The Birds, the Bees and the
Biologically-Engineered Baby:
Reproductive Technologies in Canada
Owen Wood, CBC News Online

ection 4.(1)(b) of Bill C-47 reads, "No person shall knowingly cause the fertilization of a human ovum by sperm of an animal or the fertilization of an animal ovum by human sperm, for the purpose of producing a zygote that is capable of differentiation."

You'll probably have to read over the section a couple of times before you realize what it means. Essentially, it says you can't create animal/human half-breeds.

Pretty bizarre stuff – and it doesn't stop there.

There are also sections to prohibit cloning dead people, growing animal embryos in women, and keeping human embryos alive outside the womb. There's even one reserved specifically for stopping people from taking ova or sperm from a corpse and using it in reproduction.

Bill C-47, the Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on June 14, 1996. It was meant to be Canada's law to govern reproductive and genetic technologies (RGT). But bringing a new life into the world is not as simple as it used to be.

RGTs include common procedures such as in vitro fertilization and donor insemination that are used to help couples get pregnant, but also newer technologies like those that would manipulate genetic material, thereby determining characteristics of a child before the child is born, or even conceived.

Discussion about RGTs sparks a wide-range of contentious moral issues. Everyone from right-wing religious groups to medical research associations have voiced their opinions on the matter. It's no wonder why. These technologies are infringing on the thing we value most – life itself.

This also explains the Canadian government's efforts towards creating a law that would govern RGTs, and why it's taking so long to do so. Bill C-47 didn't pass and Canada still has no legislation to deal with reproductive or genetic technologies.

he story began back in 1989 when the government set up the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Over the next four years, the commission took advice from about 40,000 people and groups who attended public hearings, submitted papers and filled out surveys.

Then in 1993, it released its final report "Proceed With Care." The report's findings were as expected. Canada needs laws to govern RGTs.

The Royal Commission came to that conclusion after finding Canada's medical professionals weren't following the standards recommended by associations in their field. The report went as far as to use the word "dangerous" to describe some of the services available to Canadians.

And that was just the beginning.

Donor clinics were using sperm from donors who had not been tested for diseases like HIV. People were being discriminated against when it came to access to services. And some commercial clinics were offering parents the service of treating sperm so they could decide the sex of their child.

As a result, the federal government placed a moratorium on nine controversial issues, including sex selection, human embryo cloning and the buying and selling of eggs, sperm and embryos. The introduction of Bill C-47 followed.

The Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act went as far as first reading in the House of Commons. It probably would have gone further except that in the spring of 1997 a federal election was called, which meant Parliament was dissolved and all legislation still on the table was thrown out. Back to the drawing board.

This wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

There were many who criticized Bill C-47, mainly because it only included what should be prohibited. No human cloning. No sex selection. No selling sperm, ova or other genetic material. And to make even minor changes to any of these prohibitions would mean another trip through the long legal process all amendments must endure before being implemented.

At the same time, people who foresaw new technologies being developed in the coming years said the bill left too much out.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis was only developed in the last five years. The in vitro fertilization technique allows doctors to detect genetic diseases at the embryonic stage.

And the complete map of the human genome, announced in June 2000, has cleared the way for the many advances in human genetics that will bridge the gap from science fiction to science fact in the next few years.

Probably the best example of a new RGT triggering immediate reactions from government was the announcement in February 1997 that a team in Scotland cloned the first adult mammal, the now-famous sheep named Dolly. The news prompted U.S. President Bill Clinton to place a ban on using federal funding for research on human cloning.

Canada was quick to react to Dolly, too. Bill C-247 – the country's only attempt to create RGT legislation other than Bill C-47 – was introduced in the House of Commons. The bill was specifically aimed at banning human cloning. It managed to pass its first reading in Parliament but failed on second reading.

ow Health Canada is working towards legislation that's more flexible than Bill C-47. The goal is to create a law that would reflect the values of Canadians and also be open to the possibility that those values may change as new technology becomes available.

Instead of just concentrating on making certain technologies illegal, the government is looking into what RGTs should be allowed and how they should be regulated. This would include creating a regulatory body to make sure standards are followed and prohibitions are enforced.

Health Canada will no doubt consider what other countries have done. France, Germany, Australia and the United Kingdom have already passed laws, and in some cases set up governing bodies, to deal with RGTs.

As for the U.S., there are no national RGT laws although some states have set out their own rules. This means that although the ban on spending federal funds on human cloning remains in place, nothing stops private companies from doing it on their own.

Canada is hardly lagging behind when it comes to passing legislation on reproductive and genetic technologies. The fact is most countries are still working on the issue.