Bill C-14 (Historical)

COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2

A second Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to introduce an emergency wage subsidy as part of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Part 2 amends Part IV.‍1 of the Financial Administration Act to provide that certain provisions of that Act, as enacted by the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, cease to have effect on the day after September 30, 2020.

An Act to Provide Further Support in Response to COVID-19

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here. I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. He has always got such incredibly intelligent debate and I always look forward to his words.

I am so thrilled to be back in the House. I very much thank the people of Calgary Midnapore for returning me to the chamber with the highest percentile of votes in Calgary, the highest percentile of votes in any major centre and what I am most proud of, the greatest number of votes for any woman in Canada. It is an honour to be back in the House.

I would also like to take a moment to thank my team, which was so incredible throughout the election. I would like to thank my campaign manager, Mr. Justin Gotfried, the son of Richard Gotfried, the MLA for Calgary-Fish Creek. I would also like the thank Katie Cook who was my communications point person and my sister Holly Schramm who served as my official agent, keeping me in line and out of trouble with those books. I would also like to thank all the incredible volunteers. I would like to thank my parents Keith and Angie Schramm, who are still my constituents to this day, and my very good friends who I grew up with in Calgary Midnapore who put out signs and raised money for me, Joanna Shaw Morin and Caroline Baynes. Of course, I cannot go without thanking the loves of my life, my husband James Kusie and my beautiful son Edward Kusie who supported me in this journey back to the House of Commons. I thank them and I love them.

Again, I thank so much the people of Calgary Midnapore.

Here we are again in the House debating legislation on new benefits. As the member across the aisle indicated, yes, we on this side of the House were very collaborative and certainly went along with the government's requests for funds and for programs, because we care about Canadians. We are compassionate individuals and we knew that was what Canadians needed at that time.

I will give a brief history of all the times we went along with the legislation despite concerns because we knew that was what Canadians needed at that time.

Let us go back to March 13, 2020, when Bill C-12, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, was presented; one billion dollars in funding for approval. We did not put up a fuss on this side. In fact, it received royal assent the very same day.

Let us go forward a little further into time. On March 24, 2020, we had Bill C-13, an act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19. As the shadow minister for families and social development at that time, it was legislation to fix the shortcomings that the government missed at the time it created the original legislation, but, one again, we did not put up a fuss on this side of the House. We recognized that was what Canadians needed at that time. That bill also received approval from the House that day and royal assent the very next day.

On April 11, 2020, there was a second act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19, Bill C-14,, which was CEWS, and we know there were certainly a lot of faults with that at the beginning, as well as the CERB. It received royal assent the very same day. Again, I am just pointing out the collaboration this side of the House had always provided the government in getting Canadians the benefits they need.

Here we are again today, being asked to approve Bill C-2, but we are in a different time. We are heading out of the pandemic. I recognize we have the omicron variant, and I hope no fifth wave, but Canadians want to move forward into the future.

Therefore, I have a message for the government today, and it is that you do not get a blank cheque.

It is time to move our economy from benefits to jobs, and I am very proud to say that as the new shadow minister for employment future workforce development and disability inclusion. We currently have one million job openings, with a 16.4% jump from August to September alone. That is incredible.

One-fifth of those are in the hospitality sector. Other major vacancies occur in these critical health care sectors, including nurses and psychiatric nurses. We have heard in the House about the crisis in the trucking industry, how the average age of truckers is near retirement age and how there are just no new workers coming forward to take these positions. In fact, over one-third of employers have indicated that they have limited their growth in general as a result of not being able to find employees.

This affects every region and so many sectors. I said this when I made my request for an emergency debate on Friday to have a discussion about the shortage of workers in the country. It affects Quebec, the manufacturing sector in Ontario and of course the tourism sector in my home province of Alberta. For this reason again, I say again to the members opposite, “You don't get a blank cheque.”

I would like to move on to something that is very uncomfortable to talk about, and that is the fraud that we have seen with these programs. In fact, FINTRAC reported that there were organized criminals who knowingly and actively defrauded the government with both CERB and CEBA programs, that social media was used to recruit people, and in fact that stolen identifications were used in an effort to get these funds. There was the use of prepaid cards to prevent a paper trail, so they were very smart about this. They knew what they were doing, unfortunately for the government.

In addition, there were individuals who received these funds while not even living in Canada and in fact living in jurisdictions of concern, countries that posed a higher money-laundering or terrorist financing risk. From the start of 2020 until October 31, 30,095 suspicious transaction reports were registered for COVID-related benefits. That is over 30,000. Sadly, 30,000 of those also dealt with human trafficking and drugs, two issues on which the government has failed, but prosecutions are unlikely. Why? In July 2020, the Canadian Revenue Agency advised the House of Commons finance committee that the program had been targeted by organized crime and that Canada does not prioritize the investigation and prosecution of financial criminals. In fact, in the past decade alone, Canada has secured fewer than, wait for it, fewer than 50 laundering convictions. The government is not taking organized crime seriously. Again, for that reason, “You don't get a blank cheque.”

Finally, we in this country need to get a grip on inflation. Canada is among the top 10 countries with the highest inflation rates in the G20. Canada has the second-highest inflation rate in the G7, second only to the United States, which I know the government thought it would get along better with, since the Liberals still talk about the previous president all the time. Rates are predicted to reach 4.9% this month, a three-decade high, and are expected to stay there well into 2022.

Some provinces, including Prince Edward Island, are experiencing rates as high as 6.3%, and unfortunately it is low-income Canadians who spend one-third on shelter and 15% on food and higher energy prices. We cannot control the pandemic, but we can control spending. There was $74 billion on the CRB and there will be $8 billion for Bill C-2 if it passes. We should investigate the fraud. We should evaluate this further. Perhaps we should bring it to the finance committee if the Liberals are willing to strike the finance committee up again, but my final message to them is this: “You don't get a blank cheque.”

Employment Insurance Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a great day to be debating in the House of Commons. Before I begin, I want to give a big shout-out. I have been in Ottawa for a while, and I think all House of Commons staff are doing an excellent job of keeping us fed and making sure that our system works for the well-being of Canadians. I really felt that this week. They are doing a great job.

Now I will get to Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 would increase the maximum number of weeks available to workers through EI, with up to a maximum of 50 weeks for claims established between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021. It would also change rules for self-employed workers who have opted into the EI program to access special benefits. This legislation would allow them to use their 2020 earning threshold of $5,000, compared with the previous threshold of $7,555. Also, it would fix the Liberal-caused loophole in the Canada recovery sickness benefit for international leisure travellers.

The Conservative Party is supportive of Bill C-24. These changes are necessary and long overdue. We must get help to Canadians in need whose jobs have been eliminated as a result of the government-mandated restrictions and closures in response to the pandemic. Lockdowns are still in place in many parts of the country, and businesses cannot get back to normal even though they are working incredibly hard to do so.

My constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon are frustrated. They cannot go to church. They cannot earn an income the way they want to. They cannot live their lives the way they want to either.

The Conservatives' track record in this Parliament is strong. We have been behind pandemic assistance for Canadians throughout the entire COVID-19 period. We supported Bill C-13 one year ago, in March 2020. It brought in the Canada emergency wage subsidy for small businesses, a one-time additional payment under the GST/HST tax credit, temporary additional amounts to the Canada child benefit, a 25% reduction in required minimal withdrawals from registered retirement income funds, and the Canada emergency response benefit.

Last April, we supported Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, which improved the wage subsidy and implemented the Canada emergency student benefit. In July it was Bill C-20, to extend the wage subsidy. In September it was Bill C-4, for a CERB extension, the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. In November it was Bill C-9, the emergency rent subsidy and wage subsidy expansion.

The Conservatives have been there to support Canadians every step of the way. What we are not supportive of, though, is the Liberal government's blatant disregard for parliamentary process, their lack of respect for Canadian democracy and their incredibly poor ability to manage the legislative agenda of the House to ensure that we can move past the pandemic.

Two days ago, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, popped into the HUMA committee and table dropped a substantive and constrictive motion for a prestudy of Bill C-24. Neither the text of the motion nor its intention was shared in advance. He ignored the proactive efforts of my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who had reached out to him as soon as Bill C-24 was tabled in the House.

The deadline at the end of the month, which the Liberals are trying to beat, is not some surprise that was sprung on them. To further illustrate that the right hand of the government does not know what the left hand is doing, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had to direct the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to pick up the phone and talk to his House leader during committee because the motion he was attempting to ram through was no longer necessary. We had come to an agreement outside of his ham-fisted efforts.

Cross-party collaboration is more than possible. Think of all the time that could have been saved if the parliamentary secretary had attempted to engage himself in that process with committee members.

The Liberals love to complain that the opposition is holding up important legislation, yet here we are, in March 2021, debating necessary updates to legislation from September 2020. The Liberals knew for months that benefits would be expiring, but they failed to act until the last minute. They have repeatedly missed the mark on legislation for emergency supports, leaving thousands of Canadians behind.

A key component of this legislation is addressing the incredibly flawed Canada recovery sickness benefit. Because of the Liberals' disrespect for Parliament and their poor legislative drafting, a loophole was created that allows international leisure travellers to receive the CRSB during their quarantine. This is completely unacceptable. The CRSB is for individuals who must miss work because of COVID-19, not for subsidizing the quarantine period of international leisure travellers. This oversight is a direct result of the government's rushing legislation through Parliament because of its prorogation. It is outrageous that the Liberals waited months to fix their mistake.

If the government tried implementing the transparency it espouses to employ, so much headache would have been avoided. For instance, if the Liberals had tabled a federal budget at the beginning of March, this would have ceased to be an issue entirely. There is even a precedent by the government for including employment insurance updates in federal budget legislation. In 2018, the government proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to implement a number of reforms related to the extension of parental benefits.

We have not seen a federal budget in 723 days. This is the longest period in Canadian history that we have been without one.

Even setting aside our criticisms, we cannot ignore how the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer has repeatedly called out the government for its lack of fiscal transparency. In a PBO report issued on November 4, 2020, on supplementary estimates (B), we found out that the Department of Finance, which under Bill Morneau had been issuing biweekly updates to the finance committee during the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic, stopped providing this information once Parliament was prorogued and Morneau had resigned. We are talking about tens of billions of taxpayer dollars heading out the door under the guise of COVID relief measures, and the government has revealed precious little about where these dollars are going.

From the same November 4 report, the PBO underscored that our role as parliamentarians is being obfuscated and obstructed by the government. As the report notes, “While the sum of these measures is significant”, some $79.2 billion, of which 91.5% was related to COVID spending, “the amount of information that is publicly available to track this spending is lacking, thus making it more challenging for parliamentarians to perform their critical role in overseeing Government spending and holding it to account.”

There is no publicly available list of all federal COVID-19 spending measures. There is no consistency in the reporting on the implementation of these measures. There is less and less information being provided transparently to parliamentarians and the PBO. The government could not do a better job of keeping its finances secret if it provided everyone in the House with blindfolds.

However, to its credit, the government has made some efforts to provide additional financial information. As the PBO noted in its February 24, 2021, report on the supplementary estimates (C), “Notable improvements include a complete list of Bills presented to Parliament to authorize spending for COVID-19 related measures”, which is information anyone could find on LEGISinfo, “and a reconciliation table between the Fall Economic Statement 2020 and the Estimates documents”. Still, as the PBO reminded us in February, “The frequency at which the Government provides an updated list of COVID-19 measures in one central document...and the inconsistency to which actual spending data on COVID-19 measures is made publicly available remain areas of concern.”

These are baby steps, but bigger leaps are needed from the government when it comes to fiscal transparency. We as parliamentarians depend on the government to provide us with accurate and timely information about federal finances. We cannot do our work of keeping the government accountable for its spending choices if it does not respect us enough to provide the necessary information to allow me and all of my colleagues to do our jobs effectively.

Again today, it is up to the opposition to correct the continued mistakes of the government. This is disrespectful to us as parliamentarians, it is disrespectful to this hallowed institution and it is disrespectful to the Canadian people, for whose tax dollars we are ultimately responsible.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief.

Earlier on in the debate, specific to this amendment, Mr. Maloney made reference to the fact that the review of Bill C-14 didn't get done because of the pandemic, and I respect that.

However, I have to say that.... I watch Sunday football, and I watch referees review calls on the field all the time during the pandemic. I watch hockey, and I watch referees review calls all the time during the pandemic. When I was a firefighter, we reviewed the actions on scene after incidents all the time, and I'm sure it still happens during the pandemic. I review my bank statement during the pandemic.

I would suggest that it's not because of the pandemic that this review did not get done. Let's call a spade a spade here. First of all, it's because the government decided to prorogue Parliament, so that's really why it didn't happen.

My point is this. If we talk about sports and we talk about my bank statement, as two examples, and if today, during the pandemic, these reviews are still being done, is Bill C-7, which deals with life-and-death decisions, not more important than sports and my bank statement? Absolutely, it is.

Mr. Thériault has brought forward what I believe is a great amendment. It at least gives us one more safeguard, for this committee to look back and review. Some of us won't be here in the next committee, so it provides that next level of safeguard, because quite frankly, Bill C-14 didn't get reviewed. It's vital, and it's due diligence on our behalf to see that going forward.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be fairly brief. I see the time we're running up against here.

Basically, I feel reviews are necessary. This is, as I referred to the other day, very significant, life-altering, pan-Canadian legislation that we're discussing. These are issues about procedures that a few short years ago weren't even allowed. We went into a whole new territory.

Now, with the changes to Bill C-14, which I was not in Parliament to debate, many of what I would have thought—and obviously my side of the table believes—were reasonable safeguards have been rejected by others here on the committee and by their parties.

I don't quite understand, to be honest, the comments of my colleague Mr. Garrison that this goes against what he is hoping for. Maybe I didn't understand clearly what my friend had to say, but the amendment put forward by Monsieur Thériault speaks of it being within 12 months. It doesn't say after 12 months or at 12 months. It says within one year.

It also says that it will “be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose.” As I read this reasonable amendment, which I support, what is being sought here is a mandated review within 12 months, which may be undertaken by this committee or it may be undertaken by a special committee. The point here is that there's a mandate to make sure it happens.

Again, I thought Monsieur Thériault's comments were very good, that this complements the legislation we are clearly moving towards passing here. It sends a clear signal to those wondering, on both sides of all these arguments, where we're going. It sends a clear signal, to those who may be thinking of court challenges or who may just be feeling that this changes their environment and their world view, that we as legislators take this seriously.

Four days on such significant and important legislation is not sufficient, I believe. The rest of the committee did not agree. They wanted this through quickly. I think we should have heard from more witnesses. I don't know what's going to happen in the Senate.

To me, there's nothing here that is stopping what Mr. Garrison was speaking to, which is to get on with this and get on with a review, a review that should have happened and that was not pursued by the Liberal government, even though they were mandated to do it. That I still don't understand.

We sit here with legislation that goes way beyond the Truchon decision. We as legislators are making decisions, it seems to me, based on which health care professionals we choose to listen to and whether or not we choose to listen to the organizations for persons with disabilities.

This is very significant legislation. I don't at all think that it will lead to every piece of legislation having a review clause in it. This is legislation that is in its own category, in my view, in terms of significance.

This amendment simply puts all of us as legislators and the government on notice that there's a process that would require a careful, proper, more thorough and better-informed look at legislation that is so significant that we are making changes to the criminal law of Canada and we are making changes to the provision of health care and palliative care. This committee has chosen not to put in safeguards for conscience rights of physicians. We've heard from physicians who say that they will have to leave their chosen profession if there are no such safeguards.

An earlier amendment was not passed, but this would be the opportunity to look at the lived experience and dying experience of people who are within this system who choose to end their lives this way, who change their mind, and who choose not to go down this path. It gives us an opportunity to look at what supports are in place, what true options are in place for people facing these tough decisions, and for their families, quite frankly, because there's more than just the individual affected.

It's a very reasonable amendment that would bring forward.... I don't trust the fact, to be perfectly honest, that when a review was already mandated and the government chose not to do it.... Unless we have it in the legislation, I'm not confident that asking this committee to look at it will work.

The government has shown that it is prepared to put forward legislation in this area that goes far beyond court decisions, that goes far beyond the directions of the court to date, and therefore this review is absolutely necessary. Canadians would expect no less of us.

Thank you.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too, would like to speak in support of the BQ amendment. Let me first say that I agree with Mr. Thériault to the degree that his amendment is not duplicative, that it is complementary, and that it reinforces on the government something that the government failed to do when Bill C-14 was passed.

Mr. Moore, in his comments, noted that he was not here during the debate on Bill C-14. I was here on the debate on Bill C-14. I was a member of this committee, as were you, Madam Chair. I can say that at the time, the provision in the bill mandating a five-year review was considered to be a very important part of the bill. At the time, we were in uncharted territory. We had a Supreme Court decision in Carter that struck down the blanket criminal prohibition on medical assistance in dying. We were certainly starting from the parameters of Carter. There was, however, much that was unknown in terms of how to provide for a legislative response that satisfied what the Supreme Court called on Parliament to do, which was to strike a balance between respecting individual autonomy while at the same time protecting vulnerable persons through a carefully monitored and designed system of safeguards.

The process, starting with the special joint committee on physician-assisted dying, through to the passage of Bill C-14, was over a period of six months, from January 2016 to the end of June 2016. Between the special joint committee and the justice committee, we literally heard from a wide range of witnesses in a process that, although not perfect, was a marked improvement from the process that we had with respect to Bill C-7.

The purpose of establishing that five-year review was in recognition that it would provide sufficient time to determine what worked and what didn't, whether the safeguards were appropriate and whether there were changes needed. It also provided a period in which Bill C-14 could be implemented across Canada. I certainly thought at the time that this would have been the first step. There would have been a review and then a possibility for amendments to Bill C-14.

None of that happened, however. We didn't get a review in June of this year. Mr. Maloney made reference to the fact that there is COVID. Well, yes, there was then, and there is now. I don't believe that is a legitimate excuse for why a review could not and should not have taken place. The fact is that before COVID, this government decided to pre-empt that review, because Bill C-7 was introduced before COVID. It went considerably beyond the scope of the Truchon decision and removed, as we have heard, many important safeguards in Bill C-14. The idea that somehow COVID got in the way of a parliamentary review just doesn't add up.

The attitude of the government was “we know best” in moving ahead with legislation that fundamentally changes the landscape around the medical assistance in dying regime without undertaking any kind of review. The minister and members of the government bragged about their online consultation, which they say informed the drafting of Bill C-7.

I would note, Madam Chair, that several witnesses—including some who did participate between the online survey and the limited consultations that occurred I believe in February—came before our committee over the very short time in which we had hearings to indicate that all of those consultations were with a predetermined outcome. They did not believe that the government was interested in hearing all perspectives, but rather that it had a specific objective upon which the government wished to legislate and was seeking an outcome to validate proceeding in the manner that the government ultimately did with the bill we have before us, namely, Bill C-7.

I would also note that in addition to that consultation being predetermined in terms of its outcome or bias, as evidenced by a number of witnesses who stated this, the online consultation disadvantaged many vulnerable and marginalized Canadians. For those who don't have access to the Internet and those who have visual, mobility or cognitive impairments, their views, their perspectives, were ignored or were certainly made more difficult by what I think is really an insensitive process. People living in remote and northern communities, where were they during the online consultation?

Now we have this very unacceptable situation where we have a very bad piece of legislation that has been repudiated by every national disability rights organization in Canada and by over a thousand physicians, and we don't have a review. What is needed is that comprehensive review. It should have happened before Bill C-7.

It hasn't happened, but with this particular amendment, we would reinforce the need for that to happen, and for that to happen immediately, so that we can have true and meaningful consultation from all segments of Canadian society impacted by medical assistance in dying—by all of those groups—and do it in a comprehensive way and hear from voices that went unheard as this government has sought to ram through Bill C-7.

I happened to be at a press conference this morning where there were many voices, including indigenous voices, that have gone unheard in the four meetings we have had to hear from witnesses. I've said it before and I'll say it again: It need not have been this way. It shouldn't have been this way. It is this way because of what I would submit has been a reckless approach on the part of the government.

At the very least, this amendment underscores what should have happened and what absolutely needs to happen, and that is a review, not five years from now but in a manner that is as expeditious as possible. Certainly a one-year time frame is more than reasonable.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move CPC-9, which amends Bill C-7. It amends section 241 of the act, which Bill C-7 does touch on. I think this is fully within order. We heard testimony at committee, which I thought was very important testimony, from, for example, Roger Foley. For anyone who doesn't know, you can certainly find his story in the media. Various media outlets reported that Mr. Foley appeared to have been feeling some pressure to consider MAID. He, in fact, made recordings to this effect.

This is very important, because we're in a new stage now. Under Bill C-14, introduced by this government, an individual's death had to be reasonably foreseeable. That was never defined, and we chose not to define it as a committee, but reasonably foreseeable death is now no longer a requirement to provide for assisted death. In effect, someone does not have to be dying to be eligible for assisted dying.

I want to specifically mention, on this amendment, that the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians spoke directly to this. They sent us a submission on Bill C-7, and their fourth recommendation is a recommendation on bringing up assisted dying:

To safeguard against any possibility of subtle or overt pressure on patients, health care professionals should not initiate a discussion about MAiD or suggest the option of MAiD unless brought up by a patient. If a patient raises questions or requests MAiD, health professionals should have the ability to explore these issues, including their underlying suffering, and provide information or direct them to someone who can provide information. In other jurisdictions—

And I draw the committee's attention to this:

—where assisted dying is legalized, such as in the recent legislation in Victoria, Australia, this risk of coercion due to the hierarchy and differential of expertise present in the physician-patient relationship is addressed directly in the law. Victorian Legislation states that a healthcare practitioner must not initiate a discussion or suggest Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) to a patient. We urge the Federal government to reduce harm of coercion to vulnerable patients by including this in the current revisions to the Canadian MAiD legislation.

We also received a submission from the persons with disabilities community. They make a number of recommendations. Their fourth recommendation states:

Investigate the “worrisome claims about persons with disabilities in institutions being pressured to seek medical assistance in dying, and practitioners not formally reporting cases involving persons with disabilities”, which were identified in the UN Special Rapporteur’s report, and establish an independent body, whose membership must include representatives of the disability community, to investigate such cases moving forward.

The Conservative Party members listened to the testimony of those witnesses. I paid particular attention to the testimony of Roger Foley. That is why we're moving CPC-9, which deals directly with the issue of when medical assistance in dying should be brought up. It makes it crystal clear that this should be a patient-initiated discussion, not a physician-initiated discussion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be very brief.

Let me simply say that I do support the amendment. Prior to the Truchon decision, there were inconsistencies in terms of how “reasonably foreseeable” was interpreted, particularly in the province of Quebec versus the rest of Canada. In the province of Quebec, “reasonably foreseeable” tended to be interpreted in an end-of-life context, and that in part has to do with the provincial legislation that the National Assembly had passed prior to the introduction of Bill C-14. That was not the case in other parts of Canada.

I would submit that some clarity was required, having regard for the vagueness of that term. However, given the fact that Bill C-7 puts forward a two-track approach, I would submit that clarity is now essential to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, an even application of law in all jurisdictions of Canada. On that basis, I support the amendment.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I just want to elaborate a bit upon what Mr. Maloney was saying. I think that sometimes it gets complicated and gets a bit muddled when we get so mired in these terms.

We have a regime under Bill C-14 that talks about a sort of an end-of-life regime. We have a decision about reasonable foreseeability in Truchon, which says that if you keep it to just an end-of-life regime, you are not actually promoting the dignity and autonomy of individuals, and therefore a change must be made.

The change that must be made is what's presented before us now in Bill C-7. It creates two tracks. There is a track where your death is reasonably foreseeable, and then there's the track where your death is not reasonably foreseeable. There is facilitated access when the death is reasonably foreseeable, and there are enhanced safeguards where a natural death is more of a long-term one, in what we call track two.

In trying to narrow down how you divide between a death that is reasonably foreseeable versus one that is not, I appreciate what Mr. Thériault is trying to do, and I'll echo the sentiments of Mr. Maloney. I appreciate the statements he made in the House. I appreciate his interventions in this committee. I know that he and his party believe very strongly in the model that Quebec has rolled out provincially and in ensuring that there is access that grants autonomy and dignity to individuals.

Where I'll differ with him is just this idea about demarcation, the 12 months as a demarcation, a line in the sand, so to speak, as to when something becomes reasonably foreseeable or not and determining whether you fall into track one or track two.

The reason for this is that everything I've learned through the course of this committee study, and everything I've learned in the consultations that I was privileged to be a part of in January and February, indicates that the medical practitioners who are involved in this very sensitive, very complex assessment are doing so with a lot of professionalism and with the care of the patient in mind. I remain strong in that faith that they will continue to execute their functions professionally. Allowing them to have the flexibility to make that determination rather than carving out a line is, to my mind, the best path forward in terms of ensuring consistency with the regime in the past but also making the constitutional changes that are required by the position of the court.

Simply for that reason alone, I think demarcating 12 months as a line in the sand would not be beneficial and, in some respects, I certainly wouldn't want the inadvertent consequence of limiting access to MAID for those who would otherwise be eligible, who otherwise had made an informed decision and were trying to make an autonomous decision, and impeding or limiting that autonomy.

Thank you.

[Tabatha Bull, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business]

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa]

[English]

As president and CEO of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair and all distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to provide you with my statement and to answer any of your questions.

Speaking to you from my home office, I acknowledge the land as the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples.

As Chief Poitras shared with this committee on November 3, 2020, “This pandemic has highlighted the inequities in this country and exacerbated existing challenges.” This statement underlines how, more than any other time in history, indigenous issues need to be top of mind for the Government of Canada and the Canadian public.

Since 1982, CCAB has been committed to the full participation of indigenous peoples in the Canadian economy. Our work is backed by data-driven research, recognized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as the gold standard for indigenous business data in Canada.

From the beginning of the pandemic, the Government of Canada introduced efforts to build supports for businesses. A number of those supports were required to be remedied to include indigenous businesses, and while access is now available, CCAB has repeatedly highlighted the need for a navigator function specific to indigenous business to assist with the understanding and uptake of the various programs. Indigenous businesses have found navigating the bureaucracy, which often does not consider their unique legal and place-based circumstances, a significant barrier to accessing the supports necessary to keep their businesses alive and maintain the well-being of their communities.

The lack of targeted assistance for indigenous businesses to utilize these government supports further adds to the frustration and distrust that is the result of our history. This underlines the need for an indigenous economic recovery strategy that is indigenous-led, builds indigenous capacity and is well resourced to support indigenous prosperity and well-being. Access to external markets would be an important part of this work, including the need to back indigenous exporters as part of the recovery.

Such a strategy was not mentioned in the recent Speech from the Throne. Although we acknowledge the number of important renewed commitments made in the Speech from the Throne, I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment that there was no mention of efforts to support the economic empowerment of indigenous peoples, businesses or communities. This was a missed opportunity for the government to signal to Canadians that indigenous prosperity and economic reconciliation matters.

As this committee is aware, in order to support sound federal policy development and effective interventions during the pandemic and in collaboration with leading national indigenous organizations, including my colleagues here today, CCAB undertook a COVID-19 indigenous business survey, as was discussed in the last session, as part of a COVID-19 indigenous response task force. The goal of the survey was to understand the unique impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on indigenous-owned businesses in Canada, and to encourage the Government of Canada to support indigenous businesses through purchasing PPE from them.

As we dug deeper into our research, we found that indigenous women disproportionally bore the brunt of the negative affects of COVID-19. More indigenous women-owned businesses reported very negative outcomes to their business—61% of women-owned, compared to 53% of men-owned. Women-owned businesses experienced higher revenue drops as a whole—50% or more—compared to 36% of men-owned. In addition, Inuit businesses are most likely to have experienced a revenue drop of 50% or more, compared with Metis-owned and first nation-owned businesses.

The CCAB appreciates the indication provided to us by Indigenous Services Canada that they will fund a second COVID-19 indigenous business survey this fall, and a further survey in the spring of 2021, to assess the impacts that the first and second waves of COVID-19 have had and are having on indigenous businesses.

It is our hope that the results of both surveys will inform effective policy and programmatic interventions to support indigenous business recovery and, in turn, support indigenous prosperity and well-being. We welcome an opportunity to provide that data to you in the future.

During my last appearance before this committee on May 29, I pointed out that the unique circumstances facing indigenous businesses were not initially taken into account when forming the eligibility of CEBA or Bill C-14. That initially left many large indigenous-owned businesses ineligible for the wage subsidy. We appreciate that these gaps were remedied. However, we must not forget the additional burden the close to a month-long gap had on many indigenous businesses.

Furthermore, with an understanding that there were on-reserve businesses that could not access the programs available due to unique taxation and ownership structures, the government announced the distribution of $133 million to support those indigenous business. Analogous to the work currently being done to extend CEWS and CEBA and the remediation of the rent assistance program, investigation and consideration must be given to the extended needs of the same businesses that were not eligible for that funding.

I would like to underline that indigenous businesses have repeatedly told us that they are not in a position to take on any more debt.

I also mentioned in my last appearance that numerous indigenous businesses were prepared to readily provide supplies or equipment to meet Canada's medical needs and the capability to rapidly scale up or pivot production to PPE. CCAB and other organizations, as discussed earlier, have provided lists of such indigenous businesses to numerous federal departments and through the task force database, but only a small fraction of the over $6 billion of federal procurement contracts for PPE have been awarded to indigenous businesses.

An announcement on September 21 noted a total contract of $2.5 million to seven indigenous businesses. This represents only 0.04% of the federal spend on PPE, nowhere near the 5% commitment made last year in Minister Anand’s mandate letter and the Speech from the Throne. The commitment is a target of at least 5% of federal contracts to be awarded to indigenous businesses, and in the throne speech, a support of supplier diversity. The frustration on the lack of progress on this 5% target has been evident in our discussions with our members and at our public Business Recovery Forum on September 16.

I would like to leave you with this point for consideration.

Too often, indigenous business concerns are an afterthought, resulting in indigenous organizations such as CCAB, NACCA and Cando working to prove to government that their responses have not met the needs of indigenous people. There is no better example of that than PPE, as 0.04% of federal spend on PPE is not a genuine effort to achieve economic reconciliation. A reasonable starting point to support indigenous economic recovery would include procurement and infrastructure set-asides for indigenous businesses and communities.

[Michael Villeneuve, Chief Executive Officer , Canadian Nurses Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Good afternoon.

I would like to acknowledge the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples, from whose traditional lands I am speaking to you today.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for responding to CNA's request and extending an invitation for us to speak about Bill C-7. We are honoured and grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee in the Year of the Nurse and the Midwife 2020. I do not need to tell any of you that it has not been quite the year of celebration that we had planned.

I have worked in health systems for more than 40 years, and 37 of those as a registered nurse. I have had the honour of serving as the CEO of the Canadian Nurses Association since 2017.

CNA is the national and global professional voice of Canadian nursing. We represent nurses living across all 13 provinces and territories and in hundreds of indigenous communities.

Canada’s 440,000 nurses touch the lives of patients at every point of care constantly, and no provider has as much face time with the public, where these really complex, human moral issues arise. The transformative legislative and moral decisions being proposed carry huge impacts for nurses who are responsible to live with them and enact them in their practices every day.

Nurses are an integral part of the delivery of medical assistance in dying and it is vital that the committee hears their voices. We have acquired significant knowledge, perspectives and experience from nearly five years of MAID in practice and have valuable knowledge to inform the impending changes to the legislation.

CNA has been actively involved in work related to MAID for several years and was the key stakeholder when Bill C-14 was passed in 2016, as well as during the consultations in early 2020. CNA advocates for safeguards to protect the rights of patients and nurses, as well as for system-level changes, including better access to palliative care and accountability mechanisms. I will turn briefly to Bill C-7 now.

Overall, CNA believes that the federal government has listened to our initial feedback during the consultation phase earlier this year. We are pleased to see that some of our recommendations were included, such as the removal of the 10-day reflection period, removal of final consent for those who lose capacity and the amending of the legislation to allow for one independent witness.

Regarding the new stream for cases where natural death is not foreseeable, we heard from experts that the proposed safeguards are adequate and sufficient. We emphasize that legal expertise for updating MAID guideline documentation will be critical to ensure that all new items in the legislation are acknowledged and fully understood by patients and practitioners.

In general, while we're supportive of Bill C-7, we believe that further improvements and additional clarification in four areas would strengthen the legislation and provide better care for patients and legal protection for nurses.

First, CNA strongly recommends that Bill C-7 includes an additional five-year review period of MAID by a committee of Parliament.

Second, we recommend removing the wording that stipulates that the practitioner providing MAID does not know or believe they are connected to the other practitioner who assesses the MAID criteria.

Third, we recommend clarifying that practitioners can initiate a discussion on the lawful provision of MAID.

Fourth, we recommend clarifying the proposed “preliminary assessment” clause, which we find confusing and that is causing some concerns among nurses.

Furthermore, we strongly recommend that parliamentarians conduct as soon as possible the broader review of MAID to address important issues beyond Bill C-7.

In concluding, CNA would like to state its gratitude to the Canadian Nurses Protective Society, who has been an important partner in our MAID-related work. We submitted a written brief with more information, and I am glad to try to answer any questions.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this committee today.

[Michel Racicot]

Thank you.

First of all, when I talk about the most permissive regime, if you take the example of Holland, in Holland there is a requirement not only that some of the treatments be available, as it is in Bill C-7, but also that everything has been tried. This is not present in Bill C-7.

Secondly, on the other issue, I should say that on the reasoning of the court, I'm not saying that we're trying to appeal it, but the reasoning of the court was focused on ignoring two of the objectives of the law, which are still present in Bill C-7: the inherent dignity and equality of each human life and that suicide is an important problem.

As for what the court said—and I have the French version—the judge said that she could not recognize the first two objectives in affirming the value, because these objectives were stipulated in a manner that was too vague. She chose to ignore that, and she chose to consider, as the court did in Carter, that the only objective of Bill C-14 was to protect persons who could succumb to MAID in a moment of vulnerability. I think we need to take a look back at that decision and—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Racicot, if I could ask you one other question, you can answer both.

You said in in your submission, I believe, that Canada is looking like “the most permissible country in the world concerning MAID.” I'm giving you an opportunity to correct the record. I believe that as a lawyer you're probably aware that the Benelux nations allow medical assistance and dying for minors, as well as for situations where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. Neither of those two apply under Bill C-14, nor would they apply under Bill C-7.

Perhaps if you want to clarify the record in that regard...? Also, would you want to comment on paragraph 678 of the Truchon decision?

Thank you.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

There has been a lot of discussion about the consultations that took place. As somebody who has participated in them, I think it's important that the committee testimony reflect that there were 125 experts and stakeholders who were met with in a series of round tables that took place around the country with ministers and various parliamentary secretaries. There were also 300,000 people who submitted feedback via a questionnaire.

I also think it's important to put on the record that the testimony we heard today is very important and very critical, and the advocacy is being heard and being listened to. The statements that have been put on the record in the chamber, including at the committee, should reflect, as we all do as parliamentarians, that all lives are valuable, particularly the lives of persons with disabilities. What we need to reflect also is that pressure is never appropriate in terms of any coerced choice. If there is ever pressure that is untoward, it needs to be investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted.

I will ask Dr. Goligher a question and then I'll ask Mr. Racicot a question.

Dr. Goligher, I think you used the terms aiding and abetting a death. Just to reiterate, there are actually four protections with respect to conscience rights found in both the preamble and the text of Bill C-14, in the sixth to last paragraph, if I remember correctly, of the Carter decision, and in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, the effective referral regime was actually litigated at the Ontario Court of Appeal and was found to be constitutional.

I'm going to ask you to comment on another aspect, because you also mentioned the equality rights of persons with disabilities, and it's an important point. I've found another paragraph here where this actual issue was put to the court in Truchon, and the Truchon court found that by not changing the regime, the equality rights of persons with disabilities would be compromised, and section 15 would thereby be violated.

This quote is from paragraph 678:

The requirement at issue reveals a legislative regime within which suffering takes a back seat to the temporal connection with death. Where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the consent and suffering of the disabled are worthy only of the sympathy of Parliament, which has adopted a protectionist policy towards every such person, regardless of his or her personal situation. As soon as death approaches, the state is prepared to recognize the right to autonomy. This is a flagrant contradiction of the fundamental principles concerning respect for the autonomy of competent people, and it is this unequal recognition of the right to autonomy and dignity that is discriminatory in this case.

There is no doubt that discrimination is a live issue in this context, but in fact, the conclusion of the Truchon case was exactly the opposite of some of what we've heard today.

I was wondering if you could comment on that, Dr. Goligher.

[Dr. Stefanie Green]

Madam Chair, I think it's important to point out that Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 are very clear about protecting, respecting and supporting conscience rights, and certainly our organization is very strongly in support of that, but when people do not follow professional guidelines to do effective referrals, we're finding obstruction of access to care. What's happening is that patients and families are coming to us very late on, and that's where we get into the problem with the 10-day waiting and the loss of capacity. They come to us in a much more urgent situation.

Many of our patients are socially isolated. They may have been hospitalized for weeks. They may not have social friends or even the technical abilities to find access to care, and they are absolutely reliant on their caregivers to provide that information and provide a way for them to access better information and access to care. Without that possibility, they are simply locked out of this.

[Dr. Stefanie Green]

Perfect. I'm going to take the first opportunity to answer it. Thank you for the question.

Madam Chair, I would like to point out what I'm sure is clear among most of our members, which is that mental health as a sole underlying condition is not explicitly prohibited under Bill C-14. In fact, there have been cases in this country of people with mental health illness as the only underlying condition going ahead, qualifying for and proceeding with MAID.

That's not commonly achievable with naturally foreseeable death and we don't see it very often. It is obviously much more common for us to have already seen patients with both mental health illnesses and physical illnesses applying for and being found eligible for MAID and proceeding.

Of course, there are many people.... In that situation, it's up to the assessors and the providers to do the best job possible to ensure that capacity is still present. Mental capacity is always presumed to be present, unless it isn't. It's not uncommon in that situation for physicians and clinicians—who assess capacity in our patients all the time, every day in our offices, for all medical treatments and surgical interventions—to be able to distinguish between the two.