Wingnut Legislation - Bill C-537

Remember Maurice Vellacott - the MP who asked Harper not to put him in cabinet so he wouldn't have to compromise his beliefs?

Well, right on the heels of Bill C-484 (the criminalize abortions act), we find Vellacott putting Bill C-537 before the House of Commons.

So, just what is Bill C-537, you may ask? Well, it seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada S.425 to protect the "conscience rights" of educators and medical practitioners with respect to subjects they "object to". (e.g. Distributing contraceptives for example)

Section 425(1) deals primarily with what most of us understand to be "whistleblower" situations:

425.1 (1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer or in a position of authority in respect of an employee of the employer shall take a disciplinary measure against, demote, terminate or otherwise adversely affect the employment of such an employee, or threaten to do so,

(a) with the intent to compel the employee to abstain from providing information to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law, respecting an offence that the employee believes has been or is being committed contrary to this or any other federal or provincial Act or regulation by the employer or an officer or employee of the employer or, if the employer is a corporation, by one or more of its directors; or

(b) with the intent to retaliate against the employee because the employee has provided information referred to in paragraph (a) to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law.

Punishment
(2) Any one who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

2004, c. 3, s. 6.

Vellacott's legislative dropping isn't even "on topic", but rather attempts to add "non-compulsion" clauses regarding "matters of conscience" worded as follows:

(2) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an employer or the agent of an employer,


(a) refuses to employ a health care practitioner,


(b) refuses to advance or promote a qualified health care practitioner, or


(c) dismisses, or threatens to dismiss, a health care practitioner from employment,


because the health care practitioner is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet of the practitioner’s religion, or the belief of the practitioner that human life is inviolable.

(3) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an educator or the agent of an educator in any field of health care in Canada,


(a) refuses to admit any person to courses in a field of health care, or


(b) refuses to grant accreditation in a field of health care to any person,

because the person is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet of the person’s religion, or the belief of the person that human life is inviolable.

(4) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an officer of a professional association of health care practitioners, or the agent of any such officer,


(a) refuses to admit a person to membership in the professional association,


(b) refuses to advance or promote the standing of a person as a member of the professional association, or


(c) excludes a person from, or threatens to exclude a person from, the professional association,


because the person is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet in the person’s religion, or the belief of the person that human life is inviolable.

So...in Maurice Vellacott's world, there is an equivalence between an employer who retaliates against an employee who has reported violations of Federal Law to law enforcement authorities, and moralizing pharmacists who refuse to do their job. Wow - that's quite a leap.

Like Epp's ever-so transparent attempt to set the foundation for banning abortion in Bill C-484, the wording that Vellacott uses is so astoundingly broad that it could be used (or abused) in a plethora of unhappy ways.

Consider the following phrase which ripples through Vellacott's legislation:

...that offends a tenet of the person’s religion

I have a huge problem with this phrase. First off, in the context of S.425 overall, it declares an equivalence between codified Federal Law, and its interpretation through the various agencies of government including the judiciary and religious "tenets" - written or unwritten as interpreted primarily by the individual.

The concept of 'religious tenet' is contentious even among theologians, and to place such an ambiguous concept at the same level of importance as someone reporting possible violations of law to the government is troubling. I'm sure just about anything could be declared a violation of someone's religious tenets, depending on how one reads various tidbits of scripture.

the belief of the person that human life is inviolable

Again, this is very troublesome wording. Superficially, this is intended to protect people who object to procedures such as abortion from being punished for refusing to participate. However, again, the overall wording is exceptionally broad and all too easily could be read to include topics such as contraceptives or even dispensing information about STIs.

There are some serious problems with this legislation. It opens up the possibility where a practitioner could easily refuse service to someone even under emergency conditions.

Consider the possibility that as a result of a late night traffic accident, a woman is brought into the emergency with serious, life threatening injuries. Not only is she seriously injured, but she is also pregnant. Surgery is required, but it is also likely to result in the termination of the pregnancy. So, the doctor(s) on shift abstain from participating in the surgery because it might "violate the tenets of their religion" to be involved in a medical procedure that would result in the termination of the pregnancy.

We aren't talking about a procedure that can wait here, but rather a situation where action must be taken immediately. In this circumstance, Vellacott's law could be read to imply that the appropriate professional organizations involved could not take disciplinary action against the doctors involved even though the decision to refuse to participate would stand in violation of the ethical guidelines and regulations of the profession.

*Note: The above scenario is hypothetical, and intended to be illustrative of the possible consequences of this legislation. It is however, rooted in an amalgam of real-life situations where needed treatment has been arbitrarily refused on what amount to moral grounds

Vellacott's legislation is vastly out of line with the intent of S.425(1) in the first place. Second, like Epp's bill C-484, it is overly broad in its wording to the extent that it actually puts someone's interpretation of their religion above and ahead of their obligation to do their job.

Further, Bill C-537 is rooted in the assertion that "god-fearing Christians" are being "forced" to do things against their will or faith. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Except in the festering imaginations of people like Maurice Vellacott and Charles McVety, no such thing is happening. Typically, the cases that they point to as examples actually wind up being a reflection of someone being completely intransigent - or worse - with respect to doing their jobs; or arbitrarily denying service to people on what amounts to whim.

If, for example, a pharmacist wishes the right to refuse to dispense certain medications based on their religious beliefs, the clients have a right to know that up front. It should not be a matter of finding out by having your prescription refused at the desk, or a phone call left 'on hold' forever. If that means posting a sign by the dispensary that says "Christian Pharmacist on Duty - Limited Service Available" - fine. Do it. Just don't put me as a patient in the awkward position of having to find out by getting a moralizing lecture from said pharmacist.

Further, I would argue that in situations where the practitioner has specific religious objections, that the areas of treatment that will be curtailed be listed where a prospective client will be able to see them. The issue is not one of religious discrimination at all, but rather one of clarity. People should not have to guess whether or not they will be "granted" service from day to day.

In more sensitive areas, such as emergency treatment, such situations are less voluntary for the client and similarly, there are moral and ethical duties that the practitioner must be held accountable to. In practical terms, Vellacott's approach to the laws involved would effectively oblige the Federal Government to become the owner of topics such as medical ethics, as Vellacott has proposed making it a criminal offense for the existing regulatory bodies (such as the Colleges of Physicians) to enforce their ethics rules.

During the fall 2005 election, I predicted that Harper was going allow his back-benchers to write the truly wingnutty garbage legislation, and I wasn't disappointed.

Now, just to follow through, let's take a look how the various Con$ervative MPs voted on Bill C-484:

Stephen Harper	Y
Jason Kenney	Y
Dianne Ablonczy	Y

This is just a random sample, but having gone through much of the "front bench" in Harper's Cabinet over at How'd They Vote Canada, I'm seeing a remarkable level of consistency in the Conservative party voting pattern on Bill C-484, and I imagine a similar pattern will emerge in the as C-537 approaches vote time. Why? Because we already have considerable evidence that Harper is a Micromanager, which tells me that the odds are pretty high that the caucus is finding themselves ordered to vote a particular way on every issue. (For example, I was a little surprised to see Ablonczy vote for C-484 - she's a pretty smart lady, and I would have expected her to vote against such an open-ended and dangerous piece of legislation).

In my opinion, this is another piece which underscores the fundamental dishonesty of the HarperCon$. Harper hasn't got the basic honesty as a politician to state what he really wants to do, so he leaves it to the obvious wingnut politicians to write the most vile legislation - he just votes for it. Think about this.