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.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Nothing has come to my attention that there was premature disclosure of Bill C-14, and my department in no way, shape, or form would disclose such a sensitive piece of legislation.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your being clear on the topic of members' privilege here today. Could I clarify some other things with you?
We're talking about whether there was a breach of a member's privilege and whether the article or what was contained in the article rises to that definition of a breach of a member's privilege. I'd like to get your opinion on whether you think there was a premature disclosure of Bill C-14.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Sure. I became aware of this discussion, the article, the breach of privilege that was talked about, in the House of Commons after I came back from a press conference around Bill C-14. I was in the House and heard the chief government whip speak. Like every member of this committee and all members in the House of Commons, I take privilege very seriously, so it was a concern to me, absolutely.
At that point, I engaged in discussions over BlackBerry, called my staff in my office, spoke with all members of my exempt staff who have the security clearance to view cabinet documents, and also spoke with my deputy minister, whom I advised of the situation. He of course had already read the article. We ensured, through our conversations with exempt staff and our departmental officials, that this was a serious concern, but we confirmed that we had followed all security measures as articulated in the policies that the Privy Council Office has.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
In case you were wondering, we had a constituency referendum, and 67% of my constituents voted in favour of Bill C-14, on what I thought was an objectively worded question. So there you are.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
If I could, Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for the thoughtful nature in which he engaged with his constituents around Bill C-14.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Certainly. Thank you for the question.
The article that we're talking about said that the bill will exclude those who only experience mental suffering, such as people with psychiatric conditions, and this was according to that source familiar with the legislation.
I'm pleased to speak about Bill C-14 and the eligibility criteria that we have put into the legislation. The eligibility criteria does not necessarily exclude people suffering from mental illness or psychiatric conditions, but it contains a number of criteria that need to be met and circumstances in terms of the individual patient's situation and health concerns that need to be read in a comprehensive way. A person who has medical conditions, including a psychiatric condition or a mental illness, is not precluded from qualifying to meet the eligibility criteria in medical assistance in dying. A person who's suffering from a mental illness or a psychiatric condition alone would have more difficulty in qualifying. The reality in what we've done in the legislation is to look through amendments, and otherwise that we ensure that we study mental illness and we learn the risks and the benefits with respect to that, and that study in the proposed legislation has a commencement timeline of six months.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you for the question, and again, thank you for the study that you're undertaking.
As I said in my remarks, there were some aspects in the article that was written on the 12th that reflected some of the excluded parts of Bill C-14, those being mature minors, advance directives or requests, and persons suffering from mental illness alone. What the article reflected mostly was what was not included in the legislation. As I commented, the specific provisions in terms of eligibility, safeguards, and monitoring weren't mentioned in the article.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Chair. I may be sharing my time with Ms. Sahota.
Thank you, Minister. Our study here is based on a finding of a prima facie case of breach of privilege by the Speaker, which, as we all know, refers to...at first glance, at first appearance, that there may have been a breach here.
You mentioned in your opening remarks that the article that is the basis of this motion contains inaccuracies about the bill. It did not obviously contain the bill itself. The title of our study refers to the premature disclosure of the contents in Bill C-14 on a prima facie basis.
In your view, Minister, were the contents of Bill C-14, in fact, prematurely disclosed?
Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Thank you to all honourable members here for the opportunity to appear before committee to address the alleged breach of privilege with respect to Bill C-14, a matter that I take incredibly seriously.
First, I'd like to speak to various measures and policies that are followed by my department and my exempt staff to protect legislation prior to its introduction. I want to be very clear that none of my staff nor any of my officials were involved in any alleged leaks in this matter. Second, I want to highlight that the drafting of legislation spanned several departments and agencies. Third, I'll turn briefly to the article in question.
To begin, I can assure my honourable colleagues that my department and my exempt staff take the safeguarding of information regarding the contents of all bills intended for introduction very seriously, and they adhere to all relevant policies and procedures.
My departmental officials, through my deputy minister, are instructed to follow all precautions as outlined in “A Drafter's Guide to Cabinet Documents” and the policy on security of cabinet confidences, both of which can be found on the Privy Council Office website. According to the PCO policy on security of cabinet confidences, draft bills, with the exception of versions used for public consultation, upon agreement of cabinet, are deemed confidence of the Queen's Privy Council. These documents must be marked, handled, and safeguarded accordingly. Documents may only be handled by those with valid security clearance at the appropriate level, and a valid need to know the information to perform their duties. Restricted access to cabinet confidences extends to all stages of drafting.
The following individuals are considered to have a need to know status: employees who are responsible for developing policy and for developing proposals for the minister; ministerial and departmental personnel supporting a minister on a particular policy proposal or issue that is the subject of cabinet discussion; central agency employees who help advance policies and proposals brought forward by departments of sponsoring minister; and legal advisers providing advice relating to a policy proposal or issue that is the subject of a cabinet discussion.
As per PCO policy, these individuals are required to use appropriate means, including IT systems, to prepare, store, and transmit cabinet confidences; mark cabinet confidence information at the appropriate level of sensitivity, and with the caption “Confidence of the Queen's Privy Council” on every page of the document; handle such information in restricted access areas; use security equipment and procedures approved for the level of sensitivity of the information to transport, transmit, store, and dispose of cabinet confidences on paper or in electronic format; ensure that the information is not discussed with, viewed, or overheard by unauthorized individuals; and refrain from discussing such information on cellular telephones or wireless devices, unless approved security means are used.
All my departmental officials who worked on this draft legislation, as well as all of my exempt staff, had valid security clearance at appropriate levels.
As a general practice, any security incident involving cabinet confidences, however slight, must be immediately reported to the responsible departmental security officer. This would include unauthorized disclosures, loss, theft, transmission, and discussion over non-secure channels, unaccounted documents, and other actual or suspected compromises. The departmental security officer, in turn, must immediately report the incident to the PCO security operations division. Unless directed otherwise by PCO, the departmental security officer is expected to conduct an initial administrative inquiry to determine what happened and to identify corrective action.
Generally, an inquiry would include an examination of the circumstances surrounding the incident; if possible, the source of the unauthorized disclosure; the adequacy of the departmental procedures for the protection of sensitive information; an assessment of injury to the national interest arising from the compromise; and an outline of corrective measures that have been or will be put in place to minimize the risk of similar occurrences in the future.
The Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, after consultation with the appropriate department heads, may involve the RCMP. The RCMP will then determine if there is sufficient grounds to investigate. Where appropriate, department heads are responsible for applying sanctions.
Let me be clear. I have spoken with my deputy minister and I can assure you that my department follows all necessary precautions. In this particular matter, I can assure you that no breach of information nor evidence of such a breach was reported from departmental staff, and therefore, no internal inquiry was initiated.
Further, I can personally assure you that I spoke to all of my exempt staff about this matter, and none of them were involved in any breach of information. I believe and trust my departmental officials and my staff, and I take them at their word.
Second, honourable colleagues, it's worth remembering that this sensitive piece of legislation was not crafted by the Department of Justice alone. My department worked closely and collaboratively with officials in other departments, and my exempt staff worked with their counterparts in other offices.
Further, as per PCO guidelines, drafts of memorandums to cabinet containing specific policy recommendations were shared with central agencies and other departments and agencies to solicit feedback and to address any potential concerns from various policy perspectives. As the Minister of Justice, I certainly cannot speak on behalf of other departments or agencies.
Third, I want to briefly address the article in question. As you know, on April 12, 2016, public notice was given for the introduction of Bill C-14 in two day's time. Like my honourable colleagues, I was dismayed to learn that the article was published in The Globe and Mail that same day and made reference to specific aspects of the bill, mainly what would not be included in the legislation, and to a source familiar with the legislation who was not authorized to publicly speak about the bill.
Let me be clear. I did not know the identity of the source at that time, nor do I know it sitting here today.
What I can offer, honourable colleagues, is that the few details about the bill in this article are not entirely accurate, and this inconsistency between the bill and the article may be relevant to your investigation.
Specifically, the article begins by stating that the bill will exclude those who only experience mental suffering, such as people with psychiatric conditions. While it is the case that those who suffer from mental illness alone may not be likely in practical terms to qualify for medical assistance in dying, pursuant to the eligibility criteria set out in Bill C-14 as it was originally drafted and tabled in the House, the proposed legislation in no way categorically excludes such individuals. It is possible, although unlikely, that someone who only experiences mental suffering could meet all of the eligibility criteria, and therefore be able to obtain medical assistance in dying under the proposed scheme.
It is also worth noting that the article mostly speaks to what will not be in Bill C-14 and does not disclose major elements of the bill. For example, it does not address items like the eligibility criteria, the safeguards, and the monitoring regime proposed in the legislation.
Finally, I would highlight that I'm quoted toward the end of the article referring to various principles that our government sought to balance with this legislation, but of course, refusing to go into any detail about its contents.
In conclusion, honourable colleagues, let me assure you that my department, my staff, and I take this issue incredibly seriously. All matters of privilege implicate the foundational principles of our constitutional democracy, and so I commend you on the work you are doing, and I am happy to participate and take questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I'm going to read the mechanics so it's out of the way.
Good afternoon. We are in the 27th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the first session of the 42nd Parliament. This part of the meeting is televised.
We are resuming our study of the question of privilege related to the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14.
Mr. Reid had asked a question of the researcher on similar types of cases in New Zealand, the U.K., and Australia. The quick answers, unless you want to hear them from the researcher, are that Australia hasn't answered yet, and New Zealand and the U.K. do not have similar provisions. It's totally different. He's going to send you a briefing note with the details of that, if that's okay.
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a very complex petition here. It is regarding Bill C-14 to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, which the government has brought forward.
The petitioners state that the killing of people is not a genuine health care solution. The undersigned residents of Canada ask the House of Commons to vote against Bill C-14 and instead to invoke the charter's notwithstanding clause which allows parliamentarians to ignore bad judicial decisions.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not take action immediately. They waited until April to introduce their bill.
Bill C-14 is unconstitutional. It would be challenged for years in the courts. The Carter family has said it feels betrayed by the government and by the Prime Minister. Here in the House, the Prime Minister refused to accept amendments that would fix the bill and make it charter compliant.
I have a simple question. Is the Prime Minister going to accept those exact changes if they now come from the unelected Senate?
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled the House during question period when he said that the NDP had a whipped vote on Bill C-14. He knows that is not the case. He knows on this side of the House, it was a free vote.
However, the NDP caucus is united in its determination that Bill C-14, as it is, is—
Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying.
This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.
That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.
Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.
When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?