Parliament AIIndependent · non-official
All bills

Bill C-14 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau

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

Government bill. Became law.

end of lifemental health

  1. IntroducedApril 14, 2016
  2. Debated in principleMay 4, 2016
  3. Studied by a committeeDone
  4. Passed its first chamberMay 31, 2016
  5. Passed the second chamberJune 14, 2016
  6. Became lawJune 16, 2016

Leading supporters

Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.

  1. Justin TrudeauPrime Minister

Who carries this bill

Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.

Justin TrudeauPrime Minister

What it set out to do

The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 14 April 2016, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-14 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, • 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; • specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person; • require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assistance…

Summary by the Library of Parliament.

Where members stand

Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.

How it changed on the way

41% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,991 words introduced, 4,332 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The core exemptions allowing medical assistance in dying and the monitoring framework remained intact, but Parliament shortened the waiting period, revised eligibility wording, added a Charter preamble, and mandated independent reviews on minors, advance requests and mental illness. Several safeguards were tightened or clarified while new protections for communication and conscience were inserted.

  • Waiting period before provision was reduced from 15 to 10 clear days.
    Before: “ensure that there are at least 15 clear days between the day on which the request was signed by the person and the day on which the medical assistance in dying is provided”
    After: “ensure that there are at least 10 clear days between the day on which the request was signed by or on behalf of the person and the day on which the medical assistance in dying is provided”
  • Eligibility information given to the patient was changed from reference to foreseeable natural death to confirmation of a grievous and irremediable condition.
    Before: “signed and dated after the person was informed by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner that the person's natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances”
    After: “signed and dated after the person was informed by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner that the person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition”
  • New independent reviews were required on mature minors, advance requests and mental illness as sole condition.
    After: “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.”
  • A preamble recognizing freedom of conscience, diverse needs and palliative-care commitments was added.
    After: “Whereas everyone has freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ; Whereas nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion;”

How precisely it is written

62VaguePrecise

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill supplies many defined terms and fixed numbers such as the ten-day waiting period, yet repeatedly uses open-ended phrases that require judgment calls. This mix leaves some rules clear on paper while others invite argument over what counts as compliant.

Open to argument

  • “their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances”
    The phrase 'reasonably foreseeable' sets a subjective medical prediction rather than an objective test.
  • “any shorter period that the first medical practitioner or nurse practitioner considers appropriate in the circumstances”
    Leaves the length of the waiting period to the practitioner's personal view of appropriateness.
  • “The Minister of Health must make regulations that he or she considers necessary”
    Ties the duty to create rules to the Minister's own opinion of necessity.
  • “take all necessary measures to provide a reliable means”
    Uses an undefined standard of what measures are 'necessary' in communication cases.

Clear-cut

  • “ensure that there are at least 10 clear days between the day on which the request was signed”
    Fixes a definite minimum interval that can be counted without further interpretation.
  • “medical practitioner means a person who is entitled to practise medicine under the laws of a province”
    Supplies a clear, externally verifiable definition tied to provincial licensing.
  • “to a term of imprisonment of not more than five years”
    States an exact maximum penalty that leaves no range for discretionary adjustment.

Discretion. The Minister of Health is given broad power to decide what information must be reported and in what form, and practitioners may shorten the waiting period whenever they consider it appropriate.

Challenging the law itself. Section 7 Charter claims could attack the vagueness of 'reasonably foreseeable' and the breadth of the eligibility and safeguard provisions.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether death was 'reasonably foreseeable' or whether the chosen waiting period was 'appropriate,' turning on clinical judgment rather than clear facts.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.

Did it work?

partly effective

Bill C-14 successfully legalized MAID with specific eligibility criteria and safeguards, enabling its provision by practitioners and resulting in thousands of cases annually since 2016. However, court challenges quickly expanded eligibility beyond the original 'reasonably foreseeable natural death' limit, parliamentary reviews highlighted ongoing concerns with safeguards and oversight especially for non-terminal cases, and further expansions (including planned mental illness eligibility) have been repeatedly delayed due to systemic readiness issues.

Who lobbied on it

No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.

Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.