Speeches | Second reading of Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying

03 June 2016

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Colleagues, I want to echo the sentiments of senators who have spoken already in congratulating our colleagues for their participation and work in the joint committee, in the Committee of the Whole with the ministers, in the pre-study and in this debate. There are times, many times, more than I think Canadians understand, that the Senate soars and this is one of those times. It has been enormously impressive and I would like to applaud the decision for having it televised. I would like to have seen more of it televised, but at least the Canadian public got a chance to see our Senate for a period of time at its very best.

I think we have all been moved by the very personal stories that we have heard in here. This is a deeply emotional issue, and I expect that every one of us has had an experience with a close family member, close friends, in an end-of-life situation.

I am struck by the fact that a good deal of this debate has been focused on expanding the scope of the legislative regime defined in this bill. In the course of that argument, as you might expect, the arguers, the presenters, have certainly emphasized what isn't in this bill. I'd like to take a moment to emphasize what this bill actually contains and what it actually does, because this bill is not nothing. This bill is profoundly significant. It takes a culture and a society that has not addressed state medically assisted suicide and implements that deeply within our legislative and cultural social structure.

It brings into effect medically assisted dying that has never been in effect before. This has been legislated by only six national governments in the world, only one of which has advance directives, with which they are struggling to this very day. This is a significant change in the social and cultural mores and norms that define our society and will result in multiple medical professions having to alter fundamentally their culture of care and sustaining life.

I should note that while I respect greatly what Senator Plett has said, I believe that it will not require this of medical professionals, whose right to conscientious objection is protected in this bill.

There is nothing in this bill that says there cannot or will not be more, that this legislative regime cannot or will not be expanded. In fact, it provides specifically for next steps to deal with those matters that senators have argued are required to complete the legislative framework around assisted death. I would expect that the force of this debate will encourage the government to expedite these next steps. The tenor, the power and the force of this debate will not be lost in the months to come.

The process of developing the legislative regime I believe reflects the demands of day-to-day governance in the practical world. In fact, I think it can be said that Bill C-14 has been forged by debate and consideration, but it has also been forged by the practical challenges of governance, of establishing a regime to deal with the many complications and dangers of properly and prudently implementing medically assisted death.

There are 14 federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions in this field that have to be coordinated and consistent. There are multiple medical professions with the requirements of their professional governing bodies that also have to be coordinated and consistent in their efforts across the country. This is not simple work.

There is the imperative that all vulnerable people on both sides of this issue need to be protected, and that is work that requires deep prudence and consideration.

The bill takes one very significant step dealing with foreseeable death. In resting on foreseeable death, this bill moves beyond but directly reflects — and this is important to me — the experience in our medical system with end-of-life practices, largely involving decisions to stop treatment. This bill is about end of life, about foreseeable death — less complicated than the expansions being called for in this debate. But then it initiates specific legislated measures for structured study, debate and preparation for next steps, which are even more difficult and more complicated.

Constitutionally, I'm not convinced that the Supreme Court would reject this bill in its current form. There are certainly learned scholars on both sides in Canadian debate and in this debate in the Senate. There is doubt about the assertion that it isn't constitutional. While I'm not a lawyer, clearly, I can see that much has changed since the Supreme Court ruling, and I can see that the demands made by the Supreme Court have been met in many ways by this bill.

The bill, I reiterate, accepts assisted death. The point has been in debate that, somehow, the government argued its case three times, lost it three times and then just implemented these elements into the bill. That's not the case. The government argued against assisted death, and now assisted death is in this bill. That is a result of the significant response to the Supreme Court ruling. In addition, as I've said before, the bill requires further study of critical areas of expansion. That's a significant response to the Supreme Court ruling.

The bill also implements, as referred to the in the ruling specifically, a "complex regulatory structure" to address assisted death. That raises the question, outlined in the statement made by the court, that the courts must accord the legislature a measure of deference and that a high degree of deference is owed to Parliament's decision to impose an absolute prohibition on assisted death. They're talking about deference, so these are significant differences between what the situation was on February 5, 2015, just before that case was ruled on, and what the situation is today.

Arguments have been made about the sky not falling if there is no bill. I accept that it may not fall, but I'm pretty sure that it will become very, very cloudy.

For those particularly concerned about conscientious objection, so well argued by Senator Plett, it should be noted that this is not protected at all in the guidelines developed by professional governance groups across the country — not in a single place. In fact, it is quite the contrary. Physicians in these guidelines are directed at the very least to refer.

For those wanting more, wanting expansion, these same guidelines to a jurisdiction forbid advance directive. For those concerned about safeguards, safeguards in the guidelines are inconsistent and not backed by the force of legislation. Moreover, for those wanting more in this legislative regime, whatever form such a bill would take, it would surely include the elements of this bill. This bill is not inconsistent with what can become and what can in fact follow.

In essence, I would argue that voting against this bill or delaying it because it does not protect conscientious objection will result in an inconsistent series of professional association regimes that do not protect conscientious objection. Risking this bill's passage because it does not go far enough will result in the same regimes that are limited in any event by ruling out advance directives. They don't go further either. Or, delaying or defeating this bill risks losing elements we have now while working on further additions that any bill that goes further would surely include anyway.

I believe Bill C-14 has captured a critical balance between the pressures brought by the court to do something quickly and the prudence required to go further carefully.

Please click here to read this speech in French / Veuillez appuyer ici pour lire ce discours en français.

Give us your feedback about this speech.

We would love hearing your comments about this speech. Please submit them using the form below.

Your contact information

First Name:
Last Name:
Postal Code:

Selected Speeches

Boyle Street Community Services

Oct 5, 2016

Bill S-229: An Act Respecting Underground Infrastructure Safety

Oct 4, 2016

Telus World of Science

Jun 16, 2016

Second reading of Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying

Jun 3, 2016

Wildfires in Fort McMurray—Emergency Appeal

May 5, 2016

Digging Safely

Apr 21, 2016

In Pursuit of Common Ground

Mar 18, 2016

Speech from the Throne—Motion for Address in Reply

Dec 10, 2015

Second Reading of my Underground Infrastructure Safety Enhancement Bill

Jun 22, 2015

Second Reading of my Enhancement of Civilian Review and Oversight in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Bill

Jun 19, 2015

Third reading of Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Bill, 2015

Jun 2, 2015

Second reading of Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Bill, 2015

May 13, 2015

Tribute to The Late Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin, Speaker of the Senate

Apr 29, 2015

Third reading of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts

Apr 1, 2015

Bill 10 in Alberta

Mar 11, 2015

Speech at Report Stage for Bill C-279

Mar 10, 2015

Second reading of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts

Feb 25, 2015

Senate energy report makes recommendations to protect underground infrastructure

Dec 16, 2014

HeForShe Campaign

Oct 1, 2014

Dandelion Renewables

Sep 25, 2014

Alberta Emerald Foundation

Sep 18, 2014

Global Wind Day

Jun 13, 2014

Safe Digging Month

Apr 29, 2014

Northwest Territories Devolution Bill

Feb 27, 2014

Speech at second reading of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity)

Feb 4, 2014

Forestry Industry

Dec 10, 2013

Geothermal Energy

Nov 28, 2013

Trans Day of Remembrance

Nov 20, 2013

Discours au congrès de la Canadian Common Ground Alliance

Nov 18, 2013

Speech to the Canadian Common Ground Alliance convention

Nov 14, 2013

Child, Family and Adolescent Mental Health

Jun 25, 2013

Speech at Third Reading of Bill C-42 (Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act)

May 23, 2013

Speech at Second Reading of Bill C-42 (Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act)

Apr 16, 2013

Speech at second reading of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity)

Apr 16, 2013

Allotment of Time on Budget 2012

Dec 13, 2012

Speech at Second Reading of Budget 2012, Bill C-45

Dec 10, 2012

Speech on Korean War Veterans Day Bill

Dec 6, 2012

Two speeches on the third reading of Budget 2012, Bill C-45

Dec 6, 2012

iSisters Technology Mentoring

Nov 2, 2011

Canadian Wheat Board

Oct 18, 2011

"Because I Am a Girl" Campaign

Oct 18, 2011

La campagne « Parce que je suis une fille »

Oct 18, 2011

La Commission canadienne du blé

Oct 18, 2011

Canadian Foundation for Women's Health

Sep 29, 2011

Thinking of Jack Layton

Aug 23, 2011

Le Budget des dépenses de 2011-2012

Jun 26, 2011

L'école secondaire Queen Elizabeth

Jun 23, 2011

Queen Elizabeth High School - Congratulations on Fiftieth Anniversary

Jun 23, 2011

Le budget de 2011

Jun 16, 2011

Budget 2011 - Inquiry

Jun 16, 2011


Jun 9, 2011


Jun 9, 2011

La Loi sur les mesures de réinsertion et d'indemnisation des militaires et vétérans des Forces canadiennes La Loi sur les pensions

Mar 24, 2011

Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act Pension Act

Mar 24, 2011

Support Program for Aboriginal Nursing Students at the University of Lethbridge

Mar 9, 2011

Sur le Programme de soutien des étudiants autochtones en nursing de l’Université de Lethbridge

Mar 9, 2011

Corporate and Income Taxes

Feb 3, 2011

Climate Change Policy

Feb 2, 2011

Women in Prisons in Canada

Dec 15, 2010

Les femmes incarcérées au Canada

Dec 15, 2010

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Bill

Dec 14, 2010

Economic mismanagement

Dec 13, 2010

La gestion de l'économie.

Dec 13, 2010

Sustainable Development Technology

Dec 9, 2010

Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Bill

Dec 9, 2010

Edmonton's Bid for Expo 2017

Dec 9, 2010

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Companies' Creditor Arrangment Act

Nov 30, 2010

Women's Equality in Canada — Inquiry

Nov 23, 2010

National Day of Service Bill

Nov 3, 2010

Senatorial Selection Bill

Nov 2, 2010

Second reading of Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (carbon offset tax credit)

Oct 7, 2010

Jobs and Economic Growth Bill – Sixth Report of National Finance Committee Negatived

Jul 21, 2010

Study on the Current State and Future of Energy Sector

Jun 15, 2010

Bill C-311, Climate Change Accountability

Jun 1, 2010

The State of the Senate's Online Presence

Jun 1, 2010

Bilingual Supreme Court Judges

May 12, 2010

Environment and Human Rights

May 4, 2010

Erosion of Freedom of Speech

Apr 27, 2010

What is Realistic and Effective Parliamentary Reform?

Mar 17, 2010

It's Time To Shelve Bottled Water

May 5, 2009

The Danger of Unintended Consequences - Senate Reform

Apr 28, 2009

Bill S-3, Energy Efficiency Act

Feb 12, 2009

Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (carbon offset tax credit)

Feb 10, 2009

Bill C-474, Federal Sustainable Development Act

Jun 18, 2008

Bill C-33, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

Jun 12, 2008

Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act

Feb 26, 2008

Speech from the Throne: A Government Without Leadership

Oct 30, 2007

Temporary Foreign Workers Program

Jun 18, 2007

Kyoto: Response to the Third Reading

May 31, 2007

Statements on the second reading of the Budget Implementation Bill

Jun 13, 2006