New Crime for Sex-Selective Abortion Providers

Summary#

This bill amends the Criminal Code to make it a crime for a medical doctor to perform an abortion knowing the abortion is sought only because of the fetus’s genetic sex. It defines key terms, sets penalties, and directs the federal Minister of Health to issue guidelines about the information doctors provide when someone requests an abortion (after consulting provincial health officials). The bill does not set a start date, so it would take effect on Royal Assent under usual practice.

• Creates a new criminal offence for medical practitioners tied to “sex-selection” as the sole reason for the abortion (Bill, subsection (2)).
• Sets penalties up to 5 years in prison (indictable) or up to 18 months (summary conviction) for the provider (Bill, subsection (2)).
• Defines “genetic sex” based on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (Bill, subsection (1)).
• Requires the Minister of Health to establish guidelines on what information doctors provide related to requests for abortion and the new offence, including how and when the information is provided (Bill, subsection (3)).
• No direct penalties for patients are created in the bill (Bill, subsection (2)).

What it means for you#

• Households and patients

  • Abortion remains legal in Canada; this bill targets providers who know the abortion is sought only for genetic sex. It does not criminalize patients (Bill, subsection (2)).
  • You may be asked more questions about reasons for seeking an abortion, depending on how federal guidelines are written and adopted in practice (Bill, subsection (3)). Details are unknown until guidelines are issued.
  • Ultrasounds and disclosure of fetal sex are not addressed by the bill. The bill does not ban learning fetal sex. It focuses on provider intent when performing an abortion (Bill, subsection (2)).

• Medical practitioners (physicians)

  • New criminal risk: performing an abortion while knowing it is sought solely for genetic sex can lead to prosecution and up to 5 years’ imprisonment (indictable) or up to 18 months (summary) (Bill, subsection (2)).
  • You may need to adjust intake, counseling, and documentation once Health Canada issues guidelines on the information to provide in relation to abortion requests and this offence (Bill, subsection (3)). No timeline is set.
  • The offence requires knowledge that sex-selection is the sole reason. How knowledge is assessed will matter for investigation and charging decisions (Bill, subsection (2)).

• Clinics and hospitals

  • Policies and staff training may need updates to align with federal guidelines once published (Bill, subsection (3)).
  • Legal exposure centers on physicians. Organizations may face indirect impacts through credentialing, peer review, and cooperation with investigations. The bill itself does not set organizational penalties (Bill, subsection (2)).

• Provincial and territorial health authorities and colleges

  • The federal Minister must consult provinces before issuing guidelines (Bill, subsection (3)).
  • Provinces may need to align professional standards, forms, or reporting processes with the federal guidelines. The bill leaves these details to the guideline process (Bill, subsection (3)).

• Law enforcement and courts

  • Potential new investigations and prosecutions focused on proving the provider’s knowledge and the patient’s sole reason (Bill, subsection (2)).
  • Evidence and privacy issues may arise when determining intent and “solely” as the reason. The bill does not set evidentiary rules; existing criminal procedure would apply.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: CAD $0 in direct appropriations; broader administrative and justice system costs unknown.

• No funding or appropriations are included in the bill text (Bill, passim).
• The bill requires federal guideline development after consultations; administrative costs are likely but not stated. Data unavailable.
• Possible downstream costs for:
  • Provider training and policy updates. Data unavailable.
  • Investigations, prosecutions, court time, and incarceration if convictions occur. Data unavailable.
  • Provincial consultation efforts and any changes to forms or processes. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Addresses sex-based discrimination by deterring abortions sought solely due to genetic sex, consistent with equality commitments stated in the preamble (Bill, preamble; subsection (2)).
• Narrowly tailored: it does not restrict abortions for other reasons and does not criminalize patients; it targets provider conduct when sex-selection is the sole reason (Bill, subsection (2)).
• Clear penalties create a deterrent for the small subset of cases where sex-selection is the only motive (Bill, subsection (2)).
• Federal guidelines, developed with provinces, can promote consistent practices and reduce uncertainty for providers about what information to give and how to document it (Bill, subsection (3)).
• Harmonizes with broader human-rights objectives by signaling that sex-selective practices are unacceptable (Bill, preamble).

Opponents' View#

• Enforcement challenges: proving that a provider “knew” sex-selection was the sole reason may be difficult, leading to uncertainty and potential over-screening of patient motives (Bill, subsection (2)).
• Risk of intrusive questioning and documentation that could chill access to lawful care, increase delays, or affect patient privacy; the bill signals new information requirements but does not define limits (Bill, subsection (3)).
• Ambiguity about guidelines: the bill does not specify what information must be provided, to whom, or any deadline, creating uncertainty for provinces, providers, and patients (Bill, subsection (3)).
• Possible strain on provider–patient trust if clinicians feel compelled to assess or record patient motives to manage criminal risk (Bill, subsection (2)).
• Federal–provincial friction risk: criminal law is federal, but health delivery is provincial; aligning new federal guidelines with provincial standards may be complex and resource-intensive (Bill, subsection (3)).