Rob Merrifield

[Health, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, next week the premiers and the Prime Minister will sit down to hammer out an accord on health care. This meeting will be critical to the future of Canadians' most cherished social program.

One would expect that Ottawa would be waiting to hear from the provinces, which actually run the health care system, before it deals with the provinces' top priorities. However, that is not the case.

Instead, the Prime Minister has leaked his own draft accord, trying to call the shots with a fraction of the money. Canada needs improved outcomes for its health care system, not sleight of hand.

Since the former finance minister cut billions of dollars out of health care, provinces have been reinvesting and reinvigorating our health care system while Ottawa's contribution has only continued to diminish. Now that Ottawa is ready to inject additional dollars, it should be working with and not dictating to the provinces. Unfortunately, the federal government seems unwilling--

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to speak on this group of amendments. I would like to follow up on some of the comments the minister made, because obviously we are looking for the right legislation that will guide the agency in the future. The agency is perhaps the most important piece of the bill, because it will be deciding on how far we will go as a nation, on the ethics of the nation, and on what we will allow our scientists to do research on and when we will say hold it, that is going too far. In essence it will be drawing the line in the sand between what we see as being appropriate and not appropriate.

Excitement was caused because of remarks and some of the amendments with regard to the agency and who would sit on the agency. This becomes a very important issue. The minister thinks it is too broad. The minister thinks that if we put in this amendment it would be so broad that it would eliminate anyone, even a plumber or an electrician who might work in one of the facilities. That is truly not the intent and it was not the intent of the committee. It all comes down to how it is applied. That is true with so much that happens in this country in law: it is how the law is applied.

If only the minister would take the committee's recommendations and understand that our concern was that the agency has to be above reproach. It has to capture the confidence of the nation if it is going to deal with these ethical issues. If it is going to do that, then we must have in place some limits as to who sits on the board. We must we make sure that they are appropriate people and there is no conflict of interest of any kind. An appropriate position, if the minister feels that this is too broad, would be to amend it to make it somewhat narrower but not to open it wide, and I would suggest that this is where we are at right now.

I have 10 minutes and there are a lot of amendments, but I want to talk about the agency a bit because it is very important. I have just mentioned the makeup of the agency, but because the makeup of the agency is quite important we also have to decide on what the agency is and is not going to allow.

Motions Nos. 88, 89 and 90 are about these differences, about what some of the limits should be and where the line should be drawn for the agency with regard to infertility clinics, such as how many eggs should be harvested.

We have the example that from a woman hyper-ovulated for in vitro fertilization there can be as many as 30 eggs. Should those 30 eggs all need to be fertilized to be able to impregnate? The intent is to impregnate the individual who has difficulty having a child, so how many times should this be allowed? Is it in the best interests of the individual? Do the people have all the information available when they undergo this procedure? It is a very costly procedure, costing $5,000 to $6,000 per procedure. Should there be limits on the number of eggs that are allowed to go into a womb at one particular time? Some witnesses said that two should be the limit. Others said that there are examples of up to seven at one time; hopefully one, two, three or four will catch and they will just abort the others. There should be some guidelines in that area.

The lines that are drawn become very important, so I think it is appropriate that there are amendments in these areas to give the agency some clear direction as to where it should go. As a society, we are crossing a line we have never crossed before. We are crossing a line to where we are taking not just material, not just cells, but human life, growing it in a Petri dish and destroying it in order to, hopefully, create cures down the road.

That brings me to the other subject, because I have spoken with some of these individuals who have great hope in these cures. I have spoken with them in my office in depth over the last two years as we have tried to discern this legislation and how we should proceed. Some of them were with the Parkinson's society, for example, and have great hope because of the media and a lot of the scientists saying that great cures can be found in this area. I would say that some are false hopes.

Yet we have seen actual cures in Parkinson's from adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells, even in the last year. Our caution in this legislation is to pull back for three years on the embryonic side to allow for non-embryonic stem cell research. This would give scientists an opportunity to move a little further down this road. I do not say that because a Parkinson's patient or a leukemia patient was cured last year by non-embryonic cells from an umbilical cord. I say it because we had startling experiments last summer on bone marrow stem cells. It is suspected that bone marrow stem cells can be turned into any organ in the body.

That is the whole drive for the embryonic stem cell. The argument for going with the embryonic stem cell is that it is elastic. Its elasticity will allow it to grow any organ in the body. The problem is they cannot trigger it so the elasticity of it is also a problem because it can grow into anything, and it usually does. That has been the experiment in animals. Brains, hair and gut grow in the same cells and it creates a tumour rather than being triggered to grow into the appropriate organ.

There are two pluses in adult stem cells. First, there is no ethical dilemma in taking bone marrow stem cells. Second, then they can be injected back into the body and this require no anti-rejection drugs. There is a double positive outcome from using non-embryonic stem cells. Patients injected with embryonic stem cells will be on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. There is a tremendous opportunity on the embryonic side for the pharmaceutical industry because it would have to provide those anti-rejection drugs.

The only other way to get around that is to go to therapeutic cloning and the bill prohibits that. The whole idea of cloning is repulsive. There has been a lot of talk over the last while about the Raelian cult which supposedly has cloned up to three individuals. We have yet to hear whether that has been a media ploy or whether it has actually happened. It really does not matter. The point is we have no law to prohibit it so we encourage that this go forward. However we hope that all members will seriously look at some of the amendments to make this legislation the best in the world. Canadians deserve that.

The United Kingdom has worked under an agency and regulatory framework for the last decade. However it can be a very slippery slope when a nation gets to the point where it is prepared to destroy human life for research. The UK now has opened it up to therapeutic cloning where stem cells can be used solely for the purpose of research. Instead of putting leftover stem cells in a freezer, as this bill would deem necessary, they are created fresh because there is only about a 2% to 5% success rate in the thawing process or growing them in a Petrie dish, which this bill would allow for use in research.

If we pass the bill the way it is, three years from now, when it is reviewed, we will have scientists coming to us and telling us it is unethical that so many of these cells die in the process so they should be able to use them fresh. That is the very slippery slope we are on now. The next step will be reproductive cloning which will come right on its heels. Who knows where this will go? We have some examples from Great Britain over the last decade.

It is very important that we seriously and soberly look at the word necessary in this legislation. The legislation says that only if it is necessary will we get into embryonic stem cell research but we do not define “necessary”. It is a blank cheque.

At committee, I asked Dr. Bernstein, the president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, what he would see as being not necessary for research and could not he give me an example of that. He said that he did not know. That means it is all necessary. If it is all necessary then it is a blank cheque. We had better think seriously before we accept this legislation the way it is.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is a considerable amount of confusion here. I believe the last ruling was that you would go back and take a look at the blues and look at the confusion to see if you could clarify it.

The schedule we have is that this debate would go on until 5:53 p.m. We are now past that on the clock.

I would suggest to you that you do take the time to consider it and that we pick this up when we reconvene the debate. That would be my suggestion.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is arguably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will be dealing with in the 37th Parliament. It is important that we look at it in all seriousness. I would like to ask for a quorum call.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit difficult to keep up with the changes in the day by debating Group No. 3, prior to Group No. 2. It was agreed that debating Group No. 2 would be very difficult because of the dynamics. If we look at the 26 or 27 amendments, we will see that there is such a variety that it becomes intense. I hope you will rule on that soon, Mr. Speaker, so we can get back to that part of the debate.

This part of the debate is very important because it talks about accountability on three fronts. One is the accountability when it comes to the different infertility clinics across the country involved with in vitro fertilization. It is very important that we understand how we can hold those fertility clinics to account for what is practised within those clinics.

I am not saying that are not doing everything above board. I am saying we need to look farther up stream when we look at them. Often when we talk to scientists or doctors who are involved in this, success to them is a brand new baby. That is as far as it goes. When they have a live child who is healthy, that is success to them.

We spoke to other individuals involved with in vitro fertilization and we looked up stream a little farther. Individuals who were 19 or 20 years old and adults came to committee. They suggested that they were having difficulty trying to cope and understand where they came from because of the practice that went on years before. We have to take their interest into consideration.

Part of that is to hold infertility clinics accountable. The other is to hold the government accountable. Some amendments deal with how we would audit the agency that would be set up. I would argue that the agency is the most important part of the proposed legislation.

Some people say that the bill is about the embryonic stem cell; others say it is about surrogacy and donation of gamete. I would argue that it is neither of those. I would argue that probably the most important part of the legislation is the regulatory body that will take us into the 21st century and will determine how far we will go or not go when it comes to the whole area of infertility. Virtually we are in the position where we are playing God. The regulatory body will be asked to make decisions that are very important to individuals in not only their lives but in the lives of generations to come after them because of the decisions that will be made.

We need to hold that body accountable. We have to understand how it is made up. Some of these amendments speak to that. The body is not the Senate. The body is there for a certain period of time for a certain job. We have to ensure that body is not driven solely by science or a single interest of any kind. We are creating something new, an agency that will take us into the 21st century. We must be absolutely sure that we look at all sides of the issue and that the regulatory body is responsible to the House and to the people of Canada through an extension of the House. If we do not, we will fail in the proposed legislation in a way that we could never imagine. Therefore that is what some of these amendments are about.

Let me go back to holding the infertility clinics accountable and about counselling. This was a very hot issue in committee. We listened to the witnesses and tried to understand why they were in the situations they were. We asked them how much they understood about the process and about the opportunities to have a child in another way. Virtually all of them said, “What counselling, what opportunity, what information? They knew nothing about that.

The proposed legislation revolves around the idea of embryos in refrigeration in the 25 or more fertility clinics across the country. What do we do with those? Then we have individuals who cannot conceive who have the opportunity to take one of those embryos in the freezer and use it to create a child of their own. However that had not been given to them as an option and they did not know the opportunity existed. They did not know that was something that could even be considered, but the drive was there for their own genetics. A lot of these people are not so concerned about that as they are about having a new child and having the experience of creating that child.

When it comes to the counselling side of it, as a committee we virtually unanimously said that we wanted not just the opportunity for counselling to be provided in those clinics, but that it be necessary to go through counselling and to have that information available. In fact we even said that maybe counselling should not really even take place in clinics, that maybe there should be third party counselling because fertility clinics have a monetary vested interest in how they would counsel. Perhaps the counselling should come from outside the clinics so that there could be no attempt to manipulate an individual with a very altruistic rationale and reason for going into this whole area. They should have not informed consent but informed choice about the options ahead of them. It is very important.

When I see the government putting forward an amendment that would water this down and just leave it there as an option, I suggest that this is something we should consider soberly and very carefully. The idea is to make available all of the information before an individual or a couple go into the most important area of their lives, which is to conceive a child and to create a new human being. The responsibilities that come with that and some of the challenges that will happen down the road because of it are very important.

That is why I would like to speak to Motion No. 52 in particular, which is about counselling. I am really appalled that the government would put forward an amendment actually reversing some of the decisions and amendments made in committee by individuals from all sides who listened to the witnesses, discerned and understood just how important this is and how it actually has been abused in many of the infertility clinics across the country.

Accountability of the clinic is very important, but then we can go on to look at some of the other amendments. Motion No. 55, for example, says that there should be appropriate forms and that they be standardized so we have that information available. When we start talking about a gamete donor, whether it is an egg or sperm, we should not be talking just about the numbers but about how to identify them. We identify them in more ways than by just placing a number on them. We should be identifying that material because it is human material that does not consist just of cells. It actually is the beginning of life. It all comes from individuals. It has a record and the potential of human life; when it is able to cause conception in an individual, it certainly is all of that. We should not just be numbering it. We should be naming these embryos, because they are life at its beginning.

I listened to some of the earlier debate in the House and the question of whether this is life at its beginning. I do not think that is really a debate. It is life at its beginning. It is just biology and it does not matter how one looks at it. One cannot deny that it is biology and life begins at conception. How much value we place on life at that stage is a fair and open debate, but that it is life, one cannot debate. DNA starts there. DNA is created when 23 chromosomes from an egg and 23 chromosomes from a sperm come together and start to grow. That same DNA is there for as long as you, Mr. Speaker, and I are on this earth. The DNA never changes. We have to discern the importance of understanding that this is life at its beginning, that it is not just cells. We have to be accountable for how we treat that life, for treating it with the dignity it deserves.

I also would like to talk about the accountability of the regulatory body. The terms for sitting on that body should be limited so that it is not completely controlled by a certain group of individuals, so that all interested parties have an opportunity to be heard and to be discerned so their views are understood before a decision is made as to how far we are going to allow the regulatory body to push its agenda. Believe me, that body will be pushed as we go forward into the 21st century. It is very important that we in this place hold that body accountable. Now we have an opportunity to amend the bill appropriately and I hope we consider it.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order because I think it is very valid.

As of 10:30 this morning I had an opportunity to look at the different groupings and how they were put together. When we look at some of the subject matter in Group No. 2 particularly, it is understandable that my hon. colleague would be upset because of the 14 amendments that he put forward. I know it was difficult for him to speak during committee as we went through this.

The dynamics and the differences in Group No. 2 are also quite significant. To give 10 minutes to speak to that wide a variety of subject matter in Group No. 2, I would suggest is a breach.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise and debate the first group of amendments to Bill C-13. We need to start by laying out exactly where the bill has come from, why we are discussing it and the importance of report stage.

Over the years we have discussed different issues and different pieces of legislation in the House for different reasons. Many of them involve dollars and cents and the protection of individuals and the economic welfare of the nation. Others are that we are trying to protect the freedoms of individuals by passing laws that are better for the entire nation.

This legislation is all about life and death no matter which side of the argument one is on. Some individuals understand that some of the research that will come out as a result of this legislation will create great advancement in technologies and in the lifestyle of individuals. Research will also provide some of the cures that we long for. Some diseases have the potential of being cured because of this legislation. With regard to embryonic stem cell research, some people have great hope for the reproduction aspects of having a child through advancements in some parts of this legislation.

There is also a negative side to this legislation. As we look at this first group of amendments we have to understand what we are really talking about, particularly when we think of what has been in the news in the last little while regarding the Raelian cult that has been looking at cloning a human being. There is a vacuum in legislation in this whole area and it is about time that our country had something. Bringing legislation forward on this issue has been a 10-year ordeal.

We stand here today to talk about the first group of amendments at report stage. It is very important to note that we are talking about the title of the legislation. The first amendment I wanted to propose was with regard to what we would call the bill. When looking at this legislation and understanding what we are trying to accomplish, we realize it is not about new technologies. Some amendments were made in committee and the title was changed to “an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research”. We are not assisting technologies; we are assisting reproduction. We should change the title to “an act respecting assisted human reproduction and related research”. This legislation has nothing to do with technologies.

With regard to cloning, my hon. colleague just spoke about whether or not it was a real clone which is a moot point. If that group did not create a clone, we know that other groups will. There is certainly a craving internationally and a drive in the science community to be the first to create a clone. We hear many voices saying they will potentially do it to make a name for themselves internationally.

It is an appalling situation when we think of the human clone, not so much because of the clone itself but because of the appalling practice. There is almost a 300% failure rate for any individual cloned. Dolly the sheep is a clone. That means 300 human lives would be sacrificed for one healthy clone. If we understood what cloning was all about and how it takes place, we would find that identical twins are much closer genetically than an actual clone would be.

The quest for what people are trying to do is not achieved in the outcome of actual reproductive cloning. This piece of legislation will ban reproductive cloning. It will also ban therapeutic cloning.

It was my privilege to sit as the vice-chair of the health committee as we went through this piece of legislation. Over the last two years the best witnesses from across Canada and around the world came before us. We had the opportunity to ask them important questions regarding the details of this very complex legislation. It is important that we in the House understand how complex this legislation is because members will be asked to vote on it. It is important that we discern what it is all about.

One example happened in the fall when an individual was healed of leukemia from umbilical cord stem cells. The preamble to that story on the national evening news was a poll that was taken on how the people of Canada are for embryonic stem cell research. It talked about how wonderful embryonic stem cells were and all the cures that could be provided through embryonic stem cells. Yet when we saw the rest of the news story, it had nothing to do with embryonic stem cells. It was about umbilical cord stem cells which obviously are not embryonic stem cells. They are termed adult stem cells. I would prefer to use the term non-embryonic stem cells because they can come from embryonic fluid and other places.

Much success is being found in the non-embryonic stem cell research. Some phenomenal things have happened over the last year. Last summer there were instances where stem cells from bone marrow could be turned into any organ in the body. Even individuals such as the president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Dr. Bernstein, have suggested that this would change the thinking of how we should be driving for embryonic stem cell research.

When we look at the whole piece of legislation and this group of amendments, we have to understand what we are doing. The bill is not talking about the technology; it is talking about reproduction. The bill should have been split in two. It has a scientific side and a reproduction side. The reproduction side is all about the quest for individuals who cannot have children to produce children from their own genetics.

People go to in vitro fertilization clinics where they are hyperovulated and produce up to 30 ova which are then fertilized. Those become embryos that are put in storage. Some of them are used in the in vitro fertilization process. The others are held in storage for a period of time until it is known whether the person will produce a child from the first procedure. There could be four, five, six procedures. We heard from a witness at the committee who said that there are individuals who have tried as many as 16 times before a child was produced.

The question now is what is done with the other embryos that are in storage. That is what this piece of legislation tries to address. Some people say we should be able to grow them in a Petri dish for 14 days and then kill them, take the stem cells and produce research. We call those stem cell lines. In the United States over 60 stem cell lines were produced before the U.S. legislation came along and said that they would not create life in order to destroy it.

That is the background to this piece of legislation. It is very important that we understand that we are not talking about economics or freedoms. We are talking about life and death. I hope that is the sobering thought as members rise in the House and decide whether this is the right piece of legislation for Canada at this time.

We are crossing a line that we have never crossed before as a nation. We have never before decided to destroy human life for the sake of saving other lives. When we cross that line, we are on a very slippery slope. Where will this stop? What arguments will we use when scientists come to us in three years and say that we have to open this up to therapeutic cloning?

Members will then be asked what is the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. There is no difference. They both start exactly the same way: we take an egg; we take a nucleus from a cell and put that into a hollowed out egg, it is given an electric shock and it grows. The only difference is that one will be killed at 14 days and stem cells will be taken from it. The other will be planted into a womb and will grow into a human being.

It seems that scientists want one and not the other. This piece of legislation at least bans both of them for now. When we know where we are going with this group of amendments, we have to start with the title. The title should reflect what the bill will actually do.

Everything is grouped together in the bill. We were not successful in splitting the bill between the science side and the reproductive side. Nonetheless, we are trying to discern what would be the wisest way to amend it so that we can go forward with the best piece of legislation.

[Health, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, factoring in inflation, we still are not back at 1993-94 levels when it comes to funding.

The Prime Minister wants a national health council. Canadians want better access to doctors, better access to nurses and better access to MRIs, not more bureaucrats or advisory councils and, please, no more studies.

Will the Prime Minister take the health councils off the table when he meets with the premiers next week?

[Health, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government's contribution to the health care system has diminished over the last decade. In fact it is at the point that Canada is ranked only 30th according to the United Nations. The provinces are on the front line of health care delivery and actually they began health care reforms while the government turned its back.

Will the government give the provinces the flexibility they need to use the new funds to their very best use?

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as for listening to the public, we have to be careful about knee-jerk reactions of a public that may be sort of wrapping their heads and their ideas around this report. It is not really important whether they agree with the report or not. What really is important is whether the government is going to implement anything coming out of the report. That is the real test of whether we are or are not going to get health care reform in this country.

On the other question of private sector sustainability, Mr. Romanow said, “Show me the beef”. He was shown the beef from a private clinic, Brian Day's clinic in B.C., where a number of orthopedic surgeries and other surgeries are done. Mr. Day said he showed him the beef when he proved that he could do it in 60% less dollars and more efficiently, and Mr. Romanow did not eat it. I think there is an ideology problem and that is why Mr. Romanow came out where he did.