surplus created of these embryos. What happens to these embryos? The debate as to whether they are a life form or not is one that has to take place. Assuming they are a life form, what happens to them? Does this life form get disposed of in a garbage can or down the toilet, or can it be used for positive purposes? That is the debate.

People would argue on both sides of this debate. People feel that the embryos should be used for a positive purpose and others feel that they are the beginning of life and therefore should be respected as such and should not be used. What is clear is that when these stem cells from an embryo are used, the embryo is then destroyed.

This debate about when human life begins and how we should be using these embryos is one that has been going on for some time. It is not a new debate. This is an issue that has been out there in discussion for a number of years. This is not the government's first attempt. I believe the government tried five or six years ago to bring in such legislation pertaining to stem cell research.

We know that human cloning is occurring, or attempts to clone humans are occurring. There has to be control. People out there want restrictions to prevent the cloning of human beings. We know that it is out there. I myself have asked my constituents a question on this issue or a similar issue two and a half years ago and 65% supported the use of embryonic cells for research.

I have recently put it out in my latest householder. My householders receive responses anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 residents in my constituency. Many of them place their comments on them. I am asking two questions of my constituents: first, do they believe that scientists should be able to use the unwanted embryos stored at fertility clinics to conduct embryonic stem cell research, and second, do they believe a human embryo should have the same rights as individuals who have already been born?

It is important that Canadians participate in this discussion. It is important that my constituents have an opportunity to share with me their values and concerns, and how they want to see this handled. Issues of this enormity on the moral and ethical values of our society need to be broadly debated and discussed. They are being discussed out there in the community. We need to be respectful of what Canadians have to say.

This is too important for 301 members to take a decision. I would hope that every member of parliament is out there talking about the issue, encouraging people to participate, and then take seriously how the people in their riding and in their communities feel about this issue. Members would be surprised how able the citizens are to sort out all of the dynamics of this legislation and make responsible and reasonable recommendations to us as their representatives.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-56. The purpose of the bill is to create a legislative framework for assisted reproduction, as well as to prohibit certain practices such as cloning, the sale of human embryos, and the creation of chimera. It also addresses DNA, that is genome alteration, and the issue of cloning for therapeutic purposes. The third element of the bill addresses the creation of an agency, one of the responsibilities of which will be monitoring research in this field.

First I would like to address the aspect that seems to have captured the attention of most of my colleagues who have had the opportunity to speak so far: stem cell research. All of my colleagues have made the distinction between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. A number of them seem to acknowledge the usefulness of research using adult stem cells but seem opposed to research using embryonic stem cells.

I will address the issue. A colleague on this side of the House criticized the Canadian Institutes of Health Research because only 1% of research money for stem cells is dedicated to adult stem cells. This would stand to reason because the ability to use adult stem cells is rather recent. There is a certain lag in allocating research money to recently discovered areas of research. I expect that over the next months and years we will see an increased percentage of money allocated to adult stem cell research.

However that does not detract from the valid position the government is taking in allowing embryonic stem cell research. A number of groups in our society look forward with great hope to the results of such efforts. I have received correspondence from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation which is supportive of it. I will quote a respected gentlemen from our community, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, who published an article in the Ottawa Citizen earlier this week. Rabbi Bulka said:

For those who were silent when embryos were being discarded--and that includes just about everyone--why the sudden outrage? It makes no sense to be silent when the embryos are being discarded but to scream “murder” when the embryos are being used for potentially life-saving research.

He also said:

As regards the slippery slope, I find it hard to defend that argument if doing so compromises the potential to cure pernicious illnesses. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with using embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

I concur with that view. Perhaps the attention of the agency should be focused on the number of embryos that can be created to assist families in having children. The surrogate debate we are having on abortion is ill placed and ill advised. We should be focusing on the research potential of embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be discarded.

My other concern is that banning such research would stand to harm us in the long term. Other countries have not banned it. Great Britain has taken the position that embryonic stem cell research should be accepted. The United States, our neighbour to the south, has stated that public money can only be used for existing stem lines. Nothing bans private research.

According to the World Health Organization $8 billion of research funding went into genetics research in the year 2000. Some $6 billion of it was spent in the United States. Most was from the private sector. If people think no embryonic stem cell research is going on in the United States I suggest they think again. That is not the case.

Banning embryonic stem cell research when no one else is doing so would erode our research capacity over time. It would put us in the unfortunate situation of not being able to provide the kinds of medical advances to our citizenship that other countries are providing theirs. It would be a rather irresponsible position to take.

I have other reservations about the bill, but I will still support it because of the three year review. One of these reservations is that we might be too restrictive in other areas as well. For example, we would ban the transmission of genetic modifications to our DNA. There are 4,000 genetic diseases, so if I can cure genetic diseases in my DNA and transmit them to my children, I would be guilty of a crime according to the bill. Yet if I transmit the disease I am not. That is a reasoning that has to be verified.

I support the legislation now because it is still a science at a beginning stage. We are not yet sure of the consequences of changing our DNA and therefore the prudent method would be to say no for now. I am willing to go along because in three years the bill would be revised. The ability to cure some of the 4,000 genetic diseases affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadians, if not millions, is an idea that we should not abandon. We have to be careful there.

My other reservation, and it is a controversial one, is therapeutic cloning. If we were to develop therapeutic cloning to the point where diseases can be cured, would we not be wise to lock that away forever? Our understanding of human genetics is at its early stages so perhaps we should leave well enough alone in terms of going along with this. I am prepared to go along with it as long as there is a three year review in the bill.

During the debate, which I have followed fairly closely, two or three other points were raised. I would like to address two of these.

Our NDP colleagues advanced the idea that the board that would administer the agency created by this bill should be made up of an equal number of men and women. I find this an attractive idea and trust that they will support this bill so that it may be referred to committee and this question studied there. I personally am very open to this idea, depending on the arguments advanced. We shall see.

The other argument my NDP colleagues raised for voting against this bill concerns the matter of patenting life forms.

They cannot support the bill since it does not contain prohibitions against issuing patents either on human genes or on live forms. I agree that we should ban the patenting of human genes, a practice that has been going on in this country for nearly 20 years. We should be careful about issuing patents on life forms. We will see what the supreme court decides on the Harvard mouse case presumably some time this fall.

I agree with the NDP that parliament should initiate measures to ban cloning. However this need not be in the bill. As has been argued by a member of the NDP, it would be better if it were in a separate bill. The patent legislation we have is incapable of dealing with the science and the progress we are making in genetics. We should review it and create another bill entirely.

My colleagues from the NDP should consider supporting the bill and not opposing it on the grounds that it does not contain prohibitions on patenting of a higher life form, of human genes, and the notion of having male-female parity on the board of the agency. One of these issues could be addressed in a separate piece of legislation and the other could be addressed in committee.

Overall the government has presented a balanced bill, but one that will not meet everyone's acquiescence. That seldom happens of course. The bill would provide sufficient protection yet would not ban our ability to make progress in curing diseases that afflict too many of us.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand this morning and speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-56.

Unfortunately, time after time in the House legislation comes in with little foundation, public support or acceptance. We have seen this with Bill C-68 which turned into such a fiasco for the government. We have seen it with Bill C-5, the species at risk act which the government apparently thinks is a good bill because everyone is angry about it. We have seen it with Bill C-15B which is being pushed by animal rights special interest groups who feel the government owes them something from the last election. We have seen it with Bill C-55, the security legislation which is a power grab that would extend the government's power and particularly the power of ministers. Why do we see so much legislation coming to the House in this way? The main reason is that the government is adrift.

Yesterday we heard the government's talking points on corruption. It continually tries to convince us that only government members know what it is like to respect this institution. Today we are dealing with a bill that has had absolutely no respect from the government and its leaders. The bill was sent to committee. The committee did a massive amount of interesting and good work. The minister took the committee's work, threw it all out and brought a different presentation to the House. This is yet another bill that has been introduced almost in a vacuum.

One reason for this is the government's desire to avoid the discussion we need. There are issues beyond this legislation that have not been adequately discussed. If we passed Bill C-56 much of the responsibility that should be parliament's would be passed on to one more bureaucracy that would be created by the bureaucracy. This would remove any opportunity for parliament to control or discuss what goes on in the field.

I will take a few minutes this morning to speak to a crucial issue and ask a couple of questions. First, what is human life and how do we treat it? How do we deal with human life? There are people who say we have talked about this enough and do not need to talk about it any more. There are others who think it is foolish to speak about it. However we need to have a discussion in Canada about what human life is and how to treat it and deal with it.

There are a number of places we can go for the discussion. Ethicists deal with these issues on a daily basis. It is their life's work. There are scientists who are deal with the issues. We need to talk with them. We need to go to historians to look back in history and see what has happened with issues of life and death. It is legitimate to talk with the different faith communities of our country because their focus is on issues of life and death. We should not cut them off from the discussion.

We need to involve political leaders. We were sent here for a reason, and that is to have this discussion. We need to go to regular people and get their opinions as my hon. colleague from Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke did so well. In the last few minutes she read a number of the comments she got from her survey. We also need to go to business participants because there is a business component to the legislation that needs to be discussed.

Bill C-56 comments on what human life is and how we should treat it. I will go through a couple of the bill's definitions. Under Bill C-56 an embryo:

--means a human organism during the first 56 days of its development--

Interestingly, a fetus under the bill:

--means a human organism during the period of its development beginning on the fifty-seventh day following fertilization or creation...and ending at birth.

The definitions in the bill indicate that the government is willing to consider the embryo and the fetus as human organisms. I will continue the definition along its logical path: Perhaps a baby means a human organism during the period of development from birth to two or three years; a child means a human organism during the period of development from three years to 18 years; and an adult means a human organism during the period of development from 18 years to natural death. All we are talking about are different stages of development of the same human organism.

Does the human organism consist only of biological material that we can deal with as we choose, or is there something unique about it? Scientists and sociologists can take us apart and show us piece by piece that we are similar to animals. We have physical systems that function similarly. Because of that, research is done on animals that we can apply and use when dealing with human situations and illnesses.

Many throughout history have argued and understood that the total of what constitutes a human organism is far more than the sum of its individual parts. Most successful cultures and civilizations have believed men and women to be unique. Many religious systems have been predicated on the assumption. Many scientific discoveries have come from the hypothesis.

We need to have a discussion about the issue because we are not only setting the stage for a bill. We are talking about legislating attitudes toward human beings in our society. The conclusion we reach in the House about the issue will have great consequences for Canadian society and culture.

Throughout the last century we saw what happened when governments decided individual human beings were not unique and were only basic economic units. In university I was bombarded for three years with Mr. Marx's political theory which states that all events can be analyzed from an economic perspective and that human beings fit into the same analysis.

We have seen Marx's theory lived out under socialist governments throughout the last century and in this century. There has been more brutality under such systems than under any other. Let us look at Mr. Stalin. To gain control of a segment of his economic society he completely destroyed the middle class agricultural community by starving it to death. The individuals in that society were worth nothing to him because he needed to achieve an economic goal.

We have seen this in China which continues to persecute people and deny human rights. The individual means nothing under China's system as it tries to keep its economic structure moving along. We have see it in Sudan where war is being waged against individuals for the sake of profit. When weak positions are taken regarding human uniqueness, individuality and creativity there is a loss of compassion for other people.

We are not immune to this. The Liberal government has refused to deal with a number of issues involving the value of human life. About six weeks ago several MPs had the privilege of meeting with a number of police officers, customs officials and others who deal with the issue of child pornography. These people are fed up with the government's attitude and its refusal to deal with the issue. Anyone who has seen such material and understands what is going on in the lives of those children knows something needs to be done immediately. Yet the government insists on doing nothing. It has failed to move. Child pornography is repugnant and abhorrent. The Liberal government's failure to deal with the issue touches the heart of how it views its citizens.

There are a couple of other questions we need to deal with and talk about. We need to look at the idea of when human life begins. Our present law says human life begins at birth. This is nonsense. It is ridiculous from a number of perspectives, particularly a scientific perspective. The beginning of human life is at conception when the union of genetic material occurs and completion of the DNA package takes place.

Science has thrown a red herring into the whole discussion by arbitrarily choosing a number, day 14, as the point where the embryo becomes something more than it was on day 13. They want to be able to continue experimentation during the first 13 days so they suggest something happens on the 14th day that makes the embryo a different being. That is not the case.

Scientists have failed to address the issue of when life begins. They run the risk of disqualifying themselves by not dealing honestly with the issue. As we heard earlier this morning, for many of them the issue has become an opportunity to make a quick buck. It has become an economic decision rather than a scientific or ethical one.

My time is winding down. We will be addressing a number of other issues when the bill comes back to parliament. I will talk later about what human life is worth. We talked a bit about whether it is unique and when it begins. However what is it worth? Parliament needs to look at what we consider to be the value of human beings in our culture.

There are two interesting and ironic business realities in the legislation. Under Bill C-56 surrogate mothers would be paid absolutely nothing. They would not be allowed to make money from their commitment to surrogacy. On the other hand, companies in Canada would be allowed to make millions of dollars from research.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56, an act representing assisted human reproduction, provides a legislative balance that protects the health and safety of Canadians and their children and offers new hope for those who wish to conceive a child but have been unable to do so.

These are not easy issues on which to build a legislative framework. There is currently no comprehensive federal or provincial legislative framework governing assisted human reproduction procedures and related research.

The legislation we have before us today is the product of thorough consultation and review on this very sensitive topic. It is based on Canadian values and reflects a consensus on some very complex and very challenging issues.

We are aware Canadians have strong and differing views on the issues centring on assisted human reproduction and this legislation must be reflective of the diversity and requisite sensitivity needed in dealing with this. The legislation also needs to establish clearly defined boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not.

We will not accept the creation of life for reasons other than building a family. Cloning human beings is equally as intolerable as modifying an embryo to suit our personal preferences. We will not put a price tag on sperm, eggs, embryos or the process of pregnancy. These are not goods or services suitable for commercialization.

The proposed act, Bill C-56, addresses the needs of infertile couples who wish to make use of assisted human reproduction process in a safe, regulated environment. Children are indeed a blessing. As a mother of four I can stand before the House and say that it is my proudest moment of anything I will accomplish in life being the mother of four children.

However I am sure we all know couples who have encountered difficulties in building a family. We have seen their frustration as well as their disappointment and it is heart-rending. The truth is approximately one in eight Canadian couples faces the challenge of infertility. A core principle of the proposed legislation is free and informed consent. Any procedure to assist human reproduction as well as AHR related research would require prior written consent of the donors based on the most current information on AHR as to how they would make that informed decision.

Important aspects of Bill C-56 are the provisions to ensure reproductive technologies are safe and healthy options. The proposed legislation will create regulations on the licensing of clinics, the proper handling of eggs, sperm and embryos as well as the number of children that could be born from a single sperm or egg donor.

This is not intended to limit a person's options but rather to ensure the well-being of all involved. Bill C-56 proposes to give children of assisted human reproduction full access to all medical information about their donor parents. As adults they could have access to the information about the identity of their donor parents, provided the donors have also consented to the release of this information.

Bill C-56 proposes to bring Canada up to date with measures taken in other major industrialized countries. We have drawn on the best practices as well as the experience from countries around the world.

Canada's approach is based on Canadian values and speaks to the growing problem of infertility and our increasing reliance on assisted human reproduction.

Bill C-56 would establish the first ever regulatory regime for Canadian fertility clinics. The legislation would prohibit the creation of in vitro embryos for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving assisted human reproduction procedures.

Until now these facilities have operated without regulation. Under the legislation there will be rules on informed consent as well as information in general. Couples who turn to in vitro fertilization or other AHR procedures need reliable information about the technology, the treatment as well as the chances for success.

Another one of the regulatory objectives of Bill C-56 is to ensure that promising research involving in vitro human embryos which are no longer needed for the purposes of reproduction is conducted in a manner consistent with Canadian values.

Research using in vitro embryos may answer many questions about the causes of infertility. It may also advance the development of treatments for spinal cord injuries, diseases like juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's or cancer.

As we know, embryonic stem cell research is not without controversy. Stem cells are immature precursors of cells that eventually will mature into specialized tissue such as heart, muscle, brain or spinal cord. It does however raise profound concerns about how to balance scientific progress with public safety and how to balance deeply held moral and ethical views that are inherent throughout this entire debate.

The legislation would ensure that promising research related to assisted human reproduction takes place within a regulated environment, an environment where health and safety come first and where Canadian values continue to be respected. The only acceptable source of embryos would be from fully informed couples. It would be up to the couple to choose whether their unused embryo would be discarded or donated to research or to other infertile Canadians.

To monitor and enforce the regulations set forth in this act, the proposed legislation creates the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada. This agency operates as a separate organizational entity from Health Canada and reports to parliament through the Minister of Health.

The legislation we see before us today is a product of extensive transparent review processes. It is the result of more than a decade of consultation, considering the difficult issues that face Canadians. The former Minister of Health took the unprecedented step of first submitting draft legislation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in order to engage in input from all Canadians. These consultations will continue with Bill C-56 as it makes its way through the legislative process.

Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, is meaningful, balanced legislation that is both respectful to Canadian values and to progress enabling research.

This is a beginning, not an ending. I remember very well being a member of the health committee when we looked at xeno transplantation. We had outstanding leading medical ethicists come and talk to us on these very troubling and moral laden questions. I have every confidence that this is a basis upon which we as a government and Canadians can build regarding this very important topic and move forward.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate Bill C-56 on assisted human reproduction. I welcome this opportunity to speak because of the thousands of Canadians who would also like their voices heard on this topic but have found their concerns silenced by a government that does not like public debate. This subject goes to the heart of who we really are as a society.

I am pleased to confirm that as a consequence of the desire to let the people of my riding have a say in this debate, I sent out a questionnaire to every household asking for views on this issue. I am pleased to report to the House that the people of my riding appreciated being asked their opinion on this important subject. In fact, some individuals took the time to, at their expense, copy the survey, not only to ensure that the people in our riding had a chance to voice their opinions but to circulate it throughout Ontario.

At a function I attended last week, a woman from the neighbouring riding of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington approached me to say how much she appreciated being asked for her opinion on such an important subject. She also added that this type of consultation never happens in her riding. Her MP sits on the government side.

I also take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank all those individuals who took the time to complete and mail back the survey, especially those who also provided comments on this important subject. At this time, I acknowledge the tireless work of certain individuals in my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke regarding the stem cell research debate. I salute Stan Callaghan, Shirley and Kellard Witt, Margaret Thuemen, Barbara and Robert Austin, Corrie Haas, Lee Agnesi, Sharon McNaughton and Mike Vande Weil, to name just a few of the people who have worked so hard on this important issue.

The vast majority of those individuals who took the time to answer the riding survey, while answering yes to adult stem cell research, said no to stem cell research involving embryos. A woman from Palmer Rapids had this to say:

Please don't support embryonic stem cell research. Some things are too precious...to mess with.

This comment came from Pembroke:

Any research that helps human life without putting human life at risk or causing the death of a life is beneficial and should be pursued.

What was clear in the responses I received was the struggle that many people had with the whole topic of assisted human reproduction. A person from Deep River, Ontario, sent this letter with her survey response, which to me represents the anguish this issue causes for many individuals as they contemplate its ramifications. She stated:

Dear Mrs. Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke,

I feel I must explain my position on the stem cell research issue.

I realize that by supporting embryonic stem cell research, we are interfering with God's plan (perhaps) for life of a new child.

However we do allow other procedures to carry on in our society and this is resulting in the same final outcome--i.e. killing a possible new life.

This is almost comparable to sins of commission and omission.

However in this case they are both to some degree sins of commission.

Whereas no one could argue that the September 11 destruction of the two trade towers wasn't a sin of commission, while the daily death toll of 26,000 people due to starvation, mal-nourishment and lack of medical aid is definitely an act of omission.

Therefore I think we must also consider the extent of the consequences of our acts of commission and omission and act accordingly.

The consequences are horrible pain and suffering of people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease and other diseases as well as people starving or dying of malnutrition and no medical aid.

Who knows what God would want us to do?

Therefore we do what we can in our bungling, inept, human way in order to try to reduce the pain and suffering in the world.

I am not in favour of killing in any way, shape or form but are we not killing people with diseases, too?

In my mind this letter represents the struggle that many Canadians have with the issue or at least those Canadians who are allowed an opportunity to express an opinion on the subject.

What was also very apparent in the thousands of responses I received regarding stem cell research was the healthy distrust of the federal government and the large corporations that support the federal government.

This was a typical response: “Yes, for improved medical research assistance. But not for profit, for anyone, government included”. Another response was “The dangers of private commercial exploitation of embryos demands nothing less than a ban on embryonic stem cell research”.

The debate also highlights the federal government's priorities in that it is prepared to put taxpayer dollars into fads, while at the same time it has gutted billions of dollars out of the health care system. Ontario alone is shortchanged by $2 billion every year. Yet the government can hide over $7 billion in so-called private foundations, as identified by the auditor general, away from the public scrutiny of parliament, while waiting lines for MRIs get longer. It is all a question of priorities.

The distinction of government funding priorities is not lost on the taxpayers, as a woman from Renfrew, Ontario comments:

I am not against a “better quality of life” for people in the future--but--what about people in the present?

Funds required for this research should be used, at this point in time, to assist our present health care system so the people now can have a “better quality of life”.

As our population ages, on its own, this lack of health care, especially for the aged, becomes more pronounced.

If life is extended, by scientific means, even though it may be of a better quality, this current problem, if not addressed, will become even more acute.

It is clear that taxpayers are questioning where the funding will come from to fund this research. The health care system is being underfunded by the federal government already. People feel they are overtaxed now and are certainly not interested in new taxes or increased existing taxes, particularly with all the unanswered questions that the legislation proposed by the government raises.

The majority of responses I received were similar to what I received from this couple from Cobden: “Please, do not allow our government to kill any more of our unborn babies, the future of our country”.

This comment from was from Pembroke: “We believe embryonic stem cell research kills small humans, therefore it is wrong”.

Canadians are also very concerned about cloning. Not one individual who took the time to answer the survey supported cloning. In fact, many took the time to register their opposition to cloning.

I believe that the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke elected me to take a stand on their behalf. As the legislation now reads, while recognizing that rules are needed where none now exist, I cannot support the legislation as it now reads. I support the stand of the Canadian Alliance to declare a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research.

Let us explore the use of adult stem cells first to find treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's before we move down the slippery slope of creating human life only to destroy it.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the speech that I began a couple of days ago on Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.

This is legislation of great import to couples who want to have children and particularly to women who, as it is obvious, are always on the frontline when it comes to human reproduction.

The objects of Bill C-56 are threefold: to protect Canadians who are using assisted human reproduction to help them build their families; second, to prohibit certain practices such as human cloning; and third, to open the door to research provided within what the government deems a regulated environment.

As my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre said in the House earlier this week when the bill was first up, New Democrats have been calling on the government for years to provide legislation giving women access to safe and non-commercial reproductive health services. Canada is the last major industrialized country in the world without legislation in this area.

In 1993 a royal commission reported on assisted human reproductive technology and urged the federal government to act quickly.

It is an exploding area of science, as we all know, and much has happened since that 1993 Dr. Baird royal commission report. We know about Dolly the sheep. We now hear talk about designer babies. Nine years ago the commission said that it was only a matter of time and that it was urgent that government laws and regulations catch up to this burgeoning science.

Despite this caution, here we are some nine years after that royal commission reported and five years after Bill C-47 died on the order paper.

As is becoming habitual with this government, we have waited until just a few weeks before the House is scheduled to stand down for the summer to introduce such a momentous piece of legislation.

True to form, the government has mostly ignored many of the excellent recommendations made by the health committee regarding the topic of human reproduction. Yet it has ignored other good recommendations made by the New Democratic Party in a minority report attached to the health committee's report.

Allow me to provide one example of the good advice ignored by the government. Bill C-56 would establish the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada to administer and enforce the acts and regulations. Among other things, the agency can authorize embryonic research but this is a contentious area. In our caucus we have serious concerns with the government's off loading of many policy issues, such as stem cell research, to this agency. We were and remain opposed to the responsibility on fundamental areas of policy being sent to such an agency when members of parliament are elected, we maintain, to make these decisions.

Bill C-56 prohibits human cloning for either reproductive or therapeutic purposes. It prohibits creating embryos for research or other non-reproductive purposes. It prohibits maintaining active embryos outside a woman's body past 14 days' development. It prohibits gender selection procedures. It also prohibits the altering of genetic material to affect subsequent generations and it prohibits the mixing of human genetic material with non-human life forms for reproductive purposes.

The list of what must be prohibited is lengthy and it must be in an area where science, if unregulated, could easily overrun ethical considerations.

Let me talk about some of the areas in the legislation that trouble us. In any legislation regarding questions of human reproduction, our primary concern must be of the health and well-being of women because it is, after all, women who are responsible for reproduction in our society and it is women who too often have been in the past the guinea pigs for experiments in ways to deal with reproductive problems.

We are also talking about couples who want to have children and they have to deal with these new technologies. Our caucus insists that we must never lose sight of the fact that women's health and well-being must be first and foremost, and fundamental to the legislation. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that reproductive technologies are proven safe before they are made available.The government must ensure that the risks and benefits of any treatment for women are disclosed fully and that the moneys needed to achieve these objectives are made available

What we are really talking about is that the precautionary principle must be explicitly set out in the legislation. In its final report the health committee urged such an approach but it was, unfortunately, rejected.

Also rejected was any direction or move in the area of patent protection. The health committee called on the government to prohibit human patenting but the government has chosen to ignore this important advice, putting its emphasis instead on corporate property rights.

For example, companies are already lined up to benefit from the stem cell research that holds such promise for Canadians suffering from various diseases. New Democrats believe that the federal government should be playing a leading role to keep trade agreements from overriding the health interests of Canadians.

In summary, it is noteworthy that we have finally introduced a bill respecting assisted human reproduction. It is well past time. However it is deficient legislation for the reasons that my colleague, our health critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, mentioned previously and which I have stated this morning; most notably, the lack of protection around women's health and our concerns about commercialization.

We are also concerned about key elements that parliament will not be asked to debate because the government has chosen to leave those to regulation or to foist them on to the new regulatory agency for a decision.

In conclusion, it will be difficult for me and other members of our caucus to support the bill unless significant changes are made to it.