This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
David Lametti Liberal
In committee (Senate), as of June 28, 2021
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, create the following offences:
(a) causing a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent;
(b) causing a child to undergo conversion therapy;
(c) doing anything for the purpose of removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada;
(d) promoting or advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and
(e) receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.
It also amends the Criminal Code to authorize courts to order that advertisements for conversion therapy be disposed of or deleted.
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.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
That is a matter for debate. Let us let the member finish. He has 30 seconds.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, it is about the border and the $390-million cut. That is a fact. The Conservatives might want to try to hide from it, but to say that it did not have an impact in terms of the services that we can provide at the borders and we are concerned about smuggling, and—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Anthony Rota
It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on September 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-6.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker Anthony Rota
I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The member for London—Fanshawe on a point of order.
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the last vote, we heard a lot of qualifiers and they need to be yes or no. I would like a ruling on whether that is allowed and can continue. Clearly, members are not allowed to make speeches or anything else, other than to say yes or no. It needs to be made clear in the House and I would like a ruling on that.
The Speaker Anthony Rota
I thank the hon. member for her intervention. She is correct. Since the beginning, we have asked members to pronounce themselves in favour or against, not to debate it, give a long diatribe or any kind of speech on it, merely vote in favour or against. I hope that in the next vote, hon. members stand by those rules.
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Anthony Rota
Before continuing, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 43 minutes.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brampton Centre.
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, our government acknowledges that medical assistance in dying is a complex and deeply personal issue. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for his extremely hard work with respect to the bill. Our government has respected the court's decision and has made more than the necessary changes in the legislation.
The conversation around death can be an extremely difficult one in our society. We understand and acknowledge the deep feelings and emotions that arise when a loved one is suffering intolerably from an illness, disease or disability. To discuss a fundamentally moral issue such as this one, the need to consult with people was a necessary decision. Over 300,000 Canadians from all over this great nation and from different cultures, races, creeds and backgrounds were directly involved in the January 2020 public consultation process. Not only were these consultations vital, it was a strong call to Parliament as to how important this issue was for Canadians.
Initially, the minister, along with several other distinguished members, held round table discussions across Canada with over 125 experts and stakeholders. Furthermore, we have asked for a special extension to allow for a fruitful and powerful parliamentary debate on this topic. The debates that we as parliamentarians have had on medical assistance in dying since 2015 have been filled with emotion and passion, as a debate should be in the House. I am very pleased today to be part of this very important debate.
One of the great challenges of being a parliamentarian is not only having to reflect on our own moral considerations and carefully examining legislation such as the one before us today, but also to make decisions that fundamentally address Canadians and the changing moral landscape.
Today, I speak in support of the bill. I believe strongly in an individual's right to die with dignity and respect. The issue of moral integrity and an individual's right to autonomy must be protected at all costs. As many of my hon. parliamentary colleagues have noted in the debate, currently many Canadians are suffering intolerably. The tragedy is that death is the only way to ease such suffering in a number of these cases.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and quote the wise words of critical care and palliative staff physician James Downar, at the Toronto General Hospital, who stated:
I think it’s important to recognize that there are types of suffering that we do not have the ability to treat. There are dying patients who have a very low quality of life from their perspective, and sometimes only death would end their suffering.
In the bill, we also acknowledge the concerns about an increased risk where medical assistance in dying is provided to persons who are not dying in the short term. That is why we have proposed additional safeguards to ensure that sufficient time and expertise are devoted to exploring requests for persons whose natural death is not foreseeable.
As I mentioned earlier, medical assistance in dying is an extremely difficult topic. However, in consultation with our experts, the Canadian community and, more specifically, those individuals who are suffering from intolerable conditions, diseases and disabilities, the right to die with dignity and respect, as outlined in Bill C-7, must be protected at all costs.
I look forward to engaging with hon. members further on this very important topic.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would note that the government House leader was not in his seat. I was relying on him to maintain the comments and questions today.
I really appreciate the member's intervention. Is the member not concerned about conscience rights for individuals and organizations that provide end-of-life care?
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, our law acknowledges the conscience right of health care providers and the role they may play in providing medical assistance in dying. The amendment proposed in Bill C-7 has many changes to this effect. Our government will remain committed to working with the provinces and territories to support access to medical assistance in dying, while respecting the personal conviction of health care providers.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I have a simple question. Bill C-7 is very important, and all of the questions it raises are very delicate. However, right now, there are people who are expecting us and the federal government to pass legislation.
Does my colleague not agree that we could have used the five weeks during which the government prorogued the House to pass this bill and respond to the wishes of those who are waiting on the federal government so that they can take the next steps?