It must be difficult for Conservative Members of Parliament to vote “nay” on Liberal Government Motions of Time Allocation, with a straight face.

Time Allocation, which limits further debate on a bill to a specified number of days or hours was imposed twice recently—May 4 on C-14 re: Physician Assisted Dying and then again on May 10 on the Budget Implementation Bill.

It would be difficult, certainly for veteran Conservative Members to argue that democracy was suddenly under attack or that the majority was stifling the Opposition’s right to speak to a measure, when in government those same CPC Members used their majority over 100 times to limit debate. Time Allocation became a routine process; rarely, if ever, in the later stages of the 41st Parliament was debate allowed to extinguish naturally.

Similarly, the Liberal veterans, who felt so hard done by and compromised by the former government’s high handed tactics, now seem all too eager to bring in Closure’s only slightly less intrusive cousin to expedite votes now that is they who are tabling the bills.

The ramifications and importance of the two recent time allocation motions are very different and significant. C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, is a confidence motion and therefore invariably a whipped vote on all sides of the House. The Trudeau Government promised to be more respectful of democracy and allow more free votes. However, traditional confidence measures are exempted from the pledge to liberate caucus members from voting with the government.

One can question the legitimacy and value of continuing debate on any vote that is going to be whipped by all parties. The debate is largely meaningless. The parties, days ago, have immovably staked out their positions. Nobody could possibly be persuaded by any arguments advanced in the continuation of debate. All members will simply vote as instructed by their whips and House Leaders.

I am not condoning time allocation, only cynically explaining the general value of debate in the contrived theater known as our National Parliament.

C-14, the Government’s response to the Supreme Court decision on assisted dying, is another matter entirely. Ironically, another exemption to the Liberal pledge to make whipped votes the exception and not the norm was matters of shared values protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Arguably, since the prohibitions on assisted death were struck down as a violation of the Charter, the Government could have imposed a whipped vote on the legislation it drafted in response.

However, on such an emotional matter, so deeply ensconced in ethical and personal values and beliefs, most pundits, including myself, argued that a free vote was mandated. And so the Liberal House Leader modified his original position; all parties may and did vote freely at second reading on C-14.

I find time allocation on free votes especially troubling. It is a rare opportunity that a backbench MP is forced to think for himself; generally, they will just vote as instructed. But a free vote requires deliberation and information. It is not only possible but I would suggest probable that one or more thoughtful MPs, who diligently followed the debate and all sides of a complicated issue would be persuaded by one or more of the cogent positions put forward by the many thoughtful speakers, who presented very different positions regarding this complicated matter.

On the other hand, the clock is ticking. There are rare times when matters of public safety or disruption of essential services actually require an expedited vote. C-14 is comparable; if no legislation is passed by June 5, a legal vacuity will exist and there will be neither requirements for, nor prohibitions against, an assisted death. A month is not a long time to get a bill through three readings plus committee hearings in each of the two houses of Parliament. Time is of the essence. When all of the free votes were counted, all but one Liberal and one NDP Member voted in favour; the vast majority of CPC Members voted: “nay”.

Reading some to their speeches, it is clear that many Conservatives have what can be called technical or procedural concerns. Some are concerned that conscience rights of physicians, who object to participating, is not properly protected. Others argue that the process should have to be signed off by a Judge and that nurse practitioners should not be included in the two medical professionals required to approve.

However, the vote at Second Reading is a vote on the bill in principle. If one supports the general intent of legislation that is reflected by a positive vote, then allowing technical amendments to improve the mechanics of the bill. There are no doubt supporters of the bill, who support C-14 in principle, but will then introduce amendments extending the bill’s reach. Advanced directives and inclusion for those not facing a certain and immediate demise are likely amendments by those who generally support the bill but believe it should go farther.

Accordingly, the CPC members who voted against C-14 at Second Reading likely did so based on philosophical, not merely technical grounds (or at least some combination of philosophical and technical opposition). These votes are counter-intuitive. One can oppose euthanasia on moral grounds and/or C-14 because in your view it does not provide adequate protections for the vulnerable.

However, if the vote on C-14 were to fail, there would be NO law against assisted suicide and NO safeguards to protect the vulnerable. Certainly to those opposed, limited scope and protection is preferred to the legal vacuity that will exits on June 6 if no law is passed.

C-14 is not amending the sections of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted dying; those sections have already been struck down. C-14 is an attempt to provide some parameters and at least some safeguards to a controversial procedure that will become completely legal in less than a month if C-14 fails. Defeating C-14 will not bring those former prohibitions back.


So Earl’s has reversed its total ban on Alberta beef?

As someone generally unaffected by fads or fashion, I was initially uninterested in Earl’s decision to serve only Certified Humane beef products in its trendy restaurants. But when I heard that there was a social media campaign growing to boycott Earl’s Restaurants and with my bartending niece’s college fund threatened, I did some research.

It is still unclear when Alberta beef will once again be served at Earl’s. As long as Earl’s insists on the “Certified Humane’, as opposed to comparable standards, it might be difficult for Alberta ranchers to qualify.

I believe in markets. Generally speaking, I think any restaurant should be able to source their beef from any supplier or suppliers it chooses.

Similarly, if consumers are dissatisfied with a business for any reason, they ought to be able to take their business elsewhere. That is the self-correcting mechanism of free players in free markets. However, for markets to properly function, accurate information must be available. The product information available and that being conveyed in this matter, however, is very different.

Firstly, and probably most importantly, “Certified Humane” is a third party designation and registered trademark. It is not a government standard or even a standard approved by any body with the authority to do so. “Certified Humane” is the brand of American based group, Human Farm Animal Care. There are other protocols such as the National Farm Animal Care Council’s Code of Practice, the Feedlot Assessment Program and the Roundtable on Sustainable Beef. None are official and all have varying standards. Objectively, no standard is necessarily better, only different.

Secondly, the notion that food chain beef can be Certified Humane is preposterous. The root word of humane is “human”. defines “humane” as an adjective characterized by tenderness, compassion and sympathy for people and animals, especially the suffering or distressed; AND acting in a manner that causes the least harm to people or animals.
As a result, there is no objective standard of “humane”, only varying degrees of harm and therefore varying degrees of “inhumane”. Unless you cause no harm, your actions, by definition, are somewhere on the harm/inhumane spectrum.

On this point (and only this point) I agree with the vegans. It is simply not possible to breed mammals, fatten and then slaughter them for entrance into the human food chain and still claim to be causing no, or even the least, harm. Admittedly, there are varying degrees of mistreatment, but no animal raised for the food chain has what, in human terms, can be considered a life marked by compassion. Cattle are not pets.

Now, I would prefer that the beef I consume (and I consume a fair bit) suffers the least possible harm, but the absence of antibiotics, steroids and growth hormones does not equal having been treated as a pet. It is not possible to certify as humane, beef raised to be slaughtered. No subjective protocol can be objectively certified. Certified Humane is a misnomer and a misleading brand.

Moreover, the absence of antibiotics is a contentious matter. If an animal develops an infection, according to the “humane” protocol, it should be given medicine. But then it loses the CH standard and must be sold as normal beef at a lower price. Does the administration of antibiotics make the beef certified inhumane? Surely, giving a sick animal a dose of antibiotic is humane. Further query if delaying drugs as long as possible, in an attempt to maintain the premium price for CH, is “humane”?

Earl’s biggest mistake, however, was not its attempt to capitalize on vane consumers, wanting to feel better about the food choices they make; it was announcing the sole sourcing of supply.

Spring Creek Ranch, near Vegreville, for example produces beef that is steroid and artificial hormone free. But as a Canadian producer, it is not a Humane Farm Animal Care club member and accordingly, the CH third party designation is not easily or cheaply available to them. But why not buy as much steroid free beef as you can locally and get the rest of your stated inadequate local supply from Kansas? But remember the increased carbon footprint you are making by importing beef from a supplier in a different country and time zone.

Clearly, their second mistake was announcing the Alberta beef ban. A & W has been advertising that its hamburgers are hormone and steroid free for years try this site. Apparently, they import largely from Australia. But by not advertising that they were sourcing imported beef, they were able to avoid the #boycottA&W hashtag.

But a successful restaurant chain would not be that sloppy. Earls confirms that they have been test marketing the concept for months. They obviously calculated and concluded that the pushback from Alberta ranchers and their supporters would be more than offset by the free publicity aimed at those jumping on the cause de jour.

I overheard a couple of golfers yesterday wondering out loud what Certified Humane beef tastes like. I did not seem them in the clubhouse later; I suspect that they were satisfying that curiosity.

As long as Earl’s insists on the Certified Humane brand, as opposed to comparable standards and protocols, it is likely that Alberta ranchers will remain shut out. So boycott Earls if you must. But before you do, make sure you are not being as disingenuous as they are. Remember my niece and all of the local bakeries, poultry producers and craft breweries that supply product to Earl’s. And remember that the real reason you are boycotting them is because they are brilliant marketers, seeking only to exploit a growing market of consumers, whose appetite for beef is surpassed only by their consumer vanity and their need to make themselves feel better about their food choices.


My expectations were low on Saturday heading to Red Deer for the annual PC Alberta Convention. One year and two days ago, the fourty-four-year-old Tory Dynasty suffered a crushing defeat and is a now the third party in the Alberta Legislature. With Albertans’ hearts and minds with the 80,000+ evacuees from Ft. McMurray and the flames still raging, I was expecting a somber mood and light attendance.

My difficulty in finding a parking spot, however, would be the first of the day’s many surprises look what i found. Over 1,000 delegates paid to attend this convention; the registration desk was overwhelmed. Yet the delegates were patient and cheerful. It was more of a reunion than a wake.

One of the first Orders of Business was a general discussion about the future of the party; this was a euphemism for a debate over unification with the Wildrose. Speaker after speaker went to the mike prefacing their comments with: “I am proud to be a PROGRESSIVE Conservative”. There was some, but comparatively little, appetite to unite the right and very little positive commentary about the Wildrose as a potential dance partner.

In fact, convention organizers were persuading delegates to tweet using the hashtag #pcproud.

A motion to “rebuild the PC Party of Alberta” passed almost unanimously putting unification talks on ice at least for now.

But there are problems with going it alone. The party is broke and you cannot take the hashtag #pcproud to the bank. They have cut operations to a bare bone, with only one paid staffer, as they pay off a $770,000 bank loan.

The party, while in government, was plush with cash. Corporate donations flowed especially during boom times, as donators wanted to be seen favourably by the perpetual government. But the combination of losing power and the subsequent ban on corporate and union donations in Alberta has hit the PC coffers particularly hard. They never learned how to fundraise; while in government, they didn’t have to.

Undoubtedly, the most interesting part of the day was in the early afternoon when leadership selection was hotly debated. I have not been to a delegated leadership convention since Toronto in 2003 when Peter McKay beat Jim Prentice and Scott Brison, among others, to become the last leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. However, it looks like I will be able to attend one in Alberta next year.

I admit to being surprised by the decision to return to delegates, selected by the local riding associations, exclusively getting to determine who becomes the leader of the party. Every PC Leader, since Ralph Klein, who was chosen in 1992, has been selected by some version of “One Member One Vote”.

Seen as being democratic and inclusive, the OMOV system is not without its detractors. The Alberta PC Party version was especially suspect. Initially, if no candidate received a clear majority, the top three candidates ran in a preferential runoff vote weeks later. Memberships could be sold right up until the time of the second vote, creating lots of problems, not the least of which was Johnny Come Lately members deciding the future of the party.

In 2006, there was such animosity between the Jim Dinning and Ted Morton camps that most voters’ second choice was Ed Stelmach, who barely survived the top three cut-off, but then vaulted into the premier’s chair.

Then in 2011, Allyson Redford sold thousands of memberships in the two week interim to teachers and public sector unions, promising salary increases and then vaulted over heavily favoured Gary Mar, whose lead over her was more than 2:1 on the first ballot.

Over time, neither Stelmach nor Redford were particularly popular leaders and both were seen as compromise choices. But worse, it was clear that “temporary Tories” were determining the outcome. To add insult to injury, some were photographed ripping up their membership cards outside the polling stations, verifying that they were not PC supporters and their mischief was now complete.

In response, in 2014, only the top two finalists would have competed in the runoff; but Jim Prentice won on the first ballot.

There was no apparent need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, the old system could be, and likely was, hijacked by outside forces and a good argument can be made that the leader ought to be chosen by those with the most skin in the game. Volunteers who have worked for years, pounding lawn signs and stuffing envelopes are the most likely to be chosen at local delegate selection meetings. And they have a legitimate complaint that they, and a person who buys a membership at the door, should not have equal say in who becomes leader of “their” party.

But the delegate selection process is prone to manipulation, backroom deals and control by the old guard. Lesser cures could include increasing the price of membership or preferably cutting off membership sales weeks before the first and certainly not allowing them prior to the runoff vote.

In fact, the delegates had decided that if OMOV were to be maintained, there would only be one vote on one day, with a preferential ranked ballot determining the victor.

Abandoning OMOV will be seen as anti-democratic, where anybody with $10 in their jeans gets to participate. It will push the Wildrose even further away; with its Reform roots, it fancies itself a grassroots movement.

Those who favour the unification of the right in Alberta will be disappointed with the delegates’ resolve to rebuild. The PCs’ spirit is strong but its finances are weak. They are not yet on life support but the patient is far from healthy. They are not going anywhere.


If you have been globetrotting for the last say 18 months and are just now returning to Alberta, you might be looking forward to landing in the middle of a provincial election. For when you left at the beginning of 2015, Albertans were subject to a fixed election law “window” that mandated that an election take place between March 1 and May 31, 2016.

Having an election window, rather than a fixed date, was admittedly odd, because it did not remove entirely the potential advantage of the party in power deciding when it was advantageous to go the polls.

Regardless, in the culmination of the strangest six months in Alberta, or possibly any other provincial, political history, Alberta’s 29th General Election was held one year ago tomorrow. Events started six months previously, when the Leader of the Official Opposition, Danielle Smith and half of her Wildrose Caucus folded tent and walked across the floor to join Premier Jim Prentice’s PCs.

However, when the “promised” cabinet positions for Ms. Smith and at least one other did not materialize, the result was distrust of the PCs by Wildrose MLAs. The Tory Backbench did not want the Rosies sitting with them in any event, as they were fierce critics in opposition and regarded as splitters from the conservative family. It was the first of many awkward attempts to Unite the Right.

Donations to the Wildrose coffers plummeted, as the loyal grassroots stewed over the mutiny orchestrated by their now departed leader. Months later, it was revealed that Ms. Smith had actually been losing grip on both her caucus and the Riding Associations, most notably the social conservative parts, who were growing frustrated with Ms. Smith’ libertarianism.

The Wildrose had been leading most opinion polls pretty much continually from the election of Allyson Redford in 2012 (in the first and only fixed window election). But on April 7, 2015, with the Wildrose in chaos, Premier Prentice, without repealing the goofy election window law, sought an early dissolution and we went to the polls last May 5.

Premier Prentice thought he had effectively coopted and then destroyed what was left of the Wildrose. But he did not anticipate the backlash over the budget he had tabled in March, which contained both tax increases and a deficit. Nor did he anticipate the angst over breaking the election law and going to the polls a year early; it was seen as opportunistic to get the election out of the way before the worst of the slump in oil prices was realized.

Further, Premier Prentice did not fully appreciate the ghost of former Premier Allyson Redford and how unpopular she still was. Finally, the PCs overlooked the fresh face of Rachel Notley and the fact that the NDP was organized and financed.

The result: the end of the fourty-four-year Progressive Conservative Dynasty and the birth of what is now the only democratic socialist government in Canada.

The NDP won 40.6% of the vote and 62% of the seats. The combined conservative party vote was 52% (27.8 PC; 24.2 WR) translating into 11% and 24% of the seats respectively. When left wing parties are the victim of the mathematical distortions inherent in the First Past the Post System, their demand is for electoral reform and some form of Proportional Representation.

When right wing parties feel that they have been mistreated by electoral results, their knee jerk rallying cry is “Unite the Right”.
One year later, despite multiple efforts, the right in Alberta is more disunited than ever.

Hostility and mistrust between the parties aside, the conditions precedent for merger are absent. Last May, the PCs got more votes but the Wildrose more seats. They each have a competent leader or interim leader, who thinks he is the one to save conservatism in Alberta.

The Wildrose won the by-election to replace Jim Prentice; the PCs won the recent by-election to replace Manmeet Bhullar, who was tragically killed in a traffic accident. Neither party appears to be going anywhere; neither party leader is particularly interested in a merger.

So if the parties can’t get it together, it falls to concerned conservative citizens. The Alberta Prosperity Fund is a Political Action Committee fronted by former talk radio host, Dave Rutherford. Their mantra is “Uniting to restore the Alberta Advantage”. The PAC lobbied unsuccessfully to run a single “united” candidate in the recent Calgary Greenway by-election, won narrowly by the PCs.

This past weekend,” Alberta Can’t Wait” attracted over 400 concerned conservatives to Red Deer. They list as Ambassadors Preston Manning and former Tory Cabinet Minister Rick Orman. They overwhelmingly resolved not to merge the two small “c” conservative parties but to start a third!!

For his part, Opposition Leader Brian Jean has warned against “outsiders” commandeering the unification process. He prefers a grassroots movement to establish a consolidated conservative coalition. There is even a whisper campaign to take over the nascent Alberta Party, steal its name and depose its leader.

There are all sorts of small grassroots meetings held in local pubs and coffee shops. There is general, but not unanimous, agreement that something must be done. But there is no consensus on what that something might be. It reminds me of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”, when the Judean People’s Front is so preoccupied in its turf war with the People’s Front of Judea, that neither has any resources to battle their common enemy: the Roman Occupiers.

The multiplicity of uncoordinated initiatives and groups is helping no one, with the possible exception of the governing New Democrats. Alberta is the one place where the left is not calling for proportional representation nor ranked ballots!


I suppose it would be tempting to consider the Mike Duffy Saga as a Zero Sum Game—that there are proportionate winners and losers. But there have, in fact, been no winners.

Certainly not the embattled Senator. Contrary to op ed pieces appearing on ipolitics and elsewhere, Mike Duffy was in fact not vindicated nor exonerated. Being found “Not Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” and being declared “innocent” are very different pronunciations.

Although Justice Vallencourt found Duffy a credible witness and hard working, at no time was he deemed honourable, diligent in filing expense claims or even not opportunistic. Duffy’s reputation remains largely in tatters and given the financial strain of being suspended from the Senate without pay plus unknown legal bills, his relief at the verdict notwithstanding, he has suffered immeasurably.

The Senate as an institution has been severely discredited. An archaic institution, initially inhabited by persons of privilege so that no rules were required—Honourable Gentlemen, surely could be trusted. But when Canada’s aristocracy gave way to political hacks occupying the Red Chamber, nobody thought any accountability or financial oversight was required. One cannot be convicted of breaking rules that either do not exist or are too vague and nebulous to be meaningful.

Undoubtedly, the Court left its harshest criticisms for the Harper Prime Minister’s Office. In successive manoeuvers and scheming worthy of Netflix fictional President, Frank Underwood, PMO operatives were described as master manipulators, puppet and chess masters, ignoring all moral and legal considerations in pursuit of issues management.

This stunning rebuke was not stunning at all. Micromanaging Members of Parliament of both chambers, secret payments, sanitizing a Senate Audit, interfering with an Independent Audit and attempting to cover it all up, was just another day at the office for PMO staffers in the spring of 2013.

For in the early winter and spring of 2013, a lesser known member of the Conservative Caucus was waging his own battle against the “boys in short pants”. The caucus overwhelmingly supported my Private Member’s Bill providing disclosure of the salaries, bonuses and expenses of the most senior members of Canada’s public service including at the CBC. PMO policy advisors also supported the disclosure bill but in light of the unfolding Senate Expense Scandal, PMO Issues Management kyboshed this “misguided” attempt at transparency.

Exasperated staffers could not understand why a backbencher could not comprehend that a Prime Minister, under daily attack over Senate expenses, should not be further exposed to having to defend the salaries and expenses of senior civil servants. And when that unappreciative MP could not be persuaded to “take one for the team”, the chess masters went to work. Eviscerating amendments were introduced at Committee and then Members were substituted to make sure that the matter was decided by compliant team members, rather than by the regular Committee Members, who were being lobbied to save the Bill.

PMO staffers believe, or at least believed, that there is no moving part inside the Ottawa bubble beyond their reach and control. And because promotion within both the Senate and Commons Caucuses is predicated in large part on building up capital with the PM and within the PMO, the young zealots’ self promoting sense of omnipotence becomes actualized.
With all due respect to former junior minister Candace Bergen, who last week still claimed that she was not micromanaged by staffers at the PMO, she is either in denial or PMO staffers were so good at their jobs, that she did not realize she was being manipulated.

When I was in the caucus, I could measure with an egg timer the time it would take for PMO Issues Management to call and demand edits to any blog I posted that was even constructively critical of the Government. When logic failed them. PMO staffers were not beneath threatening an elected member with committee reassignment, not signing future Nomination Papers or even caucus expulsion, all in pursuit of properly managing “issues”.

Finally, the unmentioned loser in this entire debacle are the taxpayers of Canada. Not only do taxpayers pay for PMO staffers that serve not the public interest, but only the interest of the sitting prime minister, taxpayers are also on the hook for the entire dysfunctional Senate. Moreover, it appears that neither Duffy’s nor likely Senators Wallin’s or Brazeau’s disputed expenses will ever be repaid. Finally, taxpayers bear the entire cost of a trial that lasted forever: the Judge, the Court Reporters, Courthouse Security, and the Crown Prosecutors and RCMP Investigators who went 0 for 31.

I am afraid nobody benefited from the Duffy Expense Scandal, with the possible exception of Netflix producers, who might one day require plot lines for future episodes of “Houses of Cards”.


On Monday night, I made the excruciating decision to say good-bye to my loyal and loving bichon-cocker spaniel, Barney. He was a rescue dog that came to me in 2005; I am not entirely certain how old he was, but suspect he was currently either 14 or 15.  He had a great life; but the last year has been challenging. His mobility and incontinence have been steadily worsening.  He has been falling a lot; Monday he fell and could not get up; he may have had a stroke.

After a couple of hours of immobility, I decided it was time. The vet concurred.  I remember on the drive to the emergency clinic asking Barney: “I wish you could tell me what you want me to do”.  My heart broke when the doctor inserted the needle and my buddy took his last breath.

So it is through that emotional lens that I consider the debate concerning C-14, the Government’s response to the “Carter” decision on physician assisted dying. Those who have never owned pets will see no analogy whatsoever.  Those who have, know the pain and heartache.

I admit to feeling guilt—guilt over the decision that was made and alternatively, for not having made it sooner. Some close to me think I let it go on too long. I’ll never know. There are no right or wrong responses. You never know for sure when, if ever, is the right time.  In the absence of the pet being able to participate in the decision, we do the best we can, considering his welfare and quality of life.

So when I look at C-14, the starting point is informed consent. Critics of the legislation point to the absence of advance directives being able to communicate the patient’s wishes.

In Alberta, a personal directive allows a person with capacity (the maker) to appoint another person (the agent) to make personal decisions for them at some future time when the maker lacks the capacity to make them.  All provinces have some type of advanced or personal directive statute allowing the agent of an incapacitated maker to make non-financial decisions regarding residency, personal activities and associations and medical treatment.    The various provincial statutes regarding “living wills” are similar but not uniform.

The maker must have mental capacity when the directive was signed; but it takes effect when the maker lacks the mental capacity to make non-financial decisions. An Enduring Power of Attorney is the companion regime regarding the financial affairs of an individual lacking mental capacity.

It is common for personal directives to contemplate end of life care including important matters such as resuscitation and life support procedures. A personal or advance directive must be drafted carefully, as it is impossible to contemplate what medical exigency the maker may encounter years later. It is the role of the agent to make decisions in accordance with the directive but also make decisions the agent believes the maker would have made if able to do so.

I believe that fact has been lost in the current debate; in almost every circumstance involving an advance directive, it is the agent who is making decisions on behalf of the incapacitated maker.

In Alberta, at least, it is possible to sign a personal directive without appointing an agent. This is strongly not recommended.  Some makers want to create their own binding instructions on care givers.

Talk to any Estate Planning Lawyer and they will tell you how easily makers (with capacity) are confused when it comes to these complex matters.  For example, their instructions will be: “I do not want to be resuscitated”.  However, when challenged, they probably mean they do not want to be resuscitated if they are in a persistent vegetative state without reasonable hope of regaining awareness plavix 75 mg. That is an important qualifier. They probably mean they will not consent to life support.  However, if their illness or trauma is transient and there is a reasonable expectation of recovery, their instructions will be very different.

The point is these matters are complex and very fact specific and cannot contemplate all possible medical circumstances. And almost always, it is the agent making the critical decisions in consultation with care givers.

From a legal perspective, a maker can entrust an agent to make decisions regarding non-intervention (not resuscitating under specified circumstances) but an active intervention such as euthanasia is a very different matter. Although the result is likely the same, not intervening and allowing nature to take its course, and active intervention to terminate life is not a difference of degree; it is a difference of kind.

Advance directives are used in some very limited circumstances in some jurisdictions that allow physician assisted death.  The Joint Senate-Commons Committee recommended that advance directives be allowed after diagnosis with a condition that will result in eventual loss of competence.  This might satisfy the legal requirement of informed consent, as the patient at least has a diagnosis and can contemplate their future.

Our Supreme Court did not specifically deal with the issue of advance directives because the facts in ‘Carter” did not require it.  However, protection of vulnerable persons was the Court’s primary objective in granting limited access to physician assisted death.

Accordingly, contemporaneous competence to the procedure and knowledge of all of the facts and circumstances ought to be prerequisites for informed consent.

Advance directives are simply an inadequate tool to provide the level of informed consent required for such a complex and absolute instruction. For example how is “intolerable pain” objectively determined, especially by a patient lacking mental capacity and how is it communicated??

Finally, it is unfair and unrealistic to entrust this type of decision to an agent. An agent simply cannot possibly know what the maker would have wanted regarding circumstances that were not contemplated when the directive was made possibly years earlier.

I will always second guess my decision to put Barney down and when I made it; I cannot imagine being entrusted to make that decision for another human being.

I believe that the procedure must be limited to those who can give informed consent. That means competent adults, provided the other medical conditions are present. C-14 is an imperfect, but reasonable, response to an impossible and one size will never fit all moral and legal quagmire.