The Assisted Human Reproduction Act seeks to protect egg donors’ health and well-being and prevent trade in their reproductive capabilities. In order to fulfill these objectives, the Act prohibits the buying and selling of ova, and only allows for egg donors to be reimbursed for their expenses. However, no regulations setting out what expenses can be reimbursed were promulgated. Sixteen years later, these long-awaited regulations finally came into force in June 2020. In this study, I rely on data from interviews with sixteen egg donors in order to assess how the new regulations might help or hinder concerns that egg donors have with how egg transactions are regulated in Canada. I argue that the new regulations might hinder, more than help with, addressing current concerns related to egg transactions in Canada. The most likely result is that they will not change the current state of affairs.

This article examines exploitation as a policy rationale for the prohibition of paid surrogacy and egg donation in Canada, focusing on claims of exploitation in parliamentary transcripts and proposed legislation. Its main focus is challenging three assumptions long used to substantiate the prohibition of commercial egg donation and surrogacy, namely: that marginalized women are being exploited; that payment and exploitation are necessarily linked; and that prohibitions on payment are the best means to prevent exploitation in assisted human reproduction. By examining these assumptions, this article assesses the legitimacy of prohibiting payment on the basis of perceived exploitation and suggests that, though much has been done to protect surrogates and donors, little is known about their real-life experiences with reproductive technologies, that the relationship between exploitation and payment is tenuous, and that it remains unclear that prohibiting payment is not doing more harm than good.

This article examines the effect of two recent constitutional decisions that have altered the course of assisted-reproduction policy in Canada: Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2010) and Pratten v British Columbia (2011). Together, the cases link a socially liberal conception of morality in federalism cases with an interventionist view of the state in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cases. This could result in a trend toward judicially mandated provincial, as opposed to federal, government action. These cases also provide further evidence of the judicialization of politics in Canada, whereby controversial moral and public-policy issues are increasingly determined in the courtroom.