DOCSLIB.ORG

Submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-7: an Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Medical Assistance in Dying)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-7: an Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Medical Assistance in Dying) Submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-7: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Medical Assistance In Dying) Frederick Harrison 3 Mossford Court Etobicoke ON M9B 5T3 harrison.fw @gmail.com I wish to express my support for the two briefs made to the Senate by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada: https://files.evangelicalfellowship.ca/si/Euthanasia/C-7-brief-to-Senate-LA-Committee-Nov-25-2020.pdf https://files.evangelicalfellowship.ca/si/Euthanasia/MAID_Religious-Leaders-oppose-Bill-C-7_Oct- 2020.pdf I also wish to express my support for the concerns of many organizations that work with developmentally or physically disabled persons. https://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/Resources/Podcasts/MAID-and-the-Disabled I do not wish to quote verbatim arguments made in these documents but expand upon some of them and introduce new arguments and perspectives into the debate. First off, a bit of history. I’d like to revisit the Omnibus Bill of 1968: “In 1969, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau amended the Criminal Code. Doctors were allowed to perform abortions in accredited hospitals if a pregnancy threatened the health or life of a woman. A committee of doctors was required to approve the procedure. In all other circumstances, abortion remained illegal.” “In 1967, during the early days of this debate, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was convened by the federal government. After three years of public hearings, it issued a groundbreaking report on women’s affairs. The report recommended that abortion be made legal for the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy. It said that after 12 weeks, abortions should only be legal if the pregnancy threatened the health of the woman; or if the expected child would be born “greatly handicapped” mentally or physically.” (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion) [emphasis mine] It is clear that the government’s intention was to make abortion available – but with clearly defined guidelines and restrictions, informed by public consultations with those directly affected by the legislation. In fact, Pierre Trudeau, reiterated the need for accountability in the following statement made in an article in The Montreal Star on Thursday, May 25, 1972 – four years after his Omnibus Bill: “You know, at some point you are killing life in the foetus in self-defence – of what? Of the mother’s health or her happiness or of her social rights or her privilege as a human being? I think she should have to answer for it and explain. Now, whether it should be to three doctors or one doctor or to a priest or a bishop or to her mother-in-law is a question you might want to argue …. You do have a right over your own body – it is your body. But the foetus is not your body; it’s someone else’s body. And if you kill it, you’ll have to explain.” ( http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2014/06/21/pierre-trudeau-youll-have-to-answer-for-your- abortion/ ) [emphasis mine] Dr. Henry Morgentaler did away with the government’s restrictions and demand for accountability by offering to perform abortion upon demand, with few or no restrictions. “ Henry Morgentaler was prosecuted for performing unauthorized abortions. He was acquitted by a jury in 1973. However, on appeal, both the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the jury finding. Morgentaler served a prison term. (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion) Pierre Elliot Trudeau was questioned about his Omnibus Bill of 1968 on CBC News Magazine on Jan. 23, 1968, specifically as to whether the legislation was too progressive. He made these two comments: “I always feel that if you’re on the liberal side, you should tend to be… take risks on the side of progress and if you’re going to be beaten, you should be beaten because you’ve been too progressive, rather than take risks on the side of not moving and be beaten for not moving fast enough.” “I…I quite frankly feel that on the abortion provisions we do go far enough. I wouldn’t like to see the conception of eugenics being introduced into our law. I wouldn’t like to see the law deciding now about unborn babies and whether, you know, the state should say we can have institutions deciding whether they might not be healthy or something like that. I’m concerned with the mother but I’m not concerned with abortion because something might happen to the child. “ ( https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/challenging-canadas-sacred-cows )[emphasis mine] It is my considered opinion that the problem with this legislation is not that it is too progressive, but that it removes protections against targeting certain age groups and medical conditions for euthanasia. Years ago, the death penalty was revoked because it was considered barbaric and the possibility that an innocent person may be executed by an error in judgment outweighed the need to use death as a deterrent against murder. There have been many who have been wrongfully convicted of murder since then that would have perished under the old law. Whereas we have had, in the past, laws that forbade the taking of life, we are now about to pass legislation making exceptions to that law, argued on the grounds of mercy. It may seem like I am comparing apples and oranges here, confusing those who are beginning life with those who are nearing the end of it, or are living with a reduced quality of life. But there are concerns from the abortion legislation that carry over to the debate about MAID, specifically matters of regulation and accountability. Let me reframe part of the quote from above, substituting “seniors or people with a reduced quality of life” for “unborn babies”: I wouldn’t like to see the conception of eugenics being introduced into our law. I wouldn’t like to see the law deciding now about seniors or people with a reduced quality of life and whether, you know, the state should say we can have institutions deciding whether they might not be healthy or something like that. Though these are not the words of Pierre Trudeau the meaning carries over from his original concerns. Are these not the issues being addressed in the legislation before you now? Deciding whether seniors or people with a reduced quality of life should continue to live? Allowing institutions to determine their state of heath to the point where they are empowered to make decisions about life and the termination thereof? What is there in this legislation to prevent a present day equivalent of Dr. Morgentaler from opening a suicide-on-demand clinic or a “mercy clinic” (as they will no doubt be called) to help caregivers end the (perceived) suffering of their loved ones, with assurances that all the proper paperwork will be taken care of? Or to prevent individuals or groups from deciding on their own that a person’s life ought to be terminated and seeking to engage services to effect that end, regardless of whether the one being “euthanized” gave a clear, informed, consent? Two examples of people making the decision to euthanize others should suffice to illustrate my concern. Robert Latimer murdered his own developmentally delayed daughter Tracy, claiming that he did so on the grounds of mercy that she was suffering and that her death would end it. The courts did not accept his rationalization. Tracy did not have the mental capacity to give consent to his actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer Elizabeth Wettlaufer took it upon herself to administer lethal doses of insulin to patients under her care, claiming that voices from inside her body compelled her to do it. She is convicted of eight counts of murder and six counts of attempted murder. Her crimes are more disturbing considering her religious upbringing and awareness that her actions were wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Wettlaufer If MAID passes, will these two be exonerated for their crimes and hailed as saints of mercy? I should hope not! In 2018, a Personal Care Worker was fired after a closed circuit camera revealed her telling an elder incapacitated woman to “Die, die, you bitch! You need to die now!” How easy it would be for this PSW to make this wish a reality by abusing the provision of MAID? https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1140362307893 Under the proposed legislation, what safeguards are there to ensure that the required paperwork for MAID will be filled out correctly, with arms-length disinterested witnesses, and with a patient’s clear and informed consent, especially (if able) before they are to be euthanized? Who will check the signatures to ensure doctors have signed off on the form and that there are no forged signatures? Will there be questions asked about possible motives from staff or management of long term care homes to “dispose” of a “troublesome” resident or those whose care requires an inordinate amount of time or supplies? The eugenics concern raised by Pierre Trudeau in 1968 is still relevant today. This article from the American Spectator, dated Oct. 17, 2019 discusses such concerns with regard to the proposed legislation before you now and is an American perspective on our legislation – something that needs to be taken into consideration in safeguarding our relationship with the USA: https://spectator.org/targeting-people-with-mental-illness-and-dementia-for-euthanasia/ Moreover, this legislation is at cross purposes to our government’s stated intent to address the epidemic of suicide on Canadian Indigenous people’s reserves.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archived Content Contenu Archivé
    ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande. HISTORY OF THE LAW FOR JUVENILE DELINQUENTS No. 1984-56 Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada Secretariat Copyright of this document does not belong to the Cffln. Proper authorization must be obtained from the author fa any intended use. Les droits d'auteur du présent document n'appartiennent pas à i'État.
    [Show full text]
  • 595 an Empirical Study of Terrorism Prosecutions in Canada
    EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TERRORISM PROSECUTIONS IN CANADA 595 AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TERRORISM PROSECUTIONS IN CANADA: ELUCIDATING THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCES MICHAEL NESBITT* AND DANA HAGG** It has now been over 15 years since Canada enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act, codifying what we think of today as Canada’s anti-terrorism criminal laws. The authors set out to canvass how these provisions have been judicially interpreted since their inception through an empirical analysis of court decisions. After exploring how courts have settled initial concerns about these provisions with respect to religious and expressive freedoms, the authors suggest that courts’ interpretations of Canada’s terrorism offences still leave us with many questions, particularly with respect to the facilitation and financing offences. The authors explore these questions and speculate about future challenges that may or may not be successful with the hopes of providing guidance to prosecutors and defence lawyers working in this area. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 595 II. TERRORISM PROSECUTIONS TO DATE ............................ 599 III. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ELEMENTS OF TERRORISM OFFENCES .................................... 608 A. DEFINITIONS (SECTION 83.01)............................. 608 B. OFFENCES ............................................ 620 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ....................... 647 I. INTRODUCTION It has now been over 15 years since Canada expeditiously enacted the Anti-Terrorism
    [Show full text]
  • Factum Final Version (Division of Powers and 11(D)) (00077245
    S.C.C. No.: 35864 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: RICHARD JAMES GOODWIN APPELLANT - and - BRITISH COLUMBIA (SUPERINTENDENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES) and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RESPONDENTS - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC INTERVENERS FACTUM OF APPELLANT (RICHARD JAMES GOODWIN, APPELLANT) (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) GUDMUNDSETH MICKELSON LLP SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 2525 - 1075 West Georgia Street 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100 Vancouver, BC V6E 3C9 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Howard A. Mickelson, Q.C. Marie-France Major Shea H. Coulson Tel.: (613) 695-8855 Tel.: (604) 685-6272 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Fax: (604) 685-8434 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Richard James Ottawa Agents for Counsel for the Goodwin Appellant, Richard James Goodwin S.C.C. No.: 35864 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: RICHARD JAMES GOODWIN APPELLANT - and - BRITISH COLUMBIA (SUPERINTENDENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES) and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN: BRITISH COLUMBIA (SUPERINTENDENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES) and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANTS - and - JAMIE ALLEN CHISHOLM RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN: BRITISH COLUMBIA (SUPERINTENDENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES) and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Law 10
    Canadian Law 10 The Youth Criminal 90 Justice System Terms—Old & New • A youth criminal is a person who is 12–17 years old and is charged with an offence under the current Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). • A young offender was a person aged 12–17 who was charged with an offence under the previous Young Offenders 90 Act (YOA). • A juvenile delinquent was a young person from the age of 7 or older who was charged as a young offender or youth criminal under the historic Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA). Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 2 Juvenile Delinquents Act • Until the 1890s, there was no distinction between how adults and youth were treated by the law. • In 1892, the Criminal Code was amended to try children separately from adults. • In 1908, the federal government passed the Juvenile Delinquents 90 Act (JDA). • The age limit under the JDA ranged from 7 to 16 or 18 years old (depending on the province). • Youth who committed crimes were treated as “delinquents,” not criminals; focus was to rehabilitate, not punish them. • Legal rights of juveniles were mostly ignored and as a result their sentences were often unfair and inconsistent. Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 3 Young Offenders Act • The Young Offenders Act (YOA) officially replaced the JDA in 1984. • The minimum age changed from 7 to 12 and the maximum age was set at 17 in every province and territory. • The YOA recognized 90 the rights of youth as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. • Common criticisms of the YOA included: – being too soft on young offenders – not properly addressing serious and violent offences – lacking a clear philosophy on youth justice Canadian Law 40S R.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from Canada for American Constitutional Federalism Stephen F
    Penn State Law eLibrary Journal Articles Faculty Works 2014 Insights from Canada for American Constitutional Federalism Stephen F. Ross Penn State Law Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/fac_works Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen F. Ross, Insights from Canada for American Constitutional Federalism, 16 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 891 (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES INSIGHTS FROM CANADA FOR AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM Stephen F Ross* INTRODUCTION National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius' has again fo- cused widespread public attention on the role of the United States Supreme Court as an active arbiter of the balance of power between the federal government and the states. This has been an important and controversial topic throughout American as well as Canadian constitutional history, raising related questions of constitutional the- ory for a federalist republic: Whatjustifies unelected judges interfer- ing with the ordinary political process with regard to federalism ques- tions? Can courts create judicially manageable doctrines to police federalism, with anything more than the raw policy preferences of five justices as to whether a particular legislative issue is
    [Show full text]
  • The Provincial Power to (Not) Prosecute Criminal Code Offences
    The Provincial Power to (Not) Prosecute Criminal Code Offences Dennis Baker Could the ProvinCe of Ontario have la ProvinCe de l’ontario pourrait-elle refused to prosecute the new “com- refuser d’intenter des poursuites aux modification of sexual activity” crim- termes de la nouvelle infraction crimi- inal offence, as passed by the Federal nelle de « marchandisation des activités Government in response to Bedford? sexuelles » que le gouvernement fédéral That question is the subject of this a adoptée en réponse à l’arrêt Bedford ? paper. While there are clear precedents C’est la question que je me propose for provincial non-enforcement, those d’explorer dans cet article. Certes, il instances of provincial non-enforcement existe des précédents clairs en matière have seemingly been tolerated by a Fed- de non-application provinciale, ces 2017 CanLIIDocs 118 eral Government ambivalent about its exemples de non-application ayant été own laws. My position is that the prov- vraisemblablement tolérés par un gou- inces have at least a concurrent consti- vernement fédéral ambivalent au sujet de tutional power over the prosecution of ses propres lois. Selon moi, les provinces criminal law offences and a concomitant ont au moins un pouvoir constitutionnel power to choose not to prosecute a concurrent en matière de poursuites validly enacted federal law. This position relatives à des infractions criminelles reflects an understanding of the original et un pouvoir concomitant de choisir de bargain struck in 1867 that sees the ne pas intenter de poursuites en vertu criminal justice powers separated func- d’une loi fédérale validement adoptée. tionally, which provides the opportunity Cette position découle d’une compré- for effective “checks and balances” in hension de l’entente initiale conclue en the moderation of criminal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 9A WASHINGTON CRIMINAL CODE
    Title 9A Title 9A 9A WASHINGTON CRIMINAL CODE WASHINGTON CRIMINAL CODE Chapters (2) The provisions of this title shall apply to any offense 9A.04 Preliminary article. committed on or after July 1, 1976, which is defined in this 9A.08 Principles of liability. title or the general statutes, unless otherwise expressly pro- 9A.12 Insanity. vided or unless the context otherwise requires, and shall also 9A.16 Defenses. apply to any defense to prosecution for such an offense. 9A.20 Classification of crimes. 9A.28 Anticipatory offenses. (3) The provisions of this title do not apply to or govern 9A.32 Homicide. the construction of and punishment for any offense commit- 9A.36 Assault—Physical harm. ted prior to July 1, 1976, or to the construction and applica- 9A.40 Kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, and custo- tion of any defense to a prosecution for such an offense. Such dial interference. an offense must be construed and punished according to the 9A.42 Criminal mistreatment. provisions of law existing at the time of the commission 9A.44 Sex offenses. thereof in the same manner as if this title had not been 9A.46 Harassment. enacted. 9A.48 Arson, reckless burning, and malicious mischief. (4) If any provision of this title, or its application to any 9A.49 Lasers. person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the 9A.50 Interference with health care facilities or provid- ers. title, or the application of the provision to other persons or 9A.52 Burglary and trespass. circumstances is not affected, and to this end the provisions 9A.56 Theft and robbery.
    [Show full text]
  • Paperny Films Fonds
    Paperny Films fonds Compiled by Melanie Hardbattle and Christopher Hives (2007) Revised by Emma Wendel (2009) Last revised May 2011 University of British Columbia Archives Table of Contents Fonds Description o Title / Dates of Creation / Physical Description o Administrative History o Scope and Content o Notes Series Descriptions o Paperny Film Inc. series o David Paperny series o A Canadian in Korea: A Memoir series o A Flag for Canada series o B.C. Times series o Call Me Average series o Celluloid Dreams series o Chasing the Cure series o Crash Test Mommy (Season I) series o Every Body series o Fallen Hero: The Tommy Prince Story series o Forced March to Freedom series o Indie Truth series o Mordecai: The Life and Times of Mordecai Richler series o Murder in Normandy series o On the Edge: The Life and Times of Nancy Greene series o On Wings and Dreams series o Prairie Fire: The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 series o Singles series o Spring series o Star Spangled Canadians series o The Boys of Buchenwald series o The Dealmaker: The Life and Times of Jimmy Pattison series o The Life and Times of Henry Morgentaler series o Titans series o To Love, Honour and Obey series o To Russia with Fries series o Transplant Tourism series o Victory 1945 series o Brewery Creek series o Burn Baby Burn series o Crash Test Mommy, Season II-III series o Glutton for Punishment, Season I series o Kink, Season I-V series o Life and Times: The Making of Ivan Reitman series o My Fabulous Gay Wedding (First Comes Love), Season I series o New Classics, Season II-V series o Prisoner 88 series o Road Hockey Rumble, Season I series o The Blonde Mystique series o The Broadcast Tapes of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill C-75: Joint Statement on the Repeal of Criminal Code Laws Used Against LGBTQ2S+ People and Sex Workers
    Bill C-75: Joint Statement on the repeal of Criminal Code laws used against LGBTQ2S+ people and sex workers. This month the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human is examining Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. While this is a very broad piece of legislation addressing unused and unconstitutional laws, it also forms part of the federal government’s apology to LGBTQ2S+ communities, delivered by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the House of Commons on November 28, 2017. Bill C-75 falls very short of the apology. Likewise, the government committed itself in 2015 to review laws that criminalize sex work, which also remains unaddressed in Bill C-75. This bill presents an opportunity to finally repeal archaic criminal offences historically used to criminalize the consensual activities of LGBTQ2S+ people, all of which stem from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These include provisions against bawdy houses, indecent acts, obscenity, and vagrancy. In our view the criminal law should not be used to enforce notions of sexual morality but should instead be used in cases of actual violence, harassment and abuse, which are covered under other more appropriate sections of the Criminal Code. Bill C-75 has numerous limitations that must be addressed. The bill finally repeals the prohibition against anal intercourse, but does not address the many other historic uses of the Code to criminalize consensual LGBTQ2S+ sexual activities. This fact was acknowledged by the Prime Minister in his apology, he explicitly mentioned the use of the bawdy house law in the mass police raids on gay bathhouses.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Canada (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario)
    File Number: 34013 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: PIRATHEEPAN NADARAJAH Appellant (Appellant) and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE Respondents (Respondents) and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Intervener RESPONDENTS’ FACTUM (Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) Attorney General of Canada Myles J. Kirvan Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General of Canada Per Croft Michaelson Per Robert Frater M. Sean Gaudet 234 Wellington Street, Room 1161 130 King Street West, Suite 3400 Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 K1A 0H8 Telephone: 416-952-7261 Telephone: 613-957-4763 Fax: 416-973-8253 Fax: 613-954-1920 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected] Counsel for the Respondents Agent for the Respondents 2 Ms. Breese Davies Brian A. Crane, Q.C. Ms. Erin Dann Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Di Luca Copeland Davies Suite 2600 Suite 100 160 Elgin Street 116 Simcoe Street Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario K1P 1C3 M5H 4E2 Telephone : 416-868-1825 Telephone : 613-786-0107 Fax : 416-868-0269 Fax : 613-563-9869 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant Agent for the Appellant Attorney General of Ontario Burke-Robertson Per Susan Magotiaux Per Robert E. Houston, Q.C. 720, Bay Street, 10th floor 70, rue Gloucester Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5G 2K1 K2P 0A2 Telephone : 416-326-5238 Téléphone : 613-566-2058 Fax : 416-326-4656 Télécopieur : 613-235-4430 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Agent for the Intervener i TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I – FACTS...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Criminal Law in Canadian Society
    THE CRIMINAL LAW IN CANADIAN SOCIETY ' Government Gouvernement OTTAWA of Canada du Canada AUGUST 1982 Aussi disponible en frangais The Criminal Law in Canadian Society J2-3811982E ISBN — 0-662-I 2083-3 PREFACE This document sets out the policy of the Government of Canada with respect to the purpose and principles of the criminal law. As such, it is unique in Canadian history. Never before has the Government articulated such a comprehensive and fundamental statement concerning its view of the philosophical underpinnings of criminal law policy. Canada's Criminal Code is nine decades old, and the common law on which it is based spans centuries. In recent years, the need to reflect upon the basic assumptions of our criminal law has become apparent. Growing crime, growing public concern about crime, growing public expenditures for criminal justice, and growing doubts about the ability of the criminal justice system to solve the problem have had the combined effect of convincing federal and provincial Ministers responsible for criminal justice of the need for a thorough review of Canadian criminal law in all its aspects. As a result, the Department of Justice, in cooperation with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and in close consultation with the provinces, has embarked on the Criminal Law Review. This Review will begin with recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada and will require detailed examination of all substantive and procedural aspects of Canadian criminal law. The Criminal Law in Canadian Society, issued at the outset of this complex process, is aimed at provdng a basic framework of principles within which these more specific issues of criminal law policy may be addressed, and assessed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Benefits of Decriminalizing Abortion
    The Benefits of Decriminalizing Abortion By Joyce Arthur and Jane Cawthorne Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (www.arcc-cdac.ca) In the 25 years since our Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion law, our country’s experience is proof that laws against abortion are unnecessary. A full generation of Canadians has lived without a law and we are better off because of it. Canada is the first country in the world to prove that abortion care can be ethically and effectively managed as part of standard healthcare practice, without being controlled by any civil or criminal law. Canada’s success is a role model to the world. History: Previous Laws and One Doctor’s Civil Disobedience In the 1988 Morgentaler decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that our criminal law on abortion violated the constitutional right to “security of the person” under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada’s constitution). One justice, Bertha Wilson, also found that women’s rights to life, liberty, conscience, privacy, and autonomy were compromised by the law. She stated that every individual must be guaranteed “a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them.” The law that had been struck down had passed in 1969; it was a more liberal law that replaced a strict ban on abortion. The 1969 law required women to apply for permission from a hospital committee, which would decide if a woman's health or life was at risk.
    [Show full text]