Well, that's the thing. Reasonably foreseeable still doesn't cover cases that aren't necessarily terminal or caused by the disease itself.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
Well, that's the thing. Reasonably foreseeable still doesn't cover cases that aren't necessarily terminal or caused by the disease itself.
There's a not-insignificant portion of the PCs that regard the Wildrose as toxic. Not only that, but they recognize that anyone from the federal CPC would not be favorable to their positions at all.
Any federal CPC member, including Kenney, will lean Wildrose. The PCs won't stand for it.
Disgusted with our government today. It won't cover things like Alzheimer's, or dementia, and mostly likely won't cover things like spinal stenosis, which is what Kay Carter was suffering from. That reduces someone to being completely dependent on caregivers for things like wiping themself and this legislation denies them the ability to opt out of that state and condemns them to suffer without a choice. I'm extremely saddened that the government is passing this unconstitutional legislation. Absolutely disgusting show by this government, this is what I'd expect out of the previous government, not one that shows foresight in so many other areas. They have consciously passed a piece of legislation which doesn't even cover the very case that had the previous law struck down, and now are willingly breaching the section 7 rights of those who fall outside the narrow range provided for by the new legislation.
The legislation should allow for advance consent, or for the ability to seek assisted death upon a diagnosis.
It would leave way too much to interpretation. At which point in the evolution of the disease do you pull the plug? What if the person is out of it mentally, but is not necessarely suffering/unhappy?
I agree that it should be allowed for long-term degenerative diseases though.
I'm not versed on the mechanics of the medical aspects, but I assume that if the person is competent they could either A. Decide on a calendar date ahead of time, or B. Define the condition which assisted death would be provided. This is why the ability to plan prior is important, because it gives people control over their lives. Someone may not want to completely lose their current self, or lose all of their memories, and may view that as an intolerable form of suffering. I would. The reasonable foreseeable leading to death requirement prevents any of that. The main point is that there has to be a better way than blanket saying "no" to these people, especially in cases of people who are clearly capable of giving consent especially at the onset of a diagnosis. As a society, we can do better than that, especially with something so fundamental to one's own autonomy.
The thing about the legislation is that the Liberals, without saying it, were keen on focusing this bill on 'terminal' cases only. I don't think it's necessarily out of bad faith on par with the previous government, but shows a belief that such restrictions are necessary. This is a complex issue to move forward on -- especially when the possibility of abuse exists.
What's important to note is that the Supreme Court cannot legislate -- that is Parliament's job. Aside from being the top court, they can only provide guidelines, frameworks, and legal opinions (ie. constitutionality). What is most likely is that the Supreme Court would not declare the bill to be unconstitutional -- Parliament has addressed the concerns reasonably and in good faith -- but rather state that there is a gap that is not addressed within the now-existing legislation.
I would expect a separate bill debating deteriorating but non-terminal cases would be put forward to Parliament sometime during the next Parliamentary sitting.
I don't agree with this analysis, and in this post I am going to lay out exactly what the problem is.
First, you are correct that the Liberal government is trying to keep this to terminal cases - that is the key problem here. Let's take a look at the provision in question in C-14.
(Amendments to Criminal Code) 241.*2 (1) A person may receive medical assistance in dying only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they are eligible — or, but for any applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period, would be eligible — for health services funded by a government in Canada;
(b) they are at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their health;
(c) they have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
(d) they have made a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure; and
(e) they give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying.
(2) A person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability;
(b) they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;
(c) that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable; and
(d) their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.
So as pointed out, this requirement of reasonable foreseeability of natural death would exclude patients with dementia, Alzheimer's, paralysis etc. from having the ability to choose assisted death. It also precludes advance consent to make this choice ahead of time.
It's worth noting that I never said that the Supreme Court has legislated. Legislation is the role of Parliament, and it is their role to provide legislation that is constitutionally sound under the interpretation of section 7 that the Supreme Court has provided in Carter.
In Carter (for convenience sake I take from the headnote), the Court said: " The right to life is engaged where the law or state action imposes death or an increased risk of death on a person, either directly or indirectly. Here, the prohibition deprives some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable. The rights to liberty and security of the person, which deal with concerns about autonomy and quality of life, are also engaged. An individual’s response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy. The prohibition denies people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and thus trenches on their liberty. And by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person".
And now we can use this interpretation to perform a section 7 analysis on the C-14. Section 7 provides that government not deprive a person of life, liberty, and security of the person, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. We apply this here to see if it would deny someone like Kay Carter with a degenerative but non-life threatening (or at least not directly life-threatening) illness.
First, we look to see if C-14 engages any of the three protected grounds. In this case, we can say that it definitely engages with all three. C-14 would deny a person, with death not foreseeable, of life because it could, as it would have the effect of requiring people to take their own lives prematurely for fear they would be incapable. The security of the person analysis would be the same as in Carter as well.
The object of C-14, as noted by the Justice Minister, is to prevent abuses. The Court's analysis again proves instructive on how the object is interpreted:
"The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The object of the prohibition is not, broadly, to preserve life whatever the circumstances, but more specifically to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness. Since a total ban on assisted suicide clearly helps achieve this object, individuals’ rights are not deprived arbitrarily. However, the prohibition catches people outside the class of protected persons. It follows that the limitation on their rights is in at least some cases not connected to the objective and that the prohibition is thus overbroad."
Yes, the "reasonably foreseeability of death" does protect the vulnerable. But as we see, it certain catches people outside of the protected class of persons, namely people with long-term degenerative diseases who would otherwise be considered competent. This causes the violation of life, and security of the person for people with long-term degenerative diseases, catching people outside of the protected class of people who might be vulnerable from being induced into committing suicide. It's easy to see that the provision in question is overbroad, and thus not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
This would not be saved under s.1 because the law does not minimally impair. As shown above, it catches those outside of the protected class as an overbroad law.
The likely remedy (in my opinion) would be to strike down the offending provision because the rest of the legislation is otherwise compliant, leaving the legislation more or less like the Senate would have passed it. The Court is not likely to uphold Parliament's interpretation of section 7, unlike how you have argued, when the legislation in question when it so clearly conflicts with the precedent laid out in the interpretation of section 7 laid out in Carter. Peter Hogg has said this legislation is likely to be struck down, and I am inclined to agree based on the analysis above.
In summary, I have shown above why the "reasonable foreseeability" provision is in violation of section 7 because it infringes upon the rights of life, liberty, and security of the person, and that this infringement is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice as an overbroad law. The provision will not be saved by section 1 because it does not minimally impair.
That is my analysis, and that is why I am disgusted that the government has passed this legislation containing a provision so obviously unconstitutional. It should disturb everyone here that the government has disregarded clear interpretation of section 7 provided in Carter to pass this legislation to trammel on the rights of this vulnerable group. It is not good enough to pass the law now, and "fill in the gaps" later. Our Charter rights are the highest protections we have in this country, and to deny them to a vulnerable class through this type of prohibition for the years it will take for this to make its way through the Courts is untenable and unconscionable.
This is an important piece of legislation which the government needed to get right because of how important it is to our bodily autonomy. These are vulnerable people who are having their bodily autonomy denied by a poor piece of legislation. To reiterate, it is the role of Parliament to legislate, not the Supreme Court. But, Parliament has a responsibility to create legislation which is in line with the Charter, and as I argue above they have not done this because of the way this provision conflicts with the section 7 analysis provided in Carter.
I look forward to the Court making this right for people who being forced to endure grievous suffering over the next couple years because of Parliament's foolishness.
Lawyers could spin it multiple ways. They could say that taking out the requirement of reasonable foreseeability of natural death would violate s. 7 because pressure would tacitely be put on people to end their life as to not be a burden. It's an argument just as valid as the hypothetical scenario in which a person would commit suicide early because she knows she won't be able to later on. God knows the SCC loves these hypothetical scenarios.
I agree with you somewhat (availability for long-term degenerative diseases causing suffering), but saying that you're disgusted because the government doesn't take it as far as you want to, which is extremely far, is a bit much. You also have to consider the people in the medical field who will be involved in those deaths.
Interestingly, the Quebec law that is already in place also countains this criteria ("be at the end of life") and there was zero outrage. And I'm not aware of any court challenges as of now.
I agree with you somewhat (availability for long-term degenerative diseases causing suffering), but saying that you're disgusted because the government doesn't take it as far as you want to, which is extremely far, is a bit much. You also have to consider the people in the medical field who will be involved in those deaths.
Interestingly, the Quebec law that is already in place also countains this criteria ("be at the end of life") and there was zero outrage. And I'm not aware of any court challenges as of now.
Both laws are new, so it's not like Quebec's law has had to really stand the test of time.
No that point is not valid - I addressed your first point in my analysis above. The Court was very clear in Carter on that issue - while that is the purpose of the legislation, it denies those outside of the protected class of individuals the ability to make that choice, infringing very clearly on the interpretation of section 7 provided by the Court in Carter. It would be very surprising if the Court found that the purpose of C-14 is not to protect the vulnerable (despite the preamble included), if not, then what is a plausible reason which could justify this provision.
I am disgusted that the government has decided to go against a very clear interpretation provided in Carter by the Court. It should disturb people that Kay Carter would not qualify for assisted death under this piece of legislation.
Here is Peter Hogg's analysis (as quoted by ipolitics):
"Peter Hogg — who literally wrote the book on constitutional law in Canada, a text frequently cited by the Supreme Court — says Bill C-14 is inconsistent with the top court’s landmark ruling known as the Carter decision last year, which struck down the ban on assisted dying as a violation of the charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.
If C-14 is enacted in its current form, Hogg says, “the class of entitled persons would no longer include people whose suffering is not an end-of-life condition.”
“It is incredible to me that the court in Carter, when it called for legislation by Parliament ‘consistent with the constitutional parameters set out in these reasons,’ was envisaging legislation that would narrow the class of entitled persons.”
While the top court wanted Parliament to enact procedural safeguards to avoid the risk of error or abuse, Hogg says, “for the legislation to narrow the class by taking away a right that had just been deliberately granted by the Supreme Court” is not what it had in mind.
If the bill is enacted with the near-death provisions still intact, Hogg says “it can be safely predicted that a member of the newly excluded class” — someone who meets the Carter criteria but is not close to death — will challenge the constitutionality of the new law.
And he suggests the result of such a challenge is inevitable: “What judge would not strike down the end-of-life provisions?”
Indeed, the federal government’s narrow interpretation of Carter has already been slapped down in two separate court rulings since January. That’s when the Supreme Court, as a stop-gap measure until the June 6 deadline, agreed to allow Canadians who met the Carter criteria to apply for judicial approval for an assisted death.
In two of those cases, Hogg notes that a unanimous panel of three Alberta Court of Appeal justices and an Ontario Superior Court judge rejected the federal government’s contention that Carter can be interpreted to apply only to those who are close to death.
“In both cases, a careful analysis of the Carter reasons yielded the conclusion that no end-of-life requirements were express or implied. In both cases, permission was granted for a physician-assisted death.”
Here is a reaction:
ipolitics said:
It should not be ok in this country to force people to do this. Clearly the case above falls into the type of scenario the Court discusses in Carter where people are forced to take their own lives in fear that they will not be able to later - which was the key to the finding of a violation of life. This government should know better.
It is also worth noting that the Canadian Bar Association has come out against the legislation. If the government was interested in pursuing this in good faith, they would refer this immediately for a Supreme Court reference. They have not, and continue to barrel forward ignoring the numerous opinions provided that the law is unconstitutional in its current form.
matthewwhatever
Member
The Electoral Reform Committee list is out:
All rookie MPs on the Liberal side, vs a whole bunch of veterans on the opposition benches, including at least two who are probably making runs for their respective parties' leaderships (Kenney and Boulerice). It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
EDIT: And speaking of the NDP leadership race, apparently they're thinking of doing away with a convention:
If I'm remembering correctly, the Liberals also did away with the typical convention, and had all their speeches one weekend, then a week of voting, followed by the announcement the following Sunday. If the NDP race is competitive, spacing it out over a month like that could be interesting.
All rookie MPs on the Liberal side, vs a whole bunch of veterans on the opposition benches, including at least two who are probably making runs for their respective parties' leaderships (Kenney and Boulerice). It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
EDIT: And speaking of the NDP leadership race, apparently they're thinking of doing away with a convention:
If I'm remembering correctly, the Liberals also did away with the typical convention, and had all their speeches one weekend, then a week of voting, followed by the announcement the following Sunday. If the NDP race is competitive, spacing it out over a month like that could be interesting.
killer rin
Member
It makes sense that the Liberals would put rookies on their committees. All of the veterans are either in a Cabinet Post or are a Parliamentary Secretary... which means that they can't be on the committee
gutter_trash
Banned
what fuckery is this? they will never agree on electoral reform with that many opposition MPs
we voted for a Liberal Majority to guarantee us 50 years of Liberal majorities by changing it to Ranked Ballots
we voted for a Liberal Majority to guarantee us 50 years of Liberal majorities by changing it to Ranked Ballots
killer rin
Member
I was wondering when you would comment on this considering you were banned when they announced they were making the committee proportional to the vote share in the election
Lovely.
gutter_trash
Banned
the Bloc MP shouldn't even be allowed there. The Bloc thrive on First Past The Post
TheRealTalker
Banned
hopefully we don't get the veterans over powering the rookies leading it to a standstill of no progress
killer rin
Member
The Bloc has been known to push for proportional systems in the past.
gutter_trash
Banned
historically their strength has disproportionately benefited from FPTP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2004
12.39% popular vote = 54 seats in 2004
Note: As have the Liberals'.
How large is "we" other than you, hack? I certainly didn't vote Liberal for those reasons.
If I got my blood pressure up at every gutter post... I'd be long dead. Cool aslmao, it's Gutter, relax, he says stuff like this all the time
killer rin
Member
What they have benefited from is not equal to what would be best for the party... its also not equal to what they support ideologically.
In fact, if the BQ was smart they would continue to support PR because it would ensure that they keep a constant seat count longer, whereas under FPTP we have seen their seat count drop election after election because it only takes tiny swings to produce huge results
The government made its first judicial appointments today. There's been some consternation about the slow pace of this -- none of the eastern provinces even have appointments commissions in place at this point -- but with 15 new appointees, they've started to chip away at it.
Notably, 10 of the 15 are women, and only 3 of the 15 are white men. The full list is here.
Notably, 10 of the 15 are women, and only 3 of the 15 are white men. The full list is here.
More rumblings about Kenney: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jason-kenney-political-future-1.3646180
I'm not exactly sure what he's thinking at this point. Does he not remember what happened the last time a federal MP tried to come to Albertan politics?
I'm not exactly sure what he's thinking at this point. Does he not remember what happened the last time a federal MP tried to come to Albertan politics?
Minor correction: Francis Scarpaleggia is a veteran Liberal MP.
I hope he doesn't try to run for the PC leadership He may kill his political career and it's very unlikely he would be successful in getting the Alberta PC's back into power.
matthewwhatever
Member
Kenney probably has much deeper ties with the Alberta far-right than Prentice ever did, though, which would make much more acceptable to Wildrose types in his bid to unite the right.
Besides, he's even though he's been not-so-subtly organizing a run at the federal leadership for a few years now, trying to position himself as Harper's successor, it's really hard to imagine that happening. He's well behind in every poll I've seen. He spent nearly a decade cultivating ethnic voters, only for that to get blown up by their last election campaign. He'd probably have money behind him if he ran, but that would be the only point in his favour right now. He's a pretty ambitious guy, so jumping to provincial politics may not be the worst move.
Wait, that means you hope he *doesn't* kill his political career? As far as I'm concerned, that'd be a nice bonus.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
I'm not so up on Alberta politics. Would uniting their right wing parties, with a lean towards the far right, be a successful strategy in terms of actually uniting them and in terms of being capable of winning an election?
Wildrose seem like a bunch of nutbars, I can't see them ever having enough appeal to win anything, even if they absorbed a weaker party.
Going hard right has hurt the Alberta PCs every time they've tried it in recent history. Albertans as whole definitely lean right when it comes to fiscal policy, but the rise of cities on the electoral map means social conservatism doesn't net you an automatic win any more.
Kenney could maybe pull off uniting them, and uniting is the only way they'll win (edit: in the short term). I dunno if that's possible before the next election, though.
Kenney could maybe pull off uniting them, and uniting is the only way they'll win (edit: in the short term). I dunno if that's possible before the next election, though.
matthewwhatever
Member
Maharg knows Alberta politics better than any of us, so I'll ultimately defer to him on this.
That said...it's hard to tell. Alberta is still a pretty right-wing province, NDP government notwithstanding. Notley was elected with the lowest plurality since 1930, so it's not like the NDP has the kind of strangehold on government than any of their previous governments have had. It probably wouldn't take a massive shift one way or another for the PCs or Wildrose to suddenly become the new dominant party.
On the other hand, the fact I had to include a "probably" in that last sentence shows how Alberta has changed from where it was a few elections ago. Thanks to in-migration, it's a much more diverse population than it was, like, ten years ago. There's the argument to be made that the NDP coalition now is roughly the same one that voted for Redford and the PCs back in 2012. If there really has been that kind of realignment, then it's possible that a hard right party like Wildrose wouldn't have the same path to victory they may have once had. In a one-on-one battle between the Alberta NDP and a new unified right-wing party led by Jason Kenney, I think the right-wingers would have a bit of an edge, but I'm not so sure about that that I'd be willing to put money on it or anything.
EDIT: beaten by Maharg's more concise, knowledgeable argument!
Why are you looking at this as a negative?
Kinda like Peter MacKay....
But eh, I don't think it'll happen this cycle. The reality is that doing so would leave a lot of middle-ground voters in the cold, too, and just force a bunch of them to move over to the NDP. The AB Libs could maybe hope to pull into that space if they weren't so completely routed and left flapping in the wind.
I keep forgetting that the AB Libs exist. It's not a good look when the Alberta Party is more hard working...
matthewwhatever
Member
Official NDP leadership contest rules. Most of it was known before -- $30k entrance fee, 25% admin fee on all donations, $1.5M spending cap. Some other things confirmed:
- at least two debates, one in each language
- membership cutoff to vote is August 17, 2017
- all new memberships are being routed through the central Party HQ; there will be some paper membership forms, but those are being really tightly controlled.
- leadership "showcase event" during the first half of September
- multiple rounds of preferential balloting if there's no candidate winning after the first ballot, with the final ballot happening no later than October 29th
- "announcement events" for the reveal of each round's voting, which will include the vote totals and remarks from all remaining eligible candidates
So no convention.
It'd be challenging, but not impossible -- the Conservative Party went from non-existent to government in a little more than two years, so if the new Alberta conservative party acted quickly, it wouldn't be totally unprecedented. It all depends on what party donors are saying. If either party is being threatened with having their funds cut off -- which was the case with the Reform/PC merger/takeover -- it could all come together pretty quickly.
- at least two debates, one in each language
- membership cutoff to vote is August 17, 2017
- all new memberships are being routed through the central Party HQ; there will be some paper membership forms, but those are being really tightly controlled.
- leadership "showcase event" during the first half of September
- multiple rounds of preferential balloting if there's no candidate winning after the first ballot, with the final ballot happening no later than October 29th
- "announcement events" for the reveal of each round's voting, which will include the vote totals and remarks from all remaining eligible candidates
So no convention.
It'd be challenging, but not impossible -- the Conservative Party went from non-existent to government in a little more than two years, so if the new Alberta conservative party acted quickly, it wouldn't be totally unprecedented. It all depends on what party donors are saying. If either party is being threatened with having their funds cut off -- which was the case with the Reform/PC merger/takeover -- it could all come together pretty quickly.
There's a lot of grassroots animosity between the two parties that I don't really feel like was quite present in Reform/PC by the time they managed to get together. The rural base of the WRP still feels very betrayed by things that happened in very recent memory (basically everything to do with Redford and the Danielle Smith aisle-crossing) and I think they have aspirations of grinding the PCs out without having to sacrifice anything.
So if either capitulates, it'll be the PCs, but... I mean their funding is already dried up (thanks to eliminating corporate donations and being abandoned by oil execs) and they're still protesting. They don't really have much to offer the WRP except their vaguely moderate position, which the WRP doesn't want.
So if either capitulates, it'll be the PCs, but... I mean their funding is already dried up (thanks to eliminating corporate donations and being abandoned by oil execs) and they're still protesting. They don't really have much to offer the WRP except their vaguely moderate position, which the WRP doesn't want.
That's pretty much the position Brent Rathberger took in his assessment today of Kenney potentially entering Alberta politics. There's too much friction within the center-right that any kind of consolidation becomes impossible.
Silent Chief
Member
There are no list of diseases.
I think the point is to have a law that let you prosecute assisted suicide while leaving the door open to any type of assisted dying. The barriers are finding a doctor willing to prescribe death and willing to argue the case before the courts. Many cases will require a judge to decide. Just take divorce for example, on paper, the law should be clear and you shouldn't need to involve lawyers. It doesn't work like that.
One person deciding to die decades early has a huge impact on those set to inherit.
Those having mental health problem are not competent to make those decision.
The family is in a conflict of interest situation. I wouldn't want to benefits from ending my parent's suffering.
The law is not perfect but I can live with it. Or die.
Now, on to prostitution.
Silent Chief
Member
What, not a post on CPP reform? Passing strange.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Ok, I wish they had just gone ahead with ORPP instead. The CPP changes will lead to a ~30% increase in benefits phased in over the next 9 years, while ORPP was going to be a much larger increase starting much sooner. It would have done way more to close the gap.
At least they're raising the income cap on CPP (in 2025...)
gutter_trash
Banned
it would help to know what CPP is... i never heard of it. I am serious lol
so... what is CPP?
ORPP was a scheme to scare the other provinces into accepting CPP expansion. It was never going to be able to deliver what it was promising.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked