Jeannot Castonguay

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the motions contained in Group No. 3 deal with a number of important points. First, they ban paid surrogate mothers, intermediaries who make surrogacy arrangements, and ovum or sperm donors. They also deal with the donation of in vitro embryos to couples who want to have a family and whether or not these embryos should be considered property. Finally, there is also the scope of Bill C-13 itself. I will speak to each of these points.

Banning payment for assisted human reproduction is a central element of the bill, which contains an outright ban when it comes to paying surrogate mothers as well as ovum, sperm or in vitro embryo donors.

These issues have already been debated at length by the Standing Committee on Health.

I believe that Bill C-13 treats all of these issues in a balanced manner. It prohibits payment for assisted reproduction and clearly states that children are not property to be bought or sold. This position received overwhelming support. The recommendation to prohibit paid surrogacy was always supported by the royal commission on new reproductive technologies in the 1990s, and the Standing Committee on Health supported that position several times.

Also, the bill was drafted in such as way as to not prevent altruism. As such, a woman who wants to help her sister, a friend, or even a perfect stranger, need not bear all the costs of her altruism.

Clearly, a surrogate mother who acts out of the goodness of her heart has expenses to cover, like any other pregnant woman. For example, there may be expenses for psychological counselling or other consultations related to the birth, there are costs related to drugs and vitamins that are taken during pregnancy. Under the provisions for regulations and the issuing licences, Bill C-13 will provide for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses related to the pregnancy of the surrogate mother. Incidentally, under the current version of the bill, an altruistic surrogate mother would not be eligible for any compensation for other costs, such as missing work.

The bill will also ban paid intermediaries. It is important to note that this does not include doctors or counsellors who give professional advice and medical services to surrogate mothers.

Intermediaries, or brokers, are organizations or individuals who get paid to arrange for the services of surrogate mothers for potential parents or make contractual arrangements for such services for commercial purposes. That is making money off of human reproduction, pure and simple. This is why we feel it has absolutely no place in Canadian society.

Under Bill C-13, it would also be prohibited to purchase sperm or ova for reproductive purposes, and to purchase or sell embryos. We do not think that the trade in human gametes and embryos should be permitted in Canada. Neither do we want to see human ova sold to the highest bidder on E-Bay, like antiques and collectibles.

In addition, Bill C-13 recognizes that, like altruistic surrogate mothers, ova and sperm donors incur legitimate costs that ought to be reimbursed subject to the regulations. The fact that a donor should not financially benefit does not mean that he or she may not be reimbursed for transportation and other reasonable expenses supported by receipts. The regulations will set out clear parameters with respect to these expenses.

To conclude my comments on trade, I wish to remind the hon. members of the wording of this Parliament's declaration concerning Bill C-13. Clause 2( f ) states:

trade in the reproductive capabilities of women and men and the exploitation of children, women and men for commercial ends raise health and ethical concerns that justify their prohibition—

I would now like to address the issue of in vitro embryos donated to couples looking to start a family. Given the current state of scientific and technological expertise, the production of surplus embryos is the almost inevitable outcome of IVF procedures.

This bill will allow couples, who give their free and informed consent, to donate embryos they no longer need to other infertile couples who want to have children.

Motion No. 44 is pointless, in my opinion. Bill C-13 provides for embryo donation. I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that, legally in Canada, the term “adoption” refers to the adoption of a child and not to donated in vitro embryos. Furthermore, child adoption is clearly a provincial responsibility. Therefore, it is incorrect, legally, to talk about embryo adoption.

Now, I will address the legal concept of property as it relates to in vitro embryos. During discussions at the report stage of Bill C-13, members discussed how very inappropriate it would be to let market forces operate unfettered in the area of procreation. I find it very odd that Motion No. 39, on transferring the ownership of in vitro embryos, has been introduced. This government does not feel it is at all appropriate to consider in vitro embryos as property subject to property law.

The third point I want to briefly mention is the scope of Bill C-13. This is raised by Motions Nos. 32, 33 and 36.

This bill is limited solely to in vitro embryos. It is not regulating embryos in a woman's body, nor fetuses, nor stem cell lines. These are clearly outside the scope of Bill C-13.

Bill C-13 takes a balanced and reasonable approach to the issues raised by the motions in Group No. 3. This is a Canadian approach. Let us address these matters judiciously and help advance this country's legislative system.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my remarks will deal specifically with cloning and research, which are very critical to this debate. I think that it is important to look at what we want to accomplish with Bill C-13, which, in fact, does not take half measures in regard to cloning.

Bill C-13 prohibits all human cloning. In fact, it prohibits all types of cloning, be it reproductive or therapeutic. Different types of cloning have been mentioned. Bill C-13 prohibits all cloning methods that could be used to create a human clone. No matter what the objective or the method, this legislation prohibits the creation of a human clone.

I think that we must be extremely clear that human cloning is out of the question, no matter what the method or the reason behind it.

Bill C-13 sends a warning to the Raelians, who were in the news over the holidays. Obviously, they are being sent a very clear message: Canada is opposed to human cloning, no ifs, ands or buts.

Once Bill C-13 is adopted, the government will be able to crack down on any human cloning experiments, which is why it is important for this bill to become law. Currently, these people can pretty much do as they please.

By prohibiting cloning, we are banning any activity involving reproduction or research that would contribute to this objective.

We consciously avoided banning specific cloning methods knowing that if we did, scientists would find other methods for cloning that we would not have anticipated. This would leave the door open for cloning. Once again, this bill prohibits cloning. That is why we did not go into detail to define all the methods. We are simply providing a generic definition and eliminating any possibility of cloning.

Motion No. 40 is superfluous. All cloning methods including somatic cell nuclear transfer—so-called therapeutic cloning—are banned under Bill C-13. I think it is important that this also be very clear.

Furthermore, some of the proposed amendments would have unintended and perhaps harmful consequences. I will give you some very specific examples.

Motion No. 14 would endanger the lives of Canadian women. In fact, without the possibility of creating embryos in order to improve assisted reproduction technologies, women themselves—our wives, sisters, neighbours or friends—will be the research subjects. Do we want to them to be guinea pigs? I think not.

As for Motion No. 23, which would ban transgenesis, this would have the effect of immediately, and permanently, putting an end to the efforts of numerous Canadian researchers and laboratories to develop therapies for the treatment of a number of dread diseases, among them cancer and Alzheimer's. Do we really want to put an end to this promising research? I think not. I think that is absolutely not what we want to do.

Motion No. 26 would ban such things as sperm motility testing. As we know, this test is often able to explain why a couple is infertile. Without that test, the woman is subjected to treatments that have no chance of being successful. Do we want Canadians to be treated needlessly? I do not think Canadians want that.

I repeat, Bill C-23 bans all human cloning, regardless of method or form. It prohibits all human cloning, without exception, as well as protecting the health and safety of Canadian women who wish to use assisted reproduction procedures.

I believe that, regardless of what we are hearing said on all sides, there is no question of allowing human cloning in this country. That is why banning any type of cloning makes it impossible for someone at some point to find a way to get around this, because only certain methodologies have been defined.

Let it be clear to everyone: with Bill C-13, all forms of human cloning will be banned.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, you were listening when I spoke earlier and I am sure that you heard me very clearly. First, we are planning to conduct research. In fact, research is already being conducted to see exactly how this product could be used as a pharmaceutical drug.

As I mentioned, we know that, at this point, it has still not been approved as a pharmaceutical drug anywhere in the world.

As regards the issue of compassion, there are terminally ill patients who tell us that they can benefit from this product. This is why they want a special authorization to obtain or grow this product. But we are talking about a very limited number of people, and this is why we said that we must continue to conduct research before opening the door to everyone.

I hope this alleviates the hon. member's concerns.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising this matter in the House. We are going to try to reconnect some things that he thinks are disconnected.

Our determination to explore this matter and to make decisions in the best interests of all Canadians illustrates the Government of Canada's concern with the health and well-being of all Canadians.

First, I would like to point out something. Although there are non-scientific data on the benefits of marijuana use for people suffering from serious or debilitating illnesses, marijuana is not presently approved as a medication or therapeutic agent in any country in the world.

As my hon. colleague is no doubt aware, the Government of Canada signed an agreement in December 2000 with Prairie Plant Systems Inc.—which I will refer to as PPS—of Saskatoon. Its role is to provide a reliable source of affordable, standardized research grade marijuana in Canada.

The initial plan was to use seeds from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse. These were characteristic, standard seeds needed to make the standardized research grade product.

As negotiations progressed, it became increasingly clear that we would not receive the seed on time for our research projects. Consequently, we had to turn to another source, that is, seed confiscated by the police.

You can certainly appreciate that the seed came from unknown products. The PPS had to produce quality or consistent seed in order to grow, with the help of good production practices, research grade plants.

Unfortunately, this unplanned additional work extended the development period considerably.

I am pleased to inform the House that so far the company has produced a large number of plants from different seeds with the goal of determining the best strain for research purposes. PPS is conducting other tests to make a final selection and to develop a standard growing and treatment procedure that will yield a standard quality product.

The procedure will also be such that the product will meet strict regulatory standards for human consumption. We will be informed of the product's quality, safety and effectiveness.

As the hon. member is aware, PPS, like any other drug manufacturer, must meet stringent quality requirements. Our inspectors have made a number of visits to their premises since the contract was signed, and we are satisfied with the process in place.

Now, as for the availability of this product, the manufacturing and control processes are over. A supply of research grade product will, therefore, be available in sufficient quantity before long.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to stress the importance of having a supply of standardized research grade marijuana. To put it simply, any research carried out without such a product would be virtually worthless.

More important still, Health Canada has a responsibility to promote and protect the health of Canadians and to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. In every area in which we intervene, whether regulation, research programs or product accreditation, the most stringent standards we can apply must be adhered to.

We know that this potential supply is good news for researchers. Canadians, however, wonder, and are entitled to ask, “What about people who feel they need it now?”

In future, Canadians suffering from severe and debilitating illnesses will be provided access to this research grade product as part of clinical trials.

This kind of research is underway at McGill University and in Toronto. Open clinical trials are also planned, which will certainly promote wider access to this research grade product for all Canadians.

In addition, those who cannot wait to qualify to participate in a clinical trial have the option of applying for the authorization to possess marijuana, and even for a licence to grow their own plants. If they are too ill, they may ask that a person be designated to do it for them.

To conclude, the government believes that it is not only meeting the expectations of Canadians, but that it is doing so in a responsible fashion, by limiting the risks while contributing to the general well-being of Canadians.

[Armenia, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, again, according to the information that I have, Canada has no intention of putting its health care system on the table in the next NAFTA or GATS negotiations.

[Armenia, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and am very pleased to work with him on the Standing Committee on Health. As a new committee member, he will I am sure come to know us more and to realize that sometimes a person has but a few seconds to answer a question, not time to finish one's answer properly, which is likely what happened when this question was asked.

Now, I shall attempt to give a little more detail on our position as a government. I must, however, point out that the government's commitment has always been, and always will be, to protect the health system in Canada, and we will not put health services on the list of subjects for discussion in trade negotiations, whether now or later. Canadian governments possess the necessary flexibility coupled with control to administer the Canadian health system and to decide what is best for it.

The first ministers now have an accord on one way to renew health care. The next stage is to decide on the best way of implementing the reforms. Under GATS and NAFTA, Canada has certain obligations with respect to private health insurance providers. These are allowed to provide extended health insurance coverage.

It is too early to speculate on the possible trade implications of a proposed policy change. However, these implications, should they arise, would not require Canada to review the health care system. The Government of Canada is committed to working in close cooperation with the provincial governments and deciding on the best way to implement the changes.

I would also like to direct the House's attention to a conclusion taken from a research document prepared by Jon Johnson, of the Romanow Commission, which reads as follows:

It is easy to invent NAFTA and WTO worst-case scenarios but the actual impact of these agreements must be assessed realistically. An expansion of the public component of the health care system into new areas, with the resulting exclusion of private interests, would result in NAFTA compensation claims or WTO challenges only if the private economic interests adversely affected were significant. If these interests are non-existent or insignificant, the risk of claims or challenges is negligible.

There are more national insurance providers for home care and drug plans in Canada than foreign providers.

Consequently, I will back Mr. Johnson's comments, according to which we must look at introducing changes to health policy in a realistic manner, by saying that this must be achieved both nationally and internationally.

In terms of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, I would like to underscore the fact that the agreement expressly recognizes the right of governments to regulate services to meet national policies and objectives. The GATS also specifically excludes service delivery under government authority. It also states that freer trade must occur in respect of the objectives of national policies.

I can assure you, once again, that it is out of the question for us to negotiate the Canadian heath care system through NAFTA or the World Trade Organization.

[Armenia, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the hon. member has said. I want him to understand that we have been working with the provinces, in this same spirit, to try to establish common goals and to reach agreement so that we will be comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

The question is whether we are getting a better return on our health dollars compared to previous years. It is with this in mind that we want to renew the health care system.

I do not think that pointing fingers, accusing one other and continuing to live in the past is going to get us anywhere. I would prefer to move forward, not backward.

I believe that we must keep this in mind, as we work with the provinces and the territories. I thank my hon. colleague for having listened to my answer, and I am convinced that he is very clear about where we want to go.

[Armenia, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a good speech; it was very interesting. However, his question of November 28 dealt specifically with report cards. I will attempt to shed some light on this issue.

This accord was reached between the first ministers in September 2000, and laid the foundation for the recent reports by all 14 jurisdictions, federal, provincial and territorial, on comparable health indicators.

All of the 14 reports were released, as scheduled, on September 30. They have been referred to in some press reports as report cards.

The mandate provided by the first ministers to their health ministers was clear: begin a process of comprehensive and regular reporting to Canadians. This reporting is to not only inform Canadians about their health and health system, but also to provide valuable information for governments and health care providers, allowing them to make better informed choices.

These reports were reviewed independently by the various auditors general, in order to ensure that the information was as reliable as possible.

Before mentioning a few of the highlights of those reports, I want to underline the very high degree of cooperation between all jurisdictions in producing these reports, the first of their kind.

This is a spirit of cooperation of a different kind, to ensure greater accountability to the people of Canada, so that they know what public funds are used for.

These reports represent a crucial step forward in creating greater transparency, which will again allow Canadians to participate more actively in the ongoing debate on our health care system.

What have we learned? On health, the federal report shows that Canadians are living longer than ever, and have one of the highest life expectancies in the world. Life expectancy for Canadians reached 79 years in 1999, compared to less than 75 years in 1979.

What about health outcomes? Potential years of life lost due to heart attack and unintentional injury have declined significantly. This is becoming very valuable information for health care providers, those who work in the field as well as for governments and health departments.

I recommend the full report to the hon. member. I think it is very informative.

The process to carry out this complex undertaking was set in motion immediately following the first ministers' meeting in the fall of 2000. An outcome indicator reporting committee was established.

It is in this spirit of cooperation and collaboration that we are trying to have indicators that would enable us to compare how things are going in health care across the country, from one province to the next, and in the territories. The accord signed recently with the provincial premiers was put together in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. Clearly, this is a far-reaching bill affecting almost all Canadians from one end of the country to the other. There is strong interest, because the subject is clearly very complex and very significant. That said, it is very important to have legislation on assisted reproduction and related research activities.

I first want to talk about Motion No. 92. In seeking to apply the same parameters to enforcement agreements and equivalency agreements, this motion is mixing apples and oranges somewhat. The enforcement agreements in the current act are standard administrative agreements set in motion by simple contractual procedures, and are amended or rescinded in accordance with the contract in question.

However, the equivalency agreements change the legal system applicable to assisted reproduction in the province in question, while ensuring equivalency so that all Canadians receive the same protection in terms of health and safety. This bill sets out in detail the approach applicable to important intergovernmental agreements of this type.

I see this is a debate that interests you, Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to see the clear interest you have in this bill.

Several other motions from Group No. 6 address regulation. In fact, regulation is at the heart of Bill C-13. It is the mechanism allowing us to control assisted human reproduction activities in order to assure Canadians that their use of these techniques to build their families will not put their health at risk.

I would now like to talk about Motion No. 93, which suggests deleting subsection 66(5).

Subsection 66(5) simply says that between the time the regulation has been revised by the House committee and finalized, there is no need to revise the regulation a second time even if it has been changed.

However, it is very important to look at subsection 66(4) which in fact requires the minister to lay before the House a statement of the reasons for not incorporating the changes.

We cannot ignore subsection 66(4) and just take the clause that suits us. Nevertheless, all the regulations that are written in the future and all the amendments to the regulations must be laid before the House under clause 66.

In terms of Motion No. 103 to delete clause 71, it should be said that without clause 71 in this bill, all assisted human reproduction activities will have to stop as soon as the bill is passed. Imagine how upsetting this would be to couples who use assisted reproduction services. Without clause 71, fertility clinics will be forced to stop all treatment until an agency is created and the regulations are written. Motion No. 103, if passed, puts an indefinite hold on any hope of having a family through assisted reproduction. Why ask couples to postpone their dream of having a family when this is unnecessary?

Motion No. 103 would only add to the heartache of infertile couples, which goes against the government's intention of reassuring Canadians who use assisted reproduction services.

By reducing to 90 days the time allotted to drafting the regulations, Motion No. 106 does not acknowledge either the scope of the regulatory process or how serious it is. It is too important to be time-limited. It is not some kind of race against the clock. What is important is the quality of the regulations, not the speed at which they are produced. For there to be quality, there must be time taken to consult stakeholders, that is clinic staff, infertile couples and all others involved.

By retaining clause 71, we are acknowledging that regulations on assisted reproduction will require sustained efforts of the utmost quality. By retaining clause 71, we are acknowledging how important it is to avoid any interruption in the assisted reproduction services being provided to all Canadians using such services to create a family.

As for amendments 96, 98 and 99, these are of a technical nature, and aimed at enhancing the clarity and transparency of the bill. In fact, they are in response to the wishes of the Standing Committee on Health, which did such an excellent job on the bill.

Moreover, I must thank all of the committee members who devoted so much time to processing all the information provided to us. My thanks once again to all of the members for their contributions, as well as all the members of this House taking part in the debate.

[Health, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting and important question. It is interesting to see that in certain situations, there are people here who would not want us to work with the provinces, to work together towards the same goals, but would prefer that we simply send money to the provinces and let them do what they want.

Still others say that maybe we should make sure that the money being sent to the provinces is used for access to healthcare. That is exactly what we want to do. That is what the minister said earlier, that together with the provinces, in a spirit of cooperation, we want to set goals—