PPC's view on abortion, euthanasia and conscience rights

UPDATED Sept 18, 2021

I asked the People's Party of Canada's Ottawa-Vanier's candidate Jean-Jacques Desgranges, his views on social conservative issues. I received the following responses.

From a PPC Spokesperson: 

There is no mention of some of these issues in our platform. Maxime has always clearly stated that the party would not take any official position on issues of conscience such as abortion, euthanasia etc, and would let PPC candidates and eventual MPs defend their own personal positions.

During the last election campaign for example, candidates Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson and Paul Mitchell in Alberta put forward a proposal for a private bill that they would table if elected that would make third-semester abortion illegal. They received support from some other candidates across the country. The Party has no problem with such initiatives, nor with candidates who would express a different viewpoint.

Maxime has himself stated publicly that he would personally support such a ban on third-semester abortion, as well as sex-selective abortions.

The Party would allow free votes on conscience issues as well as on other issues where it hasn’t taken any official position and as long as a specific position doesn’t contradict the Party’s fundamental principles. 

From Ottawa-Vanier PPC candidate Jean-Jacques Desgranges:

In essence, my view on social conservative issues like abortion, euthanasia and doctor's conscience rights remain, well, conservative. But conservative in the true sense and not that of the Party that now calls itself the Conservative Party of Canada.

With respect to abortion my view (and I trust the view of almost all Canadians) is that abortion is wrong. Abortion, like euthanasia goes against our ingrained purely human values of the protection of life from conception to natural death. Though I cannot call myself pro-choice from a conscience perspective, I do respect a person's choice to undergo (or not undergo) the procedures they feel is necessary for them. This is a personal choice as is the decision to get a flu vaccine or to be injected with the so-called COVID19 vaccine.

However, as the PPC's four pillars state, the individual freedom allowed by a collectivity is coupled with personal responsibility, which is to say that a person's choices are bound by the responsibilities that may ensue. For example, a woman who chooses to obtain an abortion must understand that this may give rise to future health complications including infertility and mental health problems. I believe there are data to support this assertion. In my view, governments must limit its involvement in solving these problems, in particular in situations where the person was clearly apprised of the risks. Sadly, our institutions (of provincial jurisdiction - health and education) have been highjacked by ideologists that choose NOT to inform our youth of likely consequences of certain choices...

...given that life is sacred, I have the same view as it applies to euthanasia, euthanasia, defined as being an act of a doctor that causes the death of an incurable person to stop suffering an agony implies the participation in cessation of life. As such, it cannot inscribe itself as being correct in our society. That said, I can understand why a doctor may choose to assist patients towards death when those who are under long term suffering and agony choose to put an end to their life. Note that I impose the responsibility of opting out of life on the patient and not the health professionals. There must be very clear guidelines as to what is "long-term" suffering and agony. Abuses will (and probably have) otherwise become common place. Governments should strive to avoid this at all costs.

Given the above, you will have understood that I am in total support of doctors' conscience rights to refuse to perform abortions or euthanasia. It is difficult for me to fathom how a doctor whose conscience opposes abortion and/or euthanasia, can continue to properly administer medical care. Having been forced to carry out the procedure, he/she may thereafter suffer mental trauma to the extent that he can no longer effectively practice medicine feeling that he/she has abandoned his/her hippocratic oath. Or, he/she has become totally desensitized to the sacredness of life and thus stops exercising restraint and due diligence in carrying out either procedure.

Frankly, it is my view that under circumstances where a government allows either of the above life cessation procedures and that proper and strict guidelines are elaborated and implemented, the job should be left to those doctors of the utilitarian mindset. The choice of any doctor who, by reason of conscience, chooses not to abort or euthanize (including assist suicide) must be respected.

The above is said, of course, with due consideration that health matters (as they have been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada) are a provincial matter, and that the federal government can only act marginally on these issues. On this aspect, I refer you to the PPC's policy on Health Care which speaks specifically to the blind distribution of your tax dollars to provinces under the guise of "health transfers" but are not necessarily used for that.

I trust this allows you to understand where I stand on those issues...

Erin O'Toole says no to freedom of conscience rights for doctors

Dear Erin O'Toole,

I am really sad that you flipped on your original stance regarding conscience rights for doctors. It seems you are becoming more like Justin Trudeau every day. Will you next ban pro-life people from obtaining grants from the summer jobs program? And what about pro-life candidates? Do they get the axe as well?

It seems that Conservative party has lost its way. Perhaps you think that those of us who care about doctor's conscience rights and the rights of the pre-born child, are not important, and that those of us who hold these beliefs will vote for the Conservatives anyway. Think again. We can and will vote for the Christian Heritage Party or the People's Party of Canada. And if there is no candidate in a riding, we can spoil our vote.

Canada already has enough parties from the left. I hope you change your mind about where you stand on issues that are crucial for a very large number of Canadians. We do not need Justin Trudeau lite.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Ottawa

One Year Later, the reality of Medical Assistance in Dying

By Michael Swan June 9, 2017

http://www.catholicregister.org/item/25392-one-year-later-the-reality-of-medical-assistance-in-dying

Ontario doctors challenge policy forcing referrals for medically assisted dying

College's rules infringe on doctors' right to object on conscientious, religious grounds, groups argue

Amanda Pfeffer · CBC News

June 15, 2017

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/medically-assisted-dying-ontario-college-1.4159660

CBC Ottawa Morning Radio Live:  June 15, 2017 with Hallie Cotnam - Interview with Dr. Sephora Tang and Dr. David Rouselle from the CPSO

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/968056387630

A doctor speaks out about conscience rights

By An Ontario Doctor

I received a copy of this letter from a doctor. The doctor is writing about health care workers' conscience rights.

To my Member of Provincial Parliament of the Liberal Party,

I am deeply disappointed by the Liberal Party's willful disregard of the conscience rights of health care professionals when they voted in unison to defeat Bill 129 (An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991).

I realize now the utter powerlessness that minority citizens, like myself, have in the face of governments who have differing ideals.  I depended upon my elected member of parliament to speak for me, to be my voice and my vote on the one issue over which I have agonized for the past two years, an issue that has affected not only my freedom in how I practice my craft, but also the well being of countless patients (among whom you and I will be counted one day) who will be affected by the ramifications of this shift in health care policy.  I cannot help but to feel let down by both federal and provincial governments that have decided to play a political game based on faulty arguments which you and I both know are untrue.  For example, the argument of the patient who is so isolated and helpless that they cannot telephone to self-refer for MAID, is a fictitious patient that does not exist - but if on the rare occasion that such a patient actually did exist, then helping them to get on a pathway to be euthanized is perhaps the wrong immediate focus before other supports have been put into place first!

Which is why I don't understand the argument so often used by the Liberal party to discount conscience rights -  that upholding conscience rights would somehow limit access to service.  This argument is false, as has been shown in other jurisdictions that have allowed euthanasia and assisted suicide while still respecting conscience rights.  However, if the belief is that upholding conscience rights does in fact limit access to service, then this stated belief is incoherent with other statements made that conscience rights is already protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Preamble of C-14.  If conscience rights are, as stated, already protected, then what would be the harm of upholding these rights in legislation?  It is precisely because these rights are NOT sufficiently protected in light of the Carter decision that there is a need for explicit legislative protection, and which the Federal Government expected provinces to enact provincially.  Instead, the Ontario government has shirked its responsibility of protecting fundamental freedoms that are being eroded with seemingly no consequence to regulating colleges keen to impose policies that violate human rights due to their own faulty understanding of what it means to respect conscience rights.

Not enacting laws that protect freedom of conscience is analogous to saying, at the Federal level, that because everyone has a Charter Right to Life, there is no need for a law prohibiting murder because a person's right to life is already protected under the Charter.  Charter rights are guiding foundational principles upon which laws are created and by which they must abide.  Nowhere has there been any evidence produced that demonstrates upholding the Charter rights of Freedom of Conscience in Legislation infringes upon another person's right to life (which was the reason why physician-assisted suicide was permitted).  Furthermore, the Care Coordination System which the government has agreed to create (thank you very much) resolves the public fear of potential restrictions to access.  

A Charter of Rights and Freedoms is effective in granting rights only in so far as those words are respected in action, which, on this issue, has not been the case.

It is clear from the Liberal party's stance that it sides with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which the Canadian Medical Association has stated holds an "impoverished" understanding of conscience, and which does not respect differences of conscience.  Just because one might believe it is okay to do something a certain way does not mean that another person believes the same.  And it is wrong to coerce another person in doing what they deeply believe to be wrong even if one may think it is for a perceived good (in this case, the death of a suffering person), no matter how hard one tries to justify this coercion by looking to other people who may have reconciled their own consciences with the objectionable act.  This is where differences in conscience plays out, and so far, the Liberal government has firmly decided it would only protect the conscience rights of some, but not all, health professionals in trying to achieve that "balance" so oft spoken.

What your party has demonstrated by word and action is that it is okay to not respect those who cannot participate in an effective referral for the death of their patient.  If this is not what you believe, and only what your party has asked you to support, then I am truly sorry that you are placed in a position in which you must contort your own words and actions so as to align yourself with what has been asked of you, without the freedom to voice what you truly believe.  And if your words and actions are indeed a true representation of what you believe and stand for, then I am saddened that you are unable to see the truth behind the harms that your beliefs and position will cause for the greater society.  One of the best, most comprehensive speeches I have heard on the subject was given by Cardinal Müller.  You may wish to read the full text here.

When the voice of reason became overshadowed by political antics on an issue that should never have become a victim of partisan politics, I came to the clear realization that if the majority government espouses values that are fundamentally different from my own, elected members of provincial parliament will only do what their Party dictates, and not, as I had previously supposed and hoped, what we elected them to be, as a voice for their constituents.  In casting my vote at the next election, I will bear this in mind, and favour a party (and not any one individual), that has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the fundamental freedoms upon which our democracy rests.

Despite my deep disappointment and sadness over a situation that remains incomprehensible to me, I just want you to know that I think of you and pray for you often, for your well-being, and for your good.  I ask that perhaps you might also do the same for me, and keep me in your prayers.

Sincerely,
your local physician

Ont. Gov't still has no conscience protection in Bill 84

Dear Dr. Hoskins,

On April 2, 2017 you are quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

“Many of these same people, when they express their concern, they ask us to implement what’s sort of being referred to as the Alberta model...We are implementing the Alberta model.”

I understand that this is NOT the case. The Alberta model does not require any physician involvement – it does not require an effective referral, and the model is entirely patient accessed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario still requires an effective referral from doctors if requested by a patient – even though a care coordination service has been created.

Many Members of Provincial Parliament and Ministers have been confused by this statement and are now under the incorrect impression that an effective referral is no longer needed with the model the government has implemented.

To protect conscientiously objecting doctors and health care providers here in Ontario we must implement a conscience amendment in Bill 84.

Can you please ensure that proper a conscience clause is inserted into Bill 84?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

cc Nathalie Des Rosiers

Kathleen Wynne

Tell your MPP you want doctor's conscience rights protected

Yesterday I called my MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers' office regarding Bill 84 Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act. She was in Queen's Park so this is what I said to her assistant:

"Regarding Bill 84, Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act: when Nathalie spoke in the legislature on this bill, I noted that there is no mention about a provision in the bill to ensure that conscience rights are protected. That's because there is no such provision in the bill. In fact The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is forcing doctors to make "effective referrals" which is against many physicians' freedom of conscience. This is of great concern to me."

I then told her assistant to make sure she relayed my concerns to Nathalie. She told me many people had already called her. Her assistant also told me that on Thursday March 20th there will be committee hearings in Toronto on this, and that people can request to call in to it to express their concerns about the lack of protection for doctor's conscience rights.

People can also send in a written submission to Peter Milczyn, MPP, Chair, Eric Rennie, Clerk erennie@ola.org 

Interested people who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 84 on Thursday, March 30, 2017 should provide their contact name, mailing address, phone number, and email address to the Clerk of the Committee by 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 2017.

Requests to present via teleconference will be accommodated.

Those who do not wish to make an oral presentation but wish to comment on the Bill may send a written submission to the Clerk of the Committee at the address below by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 30, 2017.

Telephone: (416) 325-3506 (Collect calls will be accepted) Facsimile: (416) 325-3505 TTY: (416) 325-3538 

Please call your own MPP (Nathalie's email is NDesRosiers.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org) and tell them you want doctor's conscience rights protected. And send an email to the committee at erennie@ola.org.

It is very important we make our views known to the politicians. If we don't, we are in real danger of losing our doctors who will be forced into referring people for assisted suicide, or leave their practice. 

We must make sure doctor's conscience rights are protected.

Yasir Naqvi - Don't force doctors to participate in assisted suicide

From the Coalition for Health CARE And Conscience:

"As you know, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is continuing to demand that doctors who conscientiously object to assisted suicide refer patients seeking to end their lives to other physicians who will provide the procedure. No other jurisdiction or country that has legalized assisted suicide requires doctors to perform or refer. 

Currently, three physician groups who are members of our coalition are challenging this approach by the college in court.  However the Attorney General of Ontario, Yasir Naqvi, has intervened in this case on the side of the CPSO. 

We need to let Yasir Naqvi know that Ontario voters want their doctor’s conscience rights protected." 

Click here to write to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi and tell him to support conscience rights.