Debates of May 21st, 2002

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I know that he is a member on the Standing Committee on Health and that he has worked very hard with the other committee members on their report tabled in the House in December. They came to a very balanced approach to many complex issues.

My first question is quite brief. I have not met an individual, a group or an organization opposed to stem cell research. I wonder if the member can confirm whether he is aware of anyone at all who is opposed to stem cell research.

The second question concerns fertility clinics. In the Toronto Star on March 9, Dr. Françoise Baylis, whom I think the member is familiar with, gave an interview in which she said that:

Canada's fertility clinics are probably storing somewhere around 500 embryos in cryogenic deep freeze. Some belong to couples still trying to have children and some are needed for training and testing. Perhaps 250 “surplus” embryos would be available for stem-cell research.

Based on experience, roughly half would survive being thawed. Of these 125 surviving embryos, no more than nine could be expected to progress all the way to generating some sort of stem-cell line. Fewer still [about five] would meet the exacting scientific criteria to qualify for human embryonic stem-cell research.

What that means, according to Dr. Françoise Baylis, a member of the governing council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, is that only 2% of embryos would qualify for or meet the quality control standards or the guidelines required for research. Does the member believe that this technology, which would provide only 2% of those embryos to be destroyed that would be useful, is an acceptable practice?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his professionalism. One can agree or disagree with certain points of view, but I would like to draw attention to the member's professionalism as far as his question is concerned. He is making sure that the real questions get asked.

As for the first question relating to stem cells, the parliamentary secretary asked me whether I knew of anyone who was opposed to such research. That depends on what we are talking about. I could give a goodly number of them if we are talking about embryonic stem cells. If we are talking about adult cells, I do not know of any. If we are referring to stem cells taken from aborted fetuses, then I could also list a goodly number. So it depends on what kind of research is being done on what kind of stem cells.

However, as I have already stated, I believe that the House is divided as far as embryos are concerned. The issue of aborted or stillborn fetuses has not even been raised. There is no legislative framework on this. So it all depends on the question.

Essentially, everyone agrees that research is part of what makes a society evolve, but we need to know what kind of research is being considered. That is the real question that has to be asked. On this side of the House, I must admit that there is division within my caucus as far as embryonic stem cell research is concerned. That is one of the reasons we want this to be a free vote.

As far as the matter of the number of embryos is concerned, the parliamentary secretary raises an important point. This involves survival of the embryo until such time as the stem cells can be extracted from it for research purposes. He is right. More than that, when a couple goes to a clinic in order to have a child, a percentage of the embryos survive, at the time of insemination for instance.

Some of them do not even make it past the sperm and egg stage, that is they are not embryos. However, as for the percentage of embryos that survive which the parliamentary secretary gives, I would say that yes many are lost. Is the figure 2%? That depends.

Some would answer the parliamentary secretary by saying that it is precisely to avoid having a success rate as low as 2%, 10% or 15%. This is why we must ensure that the number of embryos for research should be increased instead of limited to 2%. These figures may scare some people. Why perform research on embryonic stem cells when the success rate, in terms of quality embryos for research, is only 2%? Others would reply that we need to start by stepping up research so that we can indeed increase this rate.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. I could not help but think of the conflict this puts him in when he deals with embryonic stem cell research and what is actually happening in his own province because of the province of Quebec suggesting that there will be no embryonic stem cell research in the province. If the bill were to pass unamended, which law would supersede the other? Should an equivalency agreement not be reached under this law, would the law of the province of Quebec supersede the bill or not?

I am interested in his comments because I think the people of Quebec understand and discern that they do not want to rob research dollars from adult stem cell research. There is some phenomenal work being done by Dr. Freda Miller of McGill University as well as others who have done some absolutely phenomenal things in the last year. The research coming forward and the advancements being made in adult stem cell research in just these recent couple of months are absolutely phenomenal.

I am wondering if he thinks that is one of the rationales behind the decision made in Quebec. Would he comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation in Quebec is somewhat different from that of my colleague. I do not believe there is a prohibition. It is a ban. We could come back to this later.

However, my colleague raises a very important point. That is, which legislation has precedence? This is why agreements with the provinces are so important. Which is why the regulatory framework is so important. It will make up the backbone of the bill. A bill rests on its regulations. What we want is for the bill's regulations to be tabled in committee and in parliament for consideration.

With respect to what would happen if a province prohibited stem cell research that was authorized by the federal government, the agency would have to come up with an agreement with the provinces. However, we will probably hace to ask ourselves the question. I doubt that a province, when it comes to scientific research, could completely prohibit activities that come under shared jurisdiction. This could be a subject for future debate for constitutional experts. However, when there is shared jurisdiction, if there is no agreement, neither of the two parties may act without the other party agreeing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that embryonic stem cells have a tendency to create spontaneous tumours. Also, having a different DNA than the patient would, they would be subject to immune rejection and would therefore require lifelong anti-rejection drugs.

I also understand that they need to be injected directly into the affected area and that the extraction, or harvesting as it is called, of the stem cells from the embryo in fact destroys the embryo. I understand on the other hand that adult stem cells have the same DNA because they come from the patients themselves. They do not have the same ethical problems. They in fact simply can be injected into the blood and they occur in virtually every organ in the human body.

I wonder if the member could advise the House whether he is aware of any corroboration for the statement which has been used so very often that embryonic stem cells have greater potential than adult stem cells. It does not seem to make sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary should review--if he has not done so--what witnesses before the health committee had to say about embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and other sources, because there are other sources, as I said earlier. I will not go over that again, because it is a bit gruesome.

There are two schools of thought. Some people find embryonic stem cell research easier. Working with adult stem cells is genetically more complicated. This is the first school of thought. Others say, “No, on the contrary. Depending on what you want to treat, there is no difference.” The committee has decided, and it only makes sense, that we would start with adult stem cells. Everyone in the committee agreed; not the government, but the members of the committee were all in agreement.

As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, if embryonic stem cells are found to be more efficient for research purposes, then the issue will be reviewed.

The committee believes rather strongly that for a number of reasons--scientific, ethical, moral and other reasons--it is better to use adult stem cells. As I mentioned in my speech, Canada has to become a world leader in adult stem cell research. If we realize that embryonic stem cells should be used, we would need good arguments to justify such a decision. That is what the committee recommended. We just have to wait and see if the government will listen.

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

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, 2001, Dr. Alan Bernstein, president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, stated that it was not the role of scientists to determine the ethical limits to research or the application of genetic knowledge to the delivery of public health. It is a role for legislatures and the public. I agree 100%.

The issue is for parliament and one that includes science, moral and ethical, and women's health issues. We will deal with so many issues that I do not know how we will be able to adequately cover all of them. The important point is that there is now on the table a piece of legislation which has put a focus on some key issues.

Biomedical research, ethics and morals are subject matters which make most Canadian eyes glaze over. They are dry and difficult subjects. People have been given so much hype and hope about stem cell research that they honestly believe that there are cures and therapies waiting right now. The reality is that we are still doing research on rats and primates. It means that somewhere between two and five years from now there may be human trials and maybe five years after that there may be clinical trials, as well as some therapies.

This will take some time and Canadians should understand that. Earlier in a question I posed to the member I said that I was not aware of anyone who was opposed to stem cell research. All of the literature talks about stem cell research but if one were disposed to embryotic stem cell research one would use the terms synonymously, to the exclusion of adult stem cells. It is one of the reasons why the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, that spends less than 1% of its budget on adult stem cell research, actually has a bias against it. It wants the embryonic stem cells.

It is clear from its actions of trying to pre-empt parliament by bringing in guidelines before the House could deal with the legislation. It is not a matter of being for or against stem cell research. The real issue is where stem cells come from.

The principle to be remembered is that when the ethically unacceptable and the scientifically possible are in conflict the ethical view must prevail. It is an important ethical principle.

Dr. Françoise Baylis, a member of the governing council of the CIHR in her testimony before the Standing Committee on Health on May 31, 2001, said:

The first thing to recognize in the legislation and in all of your conversations is that embryos are human beings. That is an uncontested biological fact. They are a member of the human species.

Dr. Baylis wrote an article, to which I referred earlier, that was in the Toronto Star , on Saturday, March 9. It encapsulates the issue for Canadians and helps them understand how technical, difficult and sensitive the issue will be for parliamentarians. She talked about fertility clinics and said:

Canada's fertility clinics are probably storing somewhere around 500 embryos in cryogenic deep freeze. Some belong to couples still trying to have children and some are needed for training and testing. Perhaps 250 “surplus” embryos would be available for stem-cell research. Based on experience, roughly half would survive being thawed.

We must ask ourselves what kind of person develops a technology or a process that would destroy 50% of human embryos and finds that acceptable for purposes of reproductive technology.

That is a low threshold of success or maybe low threshold of failure. The issue gets right down to surplus embryos and whether they should be thrown in the garbage or as Dr. Bernstein said “flushed down the toilet”. That is a dismissive approach. We are talking about human beings. We are not talking about human caviar for the research feast.

Dr. Baylis further stated that of the 125 embryos that would survive the thawing only nine would be able to produce any kind of stem cell line. Fewer still, perhaps an average of five, would meet the exacting scientific criteria to qualify for human embryonic stem cell research. That means out of 250 embryos that are destroyed for research purposes only five would actually be useful to researchers. Because embryos last between two and four years, scientists are not sure, those surplus embryos would be accumulated over a period of two to four years.

If we have five that are okay now, how many more will we need? If we understand that only 2% of embryos will ever be useful for this we will have to destroy thousands of human embryos to facilitate the research appetite.

Dr. Baylis goes on to say that fertility clinics are already creating the maximum number of embryos required for reproductive success. That is the maximum number. We are already drugging up women to hyperovulate to the maximum. We cannot do any more. I am surprised that we are even allowing them to harvest surplus embryos. It just seems wrong.

Dr. Baylis says that any increases would expose women to an unethical risk. We are drugging them up to the max and anything more would be unethical. It may very well be unethical what we are already doing because of the high risk of drug doses to create extra human embryos specifically for research purposes.

In this article Dr. Baylis predicts that the number of surplus embryos available for stem cell research is likely to fall in the coming years. We want to do this research with embryos and the number of embryos is about to fall. Why is that? It is simply as Dr. Baylis explains because of improved techniques which allow frozen preservation of women's eggs. In other words the technology will improve. Dr. Baylis goes on to say that just as sperm is now we can freeze women's eggs. The good news is that science is already working on perfecting the process to freeze women's eggs or store them safely so that they could be thawed and fertilized only as necessary for the reproductive process of in vitro fertilization.

I challenge science to move on with that important research. There should be no surplus embryos, no unwanted embryos, no discarded embryos, and no embryos being flushed down the toilet or thrown in the garbage. That is so dismissive and unethical.

The fact is that fertility clinics are private for profit companies. I do not understand why they would be involved in a relationship with the bio-research community unless there is a sale of a commodity to someone to do research. Why would the fertility clinics just give them up? They are doing all the work and all the administration. They are processing all these people and should they have them, it is going to cost. I thought the whole principle was no commercialization and no commodification. However, that is not the case.

One of the guidelines of the CIHR states that one must sign off that there will be no commercial transaction, no exchange of money or services or promise to do anything between the donor and the researcher. However the legislation does not comment and does not deal with the commercial aspects of what happens once an embryo is in the hands of a researcher who may perfect a process and then wants to sell it to other researchers. The donors of those gametes and embryos must sign-off that they will get no benefit.

I am convinced that this matter of commercialization and commodification of the human species is really the issue.

I was looking at the testimony of a number of people who came before the health committee and the testimony of Dr. Timothy Caulfield struck my attention. He was very much in favour of embryonic stem cell research. I looked on the web to find out a little bit about this person. I found that Dr. Caulfield had written a book I believe in 1999 which is still highly recommended in the bio circles. The title of the book is The Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issue . Watch that issue because it will come up.

Stem cells come from a variety of sources. We know they can come from embryos. We know that embryonic stem cells can cause spontaneous tumours, are subject to immune rejection, require life-long anti-rejection drugs and need to be injected into the affected area which may have other complications.

We also know that adult non-embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses, placentas, umbilical cords, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and virtually every organ in the human body.

When the CIHR came up with its guidelines one of the examples it gave was research done by Dr. Freda Miller from McGill university. Through Dr. Miller's research and some tweaking, she found that if she extracted stem cells from human skin she was able to develop heart cells.

The examples given to the health committee time and again showed tremendous potential and progress on adult stem cells and no progress whatsoever on embryonic stem cells with regard to human applications.

I think the myth that embryonic stem cells show greater promise, greater hope and greater potential than adult stem cells is simply a myth.

In a meeting with health officials, I asked the health minister whether she had any examples or any evidence that embryonic stem cells had greater potential or promise than adult stem cells and her answer and the answer from the health officials was no.

Canadians have not been given the facts and parliamentarians must get the facts into the hands of Canadians.

Let me move on to the fertility clinics. I went to the web again and I found a form for the Fertility Centre of the Ottawa Hospital . The form has to be notarized by the family lawyer. I do not know why people would do this after paying thousands of dollars for an in vitro fertilization process. However the form states that if the centre has not kept up to date on the person's address and phone number, or the person has not renewed his or her instructions on an annual basis, or if the person has failed to pay his or her annual charges, the ownership of the embryos reverts to the centre. Now we have the ownership of a human being by someone else. This is absolutely unacceptable and it is unethical.

Going back to Dr. Françoise Baylis, I will tell members what she said about ethical research. She said that ethical review of research involving humans still occurred at the local level while there were well documented problems with lack of adequate training for reviewers, excessive workloads, conflicts of interest and significant inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of the relevant guidelines.

She has indicted the research community for being unethical and using bad practices. Why? It is because we have not had laws or regulations in place passed by parliament.

As we go through this process we will find that bio research is so far advanced and so far ahead of the policy makers that this legislation is barely trying to catch up. It has not even visioned what happens down the road.

If we were to look at what is already being done in other areas and find out what kind of work is going on in Canada, then we would find out just exactly how far they are prepared to go with this.

The health committee report clearly stated that it was disappointed that no information was given to them about what research was going on in Canada today.

That was totally unacceptable, but I know why. It is because Canadians would be shocked and appalled if they knew what was going on in medical research right now. The government has not done the job for Canadians. Health Canada has not done the job for Canadians.

Parliament needs to speed up the process. We need to create good legislation that not only deals with what is happening today but which would also give us the flexibility to take care of what will happen tomorrow.

Dr. Freda Miller had a wonderful adult stem cell process. I have been led to believe that Dr. Miller now has three patents she wants defended but the University of McGill has said no. Where is Dr. Miller? She is gone. She was receiving $77,000 a year from the CIHR for adult stem cell research but she is no longer with McGill. She has gone to the University of Toronto which has agreed to defend her three patents. I am told that the money involved is $2 million to $3 million.

That really smacks of a motivation that is far beyond infertility. It is far beyond the ethical question of when does human life begin. This matter is a juggernaut that is going very quickly and parliament and policy makers are very far behind. We need to get control over this. The decisions and policies regarding research in the future have to be in the purview of parliament. We cannot second those responsibilities to more agencies.

Why is Health Canada not the one to determine whether research is necessary? We do not even have legislation to define necessary but we are going to pass it on to some foreign body consisting of 13 directors who will decide what is necessary.

I am a parliamentarian and it is my responsibility to make policy and laws. It is the responsibility of every one of us in the House to make decisions that guide Canadians. We must consult with our constituents and with all Canadians on the important issues of the day. Why would we second it to another agency? That has to change and we look forward to changing it.

I want to talk about some of the things we should do with regard to the legislation itself. I think there are some areas in which people should understand why it will take some time to deal with this issue.

The identity of donors can only be given on the consent of the donors. I find this unacceptable and I hope the committee will look at it. The law should define the parameters and set an ethnical framework. We cannot second that.

The bill does not ban the patenting of human genes. The patent issue is extremely important. We now have the Harvard mouse before the Supreme Court of Canada. We have people who have patents waiting to be processed. They are waiting for the green light. We need to get a handle on the patent process.

Senior health officials said that regulations would be developed to limit the number of eggs produced. If we are only getting 5 out of 250 why would we limit that? Why would we even consider embryonic stem cell research? We need to deal with the existing sperm, eggs and embryos at fertility clinics. There is no way it can be demonstrated that those gametes and embryos met the criteria that the CIHR laid out.

We must look at the privacy concerns. There is no way consent was given for donations prior to the donation being made, which is one of the rules of the CIHR. I do not understand how researchers can get to know those people without the fertility clinics making information available to researchers. How do they do that when it is medical information?

There is the 14 day provision of the tri-council policy statement. That is the whole issue that between zero and 14 days we can do research and after 14 days it is a person and research cannot be done. It is a very important issue. That was not decided by parliament. It was decided by researchers.

We need to deal with a whole host of other issues but I cannot cover it all.

Let me close by saying that no one I know is opposed to stem cell research. The information that has come to parliamentarians so far is that non-embryonic sources have made tremendous progress in treating a whole host of issues, whether it be Parkinson's disease, diabetes or spinal cord injuries. We support medical research to deal with illnesses and cures. Canadians should know that parliamentarians will work very hard to ensure that we use the most ethical approach to medical research possible and only ethical research.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as regards today's important topic, I wonder if my learned colleague opposite could continue to present arguments, as he so aptly began to do. This is my comment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has been very supportive on these issues. Let me point out that the province of Quebec announced in early January that it had banned outright embryonic stem cell research for ethical reasons.

For that reason I believe it is important to have representatives from Quebec's ministry of health come before our health committee to help us understand the rationalization of their decision. It is a significant decision when 25% of the research population will not perform embryonic stem cell research.

I would also mention that in February the United States secretary of health and human services issued a new regulation which redefined a child as a person under 19 years of age, including the period from conception to birth.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too share the hon. member's shock at some aspects of Bill C-56. The one thing in the hon. member's speech that horrified me was the concept that life forms could be patented and commercialized, and that even human life forms could become a marketable commodity.

The one thing I have learned in listening to other speeches today is that a simple, consequential amendment to the Patent Act would preclude the ability of biotechnology research companies to patent human life forms.

Would the hon. member agree that it would have been a logical step to take, in conjunction with Bill C-56, to make a consequential amendment to the Patent Act to clearly and simply bar forever the idea of patenting life forms?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Our patent laws are out of date with the realities of today.

Last night I read an article which boasted that we could not restrict patenting. The reason was that so much of the research in Canada was privately funded and that it needed a return on investment. It stated that this was big business and big money and that we should not do it. The issue of patent ability will be an enormous issue that the health committee will have to address.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really intrigued by the comments of the hon. member. Looking back over the last 60 days I am intrigued by some of the research into Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and the cures that have come forward and that have been talked about.

We have had actual cures. These cures have not just been wishful thinking by embryonic stem cell research. We are actually seeing cures from the adult stem cells. We see a quest for the scientists to go to the embryonic stem cells because there are no cures for Parkinson's disease, MS and other diseases. I feel for the individuals who are plagued with these diseases. I feel that they may be grasping at straws that are not there and are being led down the garden path in a direction they should not be going.

When we take precious dollars from Canadians we should be putting the dollars into where they can be most effective. It absolutely amazes me that when we actually have a cure, we find it printed on the third or fourth page of a one day article. If that had been an embryonic stem cell research cure it would have been a shot heard around the world. I would like the hon. member to comment on that aspect of it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Enormous progress has been made this year. Most recently, Dr. Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota announced on January 25 the discovery that adult stem cells isolated from bone marrow could be converted into cells of heart, muscle, brain, liver or skin, depending on which of the patient's tissues needed repair. This is unbelievable research. Canadians should be encouraged by the fact that there are people out there who are doing ethical research and finding cures and therapies so that all mankind can benefit from them, and it is ethical research.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in the hon. member's views regarding another thing that we believe should be in the act and is not, and that is the whole issue of genetic testing. There are more incidents of employers putting in the mandatory requirement that employees be tested for predispositions to certain medical conditions. There is a fear that this trend could lead to eugenic cleansing, that we would be eliminating diversity, that handicapped children or children born with certain conditions may be tested and done away with by virtue of their uniqueness, if we will. The bill is silent on genetic testing and should deal with the looming spectre of eugenic cleansing, which is a distinct possibility.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it. There are a number of things going on within the research community. As we can understand, if there are no regulations and there is no legislation, researchers are on their own. That itself is problematic and, quite frankly, unacceptable.

However, the member should also know that researchers who want to use these embryos for a variety of reasons are required to make a conflict of interest statement to the prospective donor. If the oversight committee that the CIHR is to set up wants it, they will have to provide copies of contracts and a whole bunch of other things. It is also very concerned about what researchers are doing and who they are connected with.

Let me supply a name: Dr. Bartha-Maria Knoppers. Members can go to that website and find out what people are linked with her. She is the bioethics chair of the international human genome project. She is also with the Université de Montréal. It was very interesting to see how many of the witnesses who came before the health committee when it looked at the draft legislation have co-authored articles and done research with Dr. Knoppers.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me say for the benefit of those who are watching this debate that today we are debating a bill that seeks to regulate aspects of assisted human reproduction. Some people have different names for it, but the bill is about assisted human reproduction.

The bill essentially does three things. One is that it makes certain reproductive processes a criminal offence. Second, the bill attempts to regulate other reproductive processes by requiring a licence. Third, bill creates an agency that would administer and monitor all of this.

With respect to those assisted reproductive processes that would be deemed criminal offences, I would point out that the bill has a very interesting history. First, in 1993 there was a very outstanding commission, the royal commission on new reproductive technologies, which reported in 1993 and suggested that there were certain aspects of assisted reproductive technology that should be outlawed, that should be damned in our country. That was in 1993. In 1996 the government said it would put all of that in a bill, but the bill died on the order paper due to the 1997 election. Here we are in 2002 just introducing a bill that would bring into effect the very strong recommendations of a commission that reported in 1993.

One wonders where the government has been for the last nine years, because here we are today dealing with something that should have been dealt with in 1993. Meanwhile, science has moved on, research has moved on and technology has moved on. As well, commercial investment in these procedures has moved on but the government has sat on its hands. That is a shame. It has been a dereliction of duty. The government should hang its head in shame that it has not dealt with this important issue much more quickly and much more expeditiously.

The procedures that would be criminal offences, finally, are: human cloning; therapeutic cloning, that is, cloning an individual so that certain organs can be harvested; animal-human hybrids or chimeras; sex selection; germ line alteration; buying and selling of embryos; and paid surrogacy.

There is a bunch of loopholes in this list, which some other speakers have mentioned. For example, with respect to the ban on paid surrogacy, the act would allow expenses to be repaid but the expenses are not identified. They are not limited, so presumably the expenses could add up to a nice fat commercial fee for surrogacy. That is not dealt with in the bill. Also, the bill allows certain transgenic procedures. Although it purports to outlaw animal-human hybrids or chimeras, which essentially means the fusing of animal and human material, it does allow transgenic procedures but does not define them.

The government argues that there is a particular test that needs to be allowed by the inclusion of transgenics. If there is a particular test that should be allowed, why not just say so? Why put an undefined term into the bill and allow something that should be outlawed under the ban under animal-human hybrids or chimeras? We do not know. Those are questions we are asking.

With respect to what can be licensed, there could be a licence provided to experiment on human embryos that already have been created through accepted procedures to help infertile couples, where the donor has given written permission. Last time I looked, creating an embryo took two donors, someone to donate the egg and someone to donate sperm, so why the consent of “donor”? If there is only one donor to give consent, which one would it be? We do not know. It does not make sense.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time on this debate.

The Liberals have a bad habit of this, of bringing in framework legislation and then leaving all the inconvenient details either to the regulations, which nobody ever sees, debates or oversees, or to the courts to define if the issue ever arises. This again is another dereliction of duty and one that does not serve Canadians well.

All parties agreed that unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that no other category of biological material could be used from which to derive healing human therapies, human embryos should not be the subject of experimentation. This was an agreement at the committee and of all parties in the House. Unfortunately the government ignores its own committees and simply does something different. Again Canadians are not served well.

The committee listened to witness after witness and anxiously considered all the pros, cons and nuances of using human embryos for experimentation and research. It then said no, that we should make sure this is a last resort because of the troubling ethical considerations and concerns that many people have. It said that we need to treat human life with dignity and respect, that we need to protect it, and that this should be something we would do only if it were shown to be absolutely necessary. However, there is nothing like that in the bill.

With respect to the agency, it is pretty interesting because essentially the agency reports only to the minister. It is not independent of the minister because the minister can give any policy direction she likes to the agency and it must comply, although the minister's direction that the agency has to comply with will be kept secret. There will be no public disclosure. There will be this closed little arm of the minister dealing with some of the most important issues in our society with no reporting requirements and no oversight. No one will have an idea of what is actually going on. We have to wonder: why the secrecy in such an important area?

There are a number of other issues. Other speakers have touched on them but I will go through some of them as well.

First, children conceived by assisted human reproduction would have no right to know the identity of their biological parents unless those individuals consent. This flies in the face of what we already do, because adopted children have a tremendous right to know about their heritage, their lineage, the place they come from, their roots, so to speak. Why should children conceived by assisted human reproduction not have the same right? It does not make sense. For some reason this is in the bill.

There is also a concern that the draft legislation has already been pre-empted by regulations or rules put out by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. There was complete outrage from members of parliament who had served on the committee, including Liberal members, who said that they had just spent a year studying it. They asked just who those at the institute were to say that the institute would do something on its own. Only after that did the CIHR say that it had these rules but would not give any funding according to those rules. Again the government sat on its hands and allowed this thing to get out of control, leaving some important questions unanswered.

The bill has some flaws. For that reason, I believe that members of the House should think very clearly and carefully before voting for the bill unless it is amended to correct some of the gaping holes in the specifics of the bill, in how it will actually operate and whether it will in fact operate in the best interests of children, parents and the human aspects of our society.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could the last speaker elaborate on a bit of a quandary I have? I have read the bill and have reservations because there are better methods of producing the results we are hoping for. One of the things I find most disturbing is that background information would not be given to children produced through this method.

One's origins are important for a number of reasons including health reasons. Could the former critic for health please comment on that?

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there is more I could say about that. Under Bill C-56 children conceived through assisted human reproduction would have no right to know anything about their biological parents unless the biological parents gave their consent. This flies in the face of what we extend to children who are adopted. Children who are adopted have an almost unfettered right, even without the consent of their biological parents, to be given information about their heritage.

We also have a concept in law which is used in all divorce and custody cases: the best interests of the child. Strangely, under Bill C-56 the best interests of the child would fly out the window if an unknown biological donor did not consent to be identified. However such individuals make a conscious choice to be donors. It is not as if it happens by accident.

Conscious choice means taking responsibility for the choices one makes. That means a child conceived from one's action or choice should have the right to know his or her background. We know children want this kind of information because adopted children by and large choose to pursue it. There is a desire on the part of most people to know something about their heritage and roots.

The hon. member who asked the question talked about medical information. Yes, that is one reason. There are other reasons as well. The whole concept of Bill C-56 flies in the face of what we already do for children who are not raised by their biological parents. It flies in the face of the notion of the best interests of the child. Why is that? We do not know.

I strongly recommend that the House correct the oversight and give children conceived through this procedure the same courtesy, rights and information other children are entitled to and enjoy.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for the lucid and logical demonstration of what would happen under the bill. I also commend her for dealing with the democratic process that has been involved.

If I understood correctly, the hon. member talked about the subject having been introduced in 1993 through a special commission. Here we are almost 10 years later before seeing something happen. In the meantime we have had rapid progression in terms of science and certain other areas.

The hon. member said something about the government sitting on its hands. However she mentioned a situation where the government did not sit on its hands. The committee studied the proposed bill in great detail. If I remember correctly, the bill was given to the committee before being introduced in the House. This was done to provide ample opportunity for a large number of experts and people who understood the subject to present their cases.

What has happened to the government to allow it to change the committee's recommendations? It first told the committee to study the bill. It then went ahead and changed the bill after the committee had worked on it.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in all candour, what has happened is that the government has a track record of and an increasing predilection for contempt for members of parliament and the work they do, including its own members.

As my hon. colleague has said, we have a bill that was given to committee before it was introduced in the House. It was a move we applauded because it let the committee shape Bill C-56 before it got to introduction stage so we could make sure the bill would do its job properly.

Let us remember that all House committees are dominated by the Liberals. The Liberals have more members on committees than all the opposition parties put together. The recommendations that come out of committee are not an odd brainchild of opposition members wanting to make mischief. They are the recommendations of Liberal members.

It is absolutely shocking and appalling that the government gives work to committees, the committees work for months and put untold days and hours into studying subjects, and after they make their recommendations the government can say “That is too bad, we will do it differently”. Some days we wonder why the democratic process is not more respected by the Prime Minister and the government.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak today to Bill C-56, the assisted human reproduction act.

Canadians have waited a long time for comprehensive legislation on this important issue. However in our haste to have legislation in place we should not overlook some important changes that need to be made. Inadequate legislation would not benefit Canadians. Bill C-56 would affect researchers, the medical field and Canadians afflicted with diseases such as Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis.

Amazing discoveries are being made in Canada and other countries in the field of stem cell research. It is important that the field be well regulated. The official opposition believes in the importance of stem cell research. The therapeutic possibilities that can be derived from it are promising and of great importance to many Canadians.

Adult stem cell research has offered hope for many in recent months. It is important to focus on and pursue the possibilities that can result from it. However adult stem cell research is being put on the back burner while embryonic research is being promoted. There is limited proof that this shift in focus is warranted. Adult stem cell research offers great possibilities without being plagued by the difficulties surrounding embryonic research. These include tissue rejection and the need for anti-rejection drugs, issues of supply, and ethical questions.

Canadian researchers at McGill University in Montreal have made great discoveries lately in the area of adult stem cell research. Their findings are promising and should be pursued. The positive results of the experiments have been surprising even to the research staff. Freda Miller, the scientist in charge of the experiments, is quoted as saying:

We gave it two months. But it worked right from the beginning. Every step of the way it's been an “I can't believe that it's true” experience.

This shows that adult stem cell research holds great promise and should be promoted. However embryonic research poses many ethical questions and should be approached with caution. A three year prohibition of embryonic stem cell research would not only allow for further discussion of the issue. It would allow an opportunity for further adult stem cell research.

The standing committee's report on stem cell research states that due to advances in the research, funding should be focused on adult stem cell research. It says advances in embryonic stem cell research have not been as great. The report states:

--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.

Available resources should be focused on the most productive area. In this case it is adult stem cell research.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research states that funding for adult stem cell research should be available under specific conditions. The CIHR appears to be limiting funding options for adult stem cell research. The CIHR should not limit an area of research that is already providing promising results.

To provide adult stem cell research the time and funding it needs, a three year prohibition of embryonic research would be beneficial. A precautionary approach to embryonic research would be best. As the former minister has said:

--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.

Where there is a conflict between ethical questions and scientific advancement, ethics should prevail.

In recent years the government has off-loaded the responsibility of health care and health funding to the provinces. This has been done while slashing funding to the provinces. Provincial participation in research and development in the area of stem cells is important as the provinces have jurisdiction in the area of reproductive technologies.

While the government assures us that there will be provincial involvement in the consultation process, the provinces are not offered a voice on the board of the proposed assisted human reproduction agency of Canada. To not allow the provinces a voting voice on the board is a mistake.

Again recommendations from the standing committee have been ignored. An equivalency agreement between the provinces and the federal government must be established. This is a highly sensitive area of research and every effort should be made to ensure that specific provincial views and concerns are addressed.

Provinces should not be forced to follow areas of research with which the majority of their residents do not agree. Provinces should not be mandated to allow embryonic research when their residents and government have hesitations with regard to that area of research.

To ensure that the wishes of the provinces are adequately addressed and heard, they must be allowed to appoint a voting designate to the board of the new AHRAC. Not only must the provinces have a vote on the new board, but also those with direct interest in the research mandated by the board. It is important that the AHRAC board does not become yet another level of bureaucracy but fully represents the interests of Canadians.

Others that should be included in the consultation and advisory processes include representatives from medical and scientific communities, children born through adult human reproduction, people with disabilities, taxpayers, service providers, provinces and territories and other groups that are directly affected by research and therapies derived from stem cell research.

While this area of research holds incredible promise, it also contains the possibility for abuse. For this reason there must be guidelines in place and assurances of accountability.

As this bill is currently written, the new board is accountable and answerable only to the minister. It has been made abundantly clear in recent months that leaving accountability in the hands of a minister in the government is a mistake. This new board must be answerable to parliament. Allowing the minister alone to make policy decisions in this area is misguided. Any policy directions should be made with the full participation of parliament.

This legislation needs to be changed to allow for all regulation changes to be sent to the health committee. The health committee must be allowed the opportunity for full examination and inquiry into any proposed regulation changes. Again accountability is the key. Decisions being made at the whim of the minister are not adequate, democratic, fair or wise.

Currently there is a level of secrecy allowed the minister in this bill. Changes of policy can be made without consultation or input by parliament or the health committee and are not subject to being recorded in the Canada Gazette . If this legislation is to be truly effective and in the best interests of all Canadians, openness and accountability must be set out in legislation.

The area of stem cell research is highly sensitive. Every effort must be made to ensure absolute accountability. There is little confidence that leaving accountability solely in the hands of the minister is best for Canadians or for the future of research.

This is the beginning of a new day for science in Canada. The promises of research into stem cells offers great hope for many. I would again suggest that we approach this important issue with caution. We must ensure that the legislation that is passed is beneficial to all involved.

It would be tempting for the government to push this bill through. We have waited years for this legislation but it is important that we take the time to make it right. We as the people's representatives have an obligation to all Canadians to ensure that legislation passed in the House meets the needs of Canadians. I do not believe that the bill, as currently written, will adequately accomplish that goal.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with my colleague from Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar and with her statements. I know she has been involved heavily in the research of this bill.

Although I support the adult stem cell side of the issue, if what I have been led to believe is accurate, we could also achieve stem cells from the afterbirth and the umbilical cord. Are those two options open and available and could they be used as research rather than creating life for the purpose of destroying it?

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we were speaking before about adult stem cells and the same usage of them from the umbilical cord. Adult stem cells can be used. Researchers are making great strides with adult stem cells. Every hour they are finding new things. That is why we fully believe that researchers should be funded adequately for the discoveries they are making.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express my appreciation for the comments made by my colleague. She stressed in her presentation that the government and the legislation for some reason seems to be biased toward embryonic stem cell research and against adult stem cell research. She has made that point clear. I have heard that also expressed by other speakers. Why does my colleague think that bias is there and why would the government do that?

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure why the government would do that. I just think the government wants control of it and is pushing ahead whether we want it or not.

Margaret A. Somerville is a Samuel Gale professor of law at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. She said:

We still don't know if the medical benefits of such stem-cell research can only be achieved by using human embryos. All schools of ethics require that we must exhaust less ethically sensitive approaches to a goal before we are justified (if we ever are) in taking more ethically controversial paths.

That is from a renowned scientist and professor, a lady who has done a lot of research into the matter. I think that explains it. I am not sure why the government is taking this approach.