Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2015-06-15 11:20:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris\u2014Moose Mountain, CPC)",
        "fr": "M. Ed Komarnicki (Souris\u2014Moose Mountain, PCC)"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"4159747\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170432\" href=\"/politicians/lavar-payne/\" title=\"LaVar Payne\">Medicine Hat</a> for his strong personal views, and also the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170243\" href=\"/politicians/dave-van-kesteren/\" title=\"Dave Van Kesteren\">Chatham-Kent\u2014Essex</a>, who delicately diced and danced around what is and is not a matter of conscience.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159748\" data-originallang=\"en\">In the previous hour of debate, the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170255\" href=\"/politicians/alexandrine-latendresse/\" title=\"Alexandrine Latendresse\">Louis-Saint-Laurent</a> ended her speech by saying that she believed her NDP colleagues should support the motion. I appreciate that, but she trivializes the debate by saying that in the end, all of us are already free. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159749\" data-originallang=\"en\">She said that the motion could just as easily read, \u201cThat in the opinion of the House, all members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of beauty\u201d. What nonsense. I would like to see how her and her colleagues would view a free vote on matters that are truly matters of conscience, namely matters relating to life, more particularly to the termination of life at any time from the point of conception to the point of natural death. She said, \u201cWhat therefore is the legal definition of a matter of conscience?\u201d She said, \u201cThe problem is the abstract notion of conscience\u201d.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159750\" data-originallang=\"en\">Let me address that. Conscience, as a concept, is referred to in the recent Carter case, and intervenors were talking about that. On page 132, the court stated:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159751\" data-originallang=\"en\"> In our view, nothing in the declaration of invalidity which we propose to issue would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying. [...] However, we note\u2014as did Beetz J. in addressing the topic of physician participation in abortion in R. v. Morgentaler\u2014that a physician's decision to participate in assisted dying is a matter of conscience and, in some cases, of religious belief.... In making this observation, we do not wish to pre-empt the legislative and regulatory response to this judgment. Rather, we underline that the Charter rights of patients and physicians will need to be reconciled.</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159752\" data-originallang=\"en\">That is precisely the point when it comes to matters of the charter. Charter rights have to be balanced and reconciled. No one right is absolute. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159753\" data-originallang=\"en\">In the Morgentaler case, the court made reference that the freedom of conscience is guaranteed in section 2 of the charter. Wilson B., on page 165, stated:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159754\" data-originallang=\"en\"> It should [also] be noted, however, that an emphasis on individual conscience and individual judgment [also] lies at the heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of our system of self-government. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159755\" data-originallang=\"en\">This should be even more so in Parliament where members vote on matters of conscience. On page 176, she refers to a previous Supreme Court case and the comments of Justice Dickson, where he stated:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159756\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Attempts to compel belief or practice denied the reality of individual conscience and dishonoured the God that had planted it in His creatures. It is from these antecedents that the concepts of freedoms of religion and freedom of conscience became associated, to form, as they do in s. 2(a) of our Charter, the single integrated concept of \u201cfreedom of conscience and religion\u201d. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159757\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Dickson went on to say:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159758\" data-originallang=\"en\"> What unites enunciated freedoms in the American First Amendment, s. 2(a) of the Charter and in the provision of other human rights documents in which they are associated is the notion of the centrality of individual conscience and the inappropriateness of governmental intervention to compel or to constrain its manifestation. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159759\" data-originallang=\"en\">On page 177, he says:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159760\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The values that underline our political and philosophic traditions demand that every individual be free to hold and to manifest whatever beliefs and opinions his or her conscience dictates, provided inter alia only that such manifestations do not injure his or her neighbours or their parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinions of their own. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159761\" data-originallang=\"en\">This right must not injure one's neighbour, which could include the unborn. That is precisely the point when it comes to matters of the charter. Charter rights have to be balanced and reconciled. No one right is absolute.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159762\" data-originallang=\"en\">The member for <a data-HoCid=\"170626\" href=\"/politicians/scott-brison/\" title=\"Scott Brison\">Kings\u2014Hants</a> and the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170105\" href=\"/politicians/ted-hsu/\" title=\"Ted Hsu\">Kingston and the Islands</a> talked about all kinds of things except real matters of conscience. Why is that? Why have they not come to the defence of their Liberal leader, the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170093\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Papineau</a>? Could it be because their leader's position is indefensible? In an open letter from seven former Liberal members of Parliament, they stated:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159763\" data-originallang=\"en\"> We, the undersigned [...] are concerned about your [recent] pronouncement that people who hold a particular view on a given moral issue, as a matter of conscience, cannot be Liberal candidates for the position of M.P. unless they agree to park their consciences at the entrance to the House of Commons and vote directly opposite to their fundamental beliefs, as directed by you. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159764\" data-originallang=\"en\">This is clearly in reference to the Liberal leader's position that what is commonly referred to as \u201cpro-choice candidates\u201d could only be nominated, or, if elected, would have to vote as the leader directed.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159765\" data-originallang=\"en\">In my view, the actions of the Liberal leader, the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170093\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Papineau</a>, are indefensible. Either one believes in the charter or one does not. His edict violates the charter without the use of the notwithstanding clause and strikes at the heart of this motion, and indeed at the heart of the charter.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159766\" data-originallang=\"en\">Can anyone imagine that the leader of the Liberal Party would sacrifice a right or protection of the charter to be able to enforce his personal views on a particular subject matter? How very wrong that is.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"4159747\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je remercie le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"170432\" href=\"/politicians/lavar-payne/\" title=\"LaVar Payne\">Medicine Hat</a>, qui a exprim\u00e9 son point de vue personnel avec conviction, ainsi que le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"170243\" href=\"/politicians/dave-van-kesteren/\" title=\"Dave Van Kesteren\">Chatham-Kent\u2014Essex</a>, qui a mis ses gants blancs pour tenter de d\u00e9finir ce qui constitue, ou ne constitue pas, une question de conscience.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159748\" data-originallang=\"en\">Pendant la derni\u00e8re heure de d\u00e9bats consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 cette motion, la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"170255\" href=\"/politicians/alexandrine-latendresse/\" title=\"Alexandrine Latendresse\">Louis-Saint-Laurent</a> avait conclu son intervention en invitant ses coll\u00e8gues du NPD \u00e0 appuyer la motion. Je la remercie de cet encouragement, mais je crois qu'elle banalise le d\u00e9bat lorsqu'elle affirme que, tout compte fait, les d\u00e9put\u00e9s peuvent d\u00e9j\u00e0 voter librement.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159749\" data-originallang=\"en\">Elle a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 que la motion pourrait aussi bien se lire comme suit: \u00ab Que, de l'avis de la Chambre, tous les d\u00e9put\u00e9s devraient \u00eatre autoris\u00e9s \u00e0 voter librement sur toutes les questions de beaut\u00e9 \u00bb. C'est absurde. Je serais curieux de voir comment elle-m\u00eame et ses coll\u00e8gues accueilleraient un vote libre sur une r\u00e9elle question de conscience, une question qui porterait sur la vie humaine, plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment sur la possibilit\u00e9 de mettre fin \u00e0 une vie entre le moment de la conception et la mort naturelle d'une personne. La d\u00e9put\u00e9e a demand\u00e9: \u00ab Quelle est donc la d\u00e9finition l\u00e9gale d'une question de conscience? \u00bb Elle a aussi affirm\u00e9: \u00ab Nous avons donc le probl\u00e8me de la d\u00e9finition abstraite de la conscience \u00bb.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159750\" data-originallang=\"en\">En guise de r\u00e9ponse, j'aimerais souligner qu'il est question de la notion de conscience dans l'arr\u00eat <em>Carter</em>, une d\u00e9cision rendue r\u00e9cemment, de m\u00eame que dans les observations des intervenants. Voici ce qu'on peut lire \u00e0 la page 132 de la d\u00e9cision: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159751\" data-originallang=\"en\">\u00c0 notre avis, rien dans la d\u00e9claration d\u2019invalidit\u00e9 que nous proposons de prononcer ne contraindrait les m\u00e9decins \u00e0 dispenser une aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir. [...] Nous rappelons toutefois \u2014 comme l\u2019avait fait le juge Beetz en abordant la participation du m\u00e9decin \u00e0 un avortement dans <em>R. c. Morgentaler</em> \u2014 que la d\u00e9cision du m\u00e9decin de participer \u00e0 l\u2019aide \u00e0 mourir rel\u00e8ve de la conscience et, dans certains cas, de la croyance religieuse [...]. Par cette remarque, nous ne souhaitons pas court-circuiter la r\u00e9ponse l\u00e9gislative ou r\u00e9glementaire au pr\u00e9sent jugement. Nous soulignons plut\u00f4t le besoin de concilier les droits garantis par la Charte aux patients et aux m\u00e9decins.</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159752\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Et c'est justement ce qu'il faut retenir quand il est question de la Charte. Les droits qu'elle conf\u00e8re doivent \u00eatre mis en \u00e9quilibre et concili\u00e9s. Il n'y a pas de droit absolu.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159753\" data-originallang=\"en\">Dans l'affaire Morgentaler, la cour a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 que la libert\u00e9 de conscience est garantie par l'article 2 de la Charte. \u00c0 la page 165, la juge Wilson a indiqu\u00e9:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159754\" data-originallang=\"en\">Toutefois, il faut aussi remarquer que l'insistance sur la conscience et le jugement individuels est \u00e9galement au coeur de notre tradition politique d\u00e9mocratique. La possibilit\u00e9 qu'a chaque citoyen de prendre des d\u00e9cisions libres et \u00e9clair\u00e9es constitue la condition sine qua non de la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, de l'acceptabilit\u00e9 et de l'efficacit\u00e9 de notre syst\u00e8me d'auto-d\u00e9termination.</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159755\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ce devrait \u00eatre encore davantage le cas au Parlement lorsque les d\u00e9put\u00e9s votent sur une question de conscience. \u00c0 la page 176, la juge cite une autre d\u00e9cision de la Cour supr\u00eame dans laquelle le juge Dickson a dit:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159756\" data-originallang=\"en\">Toute tentative d'imposer l'observance de croyances et de pratiques constituait un d\u00e9ni de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de la conscience individuelle et d\u00e9shonorait le Dieu qui en avait dot\u00e9 Ses cr\u00e9atures. Voil\u00e0 donc comment les concepts de la libert\u00e9 de religion et de la libert\u00e9 de conscience se sont rattach\u00e9s pour former, comme c'est le cas \u00e0 l'al. 2<em>a</em>) de notre Charte, une seule et unique notion qui est la \u00ab libert\u00e9 de conscience et de religion \u00bb.</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159757\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le juge Dickson poursuit ainsi:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159758\" data-originallang=\"en\">Les libert\u00e9s \u00e9nonc\u00e9es dans le Premier amendement de la Constitution des \u00c9tats-Unis, \u00e0 l'al. 2<em>a</em>) de la Charte et dans les dispositions d'autres documents relatifs aux droits de la personne ont en commun la pr\u00e9\u00e9minence de la conscience individuelle et l'inopportunit\u00e9 de toute intervention gouvernementale visant \u00e0 forcer ou \u00e0 emp\u00eacher sa manifestation.</p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159759\" data-originallang=\"en\">Il dit \u00e9galement ceci, \u00e0 la page 177:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159760\" data-originallang=\"en\">Les valeurs qui sous-tendent nos traditions politiques et philosophiques exigent que chacun soit libre d'avoir et de manifester les croyances et les opinions que lui dicte sa conscience, \u00e0 la condition notamment que ces manifestations ne l\u00e8sent pas ses semblables ou leur propre droit d'avoir et de manifester leurs croyances et opinions personnelles. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159761\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ce droit ne doit pas causer de tort au prochain de celui qui l'exerce, ce qui englobe l'enfant \u00e0 na\u00eetre. C'est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment cela qu'il ne faut pas oublier d\u00e8s qu'il est question de la Charte: les droits qui y sont garantis doivent \u00eatre mis en parall\u00e8le et il doit y avoir un \u00e9quilibre dans la mani\u00e8re dont ils sont appliqu\u00e9s. Aucun droit n'est absolu en soi.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159762\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"170626\" href=\"/politicians/scott-brison/\" title=\"Scott Brison\">Kings\u2014Hants</a> et celui de <a data-HoCid=\"170105\" href=\"/politicians/ted-hsu/\" title=\"Ted Hsu\">Kingston et les \u00celes</a> ont parl\u00e9 d'\u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s tout sauf les questions qui sont de v\u00e9ritables questions de conscience. Pourquoi? Pourquoi n'ont-ils pas pris la d\u00e9fense de leur chef, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"170093\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Papineau</a>? Serait-ce parce qu'il d\u00e9fend l'ind\u00e9fendable? Voici ce qu'on peut lire dans une lettre ouverte sign\u00e9e par sept anciens d\u00e9put\u00e9s lib\u00e9raux: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159763\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous, soussign\u00e9s [...] sommes pr\u00e9occup\u00e9s par votre r\u00e9cente d\u00e9claration selon laquelle les gens ayant un certain point de vue sur une question morale, une question de conscience, pourront seulement se pr\u00e9senter comme candidats lib\u00e9raux s'ils acceptent de mettre leur conscience de c\u00f4t\u00e9 quand ils entrent \u00e0 la Chambre des communes et de voter comme vous le dictez, m\u00eame si cela va directement \u00e0 l'encontre de leurs croyances fondamentales. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"4159764\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ces sept anciens d\u00e9put\u00e9s font de toute \u00e9vidence allusion \u00e0 la position du chef lib\u00e9ral selon laquelle seuls les d\u00e9put\u00e9s pro-choix pourront faire campagne sous sa banni\u00e8re ou alors accepter, s'ils sont \u00e9lus, de voter comme il le leur indiquera.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159765\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'estime que la position du chef lib\u00e9ral, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"170093\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Papineau</a>, est impossible \u00e0 d\u00e9fendre. Il n'y a pas de demi-mesure: on croit en la pertinence de la Charte, ou on n'y croit pas. La d\u00e9claration du chef lib\u00e9ral va \u00e0 l'encontre de l'esprit de la Charte si l'on n'a pas recours \u00e0 la disposition de d\u00e9rogation. Cette d\u00e9claration touche au coeur de cette motion et de la Charte elle-m\u00eame.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4159766\" data-originallang=\"en\">Peut-on seulement imaginer que le chef du Parti lib\u00e9ral est pr\u00eat \u00e0 sacrifier certains droits et certaines protections garantis par la Charte pour imposer son avis sur une question en particulier? C'est inacceptable.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2015/6/15/ed-komarnicki-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/ed-komarnicki/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1539/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "8750145",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Private Members' Business",
        "fr": "Initiatives Parlementaires"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Free Votes",
        "fr": "Les votes libres"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2015/6/15/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2015%2F6%2F15%2F"
    }
}