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.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, we are dealing with a closure motion today that allows very few members of Parliament to speak. We saw a couple of weeks ago that the government pulled Bill C-14 from the Order Paper a number of times when members of Parliament wanted to speak on it.

We saw, as well, a government refusing even the ability yesterday, under closure, knowing that we had a vote on Monday evening, to allow members of Parliament to speak during the day. It defies logic that a non-partisan bill of this nature would be treated so reprehensibly by the government.

Given all of the concerns raised by legal and medical professionals, their communities, the concerns about the lack of constitutionality of the bill, which has now been pointed out in two court decisions, why does the member think the government is trying to ram through this bill in such a partisan and inappropriate way?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise somewhat concerned today that I am finally, for the first time, able to speak to Bill C-14. We are at third reading. This bill has been rammed through the House. The Liberals have brought in closure time and again with this bill. Every time it was debated, whether at second reading or report stage, I was not available, or the time was so constrained and the list of speakers of the members of Parliament was so long, that I could not get on the list. Finally, I am able to speak today to Bill C-14 to reflect my concerns and those of my constituents on this bill.

When closure is used in dealing with issues of conscience like we are dealing with today with respect to physician-assisted death or doctor-assisted suicide, whatever we want to call it, we need to take the time to have the debate. We need to have the discussion among parliamentarians and talk to the appropriate experts to ensure that we get this right. If the Liberals rush this bill through the legislative process in the House and if they try to do it in the Senate, I can guarantee that mistakes will be made and this bill will be facing court challenges in a relatively short period of time.

I also have to reflect what my friend from the riding of Provencher said today. It is extremely disappointing that so many reasonable amendments were presented by members of the opposition parties, and not one of them found their way into this bill at report stage last night. That truly is disappointing.

In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, the topic of physician-assisted suicide is divisive, as it is right across the country. The majority of constituents who have contacted my office have been opposed to this policy, on two fronts: first, many people have deeply held moral, ethical, and religious beliefs that are strongly against assisted suicide; and, second, many believe that the policy will be used prematurely to end the lives of those who have become a burden to their families, society, or the medical system.

It is important to note that the Liberals broke a key election promise to invest $3 billion into-long term care, including palliative care. Access to palliative care is an essential part of end-of-life decision-making. There was unanimous agreement on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying and among stakeholders, including the Canadian Medical Association, on the need for a pan-Canadian strategy on palliative care, with dedicated funding. This would be an important step forward for Canada. It is something that the Liberals have glossed over in favour of introducing this legislation in a very careless and expeditious manner.

Many medical doctors, nurses, and health care professionals are conflicted with the ethical and moral conundrum that assisted suicide presents, as it runs counter to the modern adaptation of the Hippocratic oath. The University of Ottawa captures the challenge of this principle. It states:

Given the complexity of medicine in the 21st century, an ancient oath cannot possibly encompass current values. Therefore, the significance of the Hippocratic Oath does not reside in its specific guidelines, but rather, in its symbolism of an ideal: the selfless dedication to the preservation of human life.

I would stress “the preservation of human life”.

Although the Canadian Medical Association in the last year has turned its back on its previous position on physician-assisted suicide, the Supreme Court of Canada went to great lengths and grasped at straws to change its position from its previous rulings as to whether there should be exemptions offered for physician-assisted suicide.

The Canadian Medical Association is a member of the World Medical Assembly, which adopted a resolution back in 1992 on this. It revised it slightly in 2005, but reaffirmed it in April of 2015 in Oslo. It states:

Physician-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically. However the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician does not act unethically even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.

Quite clearly, the World Medical Association, doctors and physicians from right around the globe, is saying that this is unethical.

As has been pointed out, we are quite concerned from our side, and I am in particular, about the charter rights under sections on the freedom of conscience. As has been noted, there was a minor amendment made to Bill C-14 in the preamble to allow for the protection of individuals but not of institutions. Is it strong enough to be considered legal in a case that goes before the courts, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or one of the provincial human rights commissions, if section 2 is defined in the preamble but is not actually in the clauses of the legislation itself?

Institutions would be exempt, and I know that some members have had conversations with people at some institutions who are very concerned about this. I looked to the St. Boniface General Hospital in Winnipeg, a Catholic-run hospital. They are quite concerned that they, as an institution, will have to violate their own religious and moral beliefs to provide assisted suicide. They believe in the sanctity of life, as many of us on our side do also.

Like most Canadians, I have watched loved ones succumb to lengthy and chronic debilitating illnesses. Dying with dignity is desired by all Canadians. Unfortunately, only a handful of us will die in our sleep with minimal discomfort or pain. I do not believe that we should institute a policy that will provide physician-assisted suicide to every Canadian when they are near their end of life. Dying with dignity does not apply only to physician-assisted suicide. Expanding and improving palliative care services is by far the better public policy, and should be a priority of all health care providers across this country. I am recommitting to working with like-minded Canadians and policy-makers, and parliamentarians right here, who want to enhance palliative care in Manitoba and across the country. My wife Kelly works as a nurse in a personal care home and provides palliative care services all the time. She agrees that strengthening palliative care services will allow more Canadians to die with dignity.

I have met with the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities and talked to Carlos Sosa, who is the Manitoba representative on the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. They are very concerned with the way that Bill C-14 is laid out right now because it would do little to address the concerns of the vulnerable and how the law would deal with people in the disabled community. In particular, the bill would not provide for an assessment of vulnerabilities that may induce a person to assist and seek an assisted suicide. It does not have an expedited prior review and authorization by a judge or independent body with expertise in fields of health care, ethics, and law. This was one of the amendments we brought forward last night, and it was defeated.

Rhonda Wiebe, who is the co-chair of the Canadian Council of Disabilities end of life ethics committee, said:

In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court of Canada gave the Government of Canada two assignments (1) develop a regime to provide dying people access to assisted suicide and (2) protect vulnerable Canadians who at a time of weakness may be influenced to accept medical aid in dying. Unfortunately, [Bill] C-14 has some serious gaps when it comes to protecting the vulnerable..... Canada must do enough to protect people like [her] and other Canadians with disabilities who can be made vulnerable by both [their] health conditions and [their] social and economic circumstances.

I am privileged to belong to a political party that allows for free votes on issues of moral and religious beliefs. On policies such as physician-assisted suicide, Conservative members are free to either reflect the will of their constituents or to vote according to their personal beliefs. As someone with very strong Christian values, I cannot support Bill C-14. Bill C-14 needs better protection in place for youth under the age of 18, and safeguards for those who are vulnerable, including those who are dealing with mental health challenges.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be splitting my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

I want to say right from the outset that I am conceptually opposed to Bill C-14. I believe in the sanctity of life, and I believe that all life, from conception right through to natural death, has value, has worth, and has purpose.

As a sitting member of the committee for justice and human rights, I spent several weeks together with the committee in significant and lengthy meetings examining Bill C-14. We spent long days listening to witness testimony from experts and organizations from all over the country, and then doing a clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. Despite the many concerns voiced again and again by witnesses, there were no meaningful amendments made to the bill.

Bill C-14 is called medical assistance in dying, but make no mistake, Bill C-14 is physician-assisted suicide. It is important that we make this distinction. The gravity of the bill should not be undermined by the colourful wording. The bill would change Canada forever, and it would be naive to think that Canada's most vulnerable people would not be at risk under the bill in its present state. This is the most significant social re-engineering bill in the past 25 years, because it changes how we view the sanctity of life.

The Supreme Court was very clear that physician-assisted suicide is not a charter right, but it is an exemption that could be provided on an exception basis providing individuals meet certain criteria. The person must be a competent adult who clearly consents to the termination of life, who has a grievous and irremediable medical condition, including an illness, disease, or disability that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

Bill C-14 clearly goes beyond the Supreme Court decision with a mandate to study making physician-assisted suicide available to mature minors, exploring the concept of advance directives, and providing physician-assisted suicide to mentally disabled individuals. This is just not acceptable.

The committee heard testimony from approximately 42 individuals and/or groups who all have a vested interest in this issue. Over 100 amendments were presented to committee based on evidence from witness testimony provided to committee. Sadly, the Liberals did not present any substantive amendments, and in fact, voted against any meaningful amendments presented by any of the opposition parties. The Conservatives presented many thoughtful amendments that would have strengthened the bill and added important safeguards, as they did last night at report stage. This is a missed opportunity.

Let me highlight just a few of these missed amendments, these missed opportunities.

These amendments included things like assuring that only trained and qualified medical practitioners, in other words physicians, would assess the individual and administer the lethal cocktail that would eventually procure death. The way the legislation is presently drafted, it would allow a person to obtain the lethal drug from pharmacists, take it home, self-administer, and procure their own death. This worries me, and it should worry every Canadian. Witnesses presented testimony that in other jurisdictions that permit this practice, 30% to 40% of prescriptions for death go unused.

What happens to these unused drugs? What if the drugs fall into the wrong hands? What if the drugs were not administered properly? What if they did not take all of it and complications set in as a result? How can we be sure that the individuals were not at some point pressured into it? There are just way too many unanswered questions in the bill.

The bill would also make it near impossible for medical practitioners to monitor and report on subsequent events. Did the patient self-administer the drug or did the patient die from an illness? How do we ensure that we have the correct data to track euthanasia in Canada? These are valid concerns being voiced by Canadians, and it could have been addressed in the amendments that we proposed at committee.

The Liberals are unwilling to consider an amendment to ensure physician supervision during the procedure.

In addition, Bill C-14 allows for nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying. There are substantial differences between a medical practitioner and a nurse practitioner, including the length of time spent training and the ability to prescribe various narcotics, yet suddenly, in this bill, we are affording them the ability to assess an individual's eligibility for physician-assisted suicide and prescribe life-ending cocktails, which is in stark contrast to the typical expectations we have of nurse practitioners.

This goes too far and is another issue we sought to address in the bill. Again, this is a missed opportunity.

We also provided an amendment that would have removed psychological suffering as an eligibility consideration for physician-assisted suicide. This, quite simply, leaves too much room for interpretation. Allowing for psychological suffering as an eligibility consideration is the start of a very slippery slope in terms of who can receive physician-assisted suicide and for what purpose.

We also suggested that “reasonably foreseeable death”, as defined in the bill, would be replaced with imminent death or at least death expected within 30 days. We heard testimony from witnesses on either end of the spectrum raising various concerns about this wording. “Reasonably foreseeable” in one physician's eyes could be completely different in the eyes of another. This will certainly open the door to uncertainty among patients and practitioners, and will definitely lead to subsequent lawsuits.

To further strengthen safeguards, we proposed an amendment requiring that prior judicial review had occurred to ensure that all criteria for physician-assisted suicide eligibility had been met.

Dr. Will Johnston, chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of British Columbia, came to testify before committee. He said the following:

...although it might be assumed, nowhere specifies that doctors must actually examine the patient, the extent to which they must do so, or the extent that doctors must inquire into the internal and external factors that create vulnerability for the patient.

Dr. Johnston brings forward a valuable consideration. Bill C-14 does not stipulate to what degree a patient should be examined nor does it require examination of the factors creating vulnerability for the patient.

In addition, we know that this is a complicated matter and difficult to address in legislation. Every individual and every disease presents a different set of challenges. Judicial oversight would ensure that individuals meet all the criteria given their unique set of circumstances and would further protect Canada's most vulnerable people. Again, this very reasonable amendment was rejected.

We also put forward a request that palliative care consultation be included as a criterion for seeking physician-assisted death. Patients would be made aware of all options available to them and ensure palliative care options were understood, offered, and available.

We heard time and again in committee that access to palliative care is a problem in this country. We also heard that palliative care, especially chronic pain treatment and counselling services, is very successful at alleviating the suffering, depression, and anxiety, things that lead people to wish to hasten their death.

The minister spoke on palliative care, and insisted that palliative care and physician-assisted suicide go hand in hand, yet the committee refused to adopt palliative care consultations as a prerequisite component in the bill.

The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians outlined the issue well before committee. They wrote:

In order to ensure that medically assisted death is not our first or only response to human suffering, we need to build in an explicit legal requirement to identify, explore and record the sources of a person’s suffering and attempt to address the motivations of his/her request for death. This should not be undertaken as a screening or determination process, but rather an opportunity to ensure that a person who requests an assisted death is fully informed of available options for treatment.... The Bill should be amended to incorporate a meaningful right for patients to be informed of the full range of available treatments, technologies and supports that could ease their suffering, whatever its source.

Palliative care consultations would protect patients and ensure that physician-assisted death does not become the first response to human suffering. I cannot understand why the government would not want to ensure patients have sought out all other alternatives before requesting physician-assisted death.

One of the things we were very clear about, which the evidence produced over and over again in committee, was the whole need for conscience rights protection, not only for individuals but institutions. This came across as a large concern. We presented several amendments to committee that would have met the concern of many institutions and individuals that may be forced or required to offer this service. These amendments were all rejected, not only at committee but they were rejected here last night at report stage as well. We find that unacceptable.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I'm still going to move that we invite these individuals. The possibility also exists, and this worries me, that the minister would say truthfully, “I don't know, someone else handled that stuff”, but that reason would be insufficient. The minister did have a lot on her plate and may genuinely not know. I'm going to keep these names before us, but I do take the point to very much welcome the minister's presence here. In fairness to the minister, we might want to wait until Bill C-14 has been dealt with, because she does have something else on her plate at the moment.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that great question. Yes, the committee did great work. Without federal legislation in place, Canadians would face an uncertain situation. I respect the views, but the job is about representing our Constitution and Canadians' views in this place. It is also about passing evidence-based policies that benefit Canadians. The people of Brampton South elected me to be their voice here, to bring a different approach, and to implement our government's better plan. Bill C-14 is the right bill at the right time. It is the best approach. We need checks and balances. That is why the committee did a great job. Even the CMA said that. The Canadian Medical Association has pointed out that in the Carter decision, the “...parameters are vague in the extreme, and contain absolutely no clinical direction whatsoever”.

The term “grievous and irremediable” which is used by the court is not a medical term, so we need more clarification for that. That is why the committee did great work. We listened to all the consultations and this is the right bill. We have listened to all Canadians, and this is the right bill that we have to bring.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to stand in this place and take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).

I will be splitting my time with the member for Kenora.

I know that this issue is very personal to Canadians. It is about quality of life and dignity. It is about autonomy. Most of all, it is about compassion.

I listened to many people in the constituency of Brampton South on this issue. I heard support from most people in my riding. I also heard sincere and heartfelt concerns, particularly from our Orthodox-based communities. I appreciate their conviction, and that they have raised their voices with respect to this important issue.

I will use my time today to explain why I will be voting for this important legislation.

My heart goes out to all of those suffering and their family members, who are facing circumstances I cannot imagine. I think we can agree that it is those who are suffering, and their families, who this debate should be about. I hope that hon. members will not forget that fact. We must lean toward a compassionate approach for those who are affected. This is a serious matter and a complex issue. Therefore, we must find the right balance.

Our government must address this now. The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision, and soon there will be a legislative vacuum.

I think we can agree that a patchwork approach by the provinces would be the wrong approach. We would be ignoring our responsibility to show national leadership on this matter.

The framework laid out in Bill C-14 provides a solid, focused and detailed plan, which will meet the June 6 deadline set out by the court. Let me explain why.

Permitting medical assistance in dying will extend more control to eligible terminally ill patients on how to live out their last days. This legislation also provides important safeguards and limitations. It requires the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the provinces, to create regulations that will protect all of those involved.

By permitting medical assistance in dying for competent adults, whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable, I believe we are striking the right balance between the patients' autonomy who seek this medical assistance and the interests of patients in need of protection.

It is important to note that this bill does not stand alone. I would point out the critical work of improving palliative care in this country. The ideas of medical assistance in dying and a strong palliative care system are not in conflict. Rather, the two are complementary and are both important issues to address. That is why I am proud that the Minister of Health has recommitted to home care and palliative care improvements in response to a question that I asked during question period on May 2. In her reply to my question, the minister quoted Dr. Atul Gawande, who talked about how people want not only a good death but a good life to the very end. The minister reiterated her commitment to palliative care and providing dignity when Canadians are suffering. She announced how she will work with the provinces to ensure the high quality care of all Canadians. She also brought up how the Government of Canada is committed to an investment of $3 billion over four years to support that goal of palliative care and home care improvements. I commend this step forward.

We cannot view assisted dying legislation separate from investments in our health care system. Quality palliative care is a critical priority of this government. Indeed, as our government renegotiates the health accord with the provinces, I look forward to seeing palliative care discussed. The work with the provinces, territories, and stakeholders is essential to providing options to end-of-life care.

My background is as a research coordinator and diabetes educator. I know how the roles and views of physicians and nurse practitioners are vital to this issue. As a member of the health committee, and someone who worked in the health care field for almost 20 years, I understand the importance of consulting the people on the front lines. Physicians and nurse practitioners are central to the end-of-life process. Their conscience rights will be respected in this legislation. We are working on the best way to ensure their views are always taken into account.

The rules in this legislation are clear and eligibility has been carefully defined. I want to be clear. There is nothing in the legislation that would compel any medical practitioner or authorized nurse practitioner to provide medical assistance in dying. The legislation is meant to balance access to medical assistance in dying while respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. This is about finding the right balance.

Canadians are looking to their doctors and nurses to provide health care and to help them maintain their quality of life. However, when the quality is no longer attainable, Canadians want to know that their health care providers will also help them when their choice is a dignified end to their lives.

We have struck the right balance in my view by having proper procedural safeguards. Access to medical assistance in dying would only be available to those who meet the following conditions: be a mentally competent adult who is at an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; have a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability; experience enduring and intolerable suffering; and whose death is reasonably foreseeable.

It will also remain a crime to assist a person either in dying or in causing a person's death in a situation other than lawful medical assistance in dying. Protective measures are a key part of the legislation to ensure that eligible patients have given informed consent. Patients have to make a written request for medical assistance in dying and have it signed by two independent witnesses. Two independent medical opinions have to confirm that the patient meets all the criteria. These first two criteria are intended to ensure that requests for medical assistance in dying are truly voluntary, that they reflect the wishes of the patient, and are not made as a result of external pressure.

Our evidence-based approach will include regulating, monitoring, and reporting. This monitoring and reporting system will also be able to signal any issues or unexpected consequences. We want Canadians to see a system that is functioning and preventing abuses or errors. This will build up confidence and allow Canadians to make informed decisions about how the system should operate.

I appreciate how other members have spoken about how we will look to international models in terms of ways to work with the provinces and territories. This end-of-life coordination system will respect the role of the provinces, while providing access and respecting people's rights.

I want to recognize the work of the committees and the senators who have studied this matter and made recommendations around this debate. These recommendations and testimony from those on all sides of this issue should be taken into account. There have been a number of informative and heartfelt speeches by fellow members who I also want to take a moment to applaud. I also thank the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health for their work in introducing the legislation.

Bill C-14 strikes a proper balance in view of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and provides a needed legal framework. As parliamentarians we have the final say on behalf of the people we serve who elected us to be their voice. This is a debate that engages our morality, our sense of justice, and our compassion. It asks tough questions of our legal and medical systems.

We have talked to one another and heard some touching stories. We have reflected on how this issue affects all of us. It has called on us to hear the stories coming from the prospective Canadians who are suffering. It is often all too easy to forget what we would do if we were in their shoes. We often fail to truly appreciate the perspective and experience of those diagnosed with a terminal illness. Their dignity is challenged more and more as they reach their end.

We need to pass this legislation at the soonest possible opportunity. I hope all members will support the bill with me.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, palliative care is something that the former and present members for Windsor—Tecumseh have been pushing passionately in the House, in the justice committee, and in the Senate-House mixed committee.

It is something we wished to see enshrined in this bill. We were disappointed there was not a dollar of money in the federal budget for palliative care, despite promises during the campaign. We were, however, able to get an amendment through in the preamble to Bill C-14 that at least addresses the urgent requirement for palliative care.

The Minister of Health, herself, has pointed out that less than 30% have access to palliative care in Canada. That is connected—it must be so connected—with this bill that we need to do much better on that score.

I just hope the government actually puts its money where its mouth is and comes up, in the health accords, with meaningful help for palliative care and hospice care from coast to coast to coast. It is so urgently needed.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not clear to this moment on why the government is so bent on passing a law that so many believe to be unconstitutional.

I frankly do not understand why the very thoughtful amendments were rejected yesterday. This was purported to be a free vote, but I did not see more than a few Liberal members stand against this bill.

Tonight, I understand we will be voting at third reading. This is the opportunity for members, particularly those concerned about rule of law, to come forward and vote against a bill that is patently unconstitutional, to get it right for Canadians, and protect those individuals who had their rights given to them, clearly, in the Carter case and would now see those rights taken away by Bill C-14.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his perspective on this, and I am sorry he is disappointed. We are trying to do our best for Canadians to get a bill in place that will not find suffering Canadians lined up at the Supreme Court doorstep as soon as we pass it. That is why we are doing this, and we hope people will support that initiative.

To talk about a legal vacuum is misleading, with great respect. We already have every college of physicians and surgeons across the land involved in having safeguards in place. Yes, having Bill C-14 on June 6 would be preferable to not having Bill C-14 on June 6, but having knowingly passed a law that is unconstitutional would be even worse. Let us take the time, I say, to get it right, not to get it done right now.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Sorry. I wouldn't have eaten into Mr. Graham's time if I'd known I was about to go next.

It seems we're moving into debate here. The rules seem to me to be quite clear in this matter, and this does constitute a breach of privilege. We can review the rules.

I think what is being asserted by the Liberals is that a convention has developed of saying that if the rules are violated in this way, it's just a pro forma violation. We can all live with it. We ought not to be objecting to it. Conventions do from time to time develop, both that something that is formally prohibited is in practice permitted and the reverse. Something that is formally permitted is beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour. That then becomes something that is prohibited and practised. We all get the point that if the Governor General started vetoing laws, which in theory he could do legally, we would start looking for a replacement Governor General because he would have gone beyond what is conventionally acceptable behaviour.

I think the Liberals are arguing that a convention has developed. I'm willing to accept that the Liberals have developed this kind of conventional point of view because they did not move questions of privilege when these items they've pointed to.... I think Mr. Graham's case is less convincing than Ms. Vandenbeld's, but that's why I've asked to see the articles, so I can see if the facts correspond with the assertions.

If they failed to move questions of privilege at that point, that suggests that they'd accepted a certain way of behaving, which they now seek to turn into a modus vivendi, a way of operating, all the time in the future. If we say this was okay, then we are saying that this will happen every time. This will become the standard of behaviour. The Liberal government will always be releasing select details—not all the details came out— of its legislation ahead of time. I accept the fact that they will not be doing this on budgets, as clearly there's a very strict rule that we all accept in that regard, but it looks to me as though they are trying to move in that direction.

Therefore I implore colleagues not to go in the direction of saying that this was okay and that this is somehow what the new standard should be. That is effectively saying that Parliament, the House of Commons, will be sidelined. This will be the status quo from now on. Indeed, that is the exact assertion that the Liberals are making right now, that the Liberals were advised to make. Your research bureau did good work and got you those points, but it was an unacceptable practice. If it ever happened in the past, it's unacceptable now. Our convention should be to say Parliament, the House of Commons, is where legislation is revealed.

Let's be clear about the leak that occurred with regard to Bill C-14. It was meant to turn the debate in a certain direction. It was meant to have the effect of causing opposition on the side saying the bill doesn't go far enough to gel rather than opposition on the side saying that the bill goes too far. It's a very clever and, I might say, a very successful communications strategy based on what's happened since that time. But it gutted Parliament's role in this process. It was unacceptable. It was wrong. There is no excuse for it happening. I come down on the side of saying the convention should be that we follow the letter of the rules and not that we deviate from them.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

From reading some of the snippets of the media reports regarding Bill C-14, we've been talking a lot about not what's in the bill, but what may not be in the bill. Could this be perhaps seen as journalists' speculation at times around talk that has been discussed?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to speak to Bill C-14 at third reading.

Four months ago, I walked into the first meeting of a special House and Senate committee, created to advise the government on its response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Carter case. We worked long hours and late nights, respectfully and constructively with all parties and involving both chambers. We heard from witnesses and experts from across Canada and from all walks of life.

As we worked, I know that many of us thought of those who had struggled and suffered for the right to control their own lives at the end: people like Sue Rodriguez, who died in 1994 after losing her battle with ALS and losing her battle in the Supreme Court of Canada a year before. I recognized important contributors like Svend Robinson, member of Parliament, in that earlier battle. I think of people like Kay and Lee Carter, Hollis Johnson, William Shoichet, and Gloria Taylor, who fought valiantly and won in the court last year.

The work of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying proved that a thoughtful and respectful debate was possible, but more than that it proved that a well-crafted bill could win the support of all parties and members of both Houses. I say that because a broad majority of us from all parties and both chambers agreed on 21 recommendations to the current government. I never imagined that I would be standing here now to oppose this bill.

This government bill ignores or rejects the majority of recommendations of that joint House and Senate committee. I am proud of those recommendations. It is true that many would have required great political courage, but all of them faithfully followed the evidence we received from the majority of experts who appeared before us. For example, I sought to have advance requests accepted by people who may lose the ability to provide competent consent at the end. The vast majority of Canadians told us that they want that. However, not only does this bill reject those recommendations, the bill would defy the Supreme Court ruling, fall short of its requirements, and therefore would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for suffering Canadians.

That is the opinion of the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, and many others. That was the ruling of the Alberta Court of Appeal a couple of weeks ago, and just days ago, a court in Ontario echoed the Alberta decision. Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the Supreme Court's basis for an assisted death “is the threat the medical condition poses to a person's life and its interference with the quality of that person's life”. He went on to say, “There is no requirement...that a medical condition be terminal or life threatening.”

Despite this, time and again the current government has limited debate and tried to strong-arm a flawed bill through this chamber.

To be sure, this is a complex and sensitive issue, but not a partisan one. The Supreme Court has given us as parliamentarians an opportunity, not an ultimatum, to craft legislation that is consistent with the Carter decision. As is so often the case in this debate, we ought to look at exactly what the court said. Here is what they said, in paragraph 126 of the decision, “It is for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to respond, should they so choose, by enacting legislation consistent with the constitutional parameters set out in these reasons.”

Today the Minister of Justice again suggested that the court instructed us to enact a bill by a particular date. The court said the opposite. Each of us as parliamentarians, facing a free vote, has a simple question to answer: Does this bill obey the constitutional parameters set out by the Supreme Court in Carter? In my submission, that is the only question. If it does not, if it fails that test, then this House is being asked to knowingly infringe the charter rights of suffering Canadians and to enshrine that violation in law.

The Supreme Court of Canada established that all adult competent Canadians suffering intolerably from a grievous and irremediable medical condition have the right to choose assistance in dying. The government would have us honour that right only for patients nearing the end of life.

The Canadian Bar Association has said that such a restriction does not meet the floor of rights established by the court. The Barreau du Québec has said the same, and so has the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, the BC Civil Liberties Association, and many other respected legal organizations.

I suggested removing this line to help the bill comply with the court and the charter, but that idea was rejected by the Liberal majority. Now the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled unanimously that the government's interpretation of Carter is simply wrong. In a crucial decision that the court wrote a couple of weeks ago, it said:

Carter 2015 does not require that the applicant be terminally ill.... The decision itself is clear. [...] The interpretation urged on us by [the Department of Justice] is not sustainable having regard to the fundamental premise of the Carter case itself....

This is a devastating indictment of the very argument that the government has relied upon to defend Bill C-14 against this rising chorus of critics. Surely that ruling should give us all pause. However, still some will argue that the Supreme Court cannot be obeyed right away, that medical reality dictates a balanced approach.

The government's restrictions have raised eyebrows in the medical community as well. The federation representing every medical regulatory authority in Canada has called this bill's end-to-life requirement “too vague to be understood or applied by the medical profession and too ambiguous to be regulated effectively”.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario called it inconsistent with Carter and likely to cause confusion among physicians. The Canadian Nurses Association suggested going back to the words of the Supreme Court, as I have done in this place. If that were done, this controversial line could simply be deleted. I proposed doing exactly that, and my amendments were rejected by the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Not only are medical groups concerned about the bill, many were not even consulted. According to testimony in the Senate, neither the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada nor any of the provincial or territorial colleges were consulted in the drafting of the bill.

We have a bill in which a few key lines have drawn heavy fire from both the legal and medical communities. These lines could be written on a napkin. They could easily be deleted, as my amendments would have done, and replaced with the exact words of our Supreme Court. Who could resist and oppose that in good faith? However, the government has refused precisely to do that.

On the first day of committee hearings, a Liberal member asked the Minister of Justice a simple question: “Have we sought outside counsel to ensure charter compliance of this bill?” The minister chose not to answer, citing only her personal confidence in the bill. Clearly, no independent confirmation of its charter compliance has been found.

I appreciate what the minister told this House recently, that no one has a monopoly on interpreting the charter. Of course, the minister is right, but I am afraid that the outlier here is not the critics; it is the government. The Canadian and Quebec bar associations, eminent legal and medical experts, the lead counsel in Carter, all are saying that the bill does not obey the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling.

Against that array, the government stands almost alone, brandishing a backgrounder from the Department of Justice and refusing to refer the question to the Supreme Court, or even to obtain an independent legal opinion.

Now the Alberta Court of Appeal has unanimously rejected the government's argument that the Supreme Court limited its ruling to end-of-life patients. Let me repeat: A provincial court of appeal has already ruled that the government's narrow and selective reading of Carter, the legal argument that supports this bill, is not consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling and therefore infringes a patient's charter rights.

Now we are being asked to enshrine that violation in law, and with what justification? No argument has been made for the bill's compliance with Carter and the charter. The minister is right that Bill C-14's many critics cannot simply assert that the bill is not constitutional, but neither can the government simply assert that it is. No one can claim to know the inner thoughts of our Supreme Court justices, but neither can the government continue to suggest that the intention of their ruling is somehow opaque or unknowable. The ruling was not an ink blot test, it was quite clear. The court was looking at the law with the same objective as the bill, to protect specific vulnerable individuals suffering during moments of weakness. The court found that the previous ban was overbroad because it caught people outside of that class, competent people who were not vulnerable and therefore deserved to have their autonomy respected.

That would remain true under Bill C-14. An entire class of competent adult Canadians would be condemned to intolerable suffering and denied recourse to assistance in dying. They may be forced to end their lives prematurely or violently. These are the same violations of section 7 rights identified already by the court in Carter. Although the court in Carter did not choose to proceed to an analysis of a section 15 infringement, the equality rights provision, the trial judge did. She concluded that the prohibition “imposed a disproportionate burden on persons with physical disabilities, as only they are restricted to self-imposed starvation and dehydration in order to take their own lives”.

As Quebec's minister of health warned us when he spoke out against the bill, this is precisely the same cruel option that will soon face patients if Bill C-14's end-of-life clause is not deleted. It is shameful that the bill leaves suffering Canadians in that cruel position.

At committee, I pressed the Department of Justice on this point. I told them the story of Tony Nicklinson. This story comes from an affidavit filed in the Carter case. During a business trip to Athens, Mr. Nicklinson suffered a severe stroke that caused what is called locked-in syndrome. In this state, he could not move a single muscle of his body except his eyelids. His healthy active mind was trapped in an unresponsive body, without remedy, without hope, and perhaps for decades more. He said he could not even drink and smoke in the hopes of shortening his life. Mr. Nicklinson wrote this in an affidavit, one blink at a time. He told the court this:

The flaw in the argument is the assumption that we all want to live whatever the cost in terms of quality of life when this is clearly not the case. I want to make that choice for myself. What prevents me is the fact that I am too disabled to take my own life and unlike an able bodied person I need help to die.

By all means protect the vulnerable (by vulnerable I mean those who cannot make decisions for themselves,) just don't include me. I am not vulnerable. I don't need help or protection from death or from those who would help me - if the legal consequences were not so huge....

I am asking for my right to choose when and how to die to be respected. I know that many people feel that they will have failed if someone like me takes his own life and that life is sacred at all costs. I do not agree with that view. Surely the right and decent thing to do would be to empower people so that they can make the choice for themselves.

Mr. Nicklinson did not live in a place which empowered him to make that choice. He did not have the option of medical assistance to die peacefully, and so he starved himself to death. If he were alive today, Bill C-14 would offer him no hope, no respect for his autonomy.

This is the point I made to the Department of Justice. I was told that I was wrong. I was told that Mr. Nicklinson would not have to starve himself to death in Canada. He would just have to starve until a doctor declared his life “reasonably foreseeable”. Those are the words used in Bill C-14.

This is what we are talking about when we say that the bill infringes on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canadians. Quebec's minister of health warned the government that the bill would force competent, consenting patients to endure starvation to win from the current government the rights that were already granted to them in the Carter case.

The court found the previous ban unconstitutional, not only because it violated the rights of competent patients but also because it was unnecessary. A better system was possible. Vulnerability, it said, could be assessed on an individual basis, and well-designed safeguards are capable of protecting the vulnerable. With these facts, the court could see no justification for continuing to deny the autonomy of whole classes of competent patients, like Mr. Nicklinson.

There is still no justification. In fact, the last refuge for the government would be to accept what is now clear, that Bill C-14 does not meet the test of the Supreme Court, and to argue that somehow it is necessary to violate the charter or even wise, because the safeguards the Liberals have developed are too weak to handle more complex cases. The bill is flawed, and I cannot accept that argument.

I was proud to serve on the joint House-Senate committee that offered recommendations to the government before the drafting of Bill C-14. We studied best practices around the world and recommended many of the robust safeguards found in the bill. Above all, I have great confidence in the care and professionalism of Canadian medical practitioners, and so I cannot accept that the Supreme Court was wrong in saying that well-designed safeguards can protect vulnerable people. I cannot accept that this regime is so weak—or Canadian doctors so careless—that it cannot be trusted to faithfully uphold the full charter rights of patients and to filter out those who are not able to make this choice.

Therefore, I am left with a simple conclusion. Enacting the bill would revoke from an entire class of competent and suffering adult Canadians the rights established for them by the Supreme Court. It would do so in a manner that is neither medically necessary nor legally justified.

I have sought to amend the bill and have seen those solutions rejected. I have requested independent constitutional analysis, and found none. I have called on the government to refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it has not. Now I cannot, as a lawyer and a parliamentarian, support the enactment of a law that I believe would be unconstitutional from the outset. To vote for Bill C-14, against the charter rights of suffering patients—and I know some of them by name—I cannot do.

The government may try to excuse the bill's imperfections as inevitable in the circumstances, and I know there are members here who recognize that the bill is flawed but have been told they simply have to pass it by June 6.

Let us be clear about what happens on June 6. The absolute ban on medically assisted dying will not be restored, nor will the offences that prevented it, such as aiding suicide, disappear from the code. In other words, crime will not become legal, nor will medical assistance in dying become illegal. Rather, an exemption will open for patients and physicians acting within the parameters of the Carter decision. Of course, every provincial regulator has made rules to deal with safeguards over the last year anyway. They are ready to go. A federal law is not necessary to provide basic access and safeguards.

I call on my colleagues across the aisle, with whom I have worked constructively and collaboratively, to give real meaning to this free vote, to prove by their example what Canadians know to be true, that the final word on our constitutional rights comes not from the PMO but from the Supreme Court of Canada.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 3 with a view to ensuring that the eligibility criteria contained therein are consistent with the constitutional parameters set out by the Supreme Court in its Carter v. Canada decision.”

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you both for your attendance today.

Having been around the mulberry bush on this one quite a number of times, I don't have a lot of questions. Most of my questions would come up as a matter of detail when circumstances arise. I may not even need all my seven minutes in this particular round. I know. It will be the second time by the way.

Chair, as much as you'll allow it, and I look to your discretion to guide me, given the fact that on April 14, Bill C-14 was introduced, that was the day of the leak. The chief government whip acknowledged there was a leak and apologized. At least it was reported. The notes say unreservedly, and I take them at face value. When you ask the question, who benefits, it's pretty clear it's the government. Nobody else benefited from this leak. Quite frankly it would be difficult for anybody other than the government to have the information to leak in the first place.

Has the government initiated any kind of a review themselves? It's clear one of their own has leaked this. Can somebody over there give me some kind of an answer, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You've been invited to address Bill C-14 today if you want to address the.... I'll leave it up to you. I know you weren't prepared.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question in light of so much wasted opportunity to discuss and really develop a meaningful piece of legislation that all of us could have an opportunity to weigh in on.

I really want to hear a little more about the importance of a palliative care strategy. I found it appalling that we were introducing the bill with such a lack of information. It was almost insensitive that we would be discussing something like Bill C-14 without any real, meaningful, tangible information regarding not just palliative care but enforcing the Canada Health Act in terms of home care.

I wonder if the member could expand on what some of the real tangible actions would be in a palliative care strategy that he would like to see happen in light of this.