Debates of May 31st, 2016

Aerospace Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, “The aerospace sector is to Quebec what the automotive sector is to Ontario. I expect nothing less than the same intensity of support for Quebec's aerospace sector that the government gave to the automotive industry in Ontario.”

It was the Premier of Quebec who said that. Quebeckers all agree with that sentiment.

Why is the government abandoning the aerospace industry and choosing to do nothing about the Bombardier file? Is it because Quebeckers' concerns are not as important as what Bay Street wants? That is truly unfortunate.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my colleague.

We care very much about this sector.

To illustrate that point, we made an important investment, in conjunction with the provincial government in Quebec, in Bell Helicopter. This production will allow 900 jobs to maintain a footprint in Mirabel. It will also create an additional 100 new jobs, with this investment.

When it comes to Bombardier, the member opposite knows we believe in the company. We want to be part of the solution. We understand the importance of the aerospace sector, not only for Quebec but for Canada.

We are going to make sure we create the environment to produce an outcome that will be in the best interests of all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties of the House, and I seek unanimous consent to allow that, in relation to the annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors, 10 members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in August 2016, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

I have two other requests.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Let us start with that one.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion, is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There is no consent, so perhaps they can keep having discussions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind hon. members that debate is about to resume, so if you have a conversation, maybe just take it into the lobby or into the hallway. I see everyone is deep in conversation.

Order, please. I notice there are deep conversations going on, but debate is about to start, so I would ask hon. members to just move it to the side. Keep talking, but just maybe whisper on your way out, and come back when you have finished your discussions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Code

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-14, which would provide a federal framework on medically assisted dying. As acknowledged by many in the House in the last number of weeks, medical assistance in dying is a complex, challenging, and deeply personal issue for us all.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its unanimous decision in Carter last year, it has been discussed by many Canadians in different settings from coast to coast to coast. The issues continue to be debated and thoughtfully discussed worldwide, from the United States to Europe to Australia and New Zealand. Almost everywhere in the world, the act of ending one's life deliberately and the act of helping someone to end their life are serious crimes punishable by severe sentences.

Nevertheless, Canada is not alone in creating a legislative regime to permit medical assistance in dying. There are four American states, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California, the country of Colombia, and the three European countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg that currently have legislative regimes that allow some form of medical assistance in dying.

These different international regimes share similarities, especially with regard to safeguards, oversight, and reporting, most of which are included in Bill C-14. These similarities are as follows: requests for medical assistance in dying must be in writing, made voluntarily by the patient, and in many cases witnessed by independent witnesses; a second opinion from an independent physician must be sought; and a delay or reflection period between the request and the actual provision of medical assistance in dying is required.

Colombia has a unique approval process for medical assistance in dying. It involves interdisciplinary committees within each hospital that assess requests and support patients and their families throughout the process.

In addition, almost all international regimes have mandatory oversight systems involving independent national or regional committees and government agencies or departments, which collect and process data in order to properly monitor medical assistance in dying. They make annual or biannual reports on medical assistance public in their respective jurisdictions. This evidence was critical to the Supreme Court of Canada's analysis in the Carter litigation.

Unlike the fairly consistent approaches, the safeguard and oversight that we see in other countries, the various laws take two different approaches with regard to both: one, the form of medical assistance in dying that is permitted; and, two, the medical circumstances under which it can legally be provided.

One could describe the different approaches with regard to eligibility and the form as being a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum stands the four American states that enacted the legislation, starting with Oregon in 1997, Washington in 2008, Vermont in 2013, and most recently California, just last year.

In these states, a mentally competent adult aged 18 years or older can obtain the assistance of a physician to die, only if their request is voluntary, and if they suffer from a terminal disease, which is defined as an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months.

In the U.S. states, the physician is only permitted to provide the patient with a prescription for a substance that the patient must self-administer at a time of their choosing. This is commonly known as physician-assisted suicide.

What is commonly called euthanasia, where the physician administers an injection to the patient, is expressly prohibited in these states. Advance requests are also not allowed.

While these legislative measures in the U.S. accommodate individuals suffering from diseases that cause a steady, rapid, and predictable decline toward death, such as some forms of cancer, they do not accommodate other conditions, including some degenerative diseases that are enduring and predictable, nor do they enable patients who are physically unable to self-administer a substance to access a medically assisted death.

The Colombian regime, which was developed in response to two rulings from its Constitutional Court, has eligibility criteria similar to that of the U.S. states. It limits eligibility to adults who have a terminal illness, defined as a progressive and irreversible serious condition or pathology that will cause death within a relatively short time frame. It does not require the person to have a prognosis of six months, but it does require that death is expected in the short term. Unlike the American states, Colombia only permits a physician to administer a substance that causes a person's death. However, Colombia's regime does permit a patient to prepare an advance request for medically assisted death, which is not permitted in the U.S.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, known as the “Benelux” countries. In these three northern European countries, patients are eligible for medical assistance in dying if they have “intolerable” or “unbearable” physical or psychological suffering resulting from a serious and incurable medical condition where there is no prospect for improvement. Eligible individuals do not need to be dying or suffering from life-threatening conditions. Both physician-assisted suicide and what is commonly called voluntary euthanasia are permitted in these countries.

While advance requests are permitted, there are some differences between the Benelux states. In Belgium and Luxembourg, advance requests can only be carried out where the patient is in a state of irreversible unconsciousness, while in the Netherlands, advance requests are also permitted where patients are unable to express their wishes but are conscious, such as for persons with dementia or Alzheimer's.

While medical assistance in dying is only available to adults in Luxembourg, children as young as 12 years of age can request medical assistance in dying with their parents' consent in the Netherlands. In Belgium, adults and emancipated minors can request medical assistance in dying for the same kinds of conditions. In 2014, Belgium extended eligibility to minors of any age, but only where they are likely to die in the short term and where their suffering is physical. Additional safeguards must also be met.

The experience and lessons from the Benelux countries have been closely examined. For example, in the Netherlands, while the legislation permits advance requests for patients who have lost their ability to express their wishes, Dutch research suggests that physicians are generally unwilling to provide medical assistance in dying, due to the inability of these patients to comprehend their medical condition and their inability to express informed consent.

The government has sought to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions. The proposed legislation is broader than the U.S. state approach, which only permits those with a fatal disease to access assistance. Instead, Bill C-14 provides the option of a peaceful death to everyone who is in decline toward the natural end of their life, not just those who suffer from fatal diseases or terminal illnesses. At the same time, it avoids some of the risks that the Benelux-style regimes might present, although such broader questions, and the experience of other regimes around the world, will continue to be studied.

I urge all members to support this incredibly important bill to answer the call of our Supreme Court to legislate in this area.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much respect my colleague from Surrey Centre's rather broad survey of some of the jurisdictions around the world that have brought in medical assistance in dying. I particularly appreciated his detailed analysis in terms of giving us a framework in which we could construct our particular legislation that is currently before the House.

My question to my friend is this. We have certainly heard comments coming from the government, particularly from the Prime Minister, that have suggested that this particular legislation is simply an initial step. Are there aspects in some of the research he has done with respect to the other jurisdictions that he thinks would be helpful in contributing to the dialogue moving forward?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are certain aspects. I think the balance is going to be how open we can make this process, or how narrow it can be. There is always a fear of making it too broad, and on the other hand making it very restrictive for people who need this right so they are able to access it.

The other process that will be very important is to see what gaps might be in the system. Certain diseases or conditions might not be addressed properly in the legislation now, but as we monitor California, Vermont, and the various U.S. states, along with the Benelux countries of Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, we can see where the gaps have been addressed and where they have come up in the courts. I hope that this House, along with the Minister of Justice, can address those from time to time as they arise.

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

Mr. Speaker, last evening in the House, we saw the reluctance on the part of the majority of the Liberal Party to include effective conscience protection for medical professionals and institutions that provide health care to Canadians. We do know that two colleges have already indicated that they expect their doctors, even if they are opposed to physician-assisted suicide, to make an effective referral to have physician-assisted suicide carried out.

My question to my colleague is, why would he and his party not realize the importance of allowing a medical professional with years and years of professional training, who opposes the idea of helping someone to die early, to have conscience freedom? Why would he oppose the aspect of having conscience freedom for medical workers, and also for the institutions that are providing very effective health care for our Canadian population?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I am glad that both sides of the House take this issue very seriously.

My understanding is that the bill and the preamble were already amended at the committee stage. The individual is protected, except for the institutions. I think the matter was already addressed, and that is why many members did not support that amendment. The matter has already been addressed in the preamble as well as the bill itself.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the excellent speech by my friend from Surrey Centre, and I want to reiterate what he said. Both in the bill and in the preamble, there are conscience exceptions for individuals, which was agreed to by all members of the committee.

However, many members are concerned about advance directives. The committee said that studies would begin within six months. However, one of the things that is very important to note is that advance directives, even in the one country that allows it for people with dementia and other declining illnesses, is not really carried out. In the Netherlands, given the concerns about what someone's wishes actually are at the time of death if they have dementia, almost nothing happens.

I wonder if my colleague would confirm that he also agrees that this matter requires further study before we would ever implement it.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. An advance directive is an issue that we need to study, and even six months might be a short period of study. I think a longer period would be needed to address such concerns.

We need to see how it would be carried out. Only after that has been looked at should we think about advance directives. It is a subject that needs a lot of comprehension. I think it would be hard for a person to make that directive initially, without guidelines and safeguards around it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

This is a very difficult time in my short political career, because it is a sensitive subject that should be free of partisanship. All opinions are right, and no one is wrong. We are all good Canadians of good conscience, and we are looking for the best solution on such a sensitive subject.

When it comes to this subject, we are not here to try to convince anyone; we are here to explain our point of view. According to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Carter case, it is not a matter of determining whether we are for or against medical assistance in dying, but of determining how we will apply it.

Here we are at the final reading of Bill C-14. At my leader’s invitation, I had the privilege of participating in the parliamentary committee that studied the matter and produced a main report and a dissenting report. My official opposition colleagues and I signed the dissenting report, while my Conservative colleagues in the Senate signed the main report. This shows that there was no partisanship in our approach.

In our dissenting report, we raised five major concerns. Most of them were noted by the government and are reflected in Bill C-14. We were against the medical assistance in dying bill applying to minors; the government listened to us. We were against the bill applying in the case of mental illness; the government listened to us. We wanted complete openness concerning conscience protections for physicians and institutions; the government listened to us in part. We also wanted a clear commitment from the government concerning palliative care; the government listened to us in part.

On another note, I salute my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton, who introduced Bill C-277 in the House almost exactly 24 hours ago. The aim of this private member’s bill is to force the government to make a firm commitment to provide the necessary palliative care to as many Canadians as possible. As we know, only one-third of Canadians have access to that type of care. With Bill C-277, we want that to be enforced.

Those are the elements of Bill C-14 that we consider positive or semi-positive. Now here are the things that are of great concern to us.

First, there is the famous definition of reasonably foreseeable death. For us, this makes absolutely no sense. “Reasonably foreseeable” means both everything and nothing. I am going to die some day. That is reasonably foreseeable, of course, but it means absolutely nothing. From sage experience, Quebec used the expression “end of life”. That is at least clearer.

There is also the matter of nurse practitioners, who have the same decision-making powers as physicians under the bill. I have tremendous respect for nurses, and I know what I am talking about, since they are often the first people, and sometimes the only people, who see us when we are in hospital. However, when it is a matter of life or death, and that is literally the issue here, I would prefer that physicians have the ultimate responsibility rather than the wonderful nurses.

The points I have just mentioned are based on Quebec’s experience. I know what I am talking about, because I was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec. We worked on and gave serious consideration to the issues surrounding medical assistance in dying for six years, whereas here in the House we had only a few months to do the same work.

Later, I will talk about an unfortunate statement we heard during question period.

Based on Quebec’s experience, we built our case for the dissenting report. The current bill includes some elements in full, others to some extent, and still others not at all. It is a fairly even balance of the positive and negative elements.

Then there remains the famous issue of constitutionality. Every bill that is put forward can be challenged. In fact, whatever bill was introduced, it would have been challenged by one group or another. For weeks, some people have been saying that it is constitutional, and others have been saying that it is not. Most of the people we heard from said that it did not make sense and that it did not comply with the Constitution or the Carter decision. However, this morning, in La Presse, if I remember correctly, three constitutional experts from three different universities, namely Laval University, the University of Montreal, and UQAM, said it was constitutional.

If we table a bill, we will hear a bunch of lawyers say that it is good and a bunch of lawyers say it is not good. This is the point, and we have to live with that. It is democracy. This is how it works in our judiciary system.

I say this with great respect for legal eagles. I know that there are some here, some prestigious ones in fact, and I salute them, including the member for Mont-Royal.

The charter issue is another interesting point. Some people say it complies with the charter, while others say it does not.

Let us try not to be too partisan. If we cannot rely on the Liberal government to draft a bill that complies with the charter, whom can we rely on? Do I need to remind anyone that it was the Liberal Party, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, father of the current Prime Minister, who enshrined the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the 1982 Constitution, signed some 300 feet from here by Her Majesty the Queen on April 17, 1982? We all remember that. The sky was overcast, and at the very moment the signing took place, there was a rumble of thunder. Just a brief history lesson.

Seriously, I am not the greatest fan of the charter, much less of the Liberal Party, especially not the Liberal Party, but good Lord, if we cannot rely on the Liberal government to draft a bill that complies with the charter, I wonder whom we can rely on.

The events are balanced. This bill has good points and bad points. Over the past 24 hours, three events occurred that are worth thinking about. First, yesterday we voted on 10 possible amendments and they were all defeated by the Liberal majority. I commend the government members who voted against their party's position for their courage, honour, and dignity. Well done.

However, I believe that two of those amendments, both of them introduced by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, were essential.

The first amendment protected the most vulnerable members of our society by proposing that people undergo a psychiatric assessment before giving their consent. We think that is extremely important because protecting the most vulnerable members of our society is essential. Nevertheless, the government voted against that amendment.

The second amendment had to do with conscience protections for institutions. I speak on behalf on my friends from Quebec when I say that, in Quebec, institutions such as hospitals are secular. However, outside Quebec, some institutions are religious and act according to the dictates of their conscience. We need to protect their conscience rights, but this bill does not do that. We proposed that amendment, but the government voted against it. That is unfortunate. The government refused to accept amendments.

Moreover, this morning, Quebec's health and social services minister, Gaétan Barrette, made a statement. I know the guy. He is honest, hard-working, conscientious, and a man of integrity. He is also a medical specialist who was once an administrator and is now a minister. Speaking on behalf of the government of Quebec, he said:

I myself am disinclined, for governmental and professional reasons, to support C-14 because of its worst feature: reasonably foreseeable natural death. That makes no sense. It cannot be enforced. I would be very hesitant to get on board C-14 as it stands...

He added that the bill is very off-putting, that this is a bad clause, and that it is [too much] of a minefield for him.

The third element applies to the Prime Minister's statements in question period today. He said he is working with the provinces on this, but that has no basis in fact. Worse still, he said, “we drew a great deal of inspiration from the reflections of the Quebec National Assembly”.

I can tell you one thing. I sat in the National Assembly. I was there for the six years that this was being studied. What we have seen here in the past six months does not resemble in the least what took place in the National Assembly.

I will not revisit the unfortunate events that took place two weeks ago when there was to be a vote to restrict our right to speak. I will look at the overall process. Unfortunately, the government did not follow the example set by the National Assembly in terms of either substance or form.

Consequently, bearing in mind the positive and negative elements of the bill and the three events that have taken place over the course of the past 24 hours, that is, the vote against the amendments, which were all rejected, the statement by the Quebec minister of health and social services, and the misleading statement by the Prime Minister of Canada, I will be voting against this bill.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be honest. I agree with a significant part of what the member has said today. I was one of the members on the government side who actually voted with the opposition on some of the amendments that were brought forward, including the one that related to protections to ensure there was an appropriate medical opinion when there was a question with respect to capacity in the case of someone with a previous mental health condition.

I want to get to the other issue that was advanced, and that was the one with respect to dealing with institutions. I did not support that amendment and I want to say why on the record. I felt the provision should not appropriately fall within the Criminal Code and that, in fact, there was a more appropriate type of response through our regulatory colleges at the provincial level. I think this is why the government side overwhelmingly rejected that provision.

I want to get back to the question my friend talked about with respect to reasonable foreseeability. I share some concerns that have been raised by members on the other side with respect to reasonable foreseeability. What would the member suggest would make this provision clearer, particularly as it relates to setting a clear legal standard as guidance for physicians who would have to operate under this provision?

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

Mr. Speaker, because as the minister of health in Quebec said, it is unpractical. We cannot deal with that. I will say this in French because it is very difficult for me to say in English. It is raisonnablement prévisible. It is everything, but nothing. This is why we have to be clear.

As in the Quebec experience, it was crystal clear, end of life. That is why we suggest this. By the way, this is why all of our amendments were based on the Quebec experience. In the Quebec experience, there were six full years of studious work, which is not the case here. This is why the government should have followed the lead of the National Assembly of Quebec, which is not the case. This is not what the Prime Minister said.

Let me be clear. The bill is not perfect, but we all recognize that on June 7 there will be no law because the Senate will not have had enough time to adopt the bill. Therefore, I think the Conservatives will vote against the bill.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the issue of nurse practitioners. I do not know if he has had the opportunities I have had in my life. For example, I worked in Yukon. One of my friends is a nurse practitioner in one of the small towns in Yukon. Over time nurses were given expanded powers to do various things, like stitch people, and so forth.

Who will have the responsibility for enabling a patient who is seeking medically assisted death to have access to a physician and who will pay for that patient to go to where there is a doctor, or for the doctor, or doctors, to go to where the patient is in isolated communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious question. First, I want to repeat that I have great respect for nurses, and I pay them a great deal of respect. However, my argument was based on the Quebec experience.

Quebec had exactly the same issue. It is not the Yukon, but le nouveau Québec, which is in the far north, was facing exactly the same issue and the same difficulties as Yukon. We are not talking about someone who has had a car accident and we have to make a decision immediately. We are talking about people who suffer and have a lot of time, maybe too much time, to think about it. It is not a question of hours or days; it is a question of months.

We would prefer to have an analysis from physicians instead of nurses. I must repeat that I have a lot of respect for the nurses in Yukon, in Montreal, in Quebec, in Ottawa, and from coast to coast.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in my place today and add the voices of my constituents to the debate on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts, regarding medical assistance in dying.

I want to begin by telling this House that, in the almost nine years that I have been a member of this place, I have not been asked about or received as much correspondence as I have on the matter of physician-assisted suicide. It is clear that Canadians and members of this House have varied and deeply held beliefs and convictions on this issue, which have been informed by our life experiences. We members also have a responsibility to balance our personal beliefs with those of our constituents and the incredible wealth of knowledge they share with us. The widespread reaction to this short debate in Parliament confirms my belief and, I believe, the belief of my colleagues that physician-assisted suicide represents the defining issue of this Parliament.

Bill C-14 would have the most lasting impact on Canadians and the social fabric of our society because each one of us could at some point see someone we know struggle with such a decision. My constituents' opinions on this issue have been genuine, considered, and informative, with a clear majority opposing physician-assisted suicide. I am pleased to inform them that I share their views. I believe in the inviolable dignity of all human life, and that it is to be protected by law from conception to natural death. Therefore, I have opposed and will continue to oppose any attempt to legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

I have grave concerns with the process surrounding the introduction and passage of this bill. I am cognizant that Bill C-14 is now at third reading and that many members are still grappling with how they will vote later today. I hope all members will be able to vote freely, as Conservative members will be able to do.

This legislation was first introduced in this place on April 14, less than two months ago. Passing a bill in a month and a half is a challenge under any circumstances, but passing a bill of this magnitude and in this amount of time is reckless and demonstrates a complete disregard for the significance of this issue to all Canadians. As my colleague from Lethbridge noted in her earlier remarks, the Supreme Court of Canada has sent Parliament into an unending abyss of grey, and each day parliamentarians are being tested on the future limits of this legislation as one what-if leads to another. I do not believe that all the impacts of this bill can be assessed in such a tight timeline, as this truly is a new moral space for Canadians to contemplate.

Like many of us here, I am concerned that minors may eventually be able to attain medical assistance in dying. I am concerned for the well-being of those struggling through mental illness because, quite frankly, we as a country are only now beginning to recognize and understand its reach and impacts on so many. As well, I am concerned with the notion that doctors who for legitimate reasons of faith or conscience oppose medical assistance in dying would be forced to participate in this process contrary to their personal ethics.

While the government has presented us with a bill that is much narrower in scope than the recommendations made by the special committee, stakeholders on both sides of this issue have raised many what-is-next questions. These have not been answered, and I am therefore disappointed that consultations and debate on Bill C-14 are ending prematurely.

Many of my constituents have suggested that the government should consider using section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to prevent physician-assisted suicide rather than rushing a bill through Parliament that appears to fully satisfy no one. I want the government and my constituents to know that I would support using the notwithstanding clause to prevent the Supreme Court's decision in Carter v. Canada from having any effect. While I am not a constitutional expert, I assume that section 33 was included in the charter because the prime minister and the premiers of the day wanted to affirm that a democratically elected federal Parliament and provincial legislatures, and not the judicial branch, would have the responsibility to pass laws on matters of public policy.

By refusing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, the government is prematurely ending our deliberations on this bill, and consequently removing many voices from the discussion.

Parliament should be passing laws that the courts then interpret within the charter. Courts should not be telling Parliament what laws it needs to pass and by when they must be passed.

I do not believe that former premier of Saskatchewan Allan Blakeney would have signed the charter without the presence of the notwithstanding clause, as it protected the rights of Saskatchewan's legislature to override a court decision with which it might not agree.

Then prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau agreed when he said:

...it is a way that the legislatures, federal and provincial, have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien, who was at the time Canada's justice minister, made a similar comment:

The purpose of an override clause is to provide the flexibility that is required to ensure that legislatures rather than judges have the final say on important matters of public policy.

If physician-assisted suicide is not an issue for the Parliament of Canada to invoke section 33, what is?

Liberal members have continuously used the June 6 deadline as justification to pass the bill quickly, yet I would posit that the notwithstanding clause exists precisely so that Parliament, and not the courts, can set the timeline on important matters of public policy. At the very least, the government could have used this clause to give itself more time to consult Canadians and draft legislation that conforms to the court's decision and protects life.

Quebec's National Assembly took six years to develop its legislation on physician-assisted suicide, yet the Supreme Court only gave the federal government a total of 16 months to put in place new legislation. Unfortunately, it is clear that using the notwithstanding clause is not an approach that the current government would even consider.

I will use my remaining time to address the issue of conscience rights for medical professionals.

I believe that opening the door to physician-assisted suicide is a slippery slope for our society. However, I believe that it is even more reckless if we fail to protect conscience rights in this legislation.

Without adequate protection for the conscience rights of medical professionals, Parliament, and more specifically the current governing party, is inserting the thinnest edge of the wedge when it comes to legislative disregard for conscience rights. If the current Parliament fails to respect these rights, we are setting a most dangerous precedent.

Precedents matter. Members might not be in the House or even alive to see the effects that the precedents set by passing Bill C-14 may have, which is why the protection of conscience rights today is so important.

I would have expected that most in this place would support conscience rights for medical professionals. I took at face value that the government included a mention of conscience rights in the preamble of the bill as an indication of its support for the principle, but the results of last night's vote demonstrated that this was not the case.

No one is a permanent or an eternal member of this place. Just like legislators in past parliaments, the only lasting effect we can have on the future is to be clear in our intentions through the laws we pass today. Therefore, it behooves us as members of the 42nd Parliament to be very specific in what is allowed and what is being protected with this piece of legislation.

In conclusion, our only legacy as a Parliament is what we pass into law. We have a responsibility to get this legislation right and ensure that all the issues that have been raised are addressed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that at committee we did adopt two amendments related to conscience; one in the preamble and one in the body of the legislation. In fact, the amendment put forward yesterday was one that was defeated at committee, because there was no agreement at committee that the institutions should avail themselves of these protections but that simply individuals should.

I want to come back to the comments on the notwithstanding clause.

The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause. It has been used twice by provinces. It was used once by Alberta on same sex marriage, about which even my Conservative colleagues have changed their minds last weekend. More important, it was used in Quebec, which I personally experienced, on the language of signs. The Quebec government promised English-speaking Quebeckers that bilingual signs would be allowed, and then reversed itself and used the notwithstanding clause to tell our community that we had no place to be visible in our own province.

I would ask the hon. member, based on the Canadian experiences of the use of this clause—how an entire community felt their rights had been recognized in the court and then thrown out by their own government—how she could believe that we should use a notwithstanding clause in a case like this.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Parliament, a provincial legislature, or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily, notwithstanding countermanding sections of the charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the charter protections for a limited period of time.

The clause was a compromise that was reached during the debate over the new Constitution in the early 1980s. Among the provinces' major complaints with the charter was its effect of shifting power from elected officials to the judiciary, giving the courts the final word. As I said in my comments, premiers across this country, especially those in Alberta and Saskatchewan, believed it needed to be part of the charter to strongly object to a court overriding the laws they had put in place.