Bill C-47, the Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act, was introduced in the House of Commons June 14, 1996, and was supposed to govern reproductive and genetic technologies (RGT). However, critics argued that it was "fundamentally flawed" and urged that it not be passed.

Years of study and debate later, many critics laud the proposed new legislation as an improvement but continue to express concerns over the composition and reach of a regulatory body governing assisted human reproduction activities.

"We've been debating, discussing, and consulting on these issues for over a decade, and while we go on doing so there are several thousand Canadians each year who are using these technologies," Dr. Patricia Baird, chair of a royal commission that examined reproductive and genetic technologies from 1989 to 1993, told a Commons committee examining the proposed legislation. "The government has a duty to make sure their health and safety is protected, and I think it's most important to put a regulatory body in place as soon as we can, then we can fine tune it as we need to."

Baird and experts ranging from Health Canada representatives to spiritual leaders have spoken out on the issue since the draft legislation was given to the Standing Committee on Health by Health Minister Allan Rock last May. He told the committee to review the legislation and provide options for a possible regulatory body to govern implementation of the legislation by Jan. 31.

The draft legislation consists of a preamble, definitions, a list of prohibited activities, a list of controlled activities, procedures for administering the act, privacy and access-to-information considerations, provisions for inspection and enforcement, and miscellaneous items. The draft legislation states that a regulatory agency will be created to govern reproductive activities.

"My strong preference would be to keep specific legislative prohibitions to the minimum necessary, and address the need for control in the conditions of licences [for people or companies engaged in assisted human reproduction activities]," added Baird.

The CMA and the College of Family Physicians of Canada addressed the committee earlier this week and cautioned against using legislation to criminalize, rather than regulate, prohibited activities.

"Criminalizing assisted human reproductive activities will result in restricting medical and scientific research," warned Dr. Henry Haddad, the CMA president. "An independent regulatory agency determining what activities are permissible on the basis of up-to-date scientific information, public input and ethical review would allow the flexibility required to conduct legitimate research."

Presentations to the health committee continue today and tomorrow.