An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

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.

Elsewhere

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.

Votes

June 16, 2016 Passed That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House: agrees with the amendments numbered 1, 2(d), 2(e), 4, and 5 made by the Senate to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying); proposes that amendment 2(c)(i) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following text “sistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.”; proposes that amendment 3 be amended in paragraph (b) by adding after the words “make regulations” the words “that he or she considers necessary”; respectfully disagrees with amendment 2(a) because requiring that a person who assists to be free from any material benefit arising from the patient's death would eliminate from participation the family members or friends most likely to be present at the patient's express wish, and this would violate patient autonomy in a fundamental and inacceptable manner; and respectfully disagrees with amendments 2(b), 2(c)(ii), and 2(c)(iii) because they would undermine objectives in Bill C-14 to recognize the significant and continuing public health issue of suicide, to guard against death being seen as a solution to all forms of suffering, and to counter negative perceptions about the quality of life of persons who are elderly, ill or disabled, and because the House is of the view that C-14 strikes the right balance for Canadians between protection of vulnerable individuals and choice for those whose medical circumstances cause enduring and intolerable suffering as they approach death.
June 16, 2016 Failed That the motion be amended by: ( a) deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “respectfully disagrees with amendments numbered 2(b), 2(c)(ii), and 2(c)(iii)”; and ( b) replacing the words “agrees with amendments numbered 1, 2(d), 2(e), 4, and 5” with the words “agrees with amendments numbered 1, 2(b), 2(c)(ii), 2(c)(iii), 2(d), 2(e), 4, and 5”.
May 31, 2016 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
May 31, 2016 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 3 with a view to ensuring that the eligibility criteria contained therein are consistent with the constitutional parameters set out by the Supreme Court in its Carter v. Canada decision.”.
May 30, 2016 Passed That Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), {as amended}, be concurred in at report stage [with a further amendment/with further amendments] .
May 30, 2016 Failed “Health, no later than 45 days after the day”
May 30, 2016 Failed “(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. (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, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of medical assistance in dying based on that guaranteed freedom.”
May 30, 2016 Failed “(3.1) The medical practitioner or nurse practitioner shall not provide a person with assistance in dying if the criteria in subsection (1) and the safeguards in subsection (3) have not been reviewed and verified in advance (a) by a competent legal authority designated by the province for that purpose; or (b) if no designation is made under paragraph (a), by a legal authority designated by the Minister of Health in conjunction with the Minister of Justice for that purpose. (3.2) The designation referred to in paragraph (3.1)(b) ceases to have effect if the province notifies the Minister of Justice that a designation has been made under paragraph (3.1)(a).”
May 30, 2016 Failed “(3.1) As it relates to medical assistance in dying, no medical practitioner or nurse practitioner may administer a substance to a person if they and the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner referred to in paragraph (3)(e) concur that the person is capable of self-administering the substance.”
May 30, 2016 Failed “(d) their imminent natural death has become foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances.”
May 30, 2016 Failed
May 30, 2016 Failed “(f) they have, if they suffer from an underlying mental health condition, undergone a psychiatric examination performed by a certified psychiatrist to confirm their capacity to give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying.”
May 30, 2016 Failed “(f) prior to making the request, they consulted a medical practitioner regarding palliative care options and were informed of the full range of options.”
May 30, 2016 Failed
May 18, 2016 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
May 4, 2016 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
May 4, 2016 Passed That the question be now put.
May 4, 2016 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that the minister made reference to 84 members who have spoken. What she did not make reference to is the other 160-plus speaking spots that were made available.

What also needs to be highlighted is that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons yesterday attempted to get the House to agree to a motion that would have seen the House sit well past midnight. Every member in this House who wanted to have the experience of expressing himself or herself on this legislation was in fact afforded the opportunity to do just that. It was the opposition.

In all likelihood, I have spoken on more time allocation motions than any other member inside this House. I can say that members of this place were afforded the opportunity to speak, if in fact their parties wanted them to speak.

Would the minister reaffirm how important it is that we meet our legal obligation from the Supreme Court of Canada? The bill still has to go to committee and to the Senate. What we are doing is the responsible way to govern this country.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important that we meet the June 6 deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The object of this piece of legislation is to ensure that we balance personal autonomy and provide protection to the vulnerable. If we do not have legislation in place as of June 6, there will be no safeguards in place, and the medical practitioners will have uncertainty with respect to the eligibility criteria around somebody who wants to access medical assistance in dying.

The Supreme Court of Canada said two things. It said that an absolute prohibition on medical assistance in dying is unconstitutional, and it put it to Parliament to do our job, to put in place a substantive piece of legislation that reflects the diversity of views that exist in this country. That is what Bill C-14 does.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON

Mr. Speaker, to mirror what my colleague said, this is a matter of life and death for debate in this place. I do believe that the hon. minister should actually check herself when she said that everyone who wanted to have a chance to speak to this issue has had a chance to speak, because that is absolutely incorrect. The minister should apologize for those remarks because it is simply not true.

If the minister is going to base her arguments by spewing lies in this House of Commons, then she should absolutely be very careful in ensuring she has the facts before she makes assertions that are untrue.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I look to your direction, but my colleague from Milton just accused an hon. member of this House of spewing lies in the House. If somebody should apologize, it is that member, for such an untrue statement.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It is inappropriate language to use the word “lies” or to accuse anyone of lies in the House. There are differences of opinions. I believe there is an inappropriate word that was said. I will leave the hon. member with it.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize for using that language, but as members can see, it is an emotional topic and that is exactly why the Liberals should not be shutting down this debate whatsoever.

The reality is that Canadians who want to partake in a committee process by being witnesses need to understand the points of view that are expressed by their parliamentarians. This is a free vote for our party. This is an incredibly important vote. An opportunity must be had in order for people to understand the way in which people are going to vote. Why is the minister not giving us that opportunity?

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Mr. Speaker, again I would agree with my hon. colleague across the way about the substantive nature of this discussion. That is why we offered unlimited debate, and the members opposite stood in their place to limit the debate.

We need to ensure that we have substantive discussions on this. We have had 84 members stand up in this House to debate this issue. We need to ensure that we continue on this piece of legislation by having it go to committee to have that discussion, to hear from experts and to hear from Canadians, so that we can continue to debate this so we meet the deadline of June 6 and ensure that we are compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada's direction.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quote both the member for Winnipeg North and of course theParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, because they revealed what their actual feelings are about what the government is in the process of doing.

Just last year, the member for Winnipeg North said:

The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians. It continues to try to prevent members of Parliament from being engaged and representing their constituents on the floor of the House of Commons.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said this:

Mr. Speaker, the government should be ashamed of itself. How dare it rule the country with such an iron fist?

He went on to say:

The government just invoked time allocation which would seriously restrict debate. It does not care to listen to the concerns of Canadians—

They are both right, and the government is wrong to shut down debate on such an important issue, to refuse to have the debates this evening that the opposition members of Parliament have asked for—

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. Minister of Justice.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague across the way would agree with me that we need to respect the institution of the Supreme Court of Canada, which delivered a decision in Carter on February 6, 2015. It initially had a 12-month period before invalidity came in. When we formed government, we sought to put in place a series of steps to ensure that we actually engage with Canadians in debate. We sought a six-month extension, and we were granted a four-month extension.

We ensured that we put in place a special joint committee that would continue to have this debate and discussion. It put forward its recommendations. We are continuing to have this discussion. Discussion will continue at committee, and discussion will continue through debate and dialogue in the other chamber.

We need to respond by the June 6 deadline. I am sure everybody in this House can appreciate that.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, some of my Conservative colleagues falsely claim that the Supreme Court is taking the decision out of the hands of elected representatives.

The fact of the matter is that we as a nation, we as elected representatives, we as citizens embraced the Charter of Rights of Freedoms decades ago. We treat it as part of our core values. The Supreme Court interprets that charter and applies it to the rule of law. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter.

I find this perplexing. I agree with my colleagues about how important this matter is, but if they really felt it was that important, why did they not start that study over a year ago, when they were in government? Why did they not do that over a year ago?

I wish I could ask my colleagues that question. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Justice could help answer that question.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Order. Before I go to the hon. minister, I just want to remind all the members that this is a very emotional topic, and I realize emotions run high. Let us just take a deep breath, everybody together. Take a deep breath, and we will calm down.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Maybe the member misspoke, but he did say that no study began under the previous government, which I believe he knows is not true. There was an expert panel that began. It is a point of fact. The member may want to make a clarification.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

May 4th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I will just go to the hon. Minister of Justice, and she can answer.