HEAL Committee Report

Despite the strikingly multidisciplinary nature of genetic engineering, we feel the need, like our fellow members of the Committee, to reaffirm forcefully that the dignity and integrity of the human genome and of the human individuals who emerge from it are at the heart of our concerns.

As Members of Parliament, we support the broad directions taken by this report, and we regard as essential for further development the broad consensus established in it: the dignity of the human being, non-commercialization of human reproductive material, informed choice, responsibility and transparency, removal of the veil of anonymity from donors of genetic material, and protection of the child. However, there are several points we wish to raise.

By choosing to ban certain activities, the federal government has made its entrance onto the field of medically assisted reproduction via the criminal law. It should be made clear that large sectors of the field of medically assisted reproduction are matters of provincial responsibility. These include the delivery of health-care services (including the establishment of fertility clinics), the status of offspring (which involves family, and thus civil, law), and of course the counselling to be provided to surrogate mothers and to donors of genetic material. It consequently seems obvious to us:

1. That there can be no "Canadian" policy in this regard without solid coordination among the provinces and an unambiguous recognition that this is an area of shared jurisdiction;

2. That no regulatory body can be fully effective without provincial representatives on its Board of Directors;

3. That any legislation or regulation regarding medically assisted reproduction must be drafted with the most absolute respect for family law and for the existence of health and social services networks, both of which are areas of provincial jurisdiction.

In this regard, we believe that the report is unfairly negative about the signing of equivalency and enforcement agreements, pursuant to clause 41 of the draft legislation.

In our opinion, it would be desirable and wise to stipulate that if one or more provinces passed a law or made regulations compatible with the objectives put forward by the federal government, the federal government should withdraw completely and leave the province(s) concerned with full responsibility and authority for this activity.

With regard to the regulatory body, the Committee studied a number of models: the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Canadian Blood Services.

We in the Bloc Québécois want to see a regulatory body established that has the following characteristics:

1. It would be independent of Health Canada;

2. Its Board of Directors would include representatives of all stakeholders;

3. It would be fully independent while accountable to Parliament for its general direction.

We affirm without hesitation that recommendations 20, 21 and 22 of the report would entail too great a devolution of powers to the Federal Minister of Health, without at the same time guaranteeing sufficient independence for the future regulatory body’s Board of Directors.

Lastly, we were disappointed that the government and the official opposition refused to include in the Preamble to the draft legislation, or Statutory Declaration, a genuine non-discrimination clause under which no citizen could be deprived of recourse to medically assisted reproduction because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical deficiency, matrimonial status, social condition or sexual orientation, thus complying with the principles that are in fact set out in the draft legislation.