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

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech.

In it, he referred to palliative care. If hospitals and health care facilities offered quality palliative care, that would also affect the quality of life of people who are dying. What does he think about that? Would palliative care not also be an appropriate way to ensure that everyone can die with dignity? How important is palliative care in the health care system?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague for his question.

When it comes to palliative care, studies all show the same thing. Quebec is setting an example for the entire country, not only with regard to the end-of-life issue, but also with regard to palliative care.

We asked the Liberal government what its plan was and where the money was. It is difficult to provide high-quality care without money.

The questions refer to a void that exists. They look at only one side, not both sides. What are we going to do for Canadians? What is the government going to do for people who want palliative care for themselves or a family member?

I find that sad, but it is also an opportunity to build something that is strong, direct, and clear, to develop a national strategy that will give us a strong and ethical palliative care system.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague bringing forward a number of the issues he outlined. I am wondering if he feels that had there been more time given by the courts, some of these issues could have been addressed and the legislation could have been more robust.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while my friend was not here in the previous Parliament, it is a difficult question simply because the previous government made some decisions which many of us thought were unfortunate in terms of the question of time. While I appreciate and understand how difficult this conversation is, how politically charged it can be, emotions run high on all sides of this issue, the previous government delayed the efforts of Parliament to the point where we had to seek an extension by the court, which is not something the Supreme Court loves to do. Fair enough, it gave us a full year and we had to go back and seek more time.

I am of two minds. Yes, of course, we could have used more time, yet very little happens in life without a deadline. We need that impetus and urgency in order to get something done. I appreciate that we are having long sittings so that all members get an opportunity to speak here, and that the committee is sitting very long meetings right now. We heard from the health minister and the justice minister yesterday. It is what it is now.

What I fear, and I do not think this will happen but it is a legitimate fear, is that if we push anything further past the deadline that we have right now, then we will have nothing. We will simply have no law on the books. Whatever side of the issue people sit on, I do not think that would be an acceptable conclusion, simply because Parliament would recess into the summer and we would have two or three months in which the laws have been struck down by the courts and we have nothing in their place. Then what do we say to the medical professionals? What do we say to the families who have someone at end-of-life stages as to what the rules are? We have no rules.

There have been previous difficult debates in the legislature. This legislature poorly dealt with the issue of abortion and never really resolved it completely. We cannot do that again around this question. We have to find the courage of our convictions and be resolved to bring forward our best thoughts and our best heart toward this question.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an important and sobering issue that I rise to address, which is on the minds of many Canadian families.

Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada found the current Criminal Code prohibition on physician-assisted dying to be constitutionally invalid. This decision required the government to revisit Canada's long-standing prohibition against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Bill C-14 came about as a response to the Supreme Court ruling on the Carter case. The Carter case determined that persons who satisfy the following criterion of being a competent adult, suffering intolerably from a grievous and irremediable condition, and able to give their clear consent, have a right under section 7 of the charter to physician-assisted dying, or PAD.

Since that decision, the government appointed a Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying to make recommendations on a legislative response. Liberal and NDP members in the main report for the special joint committee recommended a very permissive physician-assisted death regime beyond the parameters set aside by the Carter case. Their original report included provisions that suggested that physician-assisted death be available to persons with terminal and non-terminal illnesses, and to persons with physical and psychological conditions. What was most concerning, however, was the suggestion that the government would, in the future, study issues related to physician-assisted death for minors.

The recommendations and provisions suggested by the original report would set Canada on a very treacherous path. In response to these concerns, my Conservative colleagues released a dissenting report, which reined in some of the worrying suggestions and put forward a framework that more closely reflects the Carter decision.

In the dissenting report, my colleagues raised key issues that the legislation could tackle, which included limiting physician-assisted death to competent adults 18 or over; safeguards for vulnerable persons, including a provision for a psychiatric assessment; no advance directives; and conscience protections for physicians. Bill C-14 has adopted some of these key provisions from my colleagues' dissenting report.

The main safeguards in Bill C-14 include limiting euthanasia and assisted suicide to physical illnesses only, and putting in place an age restriction for such procedures. For those individuals who fall under the criteria for PAD, there is no specific referral to a psychiatrist in order to determine whether there are underlying mental illness issues that would compromise their capacity to give an informed consent.

Letters have been pouring in from communities in my riding. I did promise my constituents that I would listen and study all of the important points that have been raised.

This situation has pit the gravely ill against their own family's moral positions, and I too have been touched by the many stories that I have heard. Departed friends and family members had spoken to me in the past about allowing for a merciful end to their suffering, a position that many of us may find ourselves in when our time has come.

However, I am concerned that amendments may be introduced in committee to make the current legislative framework more permissive, or that an opening is presented for regulation to allow for the same permissiveness later on. This concern does not come from thin air, but rather from the very study penned by the special joint committee. Perhaps there could be amendments that would spell out a more restrictive legal framework so that we could effectively ensure that the safeguards are there to always protect the most vulnerable.

Canadian families on all sides of this debate are left anxious as to what lies ahead when the bill moves forward. The Carter case has forced Canadians to come to terms with this difficult decision.

I want to reiterate what my Conservative colleagues have been saying in the weeks leading up to this debate: our priority as parliamentarians should be to ensure that any new legislation developed conforms strictly to the Supreme Court decision, nothing more and nothing less.

Most Canadians want to see the government focus on improving palliative care, as it is an integral part of end-of-life care. There was unanimous agreement from the special joint committee and stakeholders, including the CMA, on the need for a pan-Canadian strategy on palliative care with dedicated funding. If it were up to Canadians, a national strategy on palliative care would be priority number one.

The conscience rights of health care professionals should also be taken into consideration. For some, physician-assisted death is against their moral code. It would be unjust to force a medical professional to act against their convictions. The oath to do no harm is founded in our commitment to look after one another and to care for our most vulnerable through viable medical interventions that honour the sanctity of life. There are many physicians and other health care providers that have raised this issue both with their members of Parliament and at committee. We parliamentarians need to address this for their sake.

There are harsh lessons to be learned from past experiences of jurisdictions such as Belgium. After legalizing euthanasia, deaths from such interventions increased every year. Safeguards were allowed to be removed and euthanasia is now available to individuals who are experiencing mental distress.

One of the most troubling instances of this slippery slope was when the Belgian parliament approved a bill that removed the age restriction from physician-assisted death, a provision actually recommended by our special joint committee report. This PAD extension to minors was not included in the original legislation passed by Belgium years before either.

The slippery slope is a real social phenomenon. We cannot allow Canada to go down that path. We cannot allow any legislation on physician-assisted death to be permissive. Provisions must be restrictive as the Carter case dictates it to be. Canadians expect us to be steadfast in delivering a fair and clear legislation, but we have to avoid expediting any circumstances that would lead to fewer safeguards.

I urge my colleagues to learn from these harsh realities and lessons. While it has become imperative that the House pass legislation before June 6, it is equally important to make sure that we have an effective piece of legislation.

It is also true that not having a legislative framework to address physician-assisted death is equally irresponsible. Without a comprehensive legislative framework, Canada would consist of a patchwork of provincial protocols that would create other serious concerns.

We must also remember to be realistic. Even with safeguards, consent can be coerced and vulnerable individuals will never be without risk. In Belgium, there are cases where physician-assisted death was administered without explicit consent; it could very well happen here. Life and death decisions should never come easily, nor should it come from anyone other than oneself .

Life is truly a gift and we must treat it as such. Providing care should always be the priority, and I hope that a pan-Canadian strategy on end-of-life care is also unveiled. This legislation as it is does not carry sufficient provisions and safeguards. We can do better. We owe it to our constituents to do better.

I hope that if the bill is sent to committee, parliamentarians will have the chance to amend it further to include improved safeguards.

In closing, I would like to pay tribute to friends and family I have lost along the way. My mother and father, Verna and Herman Dreeshen, in life taught me and others so much about compassion and kindness. My parents also showed so much during their final days about strength of character, faith, and the realities of life. Of course, they are both dearly missed. The care they received was exceptional and there were opportunities for us to talk.

I remember specifically when my father passed away I had been in the House for two weeks. The first week we had elected a Speaker, so I had the chance to go home that weekend and talk to him about the individuals I had spoken to, such as Ken Dryden whom I did not agree with politically but I certainly did on hockey. We had a chance to talk.

I also had a chance, during the next break, to speak with the prime minister and talk about different issues and things that were going on. To be able to relay that information to him the week before he died was very important.

I say to all Canadians, as we face this sobering reality for ourselves and our loved ones, that they should know they are always in our hearts and prayers.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

How would he suggest that we balance protecting a doctor's right to choose whether or not to provide end-of-life services with making this service available to Canadians from coast to coast?

How does the member suggest that we balance these two rights? How can we ensure that this service will remain accessible all across Canada, even if doctors or health care professionals do not want to provide this care? As we have often heard throughout this debate, we need to ensure that this bill respects doctors' right to choose whether to offer this care, according to their conscience.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I caught all of the question, and I apologize if I go off in a different direction.

For a number of years, I was the chairman of a hospital board, and one thing that was very important when speaking with provincial counterparts was the study of ethics as far as physicians and health care providers were concerned. That became a discussion that the board had with many different physicians. The rationalization of resources was a discussion point as well.

I think we have to make sure we respect their rights. Simply saying that, if one physician does not want to deal with this, we will provide another one to carry it out, I do not think is the way for us to go. We have to make sure that the safeguards exist, the psychiatric assessments have been taken into account, and we respect the rights of the health care providers.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about advance review. There are a few interacting problems that create sort of a perfect storm in this legislation.

There are relatively ambiguous criteria, and yet there is no requirement for legal review beforehand. There are also opportunities for individuals or family members, who want someone to be euthanized or to take part in assisted suicide, to go from doctor to doctor until they get the kind of review they want. It may be that most doctors do not think a person meets the criteria, but the person finds one who thinks he or she does.

Would the member agree with me that, given these interacting problems, we need some solutions in terms of amendments that would actually protect vulnerable people, whether that is a system of advance legal review or some kind of other measure that would prevent this process of doctor shopping? Would the member agree that amendments are essential for protecting people who may actually not consent and may be pushed into euthanasia or assisted suicide because of some of these problems in the way the bill is structured?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, truly, one of the issues that is so important for us to study and look at is an issue like elder abuse, the kinds of pressures that are applied, and we end up with the elderly or sick, when they get near the end of life, feeling that they have become a burden. We have to make sure pressure is not applied on them, hastening the decisions they may be making. Of course, if pressure is applied and we find that is the case, there is going to be an issue as far as the courts are concerned, as well.

There are laws on elder abuse, and this would have to be looked at as well to make sure counselling is not provided to end people's lives through physicians.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I approached this speech tonight, I have said to many in my community and my family that this would be the most important speech I ever deliver as a member of the House. I have been here eight years and hope to represent my constituents into the future.

I am going to speak about the most vulnerable, about meaningful safeguards, and about addressing the slippery slope that is Bill C-14.

First, here is full disclosure. I am the parent of a 29-year-old intellectually disabled son. I held the hand of my mother as she exited this world in pain. I watched a very close friend pass away over two years, in pain from a horrible disease.

Earlier in this debate, the member for Durham used words that resonated with me, that we all seek “compassion on both sides of this issue”, and that is essential.

I am going to refer to some messages that have been written and sent. I should also disclose that I, too, have held public meetings. In fact, this issue was brought up during the election campaign, and I stated my position very clearly and concisely to the voters on this particular issue.

I would like to start with a quote from the member for Calgary Nose Hill who said in her opening statement that this is about “the sanctity of human life”, “defining the morality of our country”.

I would like to read the words of someone who is greatly respected. His name is Jean Vanier, and he wrote an article, along with Hollee Card, in The Globe and Mail on March 1. He heads up an organization called L’Arche, and he said:

We in L’Arche have had the privilege of accompanying many on life’s journey, not only in times of health and strength, but in times of fragility and weakness as well. Through this experience we have learned many things.

Most importantly, we have learned that it is the most fragile among us who are the closest to their humanity, to their suffering, and to their need to be loved. It is they who show the rest of us the way to live in truth and in love.

He goes on to say:

This is why we have a special obligation to ensure that the care available to each of us throughout our lives, but especially in our final stages of life, affirms both our dignity and humanity. Otherwise, we diminish our range of experience to include only our independence. We diminish the love we can share, and the vulnerability we can show to one another.

Such a spartan culture ultimately devalues life. In its place we must recommit to honouring and accepting ourselves and others by finding ways to accept our frailties, and the full course of life.

Members can see that Bill C-14 undermines the precarious position of people with disabilities in Canada.

Other interesting comments that were shared with all parliamentarians came from an individual named Hugh Scher, a solicitor and lawyer, who for 25 years has advocated on these issues. By the way, he points out at the very front end of his letter to us that he was not invited to talk at the committee, yet he has advised every party in the House on these issues.

Let us talk about the safeguards he points out.

Judicial or Tribunal oversight to ensure compliance with legislated requirements and to identify vulnerability before the fact is an essential requirement for effective oversight in respect of any regime of assisted suicide;

He goes on to say:

The requirement of judicial or tribunal oversight and of vulnerability assessment and identification before the fact by way of prior review are an essential requirement of any regime of assisted suicide and must be implemented by Parliament in the event that there is to be any prospect of safe implementation of an assisted suicide regime. Failure to implement such measures will leave vulnerable Canadians at significant risk without any means of enforcement or protection from abuse;

By the way, Bill C-14 does not have those protective measures of judicial oversight in it.

Some say the bill does not go far enough. Let us take the example of Belgium and how it has evolved over the years. Thirty-two per cent of cases carried out in Belgium are without any request or prior consent of the individual. Even though the law requires it, it is ignored and it is not prosecuted. The numbers since that bill was introduced until today are staggering. What happens is that society changes. Society changes and this becomes the norm. People start accepting the fact that this is the way it is.

One of the issues with Bill C-14 is the fact that, in the preamble, there is a statement to allow for further study for mature minors and persons with mental illness. To me, I interpret that as code. That code is saying that those who want wide-open, available euthanasia, death on request, are not to worry, that it is coming. That is the code. If we look at the report of this particular special committee and what it brought back to Parliament, stating what these people would love to have, we see the code that it will be coming. It is written right in the preamble of the bill.

Some have said that it is the incremental expansion over the course of time in ways not yet contemplated. Over time, citizens become more used to it. Over time, the law would encourage and encompass people with more ailments and younger patients. There is a dangerously contagious effect of assisted-suicide laws that has been observed in the Benelux countries and in the jurisdictions that have had this law on the books for a long time. This is about the sanctity of human life, defining the morality of our country, as the member for Calgary Nose Hill so accurately said.

Let us talk just a minute about the conscience rights of health professionals in institutions. These are not in the bill. We would have to amend this bill to have these rights in there. At my public meetings, we had many doctors who expressed their view that this was absolutely essential for them to carry on in practice really and they would look to alternative jurisdictions to not have to abide by this. That is also for health care professionals in general.

Moving on to palliative care, I and the people of my riding are very fortunate to have the finest palliative care in the country. One of the individuals who spoke at the public meeting said she has watched many people at end of life resolve issues among their friends and family, who would never have had the chance. These are people who have passed along in the best possible environment.

My comment is that the Supreme Court has forced us to this position. If we are to have a law, we must have a law that is as airtight as possible. We must protect the most vulnerable. If one person dies because of a badly scripted law in this country, it will all be on us.

I appreciate the time to speak tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, maybe this is a good time to reflect on the many members who have stood in their place to address this bill, many of them referring to personal stories which have provided a great deal of insight into what we are debating here. It is very much appreciated.

The member made reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. We do need to recognize that all nine Supreme Court judges made the decision, and we do have to come up with the legislation. We have known that now for well over a year. There has been some fairly extensive work done.

We now have the bill at second reading. There has been an open door in terms of government and opposition members being able to share thoughts and ideas with the ministers responsible, or to at least bring their thoughts and ideas to the committee.

I am wondering if the member recognizes, first and foremost, the fact that we have to come up with legislation, that there is a deadline of June 6, that the bill has to go through the committee stage, that it still has to go through the Senate, that there is an obligation on all parliamentarians to address the void that has been created by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is really what the Government of Canada is responding to.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course, we are all aware of the reality we are faced with today by the Supreme Court putting a deadline on it. It is totally unacceptable in my view, yet here we are.

If members take anything from my comments tonight, they should take that the government needs, and we as parliamentarians need, to craft this law to be as protective as it can be for all Canadians right across the board. That is what the Supreme Court actually said, that it should protect Canadians, the most vulnerable especially.

I am here advocating tonight that my fellow parliamentarians take that seriously, and to put in place amendments to this bill, if that is what it takes, and to take the time to get it right, so there is not one life, one disabled individual, one person who falls between the cracks.

That is why we eliminated capital punishment in this country, for the sake of one person being wrongly executed. I am asking for the same courtesy from my fellow parliamentarians.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Many of his colleagues have implied that doing nothing and using the notwithstanding clause are options in this case, so can the member at least acknowledge that doing nothing leaves us in a legal vacuum, which is not an option?

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to address this issue. We must not imply that it would be responsible to simply leave things as they are. We must ensure that people have access to what is now a charter right. Not acting is not an option. Parliamentarians must respond and take action. In this case, we must take action before the Supreme Court's deadline.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will more or less underscore what I just said. I realize we are in this position, where many of us would rather not be.

However, we do have options. There is the notwithstanding clause. That is an option. Whether this Parliament wants to go that route or not will be determined. There are other options, such as to not pass the bill, and in the meantime work on something else. Those are options. I am not personally advocating that.

I am personally advocating the reality that we are here, and we must address the issue, so let us address it in the most restrictive fashion we can so that it is an exception in our society when someone is able to have doctor-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Let us protect society as we have always done. This is about the sanctity of everyone's life.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this issue, as many of my colleagues have done throughout the day.

It is most certainly a difficult issue that is faced by many individuals and society at large. Like many of my colleagues, I have had many conversations with my constituents and medical health professionals, with doctors who are in support and doctors who are not. The issues and concerns vary with each and every sector. I have heard concerns around protecting the rights of doctors who do not want to participate. I have heard from constituents who adamantly oppose any type of legislation for moral reasons. I have also heard from constituents who have gone through very difficult times and have had family members who suffered greatly. They support legislation being in place.

However, the significantly short amount of time that has been allocated by the court has indeed posed a challenge on many fronts. While some consultations have been undertaken in some communities in some ridings, there has just not been enough time to engage Canadians across the country in a fulsome debate. In fact, in Quebec, it took six years to go through the process. As one of the options, we should request from the court additional time to really address these complex issues, to engage Canadians far and wide, and to get input from many different sides that were not able to come to the committee or appear as witnesses.

I have a great amount of respect for the members in the House who have worked on the committee. I know it was not an easy task for them. I also respect all the members who have really struggled with this issue on many fronts. However, to rush to develop legislation is really of great concern to me.

I am pleased to see the recommendations from our dissenting report that spoke to the issues of mature minors, persons with mental health issues, and advance directives. Some were implemented and some were not. However, there are still issues around conscience protection for physicians and health care professionals.

The protection of the vulnerable really must be a core foundational aspect of the legislation and framework, as eloquently put by my colleague, the previous speaker. Protection for doctors and health care professionals who do not want to participate must be imbedded within the legislation and not within the preamble.

I want to share a story that really speaks to the issue. I know of a young nurse who just graduated and who recently applied for a nursing position. The interviewer asked her if she would be able to inject a patient who requested to die. The young nurse, who had just graduated, said no, that was something she could not do. Needless to say, the young nurse was not hired. I share this story because within the legislation we need to protect individuals who do not want to participate.

We have failed Canadians as it relates to end-of-life care and providing a robust palliative care system and hospice support. We must institute high-quality palliative care in every community in every province across the country.

I received a handwritten letter from one of my constituents. I was not in this place at the time.

She wrote:

Did you know in June 1995 the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide advised the government make palliative care programs a priority in the restructuring of the Health Care System;

That was Bill C-545, an act respecting the provision of continuing care to Canadians, a private member's bill. She also noted that only 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care.

She went on to say:

Can you assure that Palliative Care will be available to all citizens of Canada before these same citizens are offered medical assistance in dying?

This is very poignant because, given the legislation that we are discussing and where we are going with it, we need to have a national strategy on palliative care. We need to look at the end-of-life care as a process toward death. This is part of the overall continuum of care. We do not do that now. I think it would be prudent for us to have those measures and plans in place because it is about dealing with people who are coming to the end of their life.

As I said earlier, I believe that a robust palliative care system should be implemented. I also believe that a psychiatrist or social worker needs to be part of the assessment process, and that a palliative care consultation should be undertaken prior to moving to doctor-assisted suicide.

The health minister stated in the House yesterday that $3 billion would be dedicated to palliative care over four years. I was pleased to hear those comments. However, it was clearly an afterthought because that amount was not included in the budget, nor was there any mention of palliative care or hospice care. This is a fundamental flaw that should be rectified immediately.

In light of this legislation, we need to move very quickly to implement a national strategy on palliative care. This is a very complex issue. I certainly have many concerns on a number of fronts with this legislation. We need strict protections embedded in the legislation regarding the protection of conscience and the right to have access to palliative care. I stress that these amendments must be embedded within the legislation.

Of most concern is the possibility in the preamble of including mature minors and those with mental health illness at a future date. While the courts have mandated the development of legislation, it has most certainly not allowed the appropriate time to have a thorough discussion with Canadians across the country. This issue is not one that should be rushed. It deserves thoughtful, respectful consultation and debate with everyone.