This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assistance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.
This enactment also makes related amendments to other Acts to ensure that recourse to medical assistance in dying does not result in the loss of a pension under the Pension Act or benefits under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. It amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that no investigation need be conducted under section 19 of that Act in the case of an inmate who receives medical assistance in dying.
This enactment provides for one or more independent reviews relating to requests by mature minors for medical assistance in dying, to advance requests and to requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.
Lastly, this enactment provides for a parliamentary review of its provisions and of the state of palliative care in Canada to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I would remind the hon. member to speak in the third person, through the Speaker.
The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga has the floor for questions and comments.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more concerning the job of the Supreme Court and the job of this legislature. The Supreme Court has overturned the will of this legislature, which has been expressed probably 15 times since 1991, clearly rejecting initiatives to allow physician-assisted suicide. Therefore, I agree with my colleague on that.
I have a question for my colleague that is actually posed by Dr. Will Johnston, a medical doctor from Vancouver. He says:
...can you imagine end of life care so good that you would set aside your demand for assisted suicide? If you can, let's continue to create such care. If you can't or won't, your focus would seem to be on suicide rather than the relief of suffering and you are likely to do more harm than good.
Does it actually give Canadians a real choice when we currently have palliative care only available to approximately 30% of our population of those who would need palliative care? Does it give them a choice if we offer them physician-assisted suicide on one hand, but cannot offer them actual available, affordable palliative care on the other?
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have already answered my colleague concerning palliative care. I repeat that, 40 years ago, it was said to be the only way to manage end-of-life care.
However, in 40 years, palliative care has not become more accessible. Indeed, there is an accessibility problem. Therefore, that is not the only solution.
Nevertheless, Quebec was very careful to place end-of-life care within the continuum of assistance in dying and comprehensive palliative care. Therefore I do not think that is antithetical or contradictory.
There are diseases and afflictions that make people suffer. There are no drugs that can take away the pain or suffering of those people who are dying or afflicted.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and members of the House in regard to what I am about to propose, three separate motions. I will propose one at a time, asking for unanimous consent. The first one reads:
That, in relation to the annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committee and the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors, annual conference, ten members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories in August, 2016, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I am afraid we do not have unanimous consent.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell you that I will share my time with my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh.
As a new member, I had, for my very first experience on a committee, the immense privilege of sitting on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. It was a privilege in a number of respects. First, I was there with my colleague from Victoria, who shared with me his experience as well as his expertise as a constitutional lawyer. He was very generous in allowing me to work with him in the committee.
It was also a privilege because it was an opportunity to learn about all the work that had been done since February 6, 2015, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Carter case. We read the report of the group of experts that criss-crossed Canada throughout last summer and fall and met with everyone interested in the issue of medical assistance in dying. They also met with people in the various American states that have had medical assistance in dying for 10 or 20 years. They went to Europe. They reported to us on everything they had learned about medical assistance in dying. We also read the report of the group of provincial and territorial experts. Although Quebec was the trailblazer, working on the issue for six years and passing a law on end-of-life care last December, several provinces have studied the issue.
It was also a privilege to hear over 60 witnesses who came to present their points of view, whether as legal experts or as physicians. We met with representatives of different professional associations such as nurses and pharmacists. I found it really rewarding to hear all these witnesses and to better understand the different points of view. Indeed, on the subject of medical assistance in dying, as has been noted, there can be an opinion and its counter-argument. It was in light of all these views that we arrived at our recommendations. However, the particularly rewarding aspect of sitting on this committee was the commitment of the 11 MPs and five senators who gave full meaning to the term “working together”.
As a member of this committee, I developed a great sense of fellowship with all these parliamentarians. In spite of our differing views, we took the time to listen to each other, and we were respectful in our work. We spent dozens if not hundreds of hours working together. In spite of our differences of opinion, we were all committed to arriving at the best possible outcome.
This commitment to so complex and delicate a subject was for me a truly useful experience. Unfortunately, when I reported for the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the first evening when we did the clause-by-clause study and when we considered what I regard as the most significant amendments dealing with the most fundamental elements of the bill, I did not feel at all that open-mindedness, that commitment on the part of the Liberal representatives sitting on that committee. I did not feel that same willingness to listen to each other to arrive at the best possible outcome.
That evening, I was very disappointed to see that certain committee members quite simply did not seem to want to be there. They may have been checking their email, because they spent a lot of time with their noses buried in their tablets or looking at the ceiling. They mechanically voted against the amendments proposed by the opposition. Viewed from the outside, they seemed to be acting like good little soldiers.
In the special joint committee, we did indeed arrive at one dissenting report, a supplementary opinion. However, throughout our work on the 21 recommendations, we had this desire to reach the best possible outcome on this very difficult subject.
Since tabling our report, I have fallen into the habit of saying that it will be relevant for at least 10 years. Of course, I did not expect the government to take all of our recommendations into account. In so short a time, that was not possible.
Basically, what the Supreme Court has told us is that medical assistance in dying is a right. Since it is a right, therefore, we were motivated throughout our discussions and our work by the desire to be sure not to discriminate against anyone. However, this evening I will be obliged to vote against this bill, even though I have invested hundreds of hours of work in it and even though I have read thousands of pages and heard all those witnesses. For me, reasonably foreseeable natural death is a ground of discrimination, based on age, for example.
As a member of the special joint committee, I had the opportunity to take time to meet with my constituents. I wanted to seek out the wisdom of those who work with persons at the end of life before taking a position on the various recommendations. I wanted to test my assumptions and my thoughts. I had the opportunity to meet, for example, with Les Amis du crépuscule. This community organization in my riding works every day with persons at the end of their lives. Those workers told me that they would respectfully welcome anything that we would decide, because they welcome the choices that people make. Indeed, the question of medical assistance in dying is essentially a question of choice. One person may choose to request such assistance. Another, who for reasons of conscience or other reasons cannot accept calling for medical assistance in dying, need only refrain from requesting it.
These meetings made me realize just how unavailable palliative care is in our communities. The member for Victoria and I made note of this in our supplementary opinion in the report of the special joint committee. My riding includes the Hôtel-Dieu, one of the largest hospitals for long-term care in Quebec. Hundreds of persons die there every year. There are only 12 beds for palliative care. We have one home that accommodates people at the end of life who are suffering from cancer. This home receives 800 applications per year and can accept only 200.
Some people have told me that, if they have to be ill as they end their lives, they want to have quality care and to live with dignity beforehand, so they can die with dignity. This was a very strong message for me, because fundamentally, we must remember that this bill is intended to ensure that each of our fellow citizens is able to die with dignity.
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.
However, I happen to disagree. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I take exception to the fact that she mentioned that during the very considerable and time-consuming debate on the amendments before the committee, the Liberals were not interested, not listening, or not working in the best interests of Canadians. The fact that we happen to disagree with some of the amendments that were put forward by the parties opposite does not mean that we were not taking our job seriously. I do not think it was fair to characterize it in those terms.
There were in fact 16 amendments made at committee, some proposed by the NDP, some by the Bloc, and some by the Conservative Party. We worked collaboratively on things such as amending the preamble and putting palliative care in it, as well as amending conscience rights to include a clause to ensure that nothing could compel anyone to perform the service.
I note as well that the NDP voted against almost all, if not all, of the proposals by the Conservative Party. Therefore, for her to say that Liberals were not interested would cause me to wonder if the New Democrats were not interested in listening when other amendments from other parties were put forward.
My question is this. Does she not agree that Liberals worked collaboratively and that the 16 amendments did improve the bill at committee?
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my colleague was offended by what I said.
What I said is that there is a difference in how the two committees operated. I invite him to talk to his colleagues who were there the evening we first began studying the bill clause by clause and his colleagues who sat on the special joint committee because there were really two completely different work atmospheres.
Members cannot vote for conflicting amendments. Yesterday evening, I voted for some amendments and against others.
I asked some of my Liberal colleagues who sat on the special joint committee whether they were able to share their opinions on medical assistance in dying and the topics discussed by the special joint committee with their caucus. One of them told me that the government is moving in one direction and going against it would be like trying to paddle against the current at Niagara Falls. I do not understand that attitude when we are examining such an important bill.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I had the privilege of working with on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, for her input.
I am pleased to hear that she is going to vote against this bill. She is voting against it for different reasons than I am, but I would like to ask her this. It looks very probable, based on last night's vote, that this bill will pass, at least in the House. Assuming the bill passes, would my colleague at least agree that we have to do better on conscience protection?
Right now, there is a weak statement in the preamble, which is not part of the bill. There is another statement in the actual bill that says nothing compels an individual to participate, but there is no ironclad protection for physicians, medical workers, and medical professionals, and especially for institutions. I wonder if my colleague would agree that there should at least be more robust protections in this bill for medical workers, and health care institutions.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, this evening, some members will vote against this bill for conflicting reasons. The government will have accomplished that.
With regard to conscientious objection, I believe that, if certain people do not want medical assistance in dying because of conscientious objection, all they have to do is not ask for it. With regard to health professionals, the joint special committee clearly established that some aspects of health fall under federal jurisdiction, while others fall under provincial jurisdiction.
In my opinion, the role of doctors and the way they do their work falls under the responsibility of professional bodies and provincial jurisdiction. I feel like telling my colleague that a doctor who refuses to provide medical assistance in dying should at least give the patient some direction.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Environment; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.