In recent weeks, the story of one terminal cancer patient who had to be transferred out of Providence Health so that she could be euthanized was reported on by various news outlets. These stories prompted Health Minister Adrian Dix to promise that he would talk to Providence Health and pressure them to provide euthanasia on site.
Providence Health, “inspired by the healing ministry of Jesus Christ… is a Catholic health care community dedicated to meeting the physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of those served through compassionate care, teaching and research,” according to its mission statement. For the past decades, denominational health care providers have operated through a master agreement between the province and the denominational health care facilities association. This agreement allows religious health care providers to partner with the provincial government but still retain “the right to determine in the context of their respective values and traditions the mission and values of the owner so as to preserve the spiritual nature of the facility.”
In other words, this agreement allowed religious health care providers like Providence Health to opt out of providing things they thought were immoral, such as abortion, contraception, or euthanasia.
But now the provincial government is under pressure to scrap or renegotiate this agreement. This would lead to the province either defunding Providence Health and possibly taking over their facilities (as happened already with Delta Hospice) or forcing Providence Health to provide euthanasia against their ethical, conscientious, and religious convictions. Unlike Delta Hospice, Providence Health is a big player in health care in Vancouver. It operates ten different institutions in Vancouver and is in the midst of building a brand new, 548-bed St. Paul’s Hospital at a cost of $2.1 billion in partnership with the provincial government.
In his promise to pressure Providence Health into providing euthanasia, Minister Dix ignores two key pieces of history and an important legal reality.
First of all, the government is relatively new to delivering health care. Until the late twentieth century, churches and civil society shouldered the bulk of the duty to care for the sick and dying. In many cases, this health care came at great personal cost. Governments were absent.
One ancient example is the Justinian Plague, during the dying days of the Roman Empire, when most citizens in Rome hid indoors to avoid catching the plague, leaving the sick and dying to fend for themselves. The exception was the Christians, who took it upon themselves to care for those infected by the plague to either help them recover or to comfort them during their last days. The Roman Emperor Julian, although an opponent to the Christian faith, nevertheless marvelled that they “care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them.”
A more recent example is Mother Theresa, a devout Catholic from Macedonia who moved to India to minister to the sick and needy. Her compassion and mission to live out her faith in service to the sick have inspired countless others.
When it comes to health care, the primary role of governments has been to ensure that every person has the financial means to obtain health care, not to dictate how the sick are cared for. The main objective of Canadian health care policy, set out by the Canada Health Act, “is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.” It accomplishes this objective by making the government the single payer for all medically necessary services. Governments should amplify rather than supplant religiously motivated efforts to care for the sick.
This was precisely why BC’s Denominational Health Care Facilities Association agreement was struck in 1995. Its purpose was to further the partnership between the provincial government (as the single payer for health care) and religious organizations (as one of many providers of health care) to care for the sick and dying. Scrapping the agreement or forcing religious institutions to violate their moral principles is equivalent to saying to the oldest player in health care, “Thank you for your service; now beat it.”
Which brings us to the second lesson from history. For thousands of years, health care practitioners have followed the Hippocratic oath. That oath includes the promise to use “regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.” Patients could be confident that a physician was seeking to preserve their life and restore their health. Euthanasia was anathema.
This ethical standard was reflected in the Canadian Criminal Code, which outlawed euthanasia, assisted suicide, as well as counselling or encouraging someone to end their life. Euthanasia and assisted suicide were serious crimes.
Unfortunately, that changed when the Supreme Court and Parliament jointly legalized what they euphemistically called Medical Assistance in Dying. Over two thousand years of devotion to preserving the health of patients and doing no harm was thrown out the window.
Yes, euthanasia is now legal in Canada. That does not mean that every health care professional or institution, even if partially funded by the government, is obligated to provide euthanasia. Legal does not mean obligatory. There may be very good reasons why we don’t allow care aids to administer euthanasia and why not every small-town hospital in BC provides open heart surgery. By way of analogy, the legalization of marijuana does not mean that governments are obligated to provide everyone with the substance or force other institutions to provide it.
It is absurd that any institution should be criminally investigated, as Providence Health was, for not doing something that was a serious crime only 7 years ago, namely killing someone at her request.
Providence Health also has the constitution on its side. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience and religion (which protects individual health care practitioners from being forced to provide euthanasia against their religious or conscientious convictions), but also freedom of association. Taken together, these freedoms protect a religious health care institution’s choice to refuse to engage in a practice for religious and moral reasons.
When Dr. George Carson, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Saskatchewan quoted in an article by Daphne Bramham, says that “conscientious objection for a building — particularly one supported by taxpayers — makes no sense,” he fundamentally mistakes what an association is. Providence Health isn’t a building. Providence Health is a collection of health care professionals and support staff who have freely associated together to serve a common cause: “inspired by the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, Providence Health Care is a Catholic health care community dedicated to meeting the physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of those served through compassionate care, teaching and research.”
Providence Health operates 20 of 68 palliative care beds in the Coast Health region and is in the middle of constructing, in partnership with the provincial government, a new and expanded St. Paul’s Hospital. In a province that is in dire need of more palliative care beds (and more health care capacity in general), the Premier and the Health Minister shouldn’t be picking ideological battles with religious health care providers. Instead, to better serve its citizens, the government should be asking: how can we form more, new, and better partnerships with faith-based institutions to provide the services that British Columbians need?
So… could you spare five minutes of your time to send your MLA and Minister Dix a note, voicing your support for Providence Health’s right to operate according to their religious convictions?
In a disappointing ruling released last night, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld the prohibition of in-person worship services. These restrictions were first implemented on November 19th, 2020, and continue to this day.
Many Christians will be very disappointed, perhaps even angry, with this decision. Reformed Christians have an earnest, deeply-held belief that they must both respect the governing authorities and gather regularly to worship with other believers. The absolute prohibition of in-person worship services placed many Christians in an unfair dilemma, making it very difficult to balance both of these convictions. This decision perpetuates the tension between obeying the government and obeying the requirements of one’s faith.
The churches at the centre of this case argued that these restrictions infringed their freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association – all four of the Charter’s fundamental freedoms. Chief Justice Hinkson agreed that all four fundamental freedoms were infringed yet decided that these infringements were reasonable given the circumstances. He ruled that these infringements are reasonable and justifiable in “a free and democratic society” (s. 1 of the Charter).
We can be thankful that the Chief Justice recognized the profound impact these absolute prohibitions have on religious communities. But we should also be gravely concerned that he does not seem to have an appreciation for how central gathered worship is to Christians. In the judgement, Chief Justice Hinkson suggests that because both secular and religious schools can gather, that the current restrictions do not disadvantage those with religious beliefs. But this fails to appreciate the centrality of gathered worship to Christian communities. It is small comfort for a child to be able to gather with other Christians for the purpose of learning at school, but not to gather for the purpose of worship at church.
While administrative decision-makers like Public Health Officers do require a level of deference due to their expertise, Charter rights cannot be ignored even in a pandemic. The government is still obligated to consider and respect the rights and freedoms of its citizens when crafting laws and regulations.
Unfortunately, this decision risks entrenching unfair treatment against minority religious communities. The provincial leaders of British Columbia prohibit in-person worship services while they continued to permit in-person activities at bars, restaurants, gyms, and most other businesses. Constitutionally protected activities – such as practicing one’s religion at a corporate worship service – are disallowed, while trivial activities – purchasing a pair of socks at any big box store – are permitted. This decision entrenches unfair treatment against religious activities.
ARPA Canada had the opportunity to intervene in the case, zeroing in on how the COVID-19 restrictions unfairly and unequally impacted churches. Chief Justice Hinkson interacted with ARPA’s arguments on a number of occasions and accepted a number of ARPA’s legal propositions. For example, he does recognize that the government’s authority over religious communities is not absolute, a point that ARPA raised in its submissions. In paragraph 200, Hinkson states, “Religious bodies have a sphere of independent spiritual authority, at the core of which is the authority to determine their own membership, doctrines, and religious practices, including the manner of worship.” This admission from the court is worth celebrating.
An important element of the reasonableness test for justifying Charter rights infringements is the minimal impairment test. That is, if the government is going to infringe our fundamental freedoms, they must choose a way that impairs the right minimally. When every other province – and even British Columbia for the first half of the pandemic – seems able to accommodate worship services at some capacity, whether a cap of 100 people or a percentage of a building, we feel that the absolute prohibition in British Columbia cannot be minimally impairing. This might be an issue to bring to the Court of Appeal for clarification. If the PHO can allow other gatherings to resume with enhanced safety protocols and enforcement, we do not think it is constitutionally justifiable to refuse the same treatment to worship services but simply to continue an absolute ban with respect to them.
Despite this decision, this issue lives on. The churches that initiated the case have the right to appeal the decision to the BC Court of Appeal. Even if the case is not successfully appealed, a collection of Canadian Reformed Churches and the Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver have also filed their own judicial reviews on the Public Health Officer’s denial of their request for reasonably accommodate in-person worship services in their fact-specific cases.
Christians across the province should continue to call for Dr. Bonnie Henry to repeal or relax these restrictions on in-person worship services. Religious convictions and practices can’t be discarded because they are inconvenient, carry some degree of risk, are not considered as valuable as ‘economic’ or ‘educational’ activities, or are not universally practiced by all British Columbians. They are fundamental to the people of faith who practice them. That is why they are enshrined as fundamental freedoms in the constitution. Christians should continue to abide by reasonable health protocols to help prevent the spread of the virus, but the freedom to act upon their religious convictions must be recognized by the government.
ARPA will be submitting written documents by October 5th and the actual court date for oral arguments will be November 2nd.
Secondly, just last week, ARPA’s team wrapped up its written arguments in the Trinity Western Law School case. André Schutten points out ARPA’s unique position, “ARPA is the only intervenor that’s arguing exclusively Section 15, which is the guarantee in the Charter that every individual in Canada has the right to equal treatment in law.” When a government body such as a Law Society gets in the way of Christians to be licensed as a lawyer, that would be “an infringement of the equality right” that’s guaranteed in Section 15, according to Schutten.
That case is due in court over two days on November 30th and December 1st.
The following article by ARPA’s Legal Counsel André Schutten was published in the Ottawa Citizen on August 23, 2013: 
For a democracy to flourish, governments must respect the fundamental freedoms of its citizens, four of which are outlined in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first one, freedom of religion, and the fourth one, freedom of association, are especially important in the discussion surrounding the recent decision by Christian Horizons to open its employment to any and all.
Christian Horizons is a Christian charity that provides assistance to people living with special needs, especially those with complex developmental disabilities and challenges. It is the largest of hundreds of different organizations that contract with the Ontario government to provide these types of specialized care services.
Christian Horizons, until this week, limited its hiring to Christian employees as defined by a statement of faith. It should be noted that Christian Horizons actually eliminated their morality and lifestyle code already a few years ago – the decision this week was to remove the statement of faith requirement for front line workers.
The Citizen, in an editorial published earlier this week, suggested that “under no circumstances should a charity that is largely funded by taxpayers be allowed to impose its moral values on everyone else.” I agree with this statement. The question then is this: was Christian Horizons imposing its moral values on everyone else? In my view, it wasn’t. It was only imposing its moral values on itself.
This writer hits the nail on the head This writer hits the nail on the head (more…)
The ridiculous nature of human rights in Canada is in full display this week as news spreads of the complaint from a woman who was denied a men’s haircut at a barber shop that only cuts men’s hair. As Ezra Levant (more…)
Globe and Mail, Sept 6 2012: An Ottawa-area Conservative MP says Canada’s largest union of federal public servants shouldn’t have endorsed separatist parties during the Quebec election and is calling for new rules allowing members to opt out of paying dues.
The proposal from MP Pierre Poilievre is similar to “right-to-work” legislation that has been adopted by more than 20 U.S. states, provoking heated debate and resistance from unions.
“I cannot imagine how it could possibly be in the interests of a Canadian public servant for the union to back a separatist party,” Mr. Poilievre said in an interview. “And yet that is precisely what PSAC has done.”
A day before Tuesday’s Quebec election, the National Capital Region branch of the Public Service Alliance of Canada announced the results of its assessment of the Quebec parties “on the basis of their positions on workers’ and citizens’ rights, public services and unions.”
Based on that criteria, it ranked the Parti Québécois first, Québec Solidaire (which also supports a sovereign Quebec) second, followed by the Liberal Party and the Coalition Avenir Québec. Keep reading
Globe and Mail, Sept 6 2012: An Ottawa-area Conservative MP says Canada’s largest union of federal public servants shouldn’t have endorsed separatist parties during the Quebec election and is calling for new rules allowing members to opt out of paying dues.
The proposal from MP Pierre Poilievre is similar to “right-to-work” legislation that has been adopted by more than 20 U.S. states, provoking heated debate and resistance from unions.
“I cannot imagine how it could possibly be in the interests of a Canadian public servant for the union to back a separatist party,” Mr. Poilievre said in an interview. “And yet that is precisely what PSAC has done.”
A day before Tuesday’s Quebec election, the National Capital Region branch of the Public Service Alliance of Canada announced the results of its assessment of the Quebec parties “on the basis of their positions on workers’ and citizens’ rights, public services and unions.”
Based on that criteria, it ranked the Parti Québécois first, Québec Solidaire (which also supports a sovereign Quebec) second, followed by the Liberal Party and the Coalition Avenir Québec. Keep reading
The National Post recently ran a story ran a story about housing advertisements in Ontario that are clearly running afoul of the (more…)
ARPA Note: This is not the first case of a Reformed business person who has been charged with a human rights complaint. Learn more about the HRC’s here, and attached to this posting find our article about how to apply our faith in the business world in an age of human rights complaints.
AM 980: A human rights complaint is in the process of being filed against the Trails End Farmer’s Market on Dundas Street because of an ultimatum issued to a vendor to remove a transgendered employee from the premises. The vendor in question is “True 2 You”, a local company that sells candles, incense, oils, and air fresheners. Market officials were concerned transgendered individuals compromised their “family friendly atmosphere.” Keep reading