Debates of May 21st, 2002

Question No. 142

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Answers to the three components of the question are as follows. During the time period in question there have been a number of contacts between Canadian and Danish and Faroese fisheries officials. However, as requested, this response sets out diplomatic contacts in Denmark with Danish, Faroese and Greenlandic interlocutors.

On August 10, 2001 in preparation for the annual meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, in September, the Canadian embassy forwarded a list of Canadian priorities on various agenda items to Danish and Faroese officials.

On January 18, 2002 Canadian embassy officials called on Danish interlocutors and the Greenlandic official that serves as head of the Danish delegation to NAFO, roughly equivalent to Canadian director general level, for an exchange of views on agenda items for the NAFO special meeting at the end of January.

On March 14, 2002 the Canadian assistant deputy minister for Europe and Canadian chargé raised Faroese activities in the NAFO regulatory area with Danish and Faroese interlocutors, approximately equivalent to Canadian assistant deputy minister level.

On March 21, 2002 the Canadian chargé contacted Danish, Faroese and Greenlandic officials, all roughly equivalent to Canadian director general level, to provide courtesy advance notice of pending closures of Canadian ports to Faroese fishing vessels. Note that as no Canadian ambassador was accredited to Denmark at this time, the chargé was the most senior official at the embassy.

On April 16, 2002 in response to public comments by Faroese fisheries authorities that Faroese fishing vessels had not been active in NAFO division 3L since January 2002, Canadian embassy officials called on Danish interlocutors at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, roughly equivalent to Canadian director general level, to provide details on observed activities of Faroese fishing vessels in 3L since January 2002.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 132 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 132

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

With respect to a trip to Mexico taken in January 2002 by the Minister of National Defence: ( a ) what was the complete itinerary of the trip; ( b ) what are the names and status of the individuals with whom he met; ( c ) what are the names and status of the individuals who accompanied the Minister; and ( d ) what are the details of the means of travel and accommodation for the Minister?

(Return tabled)

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about this very important legislation.

Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, is important because it would provide a legislative framework to protect the health and safety of Canadians and their offspring. It would, at the same time, offer new hope for infertile people, as well as those suffering from illness and disease.

It is important because it will fill a void. At present, Canada has no law to prohibit or regulate activities relating to assisted human reproduction. And it is equally important, because these issues are not easy ones. Nor should they be, as they go to the very heart of our values as a society, with regard to the way we build our families.

In the time available to me today, I intend to remind hon. members of the content of this legislation, and its impact on individuals, families and Canadian society.

I would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Health for their thorough review of an earlier draft of this legislation. Their comprehensive consultations assured Canadians that we have, in fact, made every effort to find an appropriate way to legislate these complex issues.

I also wish to thank the individuals, groups and organizations who have shared their views on the bill and the issues involved. When the royal commission on new reproductive technologies began consulting with Canadians in 1989, it became clear that there was a myriad of strongly held opinions on assisted human reproduction and related research. Ever since then people have been articulating their thoughts on the science and the ethics of these issues. For that reason, we believe that we have developed a bill that is balanced and ethical, one that would put us in step with other industrialized nations.

The bill before us today speaks to one of the most fundamental human desires, having a family. The truth is that approximately one in eight Canadian couples faces the challenges of infertility. Bill C-56 seeks to provide a measure of comfort and protection through various means.

There is another overarching purpose to this legislation. It is to make clear to Canadians and to the world our position on this complicated and fast changing issue. This legislation would clearly prohibit the cloning of human life. We will not let people profit from the creation of a baby or favour one type of child over another just because we have the technical capacity to do so.

The legislation opens with a statutory declaration, six principles that would guide the interpretation of the proposed law. These principles assert that: the health and well-being of children born through AHR techniques must be paramount; human health, safety and dignity in the use of assisted human reproductive techniques and related research much be protected; AHR technologies affect all Canadians but women most particularly; the principle of free and informed consent is fundamental to the application of AHR technologies; there should be no trade in the reproductive capacity of women or men, or any commercial exploitation of children or adults involved in AHR; and human individuality and diversity as well as the integrity of the human genome must be safeguarded.

These statements of principle describe the values that Canadians believe should support any legislative initiative of this nature. They represent the touchstone that guides the regulations and underpins the prohibitions that are contained in this legislation.

I would like to speak about these prohibitions, those practices that would become illegal under this legislation. These are activities that Canadians simply will not countenance because they offend our shared values and the fundamental principles of the statutory declaration.

Several of these prohibitions deal with what we refer to as the inappropriate use of reproductive technologies. For example, Bill C-56 would outlaw the creation of human clones whether for purposes of reproduction or research. Under Bill C-56 the DNA of an embryo could not be changed if that change were to be transmitted to future generations.

Another key prohibition relates to sex selection practices. These technologies would not be permitted except for health purposes, for example, to screen for serious medical conditions that are carried on a sex chromosome and are more likely to occur in one gender than the other. However, couples could not request that a child be designed to meet their personal preferences.

The commercialization of reproduction is another category of prohibitions.

Canadians feel strongly that human life is a gift. It cannot be bought and sold or treated like a consumer commodity. Canadians do not want people to engage in activities that create human life for profit. Thus, Bill C-56 would prohibit commercial surrogacy which pays a woman to carry a baby to term for someone else.

Canadians do not want a situation in which women can rent out their wombs, nor do they want women to be exploited because of their reproductive capacity. The legislation would not allow children to be the result of a profit making transaction. Again, because the legislation is about helping Canadians build their families, it would not stand in the way of altruistic surrogacy arrangements.

Women who act as a surrogate, say, for a sister, may be reimbursed for reasonable expenditures. Similarly, people could donate eggs, sperm and, as I mentioned before, embryos, but these eggs, sperm and embryos are not marketable. No financial gain must be attached to these activities.

A third class of prohibitions relates to unacceptable scientific activities. For instance, it is internationally accepted that researchers will not work on an embryo beyond the 14th day of its development, nor could researchers engage in any activity that would serve to mix human and non-human reproductive material for purposes of reproduction. There are several activities in this area, including transplanting non-human reproductive material or an embryo into a human and creating an animal-human hybrid. Canadians believe this kind of research is unacceptable.

In addition to prohibitions, Bill C-56 also outlines the regulations under which assisted human reproduction activities can take place. In fact it establishes the first ever regulatory regime for Canadian fertility clinics. Until now these facilities have operated without enforceable rules or supervision. Under the legislation there would be rules on informed consent as well as information in general. Couples who turn to in vitro fertilization or other AHR procedures need reliable information about the technology, the treatment and the chances for success.

Children born of donated reproductive material also have information needs. Currently these needs are not necessarily met. It is left up to the clinics to decide what information, if any, will be provided. Bill C-56 would change this. These children would be entitled to know the medical history of their biological parents. This is vital information if an inherited disease develops.

I would like to make it clear that there will be no anonymous donors. All donors will have to provide their names to clinics before they can donate. However the release of donor names would require the donor's consent. This approach is similar to that used by the provinces and territories for adopted children.

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

As a society we have a compelling interest in permitting this research but we will not pursue research that does not respect human life and health, as well as the integrity of our human genetic make-up for generations to come. That is why Bill C-56 calls for the careful regulation of research involving embryos.

Still, our consultations revealed that Canadians believe that there is great merit in other types of research in the field of AHR. For instance, our society has a profound interest in encouraging scientists to investigate the causes of infertility and miscarriages in the hopes of some day finding a solution to these problems.

Similarly, we would favour research into the causes of other medical problems that affect many Canadians, conditions like cancer, juvenile diabetes and spinal cord injuries, as well as degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's.

Nobody is promising a miracle cure for these devastating ailments but there are optimistic signals emerging from stem cell research projects being conducted around the world.

As we know, embryonic stem cell research is not without controversy. Stem cells are the immature precursors of cells that will eventually mature into specialized tissue such as a heart, muscles, a brain or a spinal cord.

While embryonic stem cells are felt to be the most promising at this time, research is needed to better understand the potential of adult stem cells. There is no doubt that Canadian researchers will be making an important contribution to knowledge about all types of stem cells.

That is another reason why Bill C-56 is so important. It would establish the regulations under which embryonic stem cell research may be performed. These regulations would ensure that the work is conducted in an ethically appropriate manner consistent with society's values.

For example, the regulations would require researchers working with embryonic stem cells to obtain a licence from the regulatory authority for each of their research proposals. They would also need to obtain approval from a reputable ethics board for any project proposal and demonstrate that no other source would be adequate for their needs.

The only acceptable source of embryos would be from fully informed couples. It would be up to the couple to choose whether their unused embryos would be discarded or donated either for research or to other infertile Canadians.

All these AHR activities would be overseen by a new regulatory body, the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada or AHRAC. This body or agency would monitor and enforce the act, including the prohibitions and the regulations. It would also grant or refuse licences for the performance of regulated activities such as in vitro fertilization. Reporting to parliament through the Minister of Health, the agency would be governed by a board of directors representing Canadians from all walks of life, including lay people and experts.

I am suggesting today that Bill C-56 is about balance. It is a way to respect profound and legitimate differences of opinion while serving the broadest interests of Canadians. We have listened to Canadians. For more than a decade we have consulted with groups and individuals, the provinces and the territories, and countless professional organizations and associations representing the widest possible cross section of Canadian views. These consultations will continue as the legislation makes its way through the House and the Senate.

Hon. members recognize that there is no current legislation in the area of assisted human reproduction. We have no law that prohibits human cloning. We need to fill this void. All parties have called on the government to take decisive action. It is my hope that the legislation will receive speedy passage through the parliamentary process. Once the legislation is in place I will be reporting to parliament on its progress every year. Parliament would have an opportunity to review the entire law after three years.

Canadians have told us that they welcome federal legislation in this area. The last years were spent working with Canadians, who took the time to ponder these difficult issues, to come to an understanding of what they mean, and how we feel about them, to discuss them and to find a consensus.

We have spent many years working with Canadians. They have spent much time considering these difficult issues. They have spent much time coming to an understanding of what these issues are about, what they mean and how we feel about them. What we need to do now in the House is to further discuss these issues and hopefully find a consensus among ourselves to move this important legislative work forward.

The legislation gives us a way to move forward as a thoughtful, caring and principled society. We are confident that we have found a balanced, reasoned and principled approach to these very complex social issues.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise and speak to this important legislation. Bill C-56 touches on matters of life and death and on the desires of parents to conceive children and to build families. It offers hope to thousands of Canadians who are looking for cures to diseases which they suffer each day.

The subjects addressed in the bill are ethically complex and highly controversial. I do not claim to have all the answers but the decisions we make today will have a profound effect on thousands of Canadians for generations to come.

The bill has the potential for great good but can also do enormous harm. While we do not have all the answers, we are still called upon to choose, but on what basis do we choose?

I want to state my belief that every Canadian, young and old, has been endowed with an intrinsic value by their creator. Human life is special and I am in favour of protecting and preserving human life at all stages, from conception to natural death.

Scientists largely agree with the technical moment of when life begins. All indications are that life begins at conception. For example, our personal DNA structures will remain unchanged from conception to death. There is no logical stopping point after conception where we can say that life begins.

There is overwhelming agreement on this question. The main disagreement in the bill will not lie between those who believe that embryos are human life and those who do not. Disagreement will come between those who believe that every embryo must be protected and those who believe that the medical benefits and scientific research outweigh its value. Our natural tendency will be to accuse one side of ignoring human suffering and the other side of devaluing human life.

However I am convinced that both groups have good intentions. I will not question people's motives in this debate. I appreciate the desire to protect life and to alleviate human suffering. I simply believe that there is a way to accomplish both. We can protect life and cure disease by investing in the proven and growing promises of adult stem cells.

For that reason, the official opposition is calling for a three year prohibition on embryonic stem cell research to postpone the question while we allow research on adult stem cells to mature to its full potential.

While I regret that the government has chosen to follow the uncharted path of embryonic stem cell research, a path that leads in a direction other than that of human health, I also am hopeful that the government, the research community and the minister will be sensitive to the legitimate concerns of members on both sides of the House.

I would remind the House that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Genome Canada have already instituted a one year moratorium on funding of research on human embryos. A prohibition extended for another two years would dovetail nicely with the three year review already mandated in the bill.

Given the great moral sensitivity of the decision, I believe the government ought to allow the conscience of every individual member of parliament to be freely heard. This means that there should be a free vote on every stage of the bill.

As members know, the bill is a child of the royal commission on new reproductive technologies which reported back in 1993. It has been a long gestation, taking nine years instead of nine months. The draft legislation was submitted to the health committee just over a year ago and the committee presented its recommendations last December.

We are pleased that the government has finally tabled legislation. We want the bill to pass with appropriate amendments as quickly as possible. It must not die on the order paper. I call for a commitment from the minister and the government to pass the legislation prior to any prorogation of the House.

The opposition supports aspects of the bill. We support an agency to regulate the sector. We support the bill's prohibitions: the banning of human and therapeutic cloning; chimeras; animal-human hybrids; sex selection; germ-line alterations; buying and selling of human embryos and commercial surrogacy. We are also pleased that the government has used the strength of the criminal code to ensure that these are respected.

I wish to speak briefly about one of the most important prohibitions, human cloning. I do not need to convince any of my colleagues that human reproductive cloning represents a profound disregard for human dignity and individuality.

In all the months of committee hearings, involving over 100 witnesses, I cannot recall a single witness that spoke in favour of human reproductive cloning. Yet science fiction is quickly becoming science fact. Last summer a number of groups held press conferences declaring their intentions to clone humans. One group has a strong Canadian link. If it is experimenting in Canada today currently no law could stop it.

When speaking last May at the World Health Organization assembly in Geneva, the former minister of health declared Canada's support for the resolution condemning reproductive cloning. He called for an international convention to prevent human cloning.

We wholeheartedly support those expressions. That is why this legislation, properly amended, needs to be quickly passed.

I would also like to talk about the research cloning or so-called therapeutic cloning. While this bill bans the practice, I was troubled with the comments made in the media by the minister two weeks ago when she said that though the government was not considering therapeutic cloning “at this time” she would not rule it out in the future. “This area is changing so quickly. You can't box yourself in”, she said.

Members understand the slippery slope we are on. Sometimes we need to draw boundaries. The minister should have taken to mind the words of her predecessor who said to the committee “just because we can do something does not mean that we must, or even that we should”.

On the day that Bill C-56 was tabled in the House of Commons, a group of Canadian scientists and ethicists published an article in the Globe and Mail calling for therapeutic cloning. They resorted to euphemism in describing it, referring to it as nuclear transfer.

Let us not bet be fooled; reproductive and therapeutic cloning begin with the same process. Therapeutic cloning for research purposes represents the commodification and the objectification of human life.

Recently President Bush denounced all forms of human cloning. “Life is a creation, not a commodity,” he said. A cloned embryo for research purposes could end up being used for reproductive purposes. Research or therapeutic cloning should remain a prohibited activity.

We are also concerned about other prohibitions. We find in the bill that the prohibition on the creation of human embryos does not apply to instruction on assisted reproductive procedures. It seems to me absurd to closely regulate the creation of embryos for research but not for instruction.

The idea that embryos can be created and destroyed at will for teaching purposes and fertility clinics runs directly contrary to their intrinsic value. It even appears that no permission would be required from a donor in this case.

This clause also stands against the intent of the bill itself, which is to make the use of embryos a controlled activity.

We are also concerned about the subtle pressures fertility clinics may experience to create more embryos than are necessary to have some left over for research. A clause should be added that requires licensees to limit the creation of embryos to numbers necessary to complete the reproductive procedures intended by the donors.

Another loophole is hybrids. While the creation of hybrids is prohibited, they will be allowed if not for the purpose of reproduction. Hybrids kept in a petri dish are still partly human and partly animal and this matter concerns us.

If as the government asserts it merely wishes to protect those who must test the viability of human gametes in fertility clinics, then this very limited use ought to be specified.

The health committee also heard compelling testimony recommending great caution in the regulation of surrogacy. We support the banning of commercial surrogacy and we share the committee's concern that the reimbursement for so-called allowable expenses could be abused by inflating expenses. The committee took these concerns seriously, recommending limits on the expenses for which reimbursements would be made.

However we will be calling for tighter language in the reimbursement provisions to ensure that compensation for expenses does not become a de facto commercial transaction.

In relation to controlled activities, I first wish to address a recommendation made by the royal commission on reproductive technologies that did not make it into the bill. It relates to the provisions of fetal tissue for research.

Three years ago we read in the press about an active commercial trade of fetal tissue in the United States, where body parts were regularly bought and sold in a quasi-legal market which Canadians found this to be highly distasteful. We want to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen in Canada. We understand that research into fetal tissue has gone on since the 1930s in Canada and that there is legitimate research that needs to be done. However, in keeping with the dignity and respect due to the human body, we ought to ensure that fetal tissue does not become a commodity that is bought and sold as it is in the United States.

The royal commission found gaps in the provincial laws that touch this issue. The commission stated there was “a lack of uniformity across Canada in provisions governing commerce in human tissue and body parts”. Accordingly the royal commission made the recommendation “That the provisions of human fetal tissue for use in research, or for any purpose not related to the medical care of the women herself, be subject to compulsory licensing” by the federal agency.

We feel that it would be natural and appropriate for the use of fetal tissue to be added to the controlled activities to be regulated by the Assisted Human Reproductive Agency of Canada.

I turn now to the contentious subject of research on human embryos. I understand that the government has the power to push this legislation through and that it will support the principles of experimentation with human embryos.

We have called already for a three year hiatus on embryonic research in accordance with our minority report. It is also our intention to ask parliament to narrow the grounds for research on human embryos in keeping with the dignity and respect due to human life. In this regard the minister ignored a careful recommendation of the health committee.

The majority report of the health committee recommended that research on embryos not be permitted “unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that no other category of biological material could be used”. I would note that clause 40 in the new bill simply states that research on human embryos can take place if the new agency satisfies itself that it is necessary for the purpose of the proposed research.

This especially troubles us when we see that clause 32 allows vast power to be delegated to any single member of the board of the agency. One person could make that decision.

First, the opposition feels that the definition of the word “necessary” should be placed in law, not left to the discretion of the agency. As it is there are no clear criteria for defining the circumstances under which experiments on the human embryo will be allowed. At the very least the wording of the majority report of the health committee should be used, requiring the applicant to demonstrate that no other category of biological material can be used for the purpose of the proposed research.

Second, the opposition asks that the purpose of any research on human embryos be placed in this clause. The purpose of research on embryos must be clearly restricted to deriving medical therapies that will assist in healing the human body. Otherwise research might one day encompass such activities as testing the safety and efficacy of drugs or cosmetics. This does not treat the embryo with the respect and dignity the government claims to recognize.

Third, the bill specifies that the consent of just one donor to a human embryo is required in order to use it for an experiment. The bill leaves it to the regulations to define the word “donor”. The language is important and I would remind the House that there are two donors to every human embryo: a man and a woman. Both donors, or as I would prefer to call them, parents, should be required to give written consent for the use of a human embryo, not just one. Both parents should have the right to give or withhold consent for the use of a human embryo.

Bill C-56, which governs experiments, should not itself become yet another experiment of political correctness. In this respect I would like more information about the impact of the statutory declaration of the bill, stating that women are more affected than men by the application of reproductive technologies.

If the effect of this clause might be to grant special legal rights on the basis of gender concerning such issues as an exclusive right of permission over the disposition of embryos, I will oppose it.

Though embryonic stem cell research has garnered much interest by the press, the scientists, health organizations and politicians, there are a number of concerns with the practice that are often overlooked.

Stem cells derived from embryos implanted in recipients are foreign tissue and thus subject to immune rejection, possibly requiring years of costly anti-rejection drug therapy. In a recently published study, embryonic stem cells injected into rodents grew brain tumours in 20% of the cases. A researcher said “I don't think this will be a treatment in humans for quite some time”. In fact there have as yet been no successful therapeutic applications for embryonic stem cells. There have in fact been problems.

On the other hand, adult stem cell research holds great promise. Research, using adult stem cells, is making important breakthroughs. Adult stem cells are easily accessible. They are not subject to tissue rejection and they pose minimal ethical concerns. Adult stem cells are now being used to treat Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis and spinal injuries. We should focus our energies and our scarce resources on research that is making a difference now.

The standing committee said:

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

Unaccountably, in its own research guidelines, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research only had this to say about adult stem cell research: “Research using adult stem cells would also be eligible for funding under specific conditions”.

It appears that far from emphasizing research in adult stem cells, the CIHR is limiting research funding for them. This raises important questions, not only about the lack of attention the agency pays to the standing committee but about the wisdom of focusing on embryonic stem cell research. Such a preoccupation might actually hinder the work going on with adult stem cells.

Advances in the field of adult stem cell research are recent and numerous. Events are unfolding around the world at an incredible pace. Here are four examples of what has happened just in the last 60 days.

Last week, May 15, the Journal of Clinical Investigations published the findings of researchers at the University of Minnesota who discovered that adult bone marrow cells can differentiate into liver cells. This suggests that patients with genetic diseases of the liver may benefit from therapies derived from adult stem cells.

Canada is at the forefront of this research. The May 1 issue of the prestigious journal of the American Society of Hematology featured the findings of a Montreal based company which has developed a treatment called “photodynamic cell therapy”, using adult stem cells to help fight the body's natural rejection of bone marrow transplants from incompatible donors. It has been described as a “magic bullet” in the treatment of rejection.

On April 8 this same company announced that the adult neural stem cells taken from a patient's own central nervous system have been successfully used in treating Parkinson's disease patients, reducing the symptoms by more than 80% over a one year period without the use of medication.

On April 2 in Vancouver a team at the University of British Columbia announced that it had been able to supercharge adult blood stem cells with a gene that allowed them to rapidly reproduce. They were able to heal mice with depleted blood systems. Some day adult stem cells could replace bone marrow transplants in humans.

Who knows what will happen in the next 60 days? We need to reinforce these gains with more research funding for adult stem cell research and allow more time for its potential to be realized.

I want to address for a moment the patenting of human life. In January 2002 it came to light that the human genes were regularly patented by Canada's Canadian Intellectual Property Office, contrary to the understanding of the Standing Committee on Health. We place patents on things to protect a financial interest. Patenting parts of the human body makes the human body into a commodity with a commercial value, contrary to the intention of the bill.

Existing patents might not even be enforceable. Patents are placed on things that are new and useful and show inventive ingenuity. Genes are not new. They exist in every human cell. Patenting of genes implies greater costs to the health care system. If people were able to corner the commercial market on medical therapies involving human genes they would be able to charge whatever the market would bear.

The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, an independent body set up by EU policy makers, said the unmodified stem cell should not be patented. It said patenting may be considered a form of commercialization of the human body.

The Standing Committee on Health was absolutely clear. Its report stated:

Given the importance that the Committee attaches to the respect of human dignity and integrity, we urge that patents be denied in relation to human material...Therefore, the Committee recommends that: The Patent Act be amended to prohibit patenting of humans as well as any human materials.

The Patent Act should be modified in this act to ban patents on the human body.

I will address the issue of limitations on donors of sperm and ova. Under Bill C-56 there would be no limit to the number of donations a person could make. A donor could make multiple donations and have dozens or even hundreds of children directly related to him or her. This could cause relational chaos in society. It could also represent a health risk. A person may be unhealthy in ways we could not detect and pass along genetic defects to hundreds of others.

The Standing Committee on Health recommended limits on the number of donations from the same donor and the number of babies born through the same donor. The government has ignored this in Bill C-56. However it is too important to ignore. A clause must be added to the bill to mandate that the agency set such limits.

I will move to an important topic: the right of the child to know his or her heritage. The bill's preamble states that:

--the health and well-being of children born through the application of these technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use--

We in our party agree, but apparently the government does not. Bill C-56 would give complete anonymity to donors of sperm and ova, leaving the children born as a result with no information about their parents. The bill should give priority to children who deserve to know their heritage. Although the agency created by Bill C-56 would retain all identifying information about the donors, the bill would not allow the agency to give it to children conceived using reproductive technologies.

Reproduction should take place within the context of human relationships, not divorced from them. Children have the right to know where they came from. That is why anonymous donors of sperm and ova should not be allowed. This principle of the bill is directly contrary to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health which states:

We believe that only donors who consent to have identifying information released to offspring should be accepted. We feel that, where there is a conflict between the privacy rights of a donor and the rights of a resulting child to know its heritage, the rights of the child should prevail...We want to end the current system of anonymous donation.

The textbook Bioethics in Canada states:

One's genetic history links one to a network of persons. Grandparents, great-grandparents, and the collateral relationships of uncles, aunts, cousins, are integral strands in the pattern of human connections essential to one's sense of personal identity. One may experience a very shallow sense of identity, if one's social identity rests upon no identifiable underlying grid or network of connections to one's genetic ancestors and relations.

We need to feel the pain of adopted children who want but are not allowed to discover their origins. Their pain would be multiplied thousands of times over if Bill C-56 passed unamended. We can easily prevent that from happening.

Today the criminal code calls children born of unmarried parents bastards. Even though children have nothing to do with their origins they can be marked for life for something their parents did. We may be stigmatizing an entirely new social class of people who have no known linkage. This would be cruel for children who are artificially conceived.

An identified donor is a responsible donor. If all donors were willing to identify, people would donate for the right reasons. Unfortunately, one important motivation for anonymous donations is money. One might think donors would stop giving if they could not be anonymous. However the experience of other countries and jurisdictions shows that there would still be donors if they had to be identified. A sperm bank in California found that half of all donors were willing to be identified. An earlier study in New Zealand found that nearly all donors were willing to meet with future offspring.

The government claims that the policy of anonymous donation is like adoption where parents who give up their children are able to remain anonymous. This is untrue. Donations of sperm and ova are intentional, with an opportunity to identify before the donation is made. The decision to put a child up for adoption is made after an unintentional pregnancy is already in progress. The two cases are entirely different.

New Zealand has a policy to accept only identified donations. Sweden made anonymous donations illegal in 1985. The state of Victoria in Australia has also made them illegal. Austria and the Netherlands are planning to implement such laws by the end of the year. Sperm and ova donors have plenty of time to consider their choice carefully before they go ahead. Bill C-56 is unacceptable in this regard.

I will comment on the structure of the Assisted Human Reproductive Agency of Canada. As we have heard in committee, for the agency to be effective it is essential that it gain the trust of the industry and all Canadians. The opposition will attempt to win trust for the agency by ensuring it is strong, independent and transparent.

I will address the agency's mandate. The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies adopted as its central principle an ethic of care based on the first principle of medicine that one should do no harm. The commission said:

The concept...goes beyond simply avoiding actions that might cause harm, to taking steps to prevent harm and create conditions in which harm is less likely to occur--

The Minister of Health told the standing committee:

There must be a higher notion than science alone...that can guide scientific research and endeavour. Simply because we can do something does not mean that we should do it.

The standing committee recommended a careful approach when any assisted reproductive technique raises threats of harm to human health. The committee said:

--the interests of researchers and physicians are supported to the extent that they do not compromise the interests of the children and adults.

The opposition in its minority report added a wise principle:

--where there is a conflict between ethical acceptability and scientific possibility, the ethically acceptable course of action shall prevail.

The interests of people come before the interests of research. The ethic that one should do no harm should be part of the legislative mandate of the agency or be included in the statutory declaration at the beginning of the bill.

We have a number of structural concerns about the agency. It would not report not to parliament but only to the minister. It should be an independent agency. Unbelievably, clause 25 would allow the minister to give any policy direction he or she liked to the agency and the agency would have to follow it without question. The clause would also ensure such direction remained secret. If there were an independent agency answerable to parliament such political direction would be much more difficult.

The powers of delegation and inspection under the bill would be considerable. We want to take a careful look at them. Members of the board should have a fixed, twice renewable term of three years to ensure the minister cannot simply get rid of non-compliant board members or keep members forever. This was recommended in the report of the health committee.

The chair of the agency should be appointed for a five year rather than a three year period so that his or her appointment surpasses the electoral cycle. This would minimize political pressures on the agency. The performance of the agency should be evaluated by the auditor general rather than the agency itself, and the review should be made public. The licensing process of new fertility clinics should be transparent and public.

Bill C-56 would allow for the creation of advisory panels. We in our party believe key stakeholders should be given statutory standing. These include: users of and children born of assisted reproductive technologies; people with disabilities; scientific and medical communities; the faith communities and professional ethicists; private providers and research firms; taxpayers and their representatives; and provincial and territorial governments.

I will speak to the records that would be kept by the agency. I was surprised to find that no reporting would be required under the bill. At the very least an annual report to parliament must be mandated. The report should summarize the activities of the agency including the number and type of donors, the number of embryos created and destroyed, those who undergo assisted reproductive procedures and persons conceived as a result, and research projects undertaken including projects using human embryos.

A new clause in the bill should specify that all embryos produced and destroyed by licensees be mandated on the registry of the agency. In recognition of the respect and dignity due to the human body, no human embryo should be created or destroyed anonymously and forgotten. Each should be identified. For this purpose a naming convention should be used rather than a numbering system. It could use what I would call an embryonic name or a standard formulaic combination of both donors' names.

In private life I worked in animal husbandry. In the artificial insemination of cattle every sperm or ovum, let alone every embryo, carries both the number and the name along with a record of the genetic line of the sample. How could we do less for living human embryos? It would be unfortunate to allow the creation and destruction of anonymous human embryos. Recognizing them by name would help us to remember their origins and why they were created or destroyed. It would underscore their value.

We need to address the topic of federal-provincial relationships. As we know, reproductive technologies fall broadly under provincial jurisdiction. While the law allows provinces to name one observer to the board of the agency, the observer is not a voting member. The provinces should be able to name a non-government designate who automatically becomes a voting board member.

The government did not implement all the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health regarding equivalency agreements with the provinces. Specifically the recommendations on parliamentary accountability, public consultation and information, and reporting requirements should become part of this session.

We have concerns about the equivalency agreement. A province might want to operate a more conservative program than the federal government. Under Bill C-56, for example, unless a province was willing to allow experimentation on human embryos no equivalency agreement could be possible. The federal government must not impose its views on the provinces in this regard.

The regulatory process envisioned in Bill C-56 is flawed. The regulations laid before parliament ought always to be referred to the Standing Committee on Health as the committee report recommends. Wording should be added requiring the minister to consider any report of the standing committee pursuant to the regulations laid before parliament. Regulations should not be made until the standing committee has reported on them, thus eliminating the 60 day limit placed on the standing committee to scrutinize legislation. Finally, a three year review process should be made a permanent feature of the act rather than a one time review.

We have other questions about the legislation and other amendments to make, which we will deal with in committee.

In closing, I want to address a significant omission in the preamble of the bill. The very first declaration of parliament is the protection and promotion of human health, safety, dignity and rights, and of course I am in accord with these objectives. However, there is one vital word missing. The purpose of the bill is to regulate technologies and assist Canadians to procreate. The protection and promotion of human life is an overarching concern of the bill. The missing word is “life”.

Human life is cheap in many countries of the world. I want Canada to be different. The preamble of the bill must reflect its overarching purpose. I would therefore request that the government include the protection and promotion of human life in its statutory declaration. I look forward to the input of my colleagues on both sides of the House, I look forward to the amendments and I look forward to all members voting freely on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-56. I am very much aware that the debate on Bill C-56 occupies a very special place among all the debates we shall have in this House. It is a bill unlike any other. This bill invites us to reflect on the human condition, on the definition of life. As well, of course, there is the whole matter of genetics.

We know that this bill is rather like the child of a planned pregnancy. Since at least the early 1980s, we have known how important it is to have legislative provisions to respond to these couples. We learned from the witnesses who came before us in committee that one person in eight experiences infertility problems at some point in his or her life.

Bringing Bill C-56 into the world was perhaps a painful process, but it was a wanted child. I can only hope that its sponsor will be able to meet our expectations.

Not only did we work very hard in committee, but we did so in a non-partisan manner as well. I believe the parliamentary secretary will agree with me that all members of the committee have given the best of themselves to it. We wanted to provide parliament with a significant report, a consensual one, a report that would enable the government to set out a certain number of principles.

Let us start at the beginning. Why must the issue of new reproductive technologies be addressed? We should perhaps explain to those who are listening to us that this bill consists of four separate elements.

First of all, there is a preamble, in which six main principles are defined. I shall be coming back to these. Then there are a number of prohibited activities: cloning, ectogenesis, payment for surrogacy, sex selection, in short a number of prohibited activities, which I shall also go into in greater detail. There is also the matter of the agency, the governmental structure that will issue licences and enforce the regulations. Finally, there is the matter of inspection.

Let us begin at the beginning. This bill is about a situation unprecedented in the history of humankind. For the first time ever, it will be possible to procreate without having sexual relations. With the new reproductive technologies, the conventional scenario whereby a man and a woman must have sexual relations in order to have children has changed.

Not only will there be a divorce and a disconnect between sexuality and procreation, but it will also be possible for a child to be the product of two parents who do not know each other and who have never met. From the point of view of ontology and the human condition, these are important facts in understanding why we want the new reproductive technologies sector to be legislated and what kind of legislation we want.

It is also important to bear in mind—and I will come back to this—that we recommended in committee that it not be possible, or that it not be authorized, to donate sperm or an ovum, that it not be possible to donate gametes without agreeing to reveal one's identity. I am sorry that the government did not go for this recommendation. I will come back to this.

We are facing a very important new reality: one person in eight has infertility problems. The bill sets out guidelines for dealing with the problem of infertility.

The problem of infertility can be solved by adopting—this is not covered in the bill—and also by using donors and sperm banks and, of course, by using donated gametes.

The bill attempts to uphold a certain number of values that are fairly essential and around which there is consensus. What is interesting is that each of the prohibitions contained in the bill corresponds to a value that parliamentarians will find easy to defend.

Allow me to provide some examples. Cloning for reproductive purposes is prohibited. Why has the debate over cloning received so much attention and why has it had such an impact on Canadian society? This is due to the fact that, obviously, we may have the technological means and we know how to clone.

We have the conviction that every human being is unique. Each human being, based on his or her values, weaknesses, strengths, unique traits, has a special place in the human community. We would not accept having two people who are exactly the same in every way and having science used to give two people the exact same genetic makeup. This is not acceptable based on the philosophy, based on the human ideal that every person is unique. Therefore, human cloning is officially prohibited.

Of course, there may be certain situations where we might think that cloning for therapeutic purposes should be permissible. For example, cloning an arm or organ tissue of a healthy person. However, the bill prohibits all forms of cloning and we believe that this is best for now.

There are other activities that are prohibited, those carried out for eugenics in an attempt to create an ideal human. In fact, altering the germinal cells in order to produce made to order babies is prohibited. With modern technology, it is now possible, at a certain stage in development, to create children with blue eyes, or girls with a particular hair colour. It is also possible to choose genetic characteristics so that, at birth, we would know not only whether or not the child is a boy or a girl, but we could also determine the major genetic characteristics of the unborn child.

Some people were in favour of this, thinking that it would also enable us to eliminate certain genes that are more lethal and that could carry degenerative diseases. The government chose not to go this way and said “No, it will not be possible to tinker with germ cells. It will not be possible to have made to order children. It will not be possible to determine the broad genetic traits of unborn children, always in the name of the principle of the equality of individuals”.

For example, it would be possible today to choose the sex of one's child. Some couples may decide to have a girl rather than a boy. Thanks to reproductive selection techniques, it would be possible today to engage in such practices. However, since the principle of the equality of individuals has been enshrined in the charters and in the various documents dealing with human rights, the bill forbids such practices, which I think is very wise.

Of course, maintaining an embryo outside the uterus for more than 14 days is also forbidden. This is an internationally recognized standard. Why more than 14 days? I see the member for Joliette, who always seems to want to know more, and I say to him that an embryo cannot be maintained outside the uterus beyond the 14th day, because that is when gestation begins and the nervous system starts to appear. It is believed that this is really the first stage of human life. So this is another prohibition on which there is a rather wide consensus.

Needless to say, it is also forbidden to create hybrids that would come from both animal and human genetic material. Hybrids of any form are forbidden, and it is not very difficult to understand why.

It is also prohibited—and I will get back to this—to provide and give gametes that will produce an embryo that would be used exclusively for research. It is important to understand this distinction.

The law maker believes that genetic material must primarily be used for procreation purposes. When a person gives sperm or an ovum, it must primarily be used to create an embryo and, ultimately, a child.

However, if a person goes to a fertility clinic and undergoes a cycle of ovarian stimulation, a number of ova may be generated through this technique. It will be possible for that person, with his or her free and enlightened consent given without any coercion, to give an ovum for research purposes. However, the basis and the premise that must be respected under all circumstances is that it is not possible to use and create an embryo exclusively for research purposes. Why? Because gametes, that is the sperm and ovum, must primarily be used to create an embryo that will eventually become a human being.

Since I alluded to research, I think it is important to make a number of distinctions regarding stem cells. The debate on stem cells is an important one, because in its first few days of existence, the embryo has some 200 of those stem cells. What is peculiar about these stem cells is that, at this point, their role has yet to be determined. These cells may become any organ, member and tissue of the human body. Because of this, they have huge potential in terms of regeneration and mobility. These stem cells are viable and they are important in the first few days of the embryo. Some researchers would like to use them to help people who are suffering from serious degenerative diseases and who may need these stem cells.

For stem cells to be used, an embryo must be destroyed. And since embryos have to be destroyed, it raises ethical issues. There has been an ongoing debate in Canada on which the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling in 1988. The question is: At what point should an embryo be considered a human being? Is an embryo a human being? Is a fetus a human being? If one believes that an embryo is a human being from the moment of conception, then the destruction of embryos raises criminal, ethical and moral issues.

The regime set out in this bill will function by exception, meaning that the minister will issue licences. A researcher will be allowed to use stem cells only if he is issued a licence and if he can prove that no other genetic material will do. The system will function by exception.

Let me also point out that in committee, as those who have followed the work of the committee will know, witnesses representing major organizations have made very emotional pleas. We heard, for instance, from members of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the Multiple Sclerosis Association, the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the Cerebral Palsy Association. The spokespersons for these organizations told us “Without research on stem cells, medical breakthroughs that would help improve the qualify of life of the people we represent will be virtually impossible”.

So, this raises questions. While some may respect life and the right to live from the moment of conception, others are committed to improving the quality of life.

If research on stem cells may improve the lot of a child with cerebral palsy or an adult with muscular dystrophy, if it may lead to greater autonomy for people, should it be totally banned? This is the kind of debate the bill is all about.

For now, the government has chosen a system that functions by exception. Research on stem cells will be possible only by ministerial permit and once it has been proven that available genetic material, human tissues and the conditions under which research can be done do not permit the desired research to be conducted.

We were presented an argument worth keeping in mind. Representatives from the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation appeared before the committee. They told us that in the 1950s--this was not several thousand years ago, but a mere half a century ago--the government was very reluctant to authorize research on recombinant DNA. It involved moral values and genetics. There were a lot of restrictions, barriers, debates and controversy surrounding this kind of research.

We were told that if it were not for research on recombinant DNA, sophisticated techniques in the area of insulin could never have been developed, for instance. We all know how much insulin has improved the living conditions of people with diabetes.

There are pros and cons. When the time comes to vote at third reading, each one of us will have to weigh the moral arguments we believe in. For my part, I will readily say that, even though it is not for me, a simple backbencher, to decide, I will have no qualms asking the leader of my party, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, to allow a free vote. Obviously, in a bill of this kind there are moral and ethical issues involved.

It is not clear cut. Members who believe that life starts at conception have extremely pertinent, rigorous, well founded arguments to defend their point of view.

The Conference of Bishops and other witnesses came before us and asked us to respect the right to life from the time of conception. On the other hand, those who believe that we must also concern ourselves with making progress in the area of medical research have equally valid arguments.

I have an identical twin brother who has cerebral palsy. When my mother gave birth to us, in the early 1960s, the medical reality was quite different from what it is now. We were premature babies, born during the seventh month of pregnancy. My twin brother came first. My mother experienced a lack of oxygen so my brother now has cerebral palsy. This disease means that dead cells cannot be replaced. Dead neurons and cells are gone forever.

What if, in a few years, research on stem cells made it possible to revitalize tissues and change the fate of those people with cerebral palsy, would we want to preclude that altogether? Should we not keep in mind that, in science, what is prohibited today may not be in the future? I believe we should keep that in mind when we vote at third reading stage.

Back to the prohibited activities. Naturally, it is also prohibited to transplant a sperm, ovum, embryo or fetus of a non-human life form into a human being. The use of any human reproductive material for commercial purposes is also prohibited. We would certainly not want to live in a society where it would be possible to buy or sell gametes or ova as if they were mere commodities on the market. Nobody would want to live in such a society.

The committee members were also faced with an issue of a very high ethical nature, that of surrogate mothers. For the time being, the Civil Code of Québec, for example, only prohibits paying for the services of surrogate mothers.

It is illegal to pay a woman to act as a surrogate. Furthermore, the law clearly recognizes the perfect appropriateness of the role of parent, which is recognized with all its privileges and obligations, to the fact of giving birth to a child.

A child can be entrusted to somebody else's care or can be raised by someone else. Another person can take care of that child, provide for his education and take all the actions that go with parental authority. However, neither the civil code nor the common law recognize that the mother is not the person having given birth to the child. These principles are maintained in the bill.

Thus, the main restrictions provided for in the bill are based on principles which are universally acknowledged and about which there is a consensus. I congratulate the government for being on the right track. The committee has also done a very good job.

I would now like to talk about the preamble. In the bill, the preamble has an interpretative role; it does not have a coercitive value like the other clauses of the bill. However, I believe it helps to understand what the bill is about.

The draft bill contained a statement. The committee wanted the bill to contain very clear principles to guide the courts of justice in challenges and in their decisions.

These principles are about health, security and the dignity of any human being. These are inalienable rights which are acknowledged in all the major conventions. It is also about health and the concern for the well-being of children. As a matter of fact, the well-being of children was central in all the work we did in committee. To us, this was a fundamental concern.

The bill also states that women more than men are affected by assisted human reproduction technologies. Of course, this does not mean that the debate has nothing to do with men, but we understand that it affects women more than men.

Furthermore, we wanted free and informed consent for all decisions regarding donation of gametes, giving birth to children and using assisted human reproduction technologies.

In its report, the committee went further than what is included in the bill. It believed that medically assisted reproduction technologies should not be used without counselling being made available. We recommended mandatory counselling.

The government chose to ignore this recommendation for fear of constitutional problems. A legislative solution was difficult to find because counselling is under provincial jurisdiction. I can understand that the government would fear a court challenge under the charter of rights and freedoms, a challenge it stood to lose.

As for the fifth principle, understandably, all forms of trade in gametes are deemed deeply repugnant to human beings, just as all forms of female exploitation are.

The last principle we wanted to include in the preamble was the preservation and protection of human individuality and diversity. This covers the preamble and the main prohibitions.

I will now deal with another extremely important part of the bill, the whole issue of regulations. I was on the Standing Committee on Health when it considered the issue of tobacco labelling. The federal government set out on a campaign to curb tobacco use, which was a wise decision.

There are fewer and fewer smokers in Canada, but some very specific groups are smoking more. For instance, girls smoke more than men.

The hon. member for Chambly, a man who is not lacking in will power, and who does not have many faults, has one small one: he is a smoker. The combined pressure of all his caucus colleagues might reduce his smoking somewhat, but this is a matter of individual freedom, so the member for Chambly will carry on as before. He will quit when he is ready to. I believe, however, that he would be in far better shape if he quit his three pack a day habit. There is, however, no way we are going to pressure him. The hon. member for Chambly is going to carry on as he wishes, but the will power he has always expressed leads me to be extremely optimistic for the future outcome.

The connection I wanted to make with the tobacco labelling issue is that there was mandatory tabling in the House for the regulations on this. For certain bills, regulations are more important that the legislation itself. This is true. Why are the regulations important where assisted human reproduction is concerned? Because this is what will set out the conditions under which gametes are to be stored, how things will be managed in practical terms, the operational reality of fertility clinics. All this will be governed by the regulations, as well the entire matter of handling donated material.

In this connection, I would like to point one thing out to the minister and the departmental staff listening to us, who took the bus with me this morning. We had a quick and very friendly discussion. My reading of clause 65 of the bill was that there was no firm obligation for the government to bring the regulations before the House first, and then refer them to the Standing Committee on Health so that there could be an informed examination, with a report to the House, in order for the regulations to be processed with all desired transparency.

Let us look at sub clause 65.(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

(a) defining “donor”, in relation to an in vitro embryo;

The member for Chambly will correct me if I am wrong, but when a bill says “the governor in council may”, it does not have the same coercive value as “the governor in council shall”. I would have liked subsection 65. (1) to contain an unequivocal requirement in the form of the word shall. The Bloc Quebecois will also be putting forward an amendment in committee to this effect.

I am sure that all members of the House will join with me in thanking the member for Drummond. She was very clear-sighted. In 1997, she introduced a private member's bill in an attempt to use the means at her disposal as an MP to cover this legal void. This was quite something.

Let us look at the history. After hearing from 40,000 witnesses, the Baird commission tabled a report, in 1993, if I am not mistaken. The government took nearly ten years to act upon it. The Baird commission began its work in 1989. The report was tabled in 1993. The commission's work cost $28 million.

I will take 30 seconds to remind the House of this saga. The Baird commission included a group of dissidents. I would mention that one of the top experts on this subject is the wife of the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Back then, there was a genuine desire to make sure that the privy council would let the Baird commission do its work without political interference. An application was even made to the federal court to ensure that the Baird commission would be granted all the independence due such a commission of inquiry.

The Baird commission cost $28 million. It heard 40,000 witnesses. The report was tabled in 1993 and it took close to a decade—since we are now in 2002—for the government to take action.

The hon. member for Drummond put pressure on the government. She asked questions every day, because there was a danger. That danger was the following: if a public or private laboratory in Canada had engaged in cloning or other practices prohibited under the bill, how could we have upheld the fundamental principles that we have been talking about since 10 o'clock this morning, considering that there was no legislation?

Again, I am sure that all hon. members will want to join me in thanking the member for Drummond, who has been a pioneer in this regard, who took initiatives and who followed this issue very closely.

I have a minor disappointment with the bill. Overall, it is well drafted and our committee worked well and benefited greatly from the expertise provided by witnesses. However, the government erred in one aspect.

Indeed, in our report entitled “Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families”, we made a recommendation—I believe it is recommendation No. 19, if I am not mistaken—to the effect that it should not be possible to give gametes, that is ova or sperm, without accepting the fact that the offspring may want to establish a link with the donor and get to know his or her biological parent.

The committee heard from many witnesses who were born following the use of technologies such as the one that we are discussing this morning. These people gave us their views on identity, psychogenesis and all the things that allow a person to become a well-adjusted human being, a productive citizen involved in the community in which he or she grew up. These people urged us to ensure that this would not be optional.

Right now, a donor can say that he or she will later give his or her authorization to be traced. However, this is not compulsory. What is compulsory is that a register be maintained so that, as regards medical history—for example if a donor offspring needs to know the donor's blood type—it will be possible to obtain this type of information.

I would have liked to see this be made mandatory and the bill specify that if one consents to be a sperm or an ova donor, one has to accept that the child that will be born from that process will be authorized to openly trace the donor and could one day contact the donor.

I understand that two main concerns prevented the government from yielding to this argument. The government was afraid that if disclosure was made mandatory, the number of donations would fall.

I do not think that this argument is justified. In countries where disclosure was made mandatory, there was indeed a reduction in the number of donations in the first months or the first year, but after a while, thanks to a good publicity campaign, the situation returned to normal.

As for the agency that is being created by the bill, the minister and the agency share the responsibility to promote these technologies and increase public awareness. The government could have shown a little more courage and have implemented the committee's first recommendation.

The first argument was that by making disclosure mandatory, the number of donations would fall dramatically, and the government was concerned about this.

The second argument was that this was not necessarily a good thing for the family. However, if the donors remain anonymous, does this not contribute to stigmatizing infertility?

Is it good for us, as a society, to maintain this culture of secrecy linked with anonymity? Are people who are infertile not subject to prejudice? By surrounding the whole process of gamete donation with secrecy, with a sort of occultism, is the government not helping to maintain the culture of secrecy that surrounds sterility, which is not good? Sterility should be treated as a condition that has nothing to do with people's will. It should not be subject to any taboos. It should not be dealt with by exclusion. A sterile woman should not feel any less a woman, nor should a sterile man feel any less a man. A culture of secrecy does not help us achieve this goal.

Another concern we have is the creation of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada. We are happy that this agency will be separate from the Department of Health. The committee believed it was important, even though the minister was required to table an annual report and be ultimately responsible for the enforcement of the act, to make the agency distinct from Health Canada. The government followed our recommendation.

However, we are concerned about the fact that the agency will be comprised of 13 individuals. There will be a representative of the federal government, yet in our report we recommended there be no representative of the federal government. If my interpretation of the bill is right, the provinces will also have a representative. As far as we are concerned, this is insufficient.

In her speech, the minister noted that Canadians wanted legislation on medically assisted human reproduction. This is no doubt true, but we have to realize that the whole issue of fertility clinics, and the medical procedures involved in reproductive technologies, on both ends of the process, come under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has invaded the area of reproductive technologies through the criminal code. Because there are criminal offences involved, the federal government is avoiding any constitutional challenges to its jurisdiction when it comes to medically assisted reproductive technologies.

We will certainly move amendments to ensure that the provinces are more adequately represented. We will also propose amendments to ensure that the provinces are involved in the drafting as well as in the implementation of the regulations. We know that the only way to meet that objective is for the regulations to be tabled in the House of Commons and then referred to a parliamentary committee, as is the case of the Tobacco Act.

Since I am running out of time, I will use these last minutes to summarize. What we have here is a good bill. The Bloc Quebecois will support its speedy adoption. We think that it is important to fill the legal void that exists. We will move three amendments, including one concerning the regulations and one concerning mandatory disclosure of sperm donations. I will add that we may move another amendment. In the preamble, we will ensure that access to technologies related to assisted human reproduction is not subject to any form of discrimination, whether it is based on sexual orientation or on marital status.

We have been told that it is very difficult for single women to have access to these technologies. We think that, under both the Canadian and the Quebec charter, there should be no discrimination in this regard.

That concludes what I wanted to say about this bill on behalf of my party.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Colleagues, as of the next member to speak, the speakers will be subjected to a 10 minute question and comment period.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with a mixture of relief and apprehension that I stand today to join the debate on Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction. As others have mentioned, this is truly a day that many of us have been waiting for since the royal commission on assisted human reproductive technology, in a 1993 report, recommended urgent federal government action to regulate this burgeoning new area. It is a day we have been awaiting since the government let its first effort, Bill C-47, die on the order paper with its 1997 election call, and here we are today, five years after parliament saw that piece of government legislation on this area that is of vital concern to women, to families and to many people in our society who are dependent on the discoveries and developments occurring daily in this area.

We listened very carefully to the health minister's speech as she introduced the bill and it is certainly clear that she has been more than generous in her self-congratulatory words in introducing the bill. New Democrats, who for years have been calling on the government to introduce legislation to give women access to safe, non-commercial reproductive health services, should be forgiven if we are reluctant to join in what is at best a celebration of Liberal indifference or at worst the latest chapter in the government's history of neglect. After all, we are far from having an act in place. Indeed, Canada is the last major industrialized country in the world without legislation in this area.

Reproductive technology is not a static field of science, far from it. While the government has been inactive on this legislative file for all these years, the nature or the bio-nature of reproductive technology has been changing rapidly. Let us go through some of those developments. Dolly the sheep and animal cloning are not new news. An Italian doctor claims to be well on the way to producing a cloned human being. The term “designer babies” is now in common usage as parents begin selecting the biological traits of their children. Internet sites compete in the trade of celebrity reproductive materials while countless others profit from those Canadians who are more than willing to buy access to any healthy eggs or sperm that might assist in their drive to have children. Gender selection has become topical, with all sorts of new rationales being put forward in its defence.

As well, we have witnessed the development of human stem cell research. Eugenics has assumed increased acceptability as scientific capabilities have expanded even though we have had no public debate. So too the patenting of higher life forms, including human genetic material, has become part of our daily lives without public discussion or input. The list goes on.

One can see why we are relieved that finally, as New Democrats have been urging for years, the government has deigned to bring this piece of legislation before parliament. Our initial relief, though, was rather short-lived as we became familiar with the bill's contents or lack of contents. I now want to focus on some of our apprehensions, and they are considerable.

I begin by registering our disappointment that the government has chosen in several instances to override the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health set out in its “Building Families” report of last December.

It was a rare moment in the life of this parliament, moments which are few and far between. Committee members from all political parties took the government's request to review its draft proposal on assisted reproductive technologies very seriously. We devoted months of committee time to studying submissions and hearing witnesses from the full spectrum of views on this whole area, and a very controversial topic it is.

Instead of shying away from contentious areas we debated them and in many cases reached sustainable positions that we offered in our report. We presented the government with 36 recommendations in the main report as well as additional recommendations in the NDP's minority report.

In what is quickly becoming the norm for the government, it has chosen yet again in Bill C-56 to override several of the committee's recommendations with no consultation or explanation to the committee. We have seen over and over again parliamentary committees that run the danger of becoming mere window dressings for the government's legislative agenda instead of the dynamic honing tools to enhance legislation as it proceeds through parliament. Many of us in the House feel that this results in legislation that is less reflective of the will of Canadians and which will be less effective in the long run as a result.

I also have serious concerns with the government's decision to offload many policy issues, some of them very contentious, like stem cell research, to the regulations or to the soon to be created assisted human reproductive agency.

Canadians elected us to the House to deal with tough issues. They elected us to be accountable for how we deal with them, not to pass them on to an unelected, unaccountable organization or group of officials to determine. That is a concern and we will continue to raise our opposition to the off loading of responsibility in fundamental areas of policy that should be decided by this place, by members of parliament elected to do just that.

I will turn now to the substance of the legislation we have before us. The primary consideration for all of us in dealing with the bill or dealing with any legislation governing reproduction must surely be the health and well-being of women. That is a matter which should be self-evident yet it is a matter that has to be said.

After the bill was introduced I was in a debate with members of the other parties. The health critic for the Alliance Party actually said that the bill was not a woman's issue. The last time I checked, women were responsible for reproduction in our society today. Women are often the guinea pigs for experiments in terms of ways to deal with reproductive problems. It is women who in fact are on the front lines in terms of developments in this area.

Let us be clear, this is a woman's issue and the bill must at least address the fundamental issues of protecting and ensuring the health and well-being of women. Of course we are talking about families and their need to deal with new technologies in the desire to have children, but let us make sure we do not miss the fundamental issue of women's health and well-being which is so central to the bill and so much a part of the history of the bill.

The federal government should ensure that reproductive technologies are proven to be safe before being permitted, that the risks and benefits of any treatment for women are disclosed fully and that the funds needed to achieve these objectives are made available. The bill we are debating should be the means for accomplishing these ends but it is not.

The most effective way of dealing with the legislation is to ensure that the precautionary principle is entrenched in any bill dealing with assisted reproductive technology. That is why in our minority report New Democrats recommended that the precautionary principle be explicitly set out in legislation as a prerequisite for the approval of all standards and procedures. In its final report, the health committee agreed that a precautionary approach was needed.

Instead of finding the precautionary principle among the governing provisions of the bill, it is nowhere to be found. The precautionary principle, which is really putting safety first, can put a damper on the unfettered pursuit of profitable new products and procedures. The choice not to include the precautionary principle reflects the government's affection for the biotech industry, an industry that has benefited tremendously from being able to establish itself in assisted reproductive technology unencumbered by regulation during these many years without an act.

Bill C-56 is also missing a strong mandate to ensure that the most up to date safety information is available to women through counselling. Back in 1990, the New Democrat women's critic, Dawn Black, called for the inclusion of counselling as part of every reproductive technology program. It was her number one recommendation to the Baird commission.

It was said then and is still said today that the quality of the counselling and information must be high and it must be mandated to be readily available. Women also need information on infertility prevention to help them avoid the intrusive and painful procedures that may be part of an infertility treatment.

In response to the draft bill, the NDP minority report recommended that prevention be a central aspect of any reproductive technology policy and a key part of any new regulatory authority.

However Bill C-56 is soft on prevention. The government has failed to provide the type of proactive prevention mandate that is necessary to make real inroads into reducing the factors that lead to infertility.

One way the government could have addressed this important area and ensured that women's concerns remained a high priority, at least with respect to the make-up of the new agency to be called the assisted human reproductive agency, would have been to require gender parity. To give credit to the health committee that was recognized.

It was assumed that because we were dealing with women's health and with reproduction, with a bill that would have a significant impact on women, that the agency would be made up of at least 50% women. Does that appear anywhere in the draft bill or did we hear any of that in the commentary made by the minister? No. A fundamental issue, which would have made a significant difference for outcomes when the bill is finally implemented and up and running, is missing.

That is not something new to us on this side of the House. We have tried many times to get the government to understand the basic notion of gender parity on all boards and commissions. We thought there was a case to be made when the government established the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Since we are dealing with a new research body that would set the stage for innovative research for years to come one would think it would at least have gender parity. We know that women's health concerns and their interests in research and development are critical and important. The government refused to address that fundamental issue at that time.

We felt that when it came to reproductive technology it would be a given that women would be involved. How could the government not do that? Once again not only has the government decided to ignore this fundamental recommendation but it has backed off its own stated principles and policies around achieving gender parity and ensuring a gender based analysis of all government bills and programs.

The government has chosen to let the chips fall where they may instead of clearly supporting women whose health rides on the agency as the enforcer of the act.

By the same token, the bill does not require the agency to establish any formal mechanism for direct input from experts in the field, from the centres of excellence for women's health or even its own women's health bureau within Health Canada, both of which could contribute substantially to the agency's worth in the interests of women through the work they perform.

While I am on the bill's shortcomings in relation to the agency's board, let me add that there is no protection against conflict of interest to prevent the agency being unduly influenced by the biotechnology industry or private clinics. This is an important omission that we believe must be addressed.

Another issue that is very important to many of us in the House is the bill's unacceptable weakness in terms of focusing on the commercialization potential and developments in this whole area of assisted reproductive technologies. Nowhere is it more apparent than when it comes to addressing the fundamental issue of patenting of life forms, a topic of great concern today as the supreme court begins its deliberations on the patenting of the Harvard mouse.

We had thought, given the words from the government around stopping the commercialization in this area, that it would at least act in terms of stating its objective to prohibit the patenting of human genetic material. That was part of the health committee's report. It was a consensus position. The health minister did not say a word about that when she introduced Bill C-56. She made no mention of the government's intentions to move quickly and forcefully with respect to patent protection. It is very important because knowledge of the genetic building blocks of life forms part of our common human legacy and the public good. It cannot be forfeited to the private reserve of giant life science and drug corporations.

We have called on the government to amend the Patent Act to prohibit human patenting. As I said, so has the health committee. However the government chose to ignore the consensus and instead has put its emphasis on corporate property rights before our access to health care. It could have stipulated a consequent amendment to the Patent Act had it so desired but it chose not to do so.

The implications of the patenting of life forms for our health care system are already becoming apparent. Women's access to a genetically developed test for breast cancer has been impeded by the patent process. Now the same company is applying for a patent on a prostate cancer gene.

A line is already forming at the patent office to slap patents on the beginnings of the stem cell research that holds such promise for Canadians suffering from debilitating diseases. Instead of bending over backward to respond to the wishes of the biotechnology industry, New Democrats believe that the federal government should be playing a leading role internationally to advocate keeping trade agreements from overriding the health interests of Canadians.

We believe all Canadians should benefit equally from improvements in this area. All Canadians should benefit equally from improvements to infertility treatment. This is far from the case now where public coverage of infertility conditions is practically non-existent and private insurance often excludes fertility drugs or imposes severe limits on reimbursement.

We have called on the federal government to work in conjunction with the provincial l and territorial governments to bring reproductive technology within the public non-profit sector. We have offered the model of the Manitoba provincial government that recently and successfully reclaimed a for profit clinic to the public health care system and gives a perfect example to the government about how it can act in the best interests of Canadians according to Canadians' deep desire for a non-profit system to ensure that basic health services are not up for grabs in the marketplace.

There are many more issues of concern that I wanted to raise and I will have a chance to pursue those points in further debates and in questions that follow.

For example, we have to look at the whole issue of genetic testing and the absence in the bill of any reference to people with disabilities. With the potential for eugenics cleansing, we are creating enormous problems for our society today. We are putting a cloud over those who live daily with disabilities. Because of developments in this field and the lack of action from the federal government, they now feel their lives are worth less. Our society is not enriched as we all assume it to be.

We have before us a bill that has serious gaps in women's health protection. It fails to effectively take on the commercial side of assisted reproductive technologies. It has ignored basic issues such as genetic testing and has overridden health committee recommendations in several areas.

The government has come to us after all this time asking for approval for a very important bill. However it misses several significant policy proposals and has relegated regulations to an agency yet to be defined.

We are left in the frustrating position of being--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for a very enlightening speech. I should recognize the fact that the hon. member has been an outspoken champion on women's issues for many years.

I made note of two things the member pointed out in her speech, which were shocking to me. First, the women members on the standing committee are still having to fight the age old argument for gender parity. Bill C-56 is without doubt, first and foremost, a women's health issue. Yet in this day and age women like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have to stand up and make the argument for gender parity on the board. Could she comment on that?

Second, I would like the member's further remarks on what was most shocking to me and that is Bill C-56 seems to be geared to favour the biotechnology industry. It raises this bizarre spectacle or spectre of patenting and commercialization of life forms, even human life forms. That is absolutely shocking.

The hon. member pointed out that with one simple consequential amendment to the Patent Act we could have precluded the idea that anyone could put a patent on human life forms and market and commercialize them. Could the she expand on what consequential amendments might have been made to the Patent Act, if the government were serious about precluding what we view as an absolute horror?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from my colleague from Winnipeg Centre who has raised two very important issues that were pursued in great detail by the health committee which resulted in recommendations as part of our consensus position. The health critic for the Alliance will recall these very important developments.

One is certainly the acknowledgment that we are dealing first and foremost with a women's health issue. The whole area of assisted human reproduction is about women's health and well-being and the need to address their concerns as members of families.

One would think that if we are going to offload responsibilities for much of this area, the bare minimum we could do is ensure that women are represented equally on the board for this new assisted human reproduction agency. Surely that would be a fundamental initiative, a first step toward addressing these concerns. That did not happen. I do not know what happened.

I do not know why a simple recommendation supported by all political parties did not make it into the bill or into the minister's statement. I do not know what it takes to convince the government that gender parity should be a goal on every board, in every commission and in every agency of the government, at least when it comes to women's health. That would be self-evident and a given. It is not there. We have some work to do at the committee to try to amend the bill and ensure that that fundamental issue is there.

Second, with respect to commercialization, this is clearly at the centre of the whole debate on assisted human reproduction. If we continue to allow the private marketplace to control and own all new developments in this area, Canadians will not benefit nor will women who are in need of assisted human reproduction. The giant drug companies and bioscience companies will benefit from the profits to be gained from patenting life forms.

There is a very simple way to deal with the issue. We suggested it before. Amend the Patent Act to prohibit patents on life forms. It seems pretty straightforward and, as I said, the health committee actually dealt with this issue. Obviously it is an area where there are considerable ideological differences. It was not easy to reach a consensus but we did.

The report from the health committee on the draft bill for assisted human reproduction recommends that the government take action to prevent patenting on life forms. We know there are dozens of applications pertaining to genetically manipulated human cells at the patent office right now waiting for a decision by the government.

Could the government not see the wisdom of acting now using this opportunity of a bill dealing with assisted human reproduction to address this critical area?

Those are two areas that are fundamental to our concerns about the bill. They must be addressed by the government and pursued at the committee before the bill is brought back for final reading.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did have another point that I was interested in and I do not think the member had time to expand on it. It is the idea of eugenics cleansing and is a term with which I am not familiar.

Could the member expand on what area of biotechnology and research deals with eugenics cleansing? What are her reservations about that particular issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important issue that our committee dealt with, but is not really reflected in the bill before us today.

We heard from many advocates for persons with disabilities at the health committee who raised concerns that genetic testing for the purpose of eliminating disabilities was a form of eugenic cleansing that would effectively lead to the biomedical elimination of diversity. Of course there are further concerns that these questions are being decided, and this goes back to the earlier question, by private corporations beyond public control.

Bill C-56 only makes passing reference to diversity in its principles. There is no mention at all in the bill of disability. There is no mention at all of a clearly defined prohibition around eugenics cleansing. There is no plan laid out in terms of dealing with the broad issue of genetic testing. Without regulation we have serious problems on our hands.

We have already seen prenatal testing taking place without full knowledge of what is or is not treatable. We have routine screening of newborns without parental consent, no prohibition of home genetics tests, demands by employers for genetic testing and life insurance companies demanding genetic test results as a result of customer screening. Even more interesting is the fact that since 1993, 30 gene therapy experiments have been approved without any policy framework or national genetic strategy. Without regulation there are serious safety concerns for persons engaged as subjects in genetic experimentation.

Let me raise one more issue which has to do with a case that we heard about recently in the news. Just two weeks ago an American company paid $2.2 million to settle charges brought by the United States equal employment opportunity commission for illegally testing its employees DNA for a genetic predisposition to a debilitating physical condition. In Canada we have not taken care to provide such protection. Bill C-56 offers no direction in this regard.

We know this is not an easy issue with which to deal. We know it requires consultation with provincial and territorial governments. However, when we are dealing with long awaited legislation with such an explosion of developments in this field, this matter should be addressed by parliament. It should be referenced in the bill before us today and should be part of a plan of action for the future.

We must ensure that persons with disabilities and their organizations are fully part of the discussions in this area. We must ensure that the diversity of our population, and that means people living with disabilities is respected and reflected in any legislation dealing with genetics and dealing with assisted human reproduction.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of the health committee. Could she tell the House a bit about the infertility business and fertility clinics.

One question I have is on the aspect of payment for gametes or embryos. I am not sure, but maybe the member can help us with this. How can fertility clinics, which are private for profit organizations, connect with researchers and give them frozen embryos for research purposes without money changing hands? I cannot imagine that fertility clinics do this out of the good of their hearts.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member identifies a glaring example of the deficiencies of the bill. It is strong on preventing the sale of sperm and eggs in terms of individual donations, but offers no clarification with respect to private infertility clinics that actually end up with these supposed leftover products and put them on the market for sale.

There is no question money is changing hands. There is no question that we are dealing with an active marketplace. There is no question that this area must be addressed by the government in the bill in terms of clear and precise parameters with respect to commercialization and with respect to private infertility clinics.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a member rises in debate, tradition has it that we start by saying what a pleasure or honour it is for us to speak on this or that bill. Between you and me, I do not know whether it is a pleasure or an honour, but I think it is a responsibility for parliamentarians to speak to a bill that has been introduced by the government.

That said, Bill C-56 is not much of a government vision and strategy concerning reproductive procedures. It is a bill that has been more than a decade in coming. The minister feels it must be accepted and approved promptly. We want to ensure that it does not drag on, and that here in the House of Commons and in the other place as well, it can be voted on quickly and passed. “It is urgent”, she tells us. If that is the case, what did the government do when there was consensus in the past, on banning human cloning for instance? A bill was introduced in this place, sponsored by the hon. member for Drummond. But there was no rush then.

There was a royal commission report back in 1993. Then the first bill was introduced, but abandoned when the 1997 election was called. It must not have been so pressing then. So why is it so pressing now for the minister?

Yes, this is an important bill, and parliament will consider it and vote on it. When a bill such as Bill C-56 is being dealt with, however, there must be an acknowledgment that matters of ethics and morality are involved. Religious issues are either related or become related. This is why we in the Progressive Conservative Party feel this is a good example of a bill that needs to be subject to a free vote in the House. What is going to happen on the government side? We shall see as the bill moves through the various stages in the House of Commons. We are not, however, going to have a fast acceptance of this bill shoved down our throats just because the minister herself is going around boasting about having solved the problem.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions. Several aspects of the bill are incomplete. A number of colleagues have raised some today. I will, of course, be raising similar ones, or new ones.

The minister should also watch her language. We want to maintain a level of decorum in our debates in this place, because some issues are linked to what we believe in. We should not be told to act quickly and allow this or that because embryos are being thrown away in the garbage. The minister should raise the level of her argumentation.

Having said that, I think Bill C-56 can be divided into two or three parts.

The first part deals with what is prohibited. We are obviously talking about human cloning, and everyone agrees that this issue needs to be addressed. Parliament should have passed legislation on human cloning a long time ago. In fact, as I said earlier, it had the opportunity to do so with the bill introduced by the hon. member for Drummond. But the government said “No. We get to decide which bills must be passed. We are the ones who set the legislative agenda”.

So, the government rejected that bill and said “We will be introducing our own bill. We are in a rush. Canada is practically the only country in the world that has yet to pass legislation on cloning. Time is of the essence”. They had almost ten years to make their move, but now they are in a rush. It may have something to do with the fact that, with Her Majesty coming to Canada in the fall, the House could prorogued. They told us “No, this has to be passed now. It is important”.

They are the ones who decide the legislative agenda, when a session begins and ends. It is not us. In any case, the government is rather used to introducing motions to adjourn. It will use its same old tricks to get its bill through. However, this bill must be considered in committee, because there are all kinds of elements missing.

First, as regards the report that the committee submitted to the minister, the recommendations, as my colleague from the NDP was saying, were made to ensure that the board of the new independent agency was made up of 50% women. That appears simple enough to me.

The government or the minister will tell us, “Yes, we will consider this in the regulations governing the agency”. It is not parliament that will establish the agency's regulations, but the government and the Minister of Health. Parliament and the committee will have no say in it.

Since we all agree on the first part of the bill, banning human cloning and the creation of hybrids, why is this not in a separate bill? Let us vote on that bill.

The second part of the bill deals with assisted reproduction procedures. It refers to donors, men and women. I think that everyone agrees that we need a legislative framework on reproductive procedures. Governments must provide more support for women in particular, but men too, in order to provide them with the best reproductive procedures to build a family, to have children. I think that everyone agrees on this.

There is one element that I am very happy to see included in the bill, and we were the only ones to support it so strongly: the issue of donor identity. My colleagues wanted the identity of the donor to be known by the parents, or the woman who received the sperm or ovum. We said no. The medical record, yes; but the identity of the donor, no, unless there is consent.

The bill provides for a complete medical record but allows for the donor to remain anonymous, which is very important to us. It is important because, since we do not know what will be in the regulations, could parents, women especially, choose the sperm donor? Could it be because they would like to know ahead of time who the donor will be? We do not know. Will a woman be able to choose the kind of donor she wants? This is the first point.

Second, between you and I, we are a small country and, as I understand the bill, neither ovum nor sperm can be imported or exported. If someone who donated sperm gets married and has children later on, will his spouse be willing to accept it? Will his children be willing to accept they have a brother or a sister biologically related to him and to his family? There are psychological consequences that must be taken into consideration. We are happy that donors' identity will remain confidential, but not their medical record.

We agree with what is being prohibited. Again, one must pay attention. Some activities are prohibited and others are controlled. Let us take for instance surrogate mothers. I am convinced everybody agreed that we should not entice women to become surrogate mothers; this is why payment for surrogacy is prohibited. However, at the same time, the bill says that the agency could grant certain sums of money as compensation.

What is going on? Is the practice prohibited or not? They are saying “We know it is happening, we are not prohibiting it. We do not want to encourage such a practice, but at the same time we are willing to have the government pay for some of the expenses”. They are sitting on the fence. When the time comes for members to vote, they will have to ask themselves whether the bill goes far enough in prohibiting surrogacy. Some people would like the practice to be authorized in this country and even to have surrogate mothers receive psychological support and fairly generous financial compensation.

The committee heard that surrogate mothers do what they do primarily out of love and generosity and not for financial gain. An act of love, as we understand it, cannot be formalized in a bill.

I mentioned the famous agency. Everyone is delighted to have an independent agency, far from the political hands of the minister and the government. But there is a little problem with this.

Even if the legislation is reviewed every three years, even if there is a report once a year, the fact remains that how the agency operates is left entirely up to the minister, to the department or to the governor in council, take your pick.

Parliament is left right out of the loop. We are saying that before the regulations are approved and introduced, they should be submitted to a committee of this parliament for analysis and approval. That is what we are requesting. We will naturally be putting forward an amendment to this effect.

We know that a bill represents the will of the lawmakers, but before that comes the structure or the skeleton. What brings the skeleton to life—the soul, if you like—and determines the course it will take, are the regulations. Often, a bill will consist of just a few clauses, and the regulations will go on for pages.

The position one could take concerning Bill C-56 is so personal that we hope that members will have a chance to examine the regulations in their entirety.

I would also like to look at the question of research in connection with embryonic stem cells. It is clear that the legislation does not address other stem cells. Neither adult stem cells nor stem cells from aborted fetuses are mentioned in the legislation. This is left up to the institutes. We know that research is already being done on stem cells.

But the government does not address the issue of adult stem cells and stem cells from fetuses aborted spontaneously or otherwise. We can understand this. Think of the ethical considerations alone. It does not want to hold a debate on abortion, on when life begins. But like it or not, this is an issue which must be raised in connection with embryos.

The committee's recommendation was as follows, “Why would Canada not become a world leader in adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells could be used if it is proved beyond all doubt to the agency and to parliament that there are no other options”.

Unfortunately, this is not what appears in the bill. Will it be in the regulations? Only the minister knows.

I have discussed embryonic stem cells research with my colleagues. I have come to the conclusion that if, for a member of parliament, life begins with an embryo, he or she will face difficult ethical, moral and religious issues and questions. The answers are also likely to be difficult to find. So, what do we do with the bill?

Even though we are asking for a free vote, we do agree on a number of aspects. As regards stem cells and embryos, perhaps the government should allow a free vote on the bill. How are we going to count those who are in favour and those who are opposed? Is the bill not at risk of being rejected if the government allows a free vote?

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are not allowed to gamble—it is prohibited under the criminal code—but I would bet anything that if a free vote were held in the House regarding Bill C-56, the bill could well be rejected.

It would be rejected for ethical, moral and other reasons regarding stem cells. This would be unfortunate, because there are provisions in this bill that are essential for the women of this land.

This bill includes essential provisions that meet a need, that fill a regulatory and scientific vacuum. I understand the government. It took close to 10 years to get a bill. We fear that it would be rejected under a free vote. We know how divided government members are on this issue. When the minister introduced her bill, both government and opposition members immediately said that they would oppose the legislation in its current form.

We are saying that we will make the necessary changes in committee. We hope—but we have doubts—that the government will look at all the amendments moved by opposition parties to ensure we end up with a legislative framework that reflects as accurately as possible the consensus that exists in the committee. We also hope to find the same consensus here in the House and, of course, in the other place, once the bill has been passed by this House.

If the minister stubbornly refuses to make legislative changes, it will be interesting to see how members from both sides of the House will vote. A bill as important as Bill C-56 should unite people rather than divide them.

We agree that there is a legal void. We agree that the scientific framework needs to be more clearly defined, but the government must work with elected representatives and must accept amendments.

We understand why the government would refuse certain amendments. Should a series of amendments moved by the opposition be accepted, the bill would no longer be that of the minister or that of the government, it would be that of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, that would go against the kind of partisan politics practised by this government and its way of doing things; it would be too democratic. It is very unfortunate that we should find ourselves in this situation.

Finally, we will take the time to analyze this bill. However, we recognize that there is a sense of urgency with regard to providing a framework and supporting women who deal with fertility clinics.

I have experienced this over the last year with my in-laws. I am mentioning this without their consent. I will not give their names, obviously, but my brother-in-law and his wife went through very difficult times. They invested a lot of money to try to have a child. Unfortunately, they tried twice and failed both times.

There must be some form of psychological follow-up. This issue was raised in the committee report. Of course, this is more of a provincial jurisdiction. In committee, the issue of financial assistance for the parents was raised. It is extremely costly. It is not rare to see couples take out a second mortgage on their home to get an opportunity to have a child. But, again, this is a provincial jurisdiction.

These issues will have to be examined in a manner that is respectful of jurisdictions. I hope that the agency that will have this responsibility will work with the provincial partners that have the mandate of providing the service. I also hope that arrangements can be made to provide financial and psychological assistance to those who need it.

I hope that all members will be able to vote freely on this issue and that all parties on both side of the House will have the opportunity to take part in this most important debate. Between you and me, this debate really deals with life.

Business of the House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties as well as the member for Fundy--Royal concerning the taking of the division on Motion No. 478 scheduled at the conclusion of private members' business later this day, and I believe that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-478, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, May 22 at the end of question period.

[The Deputy Speaker: The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House give its consent to the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, be read the second time and referred to a committee.