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.

Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present my private member's bill known as the protection of freedom of conscience act. With the introduction of Bill C-14, I have heard from many Canadians. I think all of us in this House have heard that Bill C-14 has a gaping hole: it does not protect the conscience rights of Canadians. The Carter decision required that conscience rights be protected for medical health care professionals. This is not included in Bill C-14. The government has said that it does not compel but it also does not protect conscience rights. Therefore, I am proud and thankful to represent all Canadians with respect to a pan-Canadian approach to protect the conscience rights of health care professionals with the passage of this bill, the protection of freedom of conscience act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important that we meet the June 6 deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The object of this piece of legislation is to ensure that we balance personal autonomy and provide protection to the vulnerable. If we do not have legislation in place as of June 6, there will be no safeguards in place, and the medical practitioners will have uncertainty with respect to the eligibility criteria around somebody who wants to access medical assistance in dying.

The Supreme Court of Canada said two things. It said that an absolute prohibition on medical assistance in dying is unconstitutional, and it put it to Parliament to do our job, to put in place a substantive piece of legislation that reflects the diversity of views that exist in this country. That is what Bill C-14 does.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult debate because it is not about Bill C-14. It is about democracy in this place. The reason it is not democracy is that for the last four years under the majority Conservative government, we saw the illegitimate use of closure more than 100 times in this place. We looked to the new government and we believed in the mandate that there would be greater respect for opposition parties.

My faith in that was crushed by the decision of the hon. House leader to insist that Liberals at committee pass a motion that deprived me of my rights at report stage. Now we have closure on this matter.

I have the utmost respect for the Minister of Justice. I hold her in high esteem, so I ask her this question. In balancing the harms, the harm to democracy in this place versus the risk that taking the time to do Bill C-14 right might take us beyond June 6, would there be harm done? That is my key point as a lawyer. The Supreme Court of Canada decision could take effect. We could be late having royal assent and there could be a—

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the aisle about the sensitive nature, the deeply emotional, and complex realities in our consideration of Bill C-14. Putting in place a medical assistance in dying regime in our country is transformative. It is a paradigm shift.

There has been substantive debate. There have been submissions made by 84 members in the House. There was ample opportunity to debate this.

Ten members from the member opposite's party had the opportunity to speak, and members from his party stopped speaking last night at 11:00 o'clock.

We need to fundamentally ensure that we meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline of June 6. We are endeavouring to do so to ensure we can get this substantive piece of legislation through the parliamentary process to comply with the Supreme Court's deadline.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolute rubbish, and it is shameful. The opposition parties were very clear that we wanted to debate the issue throughout the week. That was the initial government offer. Now we are seeing a shameful backtracking from the government.

The Liberals promised sunny ways. They promised that they would respect opposition parties in the House. I remember them promising as well that they would respect parliamentary debate in this place. They had no better opportunity to prove they would actually walk the talk than on Bill C-14, which is a non-partisan issue to which I think all members of Parliament want to give voice.

However, now we are seeing, shamefully, the use of closure to shut down what should have been a non-partisan debate through the course of this week.

What is even more appalling is that in the previous government, it would allow five days of debate. The Liberals are shutting this down after two-and-a-half days of debate, only. Why are sunny ways turning to dark ways, and why are Liberals shutting down debate on the bill after only two-and-a-half days?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak about this. We recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada has put in place a deadline of June 6. We respect the Supreme Court of Canada in terms of responding to the Carter decision and have put forward Bill C-14 to do just that.

There has been substantive debate in the House. We have had over 21 hours of debate. Eighty-four members of Parliament, from every party in the House, have had the opportunity to speak.

We need to ensure we meet the court's deadline. We need to get this into committee so if amendments are proposed, they can be proposed at the committee stage.

I would further respectfully submit that yesterday we tried to extend the sitting hours as late as necessary to ensure that all MPs who wanted to speak had the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, the opposition decided to limit the hours of debate.

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

moved:

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 at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Barreau du Québec submitted a brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that confirms that Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying does not meet the requirements set out by the Supreme Court in the Carter decision.

I happen to know that there are a few government MPs who are also members of the Barreau du Québec, and I am sure they could confirm the credibility of the representatives from the Barreau for the minister, if necessary.

Will the government, which includes 40 MPs from Quebec, nine of which are members of the Barreau du Québec, amend Bill C-14 to address the gaps outlined by the Barreau du Québec?

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you canvass the House you will find there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Monday, May 2, 2016, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), at second reading and when no Member rises to speak, or at midnight on that sitting day, whichever is earlier, the debate be deemed adjourned, and the House deemed adjourned until the next sitting day.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am aware of the excellent work of Dr. Naylor and I am pleased that she has had such an illustrious career in palliative care.

One of the reasons that we introduced Bill C-14 was the fact that Canadians need access to all options for care at the end of life. We are committed in this government to make sure, as the Supreme Court has indicated, that people have access to assistance in dying, and I am pleased that people like Dr. Naylor are also providing assistance for people to live well until the end of their lives.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we will complete the debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day on the Canadian dairy industry.

Tomorrow we will begin an important debate at second reading on Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying.

Next week, as my friend pointed out, we will be back in our ridings working hard to meet the people who elected us and sent us here.

When the House returns on Monday, May 2, we will continue our second reading debate of Bill C-14. I hope that we can sit late on Monday and Tuesday of that week so that all members who want to speak to this important bill can do so.

On Wednesday, the House will begin second reading debate on Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, 2016, No. 1. We will continue that important debate on Thursday.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to take this opportunity to wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

moved:

That the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my remarks.

First, I want to thank you for your ruling. I think you approached it with the gravity it deserves, and you had excellent examples to cite.

As mentioned in the ruling, the details around the case have not really been disputed; therefore, I do not suspect there will need to be a whole lot of debate, hopefully not. I hope all members appreciate the importance of preserving our rights in this matter and, as mentioned, the rights of having first access to legislation.

I just want to take this opportunity to thank the chief government whip for his remarks when this matter was first brought up. It demonstrated the good faith that all members attempt to bring to the chamber. I hope it is instructive to the administrative staff on the government side, perhaps in the ministers' offices or wherever this leak originated, that their first duty is to serve members and the ministers, not to serve political masters or to achieve political ends. They really do have to put the dignity and authority of the House at the top of the list.

Whoever is responsible for this must understand that we are a parliamentary democracy and that political decisions made by staff to try to frame the debate in the media are not acceptable when that infringes upon our rights and dignities.

I hope the House agrees to send this to the procedure and House affairs committee so that the committee can look into what happened, perhaps determine who did it, perhaps determine what systems could be put in place to avoid this type of thing in the future, and if the culprit is found, bring that detail back to the House for the House to decide what to do with it further.

I am going to conclude my remarks there. I think I said everything I had to in my remarks. I do not want to belabour the point. I do appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. You summed it up very nicely. I do hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for this motion. It is important that each and every one of us send the message back to the political people with whom we work that the rights of the House are important, that we take those seriously, and that we put them at the forefront when we make these kinds of decisions.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-14—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 14, 2016, and again yesterday, by the House leader of the official opposition concerning the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying).

I would like to thank the House Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised this matter, as well as the chief government whip and the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for their submissions.

In presenting his case, the House leader of the official opposition pointed out that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was reported in a newspaper article and elsewhere in the media before the bill had been introduced in the House. In describing the seriousness of this matter, which he considered to be a breach of members' privileges, he stressed the need for members to access information in order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, as well as the respect required for the essential role of the House in legislative matters.

In response, the chief government whip, acknowledging the problem, stated, “...our government takes any breach of the privilege of members and of the House very seriously”. He then noted that such a premature divulgation of the bill's contents had not been authorized and apologized unreservedly, committing to ensure that it would not happen again.

This being the first question of privilege to be raised in this Parliament, I want to take this opportunity to inform members of the role of the Speaker in this regard, particularly as it is a narrowly defined role.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 141:

Great importance is attached to matters involving privilege. A Member wishing to raise a question of privilege in the House must first convince the Speaker that his or her concern is prima facie (on the first impression or at first glance) a question of privilege. The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker's opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.

In adjudicating questions of privilege, the Speaker carefully considers the effect that the alleged breach has on members' ability to function. At page 145 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states:

In deliberating upon a question of privilege, the Chair will take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any Member's ability to perform his or her parliamentary functions or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament.

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

On October 4, 2010, on page 4711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken noted:

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.

This important convention exists so that members can properly exercise their functions as legislators. Speaker Milliken saw fit to reiterate it in that particular case, even though in those unique circumstances—the member admitted to having herself prematurely released the contents of her own private member's bill, so no doubt existed as to the provenance of the leak—he chose not to rule that the incident constituted a prima facie case of privilege.

It is within this context that I, as Speaker, must review each case on its own merits. Having done so, the facts are clear and undisputed in this instance: detailed information regarding the content of Bill C-14 was indeed made available through the media before the bill itself had been introduced in the House. There were no arguments raised to the contrary. Therefore, there was a direct contravention of the House's right to first access.

The chief government whip has unequivocally apologized for any breaches of confidentiality in this instance, recognizing the seriousness of the matter; this should be reassuring to all members. That being said, it would appear to the Chair, at first glance, that the leaking of the bill’s contents and, thus, the pre-empting of members’ access to legislative information, has impeded the ability of members to perform their parliamentary functions. In a strikingly similar case, quoted by the honourable opposition House leader, Speaker Milliken stated, at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates of March 19, 2001:

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent [role] which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

He concluded by affirming that it was ”a situation that the Chair cannot condone”.

In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.

Thus, the available precedents lead me to conclude that this incident constitutes a prima facie question of privilege, and I now invite the House leader of the official opposition to move the appropriate motion.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-2

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow it will be six months since the new government was elected. The most recent bill introduced was Bill C-14.

A handful of the bills that are before Parliament are quite routine. They have to do with the estimates. There are around three of those 14 bills that are straight-up repeals of the previous government's laws. Two of those bills are mandated by the Supreme Court, which is why we are dealing with them. In fact, the only non-routine bill that has come from the government of its own volition is a bill to betray Air Canada workers. That is the only original legislative initiative we have seen from the government, and I will have more to say on that shortly.

I wonder, given the extreme paucity of the legislative agenda so far, is there any good reason at all that we would not be given the time to consider these two things separately? It is not like there is anything else getting in the way.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-14

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on this. I want to raise a follow-up point to my question of privilege that I raised last week on the premature disclosure of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts. When I did so, the chief government whip rose in his place and offered his sincere apologies on behalf of the government, and of course, I do want to thank him for that. However, I do not believe it is sufficient to leave it at that.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow the House to decide this matter, and hopefully the House in its infinite wisdom will send the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study.

In my question of privilege, I referred to the case in 2001 when the government House leader at the time, the Hon. Don Boudria, also apologized for the premature disclosure of the contents of a government bill. The Speaker in that case allowed a motion to be proposed referring that question of privilege to committee.

Members from all sides of the House then, and it would appear that members from all sides of the House today, believe that this is a grave matter deserving of further consideration. We do not know what the circumstances are. The chief government whip himself admitted he does not know what the circumstances are. He stated on Thursday:

I am not aware of the details surrounding the media report referred to by the member, but I want to assure the House that our government takes any breach of the privilege of members and of the House very seriously.

I can tell the House that at no point was anyone authorized to publicly discuss the specific details of the bill prior to introduction.

If no one was authorized to discuss the bill publicly, then we need to find out how this happened. The chief government whip went on to say that the “government will work to ensure that this does not happen again”, which I think members will appreciate. However, this is not a matter solely for the government. This is a matter involving the privileges of this House.

This matter should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. If the government gets to the bottom of this internally or has new policies to offer relating to the confidentiality of bills, I expect it to explain all that to a standing committee of this House.

In short, an apology, while appreciated, is indicative of the seriousness in which the government views this matter. Of course, the opposition does as well. The apology does not take away the contempt that exists and, specifically, since we do not know who did it, I do not suppose the government whip was taking on any of the blame himself. It clearly seems to be someone else, and that apology cannot be made on behalf of an unknown person. We need to see if it is possible to find out who did it and what the circumstances were, and have the committee report back to the House.

When you are finished deliberating and have heard all the arguments, Mr. Speaker, if you find in our favour, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion to send this to committee.