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.
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned mental illness quite a bit, however, he did not go into a lot of detail.
Does the member believe that if someone's sole underlying condition is mental illness, they should be able to receive MAID?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question, although I think that was the full focus of my speech, the contention that people whose sole medical condition is a mental illness should not be eligible for MAID at this time.
We absolutely need to consider this. It is a very complex issue. We need to consider it much more thoroughly than we have the ability or capacity to do at this time in response to the Truchon decision.
I would refer the member to my speech. We will happily consider the matter very rigorously as we go forward.
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Madam Speaker, my Liberal colleague's position is quite fair. We in the Bloc Québécois also agree that those whose sole medical condition is a mental illness should not be included in this bill.
This is such a sensitive matter, I think it is important to send a clear message that we are capable of moving forward in our reflection.
We must not sweep this under the rug because that would be dangerous, as my colleague, the member for Montcalm, has already said. We need to be able to get ahead of this, rather than waiting for the courts to tell us what to do.
Aside from looking at what Quebec is doing, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how we too can start proactively reflecting on this.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, we know that part of the original legislation for medical assistance in dying provided for a review at the five-year mark, and we are coming up to that time. It is very important we exercise that opportunity to look deeply into questions of this kind and canvass them very thoroughly, because it is, as the member noted, a very serious and delicate question. It is very complex.
We need to examine all aspects of it, as well as the other aspects of medical assistance in dying, to make sure that as we move forward we can adapt and move forward correctly on this very important bill.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I found this was a very challenging speech. I appreciate the member's thoughtfulness in approaching the issue, which this bill does not touch. It is important to confirm for Canadians that, in looking at the new version and the amendments, mental illness is not to be considered an illness within the context of medical assistance in dying.
Does the member think that we will evolve our understanding of certain kinds of mental illness? It seems to me that he is suggesting that we may in fact revisit this topic in the future.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, yes, I absolutely believe the proper place to deal with this question is during the more fulsome review that should be forthcoming. It is certainly my understanding that mental illness, as a sole underlying factor, would exclude a person from the regime of medical assistance in dying.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Madam Speaker, I was glad that the member brought up mental health conditions. He was very attentive to the language being proposed in this legislation and how we would deal with it going forward. This piece of legislation goes much further than Justice Baudouin mentioned in her judicial decision where she struck down section 241.2(2)(d) specifically on death being reasonably foreseeable. I do not have a question for the member. I just want to bring this up and hear his commentary on it.
“Reasonably foreseeable” was something I criticized in the last Parliament when this was being debated. I could foresee this exact situation in which different reasonable people could interpret it in very different ways. We already see this going on all over the country. Different provinces have interpreted it differently in their health systems. I want to hear the member's commentary on that.
In this debate so far, people have mentioned incurable diseases. The minister mentioned it as well. Three of my living kids have an incurable disease called Alport syndrome. It leads to a chronic kidney condition, and in the case of males, it will eventually require a kidney transplant. In most cases it is also associated with the underlying risk of depression and social isolation. It is incurable today. That does not mean it will be incurable tomorrow.
Diseases change and their statuses change. Things that were incurable 100 years ago and were considered lifelong conditions change over time as medical technology catches up. Our knowledge matches the necessity of the time we live in. That is my commentary on the member's speech.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, my understanding on this bill regarding a trajectory for an immediately foreseeable death is that, in some cases, the requirement has been reduced, but in other cases, it remains in place. It depends on the nature of the person's underlying condition.
I certainly look forward to what I am sure will be a robust debate on medical assistance in dying when the review happens. I had the honour to participate on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when the original bill was brought forward. I certainly recognize some of the questions we are dealing with now we also dealt with then, and we did the best we could. It is very helpful that in light of experience and court decisions, we can review those decisions. It is a great opportunity, as we move forward, to embrace fully the upcoming review.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the commentary that I have heard from my colleagues about this very significant issue today.
One of the things I remember doing in a past life is working with doctors on “do not resuscitate” orders. It became very difficult for doctors, whose oath it is to save lives, to have this type of discussion. They would do anything to get out of a “do not resuscitate” order. They did not want to touch it or undo it, because they were ending up with all sorts of complications with family members and relatives. All sorts of different things would happen with this type of situation.
Does my hon. colleague feel the legislation would protect mental health with what is basically a “do not resuscitate” order in a different language?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to first note that medical assistance in dying and a “do not resuscitate” order are fundamentally vastly different concepts.
In any event, I believe the checks and balances that are currently in the legislation around mental illness will prevail as we go forward, because this bill would not extend medical assistance in dying to people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. That is an important distinction and it is a very important one to consider fully and robustly as we go forward. I refer all members to the opportunity that will present itself as we review the totality of the medical assistance in dying regime at its legislated juncture.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to be joining the debate today, from my riding, on Bill C-7. I find myself in a unique position because, having given a speech on this very same bill earlier this year, I see we now find ourselves still at second reading for what, I would argue, is absolutely the most important piece of legislation we have before us at this time.
I was also one of the members of Parliament who had the honour of participating in the previous debate on Bill C-14 during the 42nd Parliament. I can remember very much the debates that went on in 2016 and the amount of attention that was given to that piece of legislation. We had an expert committee. We had a special joint committee. There were many hours spent, both in the House of Commons and at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on that important piece of legislation because it made a monumental amendment to the Criminal Code in recognition of a very important Supreme Court ruling that forced Parliament to finally take the necessary action.
I remember, during that time, we in the New Democratic caucus ultimately voted against Bill C-14, but we always took the time to explain to people that we were ultimately supportive of what the overall aims of the bill were. Our major problem of the time was that the bill was too restrictive. I remember very well in 2016 referencing a particular section of the bill that I knew would be challenged by the court. Lo and behold, here we are in the year 2020, and we are revisiting that problematic section and having to fix a mistake that was made very clearly four years ago.
It is good to see Bill C-7, and it is good to see that we are complying with challenges that were made before the courts, this time coming in response to the Truchon decision by the Superior Court of Quebec. I know that we are operating under quite a tight deadline. That being said, I still think Parliament has to do a full job on this bill. As parliamentarians, whether we support the legislation, have problems with it or are opposed to it, we owe it to the people of Canada to give this debate as full a discussion and time as Bill C-14 had.
At this time, in particular for the benefit of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, it is important to underline why we are here discussing this. It really centres on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, notably sections 7 and 15.
I am increasingly seeing section 7 as probably the most important part of the charter or one of the most important parts, because so many cases seem to be coming forward that directly reference section 7. I know it it is open to interpretation, but if we go along with successive court rulings, my own personal view on the subject is that it is a very important section because it is ultimately making the case that every person in Canada has the right to autonomy over their own body. That is why it is such an important section. If we truly believe in the rights of individuals to make decisions for themselves over what goes on with their own bodies, section 7 is incredibly important. It is really life, liberty and security of the person. That is the part that has to be underlined.
We also have to mention section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees quality before and under the law and makes sure people are free from discrimination. Why those two sections have such an important bearing in this case is that this bill is trying to make sure people have the right to say what goes on with their own bodies and that in making that decision they are not going to be discriminated against.
I have been listening to the debates on Bill C-7, both from the previous week and today. I acknowledge that many members are bringing forward some concerns with the bill, and I understand and want to validate those concerns. I do not believe we have to make the debate on Bill C-7 an overly partisan issue. That is why I made the comment at the beginning that it is important that all members of Parliament, no matter what party they belong to, be given the chance to fully air their views.
I believe the bill passes muster at second reading and deserves a vote of confidence at this stage of debate, because if there are particular sections of the bill that need further attention, that work is best done at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
I fully understand that many members have raised concerns about the removal of safeguards. I have heard many members talk about the state of palliative care in Canada, whether there is enough being done with suicide prevention and so on, and I am very sympathetic to those. I think every member of Parliament, no matter what part of the country we are fortunate enough to represent, can relate to those concerns. We can relate to the concerns that we have received through email correspondence, letters, phone calls and speaking with our constituents face to face.
I am lucky enough to have a hospice undergoing major construction right now. There is a new hospice being built in the Cowichan Valley. I am really glad to see that the level of palliative care in my home riding is going to be significantly better than it was, but of course more can always be done.
Ultimately what is guiding me in this is that it is quite impossible for me, as a member of Parliament who is lucky enough to have his health and not have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, to really understand the level of suffering some individuals in Canada go through. When we are talking about the bill, the struggle we have before us is to not subject other people to our own values, whether those are guided by religious beliefs or the way we were raised and so on. It is quite impossible for people who are healthy and lucky enough to have all of their faculties to understand what the day-to-day life existence is of people who are suffering from one of these incurable and irremediable medical conditions.
Therefore, what is guiding me and members of the New Democratic caucus is an overall goal of trying to ease that suffering, to respect those people's section 7 rights and to understand that they should have the ability to live their lives in dignity and make a determination as to how they want to exit this world. I know it is an uncomfortable debate for many people to have, but that is what is going to be guiding me through these deliberations. I hope it is something all members can take note of.
Following on the speech my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, gave the other day concerning the legislative review that was part of the former Bill C-14, I want to draw the attention of members to the fact that this was a requirement of Bill C-14. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has put forward a proposal through his private member's motion, Motion No. 51, that will establish a special committee to look at how the legislation is doing. That is something Parliament can easily do while we are deliberating the provisions of Bill C-7. The creation of such a special committee to look at how Bill C-14 has been enacted over the last four years is really important.
This goes back to my first point that, yes we are operating under deadlines, yes we have had people waiting for some time, but, ultimately, it is critically important that we let Parliament deliberate this issue to the fullest extent possible.
With that, I conclude my remarks and look forward to any questions my colleagues may have.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
October 19th, 2020 / 5:25 p.m.
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize that, at times, inside the chamber some very difficult debates take place. However, the importance of this legislation cannot be underestimated. Over the last number of years, through consultation, through a court decision, we have come to this point, and I think we are on the right track.
The member made reference to palliative care, and a number of members have made reference to the importance of palliative care. I wonder if he could provide some further thoughts in terms of how the federal government's role in palliative care could make a difference in terms of quality of life for seniors across the country.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will first acknowledge that the delivery of health care services does fall under provincial jurisdiction, but that being said, I have always been an advocate for a strong, federal leadership role in health. After all, we do have some control over health policy through the Canada Health Act.
The real opportunity for the federal government is to make sure that every part of Canada, no matter what province someone finds themselves residing in, has access to the same kinds of standards nationwide. I think that is the real strength of the federal government. It is to make sure that someone living in Prince Edward Island can access the same level of care as someone in my beautiful province of British Columbia.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciated what the member had to say, and I am especially excited to hear that he has a new hospice being built in his riding. However, I am sure he is aware that 70% of Canadians have no access to palliative care right now. It is contravening in my mind to think that we are somehow saying to people that they have this choice and here is another choice, but, truthfully, one of them does not exist.
As well, I am sure the member is aware that the Delta Hospice has lost its funding and is losing the ability to run the hospice on the basis that the government has said that it must provide euthanasia along with palliative care, yet the Canadian Society for Palliative Care Physicians has indicated that these are antithetical and totally separate. I am wondering if he is aware of what is going to be happening with the hospice that he just mentioned being built in his own riding.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have been very fortunate to have a good working relationship with the team that has been behind the Cowichan Hospice over the last number of years. Of course, our community is absolutely overjoyed to see the project moving ahead and seeing that it is going to be such an important part of going forward.
In the 42nd Parliament, the House passed a motion expressing that more palliative care was needed. However, when it comes to the difficult decisions that are made over where the funding goes, I would draw the member back to the importance of individual rights as outlined under section 7. Ultimately, our focus needs to be on patients and ending unnecessary suffering, which is why I drew such importance to section 7 when it comes to these important decisions.