Lawyer who won Carter case in High Court says assisted-dying bill guts ruling

The lawyer that argued the Carter case before the Supreme Court of Canadatold a Senate committee that the Liberal government's proposed assisted dying legislationwas awful and he would rather see it"die"than become law.

Joseph Arvay was one of several witnesses that testified before aSenate committeestudying C-14, the government's physician assisted dying bill.

• MPs voteto send assisted-dying bill to committee
• Parliament can't 'cut and paste' assisted-death decision: Wilson-Raybould

He saidthe conditions in the proposed legislation "guts the Carter ruling" depriving a whole segment of the population of being able to ask a doctor to help them die, namely the disabled.

"There's no question in my mind that this bill, in so far as it has a reasonably foreseeable clause, is contrary to the Carter decision and is unconstitutional," Arvay told the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee today.

"What Parliament has done in this legislation, has essentially carved out from the Carter decision a whole and significant group of individuals in our society and they are the physically disabled whose death is not imminent or reasonably foreseeable," he added.

Arvay argued that those with disabilities, but who could live another 20 years, might have to starve themselvesin order to meet the conditions in the government's bill.

Carter lawyer on assisted dying

8 years ago

Duration 7:33

Carter v. Canada was the impetus for the assisted dying bill now before Parliament. Joe Arvay, the lead counsel in that case, is speaking out against the bill.

Rejected by the Supreme Court

"People, whether they were disabled from birth, from traumatic accidents mid-life, and most importantly, those people who have in mid to late life develop these horrible debilitatingdegenerative diseases like MS, Parkinson's, Huntington'sand ALS none of which are terminal. But these people are condemned to suffer," he told senators.

Arvaysaid he was frustratedthat many of the arguments the committee isnow hearing, were argued already before the Supreme Court, and were rejected in the Carterruling.

"It appears that the government has now been wowed or persuaded by the rhetoric and the arguments of the disabled rights organizations," Arvay said."The very organizations that were front and centre in the Carter case, and whose very arguments are being made to the government now, and accepted by the government now, and underline this bill, were completely and categorically rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada."

Limiting bill to end of life conditions

But there are politicians in both the House and the Senate that believe the limits in this proposed legislationdonot go far enough in protecting the vulnerable.

Many Conservative M.P.'s raised that pointduring the debate over the billin the House of Commons this week.

Dianne Pothier,a Professor Emeritus at theSchulich School of Law, at Dalhousie University told the Senate committee the limits inC-14do protect the vulnerable and thatlimiting the bill to end of life conditions is a move in the right direction.

"They're presenting as someone who wants to die, but the position is they aredoing it (in) a moment of weakness," she told the senate committee, adding "The issue is how do we protect people from not being able to change their mind because they're dead and therefore can't change their mind."

This bill is much worse than nothing- Lawyer JosephArvay

Federal Justice Minister JodyWilson-Raybouldtestified before the same committee Wednesday reminding senatorsthat if Parliament did not pass legislation by the Supreme Court of Canada'sdeadline of June 6, there would be a"serious public safety risk."

But one senator asked Arvay for his opinion on what would happen if the government's bill did not become law by the deadline set by the high court.His answer;it would be preferable to have no law in place.

"This bill is much worse than nothing. In my view, if no legislation is enacted then the Supreme Court decision in Carter is all thatis needed to protect the vulnerable," Arvay said."I would rather see this bill die and there be no legislation. Or if there is to be legislation, then this bill has to be amended."