ARPA Canada proposes government use "notwithstanding clause" on assisted suicide and euthanasia

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada July 7, 2015 ARPA CANADA UNVEILS DRAFT LEGISLATION PROHIBITING ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA AND INVOKING THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE

Ottawa - On the heels of the Canadian Medical Association unveiling draft protocols for an assisted suicide regime, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada has published a draft euthanasia law (http://arpacanada.ca/drafteuthanasialaw.pdf) which would uphold Canada’s absolute prohibitions of assisted suicide and euthanasia. ARPA Canada was an intervenor in the Supreme Court case which struck down Canada’s assisted suicide law on February 6, 2015 and gave Parliament just one year to fill the void. The organization also published a policy report for Parliamentarians following the Supreme Court decision. “On numerous occasions, including just five years ago, all of the major parties in Canada’s Parliament have voted to uphold our law against assisted suicide,” said ARPA Canada’s Executive Director Mark Penninga. “Parliament has the constitutional means to pass a new law which continues to prohibit all assisted suicide, and it can do that while taking meaningful steps to promote palliative and end of life care.” The draft bill invokes Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly referred to as the notwithstanding clause. This section gives Parliament the ability to pass legislation notwithstanding a court’s interpretation of section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter. In this case, the draft legislation is cited notwithstanding how the Supreme Court interpreted the “right to life” of section 7 of the Charter to allow state-endorsed killing. “If Parliament refuses to even consider invoking Section 33, Canada’s nine unelected Supreme Court judges have effectively become the supreme lawmakers of Canada,” explained ARPA Canada’s Legal Counsel André Schutten. “The notwithstanding clause was added to the Charter to balance the power of the judicial and legislative branches of civil government. But for the clause to have effect, it must be exercised. It is hard to conceive of a more worthy time to invoke Section 33 than now, when the basic right to life of Canada’s most vulnerable citizens are at risk.” ARPA’s draft law includes a lengthy preamble which provides sixteen reasons why such a strident step is principled, constitutional, and necessary.

- 30 - Interview Requests: Mark Penninga is available throughout the day for phone or email interviews. Contact him directly at 778-210-0376 or Mark@ARPACanada.ca ARPA Canada’s legal counsel André Schutten is available for comment and in studio interviews in Ottawa or via phone/email. To arrange an interview contact Niki Pennings, Administrative Assistant, at 1-866-691-2772, ext. 3 or Niki@ARPACanada.ca

DRAFT

First Session, Forty-second Parliament, 63-64 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016 STATUTES OF CANADA 2016CHAPTER ___ Bill C-_____ An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision inCarter v. Canada (Attorney General)

Preamble Whereas it is Parliament’s duty to protect human life and uphold the inviolable right to life of all human beings; Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns about the inherent risks that a legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide regime pose to the lives of vulnerable people; Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the devastating social harm caused by the normalization of suicide and the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia; Whereas legalizing physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia would corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship; Whereas it is of utmost importance, by discouraging suicide, to protect the inherent human dignity and value possessed by each Canadian person by reason of everyone being a member of the human family, regardless of disease, disability or discomfort; Whereas certain judges have failed to appreciate overwhelming social scientific evidence on the inherent harms and unacceptable risks to the lives of vulnerable, disabled, elderly and sick Canadians when euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized; Whereas comprehensive reviews of all other jurisdictions that have legalized assisted suicide and/or euthanasia prove that assisted deaths continue, and even increase, in the face of evidence that legislated safeguards are ignored; Whereas there is no reason to believe that Canada would be any different should euthanasia or assisted suicide be legalized; Whereas legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide will result in a two-tiered justice system, providing robust Criminal Code protections for the lives of able-bodied persons, but weak Criminal Code protections for the lives of people with disabilities and illnesses; Whereas striking down the Criminal Code provision denying the right toconsent to have another end your life, but only limiting that nullification to those who are suffering or disabled, is a shocking and discriminatory value statement about the life and worth of people with severe disabilities, pain or illness; Whereas the Parliament of Canada rejects the proposition that the deaths of some innocent, vulnerable people in a legalized euthanasia regime is an acceptable balance to allow others the freedom to have unhindered assistance in committing suicide at a convenient time and place; Whereas the Parliament of Canada has conducted holistic, in-depth, cross-partisan studies, hearing from all segments of society on the ethical, moral, legal, philosophical and policy implications on the issue of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia and, having studied the issue more thoroughly than a court can or ever has, concluding that only an absolute prohibition on allowing some people to kill other people, absent self-defence, can adequately and equally protect the lives of all Canadians; Whereas the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Supreme Court of Canada failed to give any meaningful recognition of the votes of Parliament at different times in the last two decades, comprising clear, direct, cross-party votes against the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide; Whereas section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives exclusive authority to Parliament to make laws in relation to the Criminal Law; Whereas that same section of the Constitution precludes judges at any level of court to legislate their social preferences from the bench; And whereas section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides Parliament the constitutional authority to remedy a policy change by the courts, notwithstanding their interpretation of various sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

SHORT TITLE

Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Restoring Full and Equal Protection of Vulnerable Canadian Lives Act.

R.S., c. C-46 CRIMINAL CODE

R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s.14 Charter override R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 224; R.S.C. 1985, c. 27 (1 st Supp.), s.7(3) Charter override 2. Section 14 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following: 14.1 Section 14 operates notwithstanding the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982 c11. 3. Section 241 of the Act is amended by adding the following: 241.1 Section 241 operates notwithstanding the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982 c11.

REVIEW AND REPORT

Review Report 4. (1) Within four years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose. (2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within six months after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as the House may authorize, submit a report on the review to the Speaker of the House, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends.

COMING INTO FORCE

One day after royal assent 5. The provisions of this Act come into force one day after the day onwhich this Act receives royal assent.

DRAFT

ARPA Canada, P.O. Box 1377 STN B , Ottawa, K1P 5R4 Please click here if you wish to unsubscribe from ARPA Canada media releases.

Conscience rights for doctors more important than ever

Now that the Supreme Court has struck down Canada’s laws against assisted suicide, doctor's conscience rights are even more important. Watch this short video.

Visit CMDScanada.org for more information

Deadline to submit feedback is Feb. 20, 2015 in Ontario. Visit the CPSO site to provide feedback and to view the policy entitled "Professional Obligations and Human Rights" .

We're staying

What is wrong with the majority of MPs in this country? Some are brave. And the rest? Well, I'll leave you to answer that question for yourself.

I just received a press release from MP Maurice Vellacott. He forwarded on an email he received from a Debbie Fisher who was shall I say, less than pleased with MP Bob Rae's comments regarding Mr. Vellacott nominating Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner for the Queen's Jubilee medals. Mr. Rae had said:
"By encouraging others, this could clearly be interpreted as inciting others to break the law, which in itself is a criminal offence.”

Ms. Fisher replied:
"If memory serves me correctly it was the irresponsible Bob Rae government that caused this illegal temporary injunction in the first place and as a result of your disregard for women, thousands have now suffered the trauma of abortion without being fully informed of the consequences. I held a young girl in my arms yesterday who underwent an abortion 14 months ago at the Bloor clinic where Mary Wagner has been arrested. She told me they told her it was a short procedure to remove the "contents of the uterus" and she would be fine. Her marks have dropped, she has lived with guilt and remorse for over a year and she said she couldn't look at her boyfriend anymore because he reminded her of that day. Where is the counselling for this child who misses her child? Where are the resources for thousands like her? By the way Mr Rae, her child's name is Kaysen. My dead child's name is Noelle Marie. I was told to shut up when I started screaming for my child after my abortion because I was upsetting other people in the recovery room. I know better today that my child was not a blob of tissue and a mass of cells."

Then of course there was MP Stephen Woodworth's motion 312 that was defeated in in the House recently, a motion that simply asked to have a discussion on when a child becomes a human being.

Nope can't have that discussion.

And we can't discuss these things because some MPs are absolutely enthralled with that word "abortion", and its first cousin, "Women's rights". Can't talk about it. Can't think about it. Can't debate it. And please don't ask us to even talk about what a pre-born child is. No no no.

It has become so riduculous that even the Supreme Court has no idea what to even call a pre-born child:
"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is seldom at a loss for words. But even Beverley McLachlin stopped in her verbal tracks last month while hearing arguments in the matter of Regina v. Ivana Levkovic. The facts were enough to make you glad you’re not a judge: Levkovic, a former stripper from Mississauga, Ont., was accused of leaving the body of her newborn daughter on her apartment balcony, to be found—badly decomposed in a plastic bag—by her landlord when she vacated.

Levkovic was charged under Section 243 of the Criminal Code, which forbids concealing the body of an infant “whether the child died before, during or after birth.” But pathologists were unable to determine whether Levkovic’s baby was born alive or dead, and under Canadian case law, a child has no legal rights before it has emerged from the womb. By using words like “child,” “baby” or “girl,” therefore, the judges could be implying humanity on the part of the deceased. They’d also be undermining Levkovic’s defence: if an unborn child has no right to legal protection, her lawyers had reasoned, how could the law stand?

Thus began a kind of linguistic minuet, as the judges reached for acceptable nomenclature for a hypothetical baby that the law might not regard as a person. McLachlin tried “object” and “being” and, at one cringeworthy point, referred to it as “this, um, dead, um, whatever.” Her colleagues didn’t fare much better. During a discussion of the applicability of mens rea, Justice Michael Moldaver, a former criminal lawyer who joined the court one year ago, referred to the infant in such cases as “the thing.”

Our Supreme Court Justices. Don't know. What to call. An unborn child. A pre-born child. A human being. What. Is. Their. Problem.

So...we can only leave it up to some MPs who do some thing.

Like Mark Warawa's recent motion M-408 "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination."

I wonder if those naysayer MPs like Mr. Rae and Mr. Harper, and all the rest of them, think we are going away? I hope not, because we aren't. Nope. We're here to stay.

Educating Francoise

On Sept 29, MP Françoise Boivin (NDP) said some curious things in the House of Commons, regarding the funding of International Planned Parenthood and the infamous "Women's rights" ideology:

She started with this:

"Mr. Speaker, women's rights should not be open for debate, yet members of the government seem to think they are. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly ruled that access to abortion is a fundamental right."

Actually...the Supreme Court ruled no such thing. The Morgentaler decision never stated that abortion was a fundamental right at all. And they most assuredly didn't say it was a constitutional right.

Then Ms. Boivin said:

"Either the Prime Minister has lost control of his caucus or his government's new policy is to outlaw abortion and turn back the clock on women's rights. Which is it?"

Well...it's neither. I think we all know that Mr. Harper never loses control of his caucus. Come on, you know that. And outlaw abortion? For someone like Mr. Harper, who categorically refuses to even think about abortion, never mind discuss it, it would be kind of difficult to outlaw it, don't you think?

Then this:

"Mr. Speaker, I have the impression today that we have literally gone back 20 years to a time when another Conservative government wanted to again criminalize abortion. This is not the first time that a member of the Conservative caucus has attempted to attack women's rights. This is becoming routine. Will the Prime Minister put an end to these attempts and guarantee, once and for all, women's right to choose?"

I thought we covered this Francoise. How can the Prime Minister guarantee a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child, when no such constitutional right exists?

Then on Oct. 3 Ms .Boivin tried again:

"Mr. Speaker, last week, a Conservative member of Parliament said that his government was in the process of successfully modifying its approach to the abortion issue. On Friday, another Conservative MP said exactly the same thing. Is this government changing women's rights against their will or is the Prime Minister unable to control his caucus?"

Hmmm...I'm a woman. And last time I checked, nobody's changing my rights, either against my will or with my will.

And what about Mr. Harper losing control of his caucus? Well Francoise, like I said before, that's sort of impossible. Mr. Harper wouldn't know how to lose control of his caucus.

Mr. Harper to caucus:

"Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"you're the boss."

Mr. Harper:

I can't hear you! Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"YOU'RE THE BOSS!!"

Mr. Harper:

"That's better."

Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP):

"Three Conservative MPs are trying in a roundabout way to reopen the debate on abortion. In Canada, abortion has been legal for decades. Clearly, some Conservative MPs do not accept that, even though a majority of Canadians do."

Well, you have that, um, wrong again. The majority of Canadians, unlike you Francoise, are not afraid of having an abortion debate." In fact 52% of Canadians said we should not be afraid of an open debate on abortion.

And did you know Francoise, that a majority of Canadians (61%) oppose government funding of all abortions? And that 72% of Canadians want legal protections for the unborn according to a recent Environics poll?

I bet you didn't know that either, did you? I was afraid of that.

And last but not least:

"Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will not allow a private member's bill on abortion to be introduced?"

Oh dear, now I'm really confused. Is it possible that a member of Parliament does not know the definition of a Private Member's Bill? Well just in case, I'll help you out...thanks to...well...to Parliament...you know....that place where you work?

"Public bills initiated by a Minister are referred to as "government bills", while those initiated by private Members are called "private Members' bills".

In other words, a private member's bill is for a member to introduce and not for a government to introduce. So Mr. Harper would have absolutely no say in allowing a private member's bill to be introduced or not. Understood?

So I'm just wondering Francoise, have you considered going back to school?

Canada's no-abortion law

Supreme Court Justices in Canada hold an awful lot of power. Five of seven judges changed the course of Canadian history forever when they struck down our abortion law. In essence they legalized abortion.

When you peel back the legalize about who those five people were, you realize that they were basically just people like any other Canadian citizen. Yes they were judges, but so what? And they were not elected, they were appointed. Why do we give them all that power? They put their pants on each morning the same way you and I do, one leg at at time. Yes they are learned, but so are many other Canadians. And we the people didn't pick them to make our laws and we didn't pick them to strike down our laws. A politician did.

What if different men and women had been on the bench that year? Different Canadians with a different set of values. Maybe if instead of only two people dissenting on that infamous case, there had been five of them willing to look past Henry Morgentaler and his pro-abortion crusade. Maybe if those five different people were unborn children advocates, maybe things would be different now.

Our no-abortion law is nothing to be proud of. It is something to be very sad about indeed.