House of Commons
Medical Assistance in Dying
Government Orders
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill—
Some hon. members: Shame.
The Speaker:
Order, please.
Colleagues, we just heard arguments about the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority. I do not think we want to have either one of those tyrannies in this House. There is a tyranny created by that kind of noise.
I am going to allow the hon. government House leader to continue, and I expect members to allow that to occur, if they want to stay in this chamber.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
Mr. Speaker, I will pick up from where I think you rose.
—any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker:
Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.
The House proceeded to debate the motion for 30 minutes and ultimately voted to adopt the motion.
Question Period
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and I want to start by quoting this from yesterday’s unanimous decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal:
…the declaration of invalidity on Carter does not require that the applicant be terminally ill…. The decision itself is clear. No words in it suggest otherwise…. The interpretation urged on us by [the Government of] Canada is not sustainable.
In light of this, would the government be willing to entertain the amendments now before this place at report stage to ensure that Bill C-14 is compliant with the charter?
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that came out of that Alberta decision was, indeed, the need for a proper framework whereby requests for medical assistance in dying can be evaluated. That is why in the bill we put forward there is a strong framework for consultation of physicians and participation in that.
With regard to amendments, they have already been studied at committee and we have made our determinations around those.
Projected Order of Business
You can see the House’s Projected Order of Business here.
Senate
Medical Assistance in Dying
Senator’s Statements
Hon. John D. Wallace: Honourable senators, as we are all well aware, a declaration by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 6, 2015, struck down the federal ban on physician- assisted dying and detailed situations where patients have the legal right to request it. This declaration of invalidity was suspended for 12 months and subsequently extended to June 6, 2016.
If no federal legislation is enacted by June 6, the Supreme Court’s declaration of invalidity will take effect, voiding the prohibition on physician-assisted death within the Supreme Court’s declared parameters.
The federal government’s response to the Supreme Court decision has been the introduction in the House of Commons of Bill C-14, the Medical Assistance in Dying Bill. The bill is expected to be received in the Senate by the end of this week.
On May 17, 2016, federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson- Raybould told CBC News Network’s “Power & Politics” that there are real-world ramifications if her government misses the June 6 deadline:
I would like to dispel those opinions that say that June 6 isn’t an important deadline to meet. The Carter decision and the criteria laid out by the Supreme Court will apply . . . there will be absolutely no safeguards in place. No defined eligibility criteria. Medical practitioners will be uncertain to say the least in terms of how somebody can access medical assistance in dying.
In an article in the Globe and Mail on May 18, 2016, Conservative Senate Leader Claude Carignan is quoted as follows:
It will be, I think, impossible, to have the bill pass [by] June 6.
The article continues with a quote by Senator Cowan:
“I haven’t sensed any desire on the part of senators to rag the puck on this or delay it, but they are going to take the time to study it,” Mr. Cowan said. “How it will go and how long it will take, I don’t know.”
Also, as quoted in the Canadian Press on May 18, 2016:
“There’s no way that it’ll get through . . . by the sixth of June,” Cowan said in an interview after the meeting with Harder, adding that the government isn’t happy about it . . .”
On CTV News on May 17, 2016, Senator Robert Runciman, who is Chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that has just completed a Senate pre-study of Bill C- 14, is quoted as saying:
I don’t think there’s any way, shape or form that we can meet this imposed June 6 deadline. I think that’s not going to happen, and if the government thinks it’s going to happen they’re badly mistaken.
Senator Runciman continued:
Is the world going to fall apart if we don’t meet this date? Most of us don’t think so.
From Friday, May 20, to the Supreme Court deadline date of Monday, June 6, 2016, the number of actual calendar days, excluding Victoria Day, is 18. In that same period, the number of regular Senate sitting days is three, namely May 31, June 1 and June 2.
The bottom line, colleagues, is that we in the Senate must do everything possible to ensure that deadline is met. Whatever final form that bill takes, we must meet that deadline. This is a matter — and we all realize this — of extreme personal importance to all Canadians. We must get it done. It would be totally unacceptable for us in this Senate to not enable final passage of that bill to meet the deadline — a deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Wallace, your time is expired.
Senator Wallace: Thank you.
Question Period
Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Senate Liberals): My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Yesterday the Court of Appeal of Alberta issued a unanimous decision which, I think it’s fair to say, eviscerated the government’s position reflected in Bill C-14.
My question for you is this: Is the government intending to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada? If not, does it intend to overhaul Bill C-14 before it asks Parliament to vote on it, or perhaps even withdraw it?
Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, first of all, I want to thank the honourable leader for his question. I would like to respond by suggesting that the decision of the Court of Appeal was not a decision on Bill C-14. I would quote from the decision itself where the court said this:
. . . the interpretation and constitutionality of eventual legislation should obviously wait until the legislation has been enacted.
I remind honourable senators that in Carter, the Supreme Court of Canada told us that Parliament is best placed to design a regime around medical assistance in dying with a robust set of safeguards. That is what the intention of the government is, and that is what I hope this chamber is engaged on very soon.
The Alberta decision certainly underscores the need to have legislation in place, we would argue, by June 6 so that all Canadians are clear as to what the conditions and the circumstances for medical assistance in dying are.
Senator Cowan: Supplementary. I was not suggesting that the subject matter of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta was Bill C-14. It was an unprecedented intervention by the Attorney General of Canada to appeal a decision that had been granted by a motions judge in Alberta permitting somebody who is suffering terribly to end her own life. There were some very scathing comments about the role of the Attorney General in that respect.
Clearly the point that was made by the justices in their unanimous decision was that the arguments, indeed the very documents, including the backgrounder, that the government was circulating in support of its position were rejected, as they had been before; the position had been rejected.
In view of the decision of the court, it is not within the purview of Parliament to restrict further access to this service as set out in paragraph 127 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter, where that set out specifically and very clearly the eligibility criteria for access to this medical service.
The court very clearly said that any attempt to further restrict access was unconstitutional. Do you agree with that? What’s the government going to do about it?
Senator Harder: Again, I would respond to the honourable senator’s question by suggesting that I, like every senator, am awaiting further clarification from the government, from the Attorney General, with respect to the specifics of the court case.
What I do think is logical to conclude from the Court of Appeal judgment is that guidelines and expeditious and timely enactment by Parliament of the legislation are the best ways to ensure access to and conformity with norms that are adopted by Parliament. We will have that early opportunity to engage in that debate more broadly soon, I hope.
Hon. Frances Lankin: My question is to the Government Representative.
With respect to the Alberta decision, I beg to differ on a couple of points. That won’t surprise you. I agree with you in that the court, in Carter and in the Alberta case, reflected on the fact that complex regimes of regulations and safeguards are best done by Parliament, but that is with respect to the safeguards to be put in place.
What was very clear, as well, is that the attempt in Bill C-14 to limit the right of medical assistance in dying to those persons who are terminally ill is not what was contained within Carter. It was not intended in Carter and the Alberta Court of Appeal decision. Justices are clear on that. Not only on that, but they’re also clear with respect to the exclusion of people with mental illness. On the face of it, mental illness as a sole reason may well entitle a person to medical assistance in dying if all other requirements of the safeguards that are set out in paragraph 127 of the Carter decision are met.
Having said that and having listened to your decisions, I would ask you to undertake to have a discussion with the government with respect to their intent to potentially amend the bill with respect to terminal illness and the mental illness exclusion to bring forward a bill to this Senate that we can pass knowing that it is constitutionally compliant.
Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for her question and, indeed, make that undertaking.
Contacting Members of the House of Commons
Mail can be sent postage-free to any Member at the following address:
Name of Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
All Members can be e-mailed. The standard format is firstname.lastname@parl.gc.ca.
Example: The e-mail address for John Smith is john.smith@parl.gc.ca.
E-mail Prime Minister Justin Trudeau here.
For a complete list of Members of Parliament, click here.
Contacting Senators
Mail may be sent postage-free to any senator at the following address:
Name of Senator
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A4
Not all Senators have email addresses. For those who do, the standard format is the first five letters of the last name followed by the first letter of the first name, followed by @sen.parl.gc.ca.
Example: The e-mail address for Senator Jane Johnson is johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca.
For a complete list of Senators, click here.