Bill C-13 (Historical)

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

An Act respecting assisted human reproduction

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-13 has been going for a while now. We are currently debating the Group No. 5 amendments to the bill. The Group No. 5 amendments largely deal with clause 40 in the bill, which deals with the functioning of the regulatory agency.

I appreciate the remarks that other members have contributed to the debate already today, including the member from Calgary who just spoke. However I want to first go back to one intervention related to the Group No. 4 amendments since the minister herself stood just a few moments ago and addressed an issue related to an amendment that would strike section 26, clause 8, regarding the conflict of interest code.

I agree with the member from Winnipeg North who spoke just a few minutes ago on this matter. The committee took this quite seriously. The minister implied that subclause 9 of clause 26 is adequate for determining who is and who is not eligible to serve on this agency.

As a committee, we did not feel that the conflict of interest regulations were tight enough. For that reason the committee, after a lot of intense debate, included a clause that would restrict members of a board from having any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operated in the industries related to reproductive technology. That was for a very specific reason. We felt this provision was necessary and that members should not support the striking of that clause.

Going on to the Group No. 5 amendments, these amendments deal largely with the regulatory agency, as I have alluded. The bulk of these amendments, beginning with Motion No. 80 up to and including Motion No. 90, deal with various aspects of the use of embryos for research.

In our minority report, the Canadian Alliance put forward the position that we would prefer a position that would make all these motions unnecessary, and that relates to the use for which cells will be used. We feel, as Canadian, we are dealing with this at a time when more information is available to us than other jurisdictions. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to make decisions that may be different from other jurisdictions that have gone before us, when scientific information on the alternatives to embryonic stem cell use were not as clear as they are today.

I want to underscore some of the reasons why we feel that it is wrong. The bill states that it is wrong to create embryos, in fact, it is forbidden to create embryos for research but what is happening as a consequence of the bill is precisely that.

I want to speak for a moment about adult stem cells because the committee heard abundant evidence, and there is abundant scientific evidence today. I will to quote from some of the top scientists who spoke to committee in just a moment . Briefly I want to say that adult stem cells are a safe, proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. Sources of adult stem cells are umbilical cord blood, skin tissue, bone tissue, and I will talk a about that in a moment. Adult stem cells are easily accessible, are not subject to immune rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns, as opposed to embryonic stem cell transplants that are subject to immune rejection because they are foreign tissues. The body has cells that check licence plates, it checks the DNA and it checks out the markers on the other cells. Cells from another body will be rejected until one takes anti-rejection drugs.

Adult cells today are being used in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and other conditions, but embryonic stem cells have not been successfully used in the treatment of anything.

I make reference to some of the distinguished scientists who spoke at health committee.

Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the CIHR, the Canadian Institute for Health Research, stated at committee November 26, 2002:

I would say that if one knew that adult cells would work in therapeutic settings... then there's no question that this would be the preferred route of treatment, as opposed to using embryonic stem cells, where one doesn't know about the transplant rejection situations and all that.

I thank Dr. Bernstein for that. Clearly adult cells are better. However there is the “if” word there.

Dr. Ronald Worton, who is the head of the Stem Cell Network at the University of Ottawa, “There is no question that autologous stem cells hold a lot of promise”. Those cells are taken from one's own body and put back into one's own body. He went on to say, “We believe a lot of the therapy that will be done with stem cells in the future will be done with adult stem cells”.

Dr. Prentice, University of Indiana, testified that he took stem cells that were isolated from his own blood for research purposes. Because these stem cells are smaller, they can be centrifuged and separated from other cells and can be used to grow in vitro and in Petri dishes.

I ran into a person in the city of Toronto just a short time ago, who is related to a person who is a very well known Canadian. I will not mention his name because I have no permission to do so. This man had a condition called multiple myeloma. That is a very serious bone cancer. Bone marrow cells had been extracted from him, then they isolated the stem cells. He had been given chemotherapy to kill the tumours in his bone. Then after the tumours had been killed with the chemo, his own stem cells were reintroduced, and he is doing just fine without medication.

Thursday, November 28, Dr. Freda Miller, now of Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto, spoke on the prospects for profit of adult stem cells. Dr. Miller was formerly from McGill University. She made a lot of headlines for her skin based precursors, cells which she isolated from the skin that were able to transform into stem cells and grow into other types of tissue. When the headlines on Dr. Miller's research hit the paper they said that researchers had found gold.

About the prospects for profit in adult stem cells, she said that they were very low. As a matter of fact, she said that she did not think that any company would fund the kind of dream scenario we were talking about, autologous transplantation for individuals.

Dr. Worton is saying that there is tremendous potential in autologous transplant, but Dr. Miller is saying there is not much money in autologous transplant. That will have to be funded by the public system, health charities or something as a purely medical treatment because there is not any money to be made.

The concern we have is that this important area of research should not be driven by money or by where profits are highest. The corollary is that there is a lot of interest from industry in promoting embryonic cells because if we can get it to work, it will have strings attached to it that may be patentable. Maybe the cells are patentable. Maybe the procedures are patentable to get something that is not a good fit to fit. We feel that this important area of research should not be driven by what will be most profitable for industry. It should be driven by what is most profitable for Canadians.

We have had petition after petition in the House from Canadians from all ridings. I have heard members opposite present petitions from their ridings asking Canadians to pursue adult stem cell research and make morally ethical research available to Canadians, the ones that show the most promise. That is the position of this party. I wish the members opposite would take this seriously so that we can advance what is in the best interest of Canadians. This is good science. It is not bad science or moral people trying to hold back good science. This is good science that would be better advanced by promoting adult stem cell research.

If we were to go that way, if we would follow the advice of minority report from the Canadian Alliance, these amendments would not be necessary. However the minister seems determined to keep the door open to use embryos, embryos that were intended to produce children. That was the whole focus of our draft legislation, building families, and the committee was determined to try to keep the focus on building families.

I applaud the member for Mississauga South who has brought in amendments that would require the agency to at least, if we are to go this way and use the most vulnerable people, the ones trying to produce babies, to encourage them to give up the surplus embryos to industry. At least this would require the agency to keep track of those embryos, to be accountable for them and to put requirements on the agency to monitor the use of these embryos and to try to restrict the commodification. We applaud the member for Mississauga South for his effort in bringing forth these amendments and I hope all members of the House will support them.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate at report stage of Bill C-13, an act regarding assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.

These amendments in Group No. 5 deal principally with the statutory framework for the agency created by the bill to provide licences to institutions or individuals, presumably scientists or scientific laboratories, who will be permitted to participate in in vitro fertilization as well as embryonic stem cell experimentation.

Most of the amendments under Group No. 5 seek to clarify the intent of Parliament to enhance protection for the parents of offspring by ensuring their consent for any scientific research, and also some of these amendments seek to strengthen the sanctions for licensees that violate the terms of the bill.

Let me go through these various amendments that I believe were all put forward in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South, who has done yeoman's work in taking the legislative process very seriously with respect to the bill.

First I will turn to Motion No. 6, which seeks to amend the definition of consent. In the third clause of the bill, consent currently is defined as meaning:

...fully informed and freely given consent that is given in accordance with the applicable law governing consent.

The member's amendment states:

with the applicable law governing consent and that conforms to the provisions of the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March, 2002, as detailed in the regulations.

Rather than simply leaving it to the new agency to create its own guidelines for consent, he is fixing it. The amendment proposes to fix in the bill an already extant proposal from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research on the question of donor consent.

Next, at Motion No. 80, the member for Mississauga South suggests that before a licence is granted to a scientist or a firm to engage in in vitro fertilization there be ethical guidelines and a peer review. Clause 40 states:

A licence authorizing the use of an in vitro embryo for the purpose of research may be issued only if the Agency is satisfied that the use is necessary for the purpose of the proposed research.

The amendment states:

...proposed research and the Agency has, in accordance with the regulations, received approval from a research ethics board and a peer review.

This seems sensible to me, to ensure that there are clear ethical considerations and a peer review, which is conventional of course for any scientific research, but it would be good if we were to make that a requirement in the bill, in my opinion.

Motion No. 81 would add to clause 40 of the bill a grandfather clause. It basically suggests that any embryos created prior to the coming into force of the bill, that is to say any embryos that are already perhaps frozen today, could only be treated in the future in accordance with the pre-existing CIHR guidelines. Essentially the member is saying that we will protect the existing embryos according to existing guidelines so that they do not end up in a kind of legal limbo, which could otherwise be the case.

Motion No. 82 seeks to amend clause 40 of the bill by saying that “a person who wishes to undertake research involving stem cells from in vitro embryos must provide the agency with the reasons why embryonic stem cells are to be used instead of stem cells from other sources”. This would place an obligation on the applicant for a licence to do this kind of research to demonstrate that embryonic stem cells are necessary and that the same results cannot be possibly achieved through non-embryonic stem cells.

I was not able to participate in the committee hearings, but anybody who has followed the matter will be very aware of the enormous new scientific potential posed by non-embryonic stem cells, be it stem cells harvested from umbilical cords of newly born babies or stem cells from infants or adults. I believe all these can offer far more significant scientific research possibilities than creating nascent human lives in the form of embryos in order to destroy, manipulate and research on them. Motion No. 82 would place that onus to demonstrate the necessity of using embryonic stem cells on the applicant for a licence.

Motion No. 83 says that the agency “shall not issue a licence under this section for embryonic stem cell research if there are an insufficient number of in vitro embryos available for that research”. This is a sensible motion.

No. 84 requires the written consent of the original gamete provider, that is to say the biological parent, before any scientific research can be done. This clarifies that the donor cannot become someone other than the biological parent. This is an important amendment which I will support.

No. 85 is a technical amendment which seeks to clarify the language.

I will turn to Motion No. 88 which is probably the most substance in this series. It says that the agency would insert the following under clause 40:

The Agency shall establish, for in vitro fertilizationprocedures, limits regarding, but not limited to, the following:

(a) the amount of all drug dosages that may be administered;

(b) the number of

(i) ova that may be harvested,

(ii) ova that may be fertilized,

(iii) in vitro embryos that may be implanted at any one time,and

(iv) embryos that may be cryogenically stored forreproductive purposes; and

(c) the length of time that an embryo may be stored.

These are critical issues and really central to the ethical consideration of our treatment of nascent human lives. Without this amendment, the bill would give virtual carte blanche to the agency to regulate these matters perhaps in a very lax fashion. We know from testimony and standard practice that in the whole field of in vitro fertilization an enormous number of nascent human lives are unnecessarily created because in a sense, as some might say in the vernacular sense, it is a numbers game. It is only a fairly small percentage of embryos created in vitro which will implant and come to term as children.

In some cases fertilization clinics are creating dozens of nascent human beings to have one successful baby come to full birth. This says that we would not allow these clinics to produce dozens, hundreds and cumulatively thousands of embryos which would end up being frozen and then end up being used for research purposes. This would close or at least limit a very large loophole which exists in the bill.

I look forward to speaking to other amendments as we continue consideration of the bill.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this group of amendments to Bill C-13. This is a very important group of amendments pertaining to the agency that will in fact provide ongoing oversight and a regulatory framework for developments in this field. We can see that the agency is a critical part of the legislation, and amendments pertaining to the powers and makeup of the agency are critical.

It was very interesting earlier today to hear the Minister of Health give her account of why she felt the motion, presented by me on behalf of the New Democratic Party to ensure the highest standard pertaining to conflict of interest matters, was entrenched in the bill.

It is to be noted from earlier discussions that the amendment was proposed by the NDP at the committee stage of the bill. The Standing Committee on Health agreed with the recommendation and the bill was printed with that amendment, which is, as read into the record, subclause 26(8). It clearly calls for guarantees that no appointment will be made to this new board of directors that has “any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business” relating to this field of reproductive technologies.

The wording that was selected for this amendment was based on other legislative initiatives. It is not a new and imaginary approach to the issue. It is based on standard law and legislative wording pertaining to this issue about conflict of interest.

The minister today has tried to suggest that the wording of the amendment is so problematic and so difficult that in fact it might lead to the ludicrous situation whereby someone fixing the air conditioner in an office might be in a conflict of interest because that is part of the whole operation. The minister knows that this is not the intent of the amendment, that this is not how it would be interpreted, and that in fact it is precisely worded in a way to ensure that vested interests are prevented from having an influence over decisions pertaining to something as fundamental as the reproductive health and wellbeing of women.

There is no question: a bill can always be improved. I would certainly look to the Minister of Health or any one of her colleagues for better wording if there is a problem in any way with the proposal made by me and adopted by the committee, but for the minister to simply suggest subclause 26(9), which refers strictly to the licensee and spells out requirements in terms of vested interests in that regard, is not sufficient. We are not just talking about the actual fertility clinic or health institution that has been licensed to provide a service. We are not just talking about the front line delivery in this field. We are talking about the whole range of developments and discoveries pertaining to reproductive technology, most of which we cannot even anticipate because the science is changing so rapidly.

Therefore, it is ludicrous for the minister to leave the impression that what is in the bill, minus the good work of the committee and my amendment, is sufficient. There are no guarantees in terms of future developments. In fact when it comes to the responsibilities given the agency under the legislation, they are very extensive. It is not limited only to licensee activity, as foreseen in the amendments supported by the minister. It goes far beyond to include advising the minister on critical issues, to enforcing the law as it is written and will be proclaimed, to inspecting and monitoring developments in this area, and to offering general oversight and surveillance. So any amendment that is strictly limited to licensing provisions will not do it, will just not cut it. We still have a fundamental problem about the possibility of vested interests determining the direction of policies and practices in this very important area, an area of fundamental and critical importance to the women of this country.

Anything we can do to strengthen the agency in this bill is an important responsibility on the part of members of Parliament. It is certainly a role taken seriously by the health committee. Let me say, as many other observers have said, that the success or failure of our work in this area will really come down to the features of this new assisted human reproduction agency. As I have mentioned already, not only will it license clinics and research on human reproductive activities, it will also advise the minister on developments in this area and will be involved in monitoring, enforcement and surveillance. It will have responsibility for providing advice to the Minister of Health on a whole range of assisted human reproduction issues and will play a powerful role in shaping the future of Canada's regulations in this expanding area of social, health and economic policy.

Our concern today, the question we are asking, is this: Will this agency be absolutely independent? Will the directors be free from any ties to the interests of biotechnology companies or fertility clinics? These are fundamental questions. They are critical to the issues at hand.

In fact I would suggest to members in the House that the influence and profits of multinational biopharmaceutical companies are enormous. To presume a lack of interest on their behalf in this burgeoning field of technological innovations and genetics is absolutely naive. It flies in the face of the pharmaceutical industry's own declared intention to direct its activity to genetics products and sciences.

It is also worth nothing that the government's original version of the bill provided absolutely no conflict of interest protection at all, none, so it is not surprising that we are disputing the issue today. Conflict of interest is a concept on which this government has a curious track record. For instance, it does not recognize that there is the possibility of a conflict of interest when a person who is the director of a major provider of a for profit nursing care facility, Extendicare in this case, heads up a government study of health care options, including policy choices that could lead to more business going his way. It is not that someone is personally applying for a licence or a contract; it is that he has responsibilities to shareholders that could, and I say could, influence his policy decisions.

This amendment was approved by an all party committee. It ought to be upheld by Parliament. We ought to register our grievances to the government for the Minister of Health's interference and regrettable actions.

Let me also say that when it comes to the issue of women's involvement on the board, the government's actions have been equally offensive. The committee I worked on accepted an amendment put forward in good faith to ensure that there be at least 50% women on this board of directors that has so many important powers and responsibilities, for very good reason. We put that amendment forward because we knew that in this area that is so important to women's health and wellbeing, women must be represented on at least an equal basis and the expertise and knowledge that women bring to this field must be acknowledged and included in the process.

For the minister and the parliamentary secretary to suggest that they want to be open to all qualified people and that they do not want to discriminate is an insult to women. It is contrary to the notion of women's equality. I would suggest to members on the government side that they rethink this issue and come back to the House with a motion respecting the fundamental issue of gender parity and equality between women and men.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the amendments in Group No. 5.

First I would like to remind this House that Bill C-13 addresses the wish of all Canadians to know that the use of human embryos will be subject to the strictest supervision necessary. The use of an embryo, without exception, will require authorization from the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada.

Motions No. 6, 81, 82 and 86 are not necessary because they do not add anything to the agency's ability to decide who will be granted or denied authorization, and why. Let us not forget that researchers will have to convince the agency that the use of an embryo is necessary for the research they want to conduct. Bill C-13 will allow research using an embryo as long as it is in accordance with the regulations. These regulations are intended to allow beneficial research. This is also a government responsibility. That is the balance struck by Bill C-13.

With this bill, the door to research using embryos is locked. Only the agency will have the key to open that door. The agency will have to be accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian public any time it does so. Without Bill C-13, the door is wide open to research using embryos. At the present time, anything is allowed because there are no controls. This is a huge void that we wish to address, and that we must address.

There is one thing I would like to make clear. The purpose of Bill C-13 is not to control research with embryonic stem cells, let alone adult stem cells. The purpose of Bill C-13 is to control the use of surplus human embryos. That is the objective. For example, we want to control whether or not a researcher may derive stem cells from a surplus embryo. It was created for reproductive purposes. The couple can decide that they no longer need it for reproductive purposes and allow it to be used for research.

When stem cells are derived from the embryo, they lose they initial essence in that they can no longer become embryos. This is a scientific impossibility, as indeed are the polyspermic embryos addressed by Motion No. 9.

Since derived stem cells cannot become embryos, they do not, therefore, come within the scope of Bill C-13. The source of embryonic stem cells, meaning an in vitro human embryo, does.

I would add a word here about the need for research using the two types of stem cells, adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Bill C-13 does not hinder research on adult stem cells. It does not change existing government subsidies for this type of research.

The government is hearing what scientists are requesting, which is that all types of stem cell research be allowed. I shall quote Dr. Freda Miller, an internationally renowned adult stem cell researcher, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health and said:

My...fear...is that my work with adult stem cells...would be used as a rationale for halting the work on human embryonic stem cells. Then, if the adult stem cells don't come to fruition, we're left with nothing...but by allowing the co-development of both sources, you're expediting the potential therapy that will be derived from adult stem cells, so that maybe one day we don't have to use the embryonic stem cells therapeutically.

I would like to be clear about Motion No. 88. If it is passed, doctors will be required to treat each of their patients the same way. This is an unacceptable approach that could put the health and even the life of some Canadians at risk. Motion No. 88 is reckless. It goes well beyond the scope of Bill C-13.

In terms of the guidelines for Canadian Institutes of Health Research, even the criteria and requirements set out in the document entitled Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research: Guidelines , will be subject to the regulations of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

The legislation does not have to comply with the guidelines; rather, the reverse. That is not the case right now because such legislation does not exist. Therefore, it is important to pass Bill C-13 as soon as possible.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to enter the debate on Bill C-13. I know we are debating certain amendments, but I wish to address my remarks to the entire bill because a lot of the amendments deal with various provisions of the bill.

I would like to suggest that the seven principles that are enunciated at the beginning of the bill are rather comprehensive. I would like to summarize them as reading them in detail would take too long.

First, priority must be given to the health and well-being of children in the application of assisted reproductive technologies; second, in the application of assisted reproductive technologies the health, safety and dignity and rights of humans must be protected and promoted; third, the health and well-being of women in particular must be protected; fourth, free and informed consent must be promoted and employed in the use and application of assisted reproductive technologies; fifth, there must be no discrimination against those who undergo assisted reproductive procedures; sixth, the productive capabilities of men and women must not be exploited for commercial ends; and seventh, the human genome, human individuality and diversity must be preserved.

Those are lofty and worthwhile principles. I would like to look at the implications of the application of those principles to the body of the bill and the legislation that follows it as presented to the House.

The first principle states that the well-being of children must be preserved. It means, among other things, that all children are created equal. That does not mean that they are all the same. It means that they are equal in the basic rights and freedoms before the Constitution and the law. This means they have at least three fundamental rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. They also enjoy or should be given four freedoms: the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of every person to worship God in his or her own way, the freedom from fear, and the freedom from want.

Three rights and four freedoms should be there for all children. I think principle number one clearly implies those kinds of freedoms. Are any of those rights and freedoms denied in the body of the bill? No, they are not. I think the bill is consistent in that area. Does that mean I find each of the other six principles to be that consistently applied throughout the bill? I do not think so.

Let us examine principle number four, which is subclause 2(d). It states:

the principle of free and informed consent must be promoted and applied as a fundamental condition of the use of human reproductive technologies;

The phrase free and informed consent deserves further investigation. Free and informed consent is considered as a principle that must be promoted and applied as a fundamental condition. Let us look at that in some detail. What are the provisions of the bill with regard to the application of that?

The first of these is the prohibition of certain activities. They are found in the bill as a general provision and I think that is good. There are certain activities with regard to reproductive technologies that are prohibited. Second, the bill would create an agency to enforce the bill and the provisions of the bill. I think that too shows foresight and recognizes that a bill like this, complicated as it is and difficult as the implications might be, does require a good and solid administrative structure.

At this point it is essential that we look at what constitutes the conditions under which this agency must carry out its responsibilities. Interestingly enough, as one goes through the operation of the agency, one discovers quickly that almost all of the agency's administrative provisions or obligations are subject to the regulations of the governor in council. That is an interesting provision. This is an agency that is to carry out the administration of this act but subject to the regulations of the order in council.

Let us look at the regulations with regard to free and informed consent. Free and informed consent, as far as the orders in council are concerned, are not the subject of consultation, and are not the result of the intense seeking advice and assistance from persons or experts outside of the government.

In fact, in a parliamentary system the government represents the people. The free, open and informed consent is the Government of Canada which is elected by the people, not the governor in council. The governor in council is the cabinet which is the arm of the Prime Minister.

How would this work in terms of the agency doing its work? Clause 65 of the bill has 28 subclauses. It states that the governor in council may make regulations in 28 particular areas.

I am going to look at this particularly as it affects clause 8. Subclause 8(1) reads:

8(1) No person shall make use of human reproductive material for the purpose of creating an embryo unless the donor of the material has given written consent, in accordance with the regulations, to its use for that purpose.

Under subclause 65(1)(b) it states:

1. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this Act and, in particular, may make regulations

(b) for the purposes of section 8, respecting the giving of consent for the use of human reproductive material or an in vitro embryo or for the removal of human reproductive material;

We must observe here that the consent must be written by the donor for the use of human reproductive material for the purposes of creating an embryo in accordance with the regulations.

The regulations, if any, may be made by the governor in council. However there will be somebody immediately who will say “the agency shall require written consent and the governor in council may make regulation”. One could argue what if there are not any regulations? Then any form of consent literally would be recognized.

Is it realistic to assume that to be the case? I doubt it very much. For example, written consent might be the result of coercion of some form or it might not be current or there might be any number of reasons under which written consent might occur and it would have to be regulated according to the governor in council. I can see all kinds of reasons why the governor in council might make some regulations. I can see also why the agency might want to make them.

The point I am trying to make here is that the regulations themselves are secret. They would be created in secret and then perhaps made public, but they would not be the result of checks and balances in the debate of the House.

I would like to look at clause 10, although the regulations cover clauses 10 and 11. Subclause 10(1) states:

10(1) No person shall, except in accordance with the regulations and a licence, alter, manipulate or treat any human reproductive material for the purpose of creating an embryo.

Subclause 65(1)(c) states:

1. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this Act and, in particular, may make regulations

(c) for the purposes of sections 10 and 11, designating controlled activities or classes of controlled activities that may be authorized by a licence;

Interestingly further down subclause 65(h) states that the governor in council also decides what the rules and regulations are with regard to a licence.

Therefore the business of allowing these kinds of activities would be determined not by the agency, but by the regulations first of all with regard to the activities and with regard to a licence. A person wishing to do this kind of manipulation would have to have both a licence and have the regulations as well.

We have a double whammy here as the governor in council would virtually be controlling the whole operation of the agency. Who would be in control? Would it be the agency or the governor in council? It is pretty clear by now that it would be the governor in council. It would run roughshod over the House of Commons because it would not have to consult the House. With regard to this kind of arrogance Jefferson in the declaration of independence said:

...to secure these rights, [the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The bill should be reconstituted before it is brought to the House so that indeed we can have free and informed consent as to the provisions for assisted human reproductive technologies.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me start with the parliamentary agenda.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, followed by, if there is time, Bill C-20, the child protection bill, as well as Bill C-22, the family law bill.

Tomorrow, we will call third reading of Bill C-3 regarding the Canada pension plan. The next item will be Bill C-6, the bill regarding specific claims for aboriginal people.

On Monday, we would return, if necessary, to Bills C-6, C-20 and C-13. We will continue this business on Tuesday morning, but in any case at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, it is my intention to call Bill C-22, the family law bill.

I will be consulting with a view to returning at some point to debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-10A, the Criminal Code amendments.

On Wednesday, we will continue the debate on Bills C-13 and C-19 if necessary, at whatever stages they are at then.

I wish to announce that Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Colleagues across the way particularly have asked about what they claim to be a principle that military intervention has a vote. I have a number of them here.

For Korea in 1950, there was no resolution in the House and no vote. For Sinai in 1956, there was no vote. For the Congo in 1960, a recorded vote was asked for but no division was held. For Cyprus in 1964, there was a debate before deployment, the motion was agreed to on division with no recorded vote. For the Middle East in 1973, the motion was agreed to with no division and no recorded vote. For the UNIFIL mission in 1978, there was no motion and no vote. For Iran-Iraq in 1988, the motion was agreed to with no division. For Namibia in 1989, there was no vote. For the Persian Gulf in 1990, it was debated after deployment, with a recorded vote and a division.

There were many cases where there were no votes, no debate, no uniformity.

We have established the coherent system which we enjoy today. We have utilized it as late as last night.

I am also prepared to offer to other parties, should they want it at some point, perhaps as early as next week, yet another evening to debate the situation in Iraq. I know many colleagues on my side of the House would like that. We are quite prepared to offer that.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Group No. 5 gives me the opportunity to comment on what constitutes the Bloc Quebecois' main concern regarding Bill C-13.

With the sense of responsibility that has always characterized our party, we will vote in favour of Bill C-13. We understand it is important to put this ambiguity to rest and end the legislative vacuum that made practices such as cloning possible, such as those that gave us a scare right before the holidays.

We cannot ignore the fact that Bill C-13 clearly interferes in an extremely important area of provincial jurisdiction, that being health, of course.

I would like to inform the House that the very likeable and engaging Minister Legault sent a letter to the Minister of Health. Incidentally, he is one of the best ministers ever to have held this portfolio. Minister Legault indicated that the creation of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada, with an operating budget of $10 million, is a significant encroachment on provincial jurisdiction.

I tried to tell the minister and the parliamentary secretary that we could very easily have split the bill in two. The Bloc Quebecois would have been very happy to vote on this matter a few weeks, a few months or even a few years ago. The member for Drummond had introduced a bill on this matter as early as 1995.

We could have dealt with a bill consisting only of sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the 13 prohibited activities, including cloning. That could have been the crux of the bill. But, unfortunately, in keeping with the Romanow report, the government has decided to use health to do some nation building.

If the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada is established the day after the bill is passed, we will have identified 14 fundamental pieces of legislation for Quebec under which there would be very serious discrepancies.

This is true for the Civil Code. The Civil Code bans compensating a surrogate mother, even with receipts and for any reason. In Bill C-13, surrogate mothers could be compensated under certain conditions with, of course, supporting documents.

This is not consistent with Quebec civil law. The government is using its power under section 91(27) of the Criminal Code to intervene.

It is inconsistent with Quebec's Civil Code and also with its Bill 112, an act respecting health services and social services. If Bill C-13 were passed, all the conditions governing where assisted reproductive technology services can be provided will be subject to additional regulation, and have to be recognized by the national assembly under Bill 112.

Mr. Speaker, I sense your impatience. When you get impatient, we all get a bit jumpy. Therefore, I will stop here with the knowledge that you will recognize me later.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

seconded by the member for Souris--Moose Mountain moved:

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-13, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 21 the following:

“(3.2) The Agency shall not issue a licence under subsection (1) for embryonic stem cell research unless it has received the written consent of the original gamete providers and the embryo provider in accordance with the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March, 2002, as specified in the regulations.”

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide some clarification on one of the motions seen earlier in our discussions, and that is in relation to conflict of interest. I was not able to be in the House before, and I want to take the opportunity to put on the record clarification in relation to this matter.

Let me say first that I do want to address a misunderstanding that may have arisen about the conflict of interest provisions in Bill C-13. There have been suggestions that removing subclause 26(8) would mean that the bill would not contain any conflict of interest provisions. Members have suggested that if this section were removed, directors of fertility clinics and scientists whose research work involves work on human embryos would not be able to be board members. Let me be clear: This is not true.

Bill C-13 now contains two conflict of interest provisions, subclause 26(8), which this motion would remove, and subclause 26(9). Subclause 26(9) sets solid conflict of interest requirements for all prospective and serving members of the board. No board member or applicant could hold a licence, be an applicant for a licence or be a director, officer, shareholder or partner of a licensee or applicant for a licence. These requirements are stringent and, I submit, appropriate. Board members will be addressing a number of profound and challenging issues. Canadians must be satisfied that they are doing their work free from conflicting interests. Subclause 26(9) provides that assurance.

Let me lay out for my hon. colleagues why the conflict of interest provisions in subclause 26(8) do not serve the interests of this House or of Canadians. Subclause 26(8) simply goes too far in excluding potential board members, far beyond genuine conflict of interest concerns. Its wording is imprecise and the ramifications of this imprecision likely go far beyond what members of the standing committee intended. If subclause 26(8) remains as it now stands, it will exclude from board membership whole classes of people from most backgrounds and disciplines. This would include ethicists, university professors, doctors, nurses, counsellors and their spouses, whether or not they personally have anything to do with assisted human reproduction.

Subclause 26(8) states that no board member

shall, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any business which operates in industries whose products or services are used in the reproductive technologies regulated or controlled by this Act.

The breadth of exclusions implied by subclause 26(8) has no precedents in federal legislation. It does not apply only to those with an interest in businesses that deal with licensees. Rather, it would apply to anyone with an interest in any business that operates in industries whose products or services are used by licensees.

Let us consider the types of products and services that an IV clinic might utilize. There are all the obvious basics: water, electricity, office furniture and office supplies. There are all the maintenance services for these items: electricians, plumbers and IT support. Try to find a doctor's office that does not use phones, Canada Post and courier services. Then there is the whole gamut of professional services: ethicists, accountants, lawyers and science advisers. There are suppliers of scientific and medical equipment. If any one IV clinic uses IT support services, subclause 26(8) would ban from serving on the board anyone who had any interest in any business whatsoever that provided IT support services. The whole industry is excluded because one business provides services. Is that truly what we want? Is that truly in the interests of Canadians?

It has been suggested that retired judges would be ideal candidates for this board. This is a worthwhile suggestion, but let us look at how subclause 26(8) might apply. Many retired judges undertake activities such as mediation or are called upon to provide advice to charities, government commissions or companies. Any retired judge who has done this, however small his or her honorarium, would be excluded from board membership because retired judges are lawyers, and lawyers work in an industry whose services are used by licensees. Also, any retired judges whose spouses are nurses, academics or employees of any other business might be caught in the enormous net of subclause 26(8) and they would also be excluded.

Members have also suggested that retired university professors would make valuable board members. Again this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, but universities provide services and perhaps products to licensees, such as ethical advice, scientific support and so forth, and likely at least one university professor somewhere in Canada will be a licence holder, so any professor drawing a salary from a university or any retired professor drawing a pension from one would be excluded from serving on the board because they work or worked at an institution in an industry whose products and services are used by licensees.

The wording of subclause 26(8) is imprecise and too broad. Its application is potentially so broad that it would be very difficult to find anyone who could sit on the board. That is surely not what the standing committee intended, because of course the standing committee very eloquently spoke about the importance of this board to Canadians and to the safety of Canadians.

In contrast, subclause 26(9) is very clear. It would allow for no confusion about who could and could not be eligible for board membership, and who could and could not be appointed. That is how to have a transparent and accountable board that is free from any conflict of interest, and that is how to best serve the interests of all Canadians and all those who turn to fertility clinics in this country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-13, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 2 with the following:

“with the applicable law governing consent and that conforms to the provisions of the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March, 2002, as detailed in the Regulations.”

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-13, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 21 with the following:

“proposed research and the Agency has, in accordance with the regulations, received approval from a research ethics board and a peer review.”

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-13, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 21 the following:

“(2.1) No person may use an in vitro embryo that was in existence before the coming into force of this Act for the purpose of research unless it conforms to the criteria set out in the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines released by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in March, 2002, as specified in the Regulations.”

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-13, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 21 the following:

“(2.1) A person who wishes to undertake research involving stem cells from in vitro embryos must provide the Agency with the reasons why embryonic stems cells are to be used instead of stem cells from other sources.”

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-13, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 21 the following:

“(3.1) The Agency shall not issue a licence under subsection (1) for embryonic stem cell research if there are an insufficient number of in vitro embryos available for that research.”

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-13, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 21 with the following:

“licensee or any other individual who is qualified to be a licensee under this”

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-13, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 21 the following:

“(5.1) Every licence involving deriving stem cell lines from in vitro embryos must include, in the prescribed form, the obligation on the licensee to provide the Agency with samples of the resulting stem cell lines.”

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 21 the following new clause:

“40.1 The Agency shall establish, for in vitro fertilization procedures, limits regarding, but not limited to, the following:

(a) the amount of all drug dosages that may be administered;

(b) the number of

(i) ova that may be harvested,

(ii) ova that may be fertilized,

(iii) in vitro embryos that may be implanted at any one time, and

(iv) embryos that may be cryogenically stored for reproductive purposes; and

(c) the length of time that an embryo may be stored.”

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-13, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 21 with the following:

“42. The Agency shall, in accordance with”

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-13, in Clause 42, be amended

(a) by replacing line 31 on page 21 with the following:

“42. (1) The Agency shall, in accordance with”

(b) by adding after line 38 on page 21 the following:

“(2) The amendment, renewal, suspension or revocation under subsection (1) or section 41 may be appealed.”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Pursuant to the statement of the Chair made earlier today, when the House resumes consideration of Bill C-13 we will recommence the voting on the motions in Group No. 4, starting with Motion No. 61 and then following sequentially through the other motions in Group No. 4, namely, Motions Nos. 64, 71, 72, 74. 75 and 77.

The question is on Motion No. 61. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Points of Order

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to thank the Chair for taking the time to do the job properly. I know it was a very difficult time for the table and for the Chair with all of the confusion, and noise in the House at the time. It is very understandable. I believe, and I think other members will acknowledge, that the wisdom of the Chair is quite appropriate in this matter and we look forward to resuming our business on Bill C-13.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before we begin orders of the day I have a statement arising out of the business of yesterday.

When the House last considered the report stage of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, the Chair was in the midst of putting the question on the motions in Group No. 4. In response to points of order raised at that time, the Chair undertook to review the blues and to report back to the House when the bill was next considered. I am now in a position to do so.

I want to first deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour arguing that members must be in their seats if they are to be counted when rising to demand a recorded division on a question. I refer hon. members first to the text of Standing Order 45(1) which reads as follows:

Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered in the Journals unless demanded by five members.

Elaborating on this rule, Marleau and Montpetit states at page 483, footnote 241:

When a question arose as to whether or not members rising to request a recorded division were required to do so from their assigned places in the House, the Deputy Speaker stated that the rule does not impose such a requirement. Debates, June 23, 1992, p.12686)

Thus, there is no irregularity in members not having been in their place when they rose to demand a recorded division on any motion.

Now, to the results of the review of the blues. As the tape and the transcript clearly indicate, the question was duly put on the amendment to Motion No. 52, Motion No. 53 and Motion No. 55.

Then, an error occurred: the question was not put on Motion No. 61. Instead, the Chair went on to put the question on Motions Nos. 64 and 71. Members will recall that there seemed to be widespread confusion as to what motion was being voted upon. This confusion may have been caused by the error made when the Chair inadvertently skipped Motion No. 61.

Accordingly, in fairness to all hon. members and in an abundance of caution when we resume consideration of Bill C-13, we will recommence the voting at Motion No. 61 and then follow sequentially through the other motions in Group No. 4, namely Motions Nos. 64, 71, 72, 74, 75 and 77.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-13 report stage motions in Group No. 4, I have four motions that I have sponsored and I would like to briefly comment on one. Members have done an excellent job with regard to my motion, Motion No. 55, which requires standardized forms for fertility clinics.

There are 24 fertility clinics in Canada. Some are publicly funded and associated with hospitals like the fertility centre at the Ottawa hospital. However a number of other private fertility clinics, which members should be aware, refused to appear before the Standing Committee on Health to explain how they operated their businesses, to show us their forms and tell us how things were going. As a consequence, there are fertility clinics out there which are not sharing how they do their business with Parliament or with the people of Canada.

I believe it is very important for us to require standardized reports for all fertility clinics so that when our reproduction agency makes decisions on applications for research and all other matters related to the use of materials from fertility clinics, its judgments will be based on informed consent information which is standard across the entire industry. I hope I can have the support of all hon. members on Motion No. 55.

Motion No. 61 is with regard to requiring that this agency be subject to the Official Languages Act. I want to thank the member for Ottawa--Vanier, who is the chairman of the official languages committee of Parliament and who spoke very eloquently on it. I also give full credit to the member for Saint-Lambert who seconded the motion, but in fact it was her motion. As a member of the committee she was unable to make the motion. I made the motion on her behalf and I am pleased to advise the House that the government has agreed to support it.

Motion No. 75 deals with the chairman of the agency and how many times that three year appointment can be renewed. Presently how many times someone can be reappointed to that position is a little uncertain. I checked with the chair of the public accounts committee to inquire as to the standard terms with regard to the Access to Information Commissioner and similar agencies or quasi-jurisdictional bodies. As of today, we have agreed that a period in total of six years would be most appropriate and most in line with other agencies. I have proposed Motion No. 75 to say that the term shall be three years plus the option of one additional reappointment. That would put it up to a maximum of six years.

Motion No. 77 calls for a dispute resolution mechanism to be established for the agency. I cannot tell the House how sensitive some of these matters will be when talking about donors of sperm and eggs, donors of embryos, in vitro fertilization processes, fertility clinics, researchers and commercial ventures. There are many parties associated with the utilization of human embryos and the extraction of stem cells and their utilization down the line. There will be problems. People will have disagreements. There will be interpretations of this act. I believe it is very important that we have a dispute resolution mechanism built into the act which is a prerequisite for licensing. That will insulate the agency from extensive court actions that would be very disruptive to the orderly process of their operations.

I would like to comment on Motion No. 71. The Minister of Health has decided that she would like to delete the clause in the committee stage motion to establish gender balance on the board of directors. I do not think there is anybody who will argue that the particular act of drugging women to the maximum to get them to hyperovulate, to harvest their eggs, to fertilize them, to make them go through all kinds of invasive procedures and social and economic pressures is a women's issue.

There is no question in my mind that on this women's health and social issue that women must have at least 50% representation on the board of directors of this agency. I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North Centre who made that plea in committee and convinced the committee. We passed it on her behalf and I want her to know that we will support her 100% to ensure that the minister's motion to delete that clause will be defeated by the House.

Motion No. 72 from the same member, who worked very hard, says that conflict of interest in this matter is a serious issue. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the patentability of some of these technologies and the related technologies that would flow from this? There would be pecuniary interests to many people along the line, many of which we would not know.

The committee said that we do not want the board of directors of any agency filled with people who are totally immersed and involved and know everything about it. We want wise people. We want people with common sense. We want people who would be objective in their assessments. We want people who would make good decisions. We want people who have no direct or indirect conflict or interest or opportunity to have pecuniary interests as a result of any licence or research.

Motion No. 72, made by the Minister of Health, which would delete that excellent motion of the committee proposed by the member for Winnipeg North Centre is a very important motion. When we raised this issue an official told the committee that:

For the full-time members the code of conduct requires a very extensive disclosure of financial interests, which is normally not considered appropriate for part-time members of a board.

He went on to say:

But the part-time members are governed by the principles of the code of conduct. I believe the logic behind the way code of conduct operates now is that the consequences of a conflict for a part-time member are not as significant as for a full-time president, who in this case is the CEO of the agency.

Part time members of the board who have a full vote--their opportunity for conflict is less than someone who is a full time member. Nonsense, I say.

He added:

Requiring the very extensive disclosure of financial interests may act to discourage people from taking on part-time positions that have very limited remuneration.

We have an agency of 13 people. I will find 13 people who are prepared to serve on a very important agency and who are prepared to take the time to declare their conflict of interest and ensure they do a good job.

Motion No. 72, on behalf of the minister, to delete the conflict of interest provisions must be defeated. I ask the House for its support to defeat Motion No. 72.

Motion No. 52, on behalf of the minister, amends the bill related to the provision of counselling services. We had enormous testimony to say that people who go through the in vitro fertilization process have tremendous pressures and consequences. They told us they did not know what was going on. They did not get the information. We had witnesses who told us that nobody told them about what was really going to happen.

The committee came up with an amendment to the bill which said that the agency shall ensure that people who go through the IVF process will get these counselling services. The minister wants to erase that and say that we would just make the services available. We put in “must ensure” for a reason and that is because it is absolutely necessary.

I therefore move:

That report stage Motion No. 52 be amended to add after the word “person” the words “and ensure that the person receives them”.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13 again with regard to this group of amendments. My hon. colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain mentioned some of the issues which seem so apparent that we should not have to be discussing them. Somebody in an agency that will govern this reproductive technology part of our society should not have a vested interest in, let us say, a fertility clinic. That just makes sense. Sometimes we are accused of not making too much sense when we form laws, but this one does.

Before I start I would like to recognize the fact that at present the member for Yellowhead sits on the health committee and is handling the bill for the official opposition, but previously, Preston Manning, the former leader of our party, took on this file for the party. The work he did in bringing all this together, the knowledge he brought to the table, and the people he brought in to present their views on this issue resulted in probably one of the best committees and one of the best reports that was ever put together in the House, certainly in my time. I just want to recognize the fact that Preston Manning had a lot to do with this investigation and this report.

The issue of surrogacy is one that is a really important part of all of this. We feel that Motion No. 52 brought forward by the health minister wants to undo an amendment that was made at committee, and here we go again. I bring this up time and time again. There is good work done at committee. People are brought in as witnesses and an all party committee decides what would be best based on the information that has been heard, but then the minister comes along and tries to reverse the committee's work. To me that is just wrong.

Here is what the health minister is trying to do on the issue of counselling for people who want to be surrogates. The health minister has been saying that counselling should just be made available where needed, that it should not be mandatory, that people who go into this should have counselling just when needed. However, on this whole aspect of the reproductive technology debate, we feel that it should be mandatory, that people should know full well all the ramifications and all the problems that exist. Examples from other countries can be brought forward in regard to how complex this is, how it affects the mother and father, how it affects the people who are adopting and the relationships that occur, and how it can open up a real minefield of legal problems.

It is important that a lot of counselling goes into this. It should be mandatory. People going into this surrogacy situation should be very aware of all the problems. We will be opposing Motion No. 52 on those grounds: that the committee had it right and the minister is trying to go back on that.

We will be supporting Motion No. 55. This is the one that my colleague was referring to previously. It deals with what are to me pretty common sense issues on the standardization of forms and information disclosures to be used in the case of a donation. It just makes absolute sense to have that in the bill. That is why the amendment is there. We will be supporting it. The forms should be used in all fertility clinics and in any other transactions involving human reproductive material.

There have been problems in the past with poor record keeping at some of the sperm banks. Sometimes there is no way to track who the donors were and what the ramifications were when something went wrong. It is very important to have uniform rules and to apply them to all aspects of the industry. Whether it is a fertility clinic, a hospital or the agency, everybody should be playing under the same rules.

Motion No. 72 is another one that we have some problems with. This is a motion whereby the minister is trying to undo what the committee has done. One of the things the committee wanted to be absolutely sure of was that anyone who is to sit on the agency that will control this reproductive technology system has no conflict of interest in any of the decisions to be made. One would think that would be a natural, but again it is not. It needs to be spelled out, but it is not. Let us just say that someone who runs a fertility clinic somehow gets on the board and decides on limits, such as how many embryo experiments could take place and so on. That needs to be clarified. It is not going to be in this legislation because the minister has tried to undo what the committee has done.

On the whole issue of the agency, the agency absolutely has to be separate from the influence of this industry. Limits need to be placed on how many embryos can be created. The problem I see in this is that if there is not some pretty strict control then we could be creating an industry trading in embryos. That is something we need to avoid at all costs. That is trading in human life.

There is also the whole aspect of the difference between an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell. Most of the advancement and good work and some of the hope that has been given to people with Parkinson's, MS and some of these terrible diseases have come from the work and research done on adult stem cells. The embryonic stem cell research is lacking. There are problems; people would have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. There has been so much advancement on the adult side that we feel there should be at least a three year moratorium on embryonic stem cell research until what has gone on and what is going on in the adult research side is explored in more depth.

Just in the last year there have been some startling and wonderful things happening in adult stem cell research. If we continue down that road and expend that effort to explore the adult side of it before we get into the embryonic side, we feel that there will be enough advancement and good things coming out that this whole embryonic issue, this aspect of creating life to destroy life, will not have to be brought into play.

These are just some of the concerns that we have with the bill and the amendments in Group No. 4. We will be speaking later on Group No. 5 as we move through the list of amendments.

However, once again, to me the whole aspect that a committee can sit and study and bring forward reports and amendments and then the minister can try to undo the committee's work is something that needs to be addressed, not at this point in time, but certainly it needs to be addressed in regard to the whole functioning of the House.