Bill C-6 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
Assisted Human Reproduction Act
An Act respecting assisted human reproduction and related research
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 11, 2004
- Debated in principleFeb. 11, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 11, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMarch 10, 2004
- Became lawMarch 29, 2004
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The text mixes narrow numeric rules and defined terms with frequent subjective standards and open-ended official discretion. This leaves many boundaries open to argument rather than settled by the words alone.
Open to argument
“in the Agency's opinion, the disclosure is necessary to address a risk to the health or safety of a person”
Uses official opinion plus vague necessity and risk standards instead of an objective test.“all reasonable measures that the Agency considers necessary to prevent, reduce or mitigate any threat”
Ties obligations to the Agency’s own view of reasonableness and necessity.“that, in the opinion of the Minister, relates to the subject-matter of this Act”
Gives the Minister broad power to expand scope based on subjective judgment.“the person reasonably believes will be raised by the donor”
Applies a subjective belief test rather than an objective criterion.
Clear-cut
“No person shall obtain any sperm or ovum from a donor under 18 years of age”
Uses a clear age cutoff and absolute prohibition.“beginning on the fifty-seventh day following fertilization or creation”
Fixes the foetus definition to a precise day count.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Agency, Minister and regulations to decide what information may be disclosed, what licences may be issued, what measures are required, and what counts as necessary or appropriate.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'in the Agency’s opinion' and 'reasonably believes' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Broad discretion and phrases such as 'considers necessary' make it difficult for an accused to show that their conduct fell outside the prohibition.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
No statutory or parliamentary reviews, PBO/Auditor General reports, or departmental evaluations assessing whether the Assisted Human Reproduction Act achieved its objectives were identified in official sources. The primary official finding is the 2010 Supreme Court of Canada reference ruling that struck down numerous provisions as unconstitutional.
- Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61courtSections 10, 11, 13-18, and others of the Act exceed Parliament's criminal law power and are unconstitutional, limiting the federal framework's scope.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.