HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 19, 1998

• 0911

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. We just spent a few minutes trying to get ourselves organized.

I'm going to be one of those lamenters. We have to reorganize the business of buses picking up members in the hinterlands of this precinct.

At any rate, we have before us today Bill C-247, presented by Madame Picard, who is also a member of this committee. We had agreed that we would give Madame Picard the time she needed.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): I do not have the French version.

The Chairman: We agreed to give Ms. Picard all the needed time to table her bill and give us an in-depth presentation

[English]

in order to give us all an opportunity—

A voice: We don't mind either language.

The Chair: Yes, right—I don't understand either one. You're right.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madam, are you ready now?

[English]

So because you're ready and your mike works, we can proceed. We normally have a few minutes, five to ten minutes per witness—

[Translation]

Madam, is it not working?

Ms. Pauline Picard: The French version...

[English]

The Chair: As they say in the business, Madame, it must be a different union.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: We're just going to have to be patient for a few minutes more until we get this question of language sorted out.

Madame, we could always use the universal language. I heard this morning that apparently la langue universelle est la gesticulation des mains. On parle toujours avec les mains. It's true—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I can't talk without my hands.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Even in this language, some people have a much broader vocabulary than others.

• 0915

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, we can engage in idle banter for about ten minutes, but, Madame, I'm going to officially suspend the meeting for about ten minutes while we get all the technical apparatus working.

• 0916

• 0920

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Picard, the floor is yours.

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to have the opportunity to table Bill C-247 before you this morning, a bill intended to amend the provisions in the Criminal Code regarding human cloning.

With me is my parliamentary assistant, who can give me advice if I need it and help me to answer some of the more difficult questions. He has done a great deal of work on this file.

My presentation will last from 12 to 15 minutes, after which I will be pleased to answer your questions.

The first government inquiry on new reproductive techniques was launched in 1989 with the Baird Commission. The mandate of this commission was:

to investigate current and foreseeable progress in science and medicine in the field of new reproductive technologies, regarding their impact on health and research as well as their moral, social, economic and legal implications for the public at large, and to recommend policies and protective measures that should be adopted...

Following a four-year study, with 40,000 witnesses appearing at a cost of $28 million, the Baird Commission tabled its report in November 1993.

Only in July 1995 did the federal government finally implement a voluntary moratorium prohibiting nine reproductive technologies.

The federal government announced, in January 1996, that it had struck a new interim advisory committee, with the mandate to ensure that the moratorium is applied, to follow the development of new reproductive technologies and to advise the minister. The voluntary moratorium and the monitoring committee are the only current measures in Canada regarding human cloning.

Bill C-47 was filed on June 14, 1996, by Mr. David Dingwall, who was federal Minister of Health at the time. He also tabled a statement of the principles introducing the general policy proposed by the federal government regarding the management of new reproductive technologies.

During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Health, witnesses expressed several reservations regarding the contents of Bill C-47. They said that it was too restrictive, that it had a negative tone, that it would slow research and deprive sterile couples of the only option left to them for having a child. The statement witnesses made most often was that it was not appropriate to legislate on assisted reproduction activities and genetic technology within a single framework. These are different fields and need different frameworks.

But despite all the disagreements, there was a consensus, namely the need to introduce, as soon as possible, the necessary measures to prohibit human cloning. On this specific point, everyone agreed that there is at this time no sufficient justification to allow human cloning, whatever the procedure might be.

Lest April, federal elections intervened and Bill C-47 died on the Order Paper, when it was just about to be brought back to the House for its third and final reading.

In its final report, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies concluded:

We have deemed certain activities to be so contrary to the values that are dear to the Canadian people and to the Commission, and potentially so harmful to the interests of individuals and of society, that it is imperative for the federal government to ensure their prohibition with criminal sanctions. Among these activities, there is research on human zygotes or embryos linked to ectogenesis, cloning, animal and human hybrids, transferring zygotes to other species...

• 0925

I should remind you that this is still just a voluntary moratorium.

Even though the international community seems unanimous in its opposition to any kind of human cloning, there are legitimate concerns regarding eventual cloning attempts. No one has yet been able to justify the implementation of this practice without raising serious ethical problems. The scientific community and even the researchers who succeeded in cloning Dolly the sheep, stated that they in no way intended to proceed with any eventual attempt at human cloning.

Obviously, no matter how strict the laws controlling these research activities, the problem of human cloning concerns the international community. In this respect, the President of France, Mr. Jacques Chirac, recently stated that the issue of cloning was really an international matter, and that the basic problem lies in having it prohibited everywhere in the world.

UNESCO has adopted a universal declaration on the human genome and human rights. I have copies of this declaration here.

The World Health Organization is asking member States to take immediate appropriate legal measures to prohibit human cloning. European countries did their duty when they signed the first international legal text prohibiting cloning. This text will come into effect once it has been ratified by five countries. One of the persons responsible for this document asked me why Canada had not yet signed it, as the text may be signed by other countries aside from the European ones.

In the United States, President Clinton made a statement against cloning and declared that the government would not fund any project involving this practice. Currently, the Clinton administration has filed Bill S-1602 in order to amend a resolution passed by Congress last February, and which is now being reviewed by the Senate.

Several other European and Asian countries have adopted measures to prohibit human cloning or are in the process of doing so. It is important for us to do our part to bar these practices by passing Bill C-247.

A clause of Bill C-47, which died on the Order Paper last year, prohibited human cloning. That clause is included in Bill C- 247. It has the advantage of making human cloning a criminal offence without, however, prohibiting scientific research in the field of genetics which could be beneficial, especially to gain better understanding of human and animal illnesses, if it is properly monitored.

Clause 286.1 proposed in Bill C-247 provides that:

286.1(1) No person shall knowingly

(a) manipulate an ovum, zygote or embryo for the purpose of producing a zygote or embryo that contains the same genetic information as a living or deceased human being or a zygote, embryo or foetus, or implant in a woman a zygote or embryo so produced;

(b) alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or embryo if the altered structure is capable of transmission to a subsequent generation.

(2) No person shall offer to carry out any procedure prohibited by subsection (1).

(3) No person shall offer consideration to any person for carrying out any procedure prohibited by subsection (1).

• 0930

Since all known and conceivable cloning techniques will always require sperm, a human ovum or both, prohibiting the modification of their genetic structure and its manipulation, when done in view of passing on genetic characteristics to other foetuses or embryos, immediately closes the door to procedures and manipulations leading to human cloning.

Last year, a group of Scottish researchers succeeded for the first time in cloning an adult sheep from a single cell. Less than a year later, an American scientist publicly announced his intention of cloning humans for infertile couples. Currently, a technique using aborted foetus cells could transform modern medicine profoundly. Science is evolving at an astounding speed; it is often to the advantage of society, but there are also cases where society should take the initiative and impose guidelines on scientific progress, as is the case with human cloning.

In conclusion, during the debate at second reading, nobody called into question the relevance of prohibiting human cloning. All interventions, without exception, detailed the extremely rapid progress of medically assisted reproductive techniques and the need to monitor their development and use. Some members of Parliament stated that they were concerned that among all the current and future techniques, only one, human cloning, is affected by Bill C- 247. This is not oversight or negligence. I believe it is wise to admit that these techniques are developing at a much faster rate than our ability to understand them and to adapt in order to monitor them properly.

The criminalization of human cloning through the passage of Bill C-247 is a first step. There will be others, and soon I hope, so that over time, we will manage to produce a legal and regulatory framework that is acceptable. It will never be perfect nor sufficiently complete, because there will always be some discovery that will force us to adjust. To believe the contrary would be deluding ourselves.

Reservations were also expressed in some quarters about the fact that the amendment is being presented through the Criminal Code and not through a bill tabled by the Department of Health. We believe that things should be done correctly, in the clearest and simplest way possible. The purpose of the bill is to criminalize a certain practice. The tool to do that is the Criminal Code. One would never think of criminalizing drug trafficking through the Department of Health because drug addiction is a public health problem.

In a field as broad and volatile, things must be done clearly and correctly.

Just yesterday, an article appearing in the Toronto Star described the rapid progress of genetics and the lack of tools to monitor this adequately. In this regard, a professor of biotics at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Glenn McGee, stated the following: “What are the limits? How far will this go? This is biology in its raw state. We see what can be done and we do it.”

I believe that we as legislators must act in the same way: see what is done, take note of the consensus and take action.

I would like to tell members of the committee that I do not expect that my bill would be adopted by this committee right now. But if, through this bill, I could force the government or the Department of Health to take a step and act quickly with regard to human cloning, I will have done my job. This subject is of concern to us all. The entire population is worried about this matter. I hope that I will be able to compel the government to take action so that it can finally find a way to monitor this practice.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam.

• 0935

I don't know if this comment is appropriate, but I would like to say that one should never prejudge the collective decisions of committees. Thank you for your presentation. I will give the floor immediately to Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Ms. Picard, in regard to it being enforced through the Criminal Code and then enforced by the provinces, you made mention of the fact that you feel that's most correct, that it's the appropriate way to do this. Do you feel that if we left it simply to the federal agency to do there would be weakness in that it would not be as stringently enforced? What is your concern there?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Only the government has the power to criminalize this practice; the provinces can neither amend nor implement the provisions of the Criminal Code, which is under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Justice. Human cloning is a criminal activity that should come under a very strict regulatory framework in order to avoid any confusion, so that researchers who are considering using this practice don't have to wonder whether or not they can apply it. In my opinion, this practice must come under the Criminal Code. I don't know what other words I can possibly use to explain this to you. Throughout the world, there is a will to adopt a very strict regulatory framework. In this country, this strict regulatory framework must come through the Criminal Code.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. So if it were not in the Criminal Code, if it were just carried out by the health department here, that would not be as stringent an approach. That's what I'm hearing you say.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: That's right. Responsibility for health belongs to the provinces. If they were given the responsibility for applying the rules governing human cloning, they would run the risk of applying a different framework according to their own interpretation or following an amendment. It's very easy to play with the rules that govern such activities and to convince others of one's own understanding of these types of practices. Although I do trust the provincial ministries of health, I don't believe they are in a position to implement such regulations. To my mind, this practice must be regulated by the Criminal Code and that is why I am proposing its amendment.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Judy.

[Translation]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank Pauline Picard for her initiative and for this bill which, in my opinion, represents a very important contribution in eyes of many citizens and organizations concerned by this issue.

I will now put my questions in English because the terminology is very complex, even in English.

The Chairman: You expressed yourself very well in French.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

The Chairman: Your son should be very proud that his mother can speak as well in French as in English.

[English]

You got that joke? Excuse me, Madam Wasylycia-Leis. Go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. I'm a little worried that we're getting off to such a civil start for a change.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: I'm having an off day. What can I tell you?

• 0940

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Since Pauline Picard has been following this issue for a long time and was here in the last Parliament—and I wasn't—when this issue was before us, I'd like to find out from her why there has been such a long delay in addressing issues in this area.

We've had so many advances in the area of reproductive technologies, and human cloning is the most recent of these developments. I don't think anybody five years ago could have imagined that such advances would be made. There's a lot of concern from people I've talked to about the fact that we, the federal government, are not prepared and do not have the framework in place to be able to respond to all these new advances. And now we're missing the boat. We're behind and it's hard to catch up.

So I have a couple of general questions. Why did Bill C-47 die on the Order Paper when there was at least a consensus around the idea of prohibitions on human cloning? What is your sense of where the government might be with respect to bringing in legislation to build on Bill C-47? What does this mean in terms of the initiatives taking place in the private marketplace, in effect, with respect to women's reproductive capacities?

The Chair: Madam Wasylycia-Leis, you were right. Maybe there was something wrong with the air, where civility was reigning when it shouldn't have been, but I think that kind of question may be out of order.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, really?

The Chair: Madame Picard's not in a position to answer questions on Bill C-47. She's only in a position to be able to answer questions on Bill C-247. Anything else would be speculative. Sorry, Madam.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me—

The Chair: But you've made your point anyway.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I wasn't doing this to try to make a point. I'm trying to understand, and since Madame Picard's bill is dealing with the human-cloning aspect that was one part of Bill C-47, I would like to know what generally is causing Canada to lag behind other nations with respect to taking action in this regard. And what do we need to do to get things moving in this country?

The Chair: We'll stretch that elastic as far as we can, can we, Madame Picard?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I agree with Julie that we are very late in dealing with this. I'm also wondering how come we're still stuck with a voluntary moratorium. Bill C-47 died on the order paper and that's fortunate in my opinion. That suited the government since they would have had to amend a host of provisions in Bill C-47. Many scientists came to tell us that Bill C-47 would put a halt to medical research and that it was negative and restrictive. But fortunately, an election was called.

Nevertheless, I expected that immediately after the general election, the government would come back in force and table a new bill since many of these issues had remained pending.

There is a voluntary moratorium and we're told that there is an oversight committee. Has anyone ever heard about this supposed oversight committee that is to report to the Minister? In the course of my research, be it in scientific circles or laboratories, no one was ever able to tell me that they had seen or heard of this oversight committee. Even though we presume 99 percent of scientists act in good faith, you only need one to create a scandal.

I don't know what they're waiting for to act; I don't understand why the government is delaying passing legislation on this issue.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Madam Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Madame Picard, I'm not too clear on the section where you talk about research and manipulating. I have a question.

• 0945

Not too long ago, I was listening to some news, to a report about changing or being able to eradicate physical disabilities—in other words, handicaps—in embryos, in children before they're born, so that Down's syndrome or other handicaps, which afflict a lot of the handicapped people today...these problems would not be the case in future, those things could be addressed. Some of those illnesses are genetically inherited, so how would this bill affect that kind of research? In a sense, that research is a benefit to people. They would be able to lead healthy lives and not be disabled. How does this impact on that kind of research, that kind of work?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Bill C-247 does not aim at criminalizing all reproductive technologies, but only those that would be used to clone human beings. That's all it is. We will have to debate other reproductive technologies and provide a different framework for each of them in order to avoid impeding medical research.

The technique referred to in Bill C-247 is not used to fight disease. It's a technique that we want to criminalize so that one day, you and I don't end up cloned.

The wording of clause 1 of Bill C-247 is the same as that in the bill tabled by the government last year that proposed to prohibit genetic manipulation for the purpose of human cloning.

[English]

The Chair: Okay?

Ms. Maria Minna: That's fine.

The Chair: Merci.

Madame Picard, Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis wants to see how far that elastic can go.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have just a couple of questions.

The Chair: Go ahead, Madam.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Based on all of the hearings that took place around Bill C-47 in the previous Parliament and based on your sense that there was a consensus among organizations that appeared before the committee and among parliamentarians, could one assume there is a consensus in the Canadian population for restriction of human cloning and that in fact those restrictions need to be in the Criminal Code? That's one question.

I'll quickly slip in the other one. You mentioned that there is an agreement or a declaration by the World Health Assembly around ethical questions pertaining to human cloning, but I think you said Canada has not signed that declaration. Is that what I heard you say? Can you give us any understanding of why not or what's holding back this country?

The Chair: I don't know whether you can answer that, Ms. Picard—not unless you've developed certain telepathic powers. Do you want to give that a shot, a chance, or what?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I cannot answer your second question. I was simply asked why Canada, which is in the vanguard on most matters and takes this kind of initiative under the Declaration of Human Rights and for the protection of human rights, had not come forward to sign this declaration. This declaration was not limited to European countries. That's a question I was asked.

With regard to your first question, allow me to point out that this was not the World Health Organization but rather the European Council. I have that declaration here and I could give you a copy later.

The Baird Commission heard 40,000 witnesses. I would invite you to read its report, which is the result of four years of study. It recommends the criminalization of human cloning and other practices, including those aimed at producing human and animal hybrids.

• 0950

In fact, the voluntary moratorium introduced in July 1995 prohibited nine reproductive techniques, including human cloning. But it is a voluntary moratorium that was put in place as an interim measure before a more restrictive framework could be adopted. I don't know what the government is waiting for to take action, since most other countries have already adopted resolutions to this effect. The World Health Organization, which includes some 150 countries, made a declaration to that effect. During the 51st World Health Assembly, there was discussion of the consequences of cloning in the area of human health with regard to scientific and social ethics. It was recommended that legislation be introduced as soon as possible in order to prohibit cloning as a method of reproducing human beings.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame.

Mr. Elley, do you want to be part of this tag team?

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): It sounds like it's a wrestling match, doesn't it?

Thank you very much, Madame Picard, for having the courage and the foresight to bring in this bill. I think it's very important for us to commend you on that.

I just want to get this clear in my mind. The bill that you are now presenting is in effect simply part of the legislation that had been proposed under C-47. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes, we did repeat in its entirety the wording of a clause that appeared in Bill C-47.

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley: Yes, directly from C-47.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes, that is the exact wording that had been proposed by the government.

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley: So in effect, if the government members vote against this, they are really voting against legislation that they themselves proposed? That's clear, then.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: That's right.

[English]

The Chair: That's a bit stretched there, Reed.

An hon. member: It's pretty simplistic.

Mr. Reed Elley: I just want to get this clear. And maybe it's simplistic, but I think it's true. That doesn't put me in a moral dilemma, but it might some of the government members.

An hon. member: We'll see.

Mr. Reed Elley: Would your bill, then, prevent the government from coming back with some kind of legislation that would be complementary to your bill? Have you given some thought to that?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes, I thought of that, but I figured that you have to start somewhere. Why not start by making a decision on this issue? All issues relating to genetic manipulation are highly complex and we will have to examine them in a more in-depth way.

Essentially, it was fortunate that Bill C-46 died on the Order Paper. It had many deficiencies. The government and members of the committee that examined it agreed, after having heard many witnesses, that the bill had to be reviewed.

But I'm worried about the fact that we have nothing on the table in this regard. That's why I told myself that we had to start with something very clear. In my opinion, everyone is clear on the fact that we must prohibit the practice of human cloning. So we're starting somewhere, and after that the government may want to table another bill that would encompass other genetic manipulation practices. There's nothing to stop it from doing so. This is just the first step.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Picard, thank you very much for giving us your presentation and giving members an opportunity to ask questions on the issues they have raised concerning this particular bill. Now, I think, you'll probably want to take your place around the table, at your normal location.

• 0955

In the moment or two that it takes Madame Picard to take her normal place around the table, I'm going to advise members that we have representatives here from both the health and justice departments, who might shed some light on any technical questions you might have—and I underscore the word “technical”. This is for all members around the table. In regard to some of the policy decisions or some of the policy issues you've raised with Madame Picard, those are fine, but let's stick to some simple facts if we can—if there are any.

I'll call on the department representatives: Mr. Glenn Rivard, senior legal counsel from the Department of Justice; Madam Phyllis Colvin, director, health policy, Department of Health; and Madame Francine Manseau, senior policy analyst, health policy division, Department of Health.

I don't know whether you have a very brief presentation. It wasn't my intention to have you make a speech or anything. We called you here as a resource for any questions that we might have. Do you feel comfortable with that or do you want to say something?

Ms. Phyllis Colvin (Director, Health Policy, Department of Health): We have just a very few points, no presentation.

Given that the wording of the bill before you today is identical to that of portions of Bill C-47, which has been mentioned, discussion, as it were, of the content and substance of the bill and comparisons with C-47 would not appear to be particularly apropos, but we would be happy to review our experience and our information with respect to the context and approach that has been taken in the development of prohibitions in this field.

In particular, the federal government has been concerned with issues of cloning and genetic manipulation for some time. In 1993, the report of the royal commission recommended banning the practices that I've just referenced and the government followed up with a call for a moratorium on human cloning and genetic manipulation, along with several other egregious practices, in 1995.

In 1996, the government tabled Bill C-47 to prohibit not only human cloning and genetic manipulation but other problematic reproductive and genetic technologies, because they posed significant threats to the health and well-being of Canadians using these technologies and of the children born as the result of these technologies.

While Bill C-47 failed to complete the legislative process before the call of the federal election, it indicated the government's position on health and safety and ethical issues—I think it's very important to stress “and ethical issues”—in human-assisted reproduction and genetic technologies.

And we have gained experience from Bill C-47. Obviously Canadians had an opportunity to testify before this committee with respect to Bill C-47. They have told us that there are many issues involved in reproductive and genetic technologies, which require not only prohibitions but also the possibility of a regulatory regime in this area, and not just with respect to cloning and genetic manipulation, but with respect to other technologies.

Those are the introductory points I would like to make.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard, did you want to add anything to that? Madame Manseau?

I know that members had some questions of a very specific nature and, as I say, if we can strip all of your questions of any political and policy considerations I'd really appreciate it, because then it means I wouldn't have to interrupt you.

Are there any questions?

Madame Picard, go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I would like to know what your role is regarding Bill C-47 that was tabled by the government. Were you to legislate or conduct an analysis of it?

• 1000

[English]

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: At the present time, the government is obviously considering and taking on board the responses put before it, in the context of Bill C-47. It was an experience, obviously, in terms of bringing forward a piece of legislation, a project that covered a variety of prohibitions in this area. The responses are a matter of public record. I think some of them are fairly well known. One of them was that Canadians at that time were very interested in what is commonly known as a comprehensive legislative approach, and they made that very clearly understood in the discussions before the committee.

The issue of embryo research was also discussed at quite some length. In particular, there were some concerns about the utilization of prohibitions in that area. The government has taken those issues on board and is considering those amongst other things in terms of the implications.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: But Madam, do you realize that these issues have been under examination since 1989? The government of the day had given a mandate to the Baird Commission which tabled its report four years later. We're on the eve of 1999 and there's still nothing on the table. A moratorium continues to prevail.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Picard—

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I don't know, but...

[English]

The Chair: —it's a valid point, but it's not really something she can answer. The parliamentary secretary is not here, but maybe she would be the best one to answer that question. Madame Picard—

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Can you tell us what the government plans to do and whether it intends to it soon?

[English]

The Chair: Madame Picard, in fairness to the officials, those are policy decisions, which they have nothing to do with.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: What kind of questions can we ask them? I don't understand their role.

The Chairman: As I indicated, we can ask them technical questions, but not questions related to government policy.

Ms. Pauline Picard: All right, I won't ask any more.

[English]

The Chair: Then we'll go over there.

[Translation]

It's a question that should be put to the parliamentary secretary. Mr. Jackson.

[English]

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I think, it doesn't matter what kind of legislation government makes, because it usually only covers a few individuals. Not everybody goes around robbing banks or whatever, but I guess laws have to be made. In a modern country that's trying to do well, scientific exploration is so important.

The complications with the legislation must come from the line, “how far would the scientist go?”, and from how the bill may encumber his or her work, because, again, it's exploration and they may happen to cross the line. I think this is probably where the complication is and I'm wondering if you cleared enough of those barriers with the scientists in order to come up with legislation that would work, as you say, in a comprehensive way and not be a barrier to scientific research. Is that too complicated a question?

The Chair: Mr. Jackson, I can appreciate where you're going. I think it's a little closer to asking a question that isn't really specific to C-247. One of the bases for bringing our officials here was to see if we could understand C-247. The other, larger issues, as I've already indicated to Madame Picard... And it's a little difficult for me as a member of this committee and even more so as chair to divorce myself from the larger issues, but that's not what we're dealing with. I'd prefer to just stick with Bill C-247.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Mr. Chair, I would prefer that the officials tell me what they feel. If they feel they can't answer it, fine; I don't want to put them in any position, but I—

The Chair: Do you want to ask another question, Mr. Jackson?

Mr. Ovid Jackson: No.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: I don't think I'm going to ask too many questions here because I don't agree with you on that particular point.

The Chair: That's okay. We're still friends.

Madam Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna: I just wanted to pick up on the question I asked Madame Picard earlier with respect to whether or not this bill prohibits or would prohibit the possible manipulation of or changes in genetic framework in dealing with disabilities and things of that nature, like deformities.

• 1005

Can you answer that? Would this bill in fact also impede that kind of work? As I read it, it does. I'm wondering about how you separate that from the pure cloning. As I read it, it would, but maybe I'm not reading it well.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: The two provisions with respect to cloning and to genetic manipulation are, of course, derived from C-47. The wording is derived; it's identical.

With respect to genetic manipulation, this is one of the things that was invoked as a prohibition. It refers to what is colloquially called “germ-line genetic manipulation” and in effect refers to genetic manipulation that would, as it were, have impacts between generations. One of the issues that did come forward as C-47 was discussed was, in effect, the fine line between the benefits that clearly are available from the research end and the need to prohibit egregious practices.

The area of cloning and the area of germ-line genetic manipulation—not all genetic manipulation, but germ-line genetic manipulation—have been regarded from an ethical standpoint, both by the government and by other commentators, as egregious, offensive and ethically problematic, and that is the reason they were included in the original prohibitions.

However, there is a benefit available to Canadians from new reproductive and genetic technologies, and this is one of the reasons why Canadians are calling for a more comprehensive approach in order to be able to—

The Chair: Madam Colvin, let's stick to this question.

Ms. Maria Minna: But with respect, you didn't answer my question. I want to know if this particular bill would prohibit the research that would benefit—

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: No.

Ms. Maria Minna: —an unborn child who needs—

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: It prohibits one specific aspect of genetic manipulation: germ-line genetic therapy.

The Chair: Mr. Rivard.

Mr. Glenn Rivard (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): Just to pick up on what Phyllis Colvin has indicated, the bill actually creates two offences. One clause prohibits cloning. The second prohibits a particular type of therapy, gene therapy, that is, modifications of genes of the sort that can be passed on to subsequent generations. In short—

Ms. Maria Minna: Disabilities inherited genetically.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: —you are introducing a permanent change to the genetic heritage of the population. So there are the two offences in the bill.

Ms. Maria Minna: But there are certain illnesses that are genetically inherited. Would this prevent assisting in that situation as well? Am I being obtuse here?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes, it would prohibit responding to that type of condition through a permanent change to the genetic structure—if I can call it that—which can be passed on to subsequent generations.

Ms. Maria Minna: So it would?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes.

Ms. Maria Minna: It took a while to get to it.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you.

Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a couple of questions.

First, Mr. Rivard, from the legal or justice point of view, are there reasons why we should not support this bill? Are there questions around enforcement? Are there questions around a charter challenge? What are the legal obstacles, if any, to this bill going forward?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I will simply say that these provisions as constructed in this bill would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to enforce, because there is, in fact, no enforcement mechanism included in the bill that is appropriate for the type of offences.

Basically, to determine whether or not somebody is carrying out cloning research or germ-line therapy, you require an investigator who has the scientific training in genetics necessary to make that determination. An offence like this, basically, placed in the Criminal Code, is enforced by the police forces. There is no other mechanism provided for in this bill, and that type of scientific training is rarely available to police forces, if at all.

• 1010

The Chair: Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

Ms. Colvin, what is happening in Canada with respect to developments around human cloning and gene therapy? What medical research organizations, either private or non-profit, are carrying out research in this area? And in this country, how close are we to making breakthroughs around human cloning and other advancements in the area of gene therapy?

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: We have an advisory committee that is active in the area. We're taking soundings of the field.

Cloning, as indeed Madame Picard has mentioned, is a concern around the world. The areas where most concern has been expressed, for example, with respect to the Scottish example that she mentioned or some of the concerns that have emerged in the United States vis-à-vis specific instances of cloning, have fortunately not been a characteristic of the Canadian scene.

The situation in terms of cloning in Canada, as far as we are aware, is essentially the status quo with respect to this particular type of technology. We have just recently taken some soundings with respect to the degree of embryo research activity and, to our knowledge, this type of activity is not ongoing in Canada.

Of course, the situation we face in this area is that our information arrangements are subject, clearly, to the availability of indications from the scientific community, but at the present time, that's the state of affairs.

The Chair: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask Mr. Rivard a question, going back to what Judy was talking about as it relates to the whole issue of the legal system and the legislation being put in place. I was just looking at one of the handouts that Ms. Picard gave us about Europe and the 19 states that signed this protocol prohibiting cloning of human beings. It also says that it's stipulated that states must provide in their legislation for penalties for offences such as prohibiting researchers, and it goes on and on.

Would it be fair to say there are states that have implemented legislation that is very similar or identical to C-247? I'm trying to get a sense of whether this is absolutely Canada's version or whether it's one that the international community has, because it was in C-47, so if it's identical to C-47, but just in one clause, and it is more comprehensive than Bill C-47 as far as the overall discussion of the issue... I'm trying to get a sense of whether states around the world already have something like this in place.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I'm not aware of any state that has used its equivalent of the Criminal Code to prohibit this conduct. This issue has been addressed by a number of states, but virtually universally in the context of a broader health-oriented legislation designed to regulate reproductive and genetic technologies more broadly. So yes, there are states that have prohibited cloning, but not in the context of what would be their equivalent of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Robert Nault: So could you give me a layman's explanation, then, as to how they do enforce it?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I can give you an example. The United Kingdom has set up a regulatory authority for reproductive and genetic technologies. Under that system, scientific investigators can enter premises and have the authority to seize whatever is required to be seized. They have the scientific knowledge to actually conduct an analysis on the research that is undertaken to determine whether or not that research contravenes a prohibition or contravenes the conditions of regulated activity.

• 1015

It's a far more subtle approach, if you will, and it allows the application of scientific knowledge to what are essentially very complex technical scientific issues.

Mr. Robert Nault: So in the United Kingdom, if we're using that example, there is no penalty for non-compliance; in fact, it's a form of voluntary moratorium similar to ours.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: No. These are regulated and in some cases prohibited processes, and there are penalties for breach of the prohibitions or the regulations.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'm having a really tough time understanding this. If there are prohibitions and penalties, the penalties must have some sort of correlation to the Criminal Code. If you have a penalty, what do you do? Do you sue them? Do you shut them down? Do you send them to jail? What do they do in the United Kingdom?

If you're saying that this is not the same as any other particular piece of legislation that you're aware of outside Canada, then we're doing it very differently from everybody else. I'm just trying to get a feel for this.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I think if you were to ask the British, for example, or the Europeans in general, about it, you'd see that they quite clearly see this as a health-related issue and they regulate it from that perspective. They create mechanisms that have the appropriate medical and scientific knowledge in order to make both policy decisions and enforcement decisions in this area. I would be surprised if they would characterize this as a criminal law issue.

An hon. member: That's the key.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Robert's questions were good. I'm also trying to comprehend this whole thing. My first question is, are you saying, then, that there's some $100,000 fine or something levied by the health department against the...? Is that kind of what we're saying?

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: I think it's important to recognize that Bill C-47 and other types of health law obviously involve prohibitions and sanctions. The use of the criminal law power in the health field is quite extensive. Bill C-47 and similar types of legislation have modelled themselves on that health law tradition and, indeed, the sanctions that are contained in Bill C-247 are identical to those that were contained in Bill C-47.

The issue of prohibitions and sanctions in the health law context is important. There's a major point here, which is that within C-247 you do not see an important clause about the creation, in effect, of a health inspectorate. These are very difficult and tough issues requiring, as it were, scientific discretion. And one of the bases of health law, as it were, is the creation of inspectorates in the area. And this provision allows, as it were, for appropriate enforcement. It's very difficult, for example, for the police to be able to detect and deal with these issues on their own.

So that's the context in which the criminal law power is used within the health sector.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're still not getting to the response to Robert's questions or mine in that when you talk of sanctions... What are we saying? Are we saying that you can't go in and practise for a day or that we'll padlock your building or...? What are we talking about, specifically and concretely? Do we take away your bicycle that you pedal to work with? What is it that they do?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: There are fines available under these regimes in other countries—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Fines?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: —quite significant fines, as well as a capacity for a full panoply of enforcement mechanisms: the ability to enter the premises; the ability to seize materials and records, etc.; and the authority to do whatever scientific analysis is required in order to come to the determination of whether the particular research in question is aimed at human cloning or germ-line therapy or whatever the prohibition may be.

• 1020

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Now that I have a partial answer to that, the gist of my main question is this: is there a problem under our current justice regime in the country? I acknowledge that my local constabulary down in rural Saskatchewan maybe doesn't have the mental expertise or whatever to discern the complexity of this issue. Is there any problem with bringing health department officials in to sort that out and help before a charge is laid? Is there anything in our criminal justice system that prevents them from using the expertise of the health department officials—or whatever—with the actual formal charge being laid by the RCMP, the city police or whoever? Is there anything that prevents that?

The Chair: In this particular legislation?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: For this legislation.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The authority of health officials in anything that is sort of equivalent, if you will, is set out in legislation. For example, they are authorized to carry out these sorts of inspections and enforcement activities under the Food and Drugs Act, but they are authorized to do that only with respect to the matters governed by the Food and Drugs Act.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So if they have a perception that somebody has crossed a line, they can actually notify your local constabulary, your police, and say that there is reason to believe there has been an infringement and therefore charges should be laid.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: But under C-247 they have no authority or mandate in that regard. I don't know how they would know that. They play no role in the context of this bill.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And that was my point in my question with respect to this bill. There is nothing that prohibits or forbids them from providing expert witness and testimony with respect to the laying of the charge and thereafter, is there?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: I guess I would put it differently. I would say that they have no authority to do so. Their enforcement authority is limited to what is provided to them under legislation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If the police called upon them, though, and had suspicions or perceptions or whatever, they could go in and give an expert opinion and stay as subpoenaed or as requested by police so a charge could then follow. Is that correct?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: In my view, they would have no authority to do that.

The Chair: Did you exhaust your question there?

Do you want to go ahead, Reed?

Mr. Reed Elley: I thought I had this all straight, but I'm not quite sure I do now, after hearing this. Are we saying that cloning is different from genetic manipulation, say, for the eradication of disease? I'd like Mrs. Colvin to answer.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: Yes, there are two different types of technologies.

The Chair: In this legislation.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: Yes. In this legislation, there are two clauses that are derived from the former legislation, and they are two separate concerns and separate entities. In other words, going back to where we all started, when the royal commission put forward the recommendations, as it were, that eventually became the basis for prohibitions, there were two separate recommendations, one with regard to cloning and the other with regard to genetic manipulation involving successive generations.

Mr. Reed Elley: So they are two different things. This bill addresses cloning.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: This bill addresses both.

Mr. Reed Elley: How does it address the other one? Can you go through that again?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: If you look at 286.1(1)(b)—

Mr. Reed Elley: I can see where it addresses cloning.

The Chair: Can I just stop you there for second? Mr. Rivard, you were drawing the committee's attention to...?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: If you look at clause 1 of the bill, you will see that two offences are created by the proposed—

The Chair: What page is that?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: On the second page, at the top.

The bill would create two offences. Proposed paragraph 286.1(1)(a) addresses cloning, and at the top of the second page, proposed paragraph 286.1(1)(b) addresses what is commonly referred to as germ-line therapy. The objectives of these two practices are different and, at a technical level, they are different practices as well.

• 1025

Mr. Reed Elley: Did the government not perceive this problem when they introduced the legislation last time round?

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: Oh, yes. The extraction of the wording is identical.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Colvin. Sorry.

This is going just a little over to the other side, Reed. In fairness, I think, we've already had an explanation by Madame Picard, which I think sufficed for both sides of the House. It was that the legislation presented was already fraught with some difficulties that were going to be addressed with amendments. Madame Picard has already addressed that.

I know you're following a good line of questioning, but I want to stay away from that. Let's just stick with this one because we were on the right track.

An hon. member: In the chairman's opinion.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: In the chairman's opinion? You're right.

Mr. Reed Elley: I think it's in the genes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: That's why I wear slacks.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Phyllis, this is addressed to you again. Are these two issues, as pointed out by Glenn, the (a) and the (b), so inseparable, so inextricably bound together? Is it possible to have them apart? And even if you deleted deleted (b), let's suppose, do you get at this issue of banning human cloning? Or, if you did not have (b), would it in effect so much weaken or dilute (a) that you would probably not even have the ban on human cloning?

Is my question clear enough?

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: I wouldn't want to comment on the dilution factor, but these are separable technologies dealing with different issues, and certainly as a result, they have separate clauses and have been dealt with separately from the royal commission through to this bill.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So in your professional and considered opinion, then, if we dropped (b) we could still in effect—to put it in lay terminology—get at this thing of banning human cloning.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: Insofar as your intent would be to address cloning only, in my view you could do that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you very much Mr. Rivard, Madam Colvin and Madame Manseau. Madame Manseau, we didn't hear you say anything, but that's okay. Sometimes silence is golden. We thank you very much for your patience and for your studied effort at giving us the proper answers to our questions.

Colleagues, I'm going to turn immediately to consideration of the bill.

Mr. Myers, did you want to ask a question before I go to that?

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): No. I wanted to just make some observations, if I may.

The Chair: Just for purposes of clarification, obviously.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I hope so.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I wanted first of all, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, to thank Madame Picard for this bill. Certainly on her part, I think, it underscores her commitment, and too, I think, the commitments of Canadians in this very important issue.

It's hard to keep up, Mr. Chair, with what's happening in these kinds of matters. I was reminded not so long ago early in this month of the University of Wisconsin and the kinds of things that are happening there. I think what it really underlines is the need for all of us in this very important area to have comprehensive legislation in place, with regulations that are important and underscore the importance of this particular point.

I know the government is very interested in this area. I know the government is on record as opposing cloning and I think that's important to note. I think, too, it's important to note that the Minister of Health has indicated on a number of occasions now that he wants legislation governing this very important technology to be as up-to-date and as flexible as possible.

But I was listening with great intensity to Mr. Rivard in terms of the enforcement provisions and the kinds of things that are happening and could happen under the Criminal Code, and I think there are some flaws in that respect. I'm not convinced that the Criminal Code is the best place, in fact, to put this.

Having said that, I think maybe we should allow this to go to third reading and see what happens. I think that might be appropriate. Perhaps we could agree to move in that way and hopefully that'll expedite the process, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm just the referee here, Mr. Myers.

• 1030

The Chair: I'm just the referee here, Mr. Myers. Committee members can make up their own minds, and if they think this bill merits the consideration of the House, they can send it back. And if members think the bill needs to be amended, third reading and final report stage are excellent opportunities for providing those kinds of amendments to address any of the issues that have been raised here and may be raised there. But that's not my business; that's the business of the House. Shall I—

Mr. Vellacott?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have one comment about something that came up several times here. It's the issue of medical research for the very good cause of disabilities and disease and so on. My understanding is that this paragraph (b) eliminates only a very small part of this whole spectrum of medical research. In fact, the kind that's forbidden by this paragraph (b) is not even being done; it's a futuristic kind of possibility. My understanding is that it does not eliminate the vast majority of medical research along the lines of disability and disease and so on.

The Chair: That may be your understanding and, again, as I say, it's not for me to pass judgment on that or to offer any reflection on it, except to say what I said a moment or two ago: if there are members like yourself and others who have raised these issues here and you want to address them by way of an amendment, you can do that here now.

If you decide to take Mr. Myers' suggestion that we perhaps we lay this back on the floor of the House and let the House deal with any potential amendments, that's a decision you can make. All I can do is ask that we go to clause by clause, and if you want to express yourself accordingly, you can do so. Fair enough?

Mr. Reed Elley: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure whether this is in order or not, but can we at committee pass a motion saying that we move this be sent back to the House for third reading without going clause by clause, and save ourselves that, if that's what the will of the committee is? Do you still have to go through it clause by clause?

The Chair: You have to go through it clause by clause because I need to have something to take back.

Mr. Reed Elley: Okay.

(On clause 1)

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

No, I'm sorry—

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I would like to table an amendment.

[English]

The Chair: —before we begin, I have in front of me an amendment by Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I move that Bill C-247, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 1 with the following:

(a) manipulate a human cell, zygote or embryo

“Manipulate a human cell” replaces “manipulate an ovum”. Allow me to explain.

As a result of current technological progress, the use of an ovum is no longer required to practice human cloning. A single cell is sufficient. Therefore, I'm replacing “manipulate an ovum” by “manipulate a human cell”. In any event, Bill C-47 has been amended under this clause to replace “manipulate an ovum” by “manipulate a human cell”.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Picard, I have a question.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: I understand that there has been an advance in technology, but why would you replace and not just simply add? For example,

[Translation]

why not say, “manipulate an ovum, a human cell, a zygote” instead of eliminating “an ovum” and replacing it by “a human cell”?

Ms. Pauline Picard: I have no objection to that. I noticed this error when I reread Bill C-47. In examining the bill, we realized that there had been an amendment to replace “ovum” by “human cell”, and that's why I wanted to make this change. Today, an ovum is no longer needed. A single cell suffices. Therefore, I have no objection if you think it is better to...

[English]

The Chair: No.

We have a motion to move an amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

• 1035

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the chair table the bill, as amended, in the House as the fourth report of the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. This will be so reported to the House.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.