Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Both Liberal and Conservative senators say they are unsatisfied with the changes made by the parliamentary committee.

iStockphoto/Getty Images/iStockphoto

The Liberals are facing their first showdown with a more independent Red Chamber, with senators preparing to recommend their own batch of changes to the government's doctor-assisted dying bill as the Supreme Court of Canada's June 6 deadline looms.

The government hopes to pass Bill C-14 in the House of Commons next week, after a parliamentary committee made a handful of minor amendments to the legislation without significantly altering who will be eligible for doctor-assisted dying in Canada.

The Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee, which heard from 66 witnesses during its week-long prestudy of the bill, will also present recommendations for the House to consider next week. If it passes in the House, as expected, the bill will then make its way to the Senate to continue the legislative process. But senators say the prestudy will end up saving time at the committee stage.

Story continues below advertisement

Conservative Senator Bob Runciman, who chairs the legal committee, said he believes senators will make "stronger recommendations" than their elected counterparts. When asked if the bill could change significantly once it gets to the Senate, he answered: "Absolutely."

Both Liberal and Conservative senators on the committee say they aren't satisfied with the changes made by the parliamentary committee, even though some of the senators' ideas have already been reviewed and rejected by the MPs.

"We're not lined up like lead soldiers, you know, falling in place one after the other," Senate Liberal Serge Joyal said in an interview. "There's a high level of independence in the Senate."

The types of changes to be proposed are mixed – with some senators saying the bill goes too far, while others arguing it does not go far enough.

Some Conservatives say they want more protections for institutions that refuse to participate in assisted dying and more restrictions for those with mental illness and psychological suffering, as well as to remove nurse practitioners from performing the procedure.

"I don't think that nurse practitioners should have the same abilities as doctors to both approve the patient's assisted suicide, to assess competency and to administer it," Conservative Senator Denise Batters said.

Senate Liberals such as Mr. Joyal want the definition of "grievous and irremediable" removed from the bill, which says a patient's natural death must be "reasonably foreseeable" to access the procedure.

Story continues below advertisement

"I strongly feel that that section of the bill is unconstitutional," Mr. Joyal said.

The Senate is now split into three factions, made up of 42 Conservatives, 23 independents and 22 Senate Liberals, who are no longer part of the government's caucus.

With all senators allowed a free vote, the outcome is unpredictable and it's not entirely clear how the government's representative in the Senate, Independent Senator Peter Harder, will work to get the legislation passed.

If changes are made once the bill gets to the Senate, it must return to the House for another vote – putting the June 6 deadline in jeopardy. After that date, the Supreme Court's decision would stand as the federal legal framework for the procedure – although some have said the court's decision is better than a flawed bill.

Conservative Senator Don Plett, who wants more protections for children and the mentally ill, said he's not concerned if the bill is delayed so proper debate can take place. "I am one of those people that do not believe that June 6 needs to be a drop-dead date," he said.

Mr. Harder said he doesn't want to prejudge the bill's contents before it comes to the Senate, noting that MPs can still introduce amendments this week during debates in the Commons.

Story continues below advertisement

"We'll see what bill we get," he said. "The Senate is an independent body and it will review the legislation taking into account, I'm sure, the views of the bill as it arrives and the considerations [of] the Senate itself."

Meanwhile, Liberal MP Rob Oliphant, who served as joint chair of a special parliamentary committee that studied the issue this winter, said he can no longer support his government's legislation.

"I will not vote for the bill as it stands right now, because I don't believe – in my opinion, my humble opinion – that it meets the Charter requirements," he said.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies