After hearing testimony from a wide variety of Canadian individuals and organizations– with one notable exception– the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on March 3 voted unanimously in favour of the controversial Bill C-6, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction and related research, without amendment.

Among other things, this Bill introduces legislation governing research on human embryos. Although there are some positive aspects of this Bill, such as restrictions on human cloning, prohibition of research on embryos older than 14 days, and prohibition of payment for surrogacy, the Bill is seriously flawed in that it offers no protection to embryonic human beings younger than 14 days old. For purposes of stem cell research, “surplus” embryos from fertility clinics can be used for lethal experiments. And for purposes of in vitro fertilization research (to improve IVF techniques) and education, embryos can be created, as long as they are destroyed within 14 days.

In reacting to the haste in which the Senate Committee conducted the hearing process, LifeCanada president Jakki Jeffs, in a March 4 press release said, “The Senate committee has utterly failed in its essential democratic role, which is to properly vet legislation before sending it for final reading. There is no integrity when a bill is railroaded like this and passed, just to get it out of the way before an election.” A previous form of the bill, C-13, passed in the House of Commons last fall by a vote of 149-109 after a lengthy debate.

“To use human beings, including the very youngest, as so much raw material for research is to cross a Rubicon into an inhuman world– cloning and beyond,” Jakki said.

One week later, on March 11, the Senate gave final approval for the Bill to become law.

Pro-life community barred from giving testimony

The Senate Committee heard testimony from a variety of sources including scientists and researchers who support embryonic stem cell research; from representatives of the Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic faith communities; and from the children of the new reproductive technologies and the women who have used these technologies. Glaringly absent was any representation from the pro-life community. Applications to testify before the Committee by both LifeCanada (which represents over 100 educational pro-life groups across the country) and Campaign Life Coalition (the political arm of the pro-life movement) were rejected.

In a letter to Committee clerk Daniel Charboneau, the executive director of LifeCanada, Carroll Rees, asked the Committee to reconsider LifeCanada’s application. She gave examples of testimony the Committee was not hearing such as the results of a Leger/LifeCanada poll indicating a large majority of Canadians prefer stem cell research to be conducted using non-embryonic sources. And regarding leftover embryos from fertility treatments– which numerous witnesses testified should be used for research because they would be thrown away otherwise– Carroll wrote, “The question of embryo adoption was never even brought up by last Thursday’s panelists... This is a much better option than destroying the embryos.”

When asked why the applications from the two pro-life organizations were rejected, Dr. Christopher McCreery, spokesperson for Senator Kirby who chairs the Committee, told LifeCanada News that LifeCanada had previously testified to the House of Commons, and the Senate Committee wanted to give an opportunity to others who had not previously testified. Besides, he said, the transcript from the House of Commons testimony
would be taken into consideration by the Senate Committee.

In her letter, Carroll also asked if the Committee would consider inviting Dr. Peter Hollands to testify. Dr. Hollands is director of Cells for Life, a private cord blood bank in Markham, Ontario. (See Dr. Holland’s article, “The Gift of Life,” opposite page.) “Dr. Hollands is very knowledgeable about the use of stem cells originating from umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells in the treatment of disease,” Carroll wrote and then added, “Adult stem cells are presently being used to treat a number of diseases including heart attacks.”

Later, Mr. Charboneau informed LifeCanada that the Committee had decided not to invite Dr. Hollands to testify.

Opposing views on Bill C-6

Many of those who expressed concerns that Bill C-6 did not extend protection to human embryos, were nonetheless in favour of voting for the Bill. The majority of witnesses felt that some regulation in the area of reproductive technologies and embryo research justified the passage of this flawed Bill. Many of these witnesses acknowledged it would be preferable to amend the Bill or split the Bill (so that the less controversial aspects of the bill such as those dealing with surrogacy, payment for gamete donors, banning of cloning, etc. could be voted on separately from the more controversial aspect of embryo research), but were concerned that such recommendations would force the Bill back to the House of Commons where it would die if an election were called, in which case the unregulated environment for embryo research would continue. Hence they grudgingly supported passing the Bill in its current form, believing that some regulation was better than none.

Others felt that the Bill– because it would allow embryonic stem cell research on surplus embryos and would allow the creation of embryos for IVF research and mandate their destruction within 14 days– was inherently immoral and that to vote for it would be to sanction the killing of innocent human lives for the sake of scientific research, setting a dangerous precedent and possibly encouraging more destructive research on embryos than would have occurred otherwise. Hence these people wanted to see the Bill defeated.

What next?

Some believe that Bill C-6 could take us down a slippery slope to cloning. As Peter Ryan, executive director of New Brunswick Right to Life asks, “if you can kill embryos for research, what’s the big deal about cloning them and then killing them for research? Some scientists are already agitating for the law to be loosened.”

Indeed, some of the witnesses who testified to the Senate Committee voiced their disapproval of the Bill’s prohibitions against cloning, creation of embryos for research, and germ-line genetic alteration, which Health Canada defines as “The modification of a human genome such that the modification is passed on to descendants. This alteration or replacement of a gene is usually done in the very initial stages of development. This could lead to the abuse of such procedures to create ‘designer babies.’”

In what should be a warning signal to all of us who seek to preserve the sanctity of human life, the Senate Committee wrote in its report: “Although the Committee is in agreement with these prohibitions, they are somewhat sympathetic to the arguments put forward by these witnesses. The Committee offers the observation that these may be issues on which the views of Canadian society could change over time and therefore they should be carefully examined when the legislation is reviewed within three years.”

That this legislation is to be reviewed within three years is both good news and bad. Good because it gives us the opportunity to advocate for further restrictions on immoral research involving human embryos and, hopefully, to ban such research altogether. But bad if it means that some of the prohibitions imposed by Bill C-6 will be lifted.

Which way will Canadians go in the next three years? Will we have the courage to finally ban destructive research on human beings once and for all, to advocate for the right to life and respect for all human beings from the very moment they come into existence, however imperfect they may be?

Or will we be lured by promises of cures, mesmerized by a “perfect” future where disease and suffering can be snuffed out in the petri dish by men and women in white coats? What price to pay upon this road, where the turning back is not so easy? What then of human compassion, but a fading memory of an old-fashioned ethic when humans were still humans, before they were gods... - BM