Tensions are high right now in Parliament. Our politicians are being expected to vote on something that makes them have to question their own moral values. It may be partly to blame for the recent kerfuffle ithe goan the House of Commons, but we shouldn't get sidetracked by the latest lack of decorum. Instead we need to focus on the task at hand.
Our elected leaders are hopefully digging deep and trying to figure out what the right path is for Canada on Bill C-14: the Liberal's legislation on medically assisted dying. It's not an easy task. It may be the most important piece of legislation some of these MPs ever vote on. It's remarkable that our country has even gotten to this point in the first place, but we need to take it slow.
The bill has to pass in the upper and lower chambers. While the Senate has made it clear they need more time to debate it, the House is expected to vote on the act sometime soon. In fact, Wednesday's #elbowgate incident happened leading up to a vote on a motion to limit debate on the bill, which did not pass. So why the rush? It's because of a June 6 deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
On Feb. 6, 2015, in a game-changing unanimous decision in Carter v. Canada, the court found the prohibition against Physician Assisted Dying (PAD) was unconstitutional. In particular, section 241(1) and s. 14 of the Canadian Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, the court ruled, the government had exactly one year to change the current legislation and decriminalize PAD.
By January, as the one-year mark was approaching, we now had a new government in power that needed more time to enact the law. So in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed four more months for Ottawa to get their act in gear. That brought the deadline from Feb. 6, 2016 to June 6, 2016, which is now just over two weeks away.
The goal of Bill C-14 is to clearly list conditions when seriously ill patients can end their lives with the help of their physician and/or nurse practitioners. As it currently stands, however, some groups find the legislation too vague, while others find it too restrictive. Nevertheless, whether you support Bill C-14 or not, and whether the act passes or not, the current prohibition on PAD is ending. It becomes law on June 6, 2016.
That's scary for Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who is warning if nothing is passed in time there will be a "legal vacuum" with "no safeguards" in place, since doctors won't know how to implement the Carter case. However, some Senators are not so concerned, seeing that for the last four months PAD has already been happening in this country, albeit after judicial review of applications.
So as June 6 approaches, knowing the Senate won't meet the deadline, now what? Will the government of Canada or the attorney generals of each or one of the provinces bring an application to the Supreme Court to extend the current extension?
The case in January was so novel. Could it be done again? Would that mean a continuance of judicial review, something the PAD advocacy groups are trying to avoid? The government would be laughed at for coming back to the court for more time, but at least important debates on the wording of the act wouldn't be rushed.
Good on our politicians for dealing with such a polarizing issue and really examining what they believe in.
As Senator James Cowan, the leader of the Liberal caucus in the red chamber, recently said, "June 6, in my view, is not a drop-dead date. We have to get it right."
Regardless though of when this happens, good on our politicians for dealing with such a polarizing issue and really examining what they believe in. MPs are not voting on party lines, but are free to vote with their conscience. That's rare -- we don't see that too often in the House of Commons. Over the half century there haven't been even a dozen topics where members didn't have to vote in accordance with the dictates of their party whips. Debating capital punishment and motions on the flag were the rare exception.
In June, 2005, same-sex marriage was a vote on one's morality, but the NDP didn't allow its members a free vote on that issue and Liberal cabinet ministers were required to vote in support, while other MPs could vote based on their own beliefs.
In a 273-1 vote in June of last year, Canada's elected parliamentarians voted that on matters of conscience they should be able to do so free of party wishes. Seriously? We needed a vote on that? And yet, in light of what they're taking on now it seems to make sense.
There are MPs who are standing against their party's traditional position on PAD. It's brave to be bold and go against the current, even when you are allowed to. Others have personal, religious or cultural experiences that are swaying their views.
That might not be right, considering they were elected to represent their constituents and to be objective. However, isn't personal experience what makes us all human? At the end of the day, isn't that what we want our MPs to be: humans with a conscience, just like us?
I say bravo to Canada for being so mature and moving into this next phase of life as a nation. It's as if we're transitioning from our teenage years into adulthood. However, we need to remember that if we want to be grown up, we need to act like it.
Life moves fast, but sometimes we need to slow down. We can't make rash decisions that haven't been thought through. Like it or not, PAD is becoming the law and if it's here to stay, let's at least make sure we put in place an act that has been given its proper due course so that it will live forever.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook
MORE ON HUFFPOST:
Here's a look at the state of Euthanasia laws in Canada and their history.
Suicide hasn't been a crime in Canada since 1972. (Shutterstock)
Doctor-assisted suicide is illegal, although the ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court will force Parliament to alter the law within one year. The Criminal Code of Canada states in section 241 that: "Every one who (a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or (b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years." (Alamy)
Passive euthanasia involves letting a patient die instead of prolonging life with medical measures. Passive euthanasia is legal in Canada. The decision is left in the hands of family or a designated proxy. Written wishes, including those found in living wills, do not have to be followed by family or a proxy. (Alamy)
Sue Rodriguez, who suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig's disease), launched a case asking the Supreme Court of Canada to allow her to end her own life on the grounds that the current law discriminated against her disability. Because suicide is legal in Canada and Rodriguez was unable to end her life because of a lack of mobility, she argued it was discriminatory to prevent her from ending her own life with the aid of another. The court refused her request in 1993, but one year later she ended her life anyway with the help of an unnamed doctor. (CP)
Robert Latimer was convicted of second-degree murder in the 1993 death of his severely disabled daughter Tracy. A lack of oxygen during Tracy's birth led to cerebral palsy and serious mental and physical disabilities, including seizures and the inability to walk or talk. Her father ended Tracy's life by placing her in his truck and connecting a hose to the vehicle's exhaust.The case led to a heated debate over euthanasia in Canada and two Supreme Court challenges. Latimer was granted day parole in 2008 and full parole in 2010. (CP)
Former Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde tried repeatedly to get legislation legalizing euthanasia in Canada passed. Bill C-407 and Bill C-384 were both aimed at making assisted suicide legal. C-384 was defeated in the House 228 to 59, with many Bloc MPs and a handful of members from all other parties voting for the legislation. Tetraplegic Tory MP Steven Fletcher, pictured, made the following statement after C-384 was defeated: "I would like to be recorded as abstaining on this bill. The reason is I believe end of life issues need to be debated more in our country. I believe that life should be the first choice but not the only choice and that we have to ensure that resources and supports are provided to Canadians so that choice is free. I believe, when all is said and done, the individual is ultimately responsible. I want to make this decision for myself, and if I cannot, I want my family to make the decision. I believe most Canadians, or many Canadians, feel the same. As William Henley said in his poem Invictus, "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul."(CP)
Follow Amanda Blitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/arblitz