As a former member of the Interior Health Authority’s
Clinical Ethics Committee, I can attest
that assisted dying is one of the
mostly deeply controversial and difficult subjects under the Sun, which makes the way it
has been handled all the more deplorable.
The Liberals’ “Motion 6” (now mercifully withdrawn) would
have reduced the number of days available to the Opposition to introduce
motions, as well as imposing stricter time limits on those motions. Members of
cabinet or parliamentary secretaries — all Liberals — would have been granted
additional powers to control the business of the House as well. Under the proposed new rules, we might have
seen W.A.C. Bennett-style all-night sittings.
Why this suddenly draconian
posture towards Parliament, which also resulted in the Prime Minister’s
angry and impulsive tussle, known as “elbowgate”? The Liberals were deeply annoyed and embarrassed when , at the beginning of
the same week, a surprise vote by the
opposition caused the Liberal government to almost lost a vote on Monday on its
own legislation to change Air Canada rules. Furthermore, the government felt that it had to pass the
doctor-assisted dying legislation, Bill
C-14, by the end of the week. (The Court has said that after June 6 the
existing law banning physician –assisted
death will be of no further effect, as it had been struck down in the
Carter decision back in February 2015.)
Hence Trudeau’s impatience and petulance.
That much has been said often and elsewhere. But a couple of
additional observations are needed in
order to complete the picture. First, who is to
blame for all this confusion and legal uncertainty? Perhaps I am just in a
diplomatic mood, but I would apportion the blame just about equally between the
Conservatives, the Liberals, and the Supreme Court itself. The
Conservatives, because Stephen Harper’s strict political party rule about
avoiding socially conservative causes in this socially liberal country was
rigidly adhered to for electoral
purposes—even if it meant deliberately
ignoring the Supreme Court decision for a full 8 1/2 months before the October 19,
2015 election. The Liberals, because even though the Conservatives had ragged the
puck for that long, Grits were well
aware of that fact the moment they took office, and therefore should have
anticipated the time pressures that would arise. The
Supreme Court, because the Justices should have appreciated that a bill of
this nature would require extensive debate as every MP expressed their
constituents and their own consciences, canvassed medical opinion, and attracted
considerable “sober second thought” from the Senate. (The Court had initially suspended its judgment for 12
months in an election year; then it gave
the new Government a paltry 4-month extension of that deadline on top of the
Liberals’ already overflowing agenda.)
Second, one must add to this litany of institutional failings the background
problem of Charterphilia, a disease
which is rampant throughout English Canada.
Its symptoms are most acute in the Liberal Party (“the Party of the Charter”) and in the heart
and mind of its young leader: a pulse-quickening reverence for Charter rights and a belief in the near-papal infallibility of the Supreme Court's edicts about that Holy Writ. That it
was a Charter Right that was at issue , and that the Supreme Court had Spoken on
its meaning, no doubt fuelled the prime minister’s outrage at the continued stalling tactics of
the Opposition and contributed to his remarkable lack of respect for
Parliament. (Remember Prince Hamlet, who was also egged on by his father's ghost to occasional impetuosity.)
The truth, however, is that Opposition Parliamentarians were
dealing appropriately with a profoundly
political issue, a fact to which this Government in particular had become
especially and determinedly blind.
2 comments:
It's called "constitutional democracy" Mark and the Charter is the cornerstone of liberal democracy. You would be well served to expand your grasp of both our constitutional apparatus and our judicial system. Perhaps you should begin with "the rule of law."
Mound: Thank you for your comment. You talk as if there were no constitutional democracy before 1982! I was exploring the reasons why a Constitutional Democrat like the son of Pierre Trudeau would be driven to behave in such an unparliamentary fashion. I was also doing so as someone who has studied and even participated in , the rich literature critiquing the Charter--starting with Andrew Petter and Allan Hutchinson, Michael Mandel , followed by Joel Bakan and (from a more conservative angle, MOrton & Knopff). But if you are "right" and the Charter truly is the cornerstone of democracy, that would certainly explain the prime minister's anger and fury at the continued delays of Opposition MPs in following orders from the Supreme COurt , wouldn't it?
Post a Comment