This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assistance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.
This enactment also makes related amendments to other Acts to ensure that recourse to medical assistance in dying does not result in the loss of a pension under the Pension Act or benefits under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. It amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that no investigation need be conducted under section 19 of that Act in the case of an inmate who receives medical assistance in dying.
This enactment provides for one or more independent reviews relating to requests by mature minors for medical assistance in dying, to advance requests and to requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.
Lastly, this enactment provides for a parliamentary review of its provisions and of the state of palliative care in Canada to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Perhaps the hon. member would like to repeat the question briefly, and through the Speaker if possible.
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and the candour and sincerity with which he has expressed his views. I am simply asking him, upon reading, analyzing, studying, and reflecting on the decision of the Supreme Court, would the member share his views as to what he would have done to comply with that decision and within what time frame?
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I did not catch the question the first time.
Clearly the objective in this country should be to encourage life, not to encourage taking life. My point would have been to make a direct commitment to make sure that we have true palliative care in this country.
Second, because of the Supreme Court decision, it needs to be clear that there will never be what is said in this document about returning to discussions on minors and those with mental illness. We need to be as tight and protective of the vulnerable, seniors, and our youth as we can, and to make explicitly sure that those who have a moral and ethical bar are not made in any way to perform a duty in which their oath as a medical practitioner was never allowed to take them until this judgment came down.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. While I do not agree with what he said, I found his presentation to be interesting. We can learn from our differences.
Two things stood out to me in his presentation. First, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court is changing the picture in a way, while that stroke of the pen is the consequence of a changing society, in my opinion. The second thing is this type of dichotomy that he is presenting between palliative care and assisted suicide.
I wonder if we are burying our heads in the sand a bit when we talk about palliative care. I am thinking about my father, who was deeply religious. The day he consciously agreed that my mother would receive morphine to alleviate her suffering, he knew full well that he was shortening her life. That too is medical assistance in dying. In my opinion, it is the very spirit of this bill: to ensure that any suffering that can be alleviated is, even if that has an impact on the length of a person's life.
I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of times that this debate, or close to this debate, has been on this floor. As recently as 2010, this issue around assisted suicide or assisted dying was turned down, not unanimously, but almost unanimously, in this House.
When I said “by the stroke of a pen”, I actually meant that. It was never a desire of the people in the past Parliament to endeavour to move our medical people to committing suicide acts with patients. It was the stroke of a pen that would change Canada forever, because once someone is euthanized, it is irreversible.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all parliamentarians for having the courage to participate in this sensitive debate.
According to the Supreme Court decision, it is up to the House to debate Bill C-14, which has to do with medical assistance in dying. The Supreme Court has given us the daunting task and the responsibility of establishing a framework for this. We are also having to do some soul searching about the finite nature of our lives and the lives of the people we represent.
It will be difficult and heartbreaking for me to make this decision for others, and it would also be difficult to make this decision for myself or one of my loved ones. I think that, ultimately, the law as a whole will not be perfect. It will only be acceptable, in light of all the changes it will make to the way we see life, for generations to come.
I do not want to dwell on the particularities of this bill, but I simply want to share the thoughts, feelings, and, especially, concerns that I have shared with many of my constituents in Lévis—Lotbinière.
All of us, as Canadian MPs, have the opportunity to have a close relationship with our constituents thanks to the many means of communication available. It is always a great privilege and a sign of undeniable trust to listen to heartfelt confidences.
I observed great resiliency but, at the same time, great concern about the bill. I use the term “resiliency” because, in Quebec, the debate was held over a long period of time and my constituents accepted the voice of the majority of the Quebec National Assembly, even though the decision was not unanimous.
The concern was caused by the version of the bill, which provides a broader interpretation than what Quebeckers had said they wanted. I hope that the final version of the bill will allay these concerns, if not completely eliminate them.
What was surprising was that the discussions I had with my constituents all led to another very important issue, palliative care. Unfortunately, not all Canadians have access to palliative care and that is the problem. Why not focus on life and on living with dignity, as was suggested by Sauveur Champagne, one of my constituents, and on the quality of our lives in our last days? Appropriate care could have prevented this debate.
There is medical comfort care and ethically provided adequate support that, unfortunately, not everyone can access for different reasons. Some people who are optimistic by nature shared with me that the issue of medical assistance in dying made them realize the importance of life and of fully enjoying it with their loved ones and friends. It is human nature to enjoy the best that life has to offer.
I believe that Canadians are aware that life is very fragile and that we all have the opportunity to share love and friendship, to strengthen bonds and to help one another while we can.
We all have to be aware of the need to strike a balance between our personal family time and the time we can generously give to others.
Other people have also talked to me about the collateral damage associated with learning that someone chose to end their life this way. This will leave scars on our society if it is not properly regulated and accepted, given that part of our population does not support this bill, since it goes against their fundamental, cultural, and religious beliefs.
With all due respect, we must consider the views of that segment of the population, which is just as important, because they are also entitled to have a say in this Parliament. Others, on a more personal level, are going through the process of losing of a child or parent right now, and they could, to various degrees, change their views on the act of choosing to end one's life.
That being said, ultimately, the decision to end one's life is up to the individual, based on his or her convictions, beliefs, and physical condition. I hope it remains a personal choice that is respected by all family, friends, and loved ones, a choice that is not influenced by any external pressures.
The question we need to ask is this: how can we be sure that this will not get out of control? It will be difficult to include safeguards in the law that will cover all of the very different individual cases. That is why many of us already feel as though this law will not be perfect; it will merely be acceptable. As medical advances allow people to live longer, what will be the appropriate degree of dignity, for those who have to decide?
For those who want to enjoy more precious moments, this may represent a tremendous opportunity to prolong their lives. For the others, the door will now be open to allow them to make a new choice, which also seems to bring hope to those who no longer want to count the days.
Personally, I have would have liked to wait and do what Quebec did, to take five years to assess the impact of this type of end-of-life option. Taking that amount of time to conduct a comprehensive study would help us, as legislators, make a more informed decision. I think that would be the wise thing to do in order to make the right choices for the safety of Canadians and future generations. However, that is not going to happen, since we are obligated to make such a quick decision. In my opinion, there will always be some doubt since the law will be merely acceptable. Time will tell whether this change in direction was a good one. May God help us.
Every parliamentarian here in the House and in the Senate will make a significant contribution to this debate. We must all bring a rational and moral tenor to this debate as we align it with Canadian values and thinking in a way that respects all of our Canadian communities.
After this debate, we will all be aware that, for better or worse, the Canada we knew will no longer be the same. We will live with this new law. We have to ensure that it will be interpreted in accordance with our guidelines.
In closing, the best way for people to figure out where they stand on this issue is for all Canadians to experience the end of life alongside someone who is dying. That is the only way to understand the full import and humanity of imminent death.
That would also provide an opportunity to appreciate and cherish the dying person and every second of the gift of life, to learn from that person's wisdom and the rich experiences that deeply moved and changed him or her throughout life, because it is human nature to seek constant improvement and to leave a legacy to our children, our loved ones, our closest friends. Personally, that experience—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Questions and comments.
The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.
David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his heartfelt comments. The common thread was individual autonomy. I deeply appreciate his comments.
More than 25 years ago, I had the honour of working with a justice of the Supreme Court.
His predecessor suggested that the decision to change Canada's position based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the stroke of a pen was not legitimate.
Does the member share his hon. colleague's opinion?
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
I will talk about my experience and my speech. I will take this opportunity to finish the last 20 seconds of my speech.
This experience completely changed my perception, and I can say that letting go of one of my loved ones took love and understanding. Faced with the inevitable, we find the strength we need to accept it, to make our peace with it, and to find the right words to say goodbye in our own way with the respect and love that every one of us deserves. May God be with us.
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He mentioned that he would have preferred to wait five years, in order to watch and see what happens in Quebec. It is true that in Quebec, we have paved the way on this issue. I am very proud of that, as I myself am part of the Jonquière riding in Quebec City.
Although it is late, perhaps there are people watching us this evening who are suffering and family members who are helping them. Those people cannot wait five years. Those people are suffering.
What are my colleague's thoughts on leaving those people to suffer unbearably, without making any rules with a bill like the one before us here this evening?
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
In our country, Canada, if the entire population had access to quality palliative care, we might not need to have this kind of debate here this evening. Quebec has already begun the process. Our country could have taken the time to assess Quebec's experience after five years. We, as legislators, could have drawn more informed conclusions after looking at the Quebec experience within Canada. Personally, I would have liked the opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, this debate is being rushed.
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about palliative care. I will have a chance to address the House in a few moments, and I will really be emphasizing that option.
How does my colleague think that government investments or support might be provided to improve palliative care facilities and put more of these facilities in place all over Canada?
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
I lost my father, who did not have the opportunity to have palliative care. Watching a loved one leave his family in small room at the end of a hallway with a badly painted chair that had probably been there for 45 years without any comfort for the family was sad beyond words.
It would be fair and equitable for all Canadians and their families to have the right to proper support and a certain degree of dignity in the final days and hours of their lives.
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, just before I begin my speech, I would like to say to the people of Fort McMurray tonight that my heart and thoughts go to them. They are fleeing their community tonight. Eighty thousand people have to evacuate. They are fighting for their lives tonight. We are thinking of them.
I rise in this House today 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). The issue of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been debated in Canada for a number of years. However, a resolution for this sensitive issue became critical since the decision of Carter v. Canada, which unanimously struck down the Criminal Code ban on assisted dying, and gave Parliament a year to come up with new legislation.
This legislation must apply to competent adults with grievous and irreversible medical conditions that cause enduring suffering and who clearly consent to ending their lives. Bill C-14 seeks to fulfill section 7 of the charter, namely the right to life, liberty, and security. The bill proposes a wide and detailed range of legislated objectives, legal notions, patient eligibility criteria, exemptions from the criminal liability, and safeguards. However, as experience shows, the question of life and death is very vague. An absolute prohibition of assisted dying forces Canadians who have grievous and irreversible medical conditions to suffer and look for medical assistance abroad to end their lives.
There have been two cases in Canada: Rodriguez, and Carter v. Canada. As well, there have been approximately six private member's bills between 1991 and 2010 that sought to decriminalize assisted suicide. None of these were successful. In Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court stated:
While opponents to legalization emphasized the inadequacy of safeguards and the potential to devalue human life, a vocal minority spoke in favour of reform, highlighting the importance of dignity and autonomy and the limits of palliative care in addressing suffering. The Senate considered the matter as well, issuing a report on assisted suicide and euthanasia in 1995. The majority expressed concerns about the risk of abuse under a permissive regime and the need for respect for life. A minority supported an exemption to the prohibition in some circumstances.
It is evident by the quote that physician-assisted dying is highly divisive; people are separated across this country. Bill C-14 is a very difficult bill for me personally to wrap my mind around. I feel, like many Canadians, that we are put here on earth for a reason. The reason could be debated for days, but like all living things we strive to live by adapting to our environment. From bugs to humans, we adapt to survive, to live. All creatures eventually die—some as prey to others, some to the environment, some to the weather, some to sickness, and some to age. Most will fight for life if threatened. As humans, it is our nature to fight to live.
Our nation has experienced two world wars where our veterans fought to give us freedom and better lives. How many of them would have laid down their lives if they had known that later people would be able to take their own lives as outlined in this Bill C-14. A number of World War II veterans have told me that this is wrong. Is it wrong? This is where I personally have difficulty in finding an answer to this extremely moral question. I am honestly confused and my emotions are mixed. Allow me to explain.
Both of my parents died of cancer, as did both of my in-laws. I watched my father's weight decline from 190 pounds to 75 pounds when he passed. He suffered immensely, as did my mother and my in-laws, but they fought for life until the bitter end. It hurt me to watch them go that way, but they made me realize the need to fight for life. That is what I first thought: never give up the fight until the end.
Fifteen years ago, I lost my life partner of 30 years to cancer. I hate the word “cancer“. My wife, like myself, believed in fighting to the bitter end. I watched my wife battle cancer for two years. If any treatment, from radiation to chemotherapy, could go wrong, it did with her, compounding the pain and agony she suffered. I watched and assisted her as her body weakened and she lost control over its functions.
I was with her when she took her last breath. I am a strong person emotionally, but by the end, I was emotionally broken as I watched her suffer so much. I wanted to end her suffering. She was hanging on to life day after day after day, and I asked, why the suffering?
We had agreed to fight as a couple only filling out a do-not-resuscitate order. At the end, I would have done anything to put her out of her suffering and pain. Morphine finally did the same. Now I ask myself if Bill C-14 is wrong or right. During my wife's last week of living, I would have welcomed the bill to stop her pain and suffering. That was 15 years ago. I still hurt when I think of my wife suffering, yet I am so proud of her fight to live. That fight gave us an extra year together, which I am so grateful for. Do I vote yes for Bill C-14, or do I vote no? I am so personally torn on this issue.
I respect the rights of individuals and the rights that Bill C-14 may give them, but my heart says we have to fight for life. I am glad that this is a free vote. I have weighed the pros and cons and it is a difficult decision, but I cannot support this bill. There are too many grey areas. Betty Unger, an Alberta senator, said, “There is something terribly wrong when a government does more to guarantee that the living can die, than to ensure that the dying can live”.
That being said, I believe the government must emphasize palliative care over physician-assisted dying. I praise those who have chosen to work in the environment and I understand that we have much to do to make palliative care better. Because of lack of staff, families often provide the primary care.
Physician-assisted dying is a difficult issue for me and it is for many sitting in the House. If Bill C-14 is passed, I ask that it include stringent safeguards to protect vulnerable populations and protect the conscience rights of workers in institutions in the health care sector. Members on all sides of the House have a variety of positions on physician-assisted dying. I appreciate our party's recognition that this is a moral issue and allowing members a free vote on this very difficult matter of conscience.
I thank all the presenters on Bill C-14 for helping me decide to say no.