B.C.’s influence significant in assisted dying debate
National assisted-dying debate highlights B.C.’s social activism
Canada’s MPs are sharing some powerful and often profoundly personal views this week about life-and-death federal legislation that has B.C.’s fingerprints all over it.
Bill C-14, which would legalize assisted suicide, was born through the efforts of West Coast activists and advocates who were behind the landmark 2015 Supreme Court of Canada ruling.
The unanimous decision to allow Canadians the right to end their lives with professional help was based on the end-of-life stories of two B.C. women, Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor, and built on a solid legal foundation.
The debate highlights the province’s unique political culture and its influence on the country on a dizzying array of issues, including homosexual rights, illicit drugs and aboriginal title.
“I would note that B.C. has long been the locus of social movement activism in Canada,” said Dominique Clement, a University of Alberta professor and author of the recently published Human Rights in Canada: A History.
B.C. historian Jean Barman, author of the 2007 book The West Beyond The West: A History of British Columbia, said another factor is the rapid decline in religious faith in the province.
The percentage of B.C. residents telling Statistics Canada they have no religious affiliation has soared from 13 per cent in 1971 to 44 per cent in 2011 — well over double the 21 per cent of Canadians in the rest of the country who reported no religious affiliation in 2011.
The Liberal minister responsible for overseeing the drafting of the assisted dying bill was Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, the MP for Vancouver Quadra.
And one of those MPs supporting the thrust of the bill, but aggressively challenging her on the details, is Victoria’s Murray Rankin, one of Parliament’s sharpest legal minds.
On Wednesday, the Liberals — noting that 84 of the 338 MPs, or one-quarter, had debated the bill over 21 hours — abruptly shut off debate in order to force the bill into committee stage for clause- by-clause examination.
Before the furor over that move MPs, urged by leaders to vote their conscience rather than along party lines, showed remarkable collegiality — and recognition of history being made — while tackling the thorny issue.
“This debate … is going to be a watershed moment for our country,” said rookie New Democrat Alistair MacGregor, who represents Cowichan-Malahat-Langford.
“It is certainly going to be one for the history books.”
MPs brought up a beloved dog’s death, while others warned that the law sends the wrong message to young aboriginals and soldiers who are thinking about suicide.
Several B.C. Conservatives, including former Trade Minister Ed Fast, openly advocated the use of the notwithstanding clause, a provision of the 1982 Constitution Act that allows a federal or provincial parliament to override rights granted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The debate began on April 22 with Wilson-Raybould challenging the B.C. Civil Liberties Association’s recent assertion that Kay Carter wouldn’t have been allowed access to assisted suicide under the law, which requires that death must be “reasonably foreseeable.”
The debate continued Monday after a two-week House of Commons recess.
(See Hansard for transcripts: www.parl.gc.ca/ house chamberbusiness/ chamber sittings. aspx .)
HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS: ON RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THOSE FACING “REASONABLY FORESEEABLE” DEATH:
Wilson-Raybould: “As the Supreme Court of Canada noted, Gloria Taylor was dying from a terminal illness and would be eligible. So, too, would Kay Carter, who was 89 and according to the court suffered from spinal stenosis, which itself does not cause death but can become life-threatening in conjunction with other circumstances such as age and frailty. This approach to eligibility responds directly to the Supreme Court’s ruling.”
Murray Rankin: “This (reasonably foreseeable) concept … is almost hopelessly ambiguous. Does it mean a death that is imminent, or simply one that we can predict with confidence?
“Will she force desperately ill Canadians to have to go to the Supreme Court again?”
ON THE “SLIPPERY SLOPE” ARGUMENT:
Ed Fast (Abbotsford, Cons.): “I have no doubt that the legislation before us, if passed, will very quickly become the thin edge of the wedge to secure future liberalization of assisted suicide to include children, the mentally and physically disabled, the chronically ill, the elderly, and those no longer considered to be productive contributors to Canada. Is that really the Canada we were elected to build?
ON USE OF NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE:
Ed Fast: “The government well knows it does have remedies … within the charter itself to respond to this decision. When legislation is so fundamentally flawed, as is Bill C-14, as a person of conscience, as a person of faith, as a person who loves this country dearly, it is my duty to speak up against this kind of legislation and to say, no, there are better ways of addressing this.”
ON TERMINALLY- ILL DOGS AND HUMAN LIFE:
Wayne Stetski (Kootenay-Colum
bia, NDP): “Princess was a great dog … I held her in my arms and watched the needle go into her paw. She lay down and died in my arms. As I stood there with tears in my eyes, I thought that if I were ever in intolerable pain from an incurable disease, this is how I would want to leave this world, with a needle in my paw, lying in the arms of someone I love. I personally became a believer in physician-assisted suicide right there 20 years ago.”
ON THE DILEMMA LAWMAKERS’ FACE:
Cathy McLeod ( Kamloops
Thompson-Cariboo, Cons.): “I (the MP has worked as a registered nurse) have watched with envy when some of my colleagues have been able to articulate a really clear position on the legislation, both for and against.
“I will support the legislation at second reading for three reasons. First, I believe that ultimately it will serve Canadians better than having a legal void. Second, indications are that a significant number, a majority, in my riding do support assisted suicide and euthanasia. Finally, everyone reflects personally, and if I ever had family members with ALS or another devastating disease who said that they wanted to lie on their bed, listen to their music, look at the mountains, rather than palliative sedation at the end of their time, and that’s what they choose, how could I not support them in their request to escape intolerable pain and suffering?”
ON THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADIAN FORCES MEMBERS:
Bob Zimmer (Prince George-Peace
River-Northern Rockies, Cons.): “I feel it would open a door that was previously closed to members. We certainly respect the ones who have passed as a result of suicide, but I am concerned that this opens the door wider, to making it a somewhat legitimate exercise and to potentially doing it for families to receive benefit. We should be looking at more ways to help members of the forces and veterans with PTSD rather than giving them a doorway out.”