Bill C-14 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

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.

Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for echoing my remarks about the very positive tone that we have had in this House on a number of occasions. I think it has set a good standard for us, a standard that hopefully we can learn to aspire to on a daily basis.

I look forward to hearing the hon. member's speech. I agree with her that we need to move forward as quickly as possible to discuss the important matter of Bill C-14. I will remind the hon. member that we have already had, I believe close to 24 hours of debate on the matter of Bill C-14 in this House. I know that there are more comments to come. I have enjoyed many conversations with my colleagues on all sides of this House about the matter, and I hope that we will soon be able to resume that discussion.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will abbreviate my further comments out of respect for my colleague. I simply want the House to understand, and to make a request, that we consider making wise decisions with respect to when it is appropriate for us to move on to debating the important legislation before us.

The only other point I want to add is that, on the one hand, I want to ensure that access is available and, on the other hand, we have a real responsibility to face that if that legislative framework is not in place in due time, there will not be adequate safeguards to protect Canadians.

I know that my colleagues opposite are concerned about that. I hope we can move forward on the debate of Bill C-14 as soon as possible, which I think is so important.

I will respectfully respond to questions in very short order. I am thankful for this opportunity to speak.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it very disappointing. On a day when we are speaking about something that is extremely important, the first time in Canadian history that a prime minister has been accused of something like this, and the Minister of Health is talking about Bill C-14. There are some relevancy questions here, and I would appreciate if she would bring this back to the topic we are talking about, which is the actions of the Prime Minister, not Bill C-14.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning.

As members may know, I arrived in this House just over six months ago, along with many members here, as a representative for the first time. I represent the wonderful riding of Markham—Stouffville. It is a great honour to have the opportunity that we all have to represent the people of our own constituencies.

In that six months, I have learned a great deal from colleagues around this House. I have learned a great deal about parliamentary procedure, and I continue to learn on that matter. I have been encouraged by the professionalism and the high level of debate and discussion on issues that are so fundamentally important to Canadians.

I think about the times that I have spent in this House in that short time. One of the outstanding memories is of the evening that we sat late into the night on an emergency debate about suicide and mental health issues in indigenous communities. I remember hearing members who were moved to tears as they spoke, and seeing other members who were moved to tears as they listened to the comments that were made from all sides of the House of Commons. That was a proud evening for us as Canadians. We have debated so much important legislation, and we know that the things we talk about and the decisions we make in this House will have a fundamental influence on the lives of Canadians.

This has been a particularly challenging week for us all. It has been a week full of emotion. I certainly have had a span of emotions myself. We have had some real struggles together, and we have debated some very serious issues. Every single day, we, as parliamentarians in this House, need to live up to the expectations and the responsibility that we have to the people of Canada, the people we represent. Every day, we are put to the test to meet that challenge in the best way we can.

Today, I heard our Prime Minister deliver sincere apologies for what transpired yesterday, and that was the right course of action. To the members who have been hurt by the incident, I want to empathize and express my sincere concern for them. I trust that any comments that I or others make today would never in any way diminish the feelings of hurt that they have expressed.

We all have different experiences that we bring to the table and to this position. As a result, we experience events in our own unique and personal ways. In my life, I have had the tremendous privilege of working as a family physician. I spent almost 10 years working in sub-Saharan Africa, and then over 17 years working as a family doctor here in Ontario. I have had the privilege of being with people in some of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. I have sat with people as they have been challenged with facing recovery from illness and disability. I have seen so much generosity and so much strength of spirit and human character.

I have seen those same kinds of qualities here in this House. I have seen strength of character. I have seen resilience. I have seen compassion. I hope that, for my part, I will always be able to remain respectful and to enter into that level of conversation with members of this House. I hope that fellow members here have felt that I have provided genuine answers to sometimes challenging questions to the best of my ability during question period, and that I have endeavoured to enter into meaningful debate on these substantive matters. I have attempted to do this with respect for my colleagues and with an attempt to avoid untoward language. I hope I have succeeded, but the evaluations of my colleagues and Canadians will be the evidence of that. This is how I will try to proceed in my role as a parliamentarian.

In the atmosphere of an emotional House of Commons that we are experiencing this week, I hope that we will all, as parliamentarians, reflect on and remember the millions of Canadians who are looking at our proceedings and who will review them. I recently had a conversation with one of my staff members, who recounted the experience he had watching question period with his 10-year-old son, a delightful young man whom I have met. His son said to him that they would never be allowed to talk that way in school. That was a striking comment to hear from a wise young man.

Regardless of what transpires in this chamber, each of us has the ability to manage our own conduct. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards, and I believe we are all going to try to do that. Some days are more challenging than others, but we need to remember that we are here to advance the interests of Canadians. We are here to wrestle with challenging issues. We are here to represent the voices and the diverse perspectives of our constituents.

There are some very important issues at hand that we are going to continue to focus on. We have one legislative bill that I have been particularly involved in that is before the House of Commons. It will continue to be a focus of mine for considerable time to come. We have a responsibility to ensure that we find the solutions to the challenges before us. I look forward to continuing dialogue with members on the work that we need to complete in very short order.

I am pleased that we are having this meaningful debate on an important issue right now. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about their perspective on determining when it would be appropriate for us to move on to discussing other important matters in the House.

I have been thinking a lot about what our constituents expect of us. They expect us to lead in the House. They expect us to make important decisions and to make laws. We do that on the basis of representing the people who have elected us. We do that on the basis of consultation and seeking the very best scientific evidence we can find. We do it on the basis of sound judgment. I trust that our judgment will be deemed to be appropriate.

I want to specifically encourage members to consider some other work that we have before us in the days to come. I had the privilege of speaking to this in responding to questions yesterday, about why I believe it is so important that we try, as soon as is deemed appropriate, for us to move on to discussing the matter of Bill C-14. This is a matter that I have been deeply involved in and for which we have been under a deadline, a deadline that has put us all in a challenging situation.

The Supreme Court of Canada has asked us, the representatives of the people of Canada in the House, to put an appropriate legislative framework in place around medical assistance in dying. It has been a challenging task, and we have had to do it in a short time period. My concern is that we must meet that deadline if it is at all possible. The reason I am concerned is because we need to make sure that Canadians will have access to medical assistance in dying, as the Supreme Court has made clear that they should. If we do not have a legislative framework in place, my colleagues who are health professionals have expressed to me their concern that there would be very few medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who feel they have the appropriate framework in place to participate in medical assistance in dying.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for making the point. That is exactly what is wrong with the motion. It, essentially, enables the government to steamroll its own agenda without respect for the normal process of the House, both in debate and in the manner that the debates would be held. I appreciate his remarks.

The government has said that it offered extended hours of debate on Bill C-14, for example. However, he is quite right that those extended hours, which we refused then, before the motion was imposed, could now be imposed on the House so that members who wish to speak to, as I said, one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be considered in the House in our parliamentary lifetime would occur in the dark hours, in a marathon vote, which is obviously intended by the government as a way of talking out the clock.

I believe that if we are to truly respect this institution, if the government is to truly respect the role of an official opposition, it must respect the ability of all members of the House who wish to speak on important legislation to rise in their places and speak to the issues of the day.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I sat very patiently listening to other members address a very serious issue. I would ask that they respond in kind and listen to what I have to say on this very important issue.

We need to put things into perspective, much as I did back in the 1990s when we had members leaving their seats, suggesting all sorts of behavioural issues, much as I saw today, which included the Prime Minister and others.

I do believe that the government House leader, in a responsible fashion, has made the suggestion that we allow the matter to go before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs where in fact we will have a good healthy discussion, and where we can take into consideration many aspects of what we witnessed here today. That is indeed the responsible thing for us to do.

I continue to understand the perception of what has taken place over the last couple of days—and I know first-hand because I participated in it—as many members have in the very emotional debate with respect to Bill C-14, as the government has attempted, on numerous occasions, to allow that debate to go on so that all members would be able to speak. However, on the other side, we have seen the opposition try to—

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague will find that I will always treat him with the utmost respect, as he always treats me. I thank him for all of his outstanding work as the critic for health for his party. I look forward to many further conversations with him.

As my hon. colleague knows, I am not a lawyer. However, my understanding of the Carter decision, as I have read it and discussed it with legal colleagues, is that it is based on two specific cases. It uses the term “grievous and irremediable”. It very specifically makes the point that it does not presume to make a decision on behalf of all Canadians. Rather, it presumes to make a decision on behalf of those specific cases. I understand that within the House, and across Canada, there are various interpretations about what the implications of that are for terminal conditions.

I am aware of the decision that was made in Alberta yesterday. That decision specifically said that it was not a commentary about the charter or Bill C-14. Rather, it was a commentary about a specific case and whether it met the criteria for exemption that had been set out in this interim period. It is because of that case and the fact that we have not developed safeguards for terminality in medical assistance in dying that enforces for us why it is important we get this in place. There is very clear solid evidence that the number of physicians who are prepared to provide medical assistance in dying drops considerably with respect to non-terminal cases, and where mental illness is involved, it is even more unlikely physicians will be willing to participate.

It is a very serious matter. I look forward to further discussion and debate on this. We fundamentally believe the legislation is the right legislation for Canada.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use Quebec as an example. In the years ahead, the Quebec National Assembly will serve as an example of what a Parliament can accomplish when it sets partisanship aside.

I understand that the members of the National Assembly had more time to deal with this. Nevertheless, considering all the parties involved in the debate in Quebec, they set an example for us to follow. This absence of partisanship is a real legacy for all Quebeckers, and it shows the kind of results that can be achieved together.

Here, the only legacy that our consideration of Bill C-14 will leave for Canadians is a reminder of a dark day for democracy, when the government's sunny ways were tossed out the window.

The only thing that is remarkable about our current debate on Bill C-14 is the abuse on the part of this government. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised over and over again to be different. The only way this government is any different than the last government is that it is even worse.

Now that Quebec has become a model to be emulated in the future, does the minister really want our handling of such an important bill to become an example of what not to do?

Is this really the legacy we want to leave for our children? I think that we would not want to be remembered as a Parliament that did not work because of a government that kept imposing gag orders.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House I am extremely disappointed with respect to the government's actions. Like all new members in the House, the expectation among my residents in supporting me to come to this great place was that I was going to be able to extend my voice in the debates. As we have seen by the actions of the government, what amounts to effectively a basic dictatorship, debates have been stifled in the House.

I want to remind Canadians and I want to remind the government exactly what it said, what it handed to the Governor General in the throne speech. It is proving not to be worth the paper it was written on now. The throne speech said:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced. Parliament shall be no exception. In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

Further on in the throne speech, it says:

And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.

Four times now, with Bills C-6, C-10, C-15 and now C-14, we are seeing debate thwarted. Why the hypocrisy on the part of the government? All Canadians deserve to know.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a member of Parliament who takes this job and this decision for Bill C-14 extremely seriously.

I ask both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice, recognizing that we have had time allocations, because this is such an important bill to so many Canadians, why could they not voice their opinions when we were debating Bill C-6 and Bill C-11, so that members on this side of the House, including members from their own side, could debate something that is so sensitive?

I, myself, hosted town halls, took letters out to constituents, and spoke to a variety of different physicians and stakeholders throughout this country. Our voices, I feel, are not being heard, regardless of whether we are for or against the bill.

Similar to our member down the aisle, I, too, voted for this to go to committee. I am proud of that because I believe we need to have this open discussion. However, the opportunity for this open discussion has been closed in our faces and I find that extremely frustrating, especially when I am trying to honour my constituents' wants and needs.

Why have the members on the other side not stepped forward to the fact that Bill C-14 is important to Canadians? They should have fought for Canadians when discussing the bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that I must rise to debate time allocation on medical assistance in dying, Bill C-14. I voted for this bill at second reading and I believe the record will show I worked collaboratively with colleagues on the Conservative and Liberal sides of the House to improve the bill.

The elephant in the room is that the central feature of this bill, who is eligible for medical assistance in dying, is patently unconstitutional. It limits who is eligible to a narrower class of suffering people than the class that won a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter.

Yesterday, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously said that the Supreme Court decision cannot be limited to terminally ill people or people who are at the end of life. Virtually all credible constitutional experts agree this is unconstitutional.

For the Liberal Party, that claims it is the party of the charter, I find this so perplexing. It does not comply with the Carter case and it does not comply with the charter. The government is threatening us with untrue stories of legislative chaos if we do not pass its version of the bill.

In the name of all patients who are suffering with enduring pain but are not at end of life, who are watching the government take away their victory in the Supreme Court, how can the government justify ramming through a bill on such a sensitive issue? Why can the government not let us work together to get it right for all Canadians?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill—

Government Business Motion No. 6

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some of my comments here as well and perhaps provide a little bit more for the government House leader to consider as he goes and prepares his remarks.

I will keep my remarks very short, because I think what most members of the House would like to do is debate Bill C-14, which is a bill that could have been called on Monday, on Tuesday morning, or earlier today before the dilatory motions. As the government House leader said during question period, in essence, the Liberals just pulled the fire alarm.

Simply put, Motion No. 6 is a disgrace and not worthy of a democracy such as ours. It is an affront to the dignity of the House and its members.

Motion No. 6 is a complete quashing of the opposition's ability to hold the government to account. It is the total disempowerment of certain members of Parliament, who were sent here by 60.5% of Canadian voters. Motion No. 6 is indirectly disenfranchising every one of those voters through the draconian measures set out.

Beauchesne's, sixth edition, outlines some elements of the Constitution Act and our system of government, which I believe is relevant to this very point. It states:

Canada thus was ensured a responsible Cabinet system with the assumption that there will always be a recognizable government with a legislative programme. If the electorate so wishes, the system also presupposes an Opposition ready and willing to attack the Government in an attempt to have its legislation altered or rejected.... More tentative are such traditional features, as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a Government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.

On May 2, 2000, during a discussion of the rule of time allocation at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the former clerk of the House of Commons, Robert Marleau, responded to a question regarding the Speaker's authority to protect the minority in the manner described earlier. The former clerk said, “it exists...intrinsically in the role of the speakership”, and continued, “all the time, where there can be tyranny on either side. It could be the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority.”

My interpretation of what the clerk said is that there exists a limit to what a majority government can do.

In an earlier point of order, I described how Speaker Fraser ruled on the government tactic of skipping over Routine Proceedings in order to get to a point where time allocation could be moved. On one occasion in 1986, he disallowed it, whereas on other occasions he allowed it.

If there was ever a point when a Speaker should intervene to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, Motion No. 6 is it.

Parliament is fundamentally about debate. It is also about the right to dissent in a civilized manner. Genuine political opposition is a necessary attribute of democracy, tolerance, and trust, and the ability of citizens to resolve differences by a peaceful means. The existence and tolerance of an opposing view is essential to the functioning of government.

I have more to say on this, but I would like to reserve the right to come back at a later time when the House is not up against the clock on such an important bill as Bill C-14.

However, Mr. Speaker, I do ask you to consider that Motion No. 6 is a completely unprovoked response to a situation that simply did not exist. I would invite the government to show me one example of a dilatory motion being moved by either opposition party when it came to the legislative agenda that the government is currently putting forward.

The Liberals are unilaterally withdrawing every single tool that the opposition has to propose alternate subjects of debate, they are ignoring the good work of committees, they are preventing members of Parliament from debating such things as motions to instruct a committee, and they are completely changing the rules around the clock and the calendar.

Therefore, I would like to come back to the House at a later time, but being cognizant of what little time left the House has to debate Bill C-14, because of the tactics of the government, I will yield the floor at this time.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and I want to start by quoting this from yesterday's unanimous decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal:

...the declaration of invalidity on Carter does not require that the applicant be terminally ill.... The decision itself is clear. No words in it suggest otherwise.... The interpretation urged on us by [the Government of] Canada is not sustainable.

In light of this, would the government be willing to entertain the amendments now before this place at report stage to ensure that Bill C-14 is compliant with the charter?

National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that we support this private member's bill. We think this bill is important. We certainly would not describe this bill as coming in by the back door. This bill was introduced by a member of Parliament who was duly elected by his constituents. He came in here through the front door. We are pleased to welcome this bill through the front door, even though it is a private member's bill. To us there is no distinction to be made, contrary to what other colleagues may have said in the past. Private members' bills are important, and I like to reiterate that every chance I get.

On those fine words, we are in favour of this bill. I want to acknowledge the very positive way in which it was introduced. We have here a newly elected member of Parliament, much like myself, who took over from his predecessor in Kingston and the Islands and was privy to a situation that a person shared with him in his riding office.

People watching us on television think that parliamentarians argue all day long. That is simply not true. What we do here in the House is just one part of our work as MPs, because we work a lot in our ridings. In fact we spend more than half our time there. When we meet with Canadians, talk to them, and listen to them, we grasp the essence of our work. That is exactly what happened to the member for Kingston and the Islands. He met in his office with a constituent who had a concern, then he presented the concern here in the House by the front door and not the back door, and that is a good thing.

What is the bill about? The bill would let a woman take preventive leave and receive maternity benefits if her job could have a negative impact on her pregnancy. We must understand that this type of situation is becoming increasingly common. When I say that, I am not being negative, but constructive. That is today's reality.

A few decades ago we could not imagine there would be female welders, such as our colleague's constituent, but today we know that there are no gender-specific jobs. Every job is open to everyone. Men and women alike can do any job there is. However, this leads to situations, in welding for example, where workers are exposed to chemicals or have to do physically demanding work where they have to stand up, bend, stoop, and do other things that might have an impact on a pregnancy. We do not need to be doctors to know that. It is obvious that this is a cause for concern. That is why we are in favour of this bill.

It should be noted that this type of approach, preventive withdrawal, has been around in Quebec for years. I know what I am talking about because my riding is in Quebec.

I would like to share our concerns in that regard. We agree with the principle. I cannot emphasize that enough. We are going to vote in favour of the bill. I just want to reassure everyone of that. However, this bill clearly opens a door that could have significant financial implications. Similar legislation in Quebec has had such implications. I tried to determine exactly how much it costs. That is very difficult because it changes a lot over time. In Quebec, we know that 20% of pregnant women take preventive leave. They may include women who work in hair salons with certain chemicals or nurses who come into contact with sick people, obviously, or chemicals or medical products. They may also include teachers who use chalkboards and other products. We need to be aware that this measure could cost a lot of money. We need to be aware of that. We are talking about 20%, which means that one in five pregnant women in Quebec takes this sort of leave.

Recently, we have been talking a lot about Bill C-14, which, as members know, follows on similar legislation in Quebec. I have been reminded of the Quebec model many times in the past few hours.

To get back to the topic at hand, if the government were to model this system after Quebec's and one out of every five women were to take medical leave, that means 75,000 women would have access to this type of leave. We are not opposed to that. We need to be aware of this reality. However, this could end up costing an additional $245 million. We need to be aware of this. We need to take this into consideration. Either we believe in it or we do not. If we do, we need to do what is necessary.

Since this is a private member's bill that came through the front door, we need to recognize that it cannot have any financial implications. However, this bill could ultimately have some financial implications. We need to keep that in mind.

We completely agree with the other part of the bill, which proposes striking a committee and holding consultations with Canadians. Consultations seems to be a popular word these days. Consultations will help us get to the bottom of this issue, assess the situation, take a look at the Quebec experience, identify what works and what does not work, and learn from what is going on in Quebec, so that we can improve the approach.

I would remind members that we completely agree with the principle. We are cautious about the potential financial implications, and we are open to the discussions and conversations that we, as parliamentarians, need to have with all Canadians on this issue.

We believe in families and we believe that the government should assist families. We support that, but it needs to be done in a positive, constructive manner. We fully recognize that these days, there is no longer such a thing as men's work and women's work. All professions are open to everyone. This is what leads to improvements and enhancements to our laws, regulations and approaches regarding the maternity rights of all Canadian women.

Naturally, we want millions of children to be born here in this big, beautiful country.