Some Thoughts On The Fine Line Between Awakening And Demoralizing

This piece is going to be different than what’s normally covered.

The above meme is of Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet defector. He became famous decades ago for his talks on subversion and demoralization. Even when presented with hard evidence, demoralized people can be unable to see reality. Videos are widely available online.

A criticism that often comes up here is that it’s unproductive to expose a problem without proposing an alternative to it. At some point, trying to wake up a group of people devolves into depression and demoralization, where there’s no obvious solution to anything. Even when alternatives exist on paper, they seem completely impractical to implement.

Another comparison may be between “red-pilling” v.s. “black-pilling”.

A common instance where this comes up is with the problem-reaction-solution scenarios, or the Hegelian Dialectic. This is when it seems that the outcomes are prearranged, and to a degree, they are. It’s challenging to accept answers if it looks planned in advance.

What issues are important? Take a look around this site, and see what things are addressed.

There is a valid point to the notion that harsh doses of reality are needed. In order to come to sensible conclusions, it’s important to know just how bad a problem is. Sugar coating the depth of an issue does nothing to properly correct it. Is there any obligation to offer an alternative, or is pointing out the truth enough on its own?

But the flip side is that completely destroying people’s spirits by showing the depth of a situation may not be that helpful. Outlining in vivid detail how hopeless a situation is will be soul crushing. What’s the point of demonstrating the ugly truth if everyone feels powerless to fix it? Doesn’t draining the will to fight effectively lead to their defeat?

Reality and hopium cannot exist separately. At some point, we need both.

So, where do we draw the line?

I don’t have a clear answer to this, and don’t know if anyone does. Being a truther means going down all kinds of rabbit holes, and discovering incredible things. However, there are undeniable consequences for people who get into this. Constantly being suspicious of everything and everyone gets very tiring. It’s extremely time consuming and not a good way to live.

Anyhow, these are just some random thoughts on the subject.

As always, feedback is appreciated.

Canada Firearms Act, And Other Backdoored Legislation

Most people think that substantial changes to existing legislation happen with the introduction of new Bills. While this is true, it’s not the full picture. Regulations within that area can be unilaterally changed by an Order In Council.

One such Act is the Canadian Firearms Act. Section 117 allows major changes to be made by the Governor in Council, which bypasses Parliamentary debate. In recent years, several Orders have turned gun rights on their head.

It might be fair to say that legislation covers broad outlines of what is going to happen, while regulations are the specifics of the policies.

As an example, Part “L” gives the Governor in Council power to make unilateral changes:

[For certain classes of people]
(l) regulating the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, acquisition, possession, transfer, exportation, importation, use and disposal or disposition of firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, prohibited ammunition and explosive substances

[Overall]
(m) regulating the keeping, transmission and destruction of records in relation to firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices and prohibited ammunition;

Other sections related to ranges, clubs, gun shows, sales and transfers of restricted and prohibited weapons, among many different things.

There’s really no need to ban firearms if the laws can be rewritten in such a way that makes gun ownership impractical, if not impossible. If they cannot be imported, they cannot be purchased. If they are suddenly “prohibited” to own, they can never be transferred, sold, or passed down.

There’s nothing wrong with minor changes, or appointing bureaucrats by an Order. That’s quite fine. However, this isn’t what this piece is about.

O.I.C. 2020-0298 (May 1, 2020) suddenly turned some 1,500 models of firearms into prohibited weapons, meaning that they couldn’t be transferred ever again. There seemed to be no logic or consistency in what standards were applied in making the determinations of what qualified.

O.I.C. 2021-0599 (June 17, 2021) put in place new background check information requirements, including fuller disclosure on certain behaviours and police interactions. While the previous form asked for information about the previous 5 years, the new forms covered the applicant’s entire life.

O.I.C. 2022-0447 (April 29, 2022) changed what information had to be kept by gun stores, and was effectively a backdoor gun registry for non-restricted and non-prohibited weapons.

O.I.C. 2022-1144 (October 20, 2022) banned sales and transfers of handguns altogether. Now, it wouldn’t kick in for a few weeks, but if a transfer hadn’t at least been initiated, it would no longer be possible to do so.

For reference, Section 12 of the Export and Import Permits Act also allows the Governor in Council to make changes in regulations that wouldn’t specifically need to be approved by Parliament.

This isn’t to say that all O.I.C. are necessarily bad or intrusive. For example, various amnesties have been issued which would have prevented gun owners from becoming criminals as regulations changed.

But when laws are changed with a signature, on the pretense that certain groups of people can’t be trusted, it’s difficult to see this as anything other than spite or intentional.

Worse, given the inconsistency of how things are applied, this can’t be good faith.

  • Bill C-75 reduced the penalties for terrorism offences
  • Bill C-75 also cut criminal penalties for many child sex offences
  • Bill C-238 was defeated, which would have increased punishment if a gun was obtained in the commission of a crime
  • Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison sentences for many serious gun crimes

All of the above came from the Trudeau Government.

One has to ask: what’s the goal here? Chaos? Anarchy? Disarmament? If there was a uniform hardline approach to crime, punishment, and guns, that would be much more understandable. If there was an overall permissiveness, that might be explained. Instead, we have an approach that puts the screws to law-biding gun owners. It does nothing to prevent crime from happening.

And the backdoored legislation — like the Firearms Act — permits exactly this to happen. There’s no need to ban anything when it can be regulated out of existence.

Anyhow, these are just some thoughts on the issue. We don’t really have rights if significant details can be changed with a signature, and without any referendum or democratic mandate.

(1) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/FullText.html
(2) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-19/

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard a challenge to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA), on grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights. This was based on 3 consolidated cases of people attempting to enter Canada from the U.S., and being denied.

The primary NGOs acting were: (a) Amnesty International; (b) the Canadian Council for Refugees; and (c) the Canadian Council of Churches. However, there were others who piled on, demanding open borders for people entering Canada illegally.

  • Appellant Canadian Council for Refugees et al.
  • Appellant Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
  • Intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
  • Intervener David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights et al
  • Intervener National Council of Canadian Muslims et al
  • Intervener Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
  • Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
  • Intervener Rainbow Railroad
  • Intervener HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario
  • Intervener Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights et al
  • Intervener Rainbow Refugee Society

It’s strange that virtually any special interest group can get standing as an intervenor to attack our borders. Meanwhile, actual citizens don’t have standing to demand that laws and borders be enforced.

For context, it’s important to realize that attacking the function of a border is not new. In fact, these groups have been at it for a long time. Here are some of their efforts. Note: these listings are not exclusive.

Efforts appear to have kicked off after January 1, 1989. This was based on changes to the procedures for determining whether applicants come within the definition of a Convention Refugee.

First attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

April 26, 1989, the Federal Court dismissed an application to strike from the Attorney General of Canada. This had been brought on the basis that the Canadian Council of Churches did not have standing to bring the action and had not demonstrated a cause of action.

March 12, 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to hear the challenge of this idea, since no country had yet been designated a “safe country”. In other words, the Canadian Council of Churches had simply fought the concept of a safe country designation.

January 23, 1992, the Supreme Court disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the CCC lacked the necessary standing, and that there were other, more effective ways to achieve their results.

Second attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

December 2004, the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement comes into effect. It’s worth noting that it’s really a 3-way treaty that includes the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Of course, there are also limitation and exceptions that make it largely worthless.

November 29, 2007, the Federal Court ruled that the S3CA violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that they couldn’t be “saved” as reasonable limitations under Section 1. Ottawa decided to appeal that ruling.

June 27, 2008, the previous ruling was set aside on the grounds that appearing at a border port meant they could be turned away, and that it wasn’t a breach of international obligations.

Third attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 23, 2015, the Federal Court allowed reconsideration of refugee applications from people coming from Hungary and Serbia. Up until this point, those countries were considered “safe” under the Designation Country of Origin (DCO) policy. This meant that approximately 40 countries — mainly in Europe — were viewed as safe. As a result, there would be mechanisms to expedite the process (and deportations) of claimants from there.

May 17, 2019, the Trudeau Government ended the DCO practice. This meant that no source country would automatically be considered “safe”, for people coming to Canada. Considering the S3CA was still in place, that left the United States as the only country that people could be turned away from (close to automatically). The list (and dates) are still available for reference.

Fourth attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 22, 2020, the Federal Court ruled that Section 7 of the Charter (security of the person) was violated by the S3CA. While Section 15 (equality) was cited as well, the Judge declined to rule on that provision. Barring an appeal, or legislative changes, the treaty was effectively dead.

April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Section 7 was no violated after all. Now, there had been a cross appeal, as the initial Judge declined to address Section 15. That was dismissed as well, meaning the S3CA was restored to its original form.

October 6, 2022, the Supreme Court hears arguments on striking down the S3CA on constitutional grounds. The decision is reserved, and it’s unclear when the ruling will occur. This is where we are today.

There’s a certain hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out: Refugee groups attack the S3CA, at least partially on the grounds that the U.S. is an unsafe country, and that they need better protection. In the meantime, these same groups promote refugee resettlement into America, as it’s a safe haven. In other words, whether or not the U.S. is safe depends entirely on who the audience is.

Of course, there was never any consultation with Canadians as to whether this is what they really wanted. It’s outrageous that the citizens might want to weigh in.

There’s also another elephant in the room that needs to be addressed: having lax border policies makes it easier to smuggle (or worse, traffic) people into another country. This does nothing to address that problem, but more on that elsewhere on the site.

(1) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(2) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1989/1989canlii9436/1989canlii9436.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1990/1990canlii8019/1990canlii8019.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii116/1992canlii116.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc1262/2007fc1262.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca229/2008fca229.html
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc892/2015fc892.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc770/2020fc770.html
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2021/2021fca72/2021fca72.html

Bill C-75: Removing Prohibition On “Misinformation” From Criminal Code (Reminder)

Bill C-75 has been covered a few times before. There was the watering down of penalties for terrorism offences, child sex offences, and the NGOs who were pushing this degeneracy. That said, this piece of work isn’t finished revealing all of its dirty secrets.

Supposedly, this was in response to a 1992 Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Seems pretty strange to deal with it nearly 30 years later.

At the time of this Bill, Jody Wilson-Raybould was the Minister of Justice. Absurdly, she hailed as a “hero” for standing up to Trudeau on SNC Lavalin, despite advancing all kinds of horrible legislation he was responsible for. Seems that her entire profile didn’t matter.

But thanks to a provision slipped into that Bill, it will no longer be a criminal offence to knowingly spread lies with the intent of causing harm or mischief. While this “appears” to be a win for free speech advocates, the timing is suspicious, considering what would come in 2020.

This is what Section 181 of the criminal code used to say. It has since been repealed, and taken off the books, at least for the time being.

Spreading false news
181 Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 177

While Bill C-75 did go through Parliamentary study, it doesn’t appear as if this single line was examined at all. Perhaps people were more concerned with reduced penalties for terrorists.

This is not the only time this sort of thing has been buried in larger Bills. Another recent example was pulling Government oversight with the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, Quarantine Act. This was done by embedding it into a budget.

Of course, in early 2020, Ottawa proposed its own version of “misinformation” laws. Thankfully, those seem to have gone nowhere.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/42-1/c-75
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jody-wilson-raybould(89494)
(4) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/c-39.html
(5) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-25.html#h-118691
(6) http://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/List_of_Criminal_Code_Amendments_
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/904/index.do?

Action4Canada Case Struck As “Prolix” And Improperly Pleaded

In a decision that was long anticipated, Action4Canada’s 391 page Notice of Civil Claim against lockdown measures has been struck in its entirety.

It was predicted on this site a full year ago that this Claim would go absolutely nowhere. In fact, a detailed outline of the defects was published.

One difference however, is that this Judge is allowing the NOCC to be rewritten, if the Plaintiffs are willing to. Given the length of it, that will be no easy task.

The ruling from Justice Ross outlines just how poorly drafted the suit was. It failed to even meet the bare minimum for a case to go ahead. Keep in mind, at this stage, Judges are required to accept allegations as fact (for argument’s sake), and just look at the pleadings. The ruling is to the point, and doesn’t really need much in the way of commentary, or explanation.

For reference: NOCC means Notice of Civil Claim.

[20] The description of “THE FACTS” in the NOCC comprises 316 paragraphs set out over 226 pages. This section of the NOCC also includes 399 footnotes, the majority of which contain links to websites.

[21] I note, for the clarity of anyone reading the pleadings, that the numbering of the paragraphs in the NOCC leads to further confusion. First, there are two paragraphs numbered “12”. More problematic, the paragraphs proceed from 1-331 followed, for no reason, by paragraphs 255-363. As a result, the section labelled “THE FACTS” appears to comprise only 240 paragraphs (44-284), when it actually consists of 316 paragraphs. It follows that the reader must be careful to address either the first, or the second, paragraph 255 etc. I return to this issue below when discussing the second paragraph 289

This is a (somewhat minor) point, but good for a chuckle. The paragraphs in the NOCC weren’t numbered correctly or consistently, making it unclear what was being referenced at times.

[22] The “RELIEF SOUGHT” section of the NOCC comprises 40 paragraphs, most with multiple subparagraphs, set out over 43 pages.

This is absurd to the point of comedy. It takes 43 pages for the Plaintiffs to spell out the relief, or what they are asking the Court to grant.

[35] The defendants submit that, more important than the length of the NOCC is the unlimited scope of the document. It is not a piece of legal drafting that complies with the Rules, or basic tenets, of pleading. It is not a document that can be properly answered in a response to civil claim. The defendants submit that those problems arise, in part, because there are multiple allegations against the defendants individually and jointly. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any individual defendant to determine whether it is required to respond to any particular allegation. Were the action to proceed in its current form, individual defendants would not be in a position to know whether they were tasked with a burden of disproving or countering the myriad allegations. They would not know what case they were required to meet.

Where are they wrong? The NOCC is written in such a way that it’s pretty much impossible to know exactly what the allegations are to be addressed. This can’t be dealt with in any meaningful way.

[45] On the first issue, whether the NOCC is prolix, I agree with the defendants’ submission: the NOCC, in its current form, is not a pleading that can properly be answered by a responsive pleading. It describes wide-ranging global conspiracies that may, or may not, have influenced either the federal or the provincial governments. It seeks rulings of the court on issues of science. In addition, it includes improper allegations, including criminal conduct and “crimes against humanity”. In my opinion, it is “bad beyond argument”.

[46] I further find that it is not a document that the court can mend by striking portions. I find that this NOCC is analogous to the Statement of Claim considered by Justice K. Smith (as he then was) in Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia (1998), 1998 CanLII 6658 (BC SC), 25 C.P.C. (4th) 107 (B.C.S.C.) [Homalco]. He wrote:
.
[11] In my view, the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer. As a result, it is prejudicial. Any attempt to reform it by striking out portions and by amending other portions is likely to result in more confusion as to the real issues.

The Judge concludes that it’s far more than just errors or inconsistencies in this pleading. The NOCC was written in such a manner that it’s impossible to properly respond to. In other words, while there may be a case for the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants are justified in attempting to strike it.

Moreover, the document is horrible through its entirety. This isn’t an instance where a few bad paragraphs or pages can be removed. These defects plague the entire paper. That’s right, it’s not worth saving, at least not in its current form.

[51] To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:
.
a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

Quite simply: this does not belong in a civil claim. It’s mind boggling to think that the lawyers who (allegedly) wrote this have a combined 70 years of experience between them. Seriously, how is a civil court — even with a very experienced Judge — supposed to rule on such things?

And where exactly is Lawrence Wong anyway?

Summary and Conclusion
[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

Do read the entire decision. It’s very revealing.

The part of the decision that came as a surprise was that the Judge allowed for the NOCC to be rewritten. More on that in a bit. There were sections worth salvaging, and that allowed some reprieve.

However, this forces the next decision onto the Plaintiffs. Do they undertake the massive effort needed to make almost 400 pages compatible with the B.C. Rules of Civil Procedure? Or do they simply walk away with this?

In any event, very steep costs are almost a given at this point. This is something the individual Plaintiffs were likely not fully aware of. If a case like this is thrown out, they’re on the hook for at least some of the costs that would be ordered.

According to the Western Standard, Tanya Gaw, the head of Action4Canada, was asked if individual Plaintiffs would be indemnified against such an order. In essence, would the organization ensure no one was stuck with a huge bill? The refusal to give a definitive answer was not encouraging.

It was admitted in the May 31, 2022 hearing that over $750,000 had been raised for this lawsuit. In the interests of fairness, protecting the individual Plaintiffs should be a no-brainer.

That said, the Court declined to completely throw the case out.

[59] The defendants urge upon me that the problems with the NOCC are sufficient grounds for me to conclude that this entire action is an abuse of process and should be dismissed on the basis that it is clearly frivolous and vexatious.

[60] I do not accept that submission on behalf of the defendants. For the reasons set out below, I decline to dismiss the action.

Yes, the pleadings were horrible, but that didn’t make the issues themselves frivolous.

The next several paragraphs go on to outline serious concerns including Charter protections and due process. In other words, there were legitimate issues raised. However, this NOCC was such a mess that it was impossible to sort out the issues in any reasonable manner.

[71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions infringe their Charter protected rights. Hence, in this case, there is a prospect that the plaintiffs could put forward a valid claim that certain of the COVID-based health restrictions instituted by the Federal or Provincial governments infringed their Charter rights. In addition, it is possible that other valid claims may exist. It will be for the plaintiff to plead those causes of action in accordance with the Rules. Such claims need to be framed in a manner that is intelligible and allows the defendants to know the case they have to meet. It must also confine itself to matters that are capable of adjudication by this court and relief this court is capable of granting.

Yes, there are issues that are worth looking into. However, the NOCC needs to be drafted properly, and not like it has been done here. It came down to the quality and organization of the pleadings themselves, not necessarily the topics that to be examined.

Will the 400 page NOCC be fixed up and refiled — as time consuming as that will be — or is this the end of the road for the Action4Canada case? Even though a rewrite is allowed, this likely won’t sit well with many. Had it been properly written in the first place, it may very well have survived intact.

We’ll have to see what happens next, but what a waste of time, energy and money.

Another prediction: the next one to get challenged will be the July 6, 2020 case with Vaccine Choice Canada. The Ontario Attorney General can now use this ruling.

DECISION
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.pdf
(3) https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/15/2022BCSC1507.htm
(4) https://www.westernstandard.news/bc/bcs-unvaccinated-doctors-want-to-get-back-to-work-and-they-hope-a-billboard-helps/article_6ac058b4-24e1-11ed-9d74-67b04bfc88ce.html

COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view

Parliament’s Guidelines On Euthanizing The Mentally Ill

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), a.k.a. euthanasia or assisted suicide, had been touted as proponents as having an extremely limited scope. In other words, it would be available to people with terminal illnesses, who were otherwise living in extreme pain.

Bill C-14 was supposed to be limited to terminal cases. In the next session, Bill C-7 increased the eligibility options. Suddenly, even people with serious mental illnesses were able to obtain euthanasia, provided the mental problem wasn’t the sole reason.

And now, we reach the point where people whose SOLE problem is a mental illness can be put down with the help of so-called medical professionals. The people pushing the slippery slope argument have been proven correct once again.

An interim report was released in June 2022, and it’s widely expected that expanding the scope will become law very soon.

MAID PRACTICE STANDARDS

Recommendation 1: Development of MAiD practice standards
The federal, provincial and territorial governments should facilitate the collaboration of physician and nurse regulatory bodies in the development of Standards of Practice for physicians and nurse practitioners for the assessment of MAiD requests in situations that raise questions about incurability, irreversibility, capacity, suicidality, and the impact of structural vulnerabilities. These standards should elaborate upon the subject matter of recommendations 2–13.

INTERPRETING GRIEVOUS AND IRREMEDIABLE MEDICAL CONDITION

Recommendation 2: Establishing incurability
MAiD assessors should establish incurability with reference to treatment attempts made up to that point, outcomes of those treatments, and severity and duration of illness, disease or disability. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many treatment attempts, how many kinds of treatments, and over what period of time as this will vary according to the nature and severity of medical conditions the person has and their overall health status. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. As with many chronic conditions, the incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of multiple attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

Recommendation 3: Establishing irreversibility
MAiD assessors should establish irreversibility with reference to interventions tried that are designed to improve function, including: recognized rehabilitative and supportive measures that have been tried up to that point, outcomes of those interventions, and the duration of decline. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many attempts at interventions, how many types of interventions, and over how much time, as this will vary according to a requester’s baseline function as well as life goals. Therefore, this must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.

Recommendation 4: Understanding enduring and Intolerable suffering
MAiD assessors should come to an understanding with the requester that the illness, disease or disability or functional decline causes the requester enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering.

VULNERABILITIES

Recommendation 5: Comprehensive capacity assessments
MAiD assessors should undertake thorough and, where appropriate, serial assessments of a requester’s decision-making capacity in accordance with clinical standards and legal criteria. These assessments should be consistent with approaches laid out in standardized capacity evaluation tools.

Recommendation 6: Means available to relieve suffering
To ensure all requesters have access to the fullest possible range of social supports which could potentially contribute to reducing suffering, the Panel recommends that ’community services’ in Track 2 Safeguard 241.2(3.1)(g) should be interpreted as including housing and income supports as means available to relieve suffering and should be offered to MAiD requesters, where appropriate.

Recommendation 7: Interpretation of track 2 safeguard 241.2(3.1)(h) the person has given serious consideration to those means
Serious consideration should be interpreted to mean genuine openness to the means available to relieve suffering and how they could make a difference in the person’s life.

Recommendation 8: Consistency, durability, and well-considered nature of a maid request
Assessors should ensure that the requester’s wish for death is consistent with the person’s values and beliefs, unambiguous and rationally considered during a period of stability, not during a period of crisis.

Recommendation 9: Situations of involuntariness
Persons in situations of involuntariness for periods shorter than six months should be assessed following this period to minimize the potential contribution of the involuntariness on the request for MAiD. For those who are repeatedly or continuously in situations of involuntariness, (e.g., six months or longer, or repeated periods of less than six months), the institutions responsible for the person should ensure that assessments for MAiD are performed by assessors who do not work within or are associated with the institution.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Recommendation 10: Independent assessor with expertise
The requester should be assessed by at least one assessor with expertise in the condition(s). In cases involving MAiD MD-SUMC, the assessor with expertise in the condition should be a psychiatrist independent from the treating team/provider. Assessors with expertise in the person’s condition(s) should review the diagnosis, and ensure the requester is aware of all reasonable options for treatment and has given them serious consideration.

Recommendation 11: Involvement of other healthcare professionals
Assessors should involve medical subspecialists and other healthcare professionals for consultations and additional expertise where necessary.

Recommendation 12: Discussion with treating team and collateral information
• If the requester’s primary healthcare provider is not one of the assessors, assessors should obtain input from that person. When the requester’s clinical care is shared by members of a multidisciplinary healthcare team, assessors should solicit their input as well.
• With a requester’s consent, assessors and providers shall obtain collateral information relevant to eligibility and capacity assessment. This should include reviewing medical records, prior MAiD assessments, and discussions with family members or significant others. Care must be taken to determine that obtaining collateral information will not be harmful to the requester.

Recommendation 13: Challenging interpersonal dynamics
Assessors and providers should be self-reflective and examine their reactions to those they assess. If their reactions compromise their ability to carry out the assessment in accordance with professional norms, they should seek supervision from mentors and colleagues, and/or discontinue involvement in the assessment process. The practitioner should adhere to any local policies concerning withdrawal from a MAiD assessment and onward referral.

IMPLEMENTATION

Recommendation 14: Consultations with first nations, inuit and métis peoples
Consultation between health regulatory bodies in each province and territory with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples must aim to create practice standards with respect to MAiD MD-SUMC, and MAiD more generally, that incorporate Indigenous perspectives and are relevant to their communities.

Recommendation 15: Training of assessors and providers in specialized topics
To support consistent application of the law and to ensure high quality and culturally sensitive care, assessors and providers should participate in training opportunities that address topics of particular salience to MAiD MD-SUMC. These include, but are not limited to: capacity assessment, trauma-informed care and cultural safety.

Recommendation 16: Prospective oversight
Given its concurrent jurisdiction in relation to MAiD, the federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of a model of prospective oversight for all or some Track 2 cases that could be adapted by provinces and territories.

Recommendation 17: Case-based quality assurance and education
The federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of provincial/territorial systems of MAiD case review for educational and quality improvement purposes.

Recommendation 18: Modifications to data collection under the federal maid monitoring system
Data related to specific topics (eligibility, supported decision-making, means available to relieve suffering, refusal of means available, and residence and legal status) should be collected in the MAiD monitoring system in addition to data already collected under the 2018 Regulations. These data can be used to assess whether key areas of concern raised about MAiD MD-SUMC and complex Track 2 cases discussed in this report are being addressed by the clinical practices recommended.

Recommendation 19: Periodic, federally funded research
The federal government should fund both targeted and investigator-initiated periodic research on questions relating to the practice of MAiD (including but not only MAiD MD-SUMC).

If nothing else, Recommendation #8 points out that this should only be an option during a period of stability, and not during a crisis.

Keep in mind, this is only an interim report. There’s nothing to suggest this won’t be expanded on at some later point.

Since its inception, the rates of people receiving assistance in suicide has increased year over year. This will surely raise those numbers even more.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/Work
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/AMAD/report-1/
(3) https://parl.ca/Content/Committee/441/AMAD/Reports/RP11896958/amadrp01/amadrp01-e.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-14-assisted-suicide/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/euthanasia-3-bill-c-7-to-expand-scope-of-assisted-suicide/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/recent-statistics-on-euthanasia-assisted-suicide-in-canada/

%d bloggers like this: