Statutory Prohibitions and the Regulation of New Reproductive Technologies under Federal Law in Canada
![handle is hein.journals/mcgil40 and id is 915 raw text is: P HEALY - STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS
Statutory Prohibitions and the Regulation of
New Reproductive Technologies under Federal
Law in Canada
Patrick Healy*
This paper reviews recommendations made by the
Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies
concerning statutory prohibitions and offences relating
to reproduction and reproductive technologies. The rec-
ommendations are criticized on three grounds. First, the
Report offers no analysis of the legislative authority that
would enable Parliament to enact its recommendations.
Second, it offers no consideration of principles of crimi-
nal jurisprudence that would justify the prohibitions
proposed. Third, the Report fails to advance arguments
or rationales that would justify each of the specific rec-
ommendations concerning statutory prohibitions. In
short, the Report fails to make a case for implementation
of the Comnission's recommendations with respect to
statutory prohibitions because the legal aspects of those
proposals are ill-developed or misconceived. A further
conclusion is that the only effective legislative response
to issues raised by reproductive technologies is con-
certed action, including regulatory measures, by Parlia-
ment and the provincial legislatures.
Dans cet article, l'auteur passe en revue les re-
commandations faites par la Commission royale
d'enqute sur les nouvelles techniques de reproduction
quant aux infractions et interdictions statutaires relatives
L la reproduction et aux techniques de reproduction. Le
Rapport de la Commission est critiqud sous trois diffd-
rents aspects. Premirement, celui-ci ne proc~de 't au-
cune analyse de l'autorit6 1gislative qui permettrait au
Parlement de les adopter. Deuxi~mement, it ne traite pas
des principes issus de lajurisprudence en matire p6nale
et qui, pourtant, pourraient justifier les interdictions pro-
pos6es. Troisi~mement, it 6vite de mettre de t'avant des
arguments ou des raisonnements susceptibles de soute-
nir chacune des recommandations relatives aux inter-
dictions statutaires. Bref, ce Rapport ne soutient pas la
mise en place de ces recommandations puisque celles-ci
reposent sur une base juridique mal conque. En outre, it
n'existe qu'une seule rdponse 16gislative efficace A ces
questions soulevwes par les techniques de reproduction :
l'action concert6e, incluant les mesures rdglementaires,
du Parlement et des 16gislateurs provinciales.
Faculty of Law & Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University. This article was prepared with
the assistance of the Law Reform Division of the Department of Justice, Ottawa, but the views ex-
pressed herein are those of the author. Many thanks for helpful comments to Gwynne Basen, Alison
Harvison Young, Michael Hudson, Jeff Richstone, Glenn Rivard, Johanna Schalkwyk, Laura Sky,
Margo Siminovitch, Shonagh Stevenson, Louise Vandelac, Luanne Walton, and Hilary Williams.
Special thanks to Bernard Starkman for getting me into this and for kindly sharing his expertise. This
text, somewhat overdue, was delivered in June 1994.
© McGill Law Journal 1995
Revue de droit de McGill
To be cited as: (1995) 40 McGill LJ. 905
Mode de rdf6rence: (1995) 40 R.D. McGill 905
1995]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/mcgil40&div=36&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Statutory Prohibitions and the Regulation of New Reproductive Technologies under Federal Law in Canada
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most