Senate, House not in standoff, but it could go that way
If the latest episode in the federal debate over medical assistance in dying has demonstrated anything, it is that this is a clock that will not be turned back.
On the contrary, over the 4.5 years of the regime’s existence, a strong parliamentary consensus in favour of a less-restrictive approach to medical assistance in dying (MAiD) has materialized.
That’s the main takeaway from the votes that have so far attended Bill C-7.
It was drafted in response to the decision in 2019 of a Quebec court to strike down the restriction that limited assisted dying to terminally ill patients.
Instead of appealing the ruling, Justin Trudeau’s government has chosen to align the federal legislation with the court’s finding. The prime minister had promised as much during the last election campaign.
For their bill to not be dead on arrival, the minority Liberals needed the support of at least one opposition party in the Commons and the blessing of a majority in a Senate dominated by Independent and non-Liberal members.
On the general notion of expanding access to medical assistance in dying to more Canadians, it turns out the two houses of Parliament are on the same page.
In the Commons, the bill passed third reading by a margin of 212 to 107 last December. MPs from every party voted for its adoption.
In the Senate last Wednesday, an amended version of the bill passed by a margin of 66 to 19.
Where the two differ is on the pace at which access to medical assistance in dying should be expanded.
On the way to adopting the bill, the Senate has added a sunset clause on the prohibition on MAiD for Canadians who suffer solely from mental illnesses.
It would put an 18-month limit on the prohibition.
Another amendment would allow people who fear losing their mental capacity to dementia to make advance requests to end their lives.
Sober second thought sometimes works in counterintuitive ways. Back in 2016, the Senate had already forcefully made the case for a broader approach to MAiD. That stance is in line with the institution’s history.
Of the two houses, it is the Senate that has spent the most time taking a comprehensive look at end-of-life policies, including — but not exclusively — assisted suicide.
That interest predates the current more independent Senate by no less than a few decades.
Second possibly only to Quebec’s national assembly, the upper house is probably the Canadian political institution that has paid the most attention to the issue.
The government has to decide whether it accepts — in whole or in part — the Senate’s changes to Bill C-7.
Whatever the Liberal decision, the response will require the support of at least one opposition party.
That means the New Democrats have to ponder whether their longstanding opposition to the very existence of the Senate would be
reason enough to reject out of hand its contributions to the legislative process.
As the NDP knows only too well, there is not a credible federal-provincial path to the abolition of the upper house.
The latter will remain part of Canada’s legislative order for the foreseeable future. In the event the New Democrats ever form a government, treating the Senate as if it did not exist would likely be a recipe for legislative gridlock.
The Bloc Quebecois has similarly expressed reservations about supporting changes that originate from the upper house.
But, if there is one province where public opinion is predisposed to welcome a less restrictive approach to MAiD along the lines of the Senate amendments, polls suggest it would be Quebec.
Moreover, the proposed legislation is a response to a Quebec court finding. It is in that province that there will be a federal legal void should a new law not be passed by the court-ordered deadline
(On Friday, the federal government asked the court for a fourth extension that would move the current Feb. 26 deadline to March 26.)
Of all the parties, the Conservatives are the most conflicted about expanding access to medical assistance in dying. Their caucus is home to both outspoken advocates of a more open regime and diehard opponents to the very concept.
That goes some way to explain why a party that has traditionally been the most averse to having Parliament take instructions from the courts on the legislation of social rights has argued that, in this case, the government should have appealed the Quebec decision rather than comply with it.
Finally, notwithstanding last week’s vote, the Senate is almost certainly not off the hook. Few expect the House of Commons to embrace all of its amendments to Bill C-7.
At some point, a majority of senators will likely have to decide whether to defer to their elected colleagues or to pursue a battle of wills with MPs. All of the above should make for an interesting political race against the clock.
CAMEROON, Cameroon — Conflict-torn Yemen “is falling off a cliff” and will face the worst famine the world has seen for decades unless donors, and especially its Gulf neighbours, contribute generously to this year’s U.N. humanitarian appeal for $3.85 billion, the U.N. humanitarian chief warned Wednesday.
Mark Lowcock said Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which contributed generously to U.N. appeals in 2018 and 2019, cut back drastically last year. This forced aid agencies to reduce the number of Yemenis receiving food and other humanitarian aid from 13-14 million every month in 2019 to just 9 million in 2020, he said.
The 4 million people who didn’t receive food last year “are among those essentially in the long, slow, brutal, painful, agonizing process of starving to death,” Lowcock told a virtual briefing for a group of reporters.
He spoke ahead of Monday’s pledging conference co-hosted by Sweden and Switzerland where Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will appeal for $3.85 billion.
“Without that funding, a lot more people will die, there could be catastrophic prospects unleashed in the country,” Lowcock warned. “Because of the state in the country now, where there (are) already pockets of famine, what we’re going to see is the worst famine the world has seen for decades. So, there is a lot at stake and there’s an urgency.”
The devastating conflict in the Arab world’s poorest country erupted in 2014, when Iranianbacked Houthi rebels seized Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, and much of the country’s north. That prompted a U.S.-backed Arab military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to intervene months later in a bid to restore the government of Yemeni President Abed Rabu Mansour Hadi to power.
The conflict has killed some 130,000 people and spawned the world’s worst humanitarian disaster.
Lowcock said U.S. President Joe Biden’s new Yemen policy aimed at ending the six-year war and halting support for the coalition, and the way it has been welcomed especially by Saudi Arabia, “does create a major opportunity for peace and progress in Yemen.”
“That creates probably the biggest opportunity that we’ve seen since 2016 to find a resolution,” he said.
Lowcock said it’s now up to Yemen’s warring parties to take the opportunity and build a government that represents “everybody” and addresses the needs of the people including rebuilding the economy and restoring livelihoods for millions of people. If that happens, he said, that government will receive international support.
Lowcock stressed that in order to keep the situation in the country “stable” for the peace process to have a chance, the humanitarian situation must improve to where it was in 2019 when 13-14 million people per month were receiving food — and that requires $3.85 billion funding.
Last year’s $3.4 billion appeal received only about $1.8 billion, he said, with the U.N. receiving only $300 million of the %500 million that Saudi Arabia pledged, just a “modest” contribution from the UAE, and Kuwait only coming in with a late $20 million pledge, he said.
Lowcock said he has been talking to Gulf countries every day for the last week or 10 days with the message that what they did in 2018 and 2019 “saved a lot of lives” and prevented “a tragedy of genuine historic proportions.”
“It’s now back on a knife edge.” What you do will make a huge difference.”
Dominik Kahun scored twice and Leon Draisaitl had three assists to help Edmonton rally past Vancouver 4-3 on Tuesday night.
They meet again tonight. Connor McDavid and Tyler Ennis also scored in Edmonton’s fourth consecutive win; goalie Mike Smith had 30 saves.
Bo Horvat, Tyler Myers and Elias Pettersson scored to help the Canucks build a 3-0 lead in the first period.
McDavid tied it with his 13th goal 4:23 into the third on a power play. Ennis put the Oilers in front at 13:25.
Thatcher Demko made 25 saves for the Canucks, who have just two wins in their last 12 games.
ROUSSEL FINED FOR ROUGHING
Canucks forward Antoine Roussel has been fined US$5,000 by the NHL for roughing in Vancouver’s 4-3 loss to the Edmonton Oilers on Tuesday.
The 31-year-old winger dropped his gloves and went after Oilers forward Jesse Puljujarvi along the boards midway through the second period.
Puljujarvi was an unwilling participant in the fight and did his best to avoid Roussel’s fists, but appeared to suffer a cut to the bridge of his nose.
Roussel was handed a two-minute minor for roughing. He has 31 penalty minutes in 22 games.
The Canucks (8-13-2) were up 3-0 towards the end of the first period before the Oilers (13-8-0) sparked a comeback with four unanswered goals.
The two sides will meet again in Vancouver on Thursday.