The provinces have scored a partial legal victory over the federal government in a jurisdictional squabble over the assisted reproduction industry.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a 2008 decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which had ruled that Ottawa was offside in flexing too much control over the industry.
However, the court maintained that Ottawa can ban cloning, human hybrids and other key elements of the in-vitro industry.
The legal battle began when Quebec, supported by three other provinces, filed a challenge to the federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act on constitutional grounds.
Quebec had argued that the federal government's 2004 act was violating provincial jurisdiction over health matters.
The Assisted Human Reproduction Act banned cloning and also regulated the use of eggs, embryos and sperm.
The high court split 4-4 on the advisory opinion, but Justice Thomas Cromwell gave the determining view that the provinces should have authority over the issue.
"I substantially agree with the Quebec Court of Appeal's description of the purpose and effects of the challenged provisions . . ." Cromwell wrote.
According to Justices Louis Lebel and Marie Deschamps, although assisted human reproduction "raises moral and ethical questions," creating a criminal law at the federal level is not necessary.
"This view of the criminal law is incompatible with the federal nature of Canada; it not only upsets the constitutional balance of powers in the field of health, but also undermines the very definition of federalism."
However, not all the justices agreed. Four of the judges, including Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, sided with the government.
"Assisted reproduction raises weighty moral concerns," McLachlin wrote.
"Parliament has a strong interest in ensuring that basic moral standards govern the creation and destruction of life, as well as their impact on persons like donors and mothers. Taken as a whole, the act seeks to avert serious damage to the fabric of our society by prohibiting practices that tend to devalue human life and degrade participants."
While an advisory opinion doesn't have the binding force of law, it's considered an important precedent for future cases.
Sherry Levitan, a lawyer specializing in third-party reproductive law, said the federal government will still be charged with controlling many of the more important issues.
"The court said that most of this act deals with very weighty moral issues, and they were siding (with) the federal government to the point that surrogates should not be paid."
She said that since 2004, the industry has essentially been self-regulated, but now the government has been given the go-ahead to table legislation that will codify the rules.
"The basic prohibitions which prevent payment of consideration to a surrogate will be federally regulated," Levitan told Â鶹´«Ã½ Channel.
With files from The Canadian Press
