Faculty Blog

Just when the federal government is about to table its bill on medically-hastened-death (or medical-aid-in-dying, physician-assisted dying, euthanasia, or physician-assisted-suicide), a new extensive poll of what Canadians want to see in new legislation suggests that Canadians support a more prudent approach than the open-ended access approach put forward by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report and, prior to that, a Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group (PTEAG) report. Canadians continue to support access to ‘physician assisted suicide’ (PAS), the term used in the poll, but a majority (51.8%) opposes the idea of providing access to PAS when the request is based on psychiatric conditions and purely psychological suffering. A majority also appears opposed to PAS for mature minors (in the poll: 16 to 17 year olds).  The 1,000 people polled were also asked about what they preferred as review mechanism. 59% of those polled support the recommendation by the committee of a review by two physicians, while 41 % supports a review by a ‘panel of independent experts’.

The federal government is currently working on legislation that responds to the Supreme Court’s Carter v. Canada (AG) decision, in which the Court invalidated an absolute prohibition on physician assisted dying and invited the legislator to develop a “carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards.” The Carter decision declared the criminal prohibition void insofar it prohibits physician assisted dying 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.” The Court provided no further detail about how to implement these ‘parameters’, and stated explicitly: “the scope of this declaration is intended to respond to the factual circumstances in this case. We make no pronouncement on other situations where physician-assisted dying may be sought.” The case involved people who were terminally ill and/or, in the words of the trial judge in the case, people with “advanced weakening capacities with no chance of improvement.” In fact, at the trial level the claim made by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association was also narrowly framed as a claim to recognize the right to physician assisted dying of those “who are suffering unbearably at the end of life.”

Kenneth Jull is an adjunct faculty member at the Faculty of Law.

In the anti-corruption field in Canada, the two leading cases are Niko and Griffiths Energy, which involved fines in the $10 million range following pleas of guilty.  The newest Canadian case is Nordion Canada Inc., but this case sends a different message.  Early self-reporting in this case was explicitly acknowledged in a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and may have been a factor in a decision by the RCMP to not proceed with any charges under the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.[1]

The SEC Order, released on March 3, 2016, states that the Commission considered remedial acts promptly undertaken by Nordion, Nordion’s self-reporting, and their cooperation afforded  the Commission staff.  “Nordion self-reported the conduct to authorities in both the U.S. and Canada, conducted a thorough internal review, identified the illegal conduct, voluntarily produced witnesses from Canada for interviews in the U.S. and translated documents, and implemented substantial remedial measures to prevent future violations.”[2] 

Denise Réaume, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

In the blogosphere, we’re advised not to respond to outrageous comments. "Don't feed the trolls" we're told; "they’re only trying to get a rise out of you"; "ignore them and they'll go away". Good advice, when the troll is an angry misfit holed up in his basement, but when the troll happens to be the Prime Minister, what's one to do? It should be obvious by now that Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party are exploiting the niqab issue to play to their political base and attract a few votes by stoking fear and division.

One wants to respond with rational argument. The arguments are straightforward. One wants to call the Prime Minister on his hypocrisy. His government’s record of anti-woman policies is clear.

Response seems necessary, but there is reason to fear that any response, no matter how measured and sound, risks feeding the trolls. Every plea for greater understanding, every appeal to our better nature, every effort to set the record straight is used to as evidence that the “barbarians” are not merely at the gates, but have breached them. Already the Prime Troll has announced an intention to ban niqab-wearing women from public service jobs.