Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of February 26, 2004
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 26, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-6, respecting assisted human reproduction and related research, met this day at 11:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are here to continue with witnesses on Bill C-6, respecting assisted human reproduction and related research.
We have a number of witnesses from various faiths with us this morning. Thank you all for coming here. I know the Archbishop came in from Halifax, and I appreciate that. I am delighted that you were able to get out of the snow that is so heavy.
Our format is to ask each of you to make an opening statement and then we will ask questions to all of you collectively rather than after each presentation.
Our first presentation will come from Most Rev. Prendergast, the Archbishop of Halifax. Thank you for coming here.
Most Rev. Terrence Prendergast S.J., Archbishop of Halifax, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops: I am pleased to be here with you today, and I want to thank you for this invitation to speak.
The gist of what I will say is the response of the president of the Bishop's Conference of Canada last October when the bill was passed in the House. It is supported and reaffirmed by Archbishop O'Brien, the present president of the Conference of Canadian Bishops Canada.
Like many other organizations and sectors of society, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, CCCB, has taken a great interest in the ethical, legal and social implications of the reproductive and technologies ever since the Royal Commission on the New Reproductive Technologies was mandated on October 15, 1989.
When the House of Commons began its consideration of this bill at the beginning of the third reading process in January 2003, the CCCB issued a statement requesting that the bill be amended to prohibit research on embryos and to ensure that all forms and possibilities of cloning be covered. The statement concluded with the prayer that members of the House of Commons be given the wisdom and grace to do what is best for those now living and for those to come.
[Translation]
The House of Commons has concluded its debate on this highly complex and significant bill. It is clear that many members of the House worked long and hard in attempting to protect human life and dignity. We are particularly pleased that an amendment passed that makes the prohibition on cloning more effective. Throughout this most recent chapter in the legislative process, beginning with the draft legislation that was proposed in May 2001, we have recognized that there is much in the proposals that could be supported, including the prohibitions of reproductive and therapeutic cloning, commercial surrogacy, germ-line alteration, the marketing of sperm, ova and embryos, and the acceptance that is would be offensive to include ``embryo'' in the definition of ``reproductive material.'' As the Senate of Canada begins its debate on Bill C-6, we wish to reiterate that while there is much that is positive in the bill, it is also deeply flawed. In what follows, we shall first summarize our vision of the human embryo as an individual who ought to be protected and also provide some guidance to Catholic legislators with respect to their responsibility for the common good.
With respect to the humanity of the embryo, over the course of many months of testimony, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health heard both scientists and ethicists define the embryo as a human being. Even those who consider the term ``human being'' more philosophical than biological would agree that embryos are human, that we all began as embryos, that human life unfolds as a continuum, that in a very real sense the embryo is one of us.
Both reason and faith inform the Catholic position that ``the human being is to be respected and treated as a person'' from the beginning. This means that when it comes to treatment or research, the embryo must be treated as a subject and not as an object or as a means to an end. No treatment must be undertaken that does not benefit or respect the integrity of the embryo. The problem with embryonic stem cell research is that while the research has the potential to benefit those living with disease, it actually harms the embryo who dies in the process. Ultimately, the embryo is exploited for the benefit of others.
[English]
Some argue that the embryos who remain after fertility treatments will die anyway, so why not use them in order to do some good? It is not necessary that we do something with those embryos so that some good or meaning will be given to their lives. There is good and meaning in their lives simply because they are intrinsically human, which also means from a faith perspective that they are known and loved by God. It is unnecessary to search for meaning on their behalf, especially when such a search is simply a way to justify the decision to release human embryos for research purposes.
While we realize that our position on protection of the embryo will preclude embryonic stem cell research in which so many hopes have been invested, we are convinced that adult stem cell research, which is showing remarkable promise, can still go forward and has every potential to fulfil those hopes. We could thereby signal to the world, in a global arena influenced by strong commercial interests in the area of reproductive technologies, that Canada is committed to honouring, protecting and including every one in the human family.
The deliberations of the House of Commons standing committee on health and the vigorous debate in the House of Commons show that this bill is highly complex, both from a scientific and ethical perspective and that there are many competing interests involved. The debate has also shown that there are many men and women of goodwill and good faith who have done their best, and will continue to do so to protect human life and promote human dignity.
While Catholic politicians must always seek to protect human life and dignity to the fullest extent possible, there can be legitimate difference on how to achieve this objective. It is, therefore, not our intention to tell Catholic senators how to vote because it is their responsibility to discern the best way to protect human life and dignity after reflecting on all of the resources available to them. This discernment certainly includes church teaching, but also, the senator's own personal reflections on the political and social realities that he or she faces. The well-known 1995 encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, The Gospel of Life, discusses the exercise of potential judgement by politicians responsible for promoting the common good. In section 73, the Pope states.
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restricted law, aiming at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects (emphasis in original text).
[Translation]
This section of Evangelium Vitae is quoted in the recent Doctrinal Note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ``On Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life,'' 24 November 2002. The Doctrinal Note also reminds Catholics that they have the right and duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life which includes the common good, and specifically the rights of the human embryo.
In conclusion, some of the specific matters that Senators will wish to consider as they discern how to address this particular legislation are: the positive elements of the bill and the measure of protection that they provide to the embryo, the alarming absence of measures to prohibit embryo research, and the consequences should the present legislative vacuum continue.
We pray that the deliberations in the Senate will be enlightened by reason, strengthened by faith and enlivened with hope.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Archbishop. Our second speaker this morning is Ms. Samaa Elibyari, the National Director from the Canadian Islamic Congress.
Ms. Samaa Elibyari, Director, Canadian Islamic Congress: In the name of the most beneficial, the most merciful, I will start by giving the sources of jurisdiction in Islam.
The legal system in Islam or Shari'ah is derived from two main sources: The annunciation in our holy book, the Qur'an Koran; and the traditions or Hadith, which are texts detailing the life and sayings of our Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him). To legislate on situations not explicitly mentioned in either of these sources, scholars must turn to Ijtihad, or the process of informed analysis. Through Ijtihad, they seek to discern from Qur'anic principles, and/or similarities in the traditions, a judgment to resolve current moral problems or issues.
What is the Islamic perspective on medical research? Islam places an obligation on its followers to seek out knowledge, in particular, scientific knowledge. Hence, medical research is considered an act of faith, as long as it is done with altruistic intentions and in conformity with Islamic ethical guidelines. Thus, the idea of assisted human reproduction is endorsed, provided the concept of embryo, fetus and family are defined in agreement with Islamic norms.
Let us see some of the Islamic concepts that we found problematic. Muslim jurists make a clear distinction between the different stages of a human organism. The early stage encompasses the first 40 days, at the end of which ``ensoulment'' occurs.
[Translation]
It can be said that at the end of this stage, the human organism acquires a soul.
[English]
The intermediate stage consists of the second 40 days; and the advanced stage is the third 40 days. After these three stages have passed, the embryo is considered a human person having flesh and soul, and acquires legal human status. The references are given in my paper.
As to ``health and well-being,'' as quoted in Bill C-6, Muslims believe that children are best served if they are born and raised in a traditional family — that is, a man and a woman legally married. A review of Bill C-6 after two years, instead of three, is also recommended. In view of the above, the Canadian Islamic Congress is submitting the following recommendations.
In clause 2(b), line 15, in front of ``families'' we would like to see inserted the word ``traditional.'' In clause 2(e), following the words ``reproduction procedures must,'' we would like to see inserted, ````must be a legally married couple; that is, a man and a woman in a traditional marriage.'' In clause 3, at the top of page 3, the word ``embryo'' means ``a human organism during...'' — we would like to see ``40'' instead of ``56 days.'' Similarly, in section 3, for the definition of the ``foetus'' means ``a human organism during the period of its development beginning on the'' — we would like to see inserted ``forty-first'' instead of ``fifty-seventh.'' Finally, as to a review of the act as set out in clause 70, following ``the administration of this bill shall, within...'' — insert ``two'' instead of ``three'' years.
Those are our recommendations.
Rabbi Reuven Bulka, Chair, Committee on Religious and Inter-Religious Affairs, Canadian Jewish Congress: I am happy to be here on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress. I should begin by thanking you all for the invitation, and also say that while I will share with you what is, in a complicated way, an official position, we have not taken votes on it or anything of that sort, it comes more from consensus.
I am not here representing the Canadian Jewish Congress with the view of imposing that you need to abide by Jewish law in the legislation, but just to share with you some of the values that inform the Jewish approach, which we hope will be helpful in the long run in the Senate deliberations.
We begin this with an absolute commitment to the notion of the sanctity of life that is across the board. The sanctity of life includes not only embryos, but also individuals who are in the harrowing position of wanting to have children, but cannot have them naturally and are resorting to extraordinary methods in order to have them.
We are fully appreciative of the fact that the legislation is very clear in that it wants to protect the sanctity of life. That is evident in the unambiguous prohibitions that you have in here regarding therapeutic and reproductive cloning, and also the reduction of embryos to commodities that are on the open market.
We also endorse the idea that the embryo needs to be protected. However, the consensus Jewish position on probably what is the most contentious issue in the legislation, which is embryonic stem cell research, is that an embryo outside of a womb does not have the status that an embryo inside the womb would have.
Up until relatively recently — unless my information is flawed — when in vitro fertilization occurred, there was almost, by necessity, an overflow of available embryos. This is in order to ensure the greatest possibility of success in making sure that the impregnation would occur. In most instances, the excess was either thrown into the garbage, or it only can last — again, if my information is correct — for something like 14 days.
We do not have any problem, religiously, with taking what normally would have been thrown into the garbage or put into disuse and using it to save lives. As a matter of fact, our position would be that it would almost be imperative to take that which has life, and instead of discarding it, to use it for whatever opportunity we have. This is not just fanciful medical projection; it seems to be something that has great promise, finding cures to illnesses that have ravaged humanity over the last little while. The absolute critical point here is the matter not only of the status of the embryo, but also intention.
We would not endorse — and indeed this bill does not endorse — the idea of growing embryos in vitro for the express purpose of stem cell research. The issue is the overage — that is to say, what is left after legitimate, purely intended embryonic creation for the purpose of impregnation that does succeed.
Our firm position is to endorse the legislation, and to be very comfortable with the idea that that which is left over is put to good human use rather than discarded. We do not think that this in any way compromises the embryo. I think the legislation is very protective of that. We are appreciative of the fact that the bill goes to that extent in order to do so.
Senator Roche: I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today, which is extremely helpful to us.
I have one central question. I will direct it first to Most Rev. Prendergast and invite Rabbi Bulka and Ms. Elibyari to make comments on the question.
In the interests of time, we better come right down to the essential issue that all of us face — that is, the political realities that we face at this moment. The government wants this bill. Recognizing the long history of the past decade that has brought us to this point, and recognizing that there are a lot of good things in the bill, we can say that research on embryos will be regulated, and at the present time it is without regulation.
They tried to split the bill in the House of Commons. That could not be done. When the minister appeared before this committee a few days ago, I asked him if he would accept an amendment that would ban embryonic research. He said ``No.'' It does appear that if the Senate were to amend the bill, thus sending it back to the House of Commons, in the political realities that we face, it would never come out of the House of Commons a second time in the present Parliament. Thus, all the good things that are in the bill would be set back even further.
We are faced with the recognition that the government wants this bill without amendment. I would like to see the bill amended in a spirited defence of the embryo. I would like to make that clear. However, I do not think I can get it.
Thus, I would like to ask if you would give consideration to clause 33(1), which provides for advisory panels to make recommendations in respect of the implementation of this legislation?
What would you think of the Senate making an observation attached to the reporting of this bill? Observations are not without considerable value. It is a familiar structure in the return of bills from Senate committees.
What would you think if we made an observation that there should be created, under the proposed assisted human reproduction agency, an advisory panel that would give oversight on embryonic research and that would ensure that research done on embryos was done only when necessary and following the strictest of guidelines, and that present on the advisory panel would be representatives of the faith communities.
Would you find that acceptable, in the situation that we are faced?
Archbishop Prendergast: That is a challenging question. I do not really understand how the Senate works and how these observations or notes affect legislation. I would take this as a gesture on the part of the Senate that really feels that the bill itself is flawed and, therefore, they have to seize upon some means to diminish what they consider to be the unfortunate consequences of the bill.
In the long term, that is a judgment that each senator will have to make. It strikes me as a helpful gesture, given that it is probably the best that can be done.
As you know, in the Roman Catholic community those who are in favour of life and espouse the values of life from its conception until natural death are divided in terms of what is the best possible course of action that a parliamentarian can exercise. That is why the particular note that I cited from Evangelium Vitae is a critical one. You have to ask yourself if there is a law in place? There is not a law in place. That is what the note deals with. However, we can say that, de facto, we have a legislative circumstance that is not protective of an embryo. Therefore, anything that a senator can do to protect an embryo, protect life from its origins, is potentially best thing that he or she can do.
I have not explicitly answered your question, but this is the kind of concern that needs to be taken into account. I thank you for proposing something that may limit the clear inadequacy of this bill.
Senator Roche: Archbishop, I found your answer very helpful. I would like to ask Rabbi Bulka and Ms. Elibyari if they would like to make a comment on the question that I posed.
Rabbi Bulka: Obviously, I am approaching it from a different viewpoint on the issue itself. Basically, the debate as to the issue of embryonic stem cell research continues among Jewish scholars. The view that I espoused before was reflecting the majority view on this.
However, I am sensitive to the fact that obviously there are other views including those of my colleague here. Anything that could be done that would create some sort of climate of consensus in Canada — which is the Canadian way — would be something that I would very much favour.
However, I would also caution that I would not be excited about a legislation that would, perhaps, hamper the medical experts in trying to find cures for serious illnesses. In that respect, if what is being proposed will clamp down on them and will, in fact, hamper their ability to do this, I would be hesitant.
Ms. Elibyari: We do not claim to speak for all the Muslims of Canada, but there is a certain consensus among members of the Canadian Islamic Congress that stem cell research should be encouraged, provided we have guidelines.
It should not be done for profit. It is not acceptable to produce cells just for research but if they are produced in the process of in vitro fertilization and will be discarded anyway, then we do not see any harm in using them to benefit health.
The question of where does the embryo go is of particular concern to us because we do not accept the concept of a surrogate mother. I will not enter in details regarding the definition of a traditional family. I just want to call your attention to the fact that we have inheritance law in Islam. Men and women do not inherit the same amounts. There would be a problem determining who are the real mother and the real father. Given those laws, we must maintain the unity of the traditional family. A review would be most helpful.
Senator Cook: Your Grace, at the end of your statement you do say — and I am sure I speak for us here — that we need to be enlightened by reason and strengthened by faith. Ours is a very challenging job and it is not easy. We bring our humanity to the table, but we also have a responsibility to the people of Canada — all of the people.
This bill has been a long time coming. In its present form, there are problems with it for a great number of people. Should we present — and this is a hypothetical question — amendments to this bill that has been around for 10 years? The needs in it are so great. We do not have regulations for anything. These things are happening today. Should we bring amendments and risk losing this bill? I would like each of you to respond, please.
Rabbi Bulka: In general, the answer has to be that it depends on what it is that you want to put in. If you have a compelling issue that you feel, without this being inserted or something removed, that the bill is so fundamentally flawed that Canada is worse off because of that, you would have to act accordingly.
I did not see anything in the bill that deviates far from where Canadians are, and with the general sense of morality and ethics that governs the way Canada behaves. Admittedly, the major issue is the stem cell research. I have a greater comfort level with it than my colleague, but that is because we come from traditions that may look at this a little bit differently.
I do not want to speak for him, but no matter how we go on this, one way or the other, I think that the bill in general has so much good in it. We could quibble about 40 days, 56 days or whatever, but at some point in time, you basically have to fish or cut bait, as they say, decide that we have to go ahead with this.
I know the medical community is chomping at the bit because it wants to get on with stem cell research, and that is absolutely essential. We are talking daily about the sooner we get the research done, the sooner we get on with the program of saving lives. In the end, there is no greater value than that.
Archbishop Prendergast: The issue, most profoundly, is the judgment of whether a senator should vote for the bill or not. If he or she considers the bill so fundamentally flawed that he or she cannot vote for it — that is a legitimate interpretation and a conclusion that many Catholics would draw. There is a strong support for that because it deals with the issue of life. On the other hand, people are faced with the same situation as we had with regard to an abortion law. It was defeated, so we have no legislation now and less protection for the unborn child.
I can see how a senator would say that a flawed bill is better than no bill. Again, with the proviso or the rider that Senator Roche suggested — that there be observations added — perhaps that is the best situation that can be done.
Again, these are the weighty challenges that are put upon people in government to legislate for the common good as they see it, informed by reason, but also by their faith. I would not want to be in the position of a senator having to vote on this, because I see the complexity of this. Ultimately, a vote has to be taken. That is why we offer you our prayers.
Senator Cook: Thank you for that and, as you said, I will eventually have to vote.
Senator Keon: Your Grace, when I go to church next Sunday, am I going to hear from the pulpit that the Catholic church feels that this probably the best compromise, or will I hear that the church really does not endorse this bill?
Archbishop Prendergast: Well, the Bishops' Conference has not taken a position on that. It has simply laid out before you the difficult challenge that you have. I think the opportunity for a Catholic legislator is to allow his or her faith and mind and heart to be infused with the tradition and values, but also to see what is possible.
If a person is informed by faith, informed by reason, and makes the proper decision, I do not think anyone can reproach that person.
Senator Kinsella: We need to be careful of the paradigm that we are using in our analysis here. I have been hearing a lot about all the work done in the past 10 or 15 years, and, oh, my goodness, if this bill were lost. It is sort of like the work of Sisyphus, the Greek character pushing the boulder to the top of the hill just to get there and have it roll down again.
We have to be careful of falling into that intellectual trap. Many witnesses are telling us that there are flaws in the bill. The government, itself, must see flaws in the bill, because the government has a clause in the bill that says, ``we are not really certain of this bill and that is why we are going to have a three-year review.'' That should be cause for all of us to sit back and say, ``well, if there are flaws, let us examine those flaws.''
Our responsibility, as senators, is to keep an eye on minorities and minority interests. That is what the Fathers of Confederation were thinking about. We are not government. We are not part of the executive. We are part of the legislative branch. We are not elected — but the method of selection is a debate for another time.
Our primary responsibility in a chamber of review is to do precisely the job of examining flaws. We are merchants whose job is to look for flaws. That is why we review the legislation. It is not only my honourable colleagues who are identifying flaws, and witnesses who are identifying flaws; the government itself, in the bill, has said there are flaws here.
It seems to me that, when the suggestion was made in some quarters to split the bill in a manner in which we can have those items, where there are, by consensus — or as close to consensus as you get — no flaws, why would that not be a reasonable way to go? Any of the witnesses can respond.
Archbishop Prendergast: As I understand it from the conversation this morning — and I must say, it has been a quick initiation for me into how the Senate works. I am one of those Canadians who do not pay a lot of attention to it, and I apologize for that to those of you who are here. I am grateful for what I am learning about the Senate. How is that for a correction?
I think you are the people who know whether a split bill will pass or not. I just heard from Senator Roche that if the bill is proposed to be split, the House will effectively ignore that and simply pass it with less protection than we could perhaps get with an observation or so. I do not know how the democratic deficit should be interpreted or resolved. Maybe this is an instance of a flaw of the whole mechanism of government that we should address.
Senator Kinsella: Let me pick up on the democratic deficit. We are fairly close to a federal election. If one is seriously interested in improving the participation of all Canadians in the setting of public policy and in helping to inform the adoption of Canadian legislation, what would be wrong with giving the Canadian electorate an opportunity to express itself on this bill, and thus to have a democratic model of informing the bill so that legislators in both houses would have a greater sense in the next few months as to where the Canadian public is on it?
Rabbi Bulka: Are you talking about holding a referendum?
Senator Kinsella: No, we will have a federal election.
Rabbi Bulka: Are you talking about incorporating this as an election issue?
Senator Kinsella: If the matter is before us, Canadians will want to know how those seeking to be members of Parliament would respond to these issues.
Rabbi Bulka: I am not sure that, at the end of the day, you will be any further ahead than you are now.
Senator Kinsella: That assumption is that the Canadian voter ought not to have a say.
Rabbi Bulka: I am not sure about that, either. The idea that the government would revisit this after three years is not bad. It is a dose of humility saying that these things are in a sense almost larger than life, and we do not know what will happen with them. However, we want to give it a shot.
Medicine changes very quickly. Three years from now, you may be debating some of the things that you said about cloning. You may want to revisit an issue because medicine or technology may have moved so far further ahead. The idea of a three-year revisit is a very helpful thing from all points of view.
I am not sure that splitting the bill and taking away what is, arguably, one of the most important aspects from the perspective of the Canadian public, who would like nothing better than to have cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and things of that nature. I do not think it would wash well to put that critical part on hold.
Ms. Elibyari: The Muslim community has no problem with the bill. This, I believe, is not one of the greatest concerns of the community at the moment. We very much encourage medical research. I do not think that it will even be an election issue.
As to what the Canadian Islamic Congress has recommended to the meaning of the family, whether it is 40 days or 56 days, we will let those who are concerned and those who want to follow their religion decide what they want. We are only making recommendations.
Archbishop Prendergast: In respect of taking this to the people, I believe that with all the other issues that are being debated in an election campaign, this would fall to the very bottom and not get much attention.
My view of the role of legislators — either in the House or the Senate — is that they are deputed. I am not in favour of having a referendum on every issue. That is why you are chosen to be Parliamentarians and to be the house of sober second thought. It is your task as legislators to decide what is the common good.
The Chairman: To echo that point, one of the problems with the election is that you vote for another party or one individual for which there is a package of proposals. You may like some but not others. You cannot draw any conclusions generally.
The free trade election was perhaps one example of a campaign with one central issue. Generally, with such a mixture, it is hard to draw conclusions based on a single issue.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: As I listened to three of you, I thought what a wonderful thing to live in a democratic country where we can hear your views and have this exchange.
Yesterday, we had a most moving presentation from parents who have used assisted human reproduction. We also heard from children who were born of assisted reproductive technology. For those people, there was an enormous amount of reassurance in the bill, because while we are talking about the embryo here, there is so much else in the bill that provides protection, information and consent. The people with whom we talked last night and to whom we listened gave at least some of the senators a great deal of reassurance in this bill and perhaps in ultimately moving forward because of their comments.
Would any of you care to comment about what this bill means for persons in your faith community — either parents or children — who have come into being or had the privilege of becoming a parent through assisted reproductive technology?
Rabbi Bulka: These children were born before the bill. That is good.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am asking this question because they are living their lives without the kind of information that will now be available — for example, information on the donor and on hereditary diseases. We have had no means of assuring that information would be available. This bill provides for that.
Rabbi Bulka: I read over the bill but I do not remember if there is anything in it about who owns the excess embryos. If there is a split between husband and wife with one saying yes to research and other saying no, does anything in the bill cover that?
The Chairman: As I understand it, the bill defines donors, but not owners.
Rabbi Bulka: Is that something that should be in there?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: In the consent clause.
The Chairman: It will be handled by regulation.
Rabbi Bulka: I have met some people who were born this way, and they probably look upon themselves in the same way as adopted kids. As you know, over the course of the years, adoption has eased into some form of an acceptance. It is no more the trauma that it once was. The same thing will happen here.
The legislation can only help in that regard. It cannot be a hindrance, for sure.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I wanted to ask Ms. Elibyari if assisted reproduction is used in the Muslim faith. Is assisted reproductive technology permitted?
Ms. Elibyari: In our community, we have more children than we can handle.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You are lucky.
Ms. Elibyari: This is the general rule, but there are particular cases. I am one of them. I do not have children. Certainly, I would have liked to have had a child through assisted reproduction technology. I am not saying it does not exist, but it is not getting the attention because of the pressure of too many children.
Archbishop Prendergast: I would like to go on record as saying there is a fundamental difficulty on the part of the Roman Catholic Church on the part of assisted human reproduction in the sense that we consider this to be an objectification of the embryo. We would say that reproductive technology assisted in this way to be morally illicit. We understand that everyone does not share this position. Some will find that hard to appreciate. But that is the position of our church.
We consider this to be a separation of the act of sexual union, which is the ``ordinary'' way and the morally licit way to conceive a child.
There may be — and presumably there are — people within our community who have chosen to take their own decision on this and not follow the teaching of the church. Fundamentally our position is that this is not a morally licit action.
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I have a brief question for Ms. Elibyari. In your comments, you drew attention to the fact that, within this bill, there is built-in review process after three years. Your recommendation would be that this should be reduced to two years. Could explain that to me?
Ms. Elibyari: We believe it is a new technology and we would like to see how it is applied. We are concerned about maintaining diversity — which is actually mentioned in one of the clauses of the bill — but we would like to see that the ethnic diversity would be represented in the research so that no particular ethnic group would be favoured. That is one of the concerns.
Also, we would like to see that all citizens benefit from the bill equally, regardless of their social status. We do not know how our knowledge will progress, so there might be an alternative to using embryos for stem cell research. For instance, the umbilical cord might be used, whether it is from mature cells. Obviously, we would like to see a non- controversial source and this is why we are saying maybe two years would be a more appropriate period for a review.
Senator Fairbairn: Within our work in either House of Parliament, from time to time, as we report things, we can offer observations rather than holding up a piece of legislation with an amendment. This might be a possibility in that case.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: As I listened to one of the witnesses speak yesterday, I sensed his turmoil over not being able to trace his biological father because the sperm bank had no records.
The testimony given left the impression that the witness' biological father had donated his sperm for monetary reasons. The witness wondered what the donor may have felt after donating his sperm to create a life. It was almost as if the donor had not realized that he was creating a life for passing considerations.
I am also concerned about the commercial aspect of this issue. We use the expression ``sperm donor'', when in fact a person is not really making a donation. Persons are being paid to provide their sperm. What we have in fact are marketers and purchasers of sperm. This is not a large-scale industry, granted, but it is nonetheless a commercial transaction.
On the subject of surrogate mothers, mention was made of the fact that no in-depth study had been conducted to date on the impact of surrogacy on these individuals and on their families. As a mother of seven, I can appreciate how a pregnancy affects the entire family. Other children want to listen to the baby's heartbeat, or feel the mother's stomach. Mothers will understand that a pregnancy is an event fraught with emotion.
A child might feel compelled to ask the question: ``When are you going to sell me?'', if he sees his mother give up a child for some reason. I am not calling into question people's motives, but when a mother gives up a child, the remaining children who form the family nucleus experience some degree of apprehension. I sensed this apprehension from the testimony given.
There is talk of regulating surrogacy. However, we still do not have any studies to show what impact this arrangement has on surrogate mothers. All we hear are the anecdotal stories of happy individuals and of others who are not so happy.
As for the commercial aspect of surrogacy, it has been suggested that the bill include a provision that would reward individuals for making this completely altruistic gesture. I fully support this recommendation. Yet, some have argued that this recommendation is unrealistic, which leads me to believe that financial considerations are also a factor in the decision to become a surrogate.
Ms. Elibyari: The Muslim faith is firm on this matter. This procedure should not be in the nature of a commercial transaction. We only accept assisted reproductive technologies when they involve husband and wife, without the intervention of a third party.
Surrogacy is not a concept that is accepted in Islam. Surrogate mothers are not accepted. Everything must be done within the traditional family unit.
Archbishop Prendergast: Thank you for these observations. One of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church is reluctant to accept this practice is the perception that embryos, sperm and surrogate mothers are commodities. Relationships between individuals and the act of bringing a child into the world are stripped of their humanity.
[English]
Rabbi Bulka: With regard to the commercialization, and not being 100 per cent up to speed on the bill, I know that you have some regulations in there that probably makes an attempt to make sure that it does not go wild and that you have some element of control.
On the issue of surrogacy, our faith would have a great problem with it. In other words, if someone would come to a rabbi to ask if this can be done, the answer would be a loud ``no.'' However, I know it does happen. You raised some of the issues that are problematic with it. There are probably more.
It is not so much a question of whether you should delay the legislation because of it but rather it is something that really needs to be monitored. This is why, if you have a three-year study, you should, for sure, include implications of that in the study. You can have some form of a follow-up, and then be prepared to make recommendations based on it.
Senator Léger: Thank you for your presence. Rabbi Bulka, during your presentation, you said that the embryo does not have the same status outside the womb as it does inside the womb. Would you mind just saying a few words?
Rabbi Bulka: Fair question. In Jewish law once an egg is fertilized inside the mother, it becomes immediately a potential human being. In the womb, there is no 40-day wait or anything like that. However, outside the womb it has no status as an entity whatsoever as far as those issues are concerned. It must be treated with respect because it is a potential life, but it does not, for example, have a status to be categorized as an abortion or anything of that nature, once it is outside the womb.
Ms. Elibyari: Just a comment here. When we talk about the first 40 days, the embryo is life, but we make a distinction between actual life, and potential life. It is potential life but it is not actually life.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Speaking about surrogate mothers, donors and embryos, would a surrogate mother or a donor still be accepted in the Catholic Church? I remember a time 40 years ago when divorced persons were not accepted in the Church. Today, they are welcomed.
Archbishop Prendergast: All persons are accepted in the Catholic Church. Even if persons have trouble accepting the teachings of the Church (maybe these individuals will be labeled sinners by some), they are still members of the community of faith. They are always welcomed. We have a duty to treat them as human beings deserving of dignity, even if we disagree with their actions. Our duty is to love and accept all persons.
[English]
Rabbi Bulka: I would say that the same thing applies here, although there may be some legal questions. The main problem with surrogate mothers is who is the real mother of the child? That is a major vexing problem.
For us the question of legitimacy really boils down to who is the mother? A surrogate mother who basically nourishes the child for almost nine months would have a claim on being its legal mother, even though in the world of surrogacy as we know it, as soon as the child is born, unless there are complications, the child goes back to the origin source.
The general consensus, from a Jewish legal perspective, is that this is a child with two mothers. These are complicated cases.
Senator Pépin: Adoption is the same.
Rabbi Bulka: It will be crowded under the wedding canopy when they get married.
The Chairman: I thank all of you for coming. You have been extremely helpful to us. We appreciate you taking the time. We posed the difficult questions to you that we are posing to ourselves. We thought we would at least share the responsibility. Thank you for coming here this morning.
Our next witness is Professor Baylis from Dalhousie University.
[Translation]
Ms. Françoise Baylis, Professor, Department of Bioethics and Philosophy, Dalhousie University: Thank you for the honour and privilege of having me to speak with you about Bill C-6. My comments will be brief, as I hope to maximize the time for discussion.
In my opinion, Bill C-6, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, is a good piece of legislation, one that provides a clear and sound legislative framework for assisted human reproductive technologies. I urge the Senate to pass this bill. Canadians have already waited too long for this legislation. They must not be left in a regulatory vacuum. It is important to protect the health and safety of women and children.
With assisted reproduction, women are at particular risk of harm, including the twin harms of coercion and exploitation. Children born of reproductive technologies are also at risk of harm.
The declaration of principles, the explicit prohibitions and the controlled activities in Bill C-6 are responsive to the government's obligation to protect women and children.
Regardless of what some people might say, the law is not a static instrument, just as moral wisdom is neither fixed nor absolute.
As you well know, legislation can be changed as appropriate, on the basis of new knowledge or changing mores. Bill C-6 is good public policy for the times. Do not be swayed by false claims about legislative immutability. As we heard this morning, clause 60.1 of the Act calls for a parliamentary review of the legislation within three years after the coming into force of section 21.
[English]
Fourth, this legislation is not about criminalizing science. The fact that there are laws with serious penalties for drunk driving does not make all drivers into criminals. If we are serious about the principles advocated in the legislation and the specific prohibitions, it is well and good that there should be serious penalties for anyone who would choose to contravene the law. Scientists need to realize that society as a whole has the right and responsibility to set guidelines for profoundly consequential technologies.
Fifth — and I am now getting to the more controversial parts of both my talk and the legislation — research involving human embryos has been explicitly permitted in Canadian research guidelines since 1987. That research has been and is currently being done. Human embryos remaining after infertility treatment are currently used for in vitro fertilization research, testing clinical procedures and developing cryopreservation technologies. All of these interventions result in the destruction of the embryo.
Some argue against expanding embryo research to allow for embryonic stem cell research and I would argue that far too much attention has been paid to this one subset of research. The principled basis of the distinction is unclear, however, as it does not appear to rest on a claim about moral status. Why is it wrong to destroy embryos for research to develop therapies that might benefit all Canadians but acceptable to proceed with such research to develop infertility treatments for the 15 per cent of the Canadian couples that experience infertility problems?
My last point is regarding the issue of cloning. The ban on creating embryos for research purposes by cloning and other methods is sound. Do not be persuaded by false arguments about a purported need for so-called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, is not necessary to harness the potential benefits of stem cell therapies. Scientists need to hold each other accountable for raising false hopes amongst vulnerable constituencies and lay publics.
In discussion following my few remaining comments, I would be happy to answer questions on any of the points above. However, for now, given the recent announcement by Korean scientists that they have derived embryonic brain cells from cloned embryos and the fact that this may be directing some of your attention to the part of the bill that places a comprehensive ban on cloning, I want to elaborate briefly on this last point.
Some scientists claim that there is an immune rejection problem with the transplantation of stem cells derived from other people. They claim that this problem can be circumvented effectively in autologous transplantation, where a patient is given back her own undifferentiated cells — hence the need for cloning. These, I would argue, are false claims.
First, there may not be an immune rejection problem. There is no scientific proof for the claim that immune rejection will be a problem with the use of embryonic stem cells. Second, science may eventually come up with such a proof, in which case, if there is an immune rejection problem, cloning for autologous transplantation is not the best solution to the immune rejection problem for reasons of ethics, economics and equity. Third, better solutions to the potential immune rejection problem include banking cell lines with defined major histocompatibility backgrounds or genetically manipulating ES cells to reduce or actively combat rejection.
Canadian scientists should invest their time, energy and talent, and the government should invest its money in research to pursue options that are effective and viable for all Canadians. In this way, Canada can make a meaningful contribution to global science in helping to develop technologies that may one day be available to the world community.
I would encourage you to read the two appendices to the document that I prepared because they speak directly to the false claims around the viability of this from a commercial point of view and also to the scientific claims as to the legitimate alternative options to the potential problem of immune rejection.
I have provided quotes from eminent scientists — namely the scientists that first brought the world stem cell research in a human context using either embryos or fetuses.
I would like to close, then, by repeating myself. Bill C-6, the assisted human reproduction act, is a good piece of legislation. It provides a clear and sound legislative framework for assisted human reproductive technologies. Please remember that is the focus of this bill — assisted human reproductive technologies.
I urge the Senate to pass the bill. Canadians have already waited too long for this legislation. They must not be left in a regulatory vacuum.
Professor Bridget Campion, Associate Professor of Theology, Toronto School of Theology: Thank you for allowing me to make remarks about Bill C-6. It is an important bill because of the influence it will have over therapeutic practice and research but also because it has caused us, as Canadians, to stop and to consider our values — those things that are important to us. For this alone, the bill has been very valuable.
I applaud the prohibitions against cloning, against the commercialization of human reproduction, against — I think — the creation of chimeras. I am an ethicist, not a lawyer or a legislator, so I cannot judge how effective these prohibitions will be in practice, but I applaud the intention behind them.
The one concern that I would like to express today is the real lack of protection for embryonic human life, especially in the area of research. According to the bill, human life can be created in vitro for the purposes of research provided that the research is related to improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures. It seems, according to the bill, that there are no restrictions on what may be done to embryonic human life already in existence — the so-called ``spare'' embryos — provided that the human life has not exceeded the fourteenth day of its development. Unfortunately, while it may not be offering a new outcome to the human life at this early stage, research usually results in the destruction of embryonic life.
Why is this so troubling? Over the last 60 years much of the thrust of research ethics has been to move to an expanding and inclusive view of what it is to be a human being — a being with worth. I must say that slowly we are also recognizing the worth of non-human human animals as well. Today, we recognize the essential humanity of concentration camp inmates, of poor rural African-American men of the southern United States, of the mentally challenged children with profound handicaps in state schools. We recognize that they should never have been subject to such harm in the name of research.
It astonishes and appalls us that this essential humanity was not recognized earlier. We congratulate ourselves — quite rightly — on our move towards a radically inclusive view of humanity. Yet, as this bill attests, there is one population that remains outside of this privileged and protected community: that is, the embryonic human.
Why should we protect this human entity who seems so very different from who we are? There seems to be very little connection at all between human embryos and those of us sitting in this room.
When I was a teenager, I remember seeing a picture of my grandfather. It was taken when he was 19. It showed him in his overalls — he was a farmer. He had hair at that time, and he was leaning against a brand new Ford with a running board. In the picture, he was young. As a teenager, I simply could not imagine the young man that he had been. To me, he was and always had been, old. Yet, he had been young. The picture itself attests to this.
In our very mobile urban society, life often seems to be like a series of snapshots — fragmented and disconnected. We return to the old neighbourhood to find that what had been the baby down the street is suddenly a young person with a driver's licence; we sent our daughter off to University as a little girl and she came home a young woman.
Sometimes, we look in the mirror and we do not recognize the person staring back at us. Things happen so suddenly, it seems. However, there is nothing sudden about any of this development. Our journeys, as human beings, are gradual and continuous and unfolding.
The Greeks may have had it right. Our tendency is to parse life into discreet stages: prenatal, neonatal, perinatal, toddler-hood, preschool-hood — all the way up to the categories we use to describe old persons: young seniors, older sores, frail elderly. The Greek saw each life as a thread intersecting and interweaving with others but each life on its own was essentially continuous from its beginning to its end, whenever that end should be. For some humans, at the embryonic stage that thread will be very short.
How ``alien,'' then, is this human embryo? How ``other'' is it? How ``not like us'' is it? If we stop and think about the threads of our lives, no matter where we are now, the fact is that we once had an embryonic existence. It is a part of our histories. To my mind, we were not human embryos; we were embryonic humans.
We can look back at research atrocities and wonder how people could have been so blind to subject particular human populations to such harm? It seems to me that Bill C-6 offers almost no protection to human life at the embryonic stage.
Let me close by saying that embryonic humans are valuable to research precisely because they are human.
[Translation]
Ms. Abby Lippman, Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University: It is a pleasure and honour for me to speak to you. Although I do speak Canada's other official language, albeit with an accent, as I trust my children will as well, I do apologize for the fact that I will be addressing the committee in English only.
[English]
I will touch on some of the highlights of the written brief that I have submitted to you. I will try not to repeat some of the comments that were made by Ms. Baylis. I would just say ``ditto'' and underline every point that she made. I will focus more on some things that she did not quite address.
I am speaking both as an individual and one who has been studying these issues for the past three decades of my life. The punch line is that your decision should be very easy.
Despite the various uses of the word ``consensus'' I have been hearing, consensus is not a majority vote; consensus is not everyone being in favour of it. Consensus means that this is something to be lived with. It is not my first choice, maybe — maybe it is my first choice. However, it is acceptable. I think in that sense of what consensus means, we have reached a consensus with Bill C-6.
People speak of flaws. However, rather than seeing flaws, we should think of controversies in the bill, about which there is never going to be agreement. I am speaking as an individual who has been at this for 30 years. This will always be controversial. It is always going to be contentious.
We have been through Bill C-47, Bill C-56, Bill C-13 and now, Bill C-6. I have run out of numbers. I hope that the wise people on the Hill have also run out of numbers and that we can get on with it.
With that background, I am also speaking as co-chair of the Canadian Women's Health Network.
The bottom line, as Ms. Baylis says, is that this bill should be passed and it should be passed now. I do not need to add to the horror stories you have already heard about what is going on without it happening.
I would further add that there is consensus in the Canadian population. I have spent the last three decades with different groups — feminist groups, scientist's groups, ethicists, legal people — and most of them have said, ``Get on with it. Let us move ahead with this.'' This has happened even in my home province in Quebec, where the various women's groups are all in favour of this legislation. For anyone in Quebec to be all on the same side of something — whether they are sovereignists or federalists — is quite something. That, alone, should tell you there is consensus.
Others, including some of the honourable senators, have raised the notion of informed consent and informed choice. It is a critical part of the bill that there be informed choice. The act ensures it through regulations with oversight to guarantee that choices are truly not coerced, whatever this is, for those entering into assisted reproduction. It is a requirement that counselling be given by disinterested individuals who do not have a stake in the activities.
We must also remember that anyone who really does not like what is in this bill does not have to take part in it. There is nothing saying that if you do not want to have a baby by a donor, that you have to have a baby by a donor; but the bill does let those who want to have donor-assisted reproduction have it in a safe way for the women, a safe way for the children who will be born. That is what the critical point of the bill is to me. I become a little passionate about it.
Women need to have accurate, unbiased, pertinent information with access to whatever support counselling services they need, so that when they go into this, they have made a truly informed decision which involves a process.
Having mandatory counselling for this, therefore, is not at all paternalistic, whether or not it is required in other areas. This area is different: the very process that women enter into when they begin IVF necessarily goes beyond their goal of taking home a single, live born baby, and for this reason, counselling is essential. Women do not enter this to go home with quintuplets that are born prematurely. The counselling is essential so that they know what will happen. If there is fertilization and an embryo is created, what will happen to that embryo? Will it be used for someone else? Will it be used for research? I do not want my embryo used for research; I only want you to fertilize enough eggs so that you can only implant them back in me. This is what the bill will allow: A thoughtful, informed process.
Surveillance and monitoring has been another controversial issue. None of us likes to know that we are in a data bank; we are all concerned about privacy. However, there will be informed consent to this. There will be a way, at long last, when someone asks, ``How many babies have been born by this process in Canada?'' — where I, after 30 years, will not have to shrug my shoulders and say, ``I do not have a clue, I do not know what is happening'' — we will know who has been born, how many are born and what is their safety.
Many of you may have heard the CBC series on adverse drug reactions on radio and television last week. It was a brilliant set of wake-up calls to what we do not know about the medicine we are taking. I will not ask how many of you went to the Web site to plug in your favourite pill to see whether it was there or not, but everyone in my office — we are epidemiologists — went. The computers were tied up.
We do not know what is happening with Lupron; we do not know what is happening with the drugs that women are being exposed to as they are going through these processes. We have to know this. It is immoral, to me, not to be tracking the use of these technologies and knowing what the outcome is. We always do that. We go back and visit restaurants; we should know what is happening to our children. Surveillance and monitoring is a critical part of the bill. It is in there; it is done well in there. That should not be contentious.
I do not need to add my voice to all those who say that no commercialization should be allowed; no commodification should be allowed. Some have argued that if we do not pay for those who provide eggs, sperm and embryos, we will be unable to meet the ``demands of the infertile.'' I would remind you that there are many voices — you may not have heard them — who would provide evidence that claims of no supply are invalid.
We need to question what is the need that is being created, and not just a need that is out there. We need to take a close look at some of the structural determinants of fertility changes. If we want to address the need, we do not need to pay donors; we need to change some of the structures in society that are leading to infertility or to childlessness; and we also need to distinguish between the two.
The regulatory agency is there. Let it be there. It will be reviewed. I do hope that anyone who is appointed to it will be appointed to it without a conflict of interest, and will serve as a thoughtful, reflective individual. They will come, of course, with opinions, but they should be open to hear other people. That is what the agency is all about.
No one can avoid mentioning things that have happened since the news came out of Korea about cloning and embryonic stem cell research. As does Ms. Baylis, I do not believe there is either a moral imperative to do embryonic stem cell research or a strategic necessity to do so.
I was delighted to read the testimony that you heard last week from Dr. Alan Bernstein and from Dr. Ron Worton, who are two eminent people. They also say we do not need to do embryonic stem cell cloning to have the treatments we need; we can work with adults. I would just add, as a reminder, if we were to go the route of looking at somatic cell nuclear transplant as a sexy issue for research, it would be the first time that we use human cells to learn about animals, rather than animal cells to learn about humans.
I would also point out that we need not do these. Some of the statements coming out should put shivers down your spine because they put shivers down mine. We do not need to do therapeutic cloning. It is a non-starter right now for many reasons that Ms. Baylis and others have mentioned.
I would also like to address one thing on the issue of needs. Ian Wilmot, who claims to be the ``father'' of Dolly, or the man behind the Dolly work, is in print in the New Scientist last week saying that we do not really have to worry about not having enough eggs to do this work. Remember, in order to do somatic cell nuclear transplant based on Korea, you needed the egg from a woman and the cell from a woman. The transplants were only possible on women. The attempts with male cells did not work. Furthermore, they needed women who were still producing eggs, which means you will develop these therapies in today's climate for reproductive age women who do not often get Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's, I hope.
Ian Wilmot's solution to the problem of not exploiting women to get eggs is to use cow eggs instead. I leave you with that as a prospect of what would happen if we go into these traps. We can work on adult stem cells.
I have learned a lot over the years. Friends remind me of the first meeting on these topics. I was in the United States, at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, talking about prenatal genetic testing. I said, ``We better do something now; it will only get worse.'' That was 30 years ago. It has only gotten worse.
My colleagues in the United States look upon Bill C-6 as a beacon. The language in Bill C-6 has been adopted by the U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, NBAC, in making their regulations. It has been looked upon, with great delight, as something that will be in place besides what exists in England.
I echo Professor Baylis in saying that Bill C-6 would, by its establishment, put Canada in the forefront in areas where it would like to be in the forefront. I hope that you will act with diligence and speed, but — and I do have one but, and it is not to make an amendment — I hope that you will keep your interest in this area after Bill C-6 has passed. I hope that you will care continually about the health of women, men, and children and recognize the necessity to address infertility ``upstream.''
Many, if not most, of the problems for which this law is relevant could be prevented by eliminating known causes — social and environmental ones in particular — causes of infertility, childlessness, and chronic disease. To pass Bill C-6 and legislate assisted reproduction out of context is to draw to attention away from what women need for their sexual and reproductive health — safe places in which to grow up, live, work and play. To talk about embryonic stem cell research also out of context is to distract us from what we all need to improve the quality of our lives. I encourage you to quickly pass Bill C-6 and keep these broader perspectives in mind during future debates on social affairs, science and technology issues pertinent to Canadians.
Ms. Suzanne Scorsone, Former Commissioner, Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, as an individual: Thank you very much for asking me here. I echo what my three colleagues have said. That we come from diverse backgrounds should indicate the degree of consensus on this bill among many people.
You asked us here for our personal opinions. You have to make your decisions on what you think is the most appropriate and constructive approach to the realities that we face. Like my colleagues, I would ask that you pass this bill now without amendments. If it goes back to the House, it may never emerge again. If it were to re-emerge, it certainly would not be any better than what we have now.
That is not to say that there are not flaws in the bill. Any bill coming out of the democratic process will have some things that some people do not like. That is the way the coalescence of people of different views, to do anything practical, works. If any legislator were able to say that it must be entirely consistent with what he or she wants, in most cases, that would result in a dictatorship in the sense that there would be other people who would be unhappy and not get what they wanted.
We have something that is as acceptable to as many people as it is now, and that is probably the best we can do. We get another kick at the can in three years. There will be a chance for review in the light of experience. For those fundamental areas where people may see problems, there is an opportunity to revisit them within a realistic time frame. I see some fundamental problems, including the area of research on embryos.
I would like to point out some things that I would like to see dealt with in the regulations, because there is vagueness creating possible problems that could be dealt with by the agency and in regulation, if people are vigilant.
Others have pointed out that, currently, the void is the law. We have an existing law, and that is that there is no law. Under the Canadian system of law, and many other systems of law, that which is not prohibited is permitted. Tacet, placet; he who is silent gives consent.
Therefore, there is a law. Anything we do now will, in my view, enable good practice and prevent harm to the degree that it goes. It may not go far enough, but at least it will be something. If we were not to act, we would be responsible for what would happen as a consequence of our inaction. Anything that happens in the void, after we choose not to act, is our doing. We should reflect on that.
I am very happy about the prohibition of many forms of commercialization that is in the bill. I was disappointed that that it did not address private, for-profit clinics. All fertility clinics should be non-profit, but vigilance in that area could be brought about by regulation and through the agency.
I am not happy about the degree of research on embryos that has been permitted. Far more could be done with somatic cells or on animal models. That, too, can be dealt with in the future. At least this bill does bring in some limits on it.
I have seen in the literature, references to the use of embryos created for the purpose of testing drugs — using them instead of mice. There are many uses that could be made of embryos that would be even more industrial and abusive than anything that is envisioned within the limitations of this bill.
Unless we want embryos to be used as industrial raw materials — which is what would happen if we do not act — we should do what we can now to limit harm and then look at what can be done in the future.
I have a concern about the section regarding avoidance of discrimination in the provision of fertility technologies. The avoidance of discrimination is very important. We must not do it by the using another form of discrimination. There are denominationally based, community-based and other institutions or individuals who would have issues with providing fertility technologies to those who are not married or in certain situations. Regulations should not impose discrimination by determining that certain such groups cannot have a licence. The regulations should not dictate that, for example, Catholic hospitals or Salvation Army hospitals could not have a fertility clinic because they wanted to give treatment only to people who were in permanent, committed, married relationships.
There are ways of dealing with this. There are enough institutions that will provide fertility technologies to most people. We do not have to make reverse discriminatory provisions.
Similarly, ``the best interests of the child,'' which have been stated as the key consideration in this legislation, must permit the capacity to look at what is happening with the people applying to see whether it would be in the best interests of the child for the treatment to be given. If you have a history of child abuse or a severe psychiatric disorder, it would not be discriminatory for the same criteria that would be used in adoption home studies to be applied to the provision of fertility treatments.
The state does not intervene in the private reproductive activity of people, but once they are seeking to mobilize the institutions of the health care system and the supports of the state to bring about a conception that would otherwise not take place, it is no longer entirely a private act. Therefore, others can look at whether they want to be involved in this or not. In the best interests of the child, I think that should be permitted. Again, regulations and the agency can see to it that this does not become discriminatory in either direction.
I am happy with what is there regarding hybrids, but there is a lacuna in that it allows hybridization that is non- reproductive. Going across the country, we heard over and over again that people did not want hybridization, period, full stop, end of issue.
If you had hybridization with the meeting of the pro-nuclei of a human and a non-human creature, how long would they be kept alive? They might not be viable at all, but it is not even clear to me that the 14-day rule would apply to something that was not entirely human. Suppose it did work — suppose it was a bonobo or a chimpanzee gamete and a human gamete, and suppose it could survive for some period of time. That is a lacuna that would have to be looked at because most Canadians would not be happy with that.
I would echo what Ms. Lippman said about the health information registry. I would add that it is important that it be long-term data and not just what the clinics have on hand. The status when a woman or the donor is relatively young is not the health information that will be relevant 20 years down the pike.
The board of directors should be very broad in its constituencies to keep it from being hijacked by particular groups who may have expertise that necessarily would incline them to particular views of what they are doing. It should be broad and reflective of Canadians.
I would also red-flag the exemption. There is something in there about the Governor in Council being able to give an exemption for just about anything within the regulations. However, the regulations are made at the authority of the Governor in Council, which kind of sounds as though the government could quietly gut the bill if they chose to, if there was something they wanted that was technically against the law.
I think that the regulations and the agencies should look very carefully at exercising great prudence and restraint, and the whole issue should be looked at again in three years.
It is good that the regulations will be laid before Parliament, but again, there is a little loophole in that the minister can change things on short notice if he or she thinks it is necessary. I would watch that one closely.
In respect of the grandfathering, everybody knows this bill is coming down the pike. Doing a procedure at least once in the year previous to its coming into force, you could have many little operations with no expertise, going in there to and doing something once to get grandfathered like some kind of gold rush. I would say, make the period of grandfathering very short, and make them demonstrate their capacity, skill and expertise very quickly to keep this from becoming an expanding industry — and I do mean industry.
In conclusion, I would just say, please, pass it now. If the bill does not pass, then the good that could be done will not have been done, and we will be responsible for any ill consequences that result from the continuing void that is now the status of the law.
Senator Morin: Your testimony has been helpful and will be studied carefully. I know there are recommendations and advice, and we certainly will be studying this very carefully, because I think this is extremely useful.
Ms. Baylis, I would like to recognize the excellent work you have been doing on this file. You have been working now for many years and you have really helped in this bill. I do not think the senators received the open letter that you initiated, from 65 Canadian health care ethics and health law experts. I would like to circulate this letter, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps you could give us the contents. I do not think it has been seen, and I think it is extremely important. The list consists of most of the health care ethics and health law experts in the country. They come from really divergent views. I know some of them, and I know some have serious reservations with the bill. In spite of that, they all stress the need for this bill to get through. Perhaps you could give us some background on this.
I also would like to thank you for the work you have been doing over the years. I know it is not easy. This is probably the tenth committee you have attended on this point, and you have always been clear. I thank you for that. Please comment on the letter.
Ms. Baylis: Thank you for providing me the opportunity to revisit that. It is a really significant document in that, as you say, it has signatories from across this country, from a range of different disciplines and also a range of perspectives. Many of those people, if they were to come before you one by one, would attest that they see things in the bill that they would prefer to see otherwise; the next person might say that is exactly their favourite part of the bill. It the context of respectful dialogue, debate and discussion, you come to a position where you feel as though you have had a fair chance. People can say, ``I have had my say, I have tried to persuade and, at the end of the day, I stand behind the process.''
What people may not be aware of with respect to that list is that it was generated in less than 24 hours. That was the amazing and significant thing about that — within 24 hours — and that is because we felt we wanted to make it public. We felt it was timely; we knew the government was going to a vote.
I am confident that if we had time, and had canvassed in a very orchestrated, research-oriented process, we would have had more signatories. These are the people we could reach within 24 hours on a weekend. I think that speaks strongly in support of the bill, that we were able to find them by email — some at a conference we were participating in — and that they were able to sign on to that wording, which speaks in support of passing the bill.
Senator Morin: I will give the letter to the clerk.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Campion, you gave some vivid examples of horrors that have happened in the name of research with embryos. In Bill C-6, the research will now be regulated, there will be limits, and it will provide safety for those involved.
I was not sure, when you were giving the examples, whether you are using it to show that Bill C- 6 will be better for those who are involved or not?
Ms. Campion: As it stands right now, it would seem that Bill C-6 will not offer that kind of protection for embryonic human life. That is my understanding of it, but you probably know this better than I do. I understand that there can be research done on human life up until day 14 for the purposes of instruction in assisted reproduction.
Ms. Baylis: I would like reframe this part of the discussion for everyone and say, in rather provocative terms, that what Bill C-6 does is restrict research involving human embryos. That is, in fact, its net effect. At the present time, anyone, myself included — and I have no talent, no skill in this area — can do research on a human embryo, if I could get a hold of one. I could make art with a human embryo, if I were able to get a hold of one.
This bill requires that you have a licence. I would like to believe that it is not going to be somebody printing money in the back room. There is not going to be a whole host of licences given out. You will be controlling this in a manner that I hope would be consistent with Canadian values. You will be providing Canadians with assurances that the research is being done in a context where it is appropriate to do that kind of research.
If I can just beg your indulgence, I would also like to answer one of the questions put to you by the person sitting in this chair a few moments ago. The question was: ``Who owns these embryos?'' The important thing to understand is that a property framework is not being used with these embryos. In fact, they are not property. However, they are also not treated as persons. That is true from a legal point of view; they are treated as sui generis.
I encourage you to look closely at clause 3 of the bill, which deals with consent. It says that in order for those activities to take place, there must be informed consent. The most important thing — which may not be transparent from the wording in the bill — is that that consent must be consistent with the CIHR guidelines.
I helped to draft those guidelines, and they say explicitly that you need consent both from the gamete donors and the embryo providers. That is a lot of people potentially who would have to give consent.
There are many protections in this bill attentive to those who hold different views about the moral status of developing embryo. At the same time, there is enough in this bill to attend to the interests of scientists in that there will be the possibility for those who have the right talent, the right project, and the right hypothesis to moved forward in a clear legislative framework.
In that context, we are serving our scientific community well. They need to know what the rules of game are so that they can go forward with certainty. The uncertainty we have now serves no one.
Senator Roche: I would like to address my question to Ms. Scorsone, if I may.
Ms. Scorsone, you have been very clear in your testimony that we should pass Bill C-6 on the grounds that we should take what we have because we do not know what we would get later. You were very clear on that point.
You indicated that there was as a consensus at the table. That may be so, but if you came to my office and saw my mail, I do not think that you would use the word ``consensus'' about the reactions in the country.
I cite two organizations — the Right to Life and the Campaign Life Coalition — that in my view are composed of serious and sincere people. For them, it is not a question of a bill that contains some flaws. For them, the philosophical underpinning of the bill is its flaw and thus, should be rejected even though it has good points in it.
The Right to Life group in New Brunswick write the poll conducted by Léger Marketing showed that most Canadians are opposed to embryonic research. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds, the bill should be rejected. The Campaign Life Coalition writes that there is a materialistic philosophy underlying the bill that assumes a human being is no more than a biological machine and that the bill presents a utilitarian concept of the value of an individual human being.
I am receiving much mail in this same vein. Based on your experience, how would you respond to these serious and sincere people who are challenging not just the flaws in the bill but also the underlying utilitarian flaw of the bill's philosophy?
Ms. Scorsone: I do not want to be placed in a position of naming any particular group or coalition of groups. I will deal with the question in principle, instead.
There are people of conscientious goodwill in various positions on many of the aspects covered by this bill. I, too, am opposed to experimentation of any kind on living human embryos, but I would prefer to limit the harm to embryos as a group.
Senators live closer to the political heart than I do. You may see something different in the political metabolism of what is realistically possible in the House and in the Senate than I do. I am outside of that.
To desire the perfect is a good thing. However, if we desire the perfect to the point that we cannot even bring about the good, what have we accomplished other than our own purity of intent?
I believe that Archbishop Prendergast mentioned the existence of a parallel with the abortion issue. That is a different issue in some respects. In the abortion issue, some people see a balance or an opposition between a pregnant woman and the child. I do not see that as an opposition, but some people do. In the case of an embryo in a dish there is no woman whose aspirations and future are in any way affected. It is a decision that is made about the embryo in only. There are many people who stand in very different positions on the abortion question who all think that experimentation on embryos is not a good thing. That must be kept in mind.
However, if it is not possible in the near term or even feasible within the long-term to bring about an end or a complete non-expansion to the existing experimentation on embryos, which has been happening for a long time, let us for now limit the harm and take the limitation that is feasible. Otherwise, what can happen — as has happened in the abortion debate and in the various iterations of legislation and resolutions — is that instead of having a limitation, we have a void.
We now have a complete lack of any kind of limitation on abortion. The result of that is that ``partial-birth abortion'' is entirely legal in this country because there is nothing that says anything against it. Until the child has fully emerged from the vaginal canal or by C-section that child is entirely at risk, because no limitation was considered good enough.
I would rather see limitation than complete licence, and complete licence is what we would have if the void were to continue. Later, we can deal with more things.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that. I am sorry that we do have to stop. Thank you all for coming. Senators, we are adjourned until 9:30 next Wednesday morning.
The committee adjourned.