Carter Tag

31 Jan 2019 A timeline of ARPA Canada’s engagement on the euthanasia issue

Euthanasia has been a top priority issue for ARPA Canada over the past few years. 2015: ARPA intervened in Carter v. Canada, the landmark Supreme Court case which struck down the prohibition on assisted suicide. 2015: ARPA produced a paper showing the government that their legislative options included affirming a total ban of euthanasia. 2015: ARPA  engaged in direct lobbying on Bill C-14, which amended the Criminal Code to legalize physician-assisted suicide.  The Hill Times recorded ARPA Canada as having the top number of Parliamentary lobby meetings on this...

Read More

21 Jan 2019 The push for expanding euthanasia continues: the Lamb case

The movement to bring euthanasia and assisted suicide to Canada has been ongoing for decades. Despite the official legalization of physician-assisted suicide in June 2016, the movement wants more. While Parliament considers a 2018 report on expanding euthanasia, euthanasia advocates are pushing the boundaries of assisted suicide in a legal challenge in the British Columbia courts. ARPA Canada was an intervenor at the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case that ended the previous ban on euthanasia in Canada. We, and many other human rights advocates, pointed out that once the...

Read More

20 Sep 2018 Debate on expanding euthanasia continues, ARPA releases new policy report

This fall, Parliament will examine the issue of expanding euthanasia to “mature minors” and to persons with mental illness. Since 2016 (Bill C-14), Canada has permitted anyone who is at least 18, has a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and whose death is reasonably foreseeable, to receive “medical aid in dying” (MAiD). To put it in stark terms, the law now permits medical professionals to kill their adult patients, as long as the patient consents and has the requisite medical conditions. In Spring 2015, ARPA released its first Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia...

Read More

28 Mar 2017 Canada Must Start Monitoring “Medically Assisted Dying”

Take Action: Send an EasyMail letter to share your concerns with your MP and MPP    When the Supreme Court of Canada legalized assisted suicide in Carter (2015), it allayed concerns about abuse by quoting the words of the trial judge, who said the risks of legalized assisted suicide can be minimized (not eliminated) through a “carefully designed system that imposes strict limits that are scrupulously monitored and enforced.” Put another way, only through a carefully designed system that is “scrupulously monitored and enforced” can the inherent risks of a legalized assisted suicide regime...

Read More

28 Oct 2015 ARPA Lawyers Present to Government Panel on Assisted Suicide Recommendations

ARPA Canada was able to present to the Panel on Options for a Legislative Response to Carter v. Canada. ARPA’s legal counsel André Schutten and policy analyst Colin Postma were joined by lawyer John Sikkema. They presented three options: draft legislation using Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "notwithstanding clause"), some recommendations on mitigating the harm of assisted suicide, and ARPA Canada’s 'third option' of amending the Criminal Code to specifically address assisted suicide and euthanasia. André Schutten began his presentation with a story of a close relative who has been in a wheelchair most of his life, who has been in and out of the hospital many times. During such hospital stays, his family has been asked, “is it worth it?” by some in the health care profession. If this kind of pressure exists to undermine the value of life for those with disabilities before any Parliamentary action on Carter, how much more afterwards. Those with disabilities will be forced to prove their worth to society, or be shamed and undervalued, Schutten said. He then presented ARPA’s draft law for using Section 33 of the Charter, the so-called ‘notwithstanding clause’ and advised the panel that it is ARPA’s position that this is the best legislative option for protecting the value of life for the most vulnerable.
Read More

18 Feb 2015 Euthanasia Q&A: Where the Supreme Court’s Decision Leaves Canada

Important Update: After publishing this article, the authors regretted what was written and penned the following letter to the editor:   Dear Editor,   In our recent article explaining the Carter Supreme Court decision on euthanasia and assisted suicide, we too quickly suggested that the use of Section 33 of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause) was not a long-term or realistic solution for this government to use. By adding specific ideas for what a new law could look like (a law which would allow for assisted suicide in limited circumstances, as required by the Supreme Court), we also created the impression that such a law is justifiable for this government to pursue. We apologize for the lack of principle and clarity.   The reality is that Parliament has the means to uphold the current law which bans all assisted suicide and euthanasia, as long as it has the courage to make use of Section 33 of the Charter. This is the very reason why such a section was added to our constitution – to give authority to Parliament to make law in spite of what the Supreme Court determines to be appropriate.  As such, it should do so. Lives are at stake. The fact that this particular option - use of the notwithstanding clause - has to be renewed by future governments every five years does make defending life more challenging, but it does not make it impossible. If a future government choses to not renew the use of Section 33 to uphold life, that would be its responsibility, not the current government’s. The same could be said of any legislation.   This government has the ability to prohibit euthanasia and assisted suicide, and it should do so. If it is intent on crossing the sacred line of an absolute prohibition on allowing some people to kill other people, we can share our concerns but also legitimately suggest ideas for how to restrict the evil as much as possible. Suggestions for how to reduce the number of deaths are not inappropriate. And if we are living in a land where euthanasia is already legal, helping the government restrict it is laudable (similar to abortion today). But we aren’t there yet. We can encourage this government to do the right thing and uphold the sixth commandment.   We have since published a policy report on this matter, available at . We encourage Clarion readers to pray for our federal government as they wrestle with what to do about this issue.   Mark Penninga and André Schutten ARPA Canada   The following article was written for the Clarion magazine in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Carter v. Canada. By Mark Penninga & André Schutten On February 6, Canada’s Supreme Court released a decision which struck down Canada’s laws against physician-assisted suicide. It required that physician-assisted suicide be permitted for competent adults who clearly consent to their own death and have an irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering. That may sound like strict parameters, but the reality is that these qualifications are subjective and tens of thousands of people could qualify today. Parliament has been given just one year to come up with a law to regulate this new paradigm before the judgment takes effect. We have every reason to be concerned about this decision and the growing idolatry of self in Canada. At the same time, we find our enduring strength in God, the Foundation that does not crumble when times become difficult. God calls His children to faithfully uphold His Word and Truth regardless of how much our society spurns it. More than ever, the light of the Gospel will stand out in a land that is increasingly darkening.  The following questions and answers are meant to offer guidance, direction, and even some hope in response to this latest legal development on this issue. We welcome interaction and further questions, either directly to us or via letters to the editor.
Read More

06 Feb 2015 Some initial reflections on the Supreme Court of Canada euthanasia decision

This morning the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a disappointing decision in the euthanasia case. The constitutional challenge launched by Gloria Taylor and Lee Carter and supported by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) against Canada’s criminal prohibitions of assisted suicide and euthanasia was heard by Canada’s top court on October 15. Less than four months later, the court unanimously decided to strike down the prohibition on physician assisted-suicide, giving Parliament 12 months to legislate restrictions if it so chooses. Here follow some initial reflections on the judgment. (You can read the actual judgment yourself here.)  Reasons for overturning earlier precedent In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled on the same issues in a case called Rodriguez, ruling in favour of an absolute ban on assisted suicide. If the law is already settled, then why did the Court hear this case again, and overrule their earlier decision? The reasoning for overturning Rodriguez is two-fold: First, “the law relating to the principles of overbreadth and gross disproportionality had materially advanced since Rodriguez” (para. 46); and Second, “The matrix of legislative and social facts in this case also differed from the evidence before the Court in Rodriguez… The evidence before the trial judge in this case contained evidence that, if accepted, was capable of undermining each of these conclusions [three factual findings of the Court in Rodriguez].” (para. 47). Basically, the Court felt that the law and the facts changed since Rodriguez, and so the Court felt they were free to overturn the earlier decision. 
Read More

06 Feb 2015 Euthanasia Supreme Court Decision: A sacred line has been crossed

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada February 6, 2015 EUTHANASIA SUPREME COURT DECISION: A SACRED LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Lee Carter, et al., v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., this morning, striking down Canada’s laws against assisted suicide and signaling Parliament to create new, permissive legislation if it so desires. The unanimous decision of the Court declared that section 241(b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe section 7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. The declaration of invalidity is suspended for 12 months to give Parliament time to respond. The court has left the door open to Parliament to make the new legislation restrictive. The Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada was an intervenor in the case and made written arguments to the Court last fall to defend the inviolability of human life. Mark Penninga, Executive Director of ARPA Canada, made the following comments: “A sacred line has been crossed. This decision turns the right to life from something that is objectively fixed and inviolable to something that is subjectively fluid and based on what someone feels it is worth.” “It will be logically impossible for Parliament or any legislature or court to enact safeguards that will be able to withstand future legal challenges. As we see in Belgium and the Netherlands, it is only a matter of time before these so-called safeguards are considered an unjust limitation on someone else’s rights, even allowing children or those who are depressed to be killed at the hands of the state.” “With this decision, autonomous choices have been raised as a higher value than life itself. This will have devastating consequences on the value of human life, especially for the most vulnerable in society.”
Read More

04 Sep 2014 Carter v. Canada: ARPA Canada defends life at the Supreme Court of Canada

Update - February 18: Read answers to frequently asked questions about the case here. Update - February 13: For some initial reflections and a video update from our legal counsel following the disappointing Supreme Court ruling of February 6, please click here. Update: In January, before the Supreme Court released it's decision in the Carter case, ARPA's lawyer André Schutten participated in a panel discussion at the Canadian Constitution Foundation's Law and Liberty conference. The video includes comments by Grace Pastine, the lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (in...

Read More