The Globe and Mail - 13.09.2019

A10 OTHEGLOBEANDMAIL | FRIDAY,SEPTEMBER13,

EDITORIAL

PHILLIPCRAWLEY

PUBLISHERANDCEO

DAVIDWALMSLEY

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

A

critical part of Canada’s law on medically assisted

death was struck down by a Quebec court on

Wednesday – a development a lot of people saw

coming from the moment the law was tabled in 2016.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Christine Baudouin ruled in

favour of two people who said they were denied assisted

deaths on the unfair grounds that their natural deaths were

not “reasonably foreseeable,” as the law demands.

Both are suffering intolerable pain and anguish caused by

their illnesses and disabilities, and both want to die on their

own terms, but neither is about to lose their life to their spe-

cific medical condition, or old enough to be considered close

to the natural death that comes with age.

The judge struck down as unconstitutional the “reason-

ably foreseeable” clause in the federal law, and in Quebec’s

own law on medically assisted death. She suspended the

judgment for six months to give Ottawa and Quebec City

time to respond, but also gave the two people who brought

the case an exemption that will allow them to proceed with

their planned deaths.

The ruling was not unexpected because the federal law,

and its Quebec counterpart, set conditions for medically as-

sisted death that are at odds with the 2015 Supreme Court of

Canada judgment that ruled denying a severely ill or disabled

person the right to die can amount to a violation of their right

to life, liberty and security of the person.

The Supreme Court said in Carter v. Canada that physician-

assisted death must be available to an “adult person who (1)

clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) has a griev-

ous and irremediable medical condition ... that causes en-

during suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the

circumstances of his or her condition.”

The onus fell on the newlyelected Trudeau government to

amend the Criminal Code to satisfy the demands of the rul-

ing. But where the court set three conditions (including hav-

ing to be an adult) for qualifying for assisted death, the gov-

ernment felt it needed to add a fourth: that a person’s “nat-

ural death has become reasonably foreseeable.”

That restriction was designed to prevent abuse and errors,

but the complainants in the Quebec Superior Court ruling

are perfect examples of how even such a well-meaning clause

can have negative consequences.

Take one of the plaintiffs, Jean Truchon. Aged 51, he was

born with cerebral palsy that left him with the use of only his

left arm. In spite of his condition, he graduated from univer-

sity and lived a fairly independent life that included numer-

ous outings and regular games of wheelchair ball hockey.

Sadly, he lost the use of his one arm in 2012, and with it

went the life he was enjoying. He now suffers constant pain

caused by involuntary muscle spasms and spends most of his

day in bed waiting to be cared for.

Similar to the other plaintiff, a 73-year-old woman with po-

lio who had a vibrant working and social life until her condi-

tion put her in a wheelchair and in constant pain, Mr. Tru-

chon is an intelligent and thoughtful person who has

reached the conclusion, through a long period of suffering,

that he wants to end his life.

Every doctor and psychologist who examined him agreed

that he qualifies for assisted death – except for the law’s “rea-

sonably foreseeable” hurdle.

Critics of the clause have long argued that it was reason-

ably foreseeable that a case like Mr. Truchon’s would arise,

and the law would be found wanting. In the wake of this

week’s ruling, the next Parliament has a problem to fix.

But Ottawa should be wary of simply eliminating the

clause, because it is also reasonably foreseeable that too lax a

regime could result in atragic error of the kind thegovern-

ment imagined back in 2016.

Ottawa worried then that a younger person paralyzed in

an accident, or suffering from a debilitating mental illness,

might opt for assisted death too quickly and miss out on the

life they could have had after they adjusted to their new cir-

cumstances.

Mr. Truchon himself is proof that people can make rich

lives out of the most difficult circumstances, if given the

chance. When an anguished person says they wish to end

their life, the state should not do anything that might hurry

them into an early grave.

But neither should the state patronize people who know

their own minds and have suffered long enough. Ottawa was

right to be cautious in drafting the law, but thenext govern-

ment needs to strike a better balance.

A‘reasonably

foreseeable’

courtruling

SNCANDWILSON-RAYBOULD

Re Wilson-Raybould, Philpott

Need To Lay Out SNC Affair For

Voters (Sept. 12): Popular phrases

arise quickly, and sometimes

without due consideration of

their accuracy. Since former at-

torney-general Jody Wilson-Ray-

bould’s appeal last February in

the House of Commons to be able

to speak “my truth,” that phrase

has loomed large in the Canadian

lexicon. But does the term make

sense or mean anything at all?

Truth should be an objective

fact and belong to all of us, not

just one person. Perceptions vary,

but facts don’t. There is no more

“your truth” or “my truth” than

there is an “alternative fact.”

Perhaps Ms. Wilson-Raybould

and Jane Philpott should be per-

mitted to speak outside of cabi-

net confidentiality. To be clear,

however, they would be express-

ing their opinions – as heartfelt

as they may be – and not reciting

immutable facts upon which ev-

eryone can reflexively rely.

EricLeGresleyOttawa

Re RCMP Interview Wilson-Ray-

bould On SNC (Sept. 12): To com-

mit the crime of obstruction of

justice, must not a process lead-

ing to justice be obstructed? How

would justice be pursued in a de-

cision to criminally prosecute

SNC-Lavalin, where all of the al-

leged perpetrators of fraud and

bribery are no longer present in

any capacity?

That is the question to which

the former attorney-general and

the director of public prosecu-

tions should be compelled to

answer.

MarkRobertsGananoque, Ont.

SNCANDTRUDEAU

Re Not Even Justin Trudeau Is

Above The Law (Sept. 12): Brian

Giesbrecht, a senior fellow with

the conservative think tank Fron-

tier Centre for Public Policy, says

the RCMP should launch an in-

vestigation into the SNC-Lavalin

case, and that “perception is ev-

erything.” Indeed it is: The mere

suggestion of an RCMP investiga-

tion already serves to embed the

perception of potential wrongdo-

ing in the public mind, on the eve

of an election, whether or not

there is a case for it.

SheilaPetzoldOttawa

When Justin Trudeau was asked

about the Clerk of the Privy

Council’s decision not to waive

cabinet confidentiality for an

RCMP investigation into the SNC-

Lavalin case, he responded: “We

respect the decisions made by

professional public servants. We

respect the decision made by the

Clerk.”

Where was this respect when

his office, as found by the Ethics

Commissioner, fought to influen-

ce the original decision made by

the director of public prosecu-

tions, a professional public ser-

vant if ever there was one?

ÉliseLevesqueOttawa

I am surprised that Justin Tru-

deau and his advisers seem to

have forgotten that usually it is

not the offence that creates a

problem. More often, it is how

one deals with the aftermath.

IvanMcMorrisWinnipeg

Justin Trudeau has simplified the

decision for anyone considering a

vote for the Liberal Party. The

overriding question should be:

Can Mr. Trudeau be trusted after

the SNC-Lavalin affair?

Now the government will not

waive cabinet confidentiality for

an RCMP investigation. Does

such behaviour reflect Canadian

values on ethics and integrity?

The answer to that question

should surely guide any election

decision.

RandyGillisCalgary

WHOFLOATSYOURBOAT?

Re To Rock The Boat, You Have

To Vote (Editorial, Sept 12): Is it

really a sign of democratic matu-

rity to have two main parties with

very little daylight between

them? From a millennial’s per-

spective, it seems to be a clear

sign of democratic failure.

With Liberal and Conservative

governments, carbon emissions

have continued to rise. With Ste-

phen Harper and Justin Trudeau,

housing has grown even less af-

fordable. Regardless of the party

in charge, wealth inequality has

only increased.

Liberal and Conservative eco-

nomic policies seem to be killing

the planet and undermining the

prosperity of a generation. Prop-

ping them up with our votes

would neither rock the boat nor

save our sinking ship.

ChrisRapsonToronto

I will not vote based on environ-

mental policies, because the dif-

ferences between the parties

would amount to a rounding er-

ror in the larger context of global

climate change.

I will not vote based on the

leaders, because to me they are

all execrable.

I will not vote based on the

performance of the economy, be-

cause nogovernment or party

should claim to have single-

handedly created jobs.

I will not vote based on health-

care promises, because that is

primarily a provincial jurisdic-

tion.

So what is left? I will vote for a

party that can create a broad vi-

sion for Canada’s future that goes

beyond the four-year election cy-

cle, and that will empower my

children so that they will not

have to rely on government

largesse and endless deficits for

their well-being.

I haven’t found such a party

yet, but there is always hope.

PaulClarryAurora, Ont.

Canadians will have had 40 days

of campaigning before going to

the polls to choose their federal

government leaders. I am not

looking forward to so many days

of candidate-slamming, publici-

ty-seeking and mud-slinging be-

tween competing parties. If this

campaign follows the ways of

previous ones, the real competi-

tion will seem to be just how far

these political foes can go in their

down-and-dirty accusations.

As a voter, I want just the op-

posite. I want the parties and can-

didates to speak to me about

their views and vision for a better

Canada. I’d like to know just how

and why they think their policies

are best – for all Canadians. It

won’t be easy, because it is a gi-

gantic task to seriously think and

plan for every region of our vast

nation, for all our diverse popula-

tions, for all our needs and op-

portunities.

This should more than fill ev-

ery hour of these 40 days. Why

waste time and money denigra-

ting the competition? Is it possi-

ble to hope for better political

campaigning in Canada?

G.A.Teske

Sherwood Park, Alta.

STUCKINTHEMIDDLE

When did Canada develop a

“middle class?” This term felt

largely absent from the Canadian

consciousness before the last

election, when Justin Trudeau

seemed to mention it at every op-

portunity.

Middle class is a horizontal de-

scription, thereby inferring that

there is also a better upper class

and a worse lower class. The Can-

ada I know has never had such

divisions. This might be the real-

ity in countries like Britain or In-

dia, where class and caste divi-

sions have fermented over gener-

ations, but that does not make it

a reality here.

A more accurate term would

be “middle income”; “class” is so

imbued with historical inferen-

ces that some people are worth

more than others. If, as Mr. Tru-

deau says, he believes that “a

Canadian is a Canadian is a Cana-

dian,” then I ask him (and other

politicians) to stop using a term

that values people so differently.

The pervasiveness of the term

is the start of a slippery slope. Do

not let “class” become a reality in

this wonderful land of Canada.

S.A.HaydenKelowna, B.C.

UPINTHEAIR

On Day 1 of the election cam-

paign, Andrew Scheer and Justin

Trudeau flew across the country.

I wonder how much carbon emis-

sion will be generated by the par-

ty leaders by Oct. 21?

Will Elizabeth May travel by

train?

TonyBurtVancouver

LETTERSTOTHEEDITOR

Thesubjectwhoistrulyloyaltothechiefmagistratewillneitheradvisenorsubmittoarbitrarymeasures-Junius

LetterstotheEditorshouldbe

exclusivetoTheGlobeandMail.

Includename,addressanddaytime

phonenumber.Keeplettersunder

150words.Lettersmaybeeditedfor

lengthandclarity.E-mail:

[email protected]

SINCLAIRSTEWART
DEPUTY EDITOR

DEREKDECLOET

EXECUTIVE EDITOR

EDITOR, REPORT ON BUSINESS

ANGELAPACIENZA

HEAD OF EXPERIENCE

DENNISCHOQUETTE

HEAD OF ENTERPRISE

TONYKELLER

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

NATASHAHASSAN

OPINION EDITOR

SYLVIASTEAD

PUBLIC EDITOR