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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it might be safe to say that this is the most important issue that will be debated in this 42nd Parliament. We are proposing a change in how we provide end-of-life care for Canadians, but it goes beyond that.

If the bill passes, we will give new authority to agents of state to take someone's life away. That is a sobering responsibility, one that I hope none of us is taking lightly. What is proposed is a fundamental shift in Canadian society and how we see ourselves as humans. After only a few hours of debate, we will be asked to change the viewpoint of centuries. We will be asking doctors, who have sworn an oath to not play God, to instead do just that and be the agents of death for some patients.

We are doing this without consultation, without asking doctors, nurses, and pharmacists if they want that responsibility. This is not what they were trained to do. This may not be what they want to do, but Parliament is planning on telling them to do it.

The haste with which we are being asked to overturn centuries of thought and practice is unseemly. I understand the Supreme Court, in setting this deadline, is only doing what it perceives as being proper. I am sure the justices of the courts are well-meaning men and women, generally concerned with the plight of those who are terminally ill, in pain, and who wish to end their lives but are physically unable to do so.

I am sure that I am not alone in receiving calls, letters, emails, and submissions from people opposed to this legislation. Many have come from those who take a religious approach to this issue. From what I can see, people of faith, Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, are united in their belief in the sacredness of life, and feel that in endorsing so-called assisted dying, the state is intruding into areas that should be beyond its jurisdiction.

It seems to me that we, as a nation, should be having a full and lengthy debate on how we approach life and quality of life, a debate perhaps done under more objective circumstances than when a loved one is suffering from an incurable illness. We are being asked to make profoundly disturbing choices and ordered to do it now. It does not take much talent to predict that in the aftermath of this legislation there will be confusion.

However, if killing patients becomes an option, for whatever supposedly good reason, how long will it be before that reason becomes more flexible than rigid? What about those with no family who are a drain on hospital resources? Would it not be in the financial best interests of society to end their lives?

How are we going to prevent families from pressuring their aged ones, urging them to request death so that the next generation of the family will be financially better off? There are so many issues that are still unresolved. We are acting in haste, and it seems to be almost guaranteed that we will get it wrong.

This brings me to this hastily drafted piece of legislation that we are considering tonight. Apparently the government has decided that the idea of assisted suicide is not itself worthy of debate. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that despite the objections of people of faith and many other Canadians, medically assisted dying is a done deal. Laying aside any debate on the merits or lack thereof on the concept of assisted dying, we need to examine this bill and deal with its flaws.

I am extremely concerned about the safeguards, or perhaps I should say the lack of safeguards, that this legislation provides for those who, in good conscience, do not wish to take part in aiding someone's death. Simply put, the bill does not go far enough in protecting those people.

What happens when a physician, in good conscience, declines to end someone's life? We do not know. We are told that there will be protection of conscience rights, but that is not spelled out in the legislation. Apparently, that will be left for the provinces to figure out, or for someone else to make the rules, and who, we are not told.

If I were a physician, I would be feeling very uneasy right now. The legislation spells out how doctors would not be subject to prosecution for ending someone's life if they requested aid in dying. What would happen to health care professionals who decline to end a life? What penalties would the state impose on them if they wish to abide by their conscience, or would the state not allow them to follow the dictates of conscience and insist they become killers?

Supporters of the legislation, I am sure, will tell us that, of course, no one would be forced to perform actions they consider to be unethical. If so, where is that in the legislation? Health care professionals cannot be faulted for being uneasy when they are told, “Trust us”.

We might not be discussing this issue if we were doing a better job as a nation in assisting those approaching the end of their natural life. Where is the commitment of the government to increase funding for palliative care, which was an election promise unfulfilled in budget 2016?

Three billion dollars was promised for long-term and palliative care, but nothing was delivered. Should we not, as a nation, be considering how to improve the quality of life for those facing serious illness, or is it just cheaper to encourage them to end their own lives to save money for the health care system? Access to proper palliative care would be an essential part of end-of-life decision-making and, in many cases, would encourage people not to take their own lives.

When we are talking about conscience in these matters, the concept goes beyond the rights of individuals. It also strikes deep at the nature of our health care system. Has the government given any consideration to the fact that many of the hospitals in our country were founded by religious organizations and are still run by them, groups whose members would not look favourably on the idea of being ordered by government to assist in providing services to which they are philosophically opposed? Is that something, again, to be left for the provinces to work out?

Is it the government's intention to require hospitals run by Roman Catholics or the Salvation Army to administer procedures that run counter to their deeply held beliefs? What right is more important, and how does the government choose? What sort of coercion would be applied to force individuals and organizations to abandon deeply held beliefs?

The legislation before us is deeply flawed. It should not be supported unless it is greatly improved, especially in providing protection for freedom of conscience for both individuals and institutions in the health care system.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

I will be brief. In his speech, my colleague mentioned that there was not enough time to make a decision and that we do not have enough time to study the bill. I would like to remind him that when they were in power, the Conservatives did nothing for months after the Supreme Court decision was handed down. As a result of their inaction, we did not have time to hold consultations, carry out studies or just simply debate the issue in the House.

I believe that now is the time to do this because there are only so many days left. I keep thinking about the people who are suffering and who do not have the means to alleviate their suffering, and I am also thinking about the families.

Therefore, I believe that it is important to pass this bill at second reading so we can amend it and create a good, well-structured bill, that will protect both the people who are suffering and those who are most vulnerable.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, basically, what we have seen here is that the previous government did not have enough time. That is why it was left for more time, for more consultation, for getting better opinions, for getting Canadians on board, for getting professionals on board, so we could get the best legislation.

This is something that comes once in a century, and we must be very careful in providing the best law, that if we are going to have a law in place not to have a six-month window. We are confident that, if the government wanted to ask the court for an extension of time, it could get it. Why force it? What is the rush? We should study it well, and we should come up with the best legislation we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for an excellent speech and for his excellent work. He is my neighbour in the Edmonton area, and I sometimes feel he knows more people in my riding than I do.

I want to ask about a specific case that builds on some of the comments he made. Dr. Nancy Naylor is a case I have mentioned before. She is a family and palliative care physician in Ontario who has said that she is leaving the profession because of the absence of conscience protection in the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons' policy and in this legislation.

This is a huge issue of access for her patients, for the people in her community. Why would we push people out of this profession who are currently providing compassionate, loving, and necessary palliative care when we already have a shortage? Why would we push people out of it who want to provide care? Let those who want to provide euthanasia provide it, but let us protect those who want to provide palliative care and allow them to remain in the profession so they do not have their conscience infringed and they are not forced to leave.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks my mind basically, because really, I do care and worry about the professionals out there, the physicians who spend their lives studying and going to school, who will be forced to do something they do not want to do. It is as if someone is giving them a gun and saying “shoot me”. Then they have to commit a crime just because they were told to do so. That is not what we want here. We want legislation next to perfect. Hopefully we can get that if we have more consultation and give it more time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my colleague. First, he said if he were a doctor he would be worried because they are going to be forced to do something. I would ask him to point to the passage in the legislation that forces doctors to do anything. There is absolutely nothing there in that regard.

I would also refer him to the position of the Canadian Medical Association, which has been strongly supportive of the legislation.

However, I want to come back to the issue of not enough debate. The decision was on February 6, 2015. We brought forward a motion on February 24. The government defeated it. That motion would have had the committee's work done by July. Between the day of the decision on February 6 and the election, the previous Conservative government did nothing. How can Conservatives now say we do not have enough time?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, the bill is not clear. There are a lot of vagaries. I am not going to represent myself as a member of Parliament and say someone told me so, or the Medical Association told us so. This is not the way we legislate. This is not the way we think.

We need more time. We need to absorb. We need to understand because our conscience has to play in making this decision, and we must do that carefully and thoughtfully.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me start tonight by thanking my constituents who have written to me on this issue. It is approaching 12 years that I have been a member of Parliament in this place and, unlike some other members, there are issues on which I have received more correspondence. However, I have received a fair bit of input from my constituents and, not surprisingly, it varies. I want to express my appreciation because the democratic process only works when everyone is engaged, when citizens speak what they feel are the fundamental principles involved.

I also want to give a special shout to one of the high school classes at Bishop James Mahoney High School, which I was at last week. We discussed these very profound issues. The young people in a grade 11 class had thought about it deeply. They had read the legislation. They had gone through it, unfortunately I might say, more thoroughly than some of the parliamentarians who may be voting on this in the future. The students had come to some very clear conclusions and understandings about what this is, because however a member will vote on what we are speaking on tonight, this is a moral issue for however we deal it. Not that most, if not all, issues do not have a moral component, but this one in particular is fairly clear.

As has been said by other members, this is also a fairly personal thing. Each and every one of us will have to deal with death at one time in our lives.

I was on the phone earlier today with my mother, and she reminded me that it was exactly a year ago today when she called me and said to go down to the nursing home because my grandma was passing away. She did not pass away that day, but she knew she was dying. I held her. It was one of those times when we begin to think about the consequences.

There had been the previous court ruling. One has responsibilities to family, to country, to everything. As a member of Parliament, I feel that all members of Parliament, even those who cannot speak to this debate, have a duty to tell their constituents how they stand.

The first point I wish to make tonight is one that people need to understand. The law is a blunt instrument. The law is not something that can easily distinguish fine and distinguishable cases. The law is something that is very difficult to implement in very specific situations. In a situation like this where we are dealing with a law that involves the protection of life, we must give the absolute greatest caution and protections to life.

Pollsters ask questions. They ask people how they would vote in this situation or that situation. However, to be perfectly blunt, no pollster can encapsulate the complexity of even one unique situation. Yet we as legislators are asked to make a decision, to come to some sort of conclusion. That is part of our job.

Because the law is such a blunt instrument, because the law cannot distinguish in the most subtle cases, and because human beings are valuable, we must give whatever protections we can to life. It is for that reason that, whatever the restrictions that have been suggested by other members tonight, I will be supporting that. I suspect that I will be in the minority in this House in that I will not be supporting the legislation, because I do not support the underlying principle of the legislation. I suspect that I will be in an even smaller minority in that I would be prepared to support the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court's decision.

However, it comes down to that basic and fundamental understanding that the purpose of civil society and the purpose of government is to protect life—life, liberty, and the protection of property. Those are the things that we are to do.

Yesterday, I was at an event where we had a speaker talking about freedom and about the issues involved. He noted that throughout history there have been different forms of government, but mostly they have come down to three basic styles: familial, clan-style government like there are in many African tribal societies and like the clan system of northern Scotland; a hierarchical system, such as dictatorships and the system in the Middle Ages when they had the emperor, the king, the surfs, etc.; or a covenantal system where each and every member of society agrees, sometimes to some degree compelled by law but often through their own decision, to their own actions and their commitment to morality, to be covenanted to be part of and supportive of their neighbour.

That is one thing we need to understand. The basis of constitutional government is a system where we covenant to each other, to support each other, and not because we are forced to through a hierarchical power structure. Yes, there are police, laws, and ways of dealing with wrongdoers. However, each and every one of us has a particular commitment to our fellow citizens throughout our lives, even until the end of our lives. That needs to be thought about in each and every situation as we debate this legislation. That commitment to each other, at the bare minimum, is a commitment to defend the lives of our fellow citizens and fellow human beings.

Earlier last month, in the popular press, there were stories about some doctors in Quebec. I hope this is a mistaken story as these things are often exaggerated, but the story was told that some doctors had refused to treat people who had attempted suicide, even though they were very treatable. The college of physicians and surgeons in Quebec had to set a guideline to say that if people go into the hospital, doctors must treat them and not just assume that because they have attempted suicide, they have given an indication that they want to die. If the people are not covered under either the Quebec law or the Supreme Court ruling, they must be treated. Doctors have a responsibility, a covenant, to protect the life of a human being and that is the job of a doctor in an emergency ward.

When I read that article, I thought to myself that we need to understand that this is one of the consequences of passing this legislation. There are people, regardless of how many protections there are, whose lives will be taken because of this legislation. Again, I hope the story in Quebec was incorrect, but if it was true, there were people who attempted suicide, cried out for help, and unfortunately, were successful, but whose lives could have been saved.

Because of this debate politically, because of the ruling of the Supreme Court, and because of previous legislation by one of the provinces, there is a very real possibility some doctors did not interfere. When we hear about and discuss the suffering that people are concerned about—and in many cases, it is the fear as much as the suffering that people want to end as they come to the end of their lives—we need to understand that each and every one of us, even as we approach the end of our lives, still has that covenant with our fellow man. The question of how much suffering for one human life is one that we are very practically applying today in this legislation.

We need to understand that and ask ourselves how much suffering and fear we want to deal with and how much we want people to take in exchange for a human life. We make those decisions. We have to in society. It is not a morbid question; it is a realistic question. We set speed limits. We do these things. We know there are consequences to actions. We cannot live in a perpetual bubble.

The point I am making is this. Even at the end of life, if one has fear or pain—and I do not doubt the sincerity, the depth, and the agony of people who go through this—the decisions people make as they approach the end of their lives will impact others. There will be others who, because of the changes in this law and the reasons that are given for the law, will be pressured and will lose their protections such as in the cases I referred to in the province of Quebec. That is something we cannot forget. The ultimate duty of civil society and of government is to protect life. We must do it at all costs.

I again want to thank my constituents and my fellow members of Parliament, but to have a clear conscience, I must vote against this legislation. I can do no other.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very thoughtful speech. Obviously we have come down on different sides of this issue, but certainly what he put into that speech is something that was clearly thought out and very well delivered and expressed.

The member talked so passionately about the sanctity of life. If others in this chamber come down on this issue at this time in the same manner as the hon. member, we will be left on June 6 without any criminal law with respect to medical assistance in dying, and the safeguards that are built into Bill C-14 will not become the law of the land. There will not be a requirement for two doctors to pass opinion on a patient. There will not be a requirement for two independent witnesses. There will not be a requirement for a signed request.

We are in a situation in this Parliament where the question before us is not whether, it is how, and the how that has been put forward is one that contains these safeguards that will be lost if this legislation is not advanced to committee.

Given the member's deep-felt thoughts on the sanctity of life, could he respond to the ramifications that arise out of a defeat of this legislation on June 6?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. I understand very much where he is coming from, and I suspect that is one of the reasons why he will carry the majority opinion of the House.

As I stated earlier, and again I have no doubt that I am in the minority, my underlying preference would have been an absolute rejection and use of the notwithstanding clause, either as a temporary measure to give this House two or three years, whatever time the House deemed appropriate, to deal with this issue, or as a permanent matter.

I would say to the hon. member, there are applications for extension. I realize the Supreme Court would not look all that favourably on it, but it would be necessary. A temporary piece of legislation to say for one or two years the notwithstanding clause would be put in and then other legislation put through later in this Parliament would be another option. Those are various options that I think the House could look at.

Again, I am realistic enough to understand and suspect my opinion is in the minority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the timeline we have is to a substantial extent manufactured by the government. The Liberals removed the direction to the expert panel to provide legislative recommendations, which would have sped up the process. They had an opportunity, as soon as the special joint committee reported, to bring forward legislation. They delayed and delayed, and now they want us to be concerned about the timeline.

They should propose a better piece of legislation. They should fix the problem and then we can work together to get it passed quickly, but there are no clear criteria. It uses phrases like “reasonably foreseeable”, which are neither medical nor legal terminology. This legislation provides no clear criteria. If it does not do the job that the court asks us to do, which is to create a system of robust safeguards, then what is the point of passing the bill? What is the value of passing a bill that does not actually, in any substantial way, improve on the absence of the bill.

Let us reject the bill and give the government a chance to try again.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, and since it was really more of a comment than a question, I will say I very much understand where he comes from and we have very similar views on this issue. Since this is my last time to raise a comment, I just want to make one last comment before debate resumes.

I did not mention my support for conscience rights, and I want to add one small thing to that. We often speak about conscience rights as if they are conscience rights based upon religion. Conscience rights should be for everyone. It does not matter what our background or what our basis is, atheist, religious, irreligious, whatever it is and for whatever reason.

For the trauma that a person could feel if he or she helped to assist someone else to die, for just that personal reason, even if one supports the principle of the legislation, there should be no restriction on this conscience legislation, whatever we put with the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought that rather than giving my rationale and telling people how I will vote at the end, I would do the opposite.

I want to say, first of all, that I will be voting yes at second reading to this bill, so that it can be sent to committee where it can be discussed in principle, and perhaps be amended to make it better than it currently is.

At third reading, I will be guided in my voting by the instructions of my constituents. I am mailing out what I call a constituency referendum. It is effectively a survey designed to ask them in as impartial a way as possible how they would have their member of Parliament vote. The reason I am doing this is that I believe, when it comes to a profound issue of conscience like this, the consciences of my constituents are every bit as good as my own conscience, that of the other members of Parliament, or the people on the Supreme Court of Canada. They will guide me at third reading.

My comments today are, therefore, about the underlying issue that I think is at stake here as we, meaning Parliament, the courts, the policy-makers here in Canada and frankly in every country in the world, must face as we deal with the realities of life and death at this particular moment in time.

Right now, and this is not something that has always been true in our history, life is expensive, maintaining life is expensive, and death is cheap. This is something that has not been true throughout our history.

Anybody who reads the novels of the Brontë sisters is aware of the fact that in the mid-19th century, and in every century before that, life was relatively inexpensive to maintain, in part because the ability of medical technology to keep people alive was so limited. The doctor would arrive, perhaps bleed someone if they had a simple fever, and then, at least this is how it happens in the novels, advise the relatives to prepare themselves. The financial difference between life and death was very limited.

That is no longer true. I want to make this point in the context of a health issue that has nothing to do with euthanasia or the assisted suicide or assisted dying debate, but it really illustrates just how expensive life is in a world of improved technology and pharmaceuticals.

This month, May is cystic fibrosis month. I know somebody who has cystic fibrosis, and I have become very passionately involved in this. Every year, I encourage members of Parliament to wear a rose, and we will all be doing this next Wednesday, in honour of those who have cystic fibrosis. I wear the cystic fibrosis pin today.

Now there was a drug introduced in 2012, called ivacaftor, trade name Kalydeco, which, for the 4% to 5% of cystic fibrosis patients who have the delta-F508 mutation of the gene with the CFTR protein, for that small segment of cystic fibrosis sufferers, this drug effectively turns what would otherwise be a terminal disease into a manageable illness that is problematic but not fatal.

It is available at a very high cost to them, their families, or the public health care system, depending on where the patient lives. The cost to get access to Kalydeco is approximately $300,000 American per year. The patents on drugs are typically about 20 years long. Presumably at the end of that 20-year period, the cost will drop dramatically, but right now it is $300,000 per year. Members can do the math, $300,000 times 20 means that it is $6 million to keep one individual alive.

It is well worthwhile, but the fact is that life is expensive, whereas denying them this care, and some provinces do not give public funding for the drug, is cheap. That costs very little. I do not mean to suggest that the drug company is charging unreasonably, or any of these other subsidiary questions. It cost $458 million for Vertex, the company that developed this drug, to bring it to market. My observation is simply that life is very expensive and maintaining life is expensive. Death is cheap.

Now, turning to palliative care, of course it costs a great deal less than this to keep people alive on palliative care at the end of their lives. However, the fact is that denying care is less expensive. This is exclusive of the Supreme Court ruling. It is exclusive of whatever is in Bill C-14 or should, or should not, be in Bill C-14. This creates a dynamic in which there is a strong financial incentive for policy-makers to promote the less expensive option, as there is in everything.

In this case, it means that the incentive to do what is necessary to allow the life option as opposed to the death option is reversed or weakened. This means the incentive to not provide palliative care is going to be very strong.

In this situation, the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Carter v. Canada is likely to have tilted the dynamic in favour of death as a solution to the high-cost problem of maintaining lives that are deemed to be not worth living.

To make the point about how this is relevant, I want to quote from what the health minister said on the Friday before the break, in her speech on the issue. I had the good fortune to be able to question her afterwards about this. She said:

Today, Canadians are aware, and have a general understanding, of palliative care. However, some studies have [shown] that the overwhelming majority, perhaps 70% or more of us, do not have access to it, particularly in rural and remote areas. Many providers are not well trained to provide palliative care services.

I think she was just presenting what she regards correctly, as a fact. However, read this a different way and a more sinister meaning becomes evident. We lack the funds, or the provinces lack the funds, for palliative care, but death is the less expensive way to ensure that no one lives an unbearable life.

Again, I do not think she meant this in a sinister way. The implication was simply there to be found, and taking her words and reading them a little differently, we see that implication.

Faced with this problem, the problem brought upon us by the fact that we can extend life in a way that never could before but with limited funds and, inevitably, there are not enough funds to deal with all the life needs that are out there, the wrong move taken for a reason that seems noble but is poorly thought through could have disastrous consequences.

To make this point, I want to turn to one of the best books on public policy I have ever read, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century, by the great Albert Venn Dicey.

Writing about Lord Shaftesbury, the well-meaningful philanthropist and statesman, he writes something that I think could well be applied to the Supreme Court's ruling in Carter v. Canada:

...the natural desire of an ardent philanthropist to save from immediate suffering any class of persons who are unable completely to protect themselves against oppression, and to do this by the means which lie nearest to hand, without deeply considering whether action which gives immediate relief to [these] sufferers ...may not possibly in the end produce evils of untold magnitude.

In response to this, the danger is that we will do what Dicey warned about Parliament reacting. He was talking about the British Parliament. He was writing of a different century, but this is a warning that is well taken by any Parliament dealing with this kind of situation.

He said:

...laws passed to meet a particular emergency, or to satisfy a particular demand...produce, in the long run, more effect on legislative opinion than a law which openly embodies a wide principle. Laws of emergency often surreptitiously introduce or reintroduce into legislation, ideas which would not be accepted if brought before the attention of Parliament or of the nation.

This legislation is being introduced in haste in response to an artificial deadline, and it is an artificial deadline, set up by a Supreme Court which has a noble goal in mind but which has not, in my view, looked at all the implications of what it is trying to do. In dealing with a highly atypical set of cases, all of our jurisprudence in Canada at the Supreme Court level is based upon suffers of ALS who, on that bell curve of different ways in which people can die, either fully in charge as ALS sufferers are of their wills and their minds but not of their bodies or, at the other extreme, like Alzheimer's sufferers perhaps in reasonable physical health but not in possession of their faculties, and everybody in between. We have used that set of cases that have come before us because that is the way the court system works. Only the mentally capable can get their cases to the court and the court has generalized in a way that leads, potentially, into a hasty reaction that could lead to a principle being introduced into our law which may have, as Dicey says, unfathomable consequences.

I ask us all to move very cautiously and to seriously consider the possibility of amendments to this legislation in the coming weeks, as we go into committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about what he describes as an “artificial” deadline.

The Supreme Court has imposed a deadline of June 6. This is a deadline that was imposed after we asked for a later deadline. On June 6, there will be serious ramifications if a law is not passed. I am at a bit of a loss to understand what is artificial about what the Supreme Court has said.

Surely this is not a reflection of disrespect for the court, but it must mean something. However, I am very unclear as to what it means, because I think the court was pretty clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could have used the word “arbitrary”, and perhaps I should have said that instead of “artificial”.

It is arbitrary. There is nothing special about June 6 other than the fact that the Supreme Court said that was the day on which this part of the Criminal Code would simply cease to be in force or have effect.

The court could have acted as the American court would have done and simply said that this law had no force or effect right now, period. It could have done that, which would have produced a different legislative reaction. We would not have reacted in the haste to get legislation rammed through by a certain date if it were not for the fact that the law was not being struck down until a future specific and relative approximate date. Therefore, in that sense, it is highly arbitrary and artificial.

Throughout my comments, I have tried to indicate that I am not trying to be disrespectful either of the court or of the drafters of the current legislation. I am simply observing that we are potentially, as a system, responding in a very much sub-optimal way to the great health care issue of our time, which is the fact that we can save many lives, but we do not have the financial means to save all lives in the way we might choose to do. That is an issue that is going to confront us over and over again.