Bill C-56 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[The Speaker]

The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same for as Bill C-56 was at the time of the prorogation of the first session of the 37th Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Monday, October 7, 2002, the bill is deemed read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-56 from the first session of this Parliament and, in accordance with the special order of the House of October 7, 2002, I request that it be reinstated at the same stage that it had reached at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I do understand the member's concern. He has expressed I think some important points, in his view, with regard to certain legislation, but the debate is now with regard to the overarching motion about the reinstatement of bills and related testimony, and reinstituting committees et cetera. I do want to get the debate back to some of the principles and hopefully share with members some of my views with regard to why Parliament has not been disadvantaged by the prorogation or reinstatement.

The House prorogued in late September. I think it would be interesting to look at some of the research material. Members well know that the principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to terminate business. That is the historic purpose of prorogation. At that point, members are released from their parliamentary duties until Parliament is reconvened. All unfinished business normally drops from the order paper; technically, it dies on the order paper. All the committees lose their powers to transact business. It provides a fresh start for the next session. It is a fairly terminal situation and rhetorical questions have been asked about it. Why have we prorogued? What was the purpose?

There is precedent in this place such that even after prorogation, with unanimous consent of the House to reinstate legislation, it can be reinstated at the same stage it was at prior to prorogation, or the House has also historically adopted amendments to its standing orders to carry over legislation to the next session following a prorogation. There is some precedent for prorogation, but it is interesting to note that in regard to the bills that were in process at the time of prorogation, whether they were at some stage in the House of Commons or going through the Senate, it is being asked that all of the bills that were in process be reinstated.

So the question is valid: Why was there a prorogation? Precedent plays an important role in this discussion. The fact is that it has historically been the case that mid-mandate the government would prorogue. We have, in each of the parliaments since 1993, at mid-mandate prorogued the House and come out with a throne speech to refresh the mandate.

That is exactly what is happening, but was it necessary to prorogue? I think it is a valid question. I think it was. We probably could have simply carried forward with a statement by the Prime Minister, maybe, with regard to our plans for the coming period, but I think it was important that there was a prorogation, that there was a throne speech and that it got the kind of attention it did to frame the legislative intentions of the government for the remainder of its mandate. It was an important thing to do.

Certain strategic events have occurred since the last election, probably the most significant of which was September 11. It created in this place a demand, a need, to deal with certain legislation and to bring forward new legislation with regard to the security and safety of Canada. There were a number of other consequential bills that came forward. At the same time, there was also the legislative agenda of the government as laid out in its election platform during the last election.

I think the issue of whether prorogation was necessary, et cetera, is really a moot point. In fact, all the bills that were in place continue to be as if the House had not prorogued. That is in fact what is being asked for now. On top of that, the prorogation date and the day at which the House resumed were very close, so theoretically there was no productivity of the House compromised by having a prorogation at a time during which the House had not been scheduled to sit in any event. So the question then becomes one of what we are talking about.

A number of members are taking the opportunity of this motion to discuss some of the bills that are of particular interest to them or to their party and to again renew the arguments of debate that they had at a time when the bills were at certain stages, depending on which bill it was. In going through this, I tried to listen to the arguments. Of course the classic came up: private members' bills. We have established the principle that private members' bills that have not changed in substance can be reinstated at the same stage. I can understand that fully, absolutely, knowing the process we have to go through to get a private member's bill crafted, selected in a lottery and made votable and to get it through the various stages, along with the time it takes and what is really the luck of the draw, because if members are too late in a particular session we may not have enough time in the legislative calender to actually get through the full stages.

Private members' business is almost an impossible scenario to go through. We have had very few pieces of private members' business go through, so I think that is not the meatiest argument that we could make with regard to reinstating legislation.

The reinstatement, for obvious reasons, has some advantages. Clearly where legislation has been brought forward by the government, has proceeded along a certain path and has in fact passed second reading, there has been some time invested by this place, from the beginning of the process up to second reading. Maybe I should just very quickly review the process. First reading is simply the introduction of the bill in this place. From a private or confidential document in presentation at first reading, it becomes a public document. It gets a bill number and it is printed for all to see, the public included. Second reading, as members know, is debate in the House, a debate among members about whether or not the general direction or the thrust of a piece of legislation is something that they can work with and whether this is a good starting point. We go through a process in accordance with the Standing Orders to have this debate at second reading, after which time it goes to committee.

At committee witnesses are heard as necessary. There is extensive discussion among all parties. All official parties are represented on all committees. There could be amendments at committee. Following that process the bill will go through a process of clause-by-clause: Are we happy with this and can we report it back?

It comes back to the House at report stage and another opportunity for report stage amendments whereby the bill can again be amended. After report stage and another vote by the House of Commons, then there is third reading. Again some limited amendments or motions could be made at third reading, one of which could be to refer it back to committee.

So throughout the entire legislative process within this Chamber, there are numerous opportunities, numerous steps, at which members have the opportunity to argue their case, to seek support, to try to get a minister to appreciate the importance of a certain amendment or to make other changes that would be consequential to other developments.

So this House really is dynamic. Bills are not just tabled at first reading and then stay exactly the same as what is passed. We have numerous cases in which bills have changed substantially, one of which is the species at risk act. I must admit that it had one of the rockiest roads I have ever seen, but as a consequence of the work of many hon. members that legislation was changed substantially and now in fact is at the Senate.

Following the House of Commons process, once we pass third reading the bill goes to the Senate. The Senate has a similar process to deal with legislation. It can also hear witnesses. It can do almost anything it wants. The Senate is a separate entity unto itself and members have the opportunity to sell their ideas again. As we can see, without carrying on this part of the argument very long, parliamentarians, whether they be in this place or in the other place, have numerous opportunities to affect legislation from first reading right through to royal assent. It is important to understand that opportunities are not lost. By virtue of the fact that we are proposing to reinstate the bills at the legislative point they had last completed, it means that there would be no time or no opportunity lost to members.

Some will argue that what really has been lost is a bill that passed at third reading in the House of Commons and is referred to the Senate. They will argue that they have lost their House of Commons battle, that they have given it their best shot but did not win the case. Members do have an opportunity at the Senate but may not be sure about it if the House has given it passage at third reading, because unless there have been material changes in the facts, the Senate may not be in a position to consider certain changes simply because they are opinions which one parliamentarian has that does not agree with the others.

I think the point here, quite frankly, is that to deny the approval of this reinstatement motion because there are bills that members maybe did not win the battle on is to simply ask the House to sacrifice all the work that has been done on all the bills so that they get another crack at the same bill all over again. I think we have to assume that Parliament did its job to the best of its ability and it is now at another stage.

I do not believe that members can ever argue successfully that they have lost an opportunity to express the will of their constituents, to express their views and their convictions on matters of importance to them. It is on the record and the record is there. In fact, with regard to those bills that have passed second reading and are now before committee, we also have proposed that there be a reinstatement of the testimony. I think that is very important. Witnesses, however, even though they would have their previous testimony reinstated, can always be called again, and we can call more witnesses, the reason being, as we all know, that committees are the masters of their own destiny. They have the rights of a committee to do what they as committees feel like doing.

Many committees have done excellent work on important pieces of legislation. I do not have to tell hon. members of the good work that committees can do when they set aside the partisan issues and start looking at the substantive issues of good legislation, of what they can do to contribute to good legislation. I know that far and away most committees have been operating on a very productive basis and have done a wonderful job on behalf of the people of Canada on a non-partisan basis.

I was on the finance committee and I know a couple of members across who are currently on the finance committee. We all know that the important work done on prebudget consultation and special studies such as those on bank mergers or productivity issues has produced important reports for the House.

With regard to legislation, work has been done and we have to assume that Parliament has done its job and done it to the best of its ability. In the event that there are events or circumstances that were not known at a prior point, as long as that bill has not received royal assent there is always still another opportunity to have the legislation amended. I will give an an example of this. I think it is useful to give an example of how things might have changed between June 21, when the House rose the last time for the summer recess, and today. In fact, this has to do with Bill C-56 on assisted reproduction and with related research. I have taken a lot of personal interest in the bill. I want to raise with the House some of the points that could demonstrate how something might change.

I am not supporting an effort not to reinstate the bills. I want them reinstated. I want changes to this bill, which is now at committee, but I have opportunities to do that. If I cannot achieve that at committee, I will have an opportunity at report stage. I will have another opportunity at third reading. I will have another opportunity when it goes to the Senate, if I can convince the Senate, or any of those other stages, of the relevance or the validity of the points I wish to raise.

The story came out with regard to the stem cell issue and reproductive technology. Part of Bill C-56 is about stem cells. As members know, stem cells have been found to be very important cells. They can become virtually any cell in the human body. If they can be harnessed and so-called tweaked to become any other cell in the body, they can then become the instruments for therapies and cures for a host of diseases, like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes and cancer to name just a few.

There is no opposition that I have heard of right now, from anyone, to stem cell research, full stop. There is no opposition. So what is the issue? The issue is, where do we get the stem cells?

When the legislation first came out it came out in draft form. The draft bill from the Minister of Health and sent to committee for its consideration had one overriding premise: that stem cells, which can come from virtually any organ in the human body as well as placentas, umbilical cords and umbilical cord blood, and from aborted fetuses, could also come from embryos, which are fertilized eggs. The overriding premise was that embryos and stem cells coming from embryos had more potential than any of the other stem cells and therefore the legislation should permit embryos to be used for research purposes. The problem starts to get a little complicated from there, the reason being that to get those stem cells we have to destroy the embryo. We have to kill the human being.

Then the ethical question is, do we destroy one human being to help another human being? That is a very difficult argument for some. For myself, no, it is not very difficult at all. I believe that life begins at conception, period. That is my position. Other members have different views. On top of that, the embryonic stem cells have a different DNA from that of a potential patient. That means there would be the problem of immune rejection. It also means there would be lifelong anti-rejection drugs. They also found that stem cells from embryos had a tendency to create spontaneous tumours when injected under the skin. So suddenly there were these problems, but the researchers were saying they still wanted to use them because they had more potential. Why would we do that when adult stem cells, or those stem cells that come from the human body, could do that?

On November 21, finally, we got the research. It showed that stem cells from human blood, from bone marrow, could become any cell type in the human body, proof positive from the Stem Cell Institute at the University of Minnesota, totally ratified. I would like to read into the record that Dr. Alan Bernstein, the president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research said that this was a “beautiful paper” and stated:

Aside from the ethical issues, if one could take one's own adult... stemcells from bone marrow and use them to cure Parkinson's disease, youwouldn't have to worry about [immune] rejection problems. Sothis would be just a huge advance.

He went on to state:

In general, there has been a dogma that's grown up over the years that cells that are neurons are not going to switch and become blood cells tomorrow, or muscle.

In other words, they are not going to change, but he said:

As a result of this research, it looks like the minimum one can say is the old view... is going to have to be modified.

The president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has said uncategorically that the old view has to be modified. Bill C-56 has to be modified because the original premise that embryonic stem cells had more potential than non-embryonic stem cells has been totally dismissed by third-party research, by ethical research, and it has shown that we can continue to pursue cures and therapies for those requiring them without getting into the ethical argument.

I should also point out that even Dr. Françoise Baylis on the board of governors of CIHR has pointed out that only 2% of embryos donated for research purposes would be useful for research purposes, as 50% of them do not survive the thawing process, the cryogenic process of in vitro fertilization, and the balance of them would not meet quality criteria. It is estimated that there are only about 500 embryos out there. That 2% means that all this argument about embryonic stem cells has to do with 10 embryos. We are searching in Canada for 10 embryos so that we can do research. Based on the evidence that I hope to provide to committee, to anybody else in this place and to the Senate, there is no need to go to embryonic stem cells. We have, based on the research from stem cells from human bone marrow, the ability to do the research necessary to treat all illnesses and diseases.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the amendment and what legislation is going to be brought forward in the next few months, one of the pieces of legislation of concern to me is Bill C-56. We have been dealing with this bill in the health committee for the last 18 months.

I read the Speech from the Throne and I listened to it very carefully. I was particularly struck that there was no reference to this piece of legislation in it whatsoever. It is a very controversial piece of legislation and one that is very important to the ethics of the nation. Whether what it was called was appropriate or not was something that was discussed in the health committee. We dealt with it for a considerable amount of time. We listened to some of the best witnesses when it comes to reproductive technology from across the country and around the world.

Reproductive technology was the name of the bill. At the end of our consultations we said maybe it should not be called reproductive technology because it encompassed so much. It encompassed two aspects. It dealt with reproduction and the true desire of families to reproduce and some of their problems as well as in vitro fertilization and what comes out of that.

On the other side was the ethical dynamic or the related science. This is putting a lot of people in this country in a very uneasy position because of what actually happens when we take life at its earliest and most vulnerable stage and destroy it to create stem cells. The stem cells would potentially be built into another organ and transplanted. That research and its potential is something we have wrestled with.

It is very important that this piece of legislation come forward. There has been a void in this kind of legislation and there has been for 10 years, a decade of the government's reign. We have seen this piece of legislation die on the Order Paper before. We need a political resolve to bring this forward and deal with it in an effective way for Canada because of advancements in technologies that are taking place. Researchers across Canada and in other places around the world say reproductive cloning will be done within the next six months or so. We have absolutely nothing on the books to regulate this from happening in Canada, yet it is universal.

The previous health minister at an international convention in Geneva a year ago last spring said that we need an international consensus on this issue. There is an international consensus and that is that reproductive cloning should not take place.

I am very concerned with some of the things that this piece of legislation deals with because of the complexity of the material. There are two sides to it; it is about reproducing families and also about the science. Canadians have a lack of understanding of the exact dynamics of this piece of legislation. We should look at that and weigh it very carefully.

To bring the bill back in its present form would scare me and Canadians. The bill needs to be amended. It was in the health committee prior to prorogation. If it were to be reintroduced it would come back to committee. At that stage we should be open to some of the amendments that Canadians feel are very important for this piece of very delicate legislation.

The Alliance supports some aspects of the bill. Some of the things in it are actually very good. We support the banning of human and therapeutic cloning, chimera, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alterations, buying and selling of embryos, paid surrogacies. They are all part of this legislation.

One of the things that is not in the legislation and one that is very important for us to consider is the banning of the patenting of human life. This is something the government needs to deal with. I was looking for an indication in the throne speech on that as well. Are we going to ban human life or are we going to allow life at its most vulnerable to be patented?

When we sit back and think about it, why would we want to patent human life? It would be for no other reason than to protect the individual who discovered it because of an economic value. Patentability is usually based on that. If it is all about economics and it is all about dollars and cents and making a commodity of human life, that is something we should be very careful of.

We are very concerned about this legislation in many other areas. One is the accountability of the agency that would be struck which is talked about in the legislation. To be able to go forward in the 21st century we need an agency that will deal with the very delicate things that are in the bill regarding scientific advancements, some of which we cannot even talk about now because we do not know what they will be, but as we go into the 21st century we know that they are going to be there.

We need an agency that is very strong, independent, transparent, and also which is accountable not only to the Minister of Health but to Parliament. The agency should be an independent agency outside Health Canada. Clause 25 in the legislation is quite disturbing. It allows the minister to give any policy direction that she likes to the agency and the agency has no choice but to follow it. That is not accountability. We need an independent agency that answers to Parliament. That sort of direction would be very difficult for the minister to direct.

The performance of the agency should also be evaluated by the Auditor General, not by itself. The legislation says that the agency will monitor itself. There is nothing in the bill saying that the agency will have to report on an annual basis to the House at all, which is something else that is quite disturbing.

The bill also allows for the creation of advisory panels. We believe that stakeholders in this important area should have been given statutory standing. That statutory standing should be before the agency. We are talking about more than just being driven by scientists. It should be a group that has a broader scope than that.

The users and the children who are born from assisted reproductive technologies should be part of that group. People with disabilities should be part of that group. Scientists and the medical community should be part of it. The faith community, the private providers, research firms, taxpayers and their representatives in the provinces and territories should also have a voice. They should have statutory standing if it is going to have a broad enough scope and if it is going to garner the confidence of the nation as an agency that will move forward in this area.

I was surprised to find that there was no reporting in the bill. As I said before, the agency does not have to report annually to Parliament. That is something that needs to be there for sure.

The agency is going to be called upon to do many things, whether it is to decide upon the number of embryos that are created or destroyed or provide ongoing assisted reproduction procedures. It needs to report on all of those things and it should all be part of that report.

We also have to understand that this agency and this piece of legislation have to work in concert with the provincial governments. Some governments, such as the province of Quebec, are saying that they will not allow embryonic stem cell research in their provinces. What happens under this piece of legislation then? Who calls the shots? Is it the federal government in this piece of legislation, or is it provincial jurisdiction that has the mandate to deal with this area within its facilities?

These are things that concern us about this flawed piece of legislation. When we look at the ethics of this, it is something that is very disturbing to many Canadians.

On one side we have people who will say that embryonic stem cell research is something that could create a cure for their children or for their loved ones. We know that they will stop at nothing to do that. As parents we would lay down our lives easily for our children if we could keep them alive and healthy. It is something that is within us to do.

On the other side of it, there could be embryos created for the purpose of reproduction that would be destroyed. There could be others who would look at that and say “These are my children and I will stand in the way of this legislation to protect those children”.

I understand both sides, and both sides are very right in their dynamics. It is a very explosive piece of legislation and we should think very carefully before we bring it back in its present state.