Skip to main content

Justice Minister Peter MacKay answers a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Tuesday, June 16, 2015. MacKay says the Tories would likely request an extension of the deadline for new assisted-death legislation if they win October’s election.

Sean Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Setting the stage for a confrontation with the Supreme Court, Justice Minister Peter MacKay says the Conservative government, if re-elected in October, would ask the court to extend its deadline for legalizing physician-assisted death, citing time constraints caused by the upcoming election.

Mr. MacKay said the government wants to ensure that vulnerable people, such as those with Alzheimer's disease, are protected from having pressure put on them to seek death when they do not want to do so.

In effect, without new criminal laws, assisted death would be in a legal sense similar to abortion – a decision made between patient and doctor. Mr. MacKay said it would be "dangerous and irresponsible" to allow such a legal void.

Story continues below advertisement

It "leaves a lot of people vulnerable, particularly persons with disability, persons with advanced Alzheimer's."

He said the election in October will take at least four, and arguably six, months from the legislative process.

The Criminal Code provides for up to 14 years in prison for doctors who help patients end their lives. In February, the court struck down the law, saying in a 9-0 ruling that the law could condemn those who are grievously and irremediably ill to a "life of severe and intolerable suffering."

The court suspended the effect of its ruling for 12 months – doctor-assisted suicide is illegal until next February. But the court did not tell the federal government it necessarily had to write new laws. "It is for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to respond, should they so choose, by enacting legislation consistent with the constitutional parameters set out in these reasons," the court said.

Before the court would consider granting an extension, it would almost certainly want to know what the government has already done toward addressing the ruling, legal observers said. Mr. MacKay said the government had been talking to disabled groups, legal and medical experts and the faith community, and that a formal public consultation is imminent.

"I think there's a very good chance the court will say no," said Errol Mendes, a constitutional expert at the University of Ottawa. "The question is, should elections get in the way of fundamental constitutional rights, especially of the most vulnerable?"

"I don't think this government wants to deal with this issue in any effective way before the election," Liberal MP John McCallum said.

Story continues below advertisement

A request for an extension would reopen an emotional legal debate. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which challenged the law on behalf of Kathleen Carter, who had spinal stenosis, would oppose an extension, according to executive director Josh Paterson. (Ms. Carter went to Switzerland and ended her life with assistance before the Supreme Court ruling.)

"There are going to be real people who won't avail themselves of the constitutional right to physican-assisted dying. Why should those people continue to suffer?"

He said that because the federal government promised to create new rules around assisted death, the provinces have been largely waiting, rather than creating their own framework. B.C.'s legislative committee on health has set up a subcommittee on the issue, he said.

Jason Gratl, a Vancouver lawyer who represented two intervenor groups that supported assisted suicide, said the government had chosen not to make the issue a priority. He said the government would need a "very pressing reason" to expose suffering people to more pain.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter