HEAL Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, December 4, 2002

1550

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

1555

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1600

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1605

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Justice)

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1610

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

1615

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber (Director General, Policy Planning and Priorities Directorate, Department of Health)

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

1620

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

1625

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

1630

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

1635

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1640

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

1645

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

1650

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

1655

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Francine Manseau (Senior Policy Analyst, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Department of Health)

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Francine Manseau

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1700

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Ms. Francine Manseau

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1705

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1710

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Francine Manseau

The Chair

Ms. Francine Manseau

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

1715

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Caroline Weber

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1720

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Glenn Rivard

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Glenn Rivard

1725

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1730

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Ms. Francine Manseau

1735

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Sonya Norris (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

1740

Ms. Caroline Weber

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Weber

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Rodney Ghali (Policy Analyst, Department of Health)

1745

The Chair

Mr. Rodney Ghali

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Rodney Ghali

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1750

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

Mr. Glenn Rivard

The Chair

1755

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Sonya Norris

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

M. Réal Ménard

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 012

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, December 4, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1550)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll resume our clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-13.

I would just like to suggest that when an amendment is introduced--we'll begin with amendment CA-7 today, on page 7 of your booklet--the mover be very clear about what he or she is suggesting. For example, in amendment CA-7, there's really only a one-word change. It's changing “capacities” to “capabilities”. That is what's being suggested, and I'm wondering if the mover could restrict comments to that.

In other words, Mr. Merrifield could say something like, “I'm suggesting that we change “capacities” to “capabilities”, and I feel it's a better word because...”, as opposed to all the other facets of the bill. I think it would be more efficient.

The other thing is, I've gone through and underlined these one-word or two-word changes, because sometimes there's a lot more on the piece of paper in the amendment package than we really need. It would help everybody to home in on exactly what is being proposed. So I would ask all movers to do that as we get to your amendments.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Chair, I've received a number of suggestions. I realize that yesterday, we passed a motion respecting sexual orientation. However, it was my impression that we might be able to reconsider the wording of this provision later. Would that be possible? The provision could be made more interesting, or so I was told, if the words “notably” were added. I myself made this suggestion, drawing a comparison with section 15 of the Charter. Since this wording would cover a broader range of possible grounds of discrimination, I would have no objections to adopting an amendment, at the appropriate time of course, if the committee was amenable. This is provided we revisit this particular clause. The wording of the amended provision would read as follows:

d.1) persons who undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not, in any case and for any reason, be the object of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or marital status;

Personally, if there was a consensus, I would be pleased, and all the better if a spirit of good will prevailed.

[English]

The Chair: It doesn't seem to be a major change; however, there were other people present when we voted on that yesterday, so I would rather have it come back when we have the full group reassembled, which we don't quite have. Considering the time, I think we should move forward, but you can bring that up at another time, when everybody is present.

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

We'll start with amendment CA-7.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Before doing that, can we discuss the issue that I had brought forward to you a few minutes ago?

The Chair: Oh, okay.

This is a procedural issue. Mr. Merrifield has just found out, as I guess some of the rest of you have, that tomorrow is a Bloc opposition day, and their opposition motion revolves around the Romanow report. This would suggest that people on the health committee might want to talk, and I know at least four people on this side will be booked into the speaking list.

Mr. Merrifield has asked if we could switch tomorrow for Tuesday of next week--in other words, not meet tomorrow on this.

Is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right. We would meet on this on Tuesday instead. So we're not losing any time, we're just--

The Chair: We're just trading.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: --speaking on Romanow in the House tomorrow rather than one of the days we were going to talk about Romanow next week.

The Chair: Why don't I give you a minute to think about that and maybe talk among yourselves a little bit, and in the meantime we could move on with amendment CA-7 and in about half an hour come back to this question

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Madam Chair, I'm not quite sure. We're supposed to meet on Monday--

The Chair Yes.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: --for the clause-by-clause. So that would stay?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: In other words, on Monday morning we would carry on work from tonight and go on until Tuesday.

The Chair: Correct.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Okay.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: All we'd trade is tomorrow for Tuesday. So we wouldn't lose any time at the committee.

The Chair: No, but the closer we get to the shutting down of the House, the chancier all this becomes. That's my only worry about it.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Was there something scheduled for us on Tuesday?

The Chair: One two-hour slot for Romanow, but Mr. Merrifield is willing to trade that to get tomorrow.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Are we assuming that tomorrow is on here? Because we hear it could go on finance.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, no, it's a supply day motion for the Bloc. It was announced half an hour ago.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This motion relates to the Romanow Report.

[English]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Okay. So there's only one motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's an excellent motion.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I don't doubt that.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It concerns respect for jurisdictions and the Romanow Report.

[English]

The Chair: Would you read it out, Dr. Lunney, please?

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): It's a Bloc motion for a supply day, that the federal government give the provinces the additional money for health unconditionally, with the promise of the provinces to use all of it for health care.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: That's not Romanow.

Mr. James Lunney: It's Romanow. Romanow recommended conditions on the.... It's all on Romanow.

The Chair: But it's financing. As somebody has pointed out, it could be that the finance committee will be equally interested.

Mr. James Lunney: Romanow is buying change with money.

The Chair: Dr. Bennett, the suggestion from Mr. Merrifield is that because the Bloc's opposition day is on Romanow--and you just heard the motion--we not meet on this tomorrow and we add Tuesday to our calendar.

Dr. Fry would like to comment.

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): May I make a suggestion, Madam Chair, that we keep our spot in the morning and that we leave the afternoon free for anyone here who chooses to discuss the Romanow piece, to get on that list for the afternoon? At least we'll have a half day. According to Mr. Ménard's motion, we were going to be doing this anyway on Tuesday.

I would like to suggest--

The Chair: No, no, all day Monday. We hope to finish Monday night.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Then why don't we just--

The Chair: This seems to be a compromise piece.

Ms. Hedy Fry: My suggestion is that we continue clause-by-clause tomorrow morning, then in the afternoon we go and speak to Romanow.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That doesn't work for me, since I have to deliver my speech tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Perhaps we could reconvene tomorrow afternoon to continue our work.

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry: You can send a substitute.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me?

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): In light of what's happening and the request that's being made, and the way the committee is operating, I think it's absolutely essential that all members be here. We can discuss each and every one of these clauses and the amendments to these clauses.

I don't think we should operate with key people absent. I don't know what kind of schedule the opposition is going to present before the--

The Chair: It would be Réal Ménard and Rob Merrifield in the morning, and maybe Judy, then anybody else, including the Liberals, in the afternoon.

Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Madam Chair, I guess from other committees I've been on, whenever we get to legislation and start clause-by-clause, it is always the most important thing that's going on in the world. At least, that's what I've learned in the three years I've been here. Boy, when you hit clause-by-clause everybody cancels everything because this becomes what you have to do. It's the priority and we have to do it. Unless someone dies in the family, you are to be here, and we have to work all hours, night and day. So far, that's what I've heard in the three years I've been here.

This issue has been going on so long and the Canadian public wants us to deal with it. I think most of us are trying to get our schedules settled so we're focused this week. Next week is not going to be a good week for any of us. If we don't really care whether we get this legislation through, then we should just say it. We're never going to get this through if we don't keep going at, probably, a much faster pace than we've already started.

I don't want to say.... If somebody has to go and speak to that because they think it's important, then fine; you're not going to be here on this issue. It's very simple.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm surprised to hear members on that side arguing in the manner we've just heard. We've all been hearing, especially from that side, that health care is the number one concern of Canadians. I think we're all aware of that. Romanow is the government's answer to the health care crisis. The minister said she is going to respond early, and the government is going to form its health care policy around the Romanow, or at least that's the indication we have from government.

It's not as if we're dropping our issue here for any great length of time. It's to focus on what is the mandate for all of us here. We're all here on this committee, presumably, because we're concerned about health. It's simply trying to juggle our priorities. We do have a responsibility on this side--you guys have a few more numbers than we do--to speak on these issues. We represent the people in our party and are best able to address this Bloc motion that's come up. We have an obligation to be there to do so. We'd certainly ask the committee to respect that.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, do you have a final comment?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. I don't think it's an attempt to change or to limit the time of committee. All we're saying is that we would take the limited debate we would have on Romanow on Tuesday, change that for an all-day debate in the House on Romanow, and take tomorrow, when we were to work on this, and have two days back to back, Monday and Tuesday. That would actually flow a lot better anyway.

It's not changing any time at all and it's not changing the direction of the committee. It's following it in what is probably a little more efficient way because we can actually debate it in the House in a fairly thorough way all day tomorrow. That's really all we're saying, and I'm making a motion to that effect.

º (1600)

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield has made a procedural motion that we make this switch of plans, Thursday's clause-by-clause examination to be moved to next Tuesday.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Would you address CA-7, Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's quite a simple change but it's a fairly important one. We're talking about capacities of reproduction technologies, and it sounds quite mechanical. If you get the capacity to do something, it's a very mechanical term, more on the performance-oriented side, and it almost makes people into machines. Now, when you talk about capabilities, it's the same intent, but it's much closer to what you would expect.

I don't think there's anything other than that. It's just a better word for where we're trying to go to when we're talking about human life.

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: We have no objections, Madam Chair. However, in my opinion, in the French version, the expression “fonctions reproductives” shouldn't be replaced with the word “capacités”, as is being proposed here. I believe “fonctions reproductives ” is the correct term. Indeed, it is the expression found in the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay, Mr. Merrifield is not suggesting a change in the French.

Mr. Merrifield, do you care about the French?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, it's just that it's a better word in English, “capabilities” rather than “capacities”, that's all.

The Chair: So we should write there that in French it stays “fonction”. You're really just suggesting that we amend the English.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, would you please just address the places where it is different in your amendment.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): The wording is simply to prepare the way to add a last part to clause 2 and to include the precautionary principle as a defining characteristic of this legislation, one that will be defined later on in further amendments.

The Chair: Yes, there are further amendments this affects; the precautionary principle is defined in the second one, and there is a further point made about it in the third one. The question is whether you want the precautionary principle listed as a principle of this act.

Are there any comments?

Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I recall that we discussed this matter at lengthy during our deliberations. My understanding was that any procedures affecting health were guided by this principle.

Therefore, I don't quite understand why we need to add anything. Perhaps I'm wrong about this and those better versed in legal jargon could tell us whether or not there is any benefit to making this change.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would just very briefly suggest that it's rather important for legislation on reproductive technologies to have the “do no harm” principle included. We are talking about innovations and developments that have a direct impact on the health and well-being of women, something we've acknowledged as a committee. This motion is simply to ensure that this is a fundamental notion that's built into the entire process, the entire legislative framework, and the entire regulatory provisions around assisted reproductive technologies.

º (1605)

The Chair: Hearing no further comments, I'll call the question on NDP-2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Next we have CA-8. Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We've talked about this. It came up in a couple of speeches in the House when the minister actually spoke on this bill. I spoke on it as well, and I chatted with her after.

The intent is that, you know, to create an embryo you have two parents, or two donors, and it doesn't speak to the two. Each biological parent of the embryo should be considered and should have recognition. We could leave it and put it in regulations, but if that's what we mean, then we should say it. It's a very simple change, that each biological parent of the embryo be talked about. I think it's very clear, and I don't think it changes the intent. When I talked to the minister, she certainly agreed that she meant both donors, male and female.

I don't see this as being anything other than clarifying what may be a misconception. I've had lots of letters on this one from lots of people nervous about the idea of the donor maybe not being both, as far as that goes. It's just a way to be a little more transparent.

The Chair: Is there any further comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would this addition come after the definition of “donor”? How would the amended provision be worded?

[English]

The Chair: Well, it's paragraph (b) under “donor” in clause 3, lines 31 and 32 on page 2, and you'll see that it already reads “in relation to an in vitro embryo, a donor as defined in the regulations.” The difference is, instead of “a donor as defined”, it says “each biological parent of the embryo.” Those are the different words.

Mr. Glenn Rivard (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): I'll just make some comments on it.

Take a very typical situation, one where you have an anonymous semen donor and a couple for whom an embryo has been created, the ovum being the woman's ovum. If you follow this definition, the people who would have to give consent to any use of that embryo would be the semen donor and the woman of the couple. The husband of the couple would not be involved in any decision-making with respect to that embryo.

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, it's my understanding that defining who is or is not a parent falls within provincial family law. I think that in Quebec the legal ties between the biological gamete donor and its offspring have already been severed. That's one thing to be pointed out.

As well, clause 14 outlines the consent requirements for donors of gametes. They must be provided with full information, and they must accept beforehand what is going to happen to that embryo when they donate their gametes. I think that at the end of the day, what this bill is trying to do is set out the fact that the people who are going to have that child as a result of that in vitro fertilization are going to be the social parents, the family. They're starting a family. They're not just biological clumps of cells. There now is a child in the family, and the decisions made concerning that child also have to be included in family law. The parents of that child, who are the actual social unit, should be making those decisions about anything to do with the family they're starting.

So I would like to speak against this motion.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I just don't understand—

º (1610)

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, she's saying she doesn't want the word “parent” attached to the donors. The parent idea is reserved, in her mind, for the social parents, the people who actually receive the baby, if a baby results.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: When we talk about biological parents, I just don't understand where we're coming from. If we mean, let's say...the example of having the authorization of use for an embryo for research, that it could only come from one donor, being perhaps the mother rather than from the...or donation from the ova rather than from the sperm. I'm saying that we should consider both biological parents of that embryo in that process, and I think that's the intent of the bill.

Ms. Hedy Fry: If you look at clause 14 in the bill, it outlines the consent requirements for donors. They must be provided with full information about all the possible uses of the gametes and any resulting embryos. Their consent is obtained before the donation is made, so they have already participated in their own piece of consent. If they don't like the decision, that the--quote, unquote--“parents” are going to be the ones who are going to be the ones making any decision with regard to the embryo, they don't have to donate.

So you've already set that up, and now you can't just go ahead and interfere with clause 14, which is a form of consent already set up for donors.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Won't this reaffirm what's happening in clause 14?

Ms. Hedy Fry: No, it won't. It actually is contrary to that. It's setting up a totally different set of rules.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I fail to understand that.

The Chair: I think it's now simply a matter of the committee deciding on which side of this argument they fall.

Seeing no further—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): If this would clarify it at all, I have a serious issue with using the word “parent” for someone who had no intention of parenting.

The Chair: So that's a further clarification of the situation.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We are now on CA-9. Mr. Merrifield....

Yes, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Since we're moving into the area of substantive definitions, and there are no substantial amendments from the government with regard to the definitions, I thought it would be useful to have a statement from the officials regarding earlier testimony. In testimony to the committee, Dr. Ronald Wharton raised the issue of either incorrect or problematic definitions. He didn't want to go through them with a fine-toothed comb, but urged us to have some knowledgeable people go through the definitions, to ensure things weren't slipping through.

The Chair: That may have been said, Mr. Szabo, but we are dealing now with CA-9. I think the officials presented to us only a few weeks ago. They would have clarified that if they'd thought there was some problem.

A lot of testimony from witnesses is not being included in this package by anybody, either by the government or by members. So not all testimony is going to make it into the amendment package.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand, Madam Chair—

The Chair: May I point out with CA-9 that it also affects four other amendments on four different pages.

So when we decide this, we'll also be deciding some of the others.

Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: I think the question Mr. Szabo is raising here is one where one of the top witnesses on this issue—the head of the whole stem cell network for Canada—raised serious concerns about these definitions.

The Chair: Okay.

May I ask the committee, how many people would like to hear from the experts about the accuracy of the definitions? Raise your hands, please, if you'd like to hear that.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Accuracy of the definitions?

The Chair: Well, that's essentially what Mr. Szabo is raising.

Those opposed to stopping here to talk about definitions, please raise your hands.

Mr. James Lunney: I have a point of order here.

The Chair: I don't have to have a motion to do that. In the chair I am trying to please most of the committee most of the time, and there is nothing wrong with asking for a show of hands. It just means it doesn't have to be recorded.

An hon. member: Can the clerk give an explanation of whether it's in order to do that?

º (1615)

The Chair: On trying to gauge the will of the committee through a show of hands.

Speak up, please.

The Clerk of the Committee: There's nothing wrong with just asking what the members would like to do. It doesn't need to be a formal motion. But it could, if it wants...

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd like to ask the clerk if the effect of asking the members informally whether they want to proceed or whether they want to talk about something...is in fact not a motion required, and calling for a vote? In that regard, I'm not sure that it's in order for the chair to move a motion.

The Chair: I'm trying to determine the will of the committee about process.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: But when we go to vote, does that mean it's a motion--

The Chair: In actual fact, on that vote half the people on this side didn't vote at all. It is very hard to glean the wishes of the committee if people don't vote.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But you do that, Madam Chair, with respect, by the discussion, the consensus. Madam Chair, I only wanted to raise this matter--I think I can help us move forward--because I had been advised by the officials that indeed they have done something with regard to responding. They actually went back to another body to check. I think that the reassurances from the officials that they did consider Diane Irving's filed submission and Dr. Wharton's observations have in fact been addressed. I don't want to speak for them, but I believe they sent it back and asked the CIHR to strike a committee to review it. I think if their opinion can come back that they are satisfied that there are no deficiencies vis-à-vis the definitions as were speculated by Dr. Wharton....

The Chair: Dr. Weber--or Ms. Weber.

Ms. Caroline Weber (Director General, Policy Planning and Priorities Directorate, Department of Health): Actually, Dr. Weber is okay; I have a PhD.

We do have some amendments that are in here. We believe they address the concerns of Dr. Wharton, although not all of the witnesses that Mr. Szabo is referring to. But we do have some amendments in here, so if we continue with the process and go through them in order, we will get to them.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're at CA-9.

The clerk is pointing out to me that we actually have finished clause 2.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, would you like members to vote on this amendment?

[English]

The Chair: I think we have more people here now. Mr. Ménard wants to go back to his amendment, which carried yesterday, with a suggested friendly amendment that some experts suggested to him.

Mr. Ménard, explain it again, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: In the quest for legal perfection, I'm told that if...

[English]

The Chair: The only person who wasn't here at the first explanation was Dr. Bennett.

Could you pay attention? Because you're going to have to vote in a minute.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I've been totally up to date on your excellent ideas.

An hon. member: So you don't have to speak.

The Chair: Okay, so Dr. Bennett knows, and we all know, so....

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: In the quest for legal perfection, I've been told that if we were to go with the following wording, then we would achieve the objective the committee had in mind when it voted on the amendment yesterday. Moreover, the text would be more interesting. The provision would therefore read as follows:

(d.1) persons who undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not, in any case and for any reason, be the object of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or marital status;

As I pointed out, calling to mind my course in advanced constitutional law at the University of Ottawa given by Professor Pelletier, a known federalist, the words “notably” would be more all-encompassing, should the provision ever be the focus of a court challenge. I'm quite willing to live with the amendment, if that's the will of the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, according to the clerk, I need a motion to reconsider that amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I move that the committee reconsider this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. So we'll vote on that.

(Motion agreed to)

º (1620)

The Chair: Now, Mr. Ménard, would you make your motion to do what it is you want to do, which is to add the word.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's what I just said, Madam Chair. The beginning changes slightly, but mainly we're adding the words “notably”. The committee's stated aim remains the same, specifically, an explicit reference to sexual orientation and marital status. Since my reasons for seeking this change are the same as they were yesterday, I will dispense with any further comments.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. So it's the addition of the word “notably”.

Mr. James Lunney: Where?

The Chair: Before “on the grounds of sexual orientation or marital status”.

Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I would like to ask a question of the experts.

What does “notably” do in law to change, if anything, the intent of that motion? First, why is it making the motion better, and second, does it change the intent of the motion at all?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Maybe I can answer that question.

Essentially, the changes are drafting and technical in nature; they don't really change the objective of the motion, but they do I think improve the quality of the drafting of the motion in several ways. Referring to the English corresponding changes, we now speak about persons who seek to undergo these procedures, because that is actually the point in time in which people would be discriminated against.

We then go on to say that they must not be discriminated against--that's the standard language used in federal statutes in this sort of provision--including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status. So the effect is that we address all grounds of discrimination but we draw particular attention to the two grounds that were of concern to Monsieur Ménard and other members of this committee.

The Chair: Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Perhaps you could clarify something for me. Yesterday we had voted down two amendments by Mr. Merrifield. I think we voted them down on the issue of disability, and putting disability in here, because the clerk had suggested that we were getting beyond the scope of our--

The Chair: Excuse me, Madam Sgro, but I don't think we can talk about amendments that are gone. At this point we have an amendment on the floor that has to do with these other two topics, and we're going to have a vote on that.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Well, one second, then--

The Chair: But procedurally, if you want to ask to reconsider those others, you have the right to do that later.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Yesterday, Mr. Rivard, in relation to this particular motion, you told the committee that you felt that this was beyond the scope as far as what was necessary.

Tell me why this isn't necessary, then, in your words rather than mine.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I don't recall saying that any of the provisions were beyond the scope of the bill. That's not really for me to say.

Ms. Judy Sgro: No, it was the clerk who indicated that.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: My recollection is that the committee did agree to proceed with the motion from Monsieur Ménard, and from what I understand of procedure, that's sufficient to allow the committee to proceed. So all that's being done here is to rejig the language a bit so that it fits within the bill better and will function better and carry out its object more effectively.

Ms. Judy Sgro: But the issue, for some of us, was whether or not this was necessary. We talked about the fact that you're not allowed today in this country to discriminate against anybody, whether it's sexual orientation or the issue of the disabled or anything else, and whether it was necessary to have this here.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Those interventions haven't changed at all, but given that the committee did approve this amendment, we are just trying to correct the language in the bill.

The Chair: The amendment was carried and it is being reconsidered only for the addition of these few words. So we shouldn't get into the substance of the amendment; we're here only to decide whether you agree to allow these few new words to be added, which don't substantively change the meaning but are simply more precise.

Dr. Lunney, don't go into the substance of the motion, only the words, in terms of whether you like them or not.

Mr. James Lunney: Whether I like them or not, there is not only the addition of one word; there are also deletions of other words from the amendment that we accepted yesterday.

º (1625)

The Chair: No, we're reconsidering the motion as amended yesterday, and adding words to it.

Mr. James Lunney: The amendment yesterday has words in it that are being deleted by this clause. And I think all members should know exactly--

The Chair: That was settled yesterday, though.

Mr. James Lunney: No, this is the Bloc motion I'm looking at, that we adopted.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Perhaps I could speak to that.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, I'm looking at a piece of paper here with no notation on the top, but it looks like a government amendment. Are you also trying to amend this clause? I think that's what you were talking about.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: My understanding is that Monsieur Ménard has asked for the change to the amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, the wording that's been suggested to me would apparently be more effective, from a legal standpoint. Admittedly, more than one word has been changed, the difference between “in any case and for any reason” and the proposed new wording, which would be broader in scope. However, the essence of the provision remains the same. What we're looking for is an explicit prohibition on discrimination on these two grounds. Basically, it ties in with what our Alliance colleagues were saying. The words “notably” would allow a court of law to recognize other forms of discrimination.

Without even talking to the government, I alluded to section 15 of the Charter which contains the words “in particular”. As members, we were made aware of the fact that where access to treatment was concerned, two specific types of discrimination had been observed: discrimination against lesbians and discrimination against single women. Hence the reason for these explicit references.

I don't think we should re-open the debate. Those who voted in favour of the amendment yesterday should support this particular one today. Those who were opposed yesterday should abstain, and then the motion can stand.

[English]

The Chair: Are you ready for the question, ladies and gentlemen?

Mr. James Lunney: No, this needs to be clarified.

The Chair: What is it? Do you think he's dropping “marital status” as well? You're going to vote against it.

Mr. James Lunney: What Mr. Ménard just gave me says that persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status. The word “notably” isn't in this draft.

We're talking about words. Words are important in this. That's what the whole thing is about.

The Chair: I agree, but I took him verbally and wrote in “notably” before “on the grounds of”. Is that not satisfactory?

Mr. James Lunney: Where exactly is it?

The Chair: Is it “notably” or not?

There's a piece of paper floating around up here that's different, so that's the confusion. Mr. Lunney must have that piece of paper, although I don't know where it came from.

Mr. James Lunney: It came from Monsieur Ménard. He was kind enough to give it to me. He includes the French word for “notably” in the French version, but “notably” is not in the English version.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: If I may, it's simply a matter of two language versions. They have the same sense. Somewhere in the translation of all of this, “notamment” has been translated as “notably”, which is a direct translation. Each language version has the same sense, and that is the object of the drafting. It is not to have a word-for-word correspondence between the two language versions. They achieve the same end. It's simply a product of the approach taken, if you will, that is most effective in each language.

The Chair: All right. I think we have the sense of it.

Do you want “including”, Dr. Lunney, seeing as you are taking the lead on this, or “notably”?

Mr. James Lunney: I suggest that we stand down on this until everyone has the wording in front of them.

The Chair: No. We all understand.

I'm going to call the question. Those who wish to vote for this new amendment, please raise your hands.

Mr. James Lunney: Do I have the right to have a recorded vote?

The Chair: Yes, you do.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

º (1630)

The Chair: The amendment to the motion passed yesterday carries, so the amendment of Mr. Ménard is reinstated with a slight change in words.

We're now on CA-9.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're getting into the definitions and....

The Chair: That's right, we have to approve clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry as amended? You can just all call out agreed.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can we then just go back?

The Chair: No, this is it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Then I would say no, because we have some other ones we'd like to see.

Mr. James Lunney: I call for a recorded vote, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We've had another request, by Dr. Lunney, for a recorded vote. This is the whole of clause 2, which we've now finished with.

Why do you need a recorded vote when you pretty well can tell who is going to vote which way? What is that for?

Mr. James Lunney: For history.

The Chair: Oh, for history. Do you think anybody is ever going to read this?

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 4)

(On clause 3--Definitions)

The Chair: Now, CA-9, Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay, we're into, as you said earlier, clause 3 definitions. The definitions are really quite important. We're down to the one on the embryo. We've had witness after witness come and tell us that it's just a biological fact that we're creating another human being. That's really all the intent of this. It just makes it a little stronger for the purpose. In the bill it says “for the purpose of creating a human being”, and we would just recommend that we put in “another human being”, because that's actually what we're doing.

An embryo is recognized as being such up to the 56th day, so we don't think there's anything other than just clarifying where we're at on that. I don't know how it impacts these other clauses you talked about earlier.

The Chair: Because I think you have “another” in on four other occasions.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Another...?

The Chair: Another human being.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're just being consistent if we change it here, right?

The Chair: Yes. But if it fails to carry here, we won't debate it again. It will have been decided. It's a consequential.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I understand that.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: G-1, Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, the purpose of this amendment is to shed some light on the issue of human cloning. We want to be certain that every possible angle, every possible procedure, has been covered. We were asked if that was the case with the present wording of the bill. The aim here is to clarify this particular provision.

[English]

The Chair: I think this plays into Mr. Szabo's comments earlier about the cleaning up of some of these definitions. This is one of the examples, I believe, is it not? Yes. So we have a different scientific term.

Seeing no hands, are you ready for the question?

º (1635)

Mr. James Lunney: No, I'd like an explanation. Could you please read the clauses that would read with the additions.

The Chair: Do you have the bill in front of you, Dr. Lunney?

Mr. James Lunney: Yes, I'm trying to figure out where that applies in lines 20 to 22. So where would that...?

The Chair: Lines 22 to 25.

Mr. James Lunney: It replaces 22 to 25?

The Chair: Yes; “contains”. See how it starts with half a word--“tains”--and it replaces all that? You're on page 3.

An hon. member: It's on page 3. You're on page 2. That's the problem.

The Chair: We're on page 3, James, of the bill.

Mr. James Lunney: Oh, we are? But is says clause 3--oh, on page 3.

The Chair: Lines 22 to 25.

Mr. James Lunney: Oh, excuse me, no wonder I'm having trouble.

The Chair: Both those start with “tains”.

Mr. James Lunney: Okay, contains “a diploid set of chromosomes obtained from a single--living or deceased--human being, foetus or embryo.”

The Chair: This is the response of people like Dr. Wharton or somebody else who's an expert who said that the original definition was not adequate. And so the officials have taken the advice of others to make it more clear.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I wonder if I could ask the officials to explain why the DNA was not an appropriate definition and had to be replaced by a description of a set of chromosomes. This, I believe, has to do with the difference between a medical definition and a biomedical definition. Is that what it is?

Ms. Caroline Weber: This is more precise. In fact, a member from Yellowhead had pointed out to this committee that the existing wording--as exists in the bill that you have, not in the amendment--didn't cover cases where the DNA sequence in a clone wasn't completely identical to the original. This would cover those kinds of incidental changes that we know happen often and would be broader, as Monsieur Castonguay has already pointed out.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Madam Chair.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: CA-10, Mr. Merrifield. Page 3, line 28.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. We were talking about the human reproductive material. When we were talking about that line, we were saying that “man gene, and includes a part or combination of any of”, which changes it. We are saying “and includes a part or combination of any of” them would be just adding some clarification to the definition.

I would ask you to give you input on that, Caroline, if you could.

Ms. Caroline Weber: I'm concerned that this change would confound human reproductive material with embryo and that it would have implications throughout the bill then, because throughout the bill we have separated gametes from the embryo. I think that this was also in response partly to the standing committee's recommendation that we recognize the separate status of the embryo. It seems to us that this would confound those two again.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't understand....

The Chair: Well, a combination of gametes is an embryo, so you're putting them in the same category. It was staff's understanding that you wanted to make sure that embryo was never confused with gametes.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, and I suppose looking at it the other way, you want to make sure that this, or combination of some parts, may not be human reproductive material.

The Chair: Sperm and eggs.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right.

The Chair: But once they go in combination, that combination could be an embryo, you see, and that's why you're pulling it back into the same category when we've gone to great lengths to try to make sure the embryo has a status of its own.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, I wouldn't have seen it that way, but if that's your interpretation of it, I can understand it.

The Chair: I don't think you want to do that.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No. If that's the way you interpret the intent, we can--

º (1640)

The Chair: Do you want to withdraw it then?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I can withdraw that.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Merrifield has withdrawn this. I think it's been explained really. Is there anybody else who is not clear? All right.

CA-11 is a consequential amendment to one you have already defeated, and as such I don't think we need to debate it again. It is essentially defeated by virtue of the debate that went on earlier. I'll just see if I have it here.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is in definitions, so would that be the same? I need some clarification.

The Chair: Yes. Your earlier amendment was defeated because the majority of the committee felt that the word “parent” was not suitable to be confused with or attached to the word “donor”. Now you're saying it again, “'parent'” means any donor contributing to a living human embryo”, and the committee defeated the earlier one on exactly that premise.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: But this is in definitions, right?

The Chair: Well, do you want to defeat it again? Because that's what they're going to do. They've already decided.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It really is strange to me that--

The Chair: It may be strange, but I'm saying this has been decided. Unless you have another angle to go at this from, I can't see taking any time. I told you at the outset that when we talked about “biological parent”, CA-8, the word “parent” isn't in the bill. So you're defining a term that isn't even in the bill.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Maybe we should define that term. I don't know.

The Chair: We know what you want, but the point is, it seems to be irrelevant. We've already discussed it fully and the committee has denied accepting your theory on it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, early on, but not on definitions.

The Chair: I'll give you--

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't know if you want to vote on it again or not. You can do it. It's not used anywhere else in the bill, but....

Mr. James Lunney: Our report was called Building Families.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. And if the intent of reproductive technology is not coming with the purpose of being a parent, then I don't understand how you'd say no to this. That's where it comes from.

The Chair: They're saying there are parents. The discussion ranged. There were parents who would eventually be part of this, but they weren't the donors, and that's what you're trying to establish.

At any rate, Mr. Merrifield wants to have a vote on this, so I'll call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: And we're not going to deal with donor as parents ever again, because we've defeated it twice now.

Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.

Oh, we've already decided. This is another consequential one. We've decided not to--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could we talk about it hypothetically?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: No, I don't think so.

I'll declare that NDP-3 has been ruled on, and therefore we won't vote on it.

LL-2 is somehow connected to G-2, so would you look at them both together, please? LL-2 will become redundant, because this is trying to say “donor or donors” in LL-2 and it has been graciously included by the government in writing G-2.

Any questions on G-2?

º (1645)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: So you're talking about G-2?

Mr. James Lunney: LL-2 is a Liberal amendment?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. James Lunney: And how is that different from G-2?

The Chair: I've just explained that, James. There is nothing different. LL-2 was trying to say “donor or donors” simply to take consideration of those embryos that came from two separate donors.

Mr. James Lunney: So you're dropping LL-2. Is that Madam Thibeault's?

The Chair: If G-2 passes, LL-2 has passed, by inference, or can be just withdrawn. We won't even move it.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Madam Chair, if I may.

The Chair: We have G-2 in front of us.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Madam Chair, I think they were both aimed at the same objective, which was to try to correct the definition of a “surrogate mother”, which I think we're all still struggling with a bit. So we had one and I think there was another member who had another. I think they're trying to deal with a similar problem, but they do it in very different ways, actually. I think LL-2 would have the text end on line 13 at “donor or donors”, right there.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on G-2?

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): I think it would be helpful if we could have the clause read each time, because I do find it difficult myself to follow along.

The Chair: A surrogate mother means a female person

who--with the intention of surrendering the child at birth to a donor or another person--carries an embryo or foetus that was conceived by means of an assisted reproduction procedure and derived from the genes of a donor or donors.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: LL-2 is now withdrawn, I believe, Madam Thibeault?

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5--Prohibited procedures)

The Chair: We're now on clause 5 on page four, and this is another case of “another” human being instead of “a” human being. We've already decided that, so I'll rule this as failed to carry.

We're on CA-13, Mr. Merrifield: line 21 on page 4.

º (1650)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This just continues with the intent. The amendment is to make sure that if embryos are used for reproductive technologies or reproductive research, it will not take place unless there is a licence. I think that's the intent of this piece of legislation. That's all we're doing, putting in the words “without a licence” to make it a little clearer, and it doesn't change anything as far as the intent goes.

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Actually, Madam Chair, this is a prohibited activity. The whole activity is prohibited. By inserting “without a licence”, you're suggesting that in fact if you have a licence, it is no longer prohibited. That is totally out of sync with what we want to do here. We want to prohibit it, period, with or without a licence.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll withdraw that, because I thought it was under the other clause.

The Chair: Thank you for pointing that out, Dr. Fry.

We're on CA-14. Again, it's “another” human being, so it's gone.

CA-15 concerns lines 22 to 24 on page 4, “purpose other than creating a human being”. He's removing “or improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures”. He's trying to remove a whole passage at the end.

Mr. Merrifield, please explain why you want to remove that latter part.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Embryos should not be created for any research purposes. That's clearly where we've been, and it's clearly where the intent of this piece of legislation is, that they not be created for that purpose. We have seen legislation in the United Kingdom, for example, that has moved to where you create them solely for the purpose of research. I don't think that's a Canadian value, and it never has been at this committee. We want to create them for the purpose of reproduction, and that's what the bill is all about. If that's the case, then we should be saying it, and that's why the amendment is there.

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, the whole piece includes “providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures”. Generally speaking, if you are a resident and you're learning how to do assisted reproduction, you will, with your boss there, actually do the assisted human reproduction. You will be implanting the embryo. That is what is meant here by providing instruction in assisted human reproduction procedures, but you're going to stop residents from ever training and being able to do this. By taking it there, you're going to prohibit residents from training, period, in assisted reproduction.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're saying that an embryo should not be used for other purposes such as research, whether it's for healing therapies or for fertility research.

Ms. Hedy Fry: But then, Mr. Merrifield, what would happen is that there would no longer be anyone able to implant embryos if we hadn't been able to train a whole new set of doctors to do it. You'd just be stopping it there.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think you don't understand what is meant by providing instruction in assisted human reproduction procedures. You're going to be banning simple residency training programs.

The Chair: Dr. Fry, can I interject here?

I think I know where Mr. Merrifield is coming from. It was the same concern I had about this. I assumed, as I explained to some of my Liberal colleagues, that it meant taking embryos from a fertility clinic over to some medical school and everybody poking around with them. This is not what's meant; that couldn't happen because the activity is licensed to that licensed fertility clinic.

It might mean that two residents on a rotation are coming in and are being taught how to do it, but that actual embryo will be implanted--though not always, because there are always one or two they test for viability.

But it's not for a big, massive instruction program. It is within the walls of the licensed facility, and a new doctor may be involved with it.

º (1655)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's why I'm saying, the intent would be to prevent that from happening, right?

The Chair: I'm saying that there wouldn't be extra embryos involved here. What we're saying is that the embryo that would have been implanted by the regular doctor will now be touched instead by the resident under instruction. It's a teaching thing.

Ms. Hedy Fry: It's like when you're in the hospital and you're having your gall bladder removed. The surgeon may not do it; the resident will do it, but the surgeon is standing there and training the resident on how to remove a gall bladder. They're just learning how to do the procedure of implanting an embryo. It's a procedure they're learning.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It seems as if we have a bit of a debate here. Is there some clarification we can get from our witnesses?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Our concern on this is that there is some instruction that happens with embryos that aren't actually then implanted, but this is done because there is a presumption that there may be an error. If it's successful, then everything can go ahead. The concern we have from this is that this kind of blanket prohibition would eliminate the possibility of that kind of instruction and that there may be adverse impacts on women because whatever instruction happens has to take place with the person, the patient.

This is what I think, but I'll ask my colleagues to help me on this.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Moving ahead then, wouldn't it be wiser for us to put some limits on that? It can go to extremes if we don't put something in here.

Ms. Francine Manseau (Senior Policy Analyst, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Department of Health): Well, there are limits put on that. As you know, as a regulated activity, fertility clinics need to get a licence to be able to manipulate human reproductive material for the purpose of creating an embryo. To do that they would be required to have a licence, and it would be very limited. That also came from the report of the standing committee, where it was pointed out to the committee that there was sometimes a need in the scientific and medical communities to validate those procedures, which was not the same as using women as guinea pigs.

You want to make sure that before you do a procedure, a procedure such as ICSI, which requires a lot of dexterity for the technologist, the technologist has had training before going in and doing it to a woman. All that would be regulated because you cannot create an embryo unless you have a licence.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: You can't create an embryo unless you have a licence?

Ms. Francine Manseau: You cannot manipulate human reproductive material for the purpose of creating an embryo unless you have a licence. This is in clause 10.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Purposes have to be specified, and under subclauses 10(1) and 10(2) we would be controlling all uses of these materials.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: What we're saying is that the creation of an embryo for the purpose of improving or providing instruction for assisted human reproduction should not be happening. That shouldn't be the intent of creating an embryo.

Ms. Francine Manseau: The prohibition says that there are only three reasons why you can create an embryo: first, to assist in an assisted human reproduction procedure, and second and third, to improve and provide instruction in assisted reproduction procedures. These are the only three reasons you can do it, but you would need a licence anyway.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: And that's what gives us the discomfort under this prohibition, that we can do it for improving or for instructing; that's a loophole that could be as wide as you'd want to make it. You say it can be under licence, but we're talking about a regulatory body that, as we move into that regulatory agency and the licensing part of this, could open up a tremendous amount of...if this isn't here.

» (1700)

Ms. Francine Manseau: Licensing and regulations will be developed, and it will be the intention--

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right, but right now we're talking about the intent of this right here. How are we going to be assured, sitting around this table right now, that we're going to be able to get that into the appropriate regulations or that regulatory body?

Ms. Caroline Weber: I think you need to fundamentally decide just whether or not you're comfortable with these procedures happening with no opportunity for instruction or improvement. I think that's really what's at issue in the amendment.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: What you're saying is that the only way they can get instruction is to use a human embryo, and I'm saying that--

Ms. Caroline Weber: Ultimately, everyone who's mastering a new technique needs to work with the real material.

Ms. Francine Manseau: They work with animal material, but at some point they need to get to the human material.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield has explained quite well the reason he put the amendment forward, and the reason it's still in there has also been explained quite well.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment CA-16 is another case of “another”, and we've already decided that.

G-3, a government amendment, changes line 31 on page 4. We're changing a “woman” into a “female person”, and if I'm correct, Glenn, it's because that's the way it's written in the rest of the bill.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It provides consistency throughout the bill.

The Chair: I don't think we need to discuss this. It's “female person” everyplace else.

The clerk has pointed out to me that there is a problem. I don't think there's a problem with amendment G-3, because that is about using the same term throughout the bill, but it amends the same line as amendment CA-17. The problem is, if we pass G-3--which is what I think is probably going to happen, it's so innocuous--then we can't even deal with CA-17, because it amends the same line.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll make this easy on you. I will just withdraw amendment CA-17.

The Chair: Great. Let's vote on amendment G-3.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We're now on page 5, line 6, which reads, “prevent, diagnose or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease”. This amendment adds the words, “in accordance with the regulations”.

Could you tell us, Mr. Merrifield, why you feel this is necessary?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Because everything is in accordance with regulations. Our uneasiness is that we don't know at this time what these regulations are really going to say. There is potential for f an expansion, and a more open-ended reading of sex-linked disorders or diseases, which is the thing we're a little bit concerned about.

The Chair: Do you want to make sure these diseases are listed in the regulations?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right. The only way we can do it is to put it in here, in this place.

» (1705)

The Chair: The researcher is reminding me that several of the witnesses asked for this.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I just wanted to make sure that—

The Chair: Dr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: By including “in accordance with the regulations”, I'm just wondering if we all understand what group of regulations we're talking about.

The Chair: No, he's admitting that we don't know what the regulations will say. By adding this he is saying he wants a list of these diseases to be part of the regulations. If we put this in the bill it would require them to be listed.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: All right. Now we're talking about the group of regulations pertaining to this bill--

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: —not related to some other area, like sexually transmitted diseases or anything like that?

The Chair: Oh, no, no, just the regulations that will—

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay. I just wanted to get at whether it's necessary to clarify or not; I don't know.

The Chair: Any problems from the researchers?

Ms. Caroline Weber: In general, we think it weakens the prohibition. We've generally tried to avoid prohibitions resting explicitly on regulations, because they weaken the basis for the use of the criminal law power—

The Chair: Oh, I see.

Ms. Caroline Weber: —and the courts might then perceive that this should only be a controlled activity, rather than a prohibited activity.

The Chair: Okay. By doing this we could get it out of the prohibited, then.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I wouldn't want to get it out of prohibited. But we wouldn't want it missed in another way, through the regulations allowing it to be expanded beyond where it is.

Ms. Caroline Weber: It is explicitly in paragraph 65(1)(c) already, that these will be defined and regulated. We also have it in subclause 10(1), which provides authority to regulate the use of PGD.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Why would it weaken it by putting it here?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Because it is the list of prohibited activities.

The Chair: The prohibited activities pull in the power of the criminal law. If you start talking about regulations, you might be into regulated activities, not prohibited ones. So you will effectively raise a question as to whether this activity is prohibited or simply regulated. So you're weakening the prohibition here.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, I understand what Caroline is saying. I'm just not 100% sure whether I agree. But if doing this in fact does weaken it, then it's something we would consider withdrawing.

The Chair: Okay.

Would you like to stand it aside until you ask...?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, let's stand it aside until I get some information on it.

The Chair: So CA-18 is stood aside.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Prohibited activities are specifically listed in the bill. Are there any specific activities not listed in the bill which might be mentioned in the regulations? No.

Ms. Francine Manseau: That would be difficult.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's not an issue then.

Our colleague is right to point out that the diseases in question should be listed in the regulations, given that they are not explicitly listed in the bill. That's not the case with prohibited activities. Thirteen such activities are specifically mentioned. As I see it, the amendment is relevant. Anything that provides a clearer regulatory framework helps us to do our job as legislators.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, in this section of the bill we're still in the prohibited activities. This is one of them.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm saying that all prohibited activities - there are 13 of them in total - are listed in the bill. There can't be other prohibited activities set out in the regulations when the diseases in question aren't even listed in the bill. That's the difference. In my opinion, the amendment is relevant.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: May I comment on this?

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The bill creates a number of prohibitions. That is correct. Then starting with clause 10 it creates a number of conditional prohibitions, which are accompanied with a regulatory authority. Without a doubt the definition of the sex-linked disorders or diseases and the processes discussed in this prohibition would be subject to subclauses 10(1) and (2). So you would have to get a licence to carry out any of this activity.

If I can return to the point made earlier, the inclusion of this sort of reference would raise a question as to whether we are creating clear criminal prohibitions and could go to undermining the view that this is based on a criminal law power. All the more so because there are at least three other parts of clause 5 that also allow for activities that in turn are regulated by subclauses 10(1) and (2). Those are paragraphs 5(1)(b), (c), and (d). So, logically, you'd have to have a reference to the regulation in those three plus (e). The cumulative effect of all of that, if this is ever challenged, is really to undermine the perception that it's creating clear criminal prohibitions and therefore is well-founded on the criminal law power.

» (1710)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: How should the uninitiated person understand the word “disease”? Clause 5 defines 10 or 11 prohibited activities. Mr. Merrifield contends that the word “disease” is a generic term that can apply to many conditions not defined in the act, but which may be defined in the regulations.

Is that an accurate assessment of the situation? How should we interpret the word “disease”, which is generic but can apply to a number of conditions?

Ms. Francine Manseau: Sex-linked disorders.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But what does that mean? Give me an example.

Ms. Francine Manseau: I don't think it has anything to do with sexual orientation. Hemophilia is one example. As I recall, the disease is transmitted by the mother. It's a genetic disorder transmitted by the mother.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, it's a genetic disorder, but is it a sex-linked disorder?

Ms. Francine Manseau: Yes, but I'm not a scientist. I could provide you with a list of such diseases. Some are known to be linked...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but it's clear, is it not, that there will be a regulatory framework?

Ms. Francine Manseau: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine.

Ms. Francine Manseau: Yes, because clause 10(1)...

[English]

The Chair: You had the floor. Did you finish your point?

Ms. Francine Manseau: Yes.

The Chair: Have you finished, Mr. Ménard? Are you satisfied? Somewhat.

Until Mr. Merrifield can clarify whether or not his amendment weakens the criminal law implications, he'll stand it aside.

Next is CA-19, Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is an amendment to replace lines 20 to 24 on page 5 with the following:

life form;

(j) create a hybrid for the purpose of reproduction, or transplant a hybrid into either a human being or a non-human life form; or

(k) import or export

(i) a sperm or ovum, or any part of one, for the purpose of creating an embryo, or

(ii) an in vitro embryo, for any purpose.

We heard a lot of testimony, and there was a fair bit of discussion here, about the complications of importing sperm and ova for the purpose of reproduction technology. We heard that we have distribution centres that import sperm from prisons. We have 33 million Canadians and an abundant source of biological material, as a Canadian family. This is to raise the issue that when we open the door to imports, we have no means of inspecting outside our borders, or no authority to enforce regulations outside our borders.

From some of the discussion we've had here about sex-related trades, I can think particularly about importing sperm from questionable sources. Without asking what the sources are, we're trying to do it by analyzing the product afterwards. For our medical colleagues, the case history is a very important place to start, in looking for concerns about disease. If all you have is a sample and a few lines, I'm very concerned we'll have great difficulty trying to enforce aspects of the bill, such as sex selection of an embryo, determining history, and determining follow-up on problems related to health that happen to a donor after the time of donation.

The point of this is to say if we're going to do this, for goodness' sake, let's do it within Canadian bounds, so we have some opportunity to control it.

» (1715)

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I would like to ask Mr. Lunney a question, please.

Mr. Lunney, what if I were living in New York right now, had some embryos in the bank, or whatever, and some sperm in the bank I was going to use, and moved to Toronto. If I wanted the clinic to send it to me, because it was mine, how would I do that? I'd have to import it, and the people there would have to export it to me. If I moved from Toronto to New York, then....

Mr. James Lunney: That's not the intent--to find a little loophole like that. Gosh, you could put it in your suitcase. Who's going to know?

Ms. Hedy Fry: You couldn't put it in your suitcase. These things have to go from one clinic to another in the proper way. It's not just transporting it.

Mr. James Lunney: I'm just saying, with all due respect, we can't even control drugs in this country. We have drugs like Prepulsid, which was taken off the market in Canada, but was imported by mail by Vanessa Young, who subsequently died. We can't control drugs coming in and out of the country. If we open the door for import and export, we create all kinds of problems.

There has to be a way to give the minister the right to approve an import for a specific case, like you're describing here.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I would also like to ask for a comment from my colleagues down at the end of the table.

Since you cannot buy, sell, or advertise for sale either the materials or the embryo, doesn't it therefore mean you can't get them from another country? That's where they're selling them, and therefore this covers that automatically.

Ms. Caroline Weber: The way the bill is written, anything purchased or obtained through some commercial means for reproductive purposes from outside the country would not be admissible. All of the material, regardless of what we're talking about, would be subject to the same kinds of regulations, and would require that a history accompany it. We have those regulations in place already for semen, ova, and embryos.

Ms. Hedy Fry: You're bringing it in from anywhere.

Mr. James Lunney: I hear that, but it's all subject to the integrity of people sending in these things. If you only have a piece of paper accompanying it saying, “I don't have any health problems,” especially if it's from criminals....

The Chair: Ms. Weber.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Again, the problem with this is that it is a criminal prohibition, and we need more than a difficulty in assessment or a difficulty in administering. We are saying that regulations can be placed around this, so that the material can be vetted. Therefore, we need to know something about why one couldn't at all...or why one would have to ban the import or export of the material.

Mr. James Lunney: I'm talking about disease here. You know they spent a long time looking for the HIV virus behind AIDS. You know they spent a long time looking for the hep-C virus and the hep-B virus.

When we're importing tissue, we have no means of controlling or even anticipating what it is. If we have learned anything from tainted blood, it's that we need to control very carefully. If we're not looking at this within the confines of our own country, I don't know how we purport to control this type of thing if we don't even know what to look for.

Ms. Hedy Fry: But we can't do anything in the country anyway. I mean, it's a lack of a test that's available test to do it, then you won't do it for something outside the country. You can't do it for an ova or sperm or an embryo in the country, either--

Ms. Caroline Weber: It is just not demonstrable that any of the problems you're talking about didn't arise domestically, and not from import or export issues.

Mr. James Lunney: Can the legal counsel give us an example of why this would create problems for us, if we banned import?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I think the problem is that the bill clearly makes the use of sperm and ova to create an embryo legal under the legislation. Various outcomes with the embryo are also legal under the legislation. So in essence, Parliament would be saying that reproductive technologies, etc., do not present any fundamental moral or ethical dilemma, and our concern is to regulate them for health and safety. The bill provides this authority.

That said, I think it is difficult to justify an import or export of a product or process that is otherwise legal in the country. The sorts of health and safety concerns being raised can be dealt with by the authority in clause 10, which basically says that you cannot import or export without a licence from the agency, and in accordance with the regulations.

Given that the mandate of the agency is expressly to guard against health and safety concerns, the agency and the regulations will have to require information and set up processes sufficient to draw the conclusion that imported sperm, for example, meets the health and safety requirements. If this cannot be satisfied, then it cannot be imported.

» (1720)

Mr. James Lunney: Just with blood, for example, there were tests were being done in the United States on blood that were much later coming in. That's the whole basis for the suit against the Red Cross. The tests available elsewhere were not being done here. Vigilance outside our borders was not being implemented here.

When we're importing from who knows where, we may develop procedures here that are not being done elsewhere. This might happen when new things are being discovered elsewhere, whether it's a test for West Nile virus—which we're waiting for—done in one place but not another. We're creating all kinds of problems outside of....

But let me say it another way, going beyond diseases. There are other aspects of the bill with ethical concerns, such as sex selection of embryos, which the bill has restrictions on, does it not? We do have limitations on that.

We also have concerns about designer babies being done here. In other words, we are concerned about people paying for a Robert Redford sperm or a Brigitte Bardot egg donor, or whatever you are trying to create—a super athlete or a super Mario. How can we control this outside our borders? How can we control somebody who wants to pay for a Hollywood ovum to combine with their Albert Einstein sperm to try to create their super kid? How can we control something like this outside our borders?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The prohibition on paying for these sorts of things would apply. As this is coming into Canada, somebody living in Canada is presumably proposing to pay for this designer embryo. This is not going to be given away for free. This would be an offence under the bill.

Mr. James Lunney: Might I suggest that somebody who was trying to bypass the ethical concerns would find a way around the money concerns? If we're just saying they're going to pay the clinic, I'm sure there are lots of ways to transfer money that bypass this.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It's always possible for people to engage in criminal activity. We create criminal laws, in any event, and seek to police them. This has a very tight regime, because anyone who wishes to undertake any of this work must be licensed, and is open to inspection. It would be very difficult to commit a crime under this act, without that being found.

Mr. James Lunney: But with all due respect, the problem is that we have no authority to do inspections outside of our borders.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Under the bill, there would be complete authority to establish whatever conditions you required at the point of import, and to inspect.

To take your example of somebody bringing in a designer embryo, obviously that will cost money. We have the complete ability to inspect that clinic, go through their books, and determine if they made a payment associated with that embryo.

» (1725)

Mr. James Lunney: I find it hard to believe that someone who wanted to break the law that way wouldn't bypass the clinic for payment. There are certainly lots of ways to transfer money.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has a question, I believe.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think Mr. Lunney makes an important point on concern about adequate controls and regulatory mechanisms of any reproductive materials. But we have the same problem, whether we're talking about blood, organs, tissues, body parts, sperm, ovum, or embryos. It's a problem that's not going to be addressed by prohibiting any import or export. It's a problem that can only be addressed by demanding, from the Government of Canada, proper regulatory responses to these issues.

The issues you raised about the blood tests that led to the hepatitis C and tainted blood scandals, and the problems you raised about Prepulsid were problems because there was dereliction of duty within our own health department, not because of an export-import issue.

If you have a combination of prohibitions on buying and selling, a clear regulatory framework for licensing, and an active health protection model that includes surveillance, inspections, and so on, that's the way to handle it, and it's the only way you can handle it. That's the missing element in this piece.

The Chair: I have given Dr. Lunney lots of time on this because, to be fair, for two and a half years Dr. Lunney has raised this with almost every relevant witness. He really has done a lot of work on it.

So you can have one last kick at the cat, Dr. Lunney, and then we'll have a vote.

Mr. James Lunney: A drop-kick.

With all due respect, I think the big issue for me is that I don't see that we have a shortage of biological material amongst us in Canada. We have a good supply of healthy people here. Nobody has made a case for me that we have a real need to import or export these materials; that it would shut down the industry, or somehow cause it to fail; that we couldn't help one another have the children we need from within our own borders. I see tremendous problems coming down the line if we leave the door open.

So I ask you to consider that. If we're going to do it, let's tighten it up and at least do it right.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney, there's a small drafting error in CA-19 and the next one. So I want to alert you to the fact that you are at this point only working on the addition of paragraph 5(1)(k), because above that there's only the addition of the word “or”, and the drafters can fix that anyway.

Mr. James Lunney: I would like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, when we reached the prohibited activities, there was a question I was hoping to pose to the committee just for clarification or certainty.

As you know, Madam Chair, in the absence of legislation in Canada the research community has been operating under the provisions of the tri-council policy statement of August 1998. The bill says that it can incorporate by reference any documents, and this document actually dealt with the education and training thing we had back in amendment CA-15. It also touches on each of these items you're going through and each of these resolutions on prohibited activities. The question for the officials of the department is whether or not there is an intent to incorporate the tri-council policy statement or any part of it into the legislation, and if not, whether there are differences that may be relevant for report stage purposes.

» (1730)

Ms. Caroline Weber: I don't immediately understand how it relates to the prohibitions, although to the extent that they rely on regulations.... The other thing is that the tri-council policy statement primarily affects federal jurisdiction. It affects funding from the tri-councils, and it is used in some instances perhaps for federally funded research as the reference point because there are so many different policies and guidelines out there.

The agency would have to make that assessment, and we have recently been conducting reviews of the various policy statements on the ethical conduct of research involving humans. Even knowing all that, I can't tell you which parts would be accepted and which wouldn't. It's a fairly complex area.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, maybe there will come a time when the officials could advise the committee whether or not this piece of legislation, when it gets royal assent or comes into force, will supersede in its entirety the provisions of the tri-council policy statement for purposes of research in Canada.

Ms. Caroline Weber: No, that policy statement affects all research, whereas the scope of research that is affected by this bill is much narrower.

I would also like to remind the committee that within the Speech from the Throne the government did commit itself to working towards a system around the ethical conduct of research involving humans and to creating a standard. We could anticipate that the government will be drafting something that might not supersede that but that will be another element out there.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll move on to CA-20, which is an amendment to paragraph 5(1)(j). I wanted to separate proposed paragraph 5(1)(k) from it.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is one where at first blush you'd say, what's the problem with this? It's about the creation of a hybrid for the purpose of reproduction or implanting that hybrid egg into a human being or a non-human life form. So what's the problem with that?

At first blush there isn't a problem with that, but the reality is that we're creating these hybrids to test the viability of the gamete. If that's the intent of why we're doing any hybrids at all, then we feel that the best thing to do to would be to just say so and put it in here. That's why we'd like to see paragraph 5(1)(j) say “create a hybrid for any purpose but that of testing gamete viability.”

Now, in talking with the officials and in talking with the minister, I think that's the intent of this piece of legislation or it's where we're at with this. It's the only place a hybrid is allowed; it can't be transplanted into a human being or into a non-human life form. It would only be for the testing of gamete viability.

First of all, am I right in that? Is there any other place we're using the hybrid?

Ms. Caroline Weber: There are other places. We may get into some problems around definitions of viability. Examples that come to mind quickly are things such as a stream of basic science that is not really related to any particular patient but looks at sperm fertilizing potential as a cellular membrane changes, where sperm undergoes this process when it comes into contact with the egg as the proteins change.

Another example is sperm karyotyping. Fusing a hamster egg with a human sperm is a standard protocol to study chromosomal abnormalities. It may be that you had a broader intent to viability, but there--

Mr. Rob Merrifield: [Inaudible—Editor]...viability.

Ms. Caroline Weber: I don't know; not necessarily.

Ms. Francine Manseau: Not necessarily. That might be too restrictive for the type of study that could be going on, I guess, using those methods.

» (1735)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I know we talked about this with some of the witnesses. Really, the only one we heard any witness talk about when we questioned them on this was the hamster test, was it not?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Right, and it's an easy one for us to come up with. We do try to use the same examples because that way we get a shared sense of understanding somewhere. But there are a number of other uses, ones where I don't know if we could define viability well enough to include them. I was concerned that this does perhaps get excessively narrow with respect to the types of research that are out there.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's why I asked those questions to the witnesses, whether we're using anything else. The answer was the hamster test. If that in reality is where we're using the hybrids.... I find this whole area, and I think Canadians would find it, rather scientifically driven and a little bit repulsive in the sense that we're--

Ms. Caroline Weber: It isn't for reproductive purposes, though. In the bill that would still be prohibited.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: But you see, that's why if it's for the purpose.... When you're taking a human female ovum and adding sperm from another animal to that or vice versa, that's really what we're talking about here. For the viability of the hamster test, it may be okay, and I think that's why it's here and that's where it's at. That's all I'm saying. If that's why we're using it, that's what we should say, exactly where we use these hybrids, and not allow exploitation ten or twenty years down the road as we move forward into this area. That's the intent of the change here, and I think it's valid.

The other point is that if, let's say, this changes over the next number of years and we want to experiment in something else that research has a good argument for, this bill will be revisited every three years. That should be something we have a serious look at then, and that's why I think it should be changed now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

One of our researchers would like to comment. Sonya.

Ms. Sonya Norris (Committee Researcher): I was just going to mention that the problems HFEA experienced were when they tried to define scientific processes or applications. In subsequent years they found that there were additional ones that had to be added on. If the intent of that clause is to prevent any hybrids from being put into animal or non-human life forms for reproduction, then I think that as it stands it's adequate. If you start listing reasons to do them, you are going to close the door on, say, chromosomal studies that have to be done.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney would like to comment on that.

Mr. James Lunney: I'd like some feedback from the researchers and advisers on this. This whole area of mixing human and non-human genes and cells is so fraught with risk for humans, and not good for the animals either, for the simple reason that every species carries its own viral load. These viruses ride in the cells and they often hitchhike along the gene.

I asked one of Canada's top genome scientists, Dr. Tom Hudson, about this when he visited the House here: When you're examining the human genome, how do you differentiate viral DNA from human DNA? Viruses are notoriously tissue-specific and they used to be species-specific. But when we mix species, we are exposing ourselves to great risk.

A case in point I would raise is the issue of SV 40, Simeon Virus 40. It was found in our polio vaccines because they decided to grow the human polio virus on monkey brain and kidney cells. They weren't too worried about this virus initially because formerly monkey viruses weren't a big problem for humans. But it's turned out to be a big problem. It's showing up in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, in neuroblastoma, and in other tumours that are now very prevalent, with over 6,200 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases being diagnosed in Canada every year. Those viruses can lie dormant for years.

The question here, and it's a very serious one that we ought to consider, is what kinds of risks are we exposing ourselves to for the sake of checking the fertility of a sperm? Is there not some other way to do this? And are we prepared to commit Canadians to the kinds of risk of having viruses transmit species because scientists are curious about mixing human and non-human genes?

» (1740)

Ms. Caroline Weber: Again, because this isn't for reproductive purposes, the concern or danger of that happening is not really existent, as far as I understand this. I do understand that much of this has the potential...not exactly what's in this bill, but the very concepts of transgenics, which I think is what this gets to more.

Other issues are coming up. The Supreme Court decision on patenting higher life forms is coming out tomorrow. I do understand the general concerns, but I think we have limited it within the scope of this bill that this isn't for reproduction purposes. Some of this may even have impacts in terms of what kinds of science can be done just within the way the bill is scoped now or what kinds of science will pay off because of the way the bill is scoped now.

So I think there are pretty clear limitations here in terms of what can be done in that area.

Mr. James Lunney: With all due respect, Dr. Weber, I hear you saying that the risk is minimal because you think they're not going to be implanted. But I'm talking about a risk of having a virus that normally is found in one species having access to human genes and human cells and therefore adapting to a new host, being the human, and the risk that exposes us to by just putting them in the same environment. Viruses are notoriously able to switch over time, if you give them the opportunity by growing them on another medium.

Ms. Caroline Weber: Again, there's nothing in here that would allow this material being used for any kind of reproductive purposes. I do think the concerns that are being raised are outside the scope of the bill.

The Chair: One of the problems is that this is another one of the things Dr. Lunney has been investigating for two and a half years, and I don't know that Dr. Weber's doctorate is in the field that he's talking about.

Is that correct?

Ms. Caroline Weber: Yes.

The Chair: You're speaking political science and so on.

Ms. Caroline Weber: If you would like me to bring a scientist to the table, I'll get Rodney up here.

I'd like to introduce Rodney Ghali, a policy officer with Health Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ghali.

Mr. James Lunney: For the record, could you state Rodney's credentials?

Mr. Rodney Ghali (Policy Analyst, Department of Health): I have a masters of science degree in neurobiology and an honours bachelor of science in genetics.

» (1745)

The Chair: Did you have some comments, Mr. Ghali?

Mr. Rodney Ghali: To respond to Dr. Lunney' comments, I fully appreciate your concerns about cross-species viruses contaminating one environment as opposed to the other. But as my colleague stated, the hybrids would not be allowed for the purposes of reproduction. So the risk that those viruses could be transmitted into the human environment is in my opinion next to nothing, because they are not provided the opportunity to develop and grow.

The other important point to realize is that in any cross-species fertilization, the number of chromosomes would not match up, because every species has a specific number of chromosomes. So in terms of ever being able to develop, it's zero. Unless the proper amount of chromosomes are found within that environment, the organism cannot grow. And that's how species maintain their integrity.

To give you an example, obviously the human genome has 46 chromosomes, other species do not have 46 chromosomes, and that allows the human species to contain its integrity.

Mr. James Lunney: Would you agree that most viruses have keys to very specific cells, the molecular cells, identification markers that'll give them access to cells? By putting a virus in a human cell, you're giving it the opportunity to adapt and pick up characteristics, human viruses....

The Chair: You don't have the floor, Dr. Bennett.

Go ahead Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: You're implying that the only way this is ever going to spread to a human is that it be implanted, but just by giving a virus the opportunity to be in the human environment, where it doesn't normally belong, gives it an opportunity, especially if there's any ribosomal activity, to copy itself.

Mr. Rodney Ghali: That speaks to our environment as a whole and not necessarily just to what is contained in this act. We are exposed to viruses that come from other species all the time just by the nature of us being in this society. These viruses always have access to our cells. The research that is going on in this context does not give it any more special access than it would have normally in the environment we are in.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question? We're at CA-20.

Mr. James Lunney: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: A recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 as amended allowed to stand)

(On clause 6--Payment for surrogacy)

The Chair: We've been here for two hours, and unfortunately we have three coming up. One is Madam Fry's, called L-1, and then in the package that was added today, you have G-3a and I think G-3b or something....

Okay, L-1, G-4, and G-3a are a package.

To the parliamentary secretary, seeing as two of these are government amendments...well, one is just a very small change.

Okay, so they don't really go with amendment L-1, because the whole issue in L-1 is compensation. The problem is, they're targeting the same lines of the bill, and once we amend it once, we can't touch the others. So I don't know how to go about this to add this word “be”.

Now, I have another suggestion. This whole issue of compensation is complicated. I believe there are other amendments that speak to expenses, and the bill itself, which speaks to expenditures. So there are several things tied up in this. However, the legislative clerk tells me that her department has serious concerns about amendment L-1, and this is the reason: it talks about compensation, and in their opinion, it goes against the intent of the bill as expressed in paragraph 2(e), which you have already agreed to. It says:

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

That is what she has just told me now, that they have expressed serious concerns.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I don't necessarily agree that the concern is a valid one in that this is not trading; it's not commercializing. If you notice the term, it is “risks associated with pregnancy”.

» (1750)

The Chair: I don't want to know the substance of your debate; I want to know if you are willing to go along with that interpretation because you're happy with some other amendment that might be back here on the issue. If that's the case, if this side of the table has reached an agreement on something else, then perhaps, Dr. Fry, you would like to withdraw this, because it does have concerns, and the clerk tells me I have to rule, which I'd really prefer not to do.

I mean, if in fact it's here just to stage the debate and put a debate on the public record, it would seem to me that you could stage that debate when the other things around expenses and expenditures are being raised. No one would prevent you from putting forward the point of view that this represents.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, for reasons of principle, I would really like to put this forward. You may rule as you see fit.

The Chair: Great. Thanks.

I pretty well have to rule, with the clerk's advice, that this goes against the intent of the bill. I'd be more flexible on expanding the scope of the bill, but in anything that goes against the intent of the bill, a piece of the legislation that we have already now passed, I'm going to rule that this is out of order.

We're now at amendment G-3a, which is changing “become” to “be”. You had a little extra package handed to you today.

Are you ready for the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could someone explain that clause to me?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: It came to our attention that with the existing wording in the bill, it might be possible that the parties involved in a surrogacy arrangement could agree to compensation after the agreement had been entered into or after the woman had become pregnant.

The Chair: Do you want to use the word “compensation”?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: We're only changing the word “become” to “be”.

The Chair: No, but you in your explanation talked about compensation.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm sorry; “consideration”, then.

So they could agree to the payment of consideration after she had become a surrogate and therefore they might evade the application of the clause. So by putting in the word “be”, it's independent of the timeframe and you would capture them regardless of when they agreed to pay consideration.

The Chair: It's a change in the tense of the verb essentially, or the timing.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's right.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Oh, I'm sorry, there's an addition to this, as follows:

Validity of agreement

This section does not affect the validity under provincial law of any agreement under which a person agrees to be a surrogate mother.

So that allows the provinces, as Quebec has already done, to declare these things invalid. It just puts that proviso in.

(Amendment agreed to)

» (1755)

The Chair: Amendment G-4 then becomes redundant, because we've just done that.

I see the clock at five minutes before our agreed-upon hour of closing, and we're now into this whole thing that has to do with payment. We're at the bottom of page 5 in clause 6.

Mr. James Lunney: May I respectfully ask that we call it a day? I'm under pressure to be in the House for the late show.

The Chair: Yes.

This is pretty complicated, because once again the clerk's department has suggested that this is against the intent of the bill. So I'm going to have to think about this before I rule.

I hope people will read all this part about expenditures and expenses. These next few things that are coming up could take us a lot of time, but they wouldn't necessarily take us a lot of time if we had clearly in our minds what it is we want to do when we reassemble.

Now that we're not meeting tomorrow, and wasting what was going to be the best day of the week for us--and I can't believe that happened--I'm going to suggest that we have to start on Monday at 9 a.m., which means people will have to travel on Sunday. I'm sorry about that, but you chose to give up tomorrow, and I just can't waste another whole day.

Ms. Sonya Norris: Will it go on all day?

The Chair: We'll probably go all day, yes.

There's a vote on Kyoto at 5:30. I don't think there are too many social events on Monday night. Let us perhaps try to keep ourselves a little clear in case we have the strength to come back; I don't know if we would have.

We're going to start, at 9 o'clock on Monday morning, where we left off.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think I may be late on Monday morning with regard to another committee.

The Chair: I see. Is that the drug thing? So would Réal.

Could you perhaps find an Ottawa member to replace you for the first bit? We would not deal with your motion until you got here.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Well, my motion is the very first one that comes up.

The Chair: Yes, I know. What time is your announcement?

Ms. Hedy Fry: It's at 9 or 10, but don't forget, it takes me eight hours to get from Vancouver to here with the three-hour time difference.

The Chair: You just said you had to come on Sunday anyway.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I said I usually come on Sunday, but I just remembered that I have to do the SNUD on Monday.

The Chair: In Vancouver?

Ms. Hedy Fry: Yes. We're doing it concurrently across the country.

Mr. Réal Ménard: There's going to be a press conference.

The Chair: In Vancouver?

M. Réal Ménard: I'm not going to Vancouver.

Ms. Hedy Fry: He's doing it in Montreal; I'm doing it in Vancouver

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not in Montreal.

The Chair: I wish someone had raised this when we voted not to meet tomorrow, that Monday was going to be....

Ms. Hedy Fry: That's one of the reasons I suggested we meet in the morning.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, on Monday, the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs will be tabling its report. I'll be in Ottawa, but the press conference...

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I know.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: If the House gives its consent, the report will be tabled at 11 a.m., and the press conference will be at 12 noon. It shouldn't last too long.

[English]

The Chair: Well, Hedy will be in Vancouver.

I wonder, Dr. Fry, if Dr. Bennett could present your recommendations. Perhaps you could have a little meeting with her before the end of the week, and she could talk to them.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I'm sure she could.

The Chair: I think you're in agreement on the subject matter.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I have a huge problem on Monday, too. It's the whole CIHR thing on gender and health on Monday--a whole-day conference.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I spoke against tomorrow--

The Chair: Conferences are always secondary to clause-by-clause.

Ms. Hedy Fry: --but given that we had all made a decision on when we were going to meet, and we had all set our times and our dates to do this--

The Chair: I know. I feel exactly the same, Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: But I spoke against it.

The Chair: I know you did and I thank you for that, but certain of your colleagues voted for it, so we're stuck with it.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on Monday. As long as we have a quorum, we'll proceed.

This meeting is now adjourned.