Article content continued

Does the Supreme Court have a better understanding of the prime minister’s legislative capacities than the prime minister does?

Under ordinary circumstances, a year might have been adequate. But last year was not ordinary: an election was to be held in the fall; all three major parties were deeply involved in preparations for the campaign, which was called in August and was one of the longest in history. The vote ended in the former Conservative government’s defeat and the introduction of a new Liberal government under an untried leader, who naturally required time to find his feet. A full six months of the court’s 12-month deadline was thus lost to electoral matters. It would have been highly contentious for the Tories to produce a quick new law on such a vital matter in the fevered months before an election. It would be unreasonable to expect their Liberal replacements to do so within weeks of coming to office.

The Liberal request for an extra six months was thus quite reasonable. Euthanasia, after all, is a difficult issue fraught with moral concerns. Further, as provinces maintain jurisdiction over health care, whatever federal law the government produces will need to mesh with provincial practices. Quebec’s own end-of-life law came into effect in December.

Rather than give the Liberals the time they said they needed, the court chose only to grant the four months lost during the election. To add to the peculiarity of its judgment, it ruled that Quebec will be granted an exception and individual Canadians will also be allowed to apply to a superior court in their home province for “relief in accordance with the criteria” set out in its February ruling. The CBC reported that one Quebec City patient had died with the help of a physician, a first in Canada.