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.

The House proceeded to the 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are 16 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-14.

Motion No. 5, submitted by the hon. member for Victoria, and Motion No. 10, submitted by the hon. member for Montcalm, propose additional amendments to provisions of the bill that were previously amended in committee. Both motions seek to amend what is meant by “a grievous and irremediable medical condition”.

It should be noted that very similar definitions were proposed and defeated in committee, although they were proposed in reference to a different clause. In the view of the Chair, the objective of these motions is essentially identical to that of the amendments defeated in committee, and these motions will therefore not be selected for consideration at report stage.

The Chair has received letters sent by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga arguing that certain motions, though previously defeated in committee, should be selected at report stage as they are of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration, in accordance with the notice to Standing Order 76.1(5).

Motions Nos. 2, 11 and 15, submitted by both the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte and the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga, as well as Motion No. 8, submitted only by the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga, will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee. The Chair has difficulty accepting that they should now be accepted at report stage when no attempt was made by either member to present them in committee.

Motions Nos. 4 and 9, submitted by the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton and the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, seek to ensure that a person who suffers from an underlying mental health condition has undergone a psychiatric evaluation to confirm that they are capable of giving informed consent in relation to a request for medical assistance in dying. Motion No. 14, submitted by the same two members, seeks to ensure that people are free to refuse to provide medical assistance in dying. All three motions are identical to amendments defeated in committee.

The same is true for Motion No. 6, submitted by both the hon. member for Montcalm and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This motion seeks to delete paragraph 241.2(2)(d), which states that an individual's natural death must become reasonably foreseeable in order for the individual to be considered to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

In the case of the motions submitted by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Motions Nos. 7, 12 and 13 are also identical to amendments defeated in committee. Motion No. 7 seeks to amend paragraph 241.2(2)(d) to reference instead that the person's natural death must be imminent. Motion No. 12 seeks to add a paragraph providing that no substance is to be administered to a person who is capable of self-administering. Motion No. 13 provides for a review of the safeguards in relation to a request by a competent legal authority. Motion No. 3, which provides that a person must have consulted a medical practitioner regarding palliative care options prior to making a request for medical assistance in dying, is very similar to an amendment defeated in committee. The only distinction between the two is that the latter provided that such consultation had to have taken place within the 15 days prior to making the request.

The Chair appreciates the arguments put forward by hon. members as to why they consider these amendments to be of such significance as to warrant further consideration at report stage. I recognize that this is an important issue on which many members have strong and varied opinions. The Chair notes that the bill before us is unique, in its far-reaching social, moral and constitutional implications. The Chair also notes that, given the variety of opinions expressed by various members in all parties in relation to the provisions of this once-in-a-generation bill, the Chair is open to the argument of exceptional significance as contemplated in our Standing Orders. For these reasons, the Chair is prepared, on this occasion, to give members the benefit of the doubt and to select Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14, even though they were previously defeated in committee or are similar to motions previously defeated in committee.

All of the other motions, Motions Nos. 1 and 16, were examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), which deals with the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Therefore, Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 16 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose these motions to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

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

moved

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 6 the following:

“(f) prior to making the request, they consulted a medical practitioner regarding palliative care options and were informed of the full range of options.”

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

moved

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 6 the following:

“(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.”

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 21 on page 6.

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

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21 on page 6 with the following:

“(d) their imminent natural death has become foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances.”

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 6 the following:

“(a.1) with regard to paragraph (1)(f), have obtained from the certified psychiatrist a written and signed report following the examination confirming that the person is capable of giving informed consent;”

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

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 7 the following:

“(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.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 7 the following:

“(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).”

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-14, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 8 the following:

“(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.”

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the member for Montcalm, moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-14, in Clause 9.1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 13 with the following:

“Health, no later than 45 days after the day”

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your thoughtful ruling and your recognition that this is indeed a historic event and, as you said, a generational issue. In Motion No. 1, I have suggested that we delete clause 3 of the bill, which is one of the central features of it.

The Supreme Court's ruling in the Carter case was a watershed moment for many Canadians, especially those who had fought so long to have their suffering recognized and their autonomy respected. I was proud to support the principle of Bill C-14 during second reading. I did so thinking of Sue Rodriguez of Victoria, Gloria Taylor, and Kay Carter, and of all of the others who paved the way for the rights of other suffering Canadians to be recognized by the Supreme Court and by Parliament.

While I was proud to support the bill in principle, at the time I raised serious concerns about particular provisions in it. Still, I was optimistic that these concerns would be resolved and the bill improved by hearing from experts and making the necessary amendments in committee. Sadly, that was not to be done.

The first day of consideration in the justice committee ended without a single opposition amendment accepted by the Liberal majority. By the end of the week, after more than 100 amendments were proposed, just 16 were accepted. Of course, I am pleased that my amendment was accepted to strengthen the government's commitment to providing more Canadians with palliative care, mental health supports, better services for patients with Alzheimer's and dementia, and culturally appropriate services for indigenous patients. I thank my colleagues from all parties for supporting my amendments to that end. However, many of the handful of changes at committee were simply minor technical changes.

Along with members from several parties, I offered a solution to the glaring flaw in the bill, the elephant in the room, namely the fact that it simply did not square with the Supreme Court's ruling. I proposed using the exact words of the Supreme Court to determine eligibility. That was of course one of the main recommendations of the special House Senate joint committee that addressed this bill. Sadly, all of these proposals were rejected. It became clear that the government had no interest in changing the central feature of this bill. Therefore, does the Liberals' bill square with the Supreme Court decision in Carter? The answer is clearly no.

The Supreme Court declared the two laws that prevented medical assistance in dying:

...void insofar as they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

That language defined the circumference set out by our highest court as to who had the right to physician-assisted dying. Outside of that circle, there remains a total ban on assistance in dying. Mature minors, those who have lost or never had the capacity to give legal informed consent, those with solely psychiatric conditions, and those with merely minor medical conditions were never eligible in the Supreme Court decision. However, within the circle are all consenting competent adults with a grievous and irremediable illness, disease, or disability that causes enduring and intolerable suffering.

This bill would erase the circle set by the Supreme Court and draws a much smaller circle within it, covering only those nearing the end of life and facing what is called reasonably foreseeable natural death, a phrase which just recently the Collège des médecins du Québec called incomprehensible from a medical perspective.

A lawyer representing the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association at the court hearings said this to the justice committee, “Bill C-14 cuts the heart out of our victory in the Carter case”. By adding an end-of-life requirement onto the court's ruling, Bill C-14 would revoke the right to choose from an entire class of competent adult Canadians. That group is everyone suffering intolerably from an irremediable but non-fatal condition.

I have constituents in my riding who fall into that outer ring beyond the circle of rights recognized by the government, people who are suffering, who saw their suffering recognized by the Supreme Court and who cannot, for the life of them, understand why the government now insists on removing their right to choose this option.

What justification has the government offered for this disturbing decision? At the House and Senate committee, and again at the justice committee, some argued we could not afford to expand the circle of compassion, that the Supreme Court ruling could not be obeyed in full, that not all those who were granted rights in Carter could see those rights upheld because to do so would pose an unacceptable risk to vulnerable persons.

These are important arguments, but they are not new. In fact, they were advanced ably and in great detail before the Supreme Court of Canada. Here is what the court wrote.

At trial [the Crown] went into some detail about the risks associated with the legalization of physician-assisted dying. In its view, there are many possible sources of error... Essentially...there is no reliable way to identify those who are vulnerable and those who are not. As a result, it says, a blanket prohibition is necessary.

I emphasize this:

The evidence accepted by the trial judge does not support Canada’s argument...The trial judge found that it was feasible for properly qualified and experienced physicians to reliably assess patient competence and voluntariness, and that coercion, undue influence, and ambivalence could all be reliably assessed as part of that process....As to the risk to vulnerable populations (such as the elderly and disabled), the trial judge found that there was no evidence from permissive jurisdictions that people with disabilities are at heightened risk of accessing physician-assisted dying....no evidence of inordinate impact on socially vulnerable populations in the permissive jurisdictions...no compelling evidence that a permissive regime in Canada would result in a “practical slippery slope”. accepted by the trial judge does not support [this] argument.

That was the conclusion of the Supreme Court after considering the evidence and arguments raised in Carter, the very same evidence and arguments that were advanced at the joint House and Senate committee, which I was honoured to serve on, and at the justice committee just last week. After considering that evidence and those arguments, the court issued its ruling in Carter, establishing the right to choose medical assistance in dying for everyone inside a carefully measured circle of eligibility.

Quite simply, there was a large circle of eligibility. The government has chosen within that circle to define a smaller class. It simply cannot do that if we believe in the rule of law, if we believe in the fact that the Supreme Court should be listened to in this case.

In conclusion, I simply cannot support moving any further with a bill that would revoke from an entire class of competent adult Canadians rights granted to it by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Victoria for his passionate remarks. It has been a great pleasure serving with him on the justice committee. I always appreciate his intellect.

The amendment the hon. member is putting forward would strike clause 3 from the bill. However, if I look at clause 2, all of the exceptions in that clause relate to exceptions that are set out in section 241.2, which is set out in clause 3 of the bill. Effectively by removing clause 3 of the bill, all of the exceptions disappear from clause 2 of the bill because they are all found in clause 3 of the bill.

While I understand the hon. member's desire to create a greater class of people, could he explain how the rest of the bill can continue to exist since all of the references in all the remaining sections of the bill relate back to clause 3?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, the chair of the justice committee, who did an excellent job in herding cats during the exercise that we were part of and a very difficult exercise at that.

As the hon. member will know, the constraints imposed upon members at report stage are very stringent. As a consequence, the only way that we could bring this problem to the attention of Parliament was to ask that clause 3 be deleted.

We would of course wish that the bill could be redrafted to deal with the very practical problems that my friend raised, and I hope we can go ahead and do that in this chamber.

The fundamental point remains that clause 3 contains the essence of Parliament's proposed response to the Carter case and that response is simply inadequate, and with great respect, unconstitutional.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work on the bill all along, including coming to my constituency and sharing his knowledge from his experience on the special committee and on the justice committee.

One of the big concerns in my constituency has been the inability to give a direction in advance. Could the member speak to the fact that the bill would not allow for giving directions in advance so when one became incapable of doing that, one's wishes would be fulfilled?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to be in the riding of my colleague and friend from Edmonton Strathcona to talk about this with hundreds of passionate Canadians who were, frankly, surprised there was no willingness on the part of the government to consider advance directives in Bill C-14.

Since I spoke in Edmonton, I ended up moving that there be amendments specifically to provide that kind of advance requests, as so many witnesses had proposed. However, every Liberal on the committee voted against that change.

I think Canadians are demanding it. I get more letters and calls about this issue than any other deficiency in the bill. I hope that the review that is proposed in the legislation will eventually take us there, because I know Canadians are demanding it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is one principle in which my colleague and I fundamentally disagree, and that is on the issue of safeguards for vulnerable people.

I have had the privilege of working on behalf of many vulnerable groups over the last 10 years, as I am sure my colleague has. However, for my colleague to suggest that other jurisdictions have not had a problem with vulnerable persons being at risk to the physician-assisted suicide regime is simply untrue.

The committee heard from witnesses from other jurisdictions and, in fact, from people who had been part of administrations where the physician-assisted suicide situation had been implemented. They clearly warned us about the slippery slope that would happen when this door was open.

I would like my colleague to confirm that many witnesses did warn the committee about the fact that other jurisdictions had faced a problem in this area.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was exactly the evidence that the Supreme Court heard. The trial court heard voluminous testimony about that and concluded that safeguards were to be properly built-in within their judgment.

In addition to that, Bill C-14 lists many additional safeguards that are provided, and I am comfortable with the result that has been achieved. However, I am not comfortable that we are taking away the rights of so many Canadians, which were achieved at great expense and difficulty in the Supreme Court decision in Carter.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time, and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Since there is no consent, the motion is deemed negatived.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on this very important subject.

In a fairly limited way but nonetheless to some extent, we have had the chance to debate the larger philosophical questions in the legislation. However, I want to be very surgical in my comments today, no pun intended.

We have some important amendments before us that reflect good-faith efforts by opposition members to try to improve legislation. Whether we agree with it, there are some important steps we can take to substantially improve the legislation to try to make it better.

We had amendments come forward at committee. I had the pleasure of getting three of my proposed amendments passed, but on relatively limited aspects of the legislation. Therefore, I am moving today what I think are four substantive and important amendments that would improve the legislation. They are amendments that members should be able to agree on, regardless—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind hon. members that pictures are not to be taken in the House. If the member took pictures, I will recommend that the member delete them immediately and abide by the rules of the House, which is that no photos are to be taken in the House of Commons.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been quite the day on the procedural front, but I appreciate the opportunity to get back to a subject that is too important to be waylaid by these sorts of things. I mentioned four substantive amendments that I proposed. These are amendments that I think all members should be able to take a serious look at, and hopefully many on the government side will even agree with them.

I will say very clearly the purpose of these amendments. These amendments would not restrict access to something which the Supreme Court has deemed that we must give access to. Indeed, these amendments would provide greater shape and substance to the value of autonomy, which is supposed to be the basis of this legislation. They would give meaning and effect to that. I will mention that three out of four of these amendments would not even change the eligibility criteria.

What do I mean when I say that they would give added substance to autonomy? For an individual to have autonomy and effectively express that autonomy, the individual needs to have information about the choices he or she is making. How can people make autonomous choices if they do not have information about which they are supposed to be making the choice? That needs to include information about the impacts of a choice, as well as the alternatives that are available. Autonomy also requires some opportunity or space for meaningful deliberation based on that information.

What I am asking for in three out of the four amendments would not even require a change to the eligibility criteria. It is simply protection of the value of autonomy, assurance that individuals get the information they need, assurance that people who do not consent do not get pushed into this, and assurance that people who do not meet the criteria will not have their lives taken. The court asked us to develop a system of safeguards that would ensure that people who are vulnerable are not put at risk, that people who do not consent do not lose their lives in a medical environment, that people still feel safe in a medical environment, that they do not have to worry about going to a hospital and losing their lives without consenting to it.

We need these safeguards in place, and these amendments would do the job that the court asked us to do. They would provide the safeguards and protect the autonomy of individuals involved. I hope that members will take a serious look at all four of these amendments.

The first one, Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper, says that prior to making the request, someone must have consulted a medical practitioner specifically regarding palliative care options and be informed of a full range of options. Now, this can be part of the pre-existing consultation with a physician. There is no need for this to require additional time. This consultation, as I mentioned in committee, could happen with someone over the phone. There is not even a need for a requirement for an in-person consultation.

I see this amendment as the minimum of the minimum, but it would require that people get information about palliative care options before they take part in euthanasia or assisted suicide, and that people who express interest in euthanasia or assisted suicide at least first have someone say, “There is an alternative. This is what the alternative looks like. This is what is available in your area. Now you can choose between that robust, well-explained alternative of palliative care or the option of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.”

I do not see why members would have any objection to this amendment. It would not add any hoops to jump through. It is simply an assurance that patients would receive information about their alternatives. Indeed, it cuts to the core of what autonomy is supposed to be about: people having the information to make meaningful, understood choices between different alternatives.

It is interesting to hear members talk about their personal experiences on this issue. People talk about pain having been totally unmanageable in a particular case. In fact, the pain may have actually been manageable, but the person did not get good information and did not have access to the palliative care or pain management they needed. It is always unfortunate when I hear that said, because this speaks to people not getting the information they need about palliative care and pain management.

Let us do the minimum with that amendment. Let us make sure that people get information about palliative care options. I do not think that is too much to ask, and it would show the goodwill of the House to look at an amendment like that in a serious way.

My second amendment, Motion No. 7 on the Order Paper, would add a requirement of imminent natural death. This is the only one of my four amendments that would inform the eligibility criteria, but it is an important change. The phrase “reasonably foreseeable” is, of course, very ambiguous language. The use of the word “terminal” provides some greater degree of clarity.

This is very much constitutional. We have the right as Parliament to define the contours of an exception to the Criminal Code. As the justice minister herself has said, identifying the purpose of the law can alter the charter interpretation, and courts have said they would show deference. There is a need to proceed conservatively at the outset on an issue like this, and there is always the opportunity to study going further.

Most Canadians, when they think about this issue, are thinking in terms of terminal. This is consistent with the Quebec experience. There were seven years of study and a great deal of deliberation in the Quebec context. The conclusion, after much debate there, was that “terminal” was the best way to go. We would be unwise in a few months to rush to a very different conclusion than Quebec made after years and years of deliberation, or at least to go in a further direction than it did, because it had much more time to think about it.

Describing this legislation in a clearly terminal context provides greater protection from the concerns that the member for Winnipeg Centre and others have raised about this leading to some degree of suicide contagion. If we clearly define the legislation as applying to a limited population in a limited situation, we would have to worry relatively less so about how this may lead to some degree of suicide contagion in the rest of society.

I hope members will take a good look at that amendment as well.

The third amendment I am proposing is on the Order Paper as No. 12. It is a requirement for self-administration in cases where an individual is able to self-administer. This means that assisted suicide would be the default, as opposed to euthanasia, in the event that an individual is able.

This does not limit anyone's access to euthanasia or assisted suicide. Everyone who had access before the amendment would have access after it. However it ensures contemporaneous consent. It means that an individual who is seeking this service is consenting at the moment that they do it, and that there is no better way of doing it. This, again, adds substance to the idea of autonomy. It makes for good individual rationality in terms of the individual making the decision and doing it to themselves right at that moment.

This is a good safeguard in terms of ensuring contemporaneous consent, but it also has other benefits. It has the potential to help address the access issue. Doctors, in some cases, may be more comfortable assisting than they would be in actually providing. That is a safeguard that provides some additional benefits as well. There are no negative access implications. There is no harm in that provision.

The final amendment that I proposed is around advance review. The bottom line is that the so-called safeguards in the legislation are no good unless someone is checking. We have a requirement for two doctors and two witnesses, but a person could shop around. These four people could be anyone. They could be the same four people approving it for different Canadians across the country.

Therefore, I have put forward a proposal for a relatively minimal advance review process. It would be up to the provinces to designate that process. They could simply say that a lawyer has to sign off that the legal criteria were met, or they could have a judge do it. There are provisions for the provinces to have a choice within that context. However, there has to be an advance review. There has to be someone checking. If no one is checking, what good are the safeguards? What is the point of having any requirement at all if we do not have someone with the legal competency to understand what those safeguards are and to compare those safeguards to a situation? This is a complex legal situation. It requires some kind of competent legal authority.

The four amendments are modest amendments. They are surgical. They protect the value of autonomy. I hope all members, including members of the government, will take a serious look at them and give their support to them.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend. I know that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member, we heard the same arguments. Obviously in the debate we are having with the competing motions before the House to amend the bill, we know there are some who suggest that the bill goes too far and some who suggest it does not go far enough. We are hearing that over and over.

One of the things that I would like to ask the hon. member is with regard to his change in Motion No. 7, which would basically change the words to “imminent natural death” being required. He says it is clearly constitutional, that the wording would be acceptable by the court, because Parliament has the ability to do that. Of course, we have a Charter of Rights in our country, and Parliament is subject to the rights as enunciated by the court. What I am wondering about is the word “imminent”. Does he believe that the appellants, who were the subject of the appeal in Carter, Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor, would have been able to get medical assistance in dying using the word “imminent”?

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

Madam Speaker, let me address a number of the different comments that the member made. I appreciated his contribution at the justice committee, although I did not always agree with the things he said there.

With respect to some members wanting to go further, some members thinking that this would not go far enough, some wanting it to pull back, I will just say this. I think that there are some ways that we can improve the legislation that would add clarity, that would add safeguards, that should have a substantial degree of consensus. The amendments that I proposed are not in the main about limiting eligibility. They are about providing safeguards to ensure a more robust and protected concept of autonomy.

The amendment he referred to about “terminal” is an exception to that, and it is one that I think is still important. However, the other three are very much focused on providing safeguards to ensure that those who receive this service have properly consented and have understood exactly what their options are in the context of that.

Now, the question—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague about the importance of palliative care. Having spent much of my life working in social services and on behalf of people in difficulty, everything affecting vulnerable people is really important to me.

However, and my colleague knows this because we sat on the same committee, a number of witnesses told us that we should not consider all ill or disabled people as being vulnerable. I believe that by doing so we are treating them like children. Many of them can give free and informed consent.

I would like my colleague to explain his views to me because listening to him, I sometimes have the impression that all sick or disabled people are vulnerable.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly have never said, or certainly did not mean to imply, that every individual who may have a disability is vulnerable, and certainly would not be vulnerable in the same sense. There could be different degrees of vulnerability that could affect us all.

However, what I am trying to do with these amendments is to simply protect autonomy, ensure that everybody has the information they need about the alternatives. Some people may have that information already, but some people may not. That is why we need these safeguards.

If I have time, I want to briefly go back to comment to the previous questions because I did not get to answer the second part of it.

The member argued that an imminent requirement might not be constitutional. I will just say this. The Quebec bill has a requirement of imminence, and the Supreme Court, in its extension, said that the new provisions they were putting in place with respect to the extension do not apply to Quebec because Quebec already has a law in place. I think that would strongly suggest that in the view of the court, the Quebec model, which has a requirement for imminence, is constitutional. It would allow us to follow that model.

What I am suggesting in this amendment is to simply to a greater extent align the federal legislation with the Quebec legislation, which we already have a sense is constitutional.

However, I think there are some other points that could be made in defence of that; namely, that the court said in its decision that it would show a substantial degree of deference toward Parliament.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-14 at report stage.

I have brought forward three amendments, two of which are related. Motions Nos. 4 and 9 on the Order Paper relate to requiring someone with an underlying mental health condition to undertake a psychiatric assessment to determine capacity to consent. Motion No. 14 on the Order Paper deals with conscience protections, ensuring that the conscience rights of health professionals and health care institutions are respected. I will get into a little more detail momentarily with regard to those amendments.

Let me just say at the outset that however short or long my parliamentary tenure proves to be, Bill C-14, I have little doubt, will be one of the most important votes that I cast. I believe that is true for all hon. members in this House, because we are talking about a bill that will impact the lives of Canadians not just for years to come, but likely decades to come.

Having regard for the gravity of the decision before us, I have spent a lot of time reflecting on what is the right thing to do. At the present time, I am still reflecting.

One of the shortcomings of Bill C-14 at second reading was the absence of conscience protections. I am pleased that now that the legislation has gone through committee, there has been movement in the right direction when it comes to protecting conscience rights of health care professionals. More specifically, Bill C-14 provides that no individual is obliged to provide, or assist in providing, physician-assisted dying. In addition to that, the preamble has been amended to expressly recognize section 2, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience under the charter.

I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria for his leadership in moving those amendments at committee in close co-operation with me, as well as the hon. member for West Nova. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the hon. member for Mount Royal for his hard work and the collaborative approach he took as chair of the justice committee, which resulted in an important improvement in the legislation.

With respect, I believe there is still work to do when it comes to conscience protections. I believe it is important that not only health care professionals but also health care institutions have their charter rights and appropriate conscience protections in place. That is what my amendment would seek to do to ensure that everyone's charter rights are respected.

I would note that Madam Justice McLachlin and Mr. Justice Moldaver at paragraph 94 of the Loyola decision recognized that the individual and collective aspects of section 2 charter rights are intertwined.

With respect to the other two amendments I have brought forward, one of the concerns I have is the fact that in the legislation any two physicians or any two nurse practitioners can determine whether or not a patient satisfies the criteria for physician-assisted dying.

The problem with that is that not every physician and not every nurse practitioner has the training and experience to determine capacity to consent when an underlying mental health challenge is present in a patient.

The clear evidence before the special joint committee of which I was a vice-chair, as well as the justice committee of which I am a member, was that someone with more specialized training, namely a psychiatrist, is required to undertake what is, quite frankly, a complex analysis in many cases.

My amendment would simply provide that anyone who has an underlying mental health challenge be referred to a psychiatrist for a psychiatric assessment to determine his or her capacity to consent. It is a simple amendment. It is a straightforward amendment. It is a much-needed amendment. We simply cannot allow people with mental illness to fall through the cracks. We cannot allow that to happen as parliamentarians. One way we can mitigate that from happening is to pass this very important amendment.

When I look at Bill C-14 in its totality, I see a bill that contains many important safeguards. Those safeguards ought not to be minimized or dismissed. They are there; they are real, and they are serious. At the same time, the bill falls short when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, namely, people with mental illness. I see a bill that moves in the right direction when it comes to protecting conscience rights of health professionals, but still falls short when it comes to health care institutions.

Bill C-14 is an imperfect bill. It is not a bad bill, but it is a bill that I believe can be improved upon. As I reflect, I must ask myself whether I support an imperfect bill or do I vote against an imperfect bill having regard for the consequences that would follow in the absence of legislation being cast when the expiration of the declaration on the stay of constitutional invalidity is June 6.

In closing, I will continue to reflect. I am hopeful that some of the gaps in Bill C-14 can be closed. I am hopeful that all hon. members on all sides of the House can work together collaboratively and in a spirit of good faith to try to do the best we can to make this bill the best that it can possibly be in the circumstances. We owe it to patients. We owe it to physicians and health professionals. We owe it to the vulnerable. Most importantly, we owe it to Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to get assurance from my colleague from Halifax that he has erased the photo that he had taken in the House. As we all know, taking photos in the chamber is not allowed unless authorized and any unauthorized photography amounts to a breach of members' privilege. If he cannot assure you, Madam Speaker, that he has erased the photo, I will be prepared to return to the House with further comments on the matter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, it was a number of months ago when I stood on a similar point of order when a picture was taken of the opposition from the government benches. At the time, it was advised that the member did not take pictures and it was taken at that person's word.

The member in question indicated that he was going to delete the picture in question. Out of respect for the member's integrity, I think we accept that as being done and we leave it at that. Members, especially new members, might not necessarily be familiar with the rule and by your raising it, Madam Speaker, and it being talked about earlier, it should be put to rest at that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I really appreciate the input that has been provided to me. Follow-up is being done. As I have indicated, and as the parliamentary secretary indicated, I did ask the member to delete the photos. No pictures are to be taken in the House of Commons while the House is sitting. We generally take members at their word to act on the direction that has been provided to them.

On that note, as I said, other follow-up is being done with the member from Halifax, and should it be required, I will get back to the member for Calgary Shepard with a further response.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Charlottetown.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for his thoughtful contribution to the debate and also for the substantial work that he has done both on the special joint committee and on the justice committee. He is a standing example that while we may disagree, we need not be disagreeable.

The member finished his speech with an indication that he is reflecting and struggling a bit with how he is going to vote on this. He is struggling with the possibility of there being no law if those who are like him are wavering as to whether or not to pass what they see as an imperfect law.

Given the member's substantial experience in the debate here on the floor and before both committees, I would invite him to elaborate on the consequences of this law being defeated and our having no law on June 6.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe it is important that Parliament respond legislatively by the June 6 deadline. If legislation is not passed, there will be a vacuum. As a result of that vacuum, there will be no certainty for patients, no certainty for physicians, and no protections for the vulnerable. What we would likely have would be the colleges, for example, stepping in, but we would have a patchwork across Canada. What we need is consistency.

If the legislation cannot be passed before June 6, I think it also is incumbent upon the Minister of Justice, if necessary, to take the step of applying to the Supreme Court and asking for a further extension so that we can get a law passed. It is absolutely essential, absolutely imperative, that there not be a legislative vacuum.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for a very thoughtful presentation, and for the spirit of good faith and collaboration that he spoke about. He demonstrated that in the committees, on which I had the pleasure to serve with him, and he demonstrated that in his speech today.

My question is about the amendment dealing with conscience protection.

The member spoke of the need for institutional conscience protection. We differ on whether bricks and mortar really do have a conscience. However, the question is on the changes that were made in committee, namely, the clarification that nothing in this law would compel an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying, and the reference in the preamble to the protection under the charter of conscience and religious rights. Would the member be satisfied with the conscience protections regime that we have crafted, subject of course to that one issue of institutional protection?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the amendments that were passed at committee go a long way in the right direction toward protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals. At the same time, I believe that the amendment that I am proposing in some respects tightens that up a little and then extends, of course, to protecting health care institutions. I think that it adds to the amendment that was passed at committee.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work on both the joint committee and on the justice committee. There is no question that he has a grasp of this topic, which is probably beyond most of us in the House.

I would ask the member again to comment on the issue of standing up for specific protection for those who might have underlying psychiatric issues.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would reiterate that perhaps there is no one group that is more vulnerable than people with mental illness. We need to be certain that those who have mental illness who may seek physician-assisted dying because they have an underlying physical condition that is grievous and irremediable have the capacity to consent. One of the clear parameters set out by the Supreme Court is that an individual must clearly give his or her consent.

We need to make sure that we have the appropriate safeguards for those people who are particularly vulnerable, and I think that my amendment does just that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon West, housing; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Canada Border Services Agency; and the hon. member for Burnaby South, Statistics Canada.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, as I have done in the past, I would like to thank everyone taking part in this debate, as they are clearly demonstrating great compassion for persons with disabilities, diseases, or grievous and irremediable medical conditions.

However, as I have already said, just because we are compassionate does not mean that we are helpful. We are not being helpful when we affect a person's autonomy and thus the principle of self-determination. That is the basis for the amendments we are moving.

By deleting paragraph 241.2(2)(d), after all the discussions we have had about the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion, we are complying with the ruling in Carter. As soon as a person has a grievous and irremediable disease or disability that causes them enduring suffering that is intolerable and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable, which is the purpose of our second amendment, we cannot claim that we are not affecting their self-determination.

Earlier I heard my Conservative Party colleagues talking about harmonizing this bill with Quebec's legislation. What they failed to mention is that the Quebec law was not intended to cover something made necessary by the Carter decision, namely assisted suicide.

It is important to distinguish terminal illness from the end-of-life stage, which Quebec's legislation placed within a continuum of palliative care. A person may very well be receiving good palliative care, yet still request death. They are at the end-of-life stage, when the dying process has already begun and is irreversible.

The question in the Carter decision is the following: What do we do with people who are terminally ill but not yet at the end-of-life stage? That is the question we needed to answer. By insisting on keeping the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion in its bill, the government is going against the Carter decision.

I am not the only one to say so. The Barreau du Québec said so. The lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court said so. They won. The Carter family's lawyer said so. Kay Carter would not have had access to medical assistance in dying under the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion unless, as some have been forced to do recently, she had gone on a hunger strike. In that case, natural death is reasonably foreseeable. That is totally inhumane.

Her other option would have been to argue her case right up to the Supreme Court. That is the road the government is currently going down. It says it is going to leave those who are suffering from a grievous irremediable illness with the burden of going to the Supreme Court to win their case. It is perfectly clear that this bill, as worded, flies in the face of what the Supreme Court said in its decision.

According to the Supreme Court, section 7 of the charter includes three rights, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and these three rights are affected by the total prohibition and the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion. The Supreme Court indicated that the right to life is being undermined because some individuals are being forced to take their own lives prematurely rather than wait until their suffering and their lives have become intolerable. This bill does not address that issue.

That is why this bill will be ruled out of order and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Many people are certain of that. Why then is the government insisting on making this compromise?

That is what legislators did with regard to abortion in the 1970s. What the Supreme Court said in 1988 in the Morgentaler case is exactly what is happening with this bill.

When a law sets out exceptional and exculpatory measures in an attempt to respect rights and fundamental values, those measures have to be real. People have to be able to access them. We cannot take away a person's ability to decide for themselves. No one can make that decision for them. No one here should compare one life to another. It is not about that. No one here should get to decide for a patient what his or her quality of life is.

However, this bill attempts to do so because, to a certain extent, it attempts to qualify a person's death based on a foreseeability criterion. Unless her age was a factor, Kay Carter was not facing a natural, reasonably foreseeable death. That is the danger with this bill. The danger is that someone will either have to go on a hunger strike, which is inhumane, or else we will have to take their age into account. However, spinal stenosis, for example, can be just as intolerable at 42, 62, or 52 years of age.

What does this bill do about all the people who have degenerative diseases and do not want to die? People are not living with a disease that makes them suicidal. They are living with the disease. What they do not want is for someone to decide what is right for them.

Throughout our lives, we have the right to self-determination, meaning that no one can undermine our integrity. In the case of an emergency at the hospital, patients have to give their free and informed consent before they receive any treatment.

Why, then, at the most intimate moment of a human being's life, that person's own death, would anyone presume to do such a thing? On what basis would it be done? On the basis of the common good? Would a neighbour agree to die in that person's stead?

Some would presume to tell a person what to do and take away the right to self-determination when that person is most fragile and vulnerable. That is what the Liberal Party is condoning because it lacks the political courage to do what the Carter ruling asked it to do. It lacks the political courage to make a decision.

We may soon end up with a judicial democracy, but it is not up to the Supreme Court to legislate. That is a job for legislators, and each one of my colleagues opposite is responsible for shaping laws in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I repeat, according to the principle of fundamental justice, found in section 7 of the law, exculpatory measures must be real; they must be genuinely available.

Anyone who wants to vote against these two amendments needs to prove to me that the bill, as currently written, will fulfill the requirements I just discussed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Even though he is not a member of the committee, I appreciated his presence and his contribution.

The hon. member said on several occasions that the proposed bill does not meet the requirements set out in the Carter ruling. However, he was often at committee meetings when many witnesses, including medical and legal experts, said the opposite. We understand that any law could be found unconstitutional by a court. However, I believe that this legislation is constitutional and complies with the charter and the Carter ruling.

Will my hon. colleague acknowledge that many legal experts appeared before the committee, including the Canadian Medical Association representative, who said that he was in favour of the condition of reasonably foreseeable natural death?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, when witnesses appeared before the committee, I heard people who were confusing the Quebec law with what the Supreme Court asked us to do. My Conservative colleagues, with their notion of imminent death, are creating this confusion. I mentioned this earlier.

That is also the case for the Canadian Medical Association. Everyone thinks that the Quebec law has struck the proper balance. In terms of end-of-life care, it is good legislation and there has been a consensus about that for almost six years. However, that legislation does not resolve the problem of assisted suicide.

This bill and this law do not currently apply to Kay Carter's situation. We must comply with the Supreme Court ruling, which contains criteria that differ from those found in the bill. It is too restrictive.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. It is clear that he has a lot of expertise on this complex and sensitive issue.

When the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was examining this bill, a Liberal government representative said that the clause on natural death was deliberately vague so that more members would vote to pass this bill. However, the argument has often been raised that there is a legal void.

Does the member think that it is better to have a vague law or no law at all? I would also like him to talk about what the Collège des médecins du Québec had to say about this clause.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, a bad law leads to a plethora of court challenges. That is what is going to happen with this bill if this vague concept is not clarified.

The worst thing about this sensitive issue is that patients will have to set the precedent. Vulnerable patients with grievous and irremediable conditions are going to have to shoulder the burden of going before the Supreme Court to make their voices heard. The Supreme Court is going to end up doing the work that the Liberal government should have done with us.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier today the House voted on a motion regarding physicians' freedom of conscience, and I did not take notice as to how my colleague voted, so I would ask him this question.

In the context of Bill C-14 at report stage, Motion No. 14 calls for clear definitions of freedom of conscience. Would my colleague support those?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill does not compromise freedom of conscience.

However, even if the House were to pass a bill like the one we want, a bill that complies with Carter, health care workers who care for people who are terminally ill do not just materialize out of thin air. Palliative care is now a reality in end-of-life care. There have always been doctors who think that their patients can recover and who cling to that idea when they should be ensuring that those patients receive end-of-life care.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise at report stage. I appreciate the decision of the Speaker to recognize that, if there was ever a time for exceptional circumstances and exceptions under our Standing Order 76.1(5), this is such an occasion.

The use of the exceptional circumstances here is to allow a real opportunity at report stage to improve the bill. This is not a fake debate about amendments that have no hope. It is my profound hope that the amendments before the House now as we debate this at report stage, with a free vote, with every member allowed to weigh in, can yet improve this legislation to the point where the vast majority of us will be comfortable voting for it with amendments. As it is right now, I do not know if this bill could pass this House in its current state.

Let me just go back for a moment, for context. I do think context and empathy are important on all sides of the House. Bill C-14 is the direct result of the Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous decision in February 2015 to accept that certain provisions of the Criminal Code violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms insofar as they affect people who are suffering from grievous and irremediable medical conditions, and wish to have the right to choose their own time and way of dying. As the court wrote at the time, “an individual's choice about the end of her life is entitled to respect”.

In my time in Parliament, there has not been a bill that is more difficult to talk about, that touches more on aspects of our own personal principles, faith, beliefs, rights, and politics, all wrapped up in a charter decision. It has been difficult to talk about, but I think it has been approached on all sides with appropriate respect. As my colleague just mentioned, the chair of the justice committee, the hon. member for Mount Royal, did an exceptional job in steering through the many amendments that were reviewed in committee. However, not enough of those amendments were accepted to make the bill acceptable.

Let me go through why I do not think I can vote for the bill without amendments. It is not about what I think; it is not about whether I think the bill is satisfactory. I think everyone on all sides of the House, including government members, admit that it is flawed. It is not quite what one would want, compared to, for instance, the exceptional report of the committee that guided the government, the joint committee report of the House and Senate on how to respond to the Carter decision. This bill falls short.

That is not the basis on which I cannot vote for it now. It is not my opinions. Our challenge as parliamentarians is to ensure that whatever we pass meets the standard set out for us by the Supreme Court of Canada in assessing what it was about the status quo that made the situation for Kay Carter one that was not merely unfair but a violation of her charter rights.

That is the key question here. There is a level of provision for medically assisted dying below which government legislation cannot sink. That bar, that line, is charter rights, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I wanted to comment and focus a bit on this question, as set by the court, of an individual's choice about the end of her life being entitled to respect. I suppose we could wish that the court now used the female pronoun and intended it generically, as we have heard the male pronoun used generically throughout our lives.

However, I think it can be inferred that the Supreme Court of Canada, using the female pronoun, is talking about the plaintiff before them. It is talking about Kay Carter. Would Kay Carter have access, under Bill C-14, to medically assisted dying? Most observers whom I have heard at this point, knowledgeable observers, do not believe she would.

That, to me, is the crux of the debate, which means that her charter rights would still be infringed, even after we passed Bill C-14 as it is currently written.

This is why. Kay Carter was not about to die from her illness. She had a spinal stenosis that would not kill her. I want to refer to specifically the way Jocelyn Downie, professor of both law and medicine at Dalhousie University, described it that in her view Bill C-14 is unconstitutional. I want to read an excerpt from Professor Downie:

There was no evidence on the record before the court that Kay Carter's death was reasonably foreseeable in any temporally proximate way. In fact, it was just the opposite.

To pick one of many possible examples from the evidence before the court, as Kay Carter wrote in her letter to the Dignitas clinic in Forch, Switzerland:

The neurologist, Dr. Cameron of North Vancouver, assessed me and I had a CAT scan and MRI done. From these tests he told me that I had an ongoing, slow deterioration of the nerves that would never kill me but eventually would reduce me to lie flat in a bed and never move.

In other words, Kay Carter would not fit the definition within the bill that the requirement to be grievous and irremediably affected in a condition that would allow medically assisted death would be a death that was reasonably foreseeable. That clearly suggests, although the language is somewhat vague, that Bill C-14 requires that a person, to be grievous and irremediable within the meaning of the act to access medically assisted dying, has to be in a terminal state.

The court in its unanimous decision may have left some ambiguity for those who were hoping to find a loophole, but I do not think it is there, with the facts of the case right in front of them, Kay Carter, who was not in a terminal state. Beyond that—and this is where I have sympathies for the current government—the Supreme Court gave a year from the day of the decision in February 2015, but the Minister of Justice was not sworn in until November 4. The Prime Minister was not sworn in until November 4. The time limits imposed on the new Liberal government are not of its making, and I am clearly sympathetic.

I opposed at the time going to the court to ask for an extension because deadlines such as this, given the effect of the court's decision rendering those Criminal Code sections unconstitutional, will not create chaos or a situation that cannot be managed.

However, to go back to that moment when the Government of Canada went to the Supreme Court to obtain an extension, in this excerpt Madam Justice Karakatsanis says clearly in questioning one of the counsel: “I'm thinking particularly about somebody has to be a la fin de vie whereas in Carter we rejected terminally ill”.

Let me put it again clearly. A Supreme Court of Canada justice says that in Carter we rejected terminally ill. That is clearly the standard for ensuring that rights are protected: that we must not ensure that in order to access medically assisted death the person be on the verge of death, that their death be reasonably foreseeable, even if we take reasonably foreseeable back to a year or two years. Kay Carter did not have that circumstance.

Another medical expert who has written about Bill C-14 since it came forward, Professor Jesse Pewarchuk, who is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, wrote:

Worse, the wording of the proposed law introduces significant doubt as to whether an Alzheimer’s patient who has yet to lose capacity (yet is certain to) would even be eligible, since death can take years, even from the point of entering long-term nursing care.

“Foreseeable death” and “advanced state of decline in capability” are loaded, ambiguous clauses that seem to eliminate the Charter rights of dementia patients...and to put any physician carrying out their wishes in considerable legal peril.

Without these amendments passing at report stage, I cannot vote for Bill C-14. In an ideal world, I would rather there were a framework of laws for doctors to follow, for nurse practitioners to follow—a framework, consent, reforms, and the witnesses and the independence and the elements of law. However, if these amendments are not passed, I cannot vote for a law that falls below the bar of what the Supreme Court says constitutes protection of charter rights.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her incredible contribution to our justice committee. Even though she is not a member, we welcomed her with open arms and she made a really great contribution. I want to thank her for that.

I understand her position related to the constitutionality of the legislation. I do not agree.

I would like to read from this article by criminal law professor Hamish Stewart, from the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto, and get the hon. member's comments.

Professor Stewart says that, in his opinion, Bill C-14 in its current form is a constitutionally permissible response to the flaws of section 241(b) identified in Carter. It is, in his view, unlikely that a court would find the medically assisted dying regime created by Bill C-14 to be over-broad in section 7 terms. However, even if Bill C-14 is over-broad, it is likely justified under section 1.

Given the court's response in Carter and the court's careful examination of section 1 in Carter, which it previously has not done with section 7 cases, I would like to get the hon. member's feedback on that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, if I were standing alone, saying that I thought it was unconstitutional, I would be arrogant, at the least. However, Joe Arvay, who was the counsel for Kay Carter, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the co-plaintiff in the case with Kay Carter, and so many of those who have studied this might rely on section 1, but I think that is a faint hope.

The Supreme Court, in making the decision it made, that there was a violation of Kay Carter's charter rights, took into account her entire condition.

There will be a challenge to Bill C-14. It will very likely be found to not be charter-compliant, and it falls far short of the expectations of Canadians.

I did not have time in my 10-minute speech to speak to something I spoke to at second reading, which is another disappointment that I have with the bill; that is, the failure to allow for advance directives.

Patients across Canada, people who are suffering, have a right to expect that this Parliament will, at least, reflect what the Supreme Court did in its decision.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague indicated at the beginning of her speech that this is probably one of the most fundamental issues that this Parliament or any of us, as parliamentarians, will deal with, especially as it relates to the shifting moral ground upon which we stand.

I asked my colleague a question at second reading regarding the risk to patient-doctor relationship, as one of the concerns I have is that the risk to the trust level between patients and doctors may be affected.

I wonder if my colleague would care to respond to that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my friend, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga, and I have had occasion to speak outside the chamber about this matter. I have met with a very impressive doctor of palliative medicine who raised the issue that there could be an interference, which I had not understood.

I am comfortable to support Bill C-14, with the amendments, so I need to bracket my comment this way. I do think it is important that no patient fear going to a doctor, for a misplaced fear. It is not something that the bill brings forward, but the palliative care doctor said that, from his point of view, he did not want his facility to provide this service for fear that those who went through those doors might have any concern that they might be medically assisted in something to which they did not consent.

I see, under this law and under our society, no prospect of that ever happening, because the sanctions would be severe. However, I do understand the issue, now, which I had not when he first put the question to me.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very eloquent speech and her comments on the bill. I appreciated all the speeches today. I am glad we are finally talking about the legal and charter aspects, rather than the emotional ones.

I wonder if the member could follow up on the question by the Conservative member. What I think is wrong to say is that this bill or the Supreme Court decision represents a shift in moral ground. Neither this bill nor the decision of the Supreme Court in any way imposes any moral decision upon anyone. It simply recognizes and upholds charter rights. I think that is a very important difference.

I wonder if the member would like to speak to that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a difficult moral question, but it is a difficult moral question for the individual who makes the decision. Therefore, the question is this. Does our society recognize that individuals have the right to make their own decisions, being adults, fully competent, capable of consenting, and fully aware of their options? It will be very important that people know about and have access to palliative care if that is an option that eases their end-of-life decisions. However, this is not losing Canada's moral courage; in fact, this is an act of moral courage.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-14, significant legislation that would become Canada's first national medical assistance in dying regime, and would provide a thoughtful and well-considered response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter.

I would first like to acknowledge the remarkable work of the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights who studied Bill C-14 under some very tight time constraints and who nonetheless were able to significantly enrich our reflection and debate on this highly complex and personal issue. This is certainly a matter on which everyone's point of view deserves the utmost respect and consideration. All justice committee members have unquestionably demonstrated these qualities in the course of their work.

Allow me to highlight some areas where the work of the justice committee has been particularly helpful.

Many stakeholders who appeared before the committee, in particular organizations representing medical professionals, expressed a great deal of concern about conscience protections for medical providers. Bill C-14, as a criminal law measure, would create exemptions from conduct that would otherwise be criminal and therefore would not compel anyone to provide medical assistance in dying in any way. However, some stakeholders urged the committee to add a specific clause that would clearly reflect, for greater certainty, their conscience rights as protected under the charter.

On the other hand, other stakeholders such as the Barreau du Québec and Quebec health lawyer Jean-Pierre Ménard affirmed the position previously expressed by the Minister of Justice that the conscience rights of health care providers were matters that fall under the purview of the provinces and territories as well as under the responsibility of medical regulatory bodies, which themselves are provincially regulated.

I am pleased to say that the justice committee carefully listened to submissions from all sides of the debate and that a motion was tabled to address this significant concern within the limits of our constitutional framework. Bill C-14 was amended in order to give a greater sense of comfort to medical professionals that nothing in Bill C-14 would compel individuals to act against their deeply held beliefs.

The justice committee should also be commended for working in a non-partisan way to make improvements to the proposed legislation. For instance, the committee amended the bill to clarify that where persons signed a written request on behalf of a patient who cannot write, they could only do so at the patient's express direction. The committee members also amended the bill to clarify that for the sake of professionals who provided counselling services, giving someone information about medical assistance in dying would not be criminally prohibited.

Although these amendments and several others do not fundamentally change the scope of Bill C-14, they should increase the level of comfort for Canadians, including health care providers and other professionals who may be involved. I applaud the committee for all of its efforts.

We have heard countless times how challenging the issue of medical assistance in dying is and how Canadians and organizations hold divergent views that are informed by strongly held beliefs. I think we can all agree that this tension was most apparent during the debate over who should be eligible for medical assistance in dying in our country.

Just as it was the case before the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, the justice committee also heard a wide range of views on eligibility and on what was required to respond to the Carter ruling.

At one end of the spectrum, some stakeholders continue to oppose legalization of any form of medical assistance in dying, as is still the case in most countries around the world, or they propose that it be significantly narrowed.

At the other end of the spectrum, some argue that Bill C-14 does not go far enough and urge Parliament to adopt one of the broadest regimes in the world, similar to ones that exist in only three European countries. They maintain that the eligibility criteria in Bill C-14 are too narrow and they should also include mature minors, people suffering solely from a mental illness, and those who have lost their capacity to consent to die, but who have made an advance request for medical assistance in dying.

Somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, though, lies a group of stakeholders who have expressed strong support for Bill C-14 and who recognize that the bill's cautious and balanced approach is imminently justifiable, including the commitment to explore broader eligibility issues in the near future.

Among that group is the Canadian Medical Association, which speaks on behalf of 83,000 physicians across Canada and which supports the adoption of Bill C-14 as it was drafted, and without amendments.

In contrast with those who argue that the Supreme Court's language of grievous and irremediable medical condition is clear and preferable, the Canadian Medical Association takes quite a different position. It says that the criteria in Bill C-14, including the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable, provides sufficient direction to physicians and is a great improvement from the court's language, which it considers to be vague and unworkable from a medical standpoint.

Similarly, the Canadian Nurses Association, a federation of 11 provincial and territorial nursing associations and colleges, representing nearly 139,000 registered nurses across Canada, has said publicly that its priority is having the bill passed before the June 6 deadline expires. Further, its CEO, Anne Sutherland Boal, stated just yesterday that the successful passing of the bill would be both compassionate and protective to patients, families, and care providers, while emphasizing that the legislative safeguards in the bill would work to protect the most vulnerable Canadians.

Although lawyers and legal academics continue to argue with each other over whether or not the court's language, or the language in Bill C-14, provides sufficient clarity, how can we as parliamentarians discount the views of medical practitioners? The Supreme Court expressed confidence in Canada's physicians to respond to Canadians who wished to access medical assistance in dying, and that confidence is well-placed.

We as parliamentarians must also have confidence in medical practitioners. They will be the ones facing these difficult life and death decisions with their patients and assessing their eligibility. For them, it is not a philosophical or theoretical exercise. They will be applying the very measures in Bill C-14 in their daily practice. Their views must be given significant weight.

National disability rights organizations and others have also supported the approach to eligibility proposed by Bill C-14 as a meaningful safeguard to protect individuals who might be vulnerable in the framework of a medical assistance in dying regime, as a result of societal discrimination, loneliness, or lack of social supports, for example.

On the question of safeguards, the same dynamic has been at play. Some stakeholders expressed support for the measures proposed in Bill C-14, while at the same time seeking to put in place additional safeguards to protect the vulnerable, such as prior judicial authorization. Others, wanting to facilitate broader access, have sought to remove some safeguards, such as the reflection period.

While we respect those who feel that the proposed safeguards are either inadequate or overly burdensome, I believe the safeguards in Bill C-14, taken together, are consistent with many of those found in regimes around the world. Just as the court in Carter was persuaded that the risks to vulnerable Canadians could be adequately managed under a regime with robust safeguards, I am confident the safeguards in Bill C-14 would guard against abuse and error.

Last, I would like to remind all members that Bill C-14, or the provision of medically assisted dying, is not intended to be, or to become, the response to all forms of intolerable suffering. The bill is a thoughtful response to Carter, which recognized the autonomy of those suffering on a path toward death to die peacefully at the time of their choosing and therefore to avoid a prolonged, painful, and undignified death, or one that is inconsistent with their values. Bill C-14 acknowledges the autonomy of such persons to make important end-of-life health care decisions, while also balancing the equally important societal objectives of affirming the value of the lives of all Canadians, preventing suicide, and protecting the most vulnerable in our society.

I believe this legislation respects all interests at stake, and is one of which Canadians can be proud. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-14.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made the statement that there were very few countries in the world that had access to physician-assisted suicide. If we were to study this, we would find that less than 3% of the world's population currently lives in jurisdictions that have access to physician-assisted suicide. It is important that Canadians understand that. We are among a very small group of countries that are giving access to it.

I want to ask my colleague a question related to a question I posed to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands earlier and her comments with respect to the possible rupture in the patient-doctor trust relationship. It is important that institutions, should they wish not to participate, have that freedom, if for no other reason than to give patients entering those institutions the assurance that they will not be vulnerable.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on the need to have clear conscience protections for institutions that are providing health care.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I have two responses.

The first is that this is legislation to amend the Criminal Code. There is absolutely nothing in the legislation that compels any institution or any individual to do anything.

Also, the regulation of health care institutions and the delivery of health care is one that is squarely within the domain of the provinces. We heard this in testimony. The federal government is quite prepared to show leadership in dealing with the provinces. The matter of conscience rights is now contained in the bill and the preamble in an appropriate way.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate about the position of various doctors in the country. It has come to my attention that Dr. Peter Zalan, president of medical staff at Health Sciences North in northern Ontario, has stated that he is very disappointed with the bill. He has said:

For me, Bill C-14 is a disappointment. It proposes to keep illegal the resolution of intolerable suffering that is not at the end of life. It will make it impossible to deal with dementia when the afflicted person is still competent. If ever there is a need for Medical Assistance in Dying, it is for conditions like dementia and intolerable suffering when the end of life is not in sight.

I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that, like Dr. Zalan, a number of medical practitioners are saying that the way the bill is being presented, which lacks the clarity in the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, will make life more difficult for physicians when making determinations of when to assist their patients.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that not all individual members in the Canadian Medical Association are of one voice. The voice of the medical profession has spoken clearly and loudly in support of the legislation. Indeed, there are individual members and groups of doctors who do not feel the same way, one of whom was referred to by the hon. member.

The other point that I would add is this. If we are left without legislation on June 6, it is doctors like the one the hon. member quoted who will be left without a law, without eligibility criteria, and without the present system of applying to a court for an exemption, something that will only exist until June 6. There will be a great deal of uncertainty if no law is passed. That I think will leave doctors in a situation where they will be extremely reluctant to accede to a patient's request for medical assistance in dying without the certainty that is provided in Bill C-14, as flawed as it may be.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to join the debate today on Bill C-14, which addresses medical assistance in dying. I would like to acknowledge the incredible respect and thoughtfulness expressed by members in this very delicate debate.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the advice and insights I received from a former colleague, Dr. Lorne Martin, chief of staff at Halton Healthcare, on the medical ethics and physician perspectives that would be created by the legislation.

The bill has generated significant debate and feedback from my riding of Oakville, both from people who wrote or contacted me on their own initiative, as well as those who responded to the forums that were created to solicit feedback through local media and my interactive website, johnoliver.mp. I have read and carefully considered the many views and concerns that came from residents of Oakville and I would like to address those that are relevant to the act and the amendments proposed.

The community responses can be grouped into five categories. The first is from those who are opposed to any form of medically assisted death and want the law to respect and protect every human life from conception to natural death. These are individuals who put forward the principle that we must not take another's life. There were many submissions of this nature.

For people who hold these values, I believe it is important, once again, at this stage, to understand that the Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous decision in the Carter case was a declaration that the Criminal Code prohibitions on assisted dying were not in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Effective June 6, 2016, medically assisted death is legal in Canada whether the bill is passed or not.

Therefore, the issue before this legislature is not whether medically assisted death will be allowed. Rather, the issue is whether medically assisted death will be permitted in accordance with the parameters set out by the Carter ruling or under a legislative framework established by elected representatives. Accordingly, our decisions are how to safely implement this new practice, who should be eligible, what safeguards are needed to protect vulnerable individuals, what are the roles and responsibilities of medical professionals, and how do we create a monitoring regime to ensure accountability, transparency, and improvement in this area as we go forward.

The second category of responses from my community were in reaction to the special joint committee recommendations. Many Oakville residents wrote to me expressing their concern that the rights of vulnerable Canadians may be infringed upon as we protect the rights of those seeking autonomy in their end-of-life decisions. Specific concerns were raised in relation to including Canadians with psychiatric conditions, psychological suffering, and minors.

Bill C-14 and the proposed amendments are more restrictive than both the Carter decision and the committee recommendations, in part, for the reasons raised by these constituents. To protect the rights of the more vulnerable, the bill has not included these broader situations or circumstances in the eligibility criteria, thereby addressing the concerns raised by these residents.

The third category of responses were diametrically opposed to those previously stated. These residents spoke in favour of the Supreme Court decision and about their belief that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should allow autonomy to the individual in end-of-life decisions. Several accompanied their statements with personal stories of difficult end-of-life experiences for loved ones or worries about their own unique circumstances.

They also expressed concerns that Bill C-14 is too restrictive and does not address all the circumstances that should be considered eligible under the act. In particular, the clause requiring that natural death be reasonably foreseeable was felt to exclude many Canadians that they felt should be allowed.

In addition, there were concerns raised about denying advance directives. Denying advance directives puts people who suffer from degenerative illnesses that will eventually affect their competency in the position of having to exercise their right to an end-of-life decision in advance of losing competency.

The fourth category of concerns surrounded the rights of medical practitioners and institutions to ensure that they would be able to have freedom of conscience and religion to decide whether to participate in a medically assisted death. Bill C-14 would not compel participation by health care providers and I feel it is sufficient.

The final category of responses were fewer in number, but supported the position put forward by Bill C-14 as a reasonable starting point to address the complex and competing values and rights created by the Carter decision.

Having now spent considerable time in understanding and researching the issues raised by my constituents, and after careful consideration and personal reflection, I will be supporting Bill C-14 as reported by the committee for the following reasons.

I committed upon entering the past election and during my campaign to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court ruling clearly found that the existing laws were not compliant with charter rights and freedoms and denied autonomy to a person seeking to end his or her life who clearly consents to the termination of life, and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual. It is therefore morally incumbent, I believe, on this legislature to put legislation in place to protect this right and freedom, and I support that direction as carried out in the act.

We face, as a legislative body, the difficult task of balancing the competing social and moral values and interests surrounding this direction. For me, the protection of the vulnerable who may be individually or collectively disrespected or coerced to choose a premature death in the face of a too-permissive regime of assistance in dying must be balanced against those suffering from grievous and irremediable conditions.

As a first step in understanding the competing social and moral issues and the charter rights and freedoms of different groups, I believe Bill C-14, while not perfect, is an acceptable starting position for Canadians.

I would have preferred that Bill C-14 was more permissive for those where death is not reasonably foreseeable, and instead, built in protections for those who are vulnerable to the too-permissive language. While the bill's language is open to reasonable interpretation of foreseeable death, it does leave complex legal and ethical decisions with families and medical practitioners that will be open to court challenges and future charter appeals. This will add further stress and suffering to already untenable situations for many.

I do take some comfort from provisions within Bill C-14 to conduct further reviews after five years of eligibility criteria, and from the amendments coming back from the committee to review, after 180 days, other initiatives such as advance directives.

Another factor in my decision to support Bill C-14 is my belief that with properly offered health services, such as palliative care, most Canadians will not opt to use its provisions. Research from other countries suggests that most people prefer to enter into a palliative care program and experience natural death. While palliative care is not always a substitute for medically assisted death, it would be unacceptable to have people choosing medically assisted death as a result of inadequate palliative care services. I believe we can do more to ensure that palliative care programs are available and accessible across Canada, as proposed in some of the amendments.

The work of the Minister of Health in negotiating a new health accord agreement with the provinces and territories is fundamental to achieving these services, and I fully support her diligent efforts to achieve a new accord and ensure that all Canadians have access to high-quality sustainable care.

In discussion with doctors and other health care workers, there is general support and agreement with the bill, particularly the freedom given to caregivers to choose to participate in assisted death based on their own conscience and religious beliefs. I support the freedom that is put forward in the bill and do not feel an amendment is required.

Physicians today are already involved in substantive decisions regarding end of life, working with families or in accordance with advance directives. They often provide key clinical advice in the decision to end life support or to apply do not resuscitate orders. However, asking physicians to interpret and execute advance directives to end a life is ethically more challenging and places significant onus on them as individuals, particularly in hospital environments where they do not know the person or where there is not a family to consult.

Finally, my decision to support the bill arises from personal experiences and the loss of a loved family member who, as she requested, passed away at home in the presence of family. The final days of her life were marked with pain and suffering, which we were able to somewhat alleviate through oral morphine.

However it is allowed, appropriate care at the end of life needs to be available to people when required. I want my family members, fellow Oakvillians, and fellow Canadians to have autonomy in making end-of-life decisions as they have enjoyed autonomy in all of the major decisions in their lives.

I will be supporting Bill C-14 , and I urge all members of the House to support this important bill.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, which I will read slowly so that colleagues understand exactly what I am proposing, that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the House shall continue to sit beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying), at report stage, and when no member rises to speak or at midnight on that sitting day, whichever is earlier, the debate shall be deemed adjourned and the House deemed adjourned until the next sitting day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is no unanimous consent. Therefore, the motion is deemed rejected.

The government House leader is rising on another point of order.

Bill C-14—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying).

Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at those stages.

The House resumed 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 amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, I noted that my colleague spoke many times about palliative care, which I was very encouraged to hear. I know that it was not within the context of the budget, but the Minister of Health made mention of $3.4 million to be implemented into palliative care. I wonder if there is going to be an assessment and a benchmark as to what we have right now and where the gaps are in how we need to fulfill that.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to state again that palliative care is not a substitute in all cases for end-of-life decisions as contemplated by Bill C-14. However, it is important that there is an effective health accord that is negotiated with the provinces and territories by the Minister of Health, which will take some time to ensure that there is consistent and uniform high-quality services available across Canada. I think those are the first initiatives that need to take place. However, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the palliative care programs can come as we begin to get them in place.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, really appreciate the depth of the discussion that we have had around Bill C-14.

The recommendations that came from the original interparliamentary committee, I thought, were excellent, and I was very supportive of the potential bill at that point. However, I have some real issues with the way the bill currently sits, and I want to focus on two.

Do advance directives not give people more choice in that they at least have the opportunity to do an advance directive rather than wait until they are no longer in a state where they could make a decision at all? Does it not provide more choice to have advance directives?

Secondly, intolerable pain and suffering was a really important part of the Carter decision, and I think should be an important part of the bill. Again, I know personally that if I had a choice later on in life, if I was struggling with intolerable pain and suffering, I would really like to go with a needle in my hand in the arms of somebody who loves me rather than just put it to chance.

Those two provisions are missing from the bill and I would appreciate the member's perspective on why.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of advance directives, it is my understanding that only one other jurisdiction offers advance directives. There is still a lot to understand. There are a lot of nuances, and before they can be built into an act, there needs to be a better understanding of it. Therefore, I support the recommendation as it has come back from the committee, that within 180 days of the bill being put into place, we begin to look again at what additional elements need to be brought to bear, including advance directives.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over 40 years ago, palliative care was identified as the only way for people to die with dignity.

My colleague opposite is assuming that if someone requests assistance in dying during palliative care, it means that palliative care has failed.

Why should comprehensive palliative care that includes assistance in dying from specialized staff be considered a failure when an individual decides he or she is ready to go peacefully? How is that a failure on the part of palliative care?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never once suggested that it would be reflective of a failure of the palliative care system. In meeting the needs of Canadians at the end of life, an array of services and professional support are required. Palliative care is part of that, as are the provisions of Bill C-14, in an act of end of life if required.

With respect to natural death and palliative care, people are supported through it. Generally, pain is well managed, and many people opt for natural death, particularly when properly supported with palliative care. However, there will be circumstances where pain cannot be managed or where the loss of autonomy is so dramatic that the palliative care model is insufficient. We need to have the provisions of Bill C-14 available to assist people who wish to end their life as they approach the end of their life.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-14.

As I stated earlier in this House, it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court of Canada has taken it upon itself to force legislation to be written, which overturns thousands of years of our understanding of the intrinsic value and dignity of every human life.

The Supreme Court has done this, completely rejecting the fact that elected members of this House have rejected initiatives to legalize physician-assisted suicide on at least 15 occasions since 1991. Most recently, a bill to allow physician-assisted suicide was rejected in 2010 by a vote of 59 to 226.

It is not only that nine unelected judges have inserted themselves into a national conversation that should be initiated in this House of Commons, they have even lamented the fact that an extension was sought to give parliamentarians more time to properly study, discuss, and debate this issue of exceptional importance.

In their judgment of January 15, 2016, in granting an extension, the Supreme Court stated, “That the legislative process needs more time is regrettable, but it does not undermine the point that it is the best way to address this issue.”

Really? It is regrettable? It is regrettable to take more time to think soberly through this complex issue, to implement such momentous change, to destroy the very foundations of medicine, to turn upside down the time-honoured belief that it is fundamentally wrong to kill another human being, and all in the name of compassion?

In regard to the impatience on the part of the Supreme Court, Warren Perley wrote, in Beststory:

Common sense dictates that such momentous changes to the law governing assisted suicide should be based on the compass rather than the clock. Until this point, Canadians have never had access to legally assisted suicide. Instead they have relied on doctors and nurses to administer palliative care, which must include adequate pain management and, in rare cases, palliative sedation. Pro-euthanasia advocates argue this is euthanasia, but they are in error.

Changing laws in matters of such substantive and exceptional significance as assisted suicide should be made by the compass. I could not agree more. Unfortunately, we have thrown away our compass. We no longer need a compass. We now just pool our collective ignorance and decide on the basis of popular opinion to sail off in any direction that suits the winds of the day, rudderless.

One of Canada's indigenous leaders, Mr. Francois Paulette, a Dene leader and chair of Yellowknife's Stanton Territorial Health Authority states that indigenous people are bound by spiritual law, not man-made law. He goes on to state, “We don't play God.... God is responsible for bringing us into this world, and taking our life. It is pretty straightforward.”

Whether as a member of the indigenous community or not, for all Canadians, the crux of the issue before us today, and the source of the conflict and confusion, is the fact that the preamble of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms on one hand, and Bill C-14 on the other, are built on two opposite pillars: one made of gold, and the other of styrofoam.

The preamble of the charter states, “recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. Yes, there is a compass. Yes, there is a North Star. Even our Canadian charter states that in Canada we do recognize this North Star, the supremacy of God.

Yet if we look at the very first paragraph of Bill C-14, we see a totally opposite starting point. Rather than the “supremacy of God”, we see “autonomy of persons”.

My contention is that these two opposite philosophies cannot coexist at the same time, if we are to continue to have true freedom and trust in our society. We may deny God, and man as his image bearer. We can try to kill both God, and man as man. We may press forward in a suicidal course, but it always ends in pure vanity, for we are surrounded inside and out by the reality of God and his order in every sphere of life.

We all know that there are necessary limits placed on the autonomy of humans. Yet on an issue as monumental as the issue of life and death, we are considering extending autonomy without stopping to think what such autonomy might do to our understanding of the value of human life.

Does this autonomy serve well those among us who, for dozens of reasons, find themselves vulnerable, voiceless, and open to abuse in the most extreme and final way possible, an unwanted hastened death?

The very fact that I can drive from my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga to Ottawa each Sunday evening is because the autonomy of all drivers is limited. Drivers heading to Kitchener occupy the north side of the 401 highway as they travel west, so I am free to travel unimpeded on my easterly journey in the southern lanes.

To allow autonomy in many situations in life is foolhardy, to say the least. Our freedom and trust is enhanced by strict limits on personal autonomy for the greater good of community. We could list many such restrictions on personal autonomy: quarantines for highly infectious diseases, such as ebola; prohibition of using highly toxic chemicals and pesticides on private property; the limitation on raising farm animals in the residential area of a city. In these cases and dozens of others, we recognize that the greater community good supersedes individual autonomy.

To retain limits on personal autonomy in the case of physician-assisted suicide is for the greater good of society. To remove the restriction on personal autonomy could very well lead to the crumbling boundaries that our Liberal colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, referenced a few weeks ago in the Chamber when he said, “We are in a sorry state. We have truly entered a new age, one of the throwaway culture where all boundaries are starting to crumble”.

I fear for the kind of Canada I will leave for my children and grandchildren if we rush blindly ahead with an endorsement of physician-assisted suicide. The risk to society is too great. The dangers are far too real.

There is no doubt that in spite of our best efforts to place so-called safeguards to protect the vulnerable among us, there will be situations where innocent Canadians will be killed without their expressed consent. There is no doubt in my mind that in spite of our best efforts to spin the difference between suicide and what we are now calling medical assistance in dying, there would be a correlating increase in suicide rates in Canada.

Aaron Kheriaty, associate professor of psychiatry, and director of the medical ethics program at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine states:

The debate over doctor-assisted suicide is often framed as a personal issue of autonomy and privacy. Proponents argue that assisted suicide should be legalized because it affects only those individuals who--assuming they are of sound mind--are making a rational and deliberate choice to end their lives. But presenting the issue in this way ignores the wider social consequences.

What if it turns out that individuals who make this choice in fact are influencing the actions of those who follow?

He goes on to report that in states where physician-assisted suicide has been legalized, there has been an increase in suicide of 6.3% overall, but among those over 65, an increase of 14.5%.

He continues:

The results should not surprise anyone familiar with the literature on the social contagion effects of suicidal behavior. You don't discourage suicide by assisting suicide.

Aside from publicized cases, there is evidence that suicidal behavior tends to spread person to person through social networks, up to three “degrees of separation” away. So my decision to take my own life would affect not just my friends' risk of doing the same, but even my friends' friends' friends. No person is an island.

Finally, it is widely acknowledged that the law is a teacher. Laws shape the ethos of a culture by affecting cultural attitudes toward certain behaviors and influencing moral norms. Laws permitting physician-assisted suicide send a message that, under especially difficult circumstances, some lives are not worth living – and that suicide is a reasonable or appropriate way out. This is a message that will be heard not just by those with a terminal illness but also by anyone tempted to think he or she cannot go on any longer.

Debates about physician-assisted suicide raise broad questions about societal attitudes toward suicide. Recent research findings on suicide rates press the question: What sort of society do we want to become? Suicide is already a public health crisis. Do we want to legalize a practice that will worsen this crisis?

I believe that life is always to be chosen over what some would call death with dignity. There is nothing dignified about deciding to end someone's life that is not worth living. If the patient has a need, let us address the need. Our goal should be to eliminate the problem, not the patient.

We need to be doing far more to address the needs of vulnerable Canadians. To that end, I have five proposed changes that need to be included in Bill C-14. Four of these have been accepted as amendments by others in the House.

First, the preamble should contain a statement indicating that suicide prevention is an important public policy goal, recognizing the sanctity of life as a societal principle.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I am out of time, so I will try to get my other points in when responding to questions.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my friend's comments. I understand he disagrees with the Supreme Court. He disagrees with its protection of individual liberty. He disagrees with its protection of security to the person.

If the member disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision, is he calling on this government to exercise the notwithstanding clause?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that certainly raises a good possibility. To invoke the notwithstanding clause would in fact give Parliament the kind of time that we need to study this important issue.

The rush with which the government has moved forward on an issue of such intense, immense significance is really inappropriate. We saw in the joint committee a lack of ability to get many witnesses in. We saw the same thing in the justice committee. Today we have seen a number of examples where we wasted hours on quickly moving other bills forward on the agenda when we, as members, were informed that today, beginning at 10 o'clock this morning, we would begin to discuss Bill C-14.

We have not had enough time to discuss this issue and it is of too great a significance for us to allow this to proceed in its current form.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member did run out of time, but I actually started to take note of some of the changes that he was proposing. He started in the preamble. I would like to ask the hon. member what other changes he is proposing to the legislation.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this opportunity.

Second, I believe it is important to ensure that a palliative care consultation must be done to inform patients of the full range of available treatments and support services that are available and actually ensure that they are available.

We also need to insist on a prior review by a judge or a panel to ensure that no coercion exists and that all of the criteria are met.

We need to protect the conscience rights of health care professionals and institutions. I think we heard earlier the fear that if institutions are not protected in terms of their conscience related to this, patients may actually fear going to those institutions.

Finally, if physically able, the patient must self-administer the lethal substance, rather than having a doctor administer that substance.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be mixing things up and is creating confusion in the debate.

I wonder if he could clearly and succinctly tell us the difference between a compassionate crime, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and suicide.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I clearly indicated the differences on this in the speech I made at second reading.

Members will know that over the last eight to 10 years, I have devoted a lot of energy to the issue of mental health and suicide prevention.

Here we are talking about so-called compassion, and I do not see anything compassionate about ending someone's life prematurely. The very word “compassion” means to “suffer with”. We cannot suffer with someone whose life we have simply terminated.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this issue has been before the House about 11 times since 1991. I know that my colleague was present for the special joint committee, but they also had an external report and a provincial and territorial report. The special joint committee, in fact, heard from more than 60 witnesses and read more than 100 submissions. Also, my understanding is that even today there was an offer to extend the time for debate, which I believe my colleague and his friends did not approve.

My question for him is, how much more debate, particularly in light of very big similarities between his two speeches, do we really need on this point?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to mention again that we lost hours and hours of debate time this morning when we could have been debating this. More important than debate in this House is that we did not take the time, either in the joint committee or in the justice committee, to hear from groups across Canada who wanted to appear before those committees to share their concerns about this proposed law. Had we taken more time to listen to those Canadians, I am sure we would have a different result moving forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources know that we only have about a minute and a half to two minutes left in the time remaining.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, while my time for debate is short, I look forward to continuing it tomorrow.

As members know, the issue of conscience objection has been a topic of considerable discussion in relation to medical assistance in dying. Fundamentally, this debate highlights the need to achieve an appropriate balance in respecting the rights of physicians, nurse practitioners, and other health care providers to abstain from providing medical assistance in dying while supporting the rights of eligible patients to access such services.

It is evident that governments, national associations, and also members of the public recognize the moral and ethical struggle that health care providers could experience regarding medical assistance in dying. Most provincial medical regulatory bodies have already provided professional guidance around safeguarding the conscience rights of physicians. Provinces, like Alberta and New Brunswick, say that 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 Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South will have eight and a half minutes remaining for her remarks when the House next resumes debate on the question.

It being 5:49 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

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.

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources has eight and a half minutes remaining in her speech.

[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.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned was choice in end-of-life care.

My concern is that, when Canadians were voting last fall, they knew this bill was in the pipe. Members are aware that the Liberals, when they campaigned, promised they would put $3 billion towards palliative care and home care. Sadly, in this past budget, as members are aware, there are absolutely zero new dollars for palliative care.

We know that the Liberals are rushing this bill forward. We have seen the antics this week. People watching today should probably know that the antics this week were about shutting down debate on this very issue.

If the Liberals are truly offering a choice to Canadians, there is still enough time. Could the member talk to the health minister and the finance minister, and please have that $3 billion put into palliative care, as the Liberals promised in their election campaign?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, in budget 2016, there is indeed $3 billion for health care. Part of that discussion with the provinces and territories is clearly around home care and palliative care.

We have made that commitment. We certainly heard it from the Minister of Health a number of times.

As we know, the provinces and territories have jurisdiction over health care. Our role is to have the conversation with our partners to make sure we have all of those supports for assistance in dying, and to make sure we are reflecting Canadians' rights to assistance in their very difficult time at the end of their life and also the rights of physicians to support Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that the death of the bill is becoming reasonably foreseeable because it is in a grievous condition, but the good news is that it is not yet irremediable.

We heard from the Alberta Court of Appeal this week that the bill already does not meet the requirements of the Supreme Court decision and that it will not be deemed constitutional. We still have time to change the bill to make that happen. Unfortunately, debate on it is going to close today after only 2.5 hours because of a time allocation motion by the government, so we need to get this debate right today. We need to try to form a consensus that we want a bill that is constitutional.

Does the member think it makes sense to charge ahead to vote on a bill that we already know is not constitutional, or ought we not make amendments to the bill to make sure it is in fact constitutional?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I will not speak to the constitutionality. There are a lot of lawyers who have looked at the bill and believe it will pass the test, but that is not the point.

The point is that we have a framework for Canadians for now. This is historic in terms of putting the bill forward, of having this very difficult conversation with Canadians, and we as a government have committed very clearly to the next steps, whether it be advance directives or other elements on which we have made a commitment to have a discussion with Canadians. I look forward to working with the members opposite to have that very important discussion.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very thoughtful speech, and I know this is a very emotional matter. I have had town hall meetings on it, and there is some confusion as to the right of conscience for doctors or nurse practitioners, etc., who may not want to do it. I would like the member to shed light on this.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks and have said previously, in the bill there is protection for those medical practitioners who do not want to participate in this. I believe that the idea of having a registry or a place for patients and for physicians and other medical practitioners to go to be able to exchange those ideas and support each other is a very important step.

[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.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his passionate defence of palliative care.

I want to ensure that the hon. member is aware that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we added two amendments to the bill related to palliative care. We added an amendment to the bill and to the preamble, not only authorizing but mandating the Minister of Health to work with her provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that we improve palliative care within Canada, improve care for dementia patients, and establish proper end-of-life care for aboriginal peoples that is culturally sensitive.

Also, with respect to the report that has to come back within five years that analyzes the law, we agreed, bipartisanly, to ask that there also be a report on palliative care. I completely understand and agree that the last thing anyone wants is someone to decide that they need medical assistance in dying because he or she is in too much pain. Does the member not agree that with the dangers of not having a bill or any safeguards in place as of June 6, it should at least make him consider voting in favour of the bill, flawed as he may believe it to be?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question because it shows that there is actually a lot of agreement between many people across the way and on different sides of the debate.

As he is a new member, I would like to point this out. He said that the Liberal health minister is mandated to work with the provinces and territories. Working with them is not the same as delivering an immediate $3 billion into palliative care.

As the bill sits today, it is extremely flawed. As was brought up by my NDP colleague, why are the Liberals taking this approach? During my speech today, I asked whether the Liberals had asked for an extension from the Supreme Court. I have heard about many decisions coming from the Supreme Court, and I believe that we can ask for that. It realizes the work that we are doing.

This is not something that needs to be rushed. I think we have to do the best we can to get things right.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased with the tenor of this morning's conversation on such an important subject. We seem to be embracing the propriety, elegance, and nobility of our role.

I cannot understand why the government is trying to rush this when it is such a sensitive matter. Barging around with such a sensitive issue like a bull in a china shop is a bad idea.

People are waiting for a clear decision. Ideas have changed. It has been suggested that the government request an extension from the Supreme Court. Why not do that? That is what should be done. We need time to think this through.

As a Quebecker, I find it so sad that we are fighting about this and looking after our own interests on an issue that should inspire the utmost respect. My provincial government counterparts and the people of Quebec made their decision after giving the matter a lot of thought.

My colleague says that it is about this or that, but ultimately, is this not about the suffering of the sick?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague who is from Quebec rightfully said that this issue was thought out through different governments, and all members in the House had time to listen to their constituents. I believe that they had six years of debate in Quebec.

This truly is a matter of life and death. It would change the social structure of our country.

The member is correct. The Supreme Court gave an artificial deadline. It came up with a date. However, the date can change.

We are doing our work in the House. Why does the government insist on rushing forward so that the voices of my constituents, my colleagues' constituents, and those of the backbench Liberal MPs, cannot be heard? Canadians deserve that their members of Parliament be heard in this House.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to participate in today's debate on such a core issue.

I would like to start by acknowledging the incredibly hard work and the non-partisan spirit of all of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I want to thank the deputy chairs, the hon. member for Provencher and the hon. member for Victoria, as well as the members of the committee, the hon. members for St. Albert—Edmonton, Niagara Falls, West Nova, St. Catharines, York South—Weston,Mississauga—Erin Mills, and Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for their ability to work together in harmony. Even when we had an area where many people fundamentally disagreed and held true to very solid convictions, views and beliefs, we were able to work together in a non-partisan way and agree on 16 amendments to the bill before us.

It is true that not every member of our committee got everything they wanted. In fact, most of us did not get most of what we wanted, but what we did have was harmonious and agreeable debate, which should be an example to all of us in the House as to how parliamentarians should conduct themselves.

I now will talk about the bill itself, why I strongly support the adoption of the bill, and I want to put this in context. We are at a point where the Supreme Court delay is June 6. I will not attribute fault to anyone as to how we got here, but we only have a very short time to pass the bill. The hon. member previously asked why we would not ask the court for another delay. The court made it very clear, when we got our last four months delay of their original deadline, that it expected us to move forward and adopt legislation by June 6.

It does not mean that we could not ask again, but all of us should know that where the court ever grants a delay a second time, which is extremely unusual, it relates to an absolute inability of Parliament to get a law through. Therefore, I would ask everyone to consider what situation will we be in if we have no law on June 6? We will have no safeguards in place.

The current court decision that requires judicial review of an application for medically assisted dying will expire on June 6. This will mean that no waiting period will be required. There will be no requirement for independent witnesses to somebody requesting medically assisted death. There will be no requirement of a second opinion by a physician or a nurse practitioner that somebody meets the qualification of grievous and/or irremediable illness.

I would ask all of my colleagues on that side of the House, certainly within the Conservative Party, to consider the situation we will be in if we have no bill. It will not be a pretty situation. We will have absolutely no safeguards to ensure that those requesting medical assistance in dying truly have a grievous and/or irremediable medical condition. It is very serious.

I also want to talk about why we are here. My NDP colleague referred to the Alberta Court of Appeal. That explains to me all the more why we need safeguards and a law in place by June 6. We had a decision where a psychological patient who was not terminally ill, who had a short consultation with a psychiatrist lasting less than five minutes to evaluate her competence, was able to request medical assistance in dying and had it affirmed by the Court of Appeal. It is not true to say, as my colleague did, that it said the law was invalid. It was not looking at the current proposed law. It was looking at, and trying to interpret, the Carter decision by the Supreme Court the same way we all are.

My view is, as parliamentarians, we need to tell the court what principles we want to put forward, what safeguards we want to put forward so courts will look at the will of Parliament as opposed to doing what all of us are now trying to do and guess what the Supreme Court meant in the Carter decision.

I also want to point out that we should act cautiously here. Canada will only be the ninth jurisdiction in the world to allow medical assistance in dying. In the vast majority of these jurisdictions, the only people who can avail themselves of medical assistance in dying are people who are near the end of life, people in the U.S. who have six months to live, or people in Colombia who are near death. Only three jurisdictions in the world, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, allow people to ask for their lives to be taken when they are not terminal.

The Supreme Court in Carter clearly contemplated a situation where we could not quite match section 7 and have section 7 compliance if we put in an end date. As a safeguard, we said that it had to be “reasonably foreseeable”. It is not perfect, but it is far better than having no requirement whatsoever that death be reasonably foreseeable.

In committee, we considered the things that were missing from the bill that we would have liked to have seen in it. By consensus, we added conscience rights for physicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists. We stated that under the bill nobody would be obliged to provide physician assistance in dying. In the preamble, we referred back to section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience, to make it clear that we did not intend for anyone to be coerced into doing this.

We also added palliative care to the bill, which is important. I referred to this in my previous question.

We also inserted protections for people who might also be associated with the act, for example, social workers and therapists.

We required that death certificates include medical assistance in dying as being the reason for death as well as the primary cause of the disease that lead to that.

While everybody did not receive exactly what they wanted, we have a far better solution than what we otherwise might have had in this situation where we would have no legislation and no guidance to the courts on what Parliament truly wanted.

My NDP colleague talked about what happened in Quebec. I am a Quebec MP too. What happened in Quebec is completely different from what we are dealing with as federal legislators.

It took Quebec six years to reach a consensus on the medical side. However, our situation is different because a Supreme Court ruling tells us that a certain percentage of people have a constitutional right to suicide without state interference if they are in a particular physical condition. The federal government would be irresponsible if it did not meet the Supreme Court's deadline.

We do not have six years to craft this consensus. To be honest, I wish we had more time at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We tried our best. We listened to over 40 witnesses. They told us many different things, because there are so many different views in Canadian society on this bill. We spent many hours on clause-by-clause. We considered over 100 amendments. We had three full days and nights of meetings. Had we had more time to work together as colleagues of all three parties to draft legislation like we were trying to do on the fly, we possibly could have done better. That does not mean, however, that after June 6 we cannot improve the bill.

One of the things we inserted in the bill was a requirement that the Minister of Health work on these studies, especially on advance directives, and this should start within six months.

We need to be cautious with respect to advance directives. There are only three countries that allow advance directives and two of them only allow them for somebody who is in an irreversible coma. The idea that we should suddenly allow medical directives in advance for dementia patients, without any proper review or safeguards or understanding of the issue, to me is faulty. We have the opportunity in the future to correct any flaws that we see now in the bill.

I will use my last 30 seconds to try to prevail upon my colleagues in the House. I am sure many of my colleagues wished the Supreme Court had never rendered the Carter decision, which would have left the House with more latitude, but we are where we are. There is going to be medically assisted dying in Canada after June 6. The only question is whether it will be with no safeguards, with doctors and nurse practitioners trying to interpret Carter, or will it be with the clear safeguards that we have in Bill C-14. For me, the clear safeguards in Bill C-14 are the far better choice.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that our hon. colleague across the way has used words “on the fly” and “we have had three full days” of discussions. The House has debated the issue of pipelines longer than we are debating one of the most fundamental and important pieces of legislation of this Parliament, or those before us, and of those moving forward. We are dealing with life and death.

I am sure my hon. colleague did not mean to say that good enough was good enough. When we are dealing with life and death, the government has done everything in its power to stall the debate, earlier this week and throughout the whole process. It is unacceptable.

Is good enough good enough when we are dealing with life and death?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend across clearly misinterpreted what I said. When I talked about bipartisanship, I meant bipartisanship, and that question was not really bipartisan. It was accusing one side.

I could just as easily stand here and say that the previous government should have acted earlier, but I will not do that because I have no way of knowing why it did not. Nor do I agree with the premise that we wanted to not have debate.

The real question is not good enough is good enough. I believe this is a good bill. Do I think it could have been more to my liking if I had drafted every word myself? Of course. I think I am a great drafter. However, what I know is that this bill is much better than having no safeguards in place as of June 6, when the Supreme Court decision in Carter comes into force. We cannot ignore that there is a court decision.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, at second reading, I was quite inclined to agree with some of the arguments members put forward on the need for a federal law. I agree that ultimately we need to have a federal law, but we need to proceed cautiously.

However, the way the bill has been handled, ultimately having a bill that we already have good reason to believe is not going to meet the constitutional test, is of great concern to me. It would be worthwhile to take the little time we have, because of time allocation, and try to make the bill better.

The member has identified two problems. One is the upcoming deadline and the other is the lack of certainty about what the Carter decision actually means. There are a number of experts who are saying that the bill does not meet this test, and I take that very seriously.

We have called on the government to refer the bill to the Supreme Court. That would solve both problems. It could submit the legislation to the court, ask for a review and an opinion on the bill, as well as an extension for Parliament to take that opinion of the Supreme Court back, and then continue the debate with certainty from the Supreme Court about what exactly it meant in Carter.

Why will the government not send it to the Supreme Court and ask for more time to have deliberations on this in light of the Supreme Court's opinion?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is very interesting because I see some members who are completely against medical assistance in dying to some extent agreeing with the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. This is the real problem. To me, the court of appeal decision in Alberta is exactly the reason why we need to have a law and safeguards in place, because it allowed a psychiatric patient who was not terminal to have medical assistance in dying.

The court needs guidance from Parliament. It needs Parliament to tell the court that this is not what we want, that we need to ensure these safeguards are in place and that this is the category of people who are on a path to death who are entitled to medical assistance in dying. If Parliament does not do that, then we are simply allowing the courts to dictate to Parliament exactly what the rules are. That is not what the court even contemplated. The court told us it expected us to set out a law and said that it would give great deference to it.

Therefore, I do not agree that this law is unconstitutional. However, by us acting and making clear what our intentions are, we have a far greater chance of the Supreme Court listening to the will of Parliament.

[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.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the notwithstanding clause. I am always a little nervous about telling someone that their rights temporarily do not matter. It is something that I do not find terribly helpful.

The member said that he wants to make sure that anything that happens is safe from future Supreme Court decisions. I wonder why he thinks that matters, if he is willing to use the notwithstanding clause in the first place.

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

Madam Speaker, it is simply two different situations.

We have a law that was sufficient all the way up until last year when the Supreme Court decided that it was not. That was the premise at the start of my conversation.

The following three points were made, that if the government is going to proceed without going through the notwithstanding clause process, then we would go through the rest.

I will just inform the member across the way that on a plane ride home from Ottawa to Vancouver, I sat next to a Supreme Court justice of the appellate court. I asked how we could have a check on them. Canadians have a check on us through elections and feedback letters. He said that there is a mechanism to check on them, and it is called the notwithstanding clause.

Clearly that is our way to check the courts, and to have our say in that body. We need to seriously consider it in this matter.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member mentioned, I think there are grave concerns among health care professionals, not just physicians, but nurses, young residents, and others who would be compelled and quite frankly, ordered on an order paper to participate in this act.

Currently the legislation as outlined really does not provide protection for those who choose not to participate and that is not just about physicians. It is about nurses, young Canadians who have become residents, and Canadians who are participating in the health care field.

I would like the member's thoughts on how those individuals could be protected, because right now the legislation protects one group of health care professionals, but does not treat the other groups fairly.

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely, as I referred to, an amendment was put forward by one of our colleagues, with respect to proposed subsections (7.1) and (7.2). Some of these positions are not protected, as the member stated. We are talking about not just medical practitioners, but we are talking about pharmacists and any kind of health institution that would allow this act to be performed within it, faith-based health care providers.

It is a wide-open door as to who can be drawn into this situation. Without sufficient protections, I am deeply concerned that all of these groups will be wrapped up into this legislation and be forced to do something against their beliefs.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about my colleague's conclusion that Parliament should use the notwithstanding clause. I come from the province of Quebec. When I was 18 years old, the province of Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to ban English from commercial signs and it enraged me and it enraged our community.

For me, no matter how passionately the hon. member feels about a subject, the use of the notwithstanding clause to tell a group of people who feel that their rights have been vindicated by the Supreme Court that suddenly they no longer have that right is not what the hon. member really should consider to be a fair and just solution.

Could the hon. member look at that in light of the experience that I lived in Quebec and please reconsider his views?

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

Madam Speaker, I will clarify one thing. I finished with talking about a free vote from the government. That was my conclusion. The opposite side talks about open and accountable government and a new way of doing business here in Ottawa. I question whether free votes are really occurring on the other side, just by the numbers that oppose any government legislation. Usually on our side we have anywhere from one to 15 honest free votes in the House. I would challenge the other side to have a free vote on this on their side—

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

We are. Don't worry about it. We are.

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

I know there is diversity—

[An hon. member]

On charter rights he said you would vote as a caucus.

The House resumed 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 amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying).

I would like to start off by first acknowledging that medical assistance in dying is a deeply personal issue for all Canadians, which is tied to both their life experiences and personal beliefs. My background as a registered nurse in an oncology unit helped shape my thoughts and opinions on this matter.

Understanding that this is a very sensitive issue, with proponents on all sides of the debate, within days of this new Parliament, the now-government caucus moved swiftly to strike a joint committee to study the matter and make recommendations, which heard from many Canadians and experts on this issue. After working several days, sometimes well into the evening, the committee made its recommendations to Parliament.

Before I continue, I would like to thank all my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House, and in the Senate, who participated in the special committee and the justice committee for their contributions.

I also know that our minister has worked very hard to craft legislation that would ensure that the priorities of Canadians were met when it came to the issue of medical assistance in dying.

I strongly believe that the proposed legislation finds the perfect balance by reconciling the issue of autonomy of competent adults with the protection of vulnerable people through a thoughtful tailoring of the eligibility criteria and robust safeguards that are essential to preventing error and abuse. It also strikes the right balance by ensuring that conscience rights of physicians and nurse practitioners are protected, and commits to continuing to work with the provinces and territories regarding coordination and jurisdictional issues.

I want to assure members that our government is committed to continued discussions with the provinces and territories on a range of issues, not only related to medical assistance in dying but also to a full range of end-of-life options, including palliative care.

In various testimony given before the House committee, witnesses discussed other regimes where medical assistance in dying has been implemented. In Europe, for example, three countries have legislated access to medical assistance in dying, which is Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. In the United States, four states have legislated access.

However, where Canada is unique is in the jurisdictional complexities that we face. In Canada, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law, and health is a shared jurisdiction between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Primary responsibility for the provision and delivery of health care services rests with individual jurisdictions. This is why our government has proposed legislation that will be applied across all provinces and territories but at the same time will respect and allow flexibility for jurisdictional roles and responsibilities in the areas of health care.

This brings me to another important issue that cannot be ignored or put aside when talking about enabling access to medical assistance in dying when one is approaching end-of-life care, and that is access to quality palliative care. It is very clear that Canadians are looking to their government for leadership to advance the availability and quality of palliative care within the broader scope of how we address Canadians' needs at the end of their life.

We know that most people at the end of life wish to remain at home as long as possible, as long as they are well supported by the services they need. This is why the federal government is committed to improving palliative care as part of a new health accord, supported by a long-term investment of $3 billion over four years.

Recently, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of health agreed to work individually and collectively on improving home care to better meet the needs of patients closer to home. However, an agreement must still be reached on how funds will be used to strengthen and transform the health care system. We know that all jurisdictions are working diligently to meet the growing home and palliative care needs of their aging populations. However, we also know that jurisdictions are at different points. Some are well advanced in their efforts, and others are at a more moderate stage. By continuing to work with provinces, territories, and stakeholders, we will bolster each other's efforts for the benefit of all Canadians.

Another aspect that I would like to address when we talk about providing Canadians with that full range of options at the end of life is access. The government is very clear in its commitment to facilitate access to these services and to those providing it. This includes access to this new service of medical assistance in dying.

Our government is committed to respecting the autonomy of Canadians suffering from grievous and irremediable medical conditions. Access to medical assistance in dying would only be available for those who meet the following conditions: be a mentally competent adult who is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; have a serious an incurable illness, disease, or disability, and are experiencing, enduring an intolerable suffering; and whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable.

It will also remain a crime to assist a person either in dying or in causing a person's death in situations other than lawful medical assistance in dying.

With regard to Bill C-14, our government is also committed to protecting the exercise of conscience rights as the proposed legislation also provides exemptions for both physicians and nurse practitioners from having to provide medical assistance in dying. Over the course of this national dialogue, we have seen that the protection of conscience rights for these providers is clearly an issue for many Canadians. Our government has listened and made Bill C-14 more explicit on this issue, and therefore more appropriate for the diversity within Canada.

The bill now reads as follows:

For greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.

We trust that this helps to address the concerns some of members may have either personally and/or on behalf of their constituents on the issue of the protection of conscience rights.

Our government is also proposing to work with provinces and territories to create an end-of-life care coordination system. This would have a dual function. It would respect the conscience rights of health care providers, while facilitating access for Canadians to not only medical assistance in dying but a full range of end-of-life options, including palliative care.

The federal government would be prepared to collaborate on developing such a system should provinces and territories wish to participate, so that all Canadians have access to the care they need and deserve. We could also start on this by reviewing the information that we have on assisted dying regimes in other countries to see what they have done, and assessing their applicability to Canada.

Working in the health care field and especially in oncology, I know that health care is about connecting and helping people during their most vulnerable times. This means that we need accountable and transparent regulations to monitor and instill confidence in the appropriate implementation of medical assistance in dying.

This will protect vulnerable patients when they may not be able to do so themselves and help Canadians understand the number of requests for medical assistance in dying, the types of medical conditions that lead to requests, and whether the procedural safeguards in the law are working as intended. It will also work to ensure that high-quality, comparable Canadian data is generated so that any future discussions about changes to the medical assistance in dying system can be based on the best possible evidence.

Therefore, Bill C-14 creates legal obligations for physicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists to report certain information for the purpose of monitoring. Regulations will be put in place to guide the information to be provided, to whom, and within what time frame. In the short term, Health Canada is working with our counterparts in the provinces and territories to establish an interim system should the bill be passed on June 6, until a permanent process is in place.

In closing, I would like to once again reaffirm my support for Bill C-14, which I believe is the right approach for medical assistance in dying. It will support and facilitate access for those seeking it, protect our most vulnerable, and protect conscience rights. We know that no one solution can reconcile the diverse perspectives on medical assistance in dying, but we believe we are moving forward together with a balanced approach that is appropriate for Canada at this time.

I thank the Speaker for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important piece of legislation.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question about the deadline of June 6.

Right now, it looks like the earliest that the legislation will get to the Senate is mid-week during the week that we return. The expiration of the stay on the declaration of constitutional invalidity expires on the following Monday. It looks like it is now virtually impossible to meet the June 6 deadline.

In the face of that fact, would the hon. member agree that the Minister of Justice should apply to the Supreme Court to ask for a further extension, not a six-month extension, not a four-month extension, perhaps a one month or six-week extension, so that we can get legislation passed without there being a void in which there would be an absence of certainty and an absence of protections for vulnerable Canadians?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and for all his hard work on the special committee and the justice committee.

What he said, again, reinforces how important it is for us to pass the legislation by June 6. As members know, if the legislation is not in place by June 6, the court's ruling would come into effect, meaning that medical assistance in dying would be lawful where it is in accordance with the parameters set by the Carter ruling.

We know if the bill does not pass there will be a vacuum. I know this is something that my hon. colleague has said before in the House as well. People who are suffering incurable and irremediable conditions will be left with no access to medical assistance in dying because no medical practitioner will be at all comfortable assisting anyone in dying without any legal framework.

On the other side, we will be putting our most vulnerable population at risk with absolutely no safeguards, and we know how disastrous that could be.

Again, this just shows how important it is for us, as parliamentarians and as Canadians, to pass the legislation by June 6.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for her very thoughtful remarks on the bill.

My question for her is about process. I am one of the people who did not get an opportunity to speak to the bill at second reading. Under the time allocation motion, we now, today, will have 10 amendments on the bill before us and we will have only nine speakers. We actually have more amendments than speakers on the bill.

I wonder how she feels or why she feels the government is unwilling to accept the proposal that was just made that would allow this debate to continue on Monday and allow many more members of Parliament to participate in the debate at report stage, because we are going to have less than 10% of the members of Parliament actually participating at this stage.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for all Canadians, this is an extremely difficult and deeply personal issue, tied to their life experiences and personal beliefs.

As we know, it is a very diversified situation. For some, medical assistance in dying would be very troubling, and for others, the legislation would not go far enough. We believe that the legislation is the best approach to ensure that dying patients who are suffering unbearable pain have the choice of a peaceful death, and that the vulnerable are protected.

The Supreme Court of Canada decided that Canadians suffering intolerably have the right to request assistance to end their suffering, and we respect that decision.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to finally speak to the bill at report stage, although, as I just said in my previous question, I am really sad to have to do this under time allocation and knowing that many of my colleagues will not get the chance to bring the voices from their constituencies to this chamber on the bill.

I was prevented from speaking at second reading by the time allocation imposed by the government, but something even more peculiar happened when it did that. The abrupt change of the House schedule on May 4 with time allocation forced the second reading vote forward by five days, and for those of us who have responsibilities both here and in our ridings, it meant on that Wednesday morning, I was already flying west before the time allocation motion was introduced. It meant that I could not be here to cast my vote at second reading because I was already flying in the wrong direction.

I lost my chance to go on record as voting against Bill C-14 in principle. That is what I intended to do, not just because of my own experience and beliefs, but also because I believe it contradicts the Supreme Court's Carter decision, and most important, because the bill contradicts the opinion of virtually every person and every family in my riding that has contacted me about this issue.

I have been involved in discussions about end-of-life issues with several individuals who are facing severe debilitating and painful illnesses. I have talked to them directly. I have met with them and have heard their concerns. This reminds me to mention an important issue that is not in the bill, and that is the issue of palliative care and the need for us as a society to do a much better job with end-of-life care.

I do want to praise those who are actively already working in end-of-life care. This is not a criticism of their efforts that they make each and every day to provide better care for those who are facing end of life, but they are forced to do so too often with too few resources and in substandard situations.

I have been involved in public discussions locally on this issue, stretching back to a public forum on March 21, 2015, which was jointly sponsored by a group called Victoria Choices in Dying and Dying with Dignity. We heard from a panel of speakers, which I was privileged to be on, but we also heard from the public. We heard speaker after speaker at that forum say that they wanted the right to control end-of-life issues. They wanted the right to make decisions for themselves, and they wanted the right for their family members not to have to suffer intolerable pain for great lengths of time, but to be able to make the choice for assisted dying.

I believe, as I said, not just speaking on the basis of my own conscience, but representing the beliefs and needs of my community, that I should oppose Bill C-14, not just for what is not in the bill, like palliative care, which only gets a mention in the preamble and for which the government has, incidentally, provided no new resources and there is no reason to wait for legislation to do that, but I will oppose the bill for what is actually in the bill. I believe the bill is too restrictive and respects neither the letter nor the spirit of the Carter decision.

I think we are in this unfortunate position because the government failed to listen to the key recommendations of our own special joint committee of the House and Senate. The committee made very wise recommendations with regard to the bill, yet only a few of them were incorporated into the bill at the committee stage.

In the interests of time, I will focus on what I believe are the three key faults in Bill C-14.

The first and most important to me is the absence of a provision for advance directives.

I want to talk, if I am able to do so, about a very personal experience, the death of my mother last fall. My mother had always been very clear, even before she developed dementia, and that dementia began to take away her capacity, she did not want measures to keep her alive, lying in the bed without consciousness, with no quality of life, and especially if she were in great pain.

Her dementia was not the immediate cause of her death, so she would not have qualified under the bill because she did not have a terminal illness, but in her case, six years after the onset of the dementia, she no longer had the capacity to make decisions. Other medical conditions left her in a situation which she had feared: in great pain and unable to care for herself. Those other medical conditions did eventually take her life in conjunction with the decisions we as her children and the medical practitioner made at the time.

We feel very fortunate that my mother had been very clear about her wishes. Although that did not really make the decisions we had to make easy, we were confident that we were doing what she had wanted to do. My own family's experience and the experiences of other families in my constituency are why I believe so strongly that Canadians have the right to make advance directives about their care.

The second reason that I am opposing this bill is the fact that it would impose what it calls a reflection period on those at the end of life. Of course, again, those who have dementia or other similar medical conditions would not be able to have a reflection period because they would no longer have capacity. However, even for those who are competent at that point in their life, I believe that the 10 days, which the committee thankfully reduced it to, is still far too long for those who are living in intolerable pain, and far too long not just for them, but far too long to ask their families and friends to witness that suffering. If there is to be a reflection period, it needs to be even shorter than those 10 days.

My third reason for opposing this bill is the fact that it would narrow who is eligible to receive medical assistance in dying to those whose death is “reasonably foreseeable”. I know that others have said that we know what that means and it is specific. However, the only way I can understand that we all know what that means is that all our deaths are reasonably foreseeable, but what it means beyond that, I have no idea. It is not a term that is used in medicine. It is not a term that is used in law. That very ambiguity raises the spectre of excluding people who need medical assistance in dying and who would have been qualified for it under the Carter decision.

According to the lead counsel in the Carter case, even Kay Carter, a fierce advocate for the right to assisted death for those who are suffering intolerably but from a non-fatal condition, would probably be excluded from accessing medical assistance in dying under Bill C-14 as it stands. What this would do is force people into incredibly cruel strategies like starving themselves to death to make their death imminent and allow them to qualify. I would hope that this House would not impose those kinds of restrictions on people and make them make those kinds of choices at the end of their life.

Would I rather have this bill than no bill? The answer I guess I am going to have to decide on. My decision is going to be that yes, I would rather have no bill. I prefer to go with the Carter decision. Do I think it would have been better to have a bill? Yes I do. I am not opposed to having a bill on this, but it has to respect the Carter decision, and it has to have clear provisions in it, and it needs to have a reflection period shorter than 10 days. If we do not have the bill, what happens? We do not have a legal vacuum as people are saying. We have the Carter decision, which would provide guidance. There is a legal framework.

Although I did not actually look this up, when the abortion provisions were removed from the Criminal Code, the House of Commons tried twice to create new law regulating abortions. I am sure these same arguments were made at that time, saying that practitioners would not want to perform abortions because there was no legal framework. In fact, we went with the court decision. We still exist with the court decision on abortion as our legal framework and we have not had chaos in the medical community on that; not that in any way I wish to compare abortion to medical assistance in dying, but only on this issue of whether there is a legal framework that will apply on June 6.

The failure to meet the June 6 deadline for this legislation lies with all of us. It lies with the previous government; it lies with the current government, and it lies with us as a House of Commons. We all have to take responsibility for missing that deadline.

However, I do have to say I believe the government could have managed the House time better so that all of us could have participated in the debate and that debate could have been accomplished in time to meet the deadline. All the Liberals had to do was schedule this bill as a priority in this sitting of the House, which they failed to do. That did not happen. Therefore, I will, when the time comes, stand and vote against this bill at third reading. In the meantime, I will also vote against it at report stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Charlottetown.

Oh, sorry. The House leader for the New Democratic Party is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, following on the comments of the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on the issue of the timing on the debate, earlier I offered a unanimous consent motion that would allow us to debate this bill on Monday, which would not change in any way the time allocation vote that we have to have at the report stage of Bill C-14 on Monday evening.

Currently, in just a few minutes, we will stop debating this bill, but with this motion, if it is adopted by the government side, as opposition members are in favour, we would then have a second day of debate at report stage, which would be on Monday.

It is my hope that the government will actually work to do what is reasonable. It does not change the vote that we will have on Monday night on report stage on Bill C-14, but what it does do is it adds a second full day of debate and allows members of Parliament to speak on this important issue.

I will read the following motion for which I am seeking unanimous consent: 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 at 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”.

I hope that we will get unanimous consent and allow a second day of debate on this important bill at report stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid the hon. member does not have unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I stand here a little surprised that we were turned down. I can tell you that, although you and I have very different positions on this, I think the debate is what we are all learning from, and I thank you for all your words today.

Although I am at this time supporting the bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I would remind the hon. member, and I am sure she does not mean me when she is talking, that she might want to speak through me.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the member, because I think the biggest thing is that these debates are teaching us all. It is not just teaching us about what is happening within our own ridings, but what other Canadians are thinking. Therefore, I would really like to thank the member beside me, because those are the important discussions that we must have.

One of the questions I have is for my own personal interest. One of the concerns I have is the reduction from 15 to 10 days. I am wondering if the member can speak to that so that I have a little bit more clarity on why he believes it is important to reduce the number of days. It is just for my personal knowledge.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I first have to say that I am shocked that the government again is denying members, under a very reasonable proposal that would not affect the ability to meet the June 6 deadline, the opportunity to speak in this debate because like the hon. member, I have learned very much from hearing others speak. I very much respect the level of debate in this House.

In terms of the reflection period, I firmly believe, and it is mostly on the personal experience I went through last fall, that at the very end of life when someone is suffering intolerable pain, it is not only intolerable for the person, but it is very difficult for the family members who spend most of the time in the hospital with their loved one, who have no idea how long the natural process will take, and suffer along with the person. I think that 15 days was certainly too long and 10 days is better. In my view, and given my personal experience, it is still too long.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

My apologies for the last question. I still had not left the previous motion, and somehow we moved right into the debate without me calling it. You slipped one in there. Congratulations.

I will go back to the hon. member for Charlottetown.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the hon. member for his thoughtful contribution to the debate, and a thoughtful contribution is what we always get from the member. We do not agree on our respective positions on the bill, but certainly his was and always is a valuable intervention.

There are two things I'd like to raise.

The member talked about the confusion, or lack of clarity, or the lack of value around the words “reasonably foreseeable”. I would ask the member to read the two words in front of those two words, which are “has become”. Therefore, the reasonable foreseeability in the bill is only in the context of a change in someone's conditions. Death has to have become reasonably foreseeable. I would ask for his comments with respect to the relevance or importance of those words.

Also, with respect to the June 6 deadline, he drew an analogy to the abortion debate in this country. My question for him with regard to the June 6 deadline is that, right now during the extension period up to June 6, it is possible for patients to petition a court to have medical assistance in dying; however, that process expires on June 6 and will no longer exist. Does the member see that as significant?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always value hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

On the question of words before “reasonably foreseeable”, he has asked me to back up a couple of words, but if I do that, I want to back up to “who's natural death has become reasonably foreseeable”. If we back up that far, there is even more ambiguity. What is natural death? That is what we all face. “Natural death has become reasonably foreseeable” is no clearer. I would stress again that it is not a term used in medicine and it is not a term used in law. Therefore, I am not arguing about its value; I am arguing about its certainty. At this point, it has no certainty.

On the question of what happens after June 6, I do not believe there is a legal vacuum. I know the temporary exemption process expires. When we were dealing end of life with my mother, the last thing I wanted to do was hire a lawyer and go to court. I was spending the time with her in the hospital, as was my sister, though, it was not something we would have wished to go through. Therefore, I am not certain that this expiring is a bad thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to share a few thoughts in regard to the report stage of Bill C-14. Perhaps I can start off by picking up on a couple of the words that were just mentioned.

When we talk about the details, listening to many hours of debate in the chamber on this very important legislation, a couple of things come to mind. One is the seriousness of the debate, the sense of compassion we hear in many of the speeches. People want to identify with the legislation and best represent their constituents. It is one of the reasons it has become somewhat of a difficult issue to try to manage. To try to give a false impression would be most unfortunate. There has been a genuine, serious commitment by the Government of Canada to accommodate all members who would like to address the legislation. We have seen that on several occasions. It would have allowed all members to participate in the debate.

We all share two responsibilities. One is to recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, and there is a void. I will provide some comment on that shortly. Second is that all political parties in the chamber have to take responsibility in the debate that has occurred on Bill C-14. Members need to ask themselves why they feel limited in their debate. On a number of occasions, the government has extended the opportunity to afford every member the opportunity to speak. I wanted to be very clear on that point.

When we talk about the issue itself, there is another thing about which we should be talking a great deal. We heard a lot of this during the second reading debate. We have far-reaching legislation that will impact, directly or indirectly, every Canadian in every region of our country. At the end of the day, we need to recognize that this is just one major step. It is a step that has been mandated because nine Supreme Court of Canada judges made the decision that we needed to get some form of framework set up to provide medical assistance in dying.

I believe this legislation delivers that. I recommend that members look at some of the words that have been spoken, in particular by the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Justice. They have done a phenomenal job in getting us to the stage we are at today. I would not want to underestimate the role that others have contributed. In particular, the members of the joint standing committee of the Senate and the House spent many hours in the early part of this year in consultations. I wish to recognize the many efforts of committee members, who after second reading had the opportunity to go through the legislation and look at the possibility of amendments, and number of amendments were brought forward. We saw consensus among all three political parties for some of those amendments, which is great to see.

It is important we recognize that some in the chamber advocate that this bill does not go far enough. Others advocate that it goes too far. I believe the legislation before us today is the best legislation we can develop, put forward, and turn into law. At the end of the day, Canadians from coast to coast to coast will be assured that it is solid legislation.

If we do not pass the legislation in a timely fashion to meet a deadline determined by the Supreme Court of Canada of June 6, there will be a void. Some have said that we can just ignore the void. They can have that opinion if they choose, but it is the responsibility of every parliamentarian to respect the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. If members do not respect that, we are putting at risk a patchwork system, depending in which part of our great nation we happen to live.

There will be additional issues in many different regions that will surface and many will have to spend, potentially, hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with the legislation in a piecemeal fashion because we did not respect what we have been called upon to do by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is urgency.

We know that caring and compassionate Canadians in every region of the country want us to do our job. That is one of the reasons it did not matter to me if we sat until three or four o'clock in the morning or 11 o'clock at night. We wanted to ensure that members had the opportunity to express themselves. As we get closer to that deadline, we have to get the legislation into the Senate. We have many reasons to be optimistic that the Senate has taken on what I believe is a more independent outlook in terms its responsibilities. Hopefully we will see a very productive Senate in dealing with legislation that has been passed by the elected members who sit in the House.

We have an obligation to do the best job in dealing with this issue. That means we should look at getting this bill through not only at report stage but at third reading in a timely fashion so the Senate is able to deal with it. I look at a glass as being half full, not half empty. I hope the Senate will do the same and assist us in meeting the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline.

I want to emphasize that this is step one. There are many other steps. One of them is the issue of palliative care. I and many of my Liberal caucus colleagues as well as many other members of the House are looking at this. The Government of Canada has been very clear on a solid commitment in two ways.

First is the health care accord. The best way to deliver palliative care is through agreements with the provinces, I wish the Minister of Health the very best in achieving that health care accord.

The second is the financial commitment of billions of dollars from this government to provide strong leadership going into the future, ensuring that palliative care is a top priority of this government and working with the many stakeholders that play a critical role in this so we have the best palliative care system in the world. This government, the Prime Minister, myself, and many colleagues in the House want to achieve good quality, world-class palliative care.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those were very nice words, but I think it is time for action from that side of the House. We are where we are today. We can all play the blame game on why more members have not been able to speak, whether we should have sat until 3 o'clock in the morning, as the member said, or until midnight, or whether or not Motion No. 6, which has been withdrawn, was the answer to get this through.

We saw yesterday, in a spirit I would say of reconciliation, after the events that happened earlier this week, the government House leader withdraw his draconian motion, Motion No. 6, and promise to work with the opposition so that more members would have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-14.

The Liberals brought this bill on a Friday, which allows two hours of debate at report stage. There has been a very reasonable amendment to the motion put on the floor of this House to allow us to debate on Monday. It would not affect the timing of the votes or this bill proceeding to the Senate.

Why is the member opposing the opportunity for more members of Parliament to speak just on Monday? It would not affect the timing, the June 6 deadline, or the business of this House. Why not bring this back on Monday for another day of debate to give more members the opportunity to express themselves?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, since 1988, when I was first elected, I have been part of a House leadership team of sorts, whether it was in the province of Manitoba or here. I would suggest to the member that opposition and government members need to recognize the value of certainty. There are certain things that government is able to do, but there are also obligations of opposition. We need certainty. Both sides need certainty. If the political will on all sides is to make sure that members get heard and the certainty of respecting the Supreme Court deadline is there, it is amazing what the House leaderships of all three parties can do if they are prepared to work together. However, it takes the three parties, and we have to work with our independents, in order to make that happen. If the respect is there, who knows? Keep in mind that we still have third reading to deal with.

I would suggest to all members, if they are genuinely concerned, that they take the time to talk to and explain the importance of goodwill and trust with the House leadership.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

In a number of speeches, including his, members often mention June 6 as some kind of unavoidable deadline. I admit that I am a bit less of a stickler than my colleague on this, although this date is an important objective.

Why is the government not focusing as much on the fact that the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in Carter? A unanimous decision does not come around often in Canadian law. That seems just as important to me.

We must acknowledge that the Supreme Court is representative of the Canadian public, in a way. Perhaps we could move forward more quickly if the government were open to some amendments to bring the bill closer to the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court.

It is very clear where we are going with this bill, and I think we could come to an agreement quickly if we put as much emphasis on the unanimous decision as on the June 6 date.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the question. Whether it was in the comments or the response to the first question, I indicated how important it is that we do respect the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and deadline. I talked about it during second reading. I believe that we have experts around the table, constitutional experts, individuals who are maybe a bit above my pay grade but who bring a lot to the table, to make sure the constitutionality of this legislation is intact, with the potential for a charter challenge and so forth.

I am confident that the bill will do the job.

Again, I will emphasize that we still have third reading on this particular piece of legislation to have more dialogue.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am truly honoured to have the opportunity to speak on this bill.

Initially I wanted to listen to all of my colleagues within the House, because I recognize that it is important to listen to all Canadians. I recognize that the 338 parliamentarians bringing their views and the views from their constituents is just as important as listening to all the things I have as well. Giving their views, as we have seen today, is so important. I thank all of the members taking part in today's debate.

My role as a parliamentarian is to do the fact-finding, speaking to the constituents I represent, and making sure that I get the right message to make this decision and do what is right for my constituency and all Canadians. From that, I decided to do a lot of town halls. I sent letters to each and every physician in my riding. I had one-on-one meetings with many stakeholders, whether they were physicians dealing with palliative care or people who had family members with chronic illnesses. I also received many emails and letters as well as postcard campaigns.

To start, I want to share one of the letters that I received from one of the physicians. It is one of many that I received, but today I want to share this letter from Dr. Carroll Harder:

I am e-mailing in response to your letter I received requesting information on my concerns about Bill C-14. Thank you for requesting physician input. I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to weigh-in as a stakeholder in these decisions. This topic is obviously very important to me and I am trying to understand all of the implications of this for me and for my patients.

I appreciate the steps that have been put in place to provide checks and balances that will hopefully prevent abuse of this system by family or health care providers. I am concerned that many groups are calling for less restrictions than those that are currently in place dictating who applies for this and who is ineligible. I would ask that you, as our representative, continue to advocate for stringent restrictions with multiple layers of accountability to prevent abuse of this legislation.

I understand the protection that is in place for health care providers who conscientiously object to participating in Physician Assisted Dying, and again would appreciate your advocacy with medical bodies to ensure that this remains in place, even for those physicians practising in remote areas that may be pressured to provide the service when no one else who does is available in a reasonable geographic distance.

It is letters like this that I put together with all these types of information when coming to a conclusion on how I will proceed in voting as the representative for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Overall, I had many concerns when I saw this legislation. When I looked at the joint report, there were some great concerns for me on things, including eligibility to include mature minors and those with mental illness. There is the need for palliative care. One of the biggest concerns I have is on the rights of physicians. Being a mom, the issue of mature minors is something that is also very important to me.

When the bill came back, I felt it was very necessary to vote in favour to send it to committee. I had to trust my colleagues sitting on that committee, from all parties. I would like to extend great gratitude to the member for Mount Royal. I had the opportunity to sit in on some of those debates and discussions. I had the opportunity to really hear what people were saying.

The work that gets done in committee is amazing. This week, many Canadians have seen the work that does not get done here in Parliament, but it is at the committee level where we see good work being done. I would like to applaud the member for Mount Royal, as well as all of my colleagues who took part in these really important discussions.

There is something about going and listening to the people. I listened to people who were representing Dying With Dignity, which had a very far side compared to some of the people who are proactive in making sure that we do not have euthanasia. It is very different to listen to Dying With Dignity witnesses compared to listening to the Association for Community Living, for instance.

I went home and had discussions with people in my community. One of the constituents I met with was Dr. John Hofhuis. He is not only a close personal friend, but he is a well-known and respected physician in Elgin—Middlesex—London, who just recently retired. He lost his wife from liver disease. She had suffered for almost three years. I wanted to pick his brain to see what his thoughts were, not only as a physician but as a family member.

He shared with me all of the trying moments that he went through, and all the moments he went through having to see his children and his children's children suffer because of what their mother and grandmother was going through.

Another physician I reached out to was Dr. Derek Vaughan. He was a family physician, a general practitioner, in St. Thomas for a number of years, but in the last few months he has restricted his practice to palliative care only. He went from being a general doctor to doing house visits with about 10 members of the community. He visits long-term care homes as well. I spoke to him because not only is he a physician but he is suffering from MS. I really wanted to dig into his brain as well.

I also had discussions with my parents-in-law. My father-in-law should be a priest today but after three years of studying he decided to step back from that. I am fortunate and lucky because he was able to provide me with not only his religious insight but his insight as a person who used to counsel people. That was great.

One of the most important people that I can remember from all the discussions is a lady named Alice. Alice came to my town hall. She suffers from two irremediable diseases. She told me that she needs this legislation. To me, it is about listening to people like Alice. I listened to people on all sides of the issue, but when I sat down and spoke to a lady who in the next few years will lose her life, and I recognized the pain and suffering that she will go through, it is individuals like her and those discussions that really affect me.

Another part that I want to speak about, and something that is going to come up I am sure in future legislation, is the care of minors. Everybody in the House and everybody across the country has probably heard that I am the mother of five children. My children always tell me that things are different now than when I was growing up. I grew up on John Hughes films and Michael Jackson. Things were totally different back in the eighties. Those were great years.

We are now in 2016 and children are on their cellphones, iPads, or whatever all the time. They are wired 100% of the time. Whatever happens on a Friday night stays with them Friday night, Saturday morning, Saturday night, Sunday morning. It is a different time. I am finding that children are now living in a much more chaotic world. As I said, they are wired in and there are all these things happening online. I could go home on a Friday night and on Monday morning face sunny skies but our children are not in that same situation. This affects the mental health of our children. Even my own children have suffered from this. We want to unplug them and help them, but unfortunately, society now is part of the issue. They become depressed and some are not able to get out of bed. We are creating grievous conditions for them as well. When it comes to mature minors, I do not want to see that happen.

Let me speak about the palliative care issue. Last month my Aunt Catherine passed away. She had been suffering from cancer and had the most tremendous end-of-life care that anyone could ask for. The last family photo we have of her is of her lying in her bed with all of her children, grandchildren, and her husband, Uncle Paul, around the bed as they ate Easter dinner together. That is one of the last family moments they had together. It was that extreme palliative care that gave her the best end-of-life situation one could ever ask for. That is why I advocate 100% for palliative care. We need to make sure that we do have a third option. There can be life; there can be assisted dying, and there must be palliative care for people who need that.

I have heard many times that this will be the law of the land. It is important as parliamentarians that we do it right. We should not do it quickly. I recognize there is a deadline of June 6. I have sat here and listened today to my NDP colleague. We are learning things from all parliamentarians as they get up and speak today, or would have spoken on Monday. It is very unfortunate those rights have been taken away from us once again, because this is how we learn. This is how parliamentarians can educate one another by sharing their stories, whether it is about my Aunt Catherine, or other things. When I am sharing my thoughts, members get a different sense of what is going on.

I am happy to be speaking today. I am concerned with what we have for amendments. I hope we can do more. I will be supporting the bill at this time, but if there are future amendments to include mature minors or those with mental illness without having the palliative care option there as well, I will not support this legislation in the future.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor obviously speaks with great sincerity and has definitely consulted with people in her constituency.

However, she did mention that June 6 was the deadline and we feel very strongly about trying to respect that deadline. I can remember well over a year ago when the Supreme Court of Canada made its judgment, wanting the government at the time to proceed in an expeditious fashion to begin the debate on this issue. Could she explain to me why her Conservative Party when it was in government did not begin the debate and why we have this very rushed schedule today?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2015, when this came out, a panel was set up by the former justice minister. However, I look at the work we have done today, and we can talk about these timelines. Let us be honest, this week we did Bill C-2, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, and Bill C-11. We had all of these things shifted off of the Order Paper.

What has happened here is this. Although it is a very important bill, unfortunately, when it came to the agenda of what we were supposed to be discussing and what we were discussing, a lot of political games were being played at that time. This took away the rights of the opposition members to debate this. We can talk about that. However, let us be honest about what happened this week. We lost hours of crucial debate because of the actions of the government.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London. I know her predecessor. I am not sure what they put in the water in that riding, but I do notice that both she and her predecessor demonstrated respect for the institution and its members. I thank her for her tone and the arguments she presented.

The only real collaboration between the government and the opposition on this extremely important issue happened while the report to the government was being written. I was present at one of the meetings. It was an exceptional instance of collaboration among senators and MPs of all stripes. Unfortunately, the bill before us is very different from the recommendations in that report. That should be cause for concern.

The government is so focused on meeting the supposedly incontrovertible June 6 deadline, failing which, it says, there will be a disastrous legal void. I do not buy that, because the Supreme Court set up a legal framework within which we can operate, at least temporarily.

Can my colleague speak to the steps available to the government to truly work collaboratively on Bill C-16 and, as in Quebec, achieve the greatest consensus possible on the issue, knowing that unanimity is not possible in any case?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for his kind words. We just do it right in Elgin—Middlesex—London.

It is about serving the people. I have always said that this is what we are supposed to do here. When we talk about the June 6 deadline, it is important that we consult with all Canadians. Yes, the report that came from the joint committee is very different than what we see in the legislation. That is why we are here. We are supposed to be debating. You and I have different opinions on that. However, at the same time, if we would have had the respect of the government, we would have been able to get more done.

I applaud the committee for the hard work it did after the legislation was created. I know the members sat down and went through it. However, when it comes to amendments, we only have two hours of debate on amendments. That is just not enough. We need more. If we are supposed to be representing Canadians, we need 338 people representing Canadians not 188.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Just for the record, I am sure the hon. member did not mean that her and I had differences in debate. I sure she meant the other person. I just thought I would clarify that.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona on a point of order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know we have tried this before, but the third time is the charm. Given the importance of debate on this issue, it is important that we have another opportunity to extend it without affecting the timeline for the Supreme Court decision. Therefore, without moving the votes, we could extend debate on this.

Perhaps the government deputy House leader does not feel the same sense of urgency on this matter. He has been spearheading the movement against this motion today. He has spoken twice already, once at second reading and then at report stage, on this bill. However, other members have not spoken at all. They would appreciate that opportunity. I hope perhaps the deputy House leader has had time to call his boss and see if we can get a different answer this time.

The motion is: 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.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is there unanimous consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I believe it is fairly clear that we do not have unanimous consent.

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, May 18, 2016, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Normally, at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 30, 2016, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe, if you seek it, you will find consent of the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 20 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.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).

The question is on Motion No. 1. If it is negatived, we will have to vote on Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 14.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #65

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #66

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 4.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 9.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #67

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 9 also defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 6.

A negative vote on Motion No. 6 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 7.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #68

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 6 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #69

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 7 defeated.

The question is on the Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be certain that my vote was recorded as yea, please.

(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #70

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 12 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 13. May I dispense with the reading of the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #71

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 13 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 14.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #72

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 14 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 16.

(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #73

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 16 defeated.

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #74

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.