This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
This bill was previously introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session.
David Lametti Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member, who has spoken passionately about this matter. I heard you in the House in 2014 and now, and I thank you for that.
Someone in the House said that we should proceed with caution. Someone else, a very smart man in this room, said we did that in 2015, and people suffered.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, obviously this debate engages all of our emotions and often from both sides. We have heard the testimony that the member shared. I shared in my speech a story of a woman who had her life taken in very sketchy circumstances. It was at a hospice in Vancouver, where someone took that person's life and said it was based on a demand for euthanasia and that the testimony was based on her own notes, but there had been no consultation with, or awareness by, the local staff.
We struggle with cases that involve major concern, cases that exist on all sides of this issue. I hope that through the amending process we may be able to find some common ground.
The member spoke specifically about the issue of advance consent. I think we should have some mechanism in that advance consent section to ensure that there is contemporaneous consultation with the patient. We know of other cases in which someone gave an advance directive and then had their life taken while they did not want that to happen.
Is there a way to meet in the middle and have a requirement for some kind of contemporaneous consent, even in the context of an advance directive?
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Madam Speaker, this is one of those things that is hugely complex and affects everyone differently. We all have different approaches and different beliefs in this room about how we should approach this issue. I do not know whether we can find common ground. I think we found common ground or at least met in the mushy middle in 2015, and we let people down.
I salute the medical practitioners in this country who are assisting Canadians with end of life, whether it be palliative care or MAID. It is important that we see everyone's side to this situation and respect everyone's thoughts and beliefs. I have constituents on both sides of this issue.
I had a very bad joke I used in 2015 when we were talking about this. There is no yes or no. I said there are 50 shades of grey. Only a couple of people chuckled at that joke, and no one got it clearly in this room either.
It is one of those very complex issues on which people do not fall on one side or the other. We could ask 100 people and have 100 different perspectives.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.
Unfortunately, I will have to interrupt the member at some point. He will be able to continue his speech at a later date.
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Madam Speaker, all of the speeches in the House come from a great place. On my side of the House we value life, and that is meritorious. We have heard other perspectives that talk about ending suffering and that truly has merit, so I appreciate all of the speeches that have taken place on such an important topic.
I know members have gone over this, but just for clarity I want to go over the background for medically assisted suicide in Canada. The 2015 Carter case was a landmark decision for the Supreme Court of Canada. The previous prohibition for assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a unanimous decision, the court abolished the provision in the Criminal Code, thereby giving mentally competent Canadians who were suffering intolerably the right to medical assistance in dying when they had provided clear consent.
In June 2016, the first legislation on medical assistance in dying was passed in Canada's Parliament. In the recent 2019 Truchon decision, the Superior Court of Quebec considered the constitutionality and Quebec's requirements in accessing MAID. The plaintiffs in the Truchon case were suffering from grave and incurable medical conditions that were causing tremendous suffering and a total loss of autonomy. However, they had each been refused MAID under the legislation in Quebec and federally. Because they were not at the end of life for the Quebec legislation and federally, death was not reasonably foreseeable.
Madam Justice Baudouin held that “reasonably foreseeable natural death” in the federal provisions infringed the plaintiff's fundamental rights under sections 7 and 15 of the charter. The court declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional. In a surprising and, in my mind, incorrect decision, the government chose not to challenge this decision, thereby getting guidance from higher courts such as the Supreme Court. By not challenging this legislation, the Liberal government was admitting that the legislation the House passed was deeply flawed.
The court's decision in Truchon gave the government until March 2020, which is now in the process of being extended, to amend the legislation to remove the reasonable foreseeability of death criteria from the MAID legislation. Prior to the introduction of this bill, the government conducted a narrow consultation process, limiting its consultations to urban centres and online surveys.
The minister noted several times, in his address to the House, that the provisions of Bill C-7 were the result of this process. However, he will not share that consultation with Parliament. This lack of respect is disheartening, and counterproductive to open and meaningful dialogue. I wish the government would stop playing games with such important topics and share the information it has with this minority Parliament.
Given that there is a limited timeline, that we are in a minority Parliament, and that MAID legislation will be subject to a complete review this summer, I would have expected the government to take a limited approach. Rather, the government has chosen to take a very different approach. The legislation makes substantial changes to the MAID eligibility far and beyond what is required to the Truchon decision.