HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 7, 2001

• 1136

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

I'd like to welcome our guests to this meeting. Because we've been delayed, I will introduce each of them as they begin their presentation.

We'll begin with the Venerable Tenzin Kalsang, spiritual director of the Tengye Ling Tibetan Buddhist Temple in Toronto.

The Venerable Tenzin Kalsang (Spiritual Director, Tengye Ling Tibetan Buddhist Temple): I wish to go later, because this person would like to go first. He has to catch a plane much earlier than I do.

The Chair: That's fine. We'll start with Rabbi Irwin Zeplowitz from the Temple Anshe Sholom in Hamilton.

Rabbi Irwin A. Zeplowitz (Temple Anshe Sholom): Thank you.

I am honoured to be asked to be a witness today on the proposed legislation governing assisted human reproduction. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to members of the Standing Committee on Health on the issues raised by it.

According to Jewish legend, the Maharal, Rabbi Loew of Prague, in the sixteenth century created a human-like creature called a golem. Much like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the golem was an animate, living being, yet not quite the same as human. The source of life for this golem was on its forehead. It has written in Hebrew the letters emet, which means truth. The golem was created with this word. If the first letter of the word was erased, that word became, in Hebrew, met, meaning death, and the golem would return back to the clay from which it was fashioned.

Until our time, the creative power was the stuff of legend. In our age, however, technological advances give us the ability to generate new life, be it through cloning, in vitro fertilization, stem cell manipulation, or surrogacy. As with the legendary golem, this power can be used for life and truth, or it can lead to death and pain.

Judaism recognizes the benefits of technology and advances in medical techniques. While God said, in the Bible and the Torah, I am the eternal that heals you, later Jewish traditions accepted the fact that God gave us hearts to feel the pain of others, hands to help give comfort, and minds to reason the means by which we might alleviate suffering.

By the 16th century, to heal another was no longer a voluntary act but an obligation, and thus the law code of Joseph Kairo. The Torah gives permission to the physician to heal. In fact, this is a commandment—in Hebrew, a mitzvah—and it is included in the category of saving a life. If one withholds service it is considered as shedding blood.

So important is saving a life that all 613 commandments of Judaism can be set aside for it except for murder, sexual immorality, or blasphemy. An added weight to helping people reproduce is given by the commandment in Genesis, “be fruitful and multiply”.

Any ethical means of helping people bring about human life is, then, worthy of our support and aid. In short, Jewish sources make it clear that it is legitimate to use “artificial” methods to aid in human reproduction and to use all available means to bring about healing. Lessening suffering is not, however, the only ethical value in Judaism. Jewish law is also concerned about communal responsibility, justice, and human dignity.

• 1140

The current reproductive techniques discussed here lead to many difficult moral issues and dilemmas. The first is surrogacy. When King Solomon was faced with deciding the identity of a real mother, he said they would take a sword and divide the baby in two. His decision was based on the woman willing to give up the most to ensure the life of her child. But which woman gives up more when there's a need for a surrogate? Is it the host mother, who must carry the baby and struggle with the emotional bonds that grow as the baby comes to term, or is it the biological mother, who provides the ovum and who must go through the psychological struggle of living with another person bringing her child into this world? Solomon's dilemma pales, in a sense.

The issues within Jewish law with respect to surrogacy are many. First, there are a number of concerns regarding family status. Who, for example, is the real mother? Is it the woman who provides the ovum, or is it the surrogate who gives gestation to fetus? In contemporary Israeli law, for example, both the surrogate mother and the mother who provides the ovum both are listed as the mothers.

Second, socio-economic concerns are raised by the acceptance of surrogacy. Will poor women be used as wombs for hire? Can we guarantee that unscrupulous individuals will not take advantage of people desperate to find some woman willing to carry their baby? The proposed legislation states: “No person shall pay any consideration to a female person to become a surrogate mother”. Subsequent paragraphs reinforce the notion that surrogacy should not be for financial gain.

But I ask, is it reasonable to expect that women will, in large numbers, other than in cases of personal connection, then become surrogates if there's no financial gain for them? Surrogacy can be a legitimate means of helping people have children. The proposed legislation is correct in drawing strict guidelines for its practice, but to limit financial gain completely may make this practice impossible to actually take place.

With regard to the use of human genetic material or in vitro embryos, while Judaism recognizes that human beings are free beings, our traditions also teach that we are in a binding relationship with God. God has a claim on our lives, and what we do affects not only the Creator but other people.

We are free, therefore, but not entirely autonomous and independent human beings. If our bodies are not completely ours, can others make a claim to that which we no longer use or give up? Must we be asked for permission to use anything that comes from our body, or are there communal or common goods that outweigh our personal interests? In Jewish traditions the body is seen to be intricately connected to the soul. Thus, in Judaism, when someone dies, great pains are made to show the body respect before it is buried.

Among more traditional Jews, body parts that are removed, such as an arm or a leg, are buried with the same respect as the whole body. Jewish traditions accept the notion of personal integrity, and would prohibit another person taking something from us without our permission.

A philosophical view that regards parts of our body as simply biological source material would run counter to the central thrust of Jewish teaching, including even replenishable body parts—for example, a sperm or ovum—or those that are normally discarded. For instance, umbilical cord blood, or extra embryos created for in vitro fertilization, ought to be treated, in Jewish traditions, with proper dignity.

As a result, it would be wrong to assume that another party can make claim to one's body parts without the consent of the person from whom they come. While we do not “own” our own bodies, no other person or corporate entity can own them either. The practical implication of this view is, first, that we ought to ask individuals for their consent in using any body part, by-product, or cellular material, and second, that strict guidelines should be in place to control the commodification of such material. A strong case can be made from Jewish teachings for prudent concern regarding the commercialization of human reproductive technologies.

In a capitalist world, there will be some who will claim that there's no wrong in seeking financial profit or gain for individuals or corporate bodies who take risks involved in these techniques. While Jewish law recognizes the legitimacy of profit where it leads to human advancement, it would question any system that would lead to the complete dehumanization of body parts as mere commodities. Human beings have a dignity that inheres in them because they are made in God's image.

While there may be some justification for financial profits from parts of our bodies, the legal basis for this in Judaism remains tentative. Thus, Jewish concerns with equity and justice would allow for profit in the research with human genetic material, but it would ensure that the therapeutic benefits of that research are available to everyone who needs them, not only those who can pay for it.

• 1145

The use of genetic material from stem cells or in vitro embryos does intersect with societal views about abortion and the rights of the embryo or fetus. Jewish traditions differentiate between potential and actual human life. Jewish law also accepts that there are stages in fetal development, with different understandings of the obligation owed to a being, at different points during the pregnancy. Unlike the proposed legislation, Judaism sees the fortieth day of pregnancy as the demarcation between the embryo, which is called in the Talmud “mere water”, and a fetus, with different rights. In addition, abortion is allowed in Judaism if the mother's health is threatened, with liberal interpretations, including the mother's psychological well-being, as justification for her decision to abort.

In short, a Jewish position would seek a middle ground between those who would argue that the embryo is accorded full human rights and those who see the embryo as little more than a collection of cells. The potential life of the embryo ought to be respected, but this would increase as the embryo develops, and in the early stages in particular ought to be weighed against the potential benefits to other actual lives that might come from embryonic stem cell research.

Even if we have qualms about abortion, should we not help or save other lives with the genetic or cellular material that can come from these embryos? If some good can come, what gain comes from denying the practice that leads to that good?

More questionable in Jewish law would be the use of extra embryos, embryos that are the by-product of current in vitro fertilization practices. Here, too, their use for stem cell research might be considered appropriate if the alternative would be their disposal. It is hard to see how any moral justification could be made, from a Jewish perspective, on the growth of embryos, however, for the sole purpose of research. A ban on the growth of embryos for the sake of stem cell research is therefore ethically justifiable, but reminds us that the destruction of human life cannot, from the outset, be the end, but only a by-product of other decisions.

In summary, a Jewish perspective would say that stem cell research should be allowed, but guided by the principles of informed consent and free choice. Care must be taken to protect against the underground black market in spare embryos for research. In addition, no one should be paid to produce embryos for research purposes, but this is antithetical to the notion that human beings, even in the most potential stages of life, can be bought or sold.

Finally, with regard to cloning and genetic modification, cloning includes a broad area of practices, some of which may be ethically acceptable or even desirable, while others may be questionable if not immoral. Jewish law would react positively, for example, to genetic manipulation that is shown to correct or alleviate a serious or lethal genetic condition. The proposed legislation issues a blanket prohibition against altering the genome of a cell or a human being or in vitro embryo.

I believe the desires of parents who wish to protect the health of their progeny will soon make such legislation outdated. If a means of genetic modification is found to allow for the elimination of Tay-Sachs or Parkinson's disease, can a government reasonably tell its citizens that they cannot use such a method to protect their children? If we have an ability to heal, and the scientific evidence of the time indicates the consequences are negligible and the long-term effects appear not to be deleterious, what ethical basis is there to prohibit such healing? Thus, Judaism maintains that cloning might be allowed under strict supervision.

Nevertheless, there are concerns. In the not-too-distant future, science may allow parents to modify the genes of an embryo so as to prevent autism, Down's syndrome, or hereditary blindness. What, however, will define the limits of what we consider normal or acceptable deviations? In a world of genetic modification, will a child of average intelligence be acceptable, or will parents feel that they, out of a desire to give their child the best advantage in life, want to assure some genetic leg up? With all good intentions, then, parents may lead us to a situation where those who are born without genetic modifications will be considered of lesser status.

Further, what moral opprobrium might be placed on the parents of children who have characteristics that are deemed as defects or disabilities by the majority of the people of that time, especially when those traits are correctable? A religious perspective underscores the dignity and worth of all human beings, regardless of ability or inherent characteristic.

An additional concern related to the cloning of human beings is the difficulty in establishing parentage, leading to psychological and legal problems. Given this, there are some in the Jewish world who believe cloning of human beings should not be done at this time. In the year 2000 the Israeli parliament passed a law to this effect, banning any experiment that, at the end, could result in the cloning of people.

• 1150

Jewish traditions argue that there are three partners in the making of a person—the mother, the father, and God. Does this, however, serve as a basis for claiming that we're obligated to create in this way? Obviously not, because even cloned individuals ultimately come from a man and a woman. But what this teaching implies is that there are limits on parental decision-making for their progeny.

In the Talmud, there's a story told about King Hezekiah, who decided not to have children because he had a vision that they would not be righteous, but he is rebuked for interfering with the secrets of God. While parents are partners with God in the creation of a new generation, they cannot discern the full meaning of their children's lives.

The proposed legislation is justified, therefore, in seeking to limit, though not ban, germ line alteration. At this early stage of development, it is wise to maintain a moratorium on human cloning. However, future advances may take place that may allow for the acceptance of certain kinds of cloning. Nevertheless, cloning should not be permitted for arbitrary, non-therapeutic purposes.

Finally, it must not be used to produce groups of humans with elusive, predetermined genetic characteristics. The Jewish people have in the last century been the victims of those whose goal was the elimination of the unwanted and the creation of a super-race. Cloning carries the potential for such misuse and can be fettered to the sins of human pride and arrogance. Research should continue, but not, at this stage, on human beings.

In conclusion, Judaism would view all scientific research and medical advancement in the area of human reproduction in the larger context of justice for the individual and community; human dignity; equitable distribution of resources; and compassion for those who want healthy children. Canadian law should allow for the advancement of science but tread cautiously so that in seeking to heal we do not lose sight of the value of all the variety of God's children.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Rabbi Zeplowitz.

We'll move now to the Venerable Tenzin Kalsang.

Ven. Tenzin Kalsang: Thank you.

Oh, the microphone doesn't move.

The Chair: It's very sensitive.

Ven. Tenzin Kalsang: Good. So am I.

Thank you for inviting me. I hear that I'm the first Buddhist to speak on these matters. I don't have a prepared speech, because these matters don't really concern us. As practitioners, we're concerned more with the inner life than the outer life.

Buddhism is a paradigm founded by Sakyamuni Buddha some 2,500 years ago. It was formulated by Sakyamuni—it was his birthday yesterday, by the way—for us to improve our minds and our hearts, and for us to train ourselves so that whatever we do is based on the premise of non-harm. That is the foundation of Buddhism. That is the Hinayana level. The Mahayani level is the great vehicle, which is to do benefit.

So there are two things we keep in mind all the time. The first is that if we can't do benefit, we at least do no harm. Of course, the best we can do is not only not harm but do benefit.

All of Buddhism is based on the concept of karma. Karma actually replaces the notion of God. We are non-God believers. Although we might say that there are many gods, we don't believe in a creator God. Rather, we hold the basic tenet that we are all the creators. Every sentient being, which includes ants, snakes, lambs, cows, birds, fish, and us, are the creators of the universe. This is an ecological situation. If you take one away, or if you try to get rid of one, you're creating a false ecology. This means we're all absolutely essential.

• 1155

We have been trying, since beginningless time, to get rid of bad. Bad is an abstraction; people hardly know what it is. Now, if you call it non-virtue, then we know what it is. But if you simply call it bad, we're not really sure. So what is commonly termed “bad”, something to manipulate and move around, we call “bad karma”.

We regard perhaps undesirable features in our body, or having children with undesirable features, as bad karma ripening from our previous immoral deeds in past lives. We regard that as paying a debt for our previous erroneous immoral deeds. And we feel it is essential to life to pay these debts off. We don't see them as undesirable and something that we should get rid of.

I mean, in terms of operations and in terms of stem cells, we feel that if somebody has a disease or a diseased organ or what have you, this is something they have to bear to pay their debt. So of course we would not embrace that. We would bear it, see it through, perhaps die from a disease, and move on to the next life, because we believe in reincarnation.

So we're not trying to change this life so that it matches a certain standard of so-called perfection. What we are trying to do is live through the suffering of this life and “burn it off”, as we say. We burn off the bad karma we ourselves have created so that in the next life we don't have that to bear.

Speaking of bearing, you may wonder what all this has to bear on the topic. But you see, these are basic principles that we embrace that don't really have to do with specific issues, but when you embrace these principles they apply to any and every issue that can come up in life.

We have almost the 10 commandments, although I hear there are 15, if they were the original ones. We have the 10 non-virtues and the 10 virtues. I'm going to go through the 10 non-virtues of body, speech, and mind. We maintain that everything we manifest is through body, speech, and mind. There's nothing else.

The three non-virtues of body are killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. The four non-virtues of speech are lying, harsh/angry words, slander, and meaningless gossip. The one for mind is ignorance, hatred/anger, and attachment/desire/greed.

What we're doing is boiling down to intention, because we maintain that everything that goes on in our minds is what creates the world. So if we don't have pure intention—that is, altruistic intention to do non-harm and to benefit others—then what we're going to do is to be harmful.

What needs to be examined, from the Buddhist perspective, is why people want to do genetic engineering, as I suppose you might call it. I'm just going to put that umbrella over this whole topic. It's manipulating. It's controlling outside, trying to control others outside when what we really need to do is control ourselves.

• 1200

If these actions regarding stem cells, surrogate mothers, and so on don't come from a pure intention of wanting to benefit others, of knowing that one is going to benefit others...rather than taking the chance and saying, you know, I have this technique, these skills, and I can manipulate something out there and make it happen. If that's all a person wants to do that for, with egocentric aims, then the benefit of others is not in their heart. Most of it is for material gain and for an ego trip.

So that's our stand. We have to have pure intention. We maintain that we cannot have pure intention until we have trained our own mind. And people cannot just have pure intention. It takes a great effort to train to have pure intention.

We would of course put the kibosh on these activities, because we feel that whatever the suffering, and whatever people would like to change, they need to change instead their own attitude, not material things out there. Rather, they need to change the spiritual area of life, which is their own heart, because attitude comes from the heart.

People need to change. They need to alter the hatred that's in their heart and transform it to love. People need to transform the greed into generosity. People need to change their impatience to patience and so on.

This is the Buddhist stand. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Could we hear now from Farhat Rehman, president of the Ottawa chapter of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Ms. Farhat Rehman (President, Ottawa Chapter, Canadian Council of Muslim Women): Hi, everyone.

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women is a national organization. We do mostly advocacy and education work. I'm not an authority on religion, but I'm here to present the Muslim woman's point of view on the subject of assisted human reproduction.

The subject is very complex. It is impossible to cover it all in the limited time we have. Given the diverse cultural practices of Canadian Muslims, I will not pretend to be representative of them all. However, I can safely say that in all matters private and public, over a billion Muslims take their guidance from their sacred text, the Holy Koran, which is regarded by them as the word of God. That's the primary source of guidance in everything they do.

Although the particular subject matter—for instance, human cloning and commercial surrogacy—may not be specifically mentioned in the Koran, we can infer from various related subjects what the injunctions would be on these matters.

Muslims believe it is the decision of God to allow conception to occur. In sura 52:49—and when I say sura, I mean chapter, and the other part means verse—it is written that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what he wills and plans. He bestows children, male or female, according to his will and plan, or he bestows both males and females. He leaves barren whom he wills. For he is full of knowledge and power.

The subject of creation and reproduction is clearly and repeatedly mentioned in the Koran. The clarity of description of conception and birth in the Koran, and the later scientific agreement of experts with that description, leads us Muslims to believe that the Koran and science are quite compatible.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, when he first received the revelation from God through the angel Gabriel more than 1,400 years ago, was instructed, as stated in sura 96:1 and 96:2, to read in the name of thy Lord who fashioned, who fashioned you from something that clings. Also stated in the Koran, in sura 23:14, is that we fashion the thing which clings into a chewed lump of flesh and we fashion the chewed flesh into bones. We clothe the bones with intact flesh.

• 1205

In a book entitled The Bible, the Koran and Science, Dr. Maurice Bucaille explores the Holy Scriptures in the light of modern knowledge. He states, “As far as the Koran is concerned, scriptures and modern knowledge are in harmony, not disagreement.”

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, encouraged Muslims to acquire knowledge. It is recorded in the practices of the prophet of Islam that he particularly advised people to educate their daughters. He said:

Whoever supports two daughters till they mature, he and I will come on the Day of Judgement as one.

Research and practice of advanced technologies that work towards improving the life quality of humans fall within Islam's world view of justice and benefit to the less privileged. Given this, it is clear that Islam is not opposed to any scientific advances that enhance the welfare of human beings, reduce suffering, and add to the enjoyment of a wholesome and productive way of life.

Scientific progress is God-given knowledge that should be put to use for the benefit of society. As long as there's no injustice and cruelty to any life form, progress and development is advised and encouraged.

The word Islam means submission to the will of God. This God is the most compassionate, the most beneficent, and most merciful. He forgives sins and exhorts humans to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in all aspects of their lives.

We Muslims believe that Allah—that's God—governs the laws of nature, and therefore adherence is compulsory. Any tampering with the equilibrium of the laws of nature brings on dire consequences. For example, transplanting of animal reproductive material into humans, or cloning for the purpose of creating another human being, are practices that must be prohibited.

Islam holds the view that every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. Once the guidelines are set, the individual can exercise his or her right to make a choice. If the action is taken with the intent of gaining God's favour, then the outcome will be acceptable in the eyes of Allah. If the action is for nefarious intent or material gains without consideration of the outcome and consequences to others, then the action is deemed haram, or unacceptable.

In sura 7:33, Allah forbids evil, saying that the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are shameful deeds, whether open or secret, sins and trespasses against truth or reason. The forbidden things are described as what is shameful or unbecoming, the types of things that have also legal and social sanctions, not of a local but of a universal kind. They may be called offences against society. With regard to sins against self and trespasses or excesses of every sort that are against truth, reason, and nature, the transpecies implantations and commercialization of surrogacy could fall into this category.

As an example, South Asian societies express a marked preference for sons. The practice of using the results of amniocentesis to terminate pregnancies when the fetus is a female is widely practised in the region. Even if pregnancies are not terminated, girl children are subject to various deprivations in life. This thinking may have carried over into our communities in Canada.

The preference of male over female is strictly forbidden in Islam. The Koran clearly advises Muslims to treat their male and female offspring equally. The use of medical procedures to custom order the sex of a child is an abhorrent practice that should be outlawed and punishable.

In sura 13:8 and 13:9, Allah knows what every female womb does bear by how much the womb falls short, or their time, or number, or do exceed. Every single thing is before his sight in due proportion. He knows the unseen and that which is open. He is great, most high.

We Muslim women agree with the core principles of the draft legislation that free and informed consent should be a fundamental condition governing the use of assisted human reproduction activities.

• 1210

The practice of using sperm from a donor other than the husband is not acceptable to most Muslim women, whether married or single. This would constitute adultery. In vitro fertilization from the husband's sperm cells may, however, be more acceptable. A humane act using scientific knowledge to alleviate the anguish of a childless married couple is acceptable within Islam, since we believe all help comes from Allah.

In sura 52:49 and 52:50, God says all things have we created in proportion and measure, and our command is but a single act, like the twinkling of an eye.

Research to find cures for such diseases as Alzheimer's, or to mend spinal cord injuries, are activities that would be acceptable but should be regulated and monitored by the government.

As I have stated, we Muslims believe all things come with Allah's blessing. Safe technological advances that are in keeping with the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and equity are also blessings from God. It is up to us humans to put these to use in ways that enhance and enrich the quality of our lives, and not cause undue and harsh burden...or prove to be dangerous tools in the hands of unscrupulous individuals.

The regulatory body that will be set up to implement and enforce this legislation will have to be cognizant of the diverse cultural sensitivities of the Canadian population. There must be an unbiased objective and culturally sensitive counselling component to this body.

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women is honoured to contribute to this forum. We will watch with close interest as this draft bill moves through the legislative process and becomes law.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Rehman.

Could we hear now from Mr. Bruce Clemenger, the director of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger (Director, Centre for Faith and Public Life, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not the director, but I appreciate the promotion.

Evangelical Fellowship and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this review of the proposed legislation governing assisted human reproduction. I've enjoyed actually attending several of the hearings, and I've really benefited from the comments made thus far.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is a national association of Protestant Christians. Our membership consists of some 32 denominations in addition to local churches, para-church organizations, and individuals.

EFC has previously appeared before this committee, on Bill C-47 in 1997 and on Bill C-247 in 1999. We made a submission to the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies in 1990 and have participated in discussions on biotechnology in various forms, including Health Canada consultations.

We also produced a discussion paper on genetics in 1995, entitled “Changing Genes”. It's written by an interdisciplinary group of people, including those with expertise in the areas of science, medicine, ethics, law, and theology. All of these documents are available on EFC's website, or I can provide copies to the clerk if you so choose.

My comments will begin with a general review of the proposed legislation. I'll survey the themes and issues it raises and reflect on these from out of our particular faith perspective, outlining some of the guiding principles and their application to reproductive and genetic technologies. I'll also begin to sketch out, at the end of my comments, specific ways in which the bill could be improved.

We are preparing a more detailed review of the proposed legislation that will include a more complete clause-by-clause analysis. We'd be glad to submit it to the committee at a later date. If and when you proceed with the clause-by-clause review of the legislation, as I would encourage you to do, we'd be pleased to participate if there is some way in which we can be of benefit.

I'll first address the moral and ethical dimensions. Reproductive technologies offer hope to those who are infertile. They also raise social, philosophical, and theological questions. Due to the research dynamics associated with these technologies, they provoke us to ask fundamental questions about the nature and meaning of human life, of parenting, of what constitutes a genetic disease, about our readiness to value people unconditionally, and the meaning and care...and of compassion. They raise questions about how our research and inventions affect us and about the promise of these, and the substance of the hope they engender.

• 1215

As the Honourable Allan Rock stated when he introduced this legislation, and subsequently in the Globe and Mail, just because we can do something does not mean that we must, or even that we should. And we concur that there is no obligation to permit all technologies, or invent new ones. We must be judicious and selective in terms of the research projects we choose to engage through regulation and through funding policies. This draft legislation, in identifying prohibitions and regulated activity, seeks to distinguish between that which we should and should not do in the areas of assisted human reproduction and biotechnology.

We welcome this opportunity to participate in this discussion of the principles and values that should guide our scientific enquiry and research and our care for one another. Every perspective is based on guiding principles or values that shape one's understanding of an approach to an issue. As an association of Protestants, we begin our analysis with the biblical narrative and the principles that we find therein.

There are biblical principles that we use to evaluate these issues. I'll unpack merely a few of them for you.

First is the respect for human life and dignity. We believe human beings are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth. This is our foundation for the principle of human dignity. There's no such thing as an unworthy life, because our worth is not determined by what we can do or accomplish, or even by the pleasure we experience, but rather by who we are in relation to God and to each other. It is not up to us to decide whether human beings have dignity or not. We therefore believe human life must be valued, respected, and protected through all its stages. This applies equally to people with disease or with disability. The affirmation of the dignity of human life is shared by Canadians and is reflected in a variety of ways in Canadian law.

We affirm the bill's protection of human dignity in several areas. When the bill prohibits cloning and the creation of human embryos solely for research, it affirms human dignity. We endorse the proposed legislation's prohibitions against commercialization in assisted human reproduction as a recognition of and support for human dignity. However, we're also concerned that there are other practices that will be allowed, either by regulation or omission, that will undermine human dignity, particularly in the creation of chimeras and allowing research on human embryos that leads to their destruction. We'll examine these specific areas in a little more detail later, if I have time.

The second principle would be compassion for life. We'd like to emphasize this principle. This principle flows from our belief that all human life is of value in the sight of God, and is to be cared for and nurtured physically, emotionally, and spiritually. We are to love others as we love ourselves. This principle promotes what ethicists who appeared last week called the “ethic of care”, which should characterize our endeavours in the area of assisted human reproduction.

This compassion for life is promoted when the best interests of children remain paramount; when people's reproductive capacity is not exploited; when infertile couples are treated appropriately; and when human embryos are accorded respect and protection, not used in ways we'd not countenance if used on other human beings.

A third one is family integrity and responsibility. The importance of the human community is a significant part of biblical teaching. For example, the Bible teaches that children are to be received as gifts from the hand of God, not as projects of our own making. Family responsibility for the care and nurturing of children is recognized in Canadian law—for example, in duty of care provisions. Reproductive technologies are intrinsically tied to the issue of family responsibility because their intent is to assist in a family formation.

Reproductive technologies have the potential to blur the lines of family relationships. Last week Dr. Shanner and Dr. Somerville aptly described some of these dynamics, so I won't repeat them.

The draft legislation supports family integrity in its prohibition of cloning, which is an extreme blurring of family relationships. However, where the bill refers to the donor of an embryo, it implies that one's offspring can be donated, or given away to another. The legislation also allows and facilitates altruistic surrogacy that entails the deliberate creation of a family in order to break it. We are concerned about those practices.

Having outlined these guiding principles, I'd like to share some general comments before moving on to specific recommendations. This proposed legislation is entitled “assisted human reproduction”. It is thereby, in my opinion, misnamed, as it concerns not only reproductive technologies but also activities of genetic research and genetic technologies. It is about the human genetic and reproductive technologies. It prohibits practices like germ line genetic alteration; the development of an embryo outside a woman's womb beyond 14 days; the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes; and the transplanting of reproductive material from animals into humans. The proposed legislation also regulates activities such as stem cell research and the creation of chimeras.

By what criteria were the biotechnological practices addressed by the proposed legislation selected, and other practices omitted?

• 1220

I'll skip the next principle and move on to informed consent. The proposed legislation offers no definition, and the term given really has no substance. We agree that informed consent must be given, and it must involve some level of understanding of what is at stake. With experimental technologies, how could one possibly know in advance what one is consenting to? How would one know what one is consenting to with regard to one's offspring, even? Someone who is desperate or ill has a limited ability to give free and informed consent. How will this be monitored? Who provides the information? Who checks up on it?

As well, we believe counselling must be independent rather than linked to the fertility clinic. A counsellor working for a fertility clinic could well have a conflict of interest.

Further, we note that while the royal commission recommended against the establishment of for-profit clinics, this legislation seems to allow them. We are concerned that this may hinder the intent to ensure that assisted human reproduction capacities and practices are not commercialized.

I would also recommend that the committee hear from witnesses, such as economists and social scientists, on the costs of these practices in comparison with other types of health needs. I have looked at the witness list, and I have attended some of these meetings, and I haven't heard that kind of evidence yet.

Turning to some specific comments, there's much in this proposed legislation that we would affirm and commend. Prohibitions are needed and are long overdue. A regulatory body is also needed.

In the remaining few minutes, I want to specifically suggest ways the proposed legislation could be amended to attain the laudable goals that I think are expressed in the preamble. Though there are a number of clauses we are concerned about, I have time to mention only a few.

With respect to the preamble, we agree with its acknowledgement of the need to promote and protect the best interests of children and women; to preserve and protect human individuality; and to recognize the health and ethical concerns inherent in the commercialization of reproductive capacities. However, the preamble seems shaped by themes of pre-eminence of choice and the ability to fulfil strongly held desires. Neglected are such fundamental principles as human dignity. Although human dignity is mentioned, it is listed along with health, safety, and rights as those things that should be protected and promoted to ensure the realization of benefits of the technology. So it's not a fundamental condition but seems to be a means to an end.

The only fundamental condition identified in the proposal is the principle of free and informed consent. Human dignity is a much more basic principle than consent. The concept of free and informed consent is grounded, I think, in the principle of human dignity. I would contrast that with the preamble of Bill C-47, but I'll move on.

We believe the preamble should present human dignity, an ethic of care, and family responsibility as guiding principles. The children borne of these technologies, and their familial context, should be our primary consideration in assisted human reproduction. We agree with the ethicists who appeared last week and who suggested the preamble be amended.

In terms of definitions, last week all the ethicists agreed that the human embryo is a human being, and we agree. The definition in this legislation should reflect this. The embryo and fetus are not mere human organisms, and should not be referred to as human reproductive material. This language, we believe, is reductionistic. While we would go further, even the Tri-Council Policy Statement for Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans attributes a special moral status to the embryo. This is not reflected, we believe, in the definitions used. We recommend using the term embryo specifically rather than including embryo in the definition of human reproductive materials. We recommend using the term human being rather than human organism when referring to embryos or fetuses.

We also note that the term donor may be appropriate for those whose sperm and ovum are obtained. However, in relation to an embryo, we recommend that the term biological progenitors, of whom there are two, be used. As well, gamete donor is identified in the legislation, but the definition of an embryo donor is left to the regulations. That's another area of concern.

Again, we'll have more suggestions for specific wording in a subsequent written brief.

As I mentioned, generally we're very supportive of the prohibitions. Our concern is that the wording of some of the clauses may not be adequate to accomplish what we think is the intent implied in the preamble or expressed in the overview document. I will comment on a few of these.

For instance, paragraph 3(1)(g) prohibits making use of human reproductive material that was transplanted into an animal. We agree with this prohibition, but the wording in French is different from the wording in the English text. We think the French text is a little more restrictive, and we prefer that.

• 1225

Paragraph 3(1)(h) prohibits sex selection. The proposed legislation deals with practices that are not about having children but about selecting the kind of children a person will have. The legislation will prohibit attempts to select the gender of a child.

The overview document states:

Attempting to select the gender of a child runs counter to the Canadian belief in the equal value and status of both sexes.

We agree. The legislation is silent, however, on embryo selection based on other characteristics. Canadians also believe in the equal value and status of persons, including disabled persons, yet there's no prohibition on selection techniques being used to identify and destroy embryos on the basis of disability. In what way is this type of selection, done per utero, which is not prohibited by legislation, different from eugenic practices?

Clause 4 deals with payment for surrogacy. We heard comments about this previously. In principle, we are opposed to all surrogacy, altruistic or commercial. We're concerned, however, that the exceptions in subclause 4(4) may allow lawyers to arrange, or offer to arrange, the services of a surrogate mother for consideration because the exception is so broadly worded. Lawyers who arrange or broker the services of a surrogate mother might, for all that is said in the legislation, consider what they are doing as legal services, and thereby render them exempt.

In other words, it looks like you've perhaps set up a business, a facility in surrogacy, under the clauses provided in this bill. This is also related to the provisions in clause 10.

Clause 5 seeks to ban the trading in gametes and human embryos. However, the wording of the clause prohibits the purchase from a donor, or an agent of the donor, and yet leaves open the commercialization of human gametes in trade between third parties, such as fertility clinics. We'd recommend that subclause 5(3) be amended by deleting the phrase “from a donor or a person acting on behalf of the donor” to ensure that the intent of the proposed legislation is upheld.

I'll move on to controlled activities. The language in clause 8 is so general that it's hard to know what might be included. Clause 8 sets out the manipulation and destruction of gametes and embryos as activities that are acceptable within unspecified limits. At a minimum, this allows for research on embryos that leads to their destruction. Given our belief that life is a gift from God and that human life begins at conception, we urge Parliament to protect the dignity of every human being from the very beginning of his or her existence. This includes prohibiting research in human embryos that causes or leads to their destruction.

Clause 9 allows the creation of chimeras and the mixing of animal and human genetic material. Animal-human hybrids are deeply offensive to the majority of Canadians, we believe. The royal commission concluded that interspecies crosses were unethical in and of themselves, and we agree with this. We understand that animal-human hybrids are already being created. In one example, human sperm is combined with a hamster ova to create a “humster”. By my reading of the legislation, however, this practice is not prohibited or even addressed.

Clause 9 deals with introducing non-human cells into human embryo, or the cells of a human into a non-human embryo or fetus. Again, we're not sure what all is intended to be captured, and we're trying to parse the text to find out what then is excluded.

This raises other issues. Are we developing a new species, and what do we call this? Is an animal-human hybrid, such as this humster, considered a human being? Likewise, with chimeras in general, are they human beings? We recommend that the creation of chimeras be prohibited rather than regulated.

I have other comments on that but I'll move on.

In terms of administration, we'd like to note that the legislation does not create a regulatory body, although I understand that's part of the discussion we're having here. Rather, it places the responsibility of the regulations on the minister and the Governor in Council.

There are arguments to be made in support of establishing an arm's length regulatory body. Our concern is that the process for establishing licensing criteria and regulations and the oversight of the application be done in a manner that is open, transparent, and accessible to the public. We are pleased that this is not a voluntary or self-regulatory screen. We know the voluntary moratorium was ineffective. The issues at stake in reproductive genetic technology are too important to be left to voluntary compliance.

There are a number of elements in the administrative section, but let me touch on just one before I conclude. Subclause 21(4) allows for anonymous gamete donation. One reproductive practice that we find objectionable is that of anonymous sperm donation, which breaks the interpersonal ties and denies children the answers to basic questions of identity. It is inconsistent with the other statutes, such as child support legislation, that emphasize the parental responsibility of support.

We recommend that all gamete donation include identifying information that can be given to the resulting child, perhaps after they attain the age of majority. In jurisdictions where this kind of policy has been implemented, as we heard last week, gamete donations have continued.

• 1230

We're concerned, as were previous witnesses, about the opt-out provisions in clause 41. We need to make sure that prohibitions are enforced and effective across Canada.

In conclusion, discussions about and the use of reproductive technologies must reflect our respect for life, and specifically our attitude towards children. Reproductive technologies are about conceiving, bearing, and raising children. Procreation is about parenting human beings. These technologies make us vulnerable to the temptation of eugenic practices, to attempt to design or perfect human beings, to produce rather than to beget human beings—all endeavours that we reject. We need to proceed with caution and with care.

We urge Parliament and the relevant ministries to consider the implications of using and further developing new reproductive technologies to other means available for supporting parenthood. We would include programs to promote the emotional, psychological, and physical well-being of those families already in existence; promote adoption as a viable alternative for those couples who are unable to have biological children of their own; and focus on restoring fertility rather than bypassing it.

We also encourage the government to promote practices and develop technologies that do not threaten or undermine human dignity but that encourage and foster ethical forms of research, such as research on adult stem cells and technologies that reduce the use of IVF and the number of embryos created for the purposes of reproduction.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clemenger.

We now have two representatives from the Catholic Organization for Life and Family. We have Ms. Jennifer Leddy, the co-director, and Dr. Bridget Campion, an assistant professor of moral theology at St. Augustine's Seminary in Toronto.

I don't know which of you would like to begin. You probably have that planned.

Ms. Jennifer Leddy (Co-Director, Catholic Organization for Life and Family): We do. We're going to share the presentation of our remarks.

The first thing I would like to do on behalf of our organization is thank you so much for the invitation to appear in front of your committee. We really welcome the opportunity for dialogue.

The Catholic Organization for Life and Family was founded by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Knights of Columbus to promote respect for human life and human dignity and the essential role of the family. Its board of directors is a multidisciplinary group of men and women, as well as bishops.

We understand that the purpose of this meeting is to have at a very early stage of the proceedings an overview of the issues from a faith perspective. We wish to confirm that our coming here today, as we've been assured by the clerk, does not preclude an attendance by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops at a later date in the fall.

For the last three years, our organization has hosted an annual seminar on biotechnology with a group of multidisciplinary types. We have found that these annual meetings have encouraged a dialogue between faith and science and have brought us to a growing appreciation that faith and science have much in common, touching as they both do on the wonders and mysteries of creation and the ongoing journey of discovery.

Dr. Bridget Campion (Assistant Professor of Moral Theology, St. Augustine's Seminary): We have examined the proposed legislation through the lens of the following principles of Catholic teaching. First is the respect for human life and dignity. Human life from its very beginning is a gift beyond all measure, and each human being created in the image of God has incalculable worth and inherent dignity. Life is the most precious gift given to us, and it is our duty to love it, to respect it, and to keep it from harm.

In our view, a human being exists from conception. Our position is shared by medical and other professional opinions. The Law Reform Commission of Canada, for instance, in its working paper “Crimes Against the Foetus”, more than 10 years ago affirmed that a human being exists from conception. As they wrote:

True, the present Code has a curious provision in section 206 to the effect that a child doesn't become a human being until it has proceeded completely from its mother's body. This, far from being a proper definition of the term, runs counter to the general consensus that the product of human conception, in the womb or outside, is a human being.

The Catholic Church teaches that life comes from God, in whose image everyone is created. Human life and dignity must therefore be protected from the very beginning.

In its 1987 instruction Donum Vitae, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said:

The fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his or her bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception. This key principle of Catholic teaching, of respecting and protecting human life from its earliest existence, has obvious ramifications for our response to certain provisions of the draft legislation.

• 1235

The second principle is that a child is a gift. The desire for children is deeply personal and very powerful. Who cannot sympathize with this intense desire of an infertile couple? Yet the fulfilment of the desire cannot be pursued at all costs, because ultimately the child is a gift, the most gracious gift of the relationship, the most gracious gift of all.

The third principle is the integrity of procreation. We are part of the created world. Traditionally we've understood our bodies to be temples of the Holy Spirit. We also believe in the integrity, the beauty, and the mystery of our bodies and the created order. The Catholic Church views human procreation as joining in God's creative process. Just as God loved us into existence, so a wife and husband, through a physically intimate expression of their love for each other, participate in God's creative work.

The church teaches that assisted conception is acceptable between a husband and a wife only in very specific circumstances that assist the natural processes of generation and do not pose undue risks for parent or child. In vitro fertilization is not acceptable, even for a husband and wife, because it separates procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act and because it can lead to the destruction of embryos that remain after the treatment.

In this forum we will emphasize the grave concern we have about the link that has developed between in vitro fertilization and the destruction of human life.

Fourth is the preferential option for the poor. The Catholic Church takes a holistic approach to human beings, being concerned not only with their spiritual lives but also with their physical, psychosocial, and material well-being. In this respect, the church understands social justice to be a gospel imperative, that we are called to provide for those in need and to speak out against injustice.

We are called especially to give preference to those among us who are most at risk, who are impoverished and oppressed. We believe the couples suffering from infertility are very vulnerable, as are the young human lives conceived through assisted reproduction. So we have a special interest in protecting them from exploitation and in upholding their dignity as human beings.

Fifth is the common good. The common good is understood as the sum total of social conditions that allow people either as groups or as individuals to reach their fulfilment more fully and easily. Now, it's more likely to be achieved when everyone contributes to the building of a just and compassionate society in which the human growth of everyone is encouraged. Human beings are created as members of a family, with roots established in the larger community. We are social beings who cannot live outside of human relationships.

Commitment to the common good is expressed in solidarity, which Pope Jean Paul II has described as

...a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual because we are all really responsible for all.

A basic question with respect to each provision of the draft legislation is, does it serve the common good? Does it enable each individual to enjoy the benefits of living in an orderly, healthy, and safe society? Is it responsible legislation?

The balance of our presentation will provide highlights of the commentary on the legislation that's more fully set out in our brief. I also have a couple of comments to make about the preamble.

First, we believe the preamble is central to the legislation because it sets out the ethical foundations and framework for all that follows. We would like to affirm, first of all, that it is essential to protect the best interests of children affected by the application of the techniques.

We appreciate the recognition that women particularly are affected by the technologies. Our health and interests must be protected so that we are not subjected to treatments that may have an inadequate basis in scientific research and medical practice.

Third, we endorse the fundamental importance of free and informed consent, given our own tradition's respect for freedom of conscience.

Fourth, we recognize the importance of preserving and protecting human individuality and the integrity of the human being.

Fifth, we are pleased with the concern for justice, that women, men, and children must not be exploited.

• 1240

We do, however, have serious concerns. First, given that this is draft legislation about assisted reproduction and that some of the technologies are experimental, with their risks unknown, it is a serious oversight, we believe, not to include in the preamble an explicit reference to Parliament's interest in protecting human life.

Second, the preamble should acknowledge that the embryos and fetuses are significantly affected by these technologies, and should indicate that measures are required to protect their best interests.

Ms. Jennifer Leddy: We'll now deal with the definitions, prohibitions, and some parts of the controlled activities. I should say that we do have a written brief here that sets this out in more detail than we are able to do now. You can perhaps have this later.

We have three points about the definition. First of all, the definition of donor in Bill C-47 did not include the possibility of donating an embryo. The fact that this proposed legislation does include the possibility illustrates the strong research agenda that accompanies the desire to assist couples with procreation.

We recommend that the final bill define embryo and fetus as human beings instead of human organisms. The term human being evokes respect and is far more appropriate in the circumstances. The term human organism goes beyond what might be considered sterile, clinical language to the language of experimental biology.

The conflation of gametes, cells, and embryos in the definition of “human reproductive material” is not helpful, because it conjoins radically different realities. As embryos are human beings, they ought not to be in that definition. Although gametes are not human beings, they are still essential to the creation of human life, and there should be a more respectful way of referring to them. Otherwise, procreation quickly moves from a process of reproduction to one of production.

We strongly support the prohibition against human cloning and commend the government's leadership in banning both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. We endorse the prohibition of germ line alteration because of the potential hazards to the human genetic heritage.

Paragraph 3(1)(c) prohibits the maintenance of an embryo outside a woman's body beyond 14 days. This provision is very important and a welcome attempt to put limits on what may be done to the human embryo. But it does not go far enough, from our point of view. Since the embryo is usually implanted within two to three days, why has 14 days been chosen if not to facilitate the availability of research subjects? While it may be argued that women who are undergoing these very invasive treatments may wish to avoid additional sessions by freezing embryos who are no longer needed, would not the more appropriate course be, for those for whom in vitro fertilization is acceptable, to put money into researching ways to freeze ova? In this way, it would no longer be necessary to create additional embryos, and they would not be subject to freezing, which is contrary to their human dignity and puts them at risk of research. In this way we would hope there would be an end to what has become a corrosive link between in vitro fertilization and the destruction of human life, something that must be the ultimate paradox.

We are very pleased with paragraph 3(1)(d), which prohibits the creation of embryos for research purposes. But subclause 8(2), under controlled activities, would allow research, including stem cell research, on embryos who remain after fertility treatments. This form of research would allow embryos to be stripped of their cells and their integrity, reducing them from a subject to an object, from a human being with dignity to a source of organic material.

In our response to the discussion paper recently issued by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, we have said that to allow this sort of research, knowing that the research subject, a human being, will be destroyed, is surely a first. No amount of public benefit can ever justify the deliberate killing of a human being. The argument is particularly hollow when the same results could be achieved by such alternative means as adult stem cells. No human being, including the embryo, should ever be used as a means to an end. No human being should ever be considered extra, surplus, or spare.

• 1245

Yesterday we read on the front page of the Globe and Mail—we see it in the paper every day—that research on adult stem cells is showing enormous possibility. There is a way to proceed in a way that doesn't have the ethical dilemmas. We vigorously recommend that all research on human embryos, as well as any treatment that is not for their benefit, be prohibited and not simply regulated, as provided in the proposed legislation. Germany bans all research on embryos. It has learned from its history. Cannot we?

Moving to the controlled activities, the overriding concern we have in this area is similar to what Mr. Clemenger said, that so much is left to the regulations on which the public traditionally has no opportunity, or certainly little opportunity, for input. It is rather disappointing that after all this time the health ministry has not provided in the legislation a list of the various technologies they propose to regulate, and a better idea of the ethical content of the regulations. There is some information in the background material, but the public shouldn't have to search all over the Internet to find out what is being proposed.

I know we want to have some time for questions, so I will just tell you that we have comments in our paper on the regulatory scheme.

In conclusion, our organization is very mindful of the enormity of your task as you discern the best way to protect the dignity, health, and well-being of Canadians in a field full of potential benefits and challenges. We look forward to being part of the continuing dialogue and wish you well in this important endeavour.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Leddy and Dr. Campion.

You're right, we are going to proceed to questions, beginning with Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): First of all, I want to thank you very much for coming in. It's a fascinating study. In our zeal to sort of go beyond in science, to where man has never gone before, we sometimes lose sight of human dignity. All of you come with a very important view and a very important slant on the dignity of human life from the very beginning, and I certainly appreciate that.

My question is with regard to the regulatory body. A couple of you mentioned it just briefly. First of all, do you feel, as a faith community, you're represented very well on some of the regulatory bodies that are out there now—for instance, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, that type of thing? Perhaps a better question would be, do you feel it's important to be on the regulatory body, and how would you propose that you put your collective minds together and get there?

Before you start answering, I'll add another question, to Mr. Clemenger perhaps. In terms of your opening comments with regard to the title of the bill and the preamble, it sounded to me as though you had some further comments but were a little rushed. Could you explain a little bit more about where you were going on that?

With that, I await your answers.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, are you directing those questions to one person or do you want comments from everybody? Because you've used almost two minutes.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'd like Mr. Clemenger's answer to the last one, although he can probably answer both questions if there's time. Then I think the Catholic group as well mentioned the issue.

The Chair: Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Perhaps I'll start with the preamble question. When the health minister was at the World Health Organization in May, he was talking about what the member organizations could do. He said he thought that member states would

...prohibit practices that are simply unacceptable because they are inconsistent with human dignity and integrity or because they pose a grave threat to human health.

That's stated very boldly, very bluntly, and we like it. We like that kind of language, and we're surprised that kind of language didn't make it into the preamble.

Again, our point is that the best interests of children, human dignity, and the threats to human health must be of primary and paramount concern. The preamble addresses those things, but they're slid in there in the context of benefiting humanity. That is a laudable goal as well, but we're concerned that they become means, and not ends in themselves. We'd like to see that more boldly stated.

• 1250

We compare it with Bill C-47, which was much more...not pessimistic, but its preamble began with language about the threats to human dignity and the threats to human health that these technologies would pose. Of course, Bill C-47 only dealt with prohibitions, so you can understand why the preamble would be slanted in that direction.

This legislation, as I indicated, does a lot more than merely deal with prohibitions. It deals with regulated practices. So it looks at the positives as well as the things that should be limited. But that doesn't necessarily mean we need to lose that emphasis on human dignity, on dignity of the person.

Your second question dealt with regulatory bodies. As an association, no, we haven't been invited to the table that often in terms of membership on committees. When we do make appearances, such as today, the question is always in our minds, is this tokenism? Is it “Well, it's time to have the faith community, so let's line them up, hear from them, and then move on to other issues”? How seriously are our considerations taken? But all witnesses, of course, would ask the same question.

I think also there's a distinction made between state and church, which is behind the question, and faith and politics. I think it's appropriate to separate state and church. Churches are certain types of institutions, and states are different types of institutions. You don't want one controlling the other. So we need to keep that somewhat separate. It's different from saying we should separate faith and politics, because we all come to the table with a faith perspective.

When I look at the regulatory bodies, my question is, are they are intentionally trying to make sure that the diversity of views that Canadians hold are there, at the table, to be heard? I think that appropriately would be a secular notion, where you have an open table where all views come to express their concerns, which is different from a secularist approach that somehow says when you come to the table you have to leave your faith at the door, you have to check it.

So it's not just whether we as a national association feel that we have a spot at the table; it's whether people who share our views, values, and principles are allowed to be at the table. Are they excluded because somehow they are religious, which implies that other people are not? I think all people have a religious, faith, or ideological perspective that they bring to the table, and all should be welcome and heard. Then we have to come to what John Rawls calls the overlapping consensus of a diversity of views, for the common good of Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clemenger.

Your time is up, Mr. Merrifield.

We'll move to Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you. We are grateful to you for having made us aware of the fact that the bill we will eventually put forward will obviously be very closely related to ethical considerations. I don't think anyone can deny that.

Moreover, as a legislator, I am not willing to venture into considerations based on religion or faith. I do not feel that the draft bill should lead to a reopening of the debate on abortion, on the term used to describe the embryo or on its status, or on the exact time when that embryo can be considered human. Personally, I hope that we can avoid such a debate.

The purpose of this study relates to the situation where couples, for a variety of reasons, find that they are infertile and have at their disposal a number of new technologies that must be used in a dignified manner. A number of witnesses have today reminded us that, as legislators, we must not lose sight of this dignity. I am prepared to follow that path without reservation.

Moreover, when you urge us to change definitions in a subtle way, reopen the debate on abortion, on the moment when life begins, etc., as far as I am concerned, I am not ready to follow you. I want to make that perfectly clear.

We must understand that one person's faith can exclude someone else's. We have heard antinomic statements made here. For the representative of Muslim women, life is a gift from God and procreation, at the very least, is not a question of choice, but a blessing from Allah. I can respect that point of view. But there are couples who might like to have some type of intervention, who would like to have a greater control over the time in their lives when they might choose to have children, and this point of view should also be respected. Therefore, you will understand that, as legislators, we cannot base our legislation on beliefs related to one faith as opposed to another because there would be no end to it.

• 1255

That being said, I would be in favour of one recommendation that was made. I cannot remember which one of you made the recommendation. It might have been Mr. Clemenger or yourself who suggested that we state in the preamble that Parliament is interested in protecting human life. I believe that would be in order and would not ultimately lead to the debate on abortion.

As for the rest, I must admit that I sometimes felt that you were trying to open a debate which is not what Minister Allan Rock had in mind when he asked us to table a report.

What I have just said was more of a comment than a question.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you're at three minutes and you don't have a question out yet.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I was sharing. We have been speaking of spirituality and values, and I would suggest that you yourself show some tolerance.

[English]

The Chair: Could we get to the question, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is the question: what did you mean when you said that you wanted the preamble to include the protection of human life?

[English]

The Chair: To whom are you directing that question, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: To Mr. Clemenger or Ms. Leddy.

[English]

Ms. Jennifer Leddy: Perhaps I can say something.

The Chair: I think it's your turn.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Yes, I think she made the comment, too.

Ms. Jennifer Leddy: All right.

I will make just one comment for the consideration of the committee, Mr. Ménard, on your concern about reopening the debate around abortion. It's just something for consideration that some people, some philosophers, some ethicists would say that we are talking about the embryo in quite a different situation.

Now, the Catholic Church's position on abortion is well known. It's quite clear. Our view of the human embryo as a human being, and an entity that ought to be respected as a person, is clear and unambiguous. We know there are people who do not share that view. However, I think we and they could find some common ground in the situation around these technologies that concern assisted reproduction, because in abortion there is a unique life situation in which one life is within another life. There are competing charter values.

In the case of an embryo that might be experimented upon, the embryo is standing alone, by him or herself. They are alone. There are no competing charter values. There is no competing charter value of a kind of general desire to benefit humanity. Now, that is a worthy goal, but it's not a charter value. So I think that is one way through the dilemma you have raised.

The Chair: Dr. Campion.

Dr. Bridget Campion: I think I was the one who mentioned protecting human life. Certainly, as you know, we are very interested in protecting the life of the human embryo, but we are also interested in protecting women's lives as well. A lot of this technology is still very, very experimental. We are still feeling the effects of DES, for instance. It is turning up in the grandchildren of women who have used it. We do not know the long-term effects of the hormone therapies that women are routinely undergoing in order to achieve super-ovulation. We simply don't know.

From my own perspective, I am especially concerned that a lot of this medicalization, a lot of this intervention, is aimed at women, turning women into producers. It's an industrialized, medicalized model of human reproduction. It may carry with it dangers that we simply do not know yet.

So our interest is certainly in the life of the human embryo, which you may or may not agree with, but our interest is also in adult lives, and the lives of children who may be born.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard. I think your time is up.

We'll go to Ms. Sgro now.

• 1300

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you very much for helping us to gain information on such a very complex and difficult issue for all of us as parliamentarians. It's a tremendous challenge to be in this position of having to try to sort this issue out.

I have a question on the national regulatory body that was made reference to. If we don't move forward with some of these things, there are tremendous abuses happening out there within a system that has no regulations, and no ongoing enforcement. I assume, then, providing we put sufficient prohibitions and controls, we're going in the right direction with this draft bill?

The Chair: To whom are you directing that question, Ms. Sgro?

Ms. Judy Sgro: I guess to any of the members who would want to respond to it.

Ms. Farhat Rehman: As I had stated, maybe in the future there will be more input from the larger community as well, and certainly from people who have both the medical and the spiritual or cultural perspective on that. They may be more helpful in determining what the sensitivities of the population are, but definitely, when you have gained all the perspectives a regulatory body should have that heed...to implement or to regulate the procedures as they happen.

The Chair: Ms. Kalsang, would you like to comment on that question? Are we going in the right direction here, considering the abuses that are already out there?

Ven. Tenzin Kalsang: That's just what I was thinking about. I come from a pretty idealistic perspective. We have a very exploitive, terrible world community, where greed and abusing others is actually an accepted way of life, but this, I feel, really gets down to the gross level.

Sexual abuses of women and children are accepted because women accept them. Exploiting people for greed is a way of life in the world. Amassing huge amounts of money is also sanctioned, and is actually socially blessed.

Yes, our whole way of life in the world is people being harmful towards each other—each man for himself, all's fair in love and war, and competition at every level of life. Our life is shameful.

I don't really expect you to pay too much attention to me, because I would change the world, if I could, and particularly in this area. As I said, I would put the kibosh on it.

I not sure who said this, but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

The Chair: It was the minister who said it.

Ven. Tenzin Kalsang: The minister? Aha.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ven. Tenzin Kalsang: Well, I agree. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. We can do all kinds of things. We have an intelligence that, when it's divorced from the heart, can be very cruel. We need to always bring our heart into it, because when we bring our heart into it we come up with a different solution.

We know what Oppenheimer did with the H-bomb, right? We've never gotten over that, not to this day. He was a person whose head was divorced from his heart. Whenever we divorce head from heart, we have problems.

Really, I feel helpless, because I go around teaching things that people don't really want to know. Everybody wants more jewellery, more money, more cars, and I'm here saying renounce it, come in contact with your heart, and start to be nice to each other. Don't try to rip each other off.

I have an awful feeling, you see—I know for certain, really—that all of this engineering is quite heartless. I know that. It's an ego trip for parents to have children. Very rarely do parents have children because this is a sacred being. Usually parents have children because they want them to be mirrors of themselves, or they want their children to do something they didn't have the opportunity to do. They don't have altruistic intentions.

• 1305

We're all going to be harmful unless we start with altruistic intentions. If we did that, we would be less manipulative and less controlling of each other, and more controlling of ourselves. I don't think anybody has mentioned the word discipline today. Self-discipline is what we all need.

The Chair: Thanks, Ms. Kalsang. I'll be sure to tell the minister he has a new fan.

The next questioner is Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for very excellent presentations. I would say this particular debate raises issues that are fundamental to the very essence of our humanity. The most profound of our human experiences is our ability to procreate, and the most intimate. That's precisely why, I believe, in contrast to remarks made earlier by my colleague, the committee has invited the faith community to enter into dialogue with us. These issues are extremely important. They touch the very essence of our fundamental beliefs as human beings. So we do welcome you here to entertain this and to enter into dialogue with us.

The concept of family, relationships, children, children's ability to know their parents—so many of these profound issues you've raised and addressed are very basic issues. Just as was said here earlier by Ms. Kalsang, just because we can do something perhaps doesn't mean we should.

With regard to chimera, the creation of animal-human hybrids, there are some very questionable practices. You might, as you've raised, wonder why we would want to go there with research. But on the other side, we seem to be on the verge of very exciting scientific breakthroughs, as was mentioned by one of you today. There was a Globe and Mail article yesterday about adult stem cells being used to recreate sphincter muscles in the bladder, and about being able to isolate adult stem cells from the same human being and create cardiac tissue in myocardial infarct. We seem to be on the very threshold of tremendous scientific breakthroughs.

I think I heard you say this particular avenue would be an avenue of preferred research. If we're going to proceed with a whole lot of money in this area, is this something that would be more acceptable, certainly in the faith community?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): Who would you like to answer your question, Mr. Lunney?

Mr. James Lunney: I would throw it out to those who are most interested in responding, but I would suggest our Catholic friends, perhaps, and I think Bruce mentioned it as well.

Ms. Jennifer Leddy: Yes, a resounding yes to research for adult stem cells, absolutely. Perhaps the researchers on the committee could provide to the committee a list of all the research being done on adult stem cell therapy. A really good compendium of what is out there would be our suggestion.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: This bill is very much about choices, and through the prohibitions, we're saying, no, we can't go down that path. Through regulations, we're suggesting perhaps it's possible to go down this path.

Adult stem cell research, from the reading I've done, shows wonderful promise. It's not ethically contestable from what we heard last week. I don't think any one of us has suggested it violates our concerns from a faith perspective, although that might be too general a statement.

I would suggest, yes, let's go that direction. Let's go down the path less travelled. Let's put our funding decisions into avenues that show promise, that may be able to cure diseases. Let's put our energies into that rather than into what we feel may threaten human dignity and violate the deep moral beliefs of a number of Canadians.

And we have that option, stem cell research from embryos or adult stem cell research. We know one of the avenues causes deep difficulties for many of us Canadians. Even the ethicists admitted last week, not from a faith perspective but from an ethical perspective, that embryo research, or at least the destructions, poses an ethical problem. They grapple with it.

• 1310

When we have this other alternative, why don't we put our energies into that? Let's put our funding into that. Let's let the CIHR pursue that range of alternatives rather than something that's more controversial and that we believe undermines human dignity.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): Ms. Kalsang.

Ven. Tenzin Kalsang: Perhaps I can add that we Buddhists believe an embryo, after 30 days, is...and I'm not even sure of my terminology, but I'll keep it to this. After 30 days, if a being is destroyed, that is considered murder from the Buddhist perspective.

We take the view of karma, which means that every person is placed responsible for their own action, but of course people have to be informed of what the consequences of their actions will be. So if people have to do with, for instance, manufacturing embryos for stem cells, this is something they're going to pay a huge price for doing, because they have to actually destroy the life of that being in order to “harvest” the stem cells, I guess you would call it. It's almost a new language.

At any rate, even though it looks innocent, I suppose like a little blob, this is a human being after 30 days.

The other traditions might say “God will smite you if you destroy that being”, but we say your life will be shortened if you destroy a being who is more than 30 days old. So I think so-called scientists need to be informed of the dangers in destroying the life of that being. We call everybody sentient beings, meaning that we feel pain and pleasure. Everybody, including little cockroaches, feel pain and pleasure, so we revere cockroaches, too.

So I think it's really a matter of saying to scientists “Beware of what you're doing to your own karma”.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Kalsang.

Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for coming. It was most interesting. We see that our faith, our beliefs and our values are all different, but I believe that we have one thing in common in our spiritual journey: the respect for human dignity. We all agree on that point.

Vénérable, I was touched by the wisdom of your words. This is the XXIst century and the technology already exists. I know we have to use all available means, we have to fight as hard as we can, to prevent the use of some of these technologies, such as reproductive cloning. I know that I will never give up. I think this truly goes against human dignity. If ever this technology were accepted, it would be the end of the world for me.

However, some countries have already accepted that research should investigate the use of certain techniques for therapeutic purposes. I know that in certain laboratories, it will be possible to build a clone of your own body from adult stem cells if you are ill. Currently, the big problem with organ transplants is rejection. Because of certain biological factors, the recipient often rejects the organ that was just implanted. To avoid this problem and because there are many patients waiting for donated organs, this technique will be used for therapeutic purposes.

• 1315

I wonder whether we should do that. Personally, I would be in favour of this, because if my child were sick and if I knew that he could be cured using one of his own cells, I would be unable, as a mother, to say no to this practice. I would like to hear your opinion on that.

[English]

Ven. Tenzin Kalsang: I do have an opinion on that. Since everything from the Buddhist perspective is happening because of karma, as you said, some human beings, when they're given a transplanted organ, reject them. We maintain that this is because the people who have the karma to not reject it of course don't. Some people do not have the karma. We say that if they have not created the causes and conditions for that particular procedure to be therapeutic, then of course they will reject the organ and they will pass away.

You know, you can give two people the same kind of medicine—a pill, let's say—and for one it will work and the other it won't. This is because in past lives they have not created the karma.

Ultimately, then, we can do whatever we like. We can give people whatever we like. If it works, it is because they have created the karma for it to work. If it doesn't work, they haven't created the karma. I would call this the ultimate acid test. When it works, it's something that was sort of meant to be. When it doesn't work, it wasn't meant to be.

Take the side effects, for instance. I've heard that they don't really have good control over using the stem cells, and that they can inject stem cells, or whatever it is they do, for one purpose and they can have something else happen that is undesirable and unwanted. The main thing, as I said, is intention. If people have the intention to do benefit and they don't have the intention to harm, then their action is pure. If they only have the intention to make money or become famous—this is the scientist—then it's like they are giving poison to people.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): Thank you.

Just one further comment, because our time is up here.

Ms. Rehman, just quickly.

Ms. Farhat Rehman: I'll give you just a quick perspective. I had a sister-in-law who had a heart valve transplant. As you know, Muslims don't eat the flesh of pork. In her mind, the valve, which was developed from pig cells...so she did not accept it, and consequently she died. But that is not an Islamic perspective. It's only the flesh to eat that's forbidden. Any research that is done, and material developed to enhance your ability to live further.... If that surgery would have been successful, then that is what would have mattered in that case.

Again, if she had known that this was a human product, she would have been amenable to that and accepted it.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): No connection with the pig.

Ms. Farhat Rehman: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): Thank you very much.

Are there any further questions from the committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have finished asking our questions. However, for our future work, I think that we will agree that we cannot carry on. In any case, we do not have a quorum. Are you going to ensure that the chair calls a committee meeting on Tuesday morning to work on blood donations?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): That will be up to the chair. Unfortunately, given the time problems, the chair had to leave for another meeting. It will be up to the call of the chair if we're going to have another meeting next Tuesday.

On behalf of the committee and the chair, I'd like to thank all of our witnesses very much for helping us become more informed on the issue. I know you'll be following it, and we may see each other again as we go through this process.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Madam Chair...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): Yes, Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I understand that this is the chair's decision, but I would like to say that it would be important to hold this meeting next week. Thus, we would be able to settle this matter. Let me say that regarding this issue, I am speaking for those who are absent.

• 1320

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Judy Sgro): Okay. That will be noted and we will discuss it with Ms. Brown later on.

Meeting adjourned.