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.

Standing Committee on International Trade

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

Madam Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to move a motion. I hope it will be supported by all members, especially those on the government side.

The government has said that it is willing to make amends for this week, and we are very appreciative of that offer. One of the things that could be changed is the perverse impact of the motion on time allocation that was adopted earlier this week. With that motion, at the end of today, which has been the only day of debate on report stage, the vote will be deferred to Monday evening, and we will not be able to have the debate that all members of Parliament want to have on Bill C-14.

The motion I am proposing would allow for a second day of debate that would not in any way delay the debate at report stage but, instead of debating other legislation on Monday, it would allow us to move to Bill C-14. Many members of Parliament want to speak to this, and it simply would not be acceptable to have one day at report stage when this is a critical stage of Bill C-14 in terms of its constitutionality and meeting the court obligations as well.

Having circulated the motion to all parties, I am hopeful that the government will support the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the time allocation order for Bill C-14 adopted on May 18, 2016, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), be deemed amended to replace the words “not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage” of the bill with the words “not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage” of the bill.

This would allow for a second day of debate at report stage. We would still have the votes on Monday evening, but it would allow more members of Parliament to intervene on this important legislation.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the case of the woman from Manitoba known as Patient No. 2 proves that Bill C-14 needs to be amended.

The patient has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS and meets the criteria set out in the bill. Nevertheless, the doctors who will be providing the care she needs are worried about being taken to court because of the vague definition of reasonably foreseeable natural death.

Will the government adopt the Bloc Québécois amendment, which would remove the threat hanging over health care workers' heads, namely the condition of reasonably foreseeable natural death? I would ask the government to give me a real answer, not just spout rhetoric.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the Alberta Court of Appeal did not rule on Bill C-14.

In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that Parliament was in the best position to design a framework for medical assistance in dying, including a series of stringent safeguards. That is what we have done.

The decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal highlighted the need to have a law in place by June 6.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is starting to look like another broken promise.

Let us now talk about another mismanaged file: medical assistance in dying. The government keeps talking about the Supreme Court's June 6 deadline as justification for limiting debate and refusing to work with the opposition. That is funny, because the government does not seem to be too concerned with abiding by the ruling itself. It is irresponsible to introduce a bill that a number of experts, and now the Alberta Court of Appeal, have deemed unconstitutional.

How can the government defend Bill C-14, when the bill does not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Criminal Code

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I sit here and look up in the gallery, I notice some of our finest young Air Cadets who have just walked in, and I would like to acknowledge them today.

I will talk about four issues that I have with the process and with the current legislation. I would like to bring up the notwithstanding clause, compelling, deeming, and a free vote.

I will start with the notwithstanding clause.

I think a lot of us, especially on this side, are a little frustrated that the Supreme Court struck down the law of the land and basically said that it was not adequate to deal with this particular issue. I would argue that this House represents over 30 million Canadians. We are the ones who make the laws in this country. I think we need to remind the courts of that.

Certainly, the courts are challenged to uphold the laws that we write in this place, but when I see the wringing of hands on the other side that we are down to a deadline which is so imminent, I would like to remind those members that we are the body that makes the laws, not the Supreme Court.

I would also like to talk about “compelling”. I will read an amendment proposed by a colleague of mine:

(7.1) It is recognized that the medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care institution care provider, or any such institution, is free to refuse to provide direct or indirect medical assistance in dying.

It sounds pretty practical to me. It goes on:

(7.2) No medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other healthcare institution care provider, or any such institution, shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of medical assistance in dying....

I guess what I am getting at is compelling one to cause someone else to die. This was brought up to us by a member of this chamber who is a physician. The member said that the physician is not the individual who would actually perform the action, that often it would be a nurse or some other medical staff who would have to perform the actual act taking a life. This is where I get really concerned.

I was talking with somebody while walking up to the Hill yesterday about my argument on Bill C-14 and the compelling side of things. He was actually supportive of making physicians and nurses perform the action of ending someone's life, regardless of what their moral beliefs are, regardless of what their religion is, etc., and that deeply concerns me.

As my hon. colleague in the NDP just mentioned, without bringing this issue to the Supreme Court, if we are going to put in amendments without getting the court's sign-off, my concern is that some practitioner who refused to enact an order to put somebody out of their misery and end their life would have to go before the Supreme Court. The practitioner would have to go through the legal expense and all that grief just to stand up for his or her beliefs, because the legislation does not adequately protect those individuals. It is a huge concern for me and my constituents.

I have talked about deeming before in this place, but I do not think I did a good job the first time in explaining what “deeming” really is and what it gets to.

This is on pages 12 and 13 of Bill C-14, and it is in relation to the Pension Act. I will read the actual clause:

(4) For the purposes of this Act, if a member of the forces receives medical assistance in dying, that member is deemed to have died as a result of the illness, disease or disability for which they were determined to be eligible to receive that assistance, in accordance with paragraph 241.2(3)(a) of the Criminal Code.

On the following page, there is clause 7, which references members of the forces, and it is very similar in what it is expressing.

My deep concern is that when a forces member or a veteran is somehow in tough times financially, it may become an option for the person as a way to get his or her family out of a financial burden by making the ultimate decision and ending his or her life. The fact is that it is not an option today, but this will make it an option in the future. This deeply concerns me.

Then, what of life insurance and what of other documents that relate to illness? What of those? Are they going to be similarly worded, that this would somehow encourage a member or a veteran to take that path?

Last, I would like to talk about free votes. On this side, we were asked about this a lot after the last Parliament. We were asked about how many free votes Conservatives had, and how many free votes the other parties had. When we were on that side, there were over 200 free votes, almost too many to count. We were actually given the true choice to make up our minds in this place. I think for the Liberals at that time they had around 20 free votes, roughly, because there were a few who stood to oppose different things. For the NDP, there was one.

What causes me more concern is that some of these motions have already been voted on in this House. All we have seen on the other side is one to zero in opposition of a particular motion. It concerns me that free votes are not really occurring, and that those members are being whipped into supporting a particular motion.

I say that in a challenging way. I do not say that as a way to say that the government needs to stay there. I think it is a challenge to the Liberals especially across the way to really hold free votes on this. We know there is a bunch of members on the other side with different issues of conscience with this bill. I would challenge the government to really stick to its principles of open and accountable government, sunny ways, etc., with this particular bill.

As my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George has said, this is going to be the defining piece of legislation that comes out of this Parliament. What it is going to look like in the future is going to affect us, our kids, their kids, and well into the future. It needs to be done right.

As a member from the NDP said, we need to make sure that this law is going to hold up in the Supreme Court. It would be wise to have a conversation with the Supreme Court about this particular legislation, with the amendments, and have the court come back and tell us what would hold up and what would not hold up. Short of that, this is just a simple exercise which is taking up a bunch of time, and the legislation will need to be changed all over again.

That is all I have to say. We put together some amendments. I have mentioned a few of my colleague's amendments. There is nothing strange in our amendments. There is nothing that is beyond what is expected by the Canadian public. They are about freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and all the rest of it.

Ultimately, we want Canadians to be free to make that decision, but we also do not want medical practitioners to be forced into making a decision that goes completely against those freedoms. I will end with this. I referred earlier to a medical practitioner in this place, and to a very compassionate argument about being forced into the position of possibly having to end someone's life against that physician's will. I do not want to see any medical doctor, nurse, anybody have to perform that action when they do not want to do it because of their beliefs.

It is a slippery slope, as many have said. I am deeply concerned about it. I hope the government side will think long and hard about pushing this legislation through without due process.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say how happy I am to finally be able to exercise my rights as a member of Parliament to speak to Bill C-14. Over the last few weeks, I have been in line to speak, but have not been able to do so because of the shutting down of debate and the antics put forth by the Liberals. I am really pleased to be able to talk today for my constituents.

I think it is important, when Canadians watch the debate, that they remember the debacle this week and that this was all about a vote on Wednesday to shut down debate on Bill C-14.

As my NDP colleague just said, we only have one more day, just a little over two hours, to debate 16 amendments. I think what is really important is for Canadians listening to this debate to get in touch with their MPs. They only have one week. I want them to look at the amendments and get in touch with their MPs, especially their Liberal MPs. As members sadly know, many of the backbench Liberal MPs will not be able to speak to the bill. The reason is that their front bench does not want them to speak on it. For me, for every member in the House, and for all Canadians, this is a very personal and very important bill, and has strong views on many sides of the debate. It will change the social structure of our country .

If we look at the foundation and the founding principles of our country and the great democracies around the world, they are based upon rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, we are actually debating some of the opposites of that: the opposite of life being death, the opposite of liberty being enclosure, and the opposite of pursuit of happiness basically being sadness.

I have been able to speak with, but also to listen to many of my constituents who have very diversified opinions. I think it is essential for all of us here in the House to respect these many points of view. At the extreme of one end, some were very much against the bill. Others were very much in favour of it. However, for most of the people I was able to listen to, they are somewhere in the middle.

The one thing that most of the people in Oshawa I have talked with agree on is that the act of assisted suicide should be an exception and not the rule. In other words, assisted suicide should only be made available on the rarest of occasions, and, of course, have the greatest of safeguards.

My concern, as we heard from my colleague here in the House, is that this is a flawed bill. In the rush to pass the assisted suicide bill before the deadline of June 6, the Liberal government has created confusion and despair. What have the Liberals chosen to do? They have chosen to break their promise to Canadians. I want to bring up and emphasize my question to my colleague across the way. When the Liberals were campaigning, they promised Canadians that they would put $3 billion into a palliative care system. I do not know where my colleague was reading it, but when I read the budget, there is absolutely no new money for health in the budget. In the first year, when the government is rushing to hit this date, there is no new money to support the other side of the equation. There is nothing. There is zero.

As far as health is concerned, this is a horrible message. It means that health care is not a priority for the Prime Minister. Canadians expect a choice between quality palliative care and this legislation. Instead, the Liberal government has chosen to support just one-half of that choice. It has put all its time and resources into assisted suicide and has not provided the promised $3 billion to palliative care, supportive care, for Canada's most vulnerable.

That is why I called on my colleague across the way to call on the Liberal government to immediately keep its promise. It is not too late to invest in palliative care. According to the Supreme Court, and from what we have heard, Canadians have the right to choose, to choose between assisted death, or hopefully the government can give them a choice to live comfortably near the end of their lives.

That is where this is really important and why I am glad I am able to speak today. The constituents I have talked to feel that the Liberal government needs to be held to account. Making the choice between assisted death and good palliative care has to be made available by June 6.

This is the first time in Canadian history that our government in Canada is drafting a law that would make it legal for one person to take the life of another. The Supreme Court has said that it is not just a required service, but has determined that it is a matter of individual rights. What precedent does that set? What do the experts in palliative care say?

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with you, but also with Canadians watching this debate and with my colleagues in the House, some of the thoughts of a very special constituent of mine in Oshawa. Her name is Dr. Gillian Gilchrist.

Dr. Gilchrist is a leading expert in the field of palliative care and she has practised medicine for over 50 years. She started the palliative care system in Oshawa in 1981, which was 35 years ago. I do not know anyone in the country with more experience, more respect, and more knowledge. Recently, through an initiative with Lakeridge Health in Oshawa, and Queen's University, a research chair has been named in her honour, dedicated to palliative care. It is the first fully funded academic research chair in palliative care at a community hospital in Canada. Dr. Gilchrist said that proper palliative care cannot be done without a team, and there is a lot that palliative care can do. There needs to be more volunteers and training. Patients deserve support, and the families need support as well.

One of the things Dr. Gilchrist said to me very strongly is that euthanasia is wrong, that doctors should not do it, and that it is not what they were trained to do. Dr. Gilchrist has treated more than 5,000 patients, and not one of those patients asked for euthanasia. She went on to say that palliative care cannot stretch across every corner in Canada, but with the assistance of the Internet, patients can obtain assistance to treatment as well as the support they need. Those individuals, at the end of their lives, can actually have a true choice. We know that experts have said that given the choice of good palliative care, 95% of patients will choose life over assisted suicide.

This affirms one of the most obvious weaknesses in the Liberal approach to this most personal and sensitive subject. How can the government rush forward so blindly toward an artificial deadline of June 6 without even providing the funds to improve palliative care options for Canadians? Have the Liberals even asked the Supreme Court for an extension?

Choice also belongs to doctors, whom the Supreme Court has said will have to perform this final irreversible act of assisted suicide. Doctors and institutions deserve the right of protection of conscience. We know that doctors have taken a Hippocratic oath that calls for them to first do no harm. The question is, why has the current Liberal government failed to adapt the legislation to provide positive protection for those doctors and institutions who cannot participate in suicide due to conscientious objections?

The legislation being presented today simply references conscience, but there is no guarantee of protection. There is a mishmash across the country. Conservatives have proposed explicit provisions for conscience protection. However, the Liberal government chose watered-down protection.

For me, it is beyond understanding how a group of nine unelected lawyers from the Supreme Court can tell physicians how they must practise medicine. We do not see medical doctors telling lawyers how to practise law, especially without guaranteeing their rights to abstain from a practice that all of them swore to reject. As Dr. Gilchrist told me, this is not why they became doctors.

I want to repeat that I have been prepared multiple times to speak to Bill C-14, and I have been able to listen to my constituents. What I think is really important for Canadians to understand is that this is not a debate about money, about technicalities, and this is not a debate about regulations. This is an unprecedented debate about the subject of one individual taking the life of another. It is a national debate. All Canadians deserve to have their voices heard.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the House leaders for all they have done. This is probably one of the most important issues that I have faced as a parliamentarian in the 12 years that I have been here.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying the other day about Bill C-14, it is evident that governments, national associations, and members of the public recognize the moral and ethical struggle that health care providers could experience regarding medical assistance in dying.

Most provincial and medical regulatory bodies have already provided professional guidance around safeguarding the conscience rights of physicians. Provinces like Alberta and New Brunswick say their physicians are under no obligation to participate in assistance in dying. However, they recognize that continuity of care, especially at this most critical time in a person's life, also cannot be neglected. Patients cannot be abandoned.

The Canadian Medical Association's submission to the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying recommended that physician freedom of conscience be recognized as a key component of the federal legislative response to the Carter decision. Participants at a public town hall meeting in Mississauga, Ontario, raised concerns about the ethical dilemmas facing physicians if they chose to be involved in medical assistance in dying.

On May 10, proposed new section 241.2 was carried. In effect, this amendment clarifies that there is nothing in the legislation that would compel a person to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying. This amendment would contribute to public awareness that the bill recognizes both the rights of health care providers for freedom of conscience and the needs of Canadians who wish to have access to medical assistance in dying.

It is clear that no health care provider would be required to provide medical assistance in dying. However, we must also respect the rights of people seeking this procedure to have reasonable access. We know that there are many physicians who would provide medical assistance in dying to an eligible patient under their care. We heard from them throughout the consultations leading up to Bill C-14.

In a poll of 372 physicians, the College of Family Physicians of Canada found that 65% would help a competent, consenting, dying patient end his or her life, if requested. However, as was presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights by Dr. Jeff Blackmer of the Canadian Medical Association, having health care practitioners willing to provide medical assistance in dying is only one part of the equation. The other very important factor is the ability to connect eligible patients with these willing practitioners.

People seeking medical assistance in dying will have already encountered many challenges. Once they have made this difficult personal choice, they do not need additional barriers, such as the lack of a provider. The government has committed to develop measures that will support access to medical assistance in dying and to work with provinces and territories toward a common approach to referrals or transfer of patient care.

Provinces and territories have also indicated that they feel that a third party referral function would be a viable option. This would respond to the access needs of patients and protect the conscience rights of health care providers who do not wish to refer patients for medical assistance in dying. To this end, we will be working with provinces and territories to develop an end-of-life care coordination system.

In its simplest form, this system would provide a registry of authorized providers willing to accept patients whose providers consciously object to this practice. It could also provide a system through which patients could self-refer to an authorized provider to seek an assessment of their eligibility. The end-of-life care coordination system could also be a source of information and resources to both patients and providers on all aspects of medical assistance in dying—eligibility criteria, safeguards, and so on—as well as information about other end-of-life options, including palliative care.

Similar systems are used in several other countries. For example, both Belgium and the Netherlands offer specialized services that provide physicians with access to a registry of trained, independent, and impartial physicians who offer consultations on end-of-life options, including euthanasia requests.

Collaborative federal, provincial, and territorial work could consider such international examples in establishing a made-in-Canada model to provide providers and patients with access to a system that could transfer care to a physician willing to assess and administer requests for medical assistance in dying.

Additionally, the system could service medical and nurse practitioners in need of an independent consulting practitioner, for example, in rural ridings, such as the one where I live, in remote areas, and where access to a second provider is challenging.

We trust our health care providers to work hand in hand with us in helping to maintain and improve our health. When our needs change, and we look for ways to relieve suffering and avoid a long and painful end, Canadians want to be confident that these providers will not abandon them but will help them choose their own paths.

I look forward to working with my federal, provincial, and territorial colleagues to ensure that, when the time comes, compassionate care and support at the end of life will be available to Canadians without undue burden or delay.

Physicians are key to the end-of-life process. They are a critical thread that not only binds but frames this whole discussion. They are imperative to move this important debate forward. I have shared my very personal experiences on palliative care and on how critical it is.

I met this past weekend with a physician in my riding who spent years working with palliative patients. This is a man who is passionate about end-of-life care, and he expressed unequivocally to me how important this legislation is. He felt that there is a strong desire on behalf of the medical community to find the right path to ensure that we have the best care options. This legislation is a major step forward on that very important path.

This legislation has created a national conversation around end-of-life care, palliative care, and home care and how we want to be treated at the end of our lives. This has to be the most important conversation we can ever have.

This is a true legacy piece. I believe the decisions we make around this bill will reverberate positively for years to come. As I said before, I am confident the proposed legislation provides us with a balanced solution that reconciles diverse interests in medical assistance in dying and is appropriate for Canada.

The House resumed from May 17 consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Life Means Life Act

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

moved that Bill C-229, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (life sentences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-229, which would amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Before I outline my reasons for bringing this bill forward, I want to make a few general comments, primarily for the members of the opposition who, I am sure, when speaking to this bill, are likely to say that it is just another approach to legislation by a hard right-wing Tea Party Conservative member.

However, I supported Bill C-14 at second reading and in all likelihood will support the bill at third reading. I will be supporting Bill C-16 because I believe all Canadians should be treated with equality and, frankly, it is the motivation behind proposing this legislation, which I will explain in a moment.

I am sure we can all agree that Canada has a reputation as a peaceful country of compassionate neighbours who live in relative comfort and security. We are fortunate that as a country our crime rates are low and we are generally able to walk our streets without fear. However, we must also acknowledge that there are some in our country who seek to do harm. There are some individuals who do not respect our values of peace and compassion. These individuals seek to harm others and make us feel unsafe in our homes, on our streets, and in our communities.

In our country, we perceive that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that principle should never change. However, when someone is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of heinous crimes such as multiple murders or murders which are so brutal that they upset us to even hear about them on the evening news, that person must be seriously punished for his or her actions. When a life is taken in such a manner, the families and loved ones of the victims are in essence given a life sentence with no chance of ever seeing that loved one again.

In the past 10 years, the former Conservative government introduced and passed over 60 substantive pieces of legislation to help keep criminals behind bars, to protect children, to put the rights of victims ahead of criminals, and to crack down on drugs, guns, and gangs.

I want to highlight some of the former Conservative government's justice accomplishes. They include the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Act, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, the Abolition of Early Parole Act, and the Drug-Free Prisons Act.

The most serious offence in the criminal code is murder. First degree murder, a murder that is planned and deliberate, carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment with an ineligibility of parole for 25 years. Murders that are not planned and deliberate carry the same penalty where they are committed in certain circumstances, including where they involve the killing of a police officer or sexual assault.

Through previous legislation, the former Conservative government strengthened penalties for murder, including eliminating the faint hope clause, which allowed a murderer to apply for parole after 15 years, and enabling consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murderers so they would no longer receive a sentencing discount.

Today, I am introducing the life means life act to ensure that the most heinous criminals would be subject to mandatory life sentence without parole. The life means life legislation would ensure that offenders who were convicted of heinous murders and those who were convicted of high treason would be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives with no access to parole. This would include murders involving sexual assault, kidnapping, terrorism, the killing of police officers or corrections officers, or any first degree murder that would be found to be of a particularly brutal nature.

The life means life act would amend the Criminal Code to make a life sentence without parole mandatory for the following crimes: first degree murder that is planned and deliberate and that involves sexual assault, kidnapping or forcible confinement, terrorism, the killing of police officers or corrections officers, or conduct of a particularly brutal nature; and high treason.

The bill also gives courts the discretion to impose a sentence of life without parole for any other first degree murder where a sentence of life without parole is not mandatory, and second degree murder where the murderer has previously been convicted of either a murder or an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

The law allows a criminal serving life without parole to apply for exceptional release after serving 35 years. This application would be made to the Minister of Public Safety and the final decision would rest with cabinet. The family of the victim would be able to provide input before any decision. This is consistent with the traditional approach of granting clemency and addresses legitimate constitutional concerns.

I recognize that some of my colleagues will object to this bill. They will say it is wrong to lock up someone for life because the person can be rehabilitated. To them I say, no amount of rehabilitation can bring back the victim of a murder. No amount of rehabilitation can bring back the stolen birthdays, holidays, and special moments in that victim's life. No amount of rehabilitation can bring back that victim to his or her family.

I believe Canadians will largely agree that some crimes should result in the murderer never walking free again. The victims of these murders deserve nothing less. As I said at the outset of my remarks, some of my colleagues will say this is just another Conservative tough-on-crime bill. Well, I am a Conservative and this does fit the definition of tough on crime. Similar laws already exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. These governments have found similar measures to protect victims and their families.

To those who would call the bill another Conservative tough-on-crime bill, I would say to them that they are right. As mentioned earlier, when in government, our party introduced a series of measures to restore the balance between the rights of the criminal and those of the victim's family. I believe this bill is the final piece of the Conservatives' efforts to ensure that the scales of justice in the future are never tipped in favour of those who commit heinous crimes at the expense of the family of the victim.

Income Tax Act

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

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

I completely agree with him about the role of committees, and I am proud that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were able to work together to make 16 amendments to Bill C-14. I hope that that will also happen in other committees.

I understand the demand being made by my New Democrat colleague, who wants to offer a tax cut to a bigger group of people than the one provided for in Bill C-2. However, during the election campaign, the NDP did not put forward any proposal to reduce taxes for those who will benefit from Bill C-2 or for anyone else.

How is it that the New Democrats did not propose any tax cuts for the middle class during the election campaign and now they are demanding that sort of tax cut before they will support Bill C-2?

Physician-Assisted Dying

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his substantive engagement in the discussion around Bill C-14.

We are confident that we have made and put forward a public policy decision around medical assistance in dying in this country. This is a transformative piece of legislation on which we have engaged with many Canadians and many members within this House. We look forward to the continued discussion.

We look forward to ensuring that we reach our deadline of June 6 so that we will have a legislative framework in place for medical assistance in dying that is balanced and which speaks to this transformative piece in the period of time that we are in.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after applauding Quebec's non-partisan approach in dealing with medical assistance in dying, the Liberal government is taking the exact opposite approach.

It is stifling debate, refusing to listen to experts about the constitutionality of the bill, and rejecting the opposition's most important amendments. Even the Alberta Court of Appeal has contradicted the government. Bill C-14 does not comply with the Carter ruling.

How can the Liberals put forward a bill that could be challenged the very moment it is passed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague will agree with me that we have tried many times to find a way to extend the hours of debate. At one point, I even moved exactly the same motion as my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, but the House did not support it.

We remain optimistic and we are going to work with everyone to ensure that as many people as possible are able to speak to Bill C-14. However, we are also going to show respect for the Supreme Court and the decision that it imposed on Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government decided to withdraw Motion No. 6. That is a good thing. Well done. The government has also just told us that it will allow a free and full debate on Bill C-14. That is great.

However, we need to be careful. We got burned on the bill on medical assistance in dying. At second reading, on two separate occasions, government representatives rose to interrupt the debate and put an end to second reading. That is completely unacceptable. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is an honourable man. Will he give us his word that every parliamentarian who wants to speak to this bill will have the opportunity to do so and that no government representatives will rise to stop debate?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle that it is important to have more respectful debate in Parliament.

I hope she will agree with me that, particularly with respect to Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying, we have tried on numerous occasions to allow the House to continue for extended hours so all members of Parliament can be heard on this important issue. We will continue to urge the House to do that.

However, we are also conscious of the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament, and we think it is important to have the appropriate balanced legislative framework in place by that deadline.