Reproduction seemed ridiculously easy when we were teenagers, given how ubiquitous were the warnings against letting it happen accidentally. Unfortunately it’s not so easy or straightforward for everyone.
The current Assisted Human Reproduction Act was enacted in 2007, but the CBA has been offering its views on the matter to various governments for nearly 20 years, an indication of the importance our members assign to the question.
A number of the sections in the 2007 Act were thrown out by the Supreme Court in 2010, saying they infringed on provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Health Canada says in an October Canada Gazette notice that it intends to update regulations.
…(S)cientific and technological advances have introduced procedures and techniques not previously envisioned, and the attitudes of Canadians towards assisted human reproduction may have shifted. There is a clear need to update regulations and create new ones concerning the safety of tissues used for assisted reproduction (i.e. donor sperm and ova).
The Department will undertake the following measures:
- Draft regulations aimed at reducing the risks to human health and safety arising from the use of donor sperm and ova for the purpose of assisted human reproduction, including the risk of the transmission of disease, and bring section 10 of the AHRA into force;
- Draft regulations regarding reimbursement of expenses incurred by donors and surrogates and bring section 12 of the AHRA into force; and
- Draft supporting regulations, as required, to bring into force sections 45 to 58 and designate inspectors for the purpose of administering and enforcing the Act and its regulations.
In a letter to Health Canada, the CBA’s Family and Health Law Sections, as well as Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community Forum mention concerns previously expressed about “whether criminal prohibitions against any aspect of assisted human reproduction are appropriate, given the speed of scientific developments and constant evolution of public opinion on these issues.”
The groups reiterate their concerns about the prohibition against compensating gamete donors and surrogates, which is “likely to have an ongoing negative impact on the availability of assisted reproductive technologies for Canadian women and men who choose to use fertility services.” This limited access, they note, has a disparate impact on the LGBTQ communities who may require access to these services.
The groups are also concerned by the fact legislation across Canada is inconsistent, and ask the government to step in to work toward harmonizing them.
“Given these overarching concerns, the CBA suggests that regulations under the AHRA be broad enough to ensure that the availability of surrogates or gamete donors is not further limited. Categories of expenditures in the regulations should not be exhaustive if other expenses are reasonable, and the cost of legal advice should be an acceptable expense,” the groups say, as should loss of work-related income for ova donors.