Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2015-02-24 15:25:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood\u2014St. James\u2014Assiniboia, CPC)",
        "fr": "L'hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood\u2014St. James\u2014Assiniboia, PCC)"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"3982918\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will ask again later.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3982919\" data-originallang=\"en\">The reason I wanted to table the Supreme Court ruling is to make sure that we are all clear on what we are talking about. To do that, I am going to read a large section of the ruling. It says:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982920\" data-originallang=\"en\">Section 241(b) and s. 14 of the <em>Criminal Code</em> unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of the <em>Charter</em> 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 (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982921\" data-originallang=\"en\">Then it gives the 12-month extension to deal with the ruling. It goes on to say that the reason there is a shift in the debate is that there is additional information from when the Rodriguez case was heard: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982922\" data-originallang=\"en\">In particular, the law relating to the principles of overbreadth and gross disproportionality had materially advanced since <em>Rodriguez</em>. The matrix of legislative and social facts in this case also differed from the evidence before the Court in <em>Rodriguez</em>.</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982923\" data-originallang=\"en\">In plain English, they got more information, more empirical information. That is why their decision is different. The court continued:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982924\" data-originallang=\"en\">The prohibition on assisted suicide is, in general, a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the <em>Constitution Act, 1867</em>, and it does not impair the protected core of the provincial jurisdiction over health. Health is an area of concurrent jurisdiction, which suggests that aspects of physician-assisted dying may be the subject of valid legislation by both levels of government, depending on the circumstances and the focus of the legislation. On the basis of the record, the interjurisdictional immunity claim cannot succeed.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3982925\" data-originallang=\"en\">Insofar as they prohibit physician-assisted dying for competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering, ss. 241(b) and 14 of the <em>Criminal Code</em> deprive these adults of their right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the <em>Charter</em>. The right to life is engaged where the law or state action imposes death or an increased risk of death on a person, either directly or indirectly. Here, the prohibition deprives some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely...</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982926\" data-originallang=\"en\">People are taking their lives prematurely to avoid the terror of what might happen. That is what it says in English vis-\u00e0-vis the legalese.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3982927\" data-originallang=\"en\">I will go on and ask again if I could have unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, the Supreme Court ruling, Carter v. Canada.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"3982918\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je me reprendrai probablement plus tard.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3982919\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je voulais d\u00e9poser la d\u00e9cision de la Cour supr\u00eame pour que l'objet du d\u00e9bat soit bien clair pour tout le monde. Pour pr\u00e9ciser les choses, je vais donc lire un long passage de la d\u00e9cision:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982920\" data-originallang=\"en\">L\u2019alin\u00e9a 241<em>b</em>) et l\u2019art. 14 du <em>Code criminel </em>portent atteinte de mani\u00e8re injustifi\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019art. 7 de la <em>Charte</em> et sont inop\u00e9rants dans la mesure o\u00f9 ils prohibent l\u2019aide d\u2019un m\u00e9decin pour mourir \u00e0 une personne adulte capable qui (1) consent clairement \u00e0 mettre fin \u00e0 sa vie; et qui (2) est affect\u00e9e de probl\u00e8mes de sant\u00e9 graves et irr\u00e9m\u00e9diables (y compris une affection, une maladie ou un handicap) lui causant des souffrances persistantes qui lui sont intol\u00e9rables au regard de sa condition. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982921\" data-originallang=\"en\"> La cour suspend ensuite sa d\u00e9cision pendant 12 mois pour que nous puissions y donner suite. Elle pr\u00e9cise que la donne est chang\u00e9e parce qu'il y a de nouveaux \u00e9l\u00e9ments d'information depuis que l'affaire Rodriguez a \u00e9t\u00e9 entendue:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982922\" data-originallang=\"en\">Plus particuli\u00e8rement, le droit relatif aux principes de la port\u00e9e excessive et du caract\u00e8re totalement disproportionn\u00e9 avait \u00e9volu\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on importante depuis l\u2019arr\u00eat <em>Rodriguez</em>. L\u2019ensemble des faits l\u00e9gislatifs et sociaux dans l\u2019affaire qui nous occupe diff\u00e9rait \u00e9galement des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve soumis \u00e0 la Cour dans l\u2019affaire <em>Rodriguez</em>.</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982923\" data-originallang=\"en\">En termes simples, la cour disposait de plus d'information, de donn\u00e9es empiriques. C'est ce qui explique qu'elle ait pris une d\u00e9cision diff\u00e9rente. La Cour continue: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982924\" data-originallang=\"en\">La prohibition de l\u2019aide au suicide constitue g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement un exercice valide de la comp\u00e9tence en mati\u00e8re de droit criminel conf\u00e9r\u00e9e au gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral par le par. 91(27) de la <em>Loi constitutionnelle de 1867</em> et n\u2019empi\u00e8te pas sur le contenu essentiel prot\u00e9g\u00e9 de la comp\u00e9tence provinciale en mati\u00e8re de sant\u00e9. La sant\u00e9 est un domaine de comp\u00e9tence concurrente, ce qui laisse croire que les deux ordres de gouvernement peuvent validement l\u00e9gif\u00e9rer sur des aspects de l\u2019aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir, en fonction du caract\u00e8re et de l\u2019objet du texte l\u00e9gislatif. Compte tenu du dossier qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 soumis \u00e0 la Cour, la pr\u00e9tention fond\u00e9e sur l\u2019exclusivit\u00e9 des comp\u00e9tences ne peut \u00eatre retenue.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3982925\" data-originallang=\"en\">Dans la mesure o\u00f9 ils prohibent l\u2019aide d\u2019un m\u00e9decin pour mourir que peuvent demander des adultes capables affect\u00e9s de probl\u00e8mes de sant\u00e9 graves et irr\u00e9m\u00e9diables qui leur causent des souffrances persistantes et intol\u00e9rables, l\u2019al. 241b) et l\u2019art. 14 du <em>Code criminel</em> privent ces adultes du droit \u00e0 la vie, \u00e0 la libert\u00e9 et \u00e0 la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de la personne que leur garantit l\u2019art. 7 de la <em>Charte</em>. Le droit \u00e0 la vie entre en jeu lorsqu\u2019une mesure ou une loi prise par l\u2019\u00c9tat a directement ou indirectement pour effet d\u2019imposer la mort \u00e0 une personne ou de l\u2019exposer \u00e0 un risque accru de mort. En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, la prohibition prive certaines personnes de la vie car elle a pour effet de forcer certaines personnes \u00e0 s\u2019enlever pr\u00e9matur\u00e9ment la vie...</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3982926\" data-originallang=\"en\">Des gens s'enl\u00e8vent la vie et meurent pr\u00e9matur\u00e9ment pour \u00e9viter l'horreur de ce qui pourrait les attendre. C'est ce qui est dit dans le jargon juridique.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3982927\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je vais redemander si je pourrais obtenir le consentement unanime pour d\u00e9poser, dans les deux langues officielles, le jugement <em>Carter c. Canada </em> de la Cour supr\u00eame.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2015/2/24/steven-fletcher-4/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/steven-fletcher/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/414/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "8593560",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": "Initiatives Minist\u00e9rielles"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Business of Supply",
        "fr": "Travaux des subsides"
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Opposition Motion\u2014Special committee on Physician-Assistance Dying",
        "fr": "Motion de l\u2019opposition \u2014 Le Comit\u00e9 sp\u00e9cial sur l'aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2015/2/24/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2015%2F2%2F24%2F"
    }
}