HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 10, 2001

• 1109

[English]

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

This is the first briefing by Health Canada on the draft legislation that has been assigned to this committee by the House.

• 1110

We will open with a presentation by the Health Canada team. That team is led today by Mr. Ian Shugart, and he will begin.

Mr. Shugart.

Mr. Ian Shugart (Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Health Canada): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm not sure how long I should take to review the legislation for you. I will not go through it exhaustively, and I'll look to you for signals if it's taking too long. But with direction from the clerk and staff, we felt this would be helpful to the committee.

Let me introduce my colleagues: Ms. Rhonda Ferderber is director of the unit that has been working on this file; Mr. Glenn Rivard is Justice Canada counsel, with us on this file, and has been involved in the actual drafting of the legislation; and

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Manseau, who works with Rhonda, in her team.

[English]

The legislation begins with a preamble that describes the guiding principles, and as you know, the preamble can be instrumental in shaping the interpretation of the content of the legislation.

The preamble is quite extensive in terms of detailing the guiding principles. Those principles talk essentially about the protection and promotion of health and safety; the best interests of children affected by the application of assisted human reproduction technologies; issues of informed consent; the integrity of the human genome; and respect for human individuality. Then the legislation proceeds to set out how Canada would deal with specific human reproduction activities, guided by those principles.

Certain activities would be prohibited. Activities that are considered unacceptable, such as the purchase and sale of embryos, would be banned as statutory prohibitions. One issue that the committee will want to reflect on is whether the list of statutory prohibitions is complete and whether the items that are in the statutory list are appropriately there.

Other activities would be considered acceptable if they were carried out in accordance with regulations, and it is possible to have activities prohibited under the regulations. The draft legislation of course would give the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Health, the authority to develop the regulations.

[Translation]

To summarize, the draft legislation covers two types of activities. First of all, those activities which are prohibited at all times—prohibitions—and, secondly, those governed by the regulations: controlled or regulated activities. The prohibitions are defined in the act and the regulated activities will be described in the forthcoming regulations.

The scope of the draft bill is twofold. First of all, it pertains to assisted reproduction activities per se, which are required to help certain Canadians conceive children, and, secondly, the use of human embryos for research purposes to advance knowledge.

[English]

So, in summary, the draft legislation covers two types of activities—prohibitions and controlled activities—and two purposes to which those activities pertain—assisted human reproduction and the use of embryos in research. I'll deal with the prohibitions first.

Within the context of the principles set out in the preamble, the legislation expresses the idea that Canadians would not accept certain types of activities in the field of assisted human reproduction, and it's proposed that these be written into law. These prohibitions include cloning human beings, creating human embryos for research purposes alone, and using assisted human reproductive techniques to select the sex of a baby, unless for particular medical reasons.

• 1115

Other prohibitions are grounded in the notion that it is wrong to commercialize human reproductive materials and capabilities. That leads to the proposition that buying and selling of human embryos would be illegal, and so would the practice of commercial surrogacy be illegal.

I won't go through each of the other prohibitions individually, although I suspect that in questions you may want to return to the prohibitions per se.

The controlled activities and the regulations are the next block. One of the main purposes of the regulations would be to safeguard the health and safety of Canadians, particularly the women who use procedures such as in vitro fertilization, as well as the children who may be born through these techniques. The regulations would also be designed to protect the embryos created during assisted human reproduction procedures. So the regulations would speak to issues of collection and storage of embryos, and so on.

[Translation]

Written and informed consent is a basic principle of the draft legislation. Donors' consent illustrates this principle. For instance, donors will have to give their consent in writing before their gametes can be used for assisted reproduction. The use of their embryos for research and reproduction purposes will also require their consent. Donors can decide whether or not the individuals that result from their donation should know their identity. In addition, regulations will be developed to insure that donors receive the information they need before giving or refusing their consent.

[English]

A key element of the proposed legislation relates to the provision of information. People need to understand the options, the processes, and the consequences of the procedures and treatments being offered. In particular, women will benefit from information on the outcomes and success rates of various assisted human reproduction activities. With that kind of information in hand, women will be able to make more informed decisions about fertility treatments.

Persons born of donations also need access to medical information about their donors. The registries would make that possible. The draft legislation, however, protects the privacy and identity of the donors. Donors would be able to make their identities known to their biological children if they so wanted. So again you can see that we return to the issue of informed consent in that particular instance.

With registries in place, it would also be possible to limit the number of children per donor. Such a limit would reduce the possibility of blood relatives unknowingly entering into a relationship or having children together.

[Translation]

The research on in vitro human embryos will be strictly regulated because of their special status, namely, their potential to become human beings. Only research on human embryos not used for reproductive purposes, namely, already existing embryos, will be authorized. The research will be examined closely by recognized scientists, by a peer review process, before a licence is granted.

[English]

The regulations for research using already existing embryos would be developed to meet two objectives: first, to ensure that the human embryos were treated appropriately; and second, to establish grounds for the use of human embryos in research, for example, for the advancement of knowledge.

If a better understanding is gained about fertility and embryonic development, better treatments can be developed to treat infertility and decrease the incidence of miscarriage. That is one example of the advancement of knowledge that is foreseen.

Secondly, on the derivation of stem cells from already existing embryos, as you know, research with embryonic stem cells has the potential to lead to important medical uses, including treatment for a variety of diseases—cancer, Alzheimer's, and so on. Currently, of all the types of stem cells, those from embryos have the most potential for this kind of understanding and application.

• 1120

Finally, Madam Chair, I'll speak of the regulatory body that is implied in the legislation and upon which Mr. Rock indicated that he would welcome the consideration of the committee and its advice.

A regulatory body, either within Health Canada or external to it, would be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the proposed legislation. Four basic functions are being considered for the regulatory body. One of the issues is how those functions are best carried out, and the model that would follow those functions. They include licensing and enforcement. You'll recall that the legislation authorizes the Minister of Health to issue licences for the controlled activities. In practice, this will obviously not be the Minister of Health himself or herself, but the regulatory authority.

The second function would be health information, including the oversight and establishment of the information registries; policy development—in other words, providing advice and monitoring of the changes within this field and the need for the adaptation of regulations over time; and finally, communication, broader public information, and so on.

Such a body or those mechanisms surrounding it should be broadly representative of all parties interested in assisted human reproduction, transparent in its process, and accountable. We believe it should be flexible and responsive in order to react in a timely and effective way to new developments in a field that is universally acknowledged as rapidly changing.

The minister, as you know, has asked the committee for its views. As one member indicated, the process of tabling draft legislation allows for contribution before the government takes a final stand on the particulars of legislation. Our intent, as officials, is to provide any assistance we can to you as together we continue to work with our counterparts in the provinces and territories and you, as a committee, review the proposals.

I'll stop there. We'd be happy to answer your questions as best we can.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Shugart.

We'll begin with Mr. Manning.

Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to thank the departmental officials for all the work. I know they've been working on this file for a long time. I'm sure there's a great deal of material.

How much time do I have, Madam Chair?

The Chair: How about five-minute rounds?

Mr. Preston Manning: Five minutes, yes.

What I'd like to do is list about seven or eight subjects we'd like to get more material on or maybe start with just an index of what the department has. I'll just list them, if I can, for the record, and then we'll come back to them one by one, if that's okay.

We're interested, of course, in the background science of assisted human reproduction. Presumably we'll get that from scientific witnesses. I'm also interested in what constitutes related research. The minister says this bill deals with assisted human reproduction and related research. What exactly does the department consider related research? I think clause 8 gets into that, but I kind of wonder where the boundary is. You can get into all genetic science, theoretically. So that's one thing.

Secondly, we're interested in the federal-provincial dimensions. We're dealing, of course, with the federal jurisdiction, and I'd be interested in the department's view on where that abuts the provincial jurisdiction.

• 1125

Thirdly, of course we're interested in the social, moral, and ethical dimensions. Under that heading, I wonder whether the department has received—I'm sure you have—over the last number of years, since Bill C-47, representations from ethicists on what the moral and ethical dimensions are, and whether you've received representations from faith-based communities arguing from that perspective. It would be interesting to see what you have on that.

I think we'd all be interested in what are the alternative regulatory models, both in other countries and perhaps ones from within Canadian experience.

Another thing is whether there is an inventory of reproductive clinics and care facilities and research programs. How big a sector is this reproductive technology and the service sector? As a layman, I have no idea how big it is, where it is, or what the components are. It would be interesting to see a partial inventory of the scope of that sector.

On the economics and costs, I wonder if the department has any economic analysis on.... If we were to facilitate, through this bill and the related research, increased use of assisted human reproduction, what kind of a burden does that put on the health insurance system and the provinces? The whole economic and cost area would be of interest.

Lastly, does the department have any surveys of public attitudes toward the technology or the service or the science or the ethics that we ought to know about in trying to shape what we're doing here?

That's my total list. Maybe I can come back to one of these and pick up others on the way around.

On the first one, related research, the minister said, and you've said as well, that there are really two activities that are going to either be prohibited or regulated: assisted human reproduction and related research. Can you tell us a little bit about how far related research goes? Are we really setting up a framework that ultimately is going to regulate the application of genetic science in this whole question? I kind of get the feeling you want to stop short of that. What does related research in relation to assisted human reproduction mean, at least from the department's standpoint?

Mr. Ian Shugart: Perhaps I could say first of all, on the list, Mr. Manning, that I appreciate very much the methodology you've tabled. We can return to this in procedural terms with the staff of the committee.

I would just say as a general proposition that it would seem to me that a number of the issues you've raised are going to be dealt with by the witnesses who come before you. Indeed, while we might have views on some of them and can table some of that information, I think it's a very good procedure for the committee to have it directly from the people who are actually in the field. There may be some divergence of that evidence, and it would then be up to you in the normal course of the committee's work to make judgments about some of those variations of fact or interpretation.

What we do have, we would be more than pleased to share with the committee. Some of it of course would take a little bit of time to assemble in the format or along the lines the committee has asked for. Over the course of your work we would be happy to come back and table things with you.

Coming to the issue of related research, the starting point is that the scope of the bill deals with the products, in a sense, the outcomes of the techniques of assisted human reproduction, which are in a sense artificially produced embryos, or indeed the gametes that are used in that process. So right away there's a scoping of the intent of the bill. And you're quite right in saying that we want to stop short of going beyond those boundaries.

• 1130

Now the fact is the embryo, created for purposes of assisted human reproduction, is then a source of potential knowledge that has application in a number of fields. But it is not, by any means, the only source for the genetic sciences for example, which is the frontier of science that biomedicine is dealing with in these days.

It is probably impossible to say with any certainty at this point, the full range of potential applications, or trails, that could be pursued from the knowledge of stem cells taken from the embryo, for example.

But what the legislation can set out to do is ensure that the treatment of the embryo, itself, is regulated, or is supervised in a sense, by the law and by the regulations.

The main applications of that knowledge from the source of the embryo, I would say, would be categorized under three main headings.

The first would be understanding of human development. Advances in understanding the development of the human organism are presumably at their richest at those earliest stages of development. In a sense, one sees it before one's eyes, if in fact, one is looking at that earliest stage of human development.

So that's one, and related to that is understanding of some of the basic mechanisms of disease. Cancer for example, is fundamentally about what happens at a cellular level, the life of the cell. And if one can understand how the cell, right from the very beginning, develops and what the mechanisms are, that has application to understanding cancer and the development of disease, and so on, so that would be one.

The second area as I mentioned, is understanding fertility and what happens in the development of the embryo, later the fetus, and so. And so the causes of miscarriage, which as we know from the clinical of medicine, is far more widespread than even women are aware, as it occurs in many cases. So understanding the mechanisms of fertility and miscarriage, and that kind of thing, would be the second grouping of science.

And then the third is the application to treatment, or manipulation at the cellular level, which would then have implications for treating disease.

So those would be the three main areas of research, and the three potential applications of research. But the embryo, while it is, if I can speak of it as neutrally as possible, a rich potential source of understanding of these mechanisms in genetics, they're not by, any means, the only source.

Mr. Preston Manning: Can I just stop you at that point because I know my time's running out?

But just one 30-second question, just on that particular point, the use embryonic material, that constitutes related research to assist with human reproduction. With respect to something like stem cell research, are you saying, if stem cell research uses embryos, then that would come under this act and presumably that would have to be licensed, perhaps, by this regulatory body?

Mr. Ian Shugart: Yes.

Mr. Preston Manning: But if stem cell research involved stem cells derived from adults, from non-embryonic material, then in your view, is that outside the scope of this act, or outside the scope of the....

Mr. Ian Shugart: Yes, it would.

The principle being that what occurs fundamentally in the process of assisted human reproduction, is the creation of the embryo, that is the scope.

If we didn't know anything about that, if there were no research applications from the development of the embryo, presumably the bill might not even deal with research, at all, it would deal with the practices associated with assisted human reproduction. The fact is that it does have an application in research, it is a source of knowledge, and therefore it's the treatment of the embryo.

• 1135

Mr. Preston Manning: Madam Chair, this suggests to us as a committee that when we get these stem cell researchers in here it would be interesting to ask them. A lot of those labs are doing work both with stem cells from embryonic material and from other material.

How do you see this working? You're going to get one licence from this body, but presumably to do the other part of your research you're either unlicensed or you have to get that authority from somewhere else. That's where you're drawing the line.

Mr. Ian Shugart: Yes. It's the activity that derives from the creation of the embryo. It may be useful to the committee to explore this with the scientific community. The CIHR, for example, would be able to speak very authoritatively on this issue. I think you'll want to hear from some of those involved in the CIHR working group on stem cell research.

There is a broader issue of how the research involving stem cells interfaces with the licensing process. Included in this field is the ethical review process that I referred to at the beginning and the distinctions between that kind of review by research ethics boards in research establishments across the country. We'd be pleased to participate in that discussion.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Manning. You didn't almost use up your time, you almost tripled it. You're very clever. I'm going to have to watch you.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Madam Chairperson, I don't want to proceed through all of this without a clarification regarding surrogacy, because there's quite a large section in this bill pertaining to this whole area.

My understanding at the present time is that this practice is going on in this country. Does this act just pertain to financial remuneration or remuneration in kind for the service being provided? In other words, you can do it as long as you're not getting paid. Is that what this is all about?

Mr. Ian Shugart: I think the notion goes beyond a particular monetary remuneration. I'll ask Glenn to comment.

I think, Glenn, the term is “consideration”, and you may want to elaborate on that.

Mr. Glenn Rivard (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice): It's correct to say that the provisions are directed at commercial surrogacy. Therefore, if there is no consideration paid for the surrogacy, then the prohibitions do not apply to that non-remunerated surrogacy arrangement. “Consideration” is a broader concept than simply payment. It would also include exchange for services, exchange in kind.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: That still doesn't answer my question, though. What I'm concerned about is yes, there's consideration here. If you carry our child, we'll give you an apartment or a condominium or we'll send you on a trip to Spain. There are so many ways you can pay a person.

Right now let's say no payment is there. At the present time it's possible to have this service provided by a surrogate mother for a couple who is infertile or for a woman who can't carry a child and there is miscarriage after miscarriage. In a situation I know of, a sister is willing to carry the child for her sister who cannot, and a healthy baby is born.

Are we going to have an inspector inspecting every situation? I really don't know. We're going to come into this later on, I know, but your answer doesn't wipe away any of the doubt in my mind regarding this scenario. The doctor is going to get paid. There's money involved there. It's a commercial venture.

• 1140

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Perhaps I can clarify. If the arrangement is altruistic in nature, that is, there is no payment of consideration to the surrogate mother, then there is no breach of the prohibition in the bill.

Similarly, professionals who are providing their professional services to the surrogate mother or to the commissioning couple in the normal course of events are also not affected by the prohibition on intermediaries. Therefore, if you are a doctor providing medical services to a surrogate mother, then that is not caught under the prohibition against an intermediary. Similarly, if you're a lawyer giving advice to a surrogate mother or to the commissioning couple on the legal rights and obligations arising out of this arrangement, then that would not be considered an intermediary. Under the legislation an intermediary is somebody who basically matches up the surrogate mother with the commissioning couple.

Those situations are excluded or they are beyond the scope of the prohibitions in the regulations. I strongly suspect that the provisions will be very effective in dealing with individuals who are essentially running a surrogacy business, that the line of work cannot be concealed, and it will be possible to enforce the provisions against them.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I can see we're going to have a lot of work here because I can envisage a smart lawyer having a heck of a lot of fun with some of these clauses. So we're going to have to deal with this later.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): We're going to get into an awful lot of this, as Mr. Dromisky has suggested.

When we look at this piece of legislation and some of the dynamics we're going to face over the next time period, the thing that strikes me is the implication between the provincial and the federal jurisdictions. I see a number of minefields ahead in that area, particularly when you're thinking of the equivalency provisions and the legislation that will come down and the impact it will have as provincial jurisdictions challenge that or not.

Can you explain to me, first of all, what some of those pitfalls might be and then from your perspective how you're going to skate around those?

Mr. Ian Shugart: To do that exactly as you've set out, Mr. Merrifield, I'd have to accept the premise that there will be mostly pitfalls. In fact, the perspective with which we approach this is that indeed the provision for equivalency agreements is a solution to a situation where a province wanted to regulate in this area. So, in fact, it's proposed as a mechanism to facilitate a seamless, close collaboration in this area between the Government of Canada and the provinces.

I have to go back and make clear that the basis upon which the government is proposing to legislate and regulate in this area is the criminal power. This was stated, for example, in the Baird commission. The challenge for us will be to ensure that the exercise of the criminal power in this field is not extended to what would be appropriately provincial jurisdiction. Assuming that line is respected, then there ought not to be any issue.

• 1145

Take, for example, the prohibition on cloning. The basis upon which Canada would have a law outlawing human cloning would in fact be the criminal power, which is Parliament's jurisdiction. I think that's to some degree evidenced by the fact that no province has sought to regulate in this area, because fundamentally the jurisdiction upon which these provisions would be dealt with is federal jurisdiction.

We will have to be very careful in the area of provincial responsibility for matters of a civil nature or a local nature, which is to say health institutions, hospitals, and so on, or fundamentally the practice of medicine. We have to be very sure that regulations that would ultimately be put in place relate to those elements of an issue of ethics or what would be, in the language of the Criminal Code, public morality, or health and safety, and not the practise of medicine. If regulations were proposed that in fact strayed across that line, then we would have difficulty with provinces and territories. In fact, we should have difficulty, because that's not our domain.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Just to follow that up, perhaps I can give you an example of something I foresee. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but a piece of the legislation talks about chimera, the use of animals and humans to create something else. It's allowed under licensing. What happens if we have a situation where the equivalency is exercised within the provinces but provisions on this....?

It's a grey zone, obviously, but could you not see that one person's authority to license would be different from another's, or could there be some challenges in that area? The whole idea of even licensing that area really concerns me as well, because it opens up an area that could lead us down a path that is extremely explosive.

Mr. Ian Shugart: I understand, but let's treat those as two separate issues. Whether it ought to be allowed or not is in essence an issue of whether it is a controlled activity or a prohibition, whether we're regulated or a statutorily prohibited area.

Leaving aside the question of whether it ought to be there in the end and how it should it treated, the basis upon which it is there, and the basis upon which the draft would regulate it, falls squarely under the provisions of the Criminal Code. On the premise that human identity is not animal identity, that they are different species, that the human being is qualitatively different from the animal, and that they ought not to be mixed.... Now, the details and the potential limited application at the cellular level are the reasons why it is a controlled activity rather than an outright prohibition, but it's that principle that underlies, saying “This ought not to be done”. As a departure point, it's the criminal law that would say “One ought not to allow the mixing of animals and human beings”.

The fact is, in any disagreement between provinces and the Government of Canada with respect to the criminal law, it is the criminal law, the federal jurisdiction, that prevails. Those are the constitutional ground rules.

So if one accepts that it is an activity regulated by the criminal power, if a province says “We would like to allow chimeras”, this law would prevail. But that's because it is the criminal law power, which is clearly the domain of Parliament.

• 1150

Your question does imply that there could be circumstances where a province would want to license something in a somewhat different way, whether it's chimeras or not. How would we deal with that? The idea is that these agreements for substantial equivalents are a balance between two objectives. One is that they ought to say the same thing. We ought to have in the country a generally consistent understanding of and ground rules for assisted human reproduction—hence, “equivalency”. And “substantial” is a recognition that in some areas, or to some point, one ought to allow flexibility and so on.

Putting them together, substantial equivalency, at the end of the day is a judgment call. It's a policy question for the Government of Canada and for the province. What would happen in practice is that we would sit down and discuss what the objectives were. If the objectives were in common, presumably a consistent approach could be worked out, and if they were similar but not exactly the same, the health minister would have to decide whether or not to go to cabinet and propose an equivalency agreement.

That's a policy matter, and that would be an issue of discretion. It would be done openly and transparently. The Government of Canada, and the province for that matter, would have to give account to the public on why they were doing things differently. But the government could not enter into an equivalency agreement where the content of the agreement allowed a province to go one way and the federal government another, because that wouldn't be equivalent.

It's a complex area. I hope that offers at least a start on the approach.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I could ask a lot more questions but my time's up.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

We'll go to Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Madam Chair, I would like to ask our resource persons how they would suggest we answer those individuals who ask us why we do not put an immediate ban on human cloning, because, at the outset, there appears to be a consensus on this issue. No one, to my knowledge, is advocating human cloning. Why wait a year or a year and a half before prohibiting this practice?

Mr. Ian Shugart: It is clear, Madam Chair, that there is, I believe, in the minister's opinion, a consensus in both Canada and everywhere in the industrialized world, with respect to certain assisted reproductive practices. However, universal acceptance for other aspects is not so clear. Hence, in this comprehensive approach which brings together, in the same piece of legislation, all of the provisions dealing with assisted reproduction, certain aspects are very clear whereas others are a bit more controversial. We have to look at all of these provisions. I hope that the process will be facilitated by considering the whole package.

I also think that it will be useful to take into account the principles forming the basis of the draft legislation and which shed light on other aspects. For example, the principle of identity, the fact that the human being has its own nature and identity, applies to human cloning, but also to other aspects contained in our proposal.

• 1155

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a second question. Last week, we saw our research report stating that embryos had been constituted using the genetic material from two mothers and a father. One mother provided the mitochondria to the mother who carried the child.

Has Health Canada issued an opinion on this issue? What angle would you suggest we take in analyzing the situation?

Mr. Ian Shugart: From time to time, I take the liberty of referring a few questions to my colleagues. I think that Francine could answer Mr. Charbonneau's question.

Ms. Francine Manseau (Senior Policy Analyst, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Special Projects Division, Health Canada): Thank you.

Health Canada has not commented on this matter. Under the draft legislation before you, it is clear that such a procedure would be a controlled activity. This means that, in order for a clinic to be able to manipulate ova in this fashion and to insert genetic material from another donor, the whole process would have to be controlled. I believe that there would certainly be some questions about the safety of the procedure as such. I think that we also have to consider the well-being of the child to be. This activity would certainly be something that would have been regulated by the legislation.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: A controlled activity rather than a prohibited one.

Ms. Francine Manseau: Rather than being prohibited as such.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Do I have time to ask a third question? Starting from...

Ms. Francine Manseau: Perhaps I could add that the fact remains that the regulations may prohibit certain manipulations because of, for example, ethical, safety or health reasons which would possibly warrant prohibition of that activity.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I am inclined to examine this question on the basis of the final “whereas” that appears in the preamble to the bill:

recognizes the importance of preserving and protecting human individuality and the integrity of the human genome;

We should, therefore, examine with our witnesses what is really meant by the definition of “the integrity of the human genome”. Does a human genome have to necessarily reflect the genetic contribution of a man and a woman or is it acceptable to receive genetic material from two women, in this case. I understood the thrust of your answer. We will come back to this issue.

My third question pertains to the exchange that you had with Mr. Manning concerning research. Mr. Shugart, you were responding to Mr. Manning's concerns. I share the same concerns about how far this research goes.

You gave a careful answer, saying: “when it pertains to the creation of a human embryo”. But he asked about whether the research involved cells derived from adults. You worded your answer in the same terms: “when it pertains to a human embryo”.

If it involves tissue taken from the umbilical cord, which is not adult tissue nor is it primary material, how do you establish the field of research? Where do you really draw the line? Or are you actually telling us that this will have to be assessed, that this is part of what we should be looking at as a committee, namely, where we should draw the line between research covered by the regulations and that research which may be left up to the discretion of other regulating bodies.

Could you come back to this issue and elaborate on it, or tell us what you expect from the committee? What is the type of research that the committee should be examining?

• 1200

Mr. Ian Shugart: In the case that you are citing, Mr. Charbonneau, the source is not the embryo, meaning that

[English]

stem cells can be derived from a variety of sources, but the line that the structure of the draft bill rests on is the embryo.

[Translation]

It's the embryo itself. And the link between the research and the objective, the goal of this draft legislation rests on the activities and techniques to create an embryo, either for reproduction at the beginning or for research further to its production for reproduction.

I would point out that the bill contains a provision prohibiting the creation of embryos for research purposes alone. Hence, the link is between the embryo as a source and, more specifically, between the embryo as a cell source for research purposes. But the initial purpose must be reproduction. Hence, the cells coming from other sources, as in the example you gave, do not come within the purview of this draft legislation.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Not having been here last week for the tabling of the draft bill, and coming late this morning, I apologize if my questions are repetitive or if the answers are self-evident.

I want to just focus for a few minutes on the question of the commercialization of human eggs and sperm. My understanding is that there are specific prohibitions in the draft bill for the sale of human eggs and sperm.

Mr. Ian Shugart: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So my questions are as follows. I think one of the concerns we've had in the space of time since the royal commission to today is that a lot of activity is happening in the area of commercialization around human eggs and sperm. So one question I have is, to what extent is the horse out of the barn door, and through this bill how does one enforce the prohibition when so much is happening, if it is? That's one question. Do we know how much is happening? Where? On what basis?

Secondly, it seems that, from previous examples, a lot of this happens on the Internet. So someone advertises for a young university student to donate some eggs, and she of course meets certain requirements—the right race, right IQ, right physical traits, and so on. To what extent is it possible to regulate or to enforce the law of prohibition given that kind of development? Is the prohibition against the sale or against the agents who try to induce people to sell, or both? How does this fit in internationally? Obviously there has to be some.... There's a worldwide, global flow of this happening. Is there an international standard, or are there other examples internationally that can apply here? So this is sort of a broad question on that whole area.

Mr. Ian Shugart: So that I don't have to remember too many questions while I answer some others, I'll ask Glenn to give some thought to a short answer on the Internet issue, and perhaps Rhonda on the international side.

You're quite right that the premise in the bill is that the commercialization of human reproductive capacity and human reproductive materials ought not to be allowed.

• 1205

In terms of what currently occurs, we would be pleased in the provision of material, along the lines that Mr. Manning suggested, to provide you with what we know about the extent to which it is occurring. If I can make the suggestion, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society might also be witnesses that you may want to explore that with.

In fact, the prohibition would target those who arrange for the commercial transaction as well as those who engage in the transaction, which we believe is an appropriate way of dealing with the transaction overall. The one exception with respect to the commercialization of surrogacy is that the surrogate mother would not herself be affected in the same way by the prohibition. It would be those inducing or arranging or advertising or what have you. That has to do with the issue of the...in social policy terms, we're concerned about the potential for negative impact related to the vulnerability of individuals.

The existence of an activity, I think, as a premise ought not to tie the hands of society in terms of its banning of an activity. Indeed it is something that is occurring, but from an enforcement point of view—Glenn will comment on the Internet issue—it is addressable. We always have in our regulatory and enforcement systems the challenge of coverage, but that's true with respect to policing, public safety, and professional conduct under provincial laws and so on. But as a general proposition, we do believe that prohibiting and limiting the commercial activity is something that is manageable. Will there be 100% coverage? Presumably there will be no more than in any other controlled or banned activity.

Glenn, you might want to talk about the Internet, where there is a particular technological challenge, but the scope would include import/export. So the fact that there's an international barrier does not by itself preclude intervention.

Glenn.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Yes, I'll just comment briefly on the Internet.

Of course, the challenges of enforcing the law on the Internet go far beyond this particular issue, although certainly if you look at the trend of court decisions, ultimately the courts are saying that the use of that particular technology does not in any way create a different legal situation. You can think of the Napster decision. The fact that they used that particular technology ended up ultimately not being any defence to the infringement of copyright claims.

A couple of points, I think, to make.... If one of the activities—let's say, if somebody were to offer to purchase sperm over the Internet, regardless of where that offer was made in the world, it is also made in Canada. That offer appears on the Internet system within Canada, and so to that extent there would be actually a breach of the legislation.

• 1210

Your real problem is one of enforcement. For any practical purposes, the enforcement can really extend to situations where a person is in Canada. Therefore, if the offer to purchase of that person is based in Canada, then you can obviously enforce whether they've made that offer through a newspaper ad or through the Internet. Equally, if the Internet provider from which the offer originates is in Canada, you can enforce on that basis.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Rhonda Ferderber (Director, Special Projects Division, Policy, Planning and Priorities Directorate, Health Policy and Communications Branch, Health Canada): I was just going to address the question with respect to the international experience generally with respect to payment for donated gametes.

We certainly have indications that there's a variety of approaches to this across the world and at the moment can say that in the United Kingdom there is a payment to donors, although not a significant one. The U.S. certainly does pay. Currently Australia would reimburse certain expenses. That is one of the areas where we have proposed that for donors there might be some payment of expenses, receipted, and governed by what the regulations might set out.

As you can see, we're trying to keep in line with the established practice in Canada regarding what we do in other areas related to human organs and tissue donations. So we're trying to keep that as one of the areas.

Mr. Ian Shugart: I might just mention very briefly, Madam Chair, that the minister will be attending the World Health Assembly—next week, I believe—and intends to have discussions with a number of his counterparts to informally propose that the World Health Organization initiate work in this area to try to achieve a greater degree of international consistency in this area so that we do not have havens for certain practices set up internationally.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

In my mind, this bill really challenges several things when you talk about advancing science as opposed to respecting the human being. My questions—and I do not know whether you will be able to answer them—pertain to controlled activities. Controlled activities do not pose any problems for me, but when you talk, for example, about prohibited acts, that is different. I take a look at scientific advances made over the past 10 years. I look at, for example, everything that's been done with respect to animal tissue transplants for humans, skin grafts, all kinds of new methods which, had we prohibited them or kept science back 10 years ago—it was said that we would never be able to transplant a pig heart into a human, that it was not proper—perhaps science would have not gone forward. Certain prohibitions bother me a bit; I wonder if we are not limiting science by saying, for example, that no one may knowingly modify the genome of a cell derived from a human being or an in vitro embryo so as to make it possible to transmit the modification to the descendants of this individual.

When we know that the research that is currently being done on genomes is not done for commercial purposes, but to improve the race, to try, at times, to genetically modify cells so that, for example, certain diseases are not passed on, are we not limiting ourselves? Shouldn't we be saying, instead, that we are now in the year 2000 and that we should keep an open mind by saying that improvements can be made for human beings and that this will probably be achieved by using embryos? I completely agree that we should ban research for commercial purposes in general terms, but when you put some limitations on science, which may, I believe, really help us improve our lot and wipe out genetic diseases or things like that, that bothers me a bit. Is there really something else in terms of science that could control such diseases or are we not limiting ourselves? I would like your comments on the issue.

Mr. Ian Shugart: Your question, Ms. Scherrer, is a crucial one for everything dealing with the exercise before us. The nexus between science and the ethical principles governing science is exactly what you have defined. Yes, the easy answer: limit the pursuit of certain sciences through prohibitions. Obviously, one of the important areas that the committee should focus on is the drawing of a line between what is prohibited and what is controlled. The committee will hear many presentations covering a range of opinions as to where such lines should be drawn.

• 1215

[English]

The principle, though, that science is not free from civil society's oversight, according to certain principles, is clearly reflected in the bill. The preamble does set out perhaps not every principle or point of view that could be brought to bear on this subject, but certain core limits on the conduct of science. I think you will find that as indeed very eminent researchers come before the committee, they themselves will have no difficulty living under a regime of prohibition of certain kinds of activities. We see this on the health and safety side as well as the ethics side.

When I was at the former health protection branch, I remember hearing from a very, very eminent international scientist in the area of xeno-transplantation,

[Translation]

As you said, the transplanting of animal tissue into human bodies.

[English]

He and his team were convinced that there were technical solutions to the problems of rejection and adaptation and so on of these tissues, but he was equally convinced that those steps ought not to be taken until there had been a process of public discussion about the acceptability of the techniques. I think that's what we're involved in here.

So I have no difficulty saying that, yes, we are limiting what science could do, and it will be up to Parliament, ultimately, to make that declaration, after reflection, as to what those limits should be and on what grounds.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Scherrer.

Mr. Manning, do you have any more?

Mr. Preston Manning: This is following up on this same line, on the whole social, moral, and ethical dimension. Has the department received representation or had discussions with, say, ethicists since the previous draft Bill C-47 on their concerns or their suggestions for direction with respect to this type of legislation? If you have, is there one big thing or one particular thing that those ethicists say we should be careful of or look at in this particular legislation?

Mr. Ian Shugart: I'm going to ask Rhonda to respond to that, Mr. Manning, but I think on the main issue with respect to research involving embryos, most ethicists—and of course we follow the literature as well, it's not just a case of direct interaction with ethicists—would say that the spectrum of opinion will relate to views about the moral status or standing that is attached to the embryo.

• 1220

One end of the spectrum—and again I set this out as neutrally as possible—would say that the embryo ought not to be accorded any particular moral status. At that stage it is a mass of tissue, of cells undergoing the earliest development. At the other end of the spectrum would be the view that the embryo has full human moral status. In the middle there would be those who would say that the embryo ought to be accorded special moral status, which is to say more than simply tissue, but not full human moral status, and that in that domain, that middle domain, very careful considerations have to be made about the treatment of the embryo and the benefit that the appropriate use of that embryo might have for the human community.

From an ethics perspective, that would be the range of starting points for the discussion, but in terms of the particular interactions...Rhonda won't give you all of them, but a general description of the kind of interaction we've had.

Ms. Rhonda Ferderber: Certainly over the years since Bill C-47, and indeed since the royal commission, the department has engaged on a number of occasions where they've sought the views in a very concrete consultation process. There are of course steady flows of correspondence, etc., that we receive that bring forward the perspectives, views, and comments on what might be reported in media or indeed in other venues.

Really, the winter of 2000 was a period where we did some very focused discussions with regard to what at that point was our proposed approach. In the materials we provided you with you'll find the workbook that was used for that particular set of discussions, as well as an overview of the feedback we received from the provinces and territories with whom we met, and indeed stakeholders.

The stakeholders we spoke with and from whom we sought briefs certainly included many of the faith-based groups. They are listed in the back of the document. Many individuals, and of course the experts, ethicists working in this file, were very generous with their time and gave us very complete briefs, elaborating viewpoints, etc. This kind of material was obviously read very carefully by us as we undertook to assess what we would finally propose as you have it before you today.

We have a regular opportunity to meet with people who want to speak with us, where they provide us with their views. We've been able to follow literature that's currently being written. Patricia Baird would write fairly frequently with perhaps examples of speeches she would make.

So we have had, on an ongoing basis, input from a group of experts and most certainly the ethicists.

Mr. Preston Manning: We could go on on that subject for quite a while, but let me ask you one other question because at this stage we're just trying to cover the bases.

When we talk about regulatory models, I wonder if the department and the minister make a sharp distinction between quasi-judicial regulation and administrative regulation. I felt in the minister's remarks that he didn't. He talked about a regulatory body—perhaps a regulatory body outside the department—and that it be representative, which is one way of doing it. You have somebody from each of the stakeholders on the regulatory body and that's how you try to reconcile the different views.

Isn't another approach to regulation to have a regulatory body where the people who are on it are on it mainly because of their capacity for judgment? They're not particularly connected with any of the interests, and yet you create an arena in front of them where all the interests can be represented adequately and have standing. That's something quite different. The regulatory body itself is not representative. The arena in front of it is. The regulatory body is more like a court.

• 1225

My background is in management consulting. I did a lot of work in the regulated utility field in the provinces. Of course, a provincial utility board is a quasi-judicial entity. In Alberta they've virtually the same status in law as the Alberta Supreme Court.

I wonder, in your models for regulation, whether a sharp enough distinction is being made with quasi-judicial regulation, whether you have, in your experience, any models of that type of regulatory body, and whether you feel that's one that ought to be on our list as well.

Mr. Ian Shugart: This is an area where, again, a lot of time could be spent coming up with the range of bodies and then discussing the pros and cons. Again, we'd be happy to help in any way we can. From our point of view, we will certainly be looking at the full range of models, and I think the committee will probably want to do that as well, starting with international models. There aren't a lot, but the U.K., for example, now has a pretty mature model, and the pros and cons could be pretty readily identified.

Again, the functions I mentioned are really the starting point. The issuance of licences and the decision-making that supports that comprise a different kind of regulatory activity from the maintenance of the information registries, the provision of privacy guarantees, and that kind of thing, which is different again from the monitoring of the science in the field, the policy advice to government about changes in regulations, and so on.

So whatever mechanism there was would have to provide for the appropriate treatment of those different functions. That's one point.

There are a variety of models that can be used to ensure that whoever the regulatory people are, the people actually exercising judgment and signing off on a licence, or what have you, have access to the right kind of guidance, advice, and so on. One model clearly would be an advisory council, which could be open and transparent, but independently provide guidance and advice as to how regulatory decisions ought to be made. If that model is chosen, there are variations on that theme, where, as you said, you could appoint to that group individuals of eminent judgment, who themselves get access to the different views, or it could be a body representative of stakeholders.

The model of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is yet another where commissioners are appointed. Again, their representativeness could be spelled out or not. They actually supervise the regulatory activity and it is quasi-judicial.

There is a wide menu of choices and there are themes and variations. Glenn was commenting to some of us before we came that if there's any pattern in the development of a wide range of bodies, it seems there was no recipe that was followed. The specific functions and the circumstances, the context in which the body was to do its work, are what led to the actual design. So there is a great deal to be worked through there.

• 1230

The minister really meant it when he said that in the process of hearing from people, he really is looking for the committee's view on that. He did express to the press the other day a personal preference for an independent, as opposed to an internal, regulatory mechanism. But that is not prejudged at all.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Merrifield, do you have another question?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I do.

When we start thinking about this whole dynamic and how large it is in Canada, the suggestion is that we're down this road a long way, looking at the inventory. How large a problem are we looking at? How far is it going? I'm leap-frogging off what Mr. Charbonneau is suggesting, the idea of cloning—why are we not prohibiting it as we speak, rather than waiting for the end of this? Also, as to suggestions in the bill of grandfathering, some things may influence the outcome of this legislation.

It does concern me. How large is it? Do we have a handle on it? Is there some of this going on in areas we're not aware of? What would we do if, let's say, cloning took place this year in Canada? Would we just grandfather that?

Mr. Ian Shugart: I think the individual—if that's the right word—thus produced would at the moment be dealt with as unique. We cannot predict everything or know with certainty everything that is happening. But sometimes laws have been promulgated because things have happened and society resolves that they should not happen or that they shouldn't happen any more than they already do. There's no question that this law proposes to impose some new requirements in a field that is very active and has been in place for some time. An example is the establishment of information registries—there aren't any. One can't go back and do it all over again, but from the time of promulgation one can insist that for the benefit of offspring, for example, there be provision that one can know one's biomedical past.

You will certainly hear a lot about what is happening. Part of the process will be to test the merits of these proposals against the reality you're told about. To the best of our ability as a department, to this point we have made proposals that we think respond properly to the reality out in the field now.

I think one of the reasons, as I mentioned, for treating all of these things together is that the principles that underlie them can be seen to apply right across the board. In other words, the principle that would result in banning human cloning applies to other things.

There is also the efficient use of Parliament's time—and even perhaps some issues of parliamentary procedure—which requires that we not come in piecemeal. The work that has been done leading to this point is ready to bear fruit and to move forward with the overall package. But you may hear of things that might be ruled out by the provisions of this proposed bill. As parliamentarians, you might decide that they ought not to be ruled out. Or some things may be going on that should be stopped, or they should be more controlled.

• 1235

I think that's what the process will bring to light. But the fact that it's an existing field by itself ought not to prevent action being taken.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Can I add a specific comment on the grandfather provision, which is clause 43? That only applies with respect to the regulated activities. So the prohibition on cloning would come into effect the day the act comes into effect.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Embryos for use in research would?

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The prohibition on creation of embryos for research would come into effect the day the act comes into effect. Existing research could be grandfathered. The point of the grandfathering is simply to acknowledge the fact that the act may come into effect before all the regulations are ready. So it allows for some time to create those regulations. Once they're in place, any activity that would be regulated, including existing activities, would now have to conform to those regulations.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I realize that. I just hope it's the legislation or the regulation and the framework that bears fruit and not anything else.

Mr. Preston Manning: By the time we're through with this bill, grandfathering may have a different meaning altogether.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I still have two brief questions which probably deal with the legal aspect.

When Mr. Rock presented this proposal the last time, he was asked a question which he answered very quickly. I would like to spend a few minutes on this question. I am talking about the definition of a human being. I know that we are discussing assisted reproduction, that we are not talking about interaction between two individuals, but at one point in time, we are going to have to say that there is an ovum, a spermatozoon, and we are going to have to recognize that at a given date, at a given time, there is a being who will become a human being. Will it have been transplanted? Will this still be something that's done in the laboratory? Doesn't this raise any legal issues? At that point, won't this definition be added to the legislation on abortion, if we cork the test tube too quickly or if we open the fridge door at the moment when it would become a living being? I know that there are some definitions. There are definitions, for example, with respect to an embryo. What will the legal implication be? That is not clear either.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The bill does not define a human being. There are some definitions of the in vitro embryo, when the embryo is a foetus, but there is no definition of the human being. In my opinion, there are no implications with respect to other issues, such as abortion.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: But the fact remains that these procedures that we want to set forth are procedures to assist women who want to reproduce. We have to think that the methods used to assist reproduction will, I dare hope, result in a human being. Does this bill go that far and, at the point where we talk about the human being, does it no longer come under the purview of this legislation? Are we not on the verge of, at one point... Is the purpose of this bill to assist women who want to reproduce?

[English]

You can answer in English.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: We've spoken a lot about the embryo in these discussions, but if you actually look at the bill closely, you will see that most of the provisions relate to the in vitro embryo, the embryo prior to its transplantation into the body of a woman. The scope of the bill is significantly limited by that fact. Once the embryo is transplanted into the body of a woman, the legislation really has no further application. So this does not touch on the relationship, for example, between a pregnant woman and her doctor, and it does not relate in any way to childbirth or any of those associated questions.

• 1240

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Yes, but I still want to go back to that issue. Would we only refer to them as human beings once they have been transplanted?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: No—

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Living beings only after transplant?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: The bill speaks to an in vitro embryo. That is the language used.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Not a living being?

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: No.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Yes. All right.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The purpose of my questions is to enable us to understand the scope of the draft legislation properly, to ascertain what it claims or wants to cover and what remains uncovered. That was also the thrust of my colleague's questions.

As we get answers, we are ultimately given the impression that the scope of the bill is, to a certain extent, quite narrow, namely, it deals with in vitro fertilization. If it's something else, it is not covered. After 14 days, it's not covered. If we are dealing with embryos that have already been conceived, not for research purposes but conceived, I would say, as a surplus, for our immediate needs, yes, so we can do research.

However, research is not allowed... Well, the purpose of the bill is not to regulate research that could result in the production of an embryo, since the research covered here, from what I understand, will deal only with the surplus embryos, I would say. Hence the research on methods to create embryos would not be covered.

I'm trying to understand the exact scope of the bill and I'm looking for any doors that lead into the issue of research. Where is research dealt with in the bill? I don't seem to be able to find it.

Where does the bill deal with setting up the regulatory body? Should we in the committee be thinking about writing a new chapter that does not exist as of yet? Or is it provided for in the bill?

Mr. Ian Shugart: I will ask Francine Manseau to comment on this, but you are quite right; the main thrust of the bill deals with activities related to assisted reproduction. This is what the bill is all about.

Are there any other issues that are in some way related to this issue? It is quite possible, but the thrust of this bill is assisted reproduction, namely, the production, creation of an in vitro human embryo for the purpose of reproduction or procreation.

This embryo may have other uses, such as research, but this is a consequence of the production of this embryo.

Francine, would you like to add anything?

Ms. Francine Manseau: Yes. To determine what field is covered, I would refer you to clause 8 of the bill, which deals with controlled activities and provides a relatively good definition of the field.

• 1245

In answer to your first question, it says here that controlled activities are any activities—alteration, manipulation, or treatment—dealing with human reproductive material, hence embryos, ova or sperm. This covers any manipulation that is performed by a third party and which is outside the body of a woman for the purpose of creating an embryo to facilitate reproduction.

In the second part, the bill deals with research. What is covered in the legislation is research that is going to use the entire embryo or a part of the embryo, in vitro. This is therefore an embryo that is still outside the body of the woman. So all research will, from this time on, be controlled.

And the third deals with the collection—collect, store, import into Canada or export from Canada any sperm, ovum or in vitro embryo. This, therefore, deals with manipulation by a third party for the ultimate purpose of creating an embryo. As soon as this embryo is transferred into the body of a woman, the legislation no longer applies.

The use of embryos that are not transferred, that are surplus or that are frozen for research purposes would be covered. Research would have to be conducted in the first 14 days of the embryo's development, an internationally recognized boundary. This type of operation is covered in detail in clause 8 of the legislation.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: And where will the regulatory body come in?

Ms. Francine Manseau: At present, authority is vested in the minister under this legislation. Mr. Rivard might have something to add, but authority is essentially vested in the Minister of Health. However, if an organization was created outside the department, the Minister of Health could choose to delegate such authority to that organization, which would then be responsible for applying the legislation. I think that if such an organization were ever created outside the department, there should be related legislation to stipulate that this is so. At the moment, authority is vested in the minister, and indirectly, within the department.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: So that's clause 12, subclause 12(1).

Ms. Francine Manseau: Subclause 12(1)? In a way, yes. This responsibility is the minister's.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Rivard: As drafted, all the decision-making responsibility resides with the minister, which is to say that the advice on that and the operations would be carried out within the Department of Health. If a recommendation were made for an independent agency and the government accepted that, you would have to draft additional provisions in the bill.

The Chair: I'd like to interrupt here for a second, Mr. Charbonneau. I understood this was only draft legislation. If we indicate to the minister that we prefer this outside body and he accepts that advice from us, that could be built into what I call the real bill, the one with a number.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: Exactly.

Mr. Ian Shugart: It would be.

The Chair: So you wouldn't require an extra piece of legislation. You would simply fix this one to reflect what we finally decide.

Mr. Glenn Rivard: That's correct. You would have to add provisions to this legislation.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Extra provisions.

The Chair: Yes, but not an extra piece of legislation. We would put the enabling clauses into this legislation.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It could be built into subclause 12(1).

The Chair: It would probably be that clause. But they've put us in a situation that causes us to think about the issues and come up with our recommendations.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I just wanted to trace the genetic source of this body to be created.

The Chair: You're too caught up in the subject, Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Ian Shugart: With respect to the genome regulations, at the end of the day authority is vested in the minister as well. As Minister of Health, he has the authority to establish regulations, notwithstanding the means of

[English]

the oversight of those

[Translation]

and strengthening of regulations.

• 1250

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: For today.

Mr. Shugart, among the functions of the regulatory organization, I took note of four: licence issue, registers, policy development, and communications and training. Why is the research function not in there? The organization will be regulating research in the field. Thus, research could be one of the functions that is mentioned explicitly.

Mr. Ian Shugart: It is an application of a function, an area where the function will be applied, or implemented. In other words, authorizations issued by the authority apply to research.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Scherrer has a short question.

Is there anybody on this side who has a question?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: With respect to information registers, I want to be sure that I have understood what the recommendation was at the draft bill stage. We hear that the registers will be available for consultation. Now will the person or human being who is born of such a procedure have a father and a mother registered on a hard disk somewhere, and will he ever be able to see what they looked like, or find out other things about them? That is where we are at. You can always delete what you don't want to know.

Will this sort of information be available when a child needs to find out about his origins and his genetic inheritance? Will it be easily available, or will it be really—?

On the other hand, if it is too accessible, doesn't that become a major confidentiality issue? What is the first recommendation now in the draft?

Ms. Francine Manseau: There's an entire section in the legislation on information disclosure, setting out what is permitted and what is not. Obviously, in the example you cite, a child born by means of donated sperm, a donated ovum, or a donated embryo, we consider that the child and its parents must have access to medical and genetic information on the donor, though not on the donor's identity, except if the donor has agreed that such information be disclosed.

However, the child needs access to basic information. The regulations will also determine what type of information can be accumulated. People must be aware of factors that affect or are related to their health.

Now, other people might have access to some kinds of information—for example, the outcome of the procedures. Frequently, that information is important for people who do research. For example, information on the results or repercussions of a given procedure can be very useful. The bill is fairly specific about the type of information that can be provided to researchers, but there again, identities can never be disclosed.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I would like to come back to identity. When we see what goes on in the field of adoption these days, when we see how all information on identities were protected in the past, and now we are seeing such a huge change, and every adopted child wants to know the identity of his or her father or mother, this is something we will have to take into account. In the past, adoption was something to be concealed. No one ever disclosed who the child's biological mother and father were. But now young people do want to know, and those parents often want to see their children.

This is something we will have to take into account. Though we do not disclose identities at the beginning, we have to make some provision for the fact that information on the father and mother, which is on a hard disk somewhere, will have to be disclosed if the people involved want to get together. Whether a child is born of sexual intercourse or a procedure with donated sperm, it is still the person's child.

Ms. Francine Manseau: Your comments are extremely well taken. If the committee sees witnesses who are parents, and even children born of sperm donors, the question will certainly be raised. There is no doubt about that. We have heard it raised as well. It is therefore very difficult to determine just how far we can authorize disclosure.

I think the sperm donation process could be considered at a point where adoption was 20 or so years ago.

• 1255

Another surprising thing is that many parents do not tell their children that a sperm donor came into the picture. This still happens very often. And all these questions are therefore very relevant. I am convinced that the committee will hear people who have had to deal with these issues, and that you will have to consider them.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madame Scherrer, and thank you to all of my colleagues for their interesting and wide-ranging questions.

Thank you to the Health Canada officials, who have to be generalists and know a little bit about everything. I think that probably many of these same questions can be put to witnesses from within narrower fields, and we may get more detail. But I think that today's presentation was a very good overview. Thank you, Ms. Ferderber, Mr. Shugart, Ms. Manseau, and Mr. Glenn Rivard.

Mr. Preston Manning: I'd like to bring up just one last issue for ourselves. I'm not that up on your procedures, Madam Chairman, but when we have presentations like this, wouldn't it be helpful to the committee if we had 15 or 20 minutes at the end where we could talk among ourselves about what we have learned and maybe narrow it down? I've heard a couple of things. One is that we're going to have to do a lot of work on the scope of this regulation, whether it should be narrow or broad. That's one thing that has come out of the questioning.

The Chair: I would disagree with that statement. Anyway, put it forward.

Mr. Preston Manning: We learn certain things from these presentations, and it might be helpful for us to have a brief discussion among ourselves immediately afterwards while it's fresh in our minds. As you said, this would suggest we ought to pursue a certain line of questioning with the scientists. Is that your procedure at all to have...?

The Chair: Not usually. I really feel it's very premature to do that because we could get ourselves locked into positions. For example, at the end of the last meeting we had a motion and, Mr. Manning, you wanted included in that motion those subjects you had raised, one of which was the economics of the situation.

When I got back to my office, I realized I had talked to the minister about that. I can't remember whether it was during the questioning when he was before us or just after the meeting. It seemed to me that the whole idea of who was paying for what and whether the provinces could afford it was not within what he wanted us to study—I have to get that clarified, because it has been raised again at this meeting—in the sense that we are trying to put a framework of Canadian thinking around a rather narrow topic, as you have just alluded to. So I think I made a mistake by allowing that to go into the minutes, because I don't think it's anywhere in the bill nor anywhere in the more general intention of the minister in asking us to examine something.

I would prefer to wait until the researchers begin to write up some of what we've heard. I think when we have the report in front of us, we can discuss whether or not we feel they've captured the discussion.

I don't want to have concluding 10-minute discussions among ourselves, because I, for one, need time to process information and draw implications from it.

I think the problem for you is that you're a little ahead of us. You've done a lot of reading on the subject. But for some of us, each time we come to a meeting we're absorbing new information, and maybe even in our questions we are not reflecting the layers of meaning from what we're hearing. So I'd prefer not to draw conclusions at this time, if you don't mind.

That does not prevent anyone from doing their own little summary of the meeting and getting ready for a discussion, which we will have certainly before the summer break and maybe even before then.

Mr. Preston Manning: Would we have, say, one or two sessions among ourselves where we just talked about absorbing what we had heard?

The Chair: I'm not sure about that.

One of the ways we could reflect on what we've heard is to wait until the researchers have completed the interim report, which we're planning to have done before the closing for the summer. You may see that report differently than I do, but the committee can only speak with one voice anyway. I think it's sometimes better to react to paper, as opposed to....

That doesn't prevent you from talking to any of the people from Health Canada or to your colleagues after the meeting. But I don't want it as part of the formal record yet, if you don't mind.

Mr. Preston Manning: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

• 1300

As a matter of committee business, we have a small problem about next week. I believe Mr. Merrifield, Mr. Charbonneau, and I.... Mr. Charbonneau will be here on Tuesday, I believe. Or will you be flying on Tuesday?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'll be here on Tuesday.

The Chair: But you'll be with me.

I just found out that the other vice-chair, Madam Sgro, is going to be in Israel. So, with your permission, I'm going to go to the whip and see what I can do to keep the show on the road and the meetings happening. I'm alerting you to this, because if the whip can't solve it, there could be a problem as to the two meetings next week. I just assumed Madam Sgro would be here, which was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for that. But I was not alerted to her departure.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I'll have a meeting with Mr. Manning.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.