This bill is from the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in August 2021.
David Lametti Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the 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.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-7s:
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Madam Speaker, I might have difficulty answering that question. I certainly enjoy the member. I must say he is one of my favourite parliamentarians with his ability to ask questions.
In response to that question, the time for action is now. I would concur that, unfortunately, the current government does have some challenges sometimes with the follow-through of its great words, as the member's leader would say.
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Here we are on December 8, 2020, only 10 days away from a deadline imposed on Parliament by the Quebec Superior Court from the Truchon decision. The Liberal side of the House is suggesting that perhaps it is the fault of members of the Conservative Party for delaying progress on this very important topic. I take exception to that.
How did we come to this point in the first place? Our leader spoke this morning and he raised this topic, and so I am just going to repeat some of what he said. First of all, there was the failure of the current Attorney General to appeal this decision of the Quebec Superior Court. It is a lower court. In my opinion it was a wrong decision, and it should have been appealed, first of all, to the Quebec Court of Appeal. We would have had the benefit of the wisdom of that bench. Subsequently it should have been appealed, like all important constitutional issues, at the Supreme Court of Canada. I have the deepest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitutional expertise and scholarship that has come out of that court. The Attorney General has missed that opportunity to be able to engage the Supreme Court of Canada in the discussion on this very important topic.
Parliament, as our leader said, is the top court of the land. We are sovereign. We can make and unmake any laws that we want, provided that they are within the four walls of the Constitution of this country. That is the dialogue that we should have had with the Supreme Court of Canada. That, sadly, will not be happening on this topic.
The second very important point is prorogation. We had been making good progress on Bill C-7. We were talking about this back in February and March already. Prorogation happened, and the debate had to go right back to square one. How is that our fault? Why did the Liberal government decide on prorogation? It was not for any good policy considerations. It was strictly for political considerations, so we are not going to wear that. The Liberal government is going to wear that.
Another point that I would like to raise is that if Bill C-7 reacted in the narrow way that the Truchon decision required, this debate would be much shorter and faster, but the government has decided to take the opportunity to expand the debate. The Liberals are suggesting that we are disrespecting the Truchon decision and the Quebec Superior Court by raising these issues. We are not the ones who are raising the additional issues; it is the government in its Bill C-7 that is doing so. If Bill C-7 was just about the Truchon decision, then it would not be talking about removing the 10-day reflection period. The “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2019”, just recently published by Health Canada, has told us that, of the 7,336 MAID applications in 2019, 236 of the applicants changed their minds during the 10-day reflection period. Obviously, that 10-day reflection is there for a purpose. It is serving that purpose very well. Why would we be removing that?
Furthermore, Bill C-7 has introduced the concept of advance directives and, consequently, the elimination of contemporaneous consent by the person who is asking for the medical assistance in dying. That would be shifting the final decision away from the person receiving medical assistance in dying to the person who would now be going to apply it. We are no further ahead. I do not think that is an improvement.
Then, there is the other requirement, removing the second witness. What is that about? Why is that so important? There are so many legal documents that require two witnesses, wills for example, to make sure that there is not coercion on the part of people who might benefit. In the case of wills, the beneficiaries of the will might benefit. It is a long-standing legal principle that two witnesses be required. These changes are significant, and disability groups across the country have told us so loudly and clearly.
Of the many groups that appeared before the committee hearings, not one of the disability groups was in favour of Bill C-7 and the removal of these protections. That is why we are at an impasse in this eleventh hour.
Mr. Neil Belanger, executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, commented on a newly released document entitled “In Plain Sight”, commissioned by British Columbia's minister of health, the Hon. Adrian Dix, to review indigenous-specific racism in British Columbia's health care system. Although it is a review of B.C.'s health care system, the principles in it would apply right across Canada. Mr. Belanger and the group that he represents are concerned about the proposed removal of safeguards. He said:
There is no debating the systemic racism and discrimination within Canada’s health systems, and the experiences and deaths of Indigenous peoples when seeking care. We all would be remiss to believe that this somehow would not permeate into MAID.
He went on to say in his testimony before the Senate committee that:
...the Government of Canada has failed to engage the Indigenous peoples of Canada living with disabilities, Elders, and Indigenous Leadership in relation to MAID on any tangible level. This lack of engagement is contrary to the government’s stated commitment to reconciliation, UNDRIP, and the CRPD.
Other disability groups are saying the same, yet this government is refusing to listen. Mr. Belanger takes this a step further. He and the organization for which he speaks advocate sticking with the end-of-life criteria already in place after the Carter decision and after Bill C-14, which was the well-considered opinion of Parliament just four and a half years ago.
Recently, when Mr. Belanger's organization presented to the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs on Bill C-7, he said that:
[BCANDS]...stands with our sister disability organizations and countless others across Canada in calling for the removal of Track 2 in the proposal changes to Bill C-7, and limiting access to MAID to the end of life criteria...
Track 2 is medical assistance for those people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.
People may state the obvious: that this is all water under the bridge and that the Truchon decision said that it is unconstitutional. To go back to my original comments, that decision should have been appealed, and it was not. I am going to have to tell Mr. Belanger that the debate has been had already. This government has sadly treated as a settled constitutional principle that it is unconstitutional for any law of this country to refuse medical assistance in dying to those who meet all the other criteria, but are not dying.
This is a fundamental shift that was not debated. This government has stated on many occasions that it had broad consultations and 300,000 people responded, but the one question it never asked was if people agreed that medical assistance in dying should be given to those whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. The fundamental question was never asked. That is not a true consultation, in my opinion. It is a pretext for advancing a legislative agenda that had been preconceived. It has been said on several occasions in the House during this debate that the current Attorney General voted against Bill C-14 four years ago because it did not address that, and did not expand MAID to that point. This is the current Attorney General imposing his will on Parliament and forestalling that very important debate.
The first report by Health Canada on the state of medical assistance in dying stated that roughly 2% of Canadians in 2019 used medical assistance to die. That is the average across the country, but it is much lower in some provinces. It is the average in Quebec and far above the average in British Columbia.
Why is that? Is it because there are more sick people or old people—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The member will have to complete that thought during questions and comments.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
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 believe the bill we are debating reflects a great deal of effort on the part of the Supreme Court of Canada and its decision five years ago, the Superior Court of Quebec, tens of thousands of Canadians and hundreds of hours of debate inside and outside the chamber in the form of standing committees and so forth. From what I understand, it has the support of the New Democrats, the Green Party, the Bloc and the Liberals. We know it is not an issue of process, and I would counter any false argument presented by the Conservatives that it is. Rather, the Conservatives do not want this bill to come to a vote because they believe it should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Would the members opposite be transparent with Canadians and make it very clear that this is the real reason why they are not supporting the legislation?
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Madam Speaker, the real reason we are not supporting the legislation is because it does not provide adequate protection for the disabled. It is not just members from the Conservative Party stating that, but many disability groups that have come to committee to represent the opinions of their members. This is a broad discussion across all of Canada.
Why is the Liberal government not listening to those real concerns? We have offered reasonable solutions and amendments. The Liberals are turning all of them down. It seems they have predetermined what the outcome will be. They are not listening to the debate.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues for the very thoughtful and compassionate speeches and the different perspectives I have heard. One issue I have not heard anybody speak about today is that Bill C-7 creates a waiver of final consent for those already assessed and approved for assistance who fear the loss of competence before their chosen date. This is colloquially referred to as the “Audrey Parker amendment”.
Audrey Parker was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer that had metastasized to her bones and caused a tumour to grow on her brain. She spent the last weeks of her life raising awareness about these challenges. She was worried she would lose competence and be unable to give her final agreement because of the influence of the cancer on her brain, and she ended her life prematurely. I do not think that is what anybody wants. We want people to live their full lives. We do not want anybody exercising their right to MAID before they would otherwise want to, because of a legal requirement.
Does my hon. colleague have any comments on that part of the bill?
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Madam Speaker, I have to admit that the Audrey Parker argument is very compelling. Nobody wants Canadians to die earlier than they should.
I believe the best argument against the Audrey Parker principle, as it is sometimes referred to, is that last year alone, and we have hard evidence of this, 263 people changed their minds during that 10-day waiting period. I recognize that even under Bill C-7 there is an opportunity for people to change their minds if they are still cognizant. If not, then somebody else makes the decision. Mrs. Parker probably would have signed that document, but ultimately it is the doctor who has to make the final decision as to whether or not to administer the lethal injection. That doctor might wonder if she is one of the 263 people who would change their minds. Why is it the doctor's decision?
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
December 8th, 2020 / 1:50 p.m.
Madawaska—Restigouche New Brunswick
Liberal
René Arseneault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)
Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate on Bill C-7, having myself been a member of the joint committee behind Bill C-14.
I heard my colleague say that he has the utmost respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. I would remind him that we cannot talk about Bill C-7 without first talking about Bill C-14, since Bill C-7 is the logical and natural continuation of Bill C-14. On top of that, the Supreme Court of Canada, in which my colleague has great confidence, issued a unanimous ruling in Carter.
Is it not entirely reasonable to keep to the Carter decision, for example, since the Truchon decision addresses in some ways the gaps in Bill C-14, to accept that Bill C-7 finally closes the loop of the Carter case and Bill C-14?
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Madam Speaker, that question gives me an opportunity to distinguish between the Carter and the Truchon decisions. I have the greatest respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. There is great scholarship coming out of there.
The Carter decision underlined the importance of a scrupulous regime of protection and safeguards for the disabled. Truchon did not undermine that, so there is no contradiction there. It is this Parliament that is contradicting Carter.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, earlier this morning, the leader of the official opposition began today's debate with a strong speech about the problems with Bill C-7 and how the government has been handling it. He started by saying that it could be the most important bill before this Parliament, regardless of how long it actually lasts. After all, we are discussing a matter of life and death, and the decision we make here will make all the difference for countless Canadians.
These are people who will be making their own choices, which will directly impact their own lives, their legacies, their loved ones and their caregivers. It is a choice they might not have expected to ever have to make, whether because of a sudden illness, the unrequested suggestion of assisted suicide or some other reason. Anything could happen, which is why we have to maximize the protection and safeguards there will be for each person involved, especially for those who are most at risk of abuse and neglect.
At this last stage of debate in the House of Commons, I want to focus on the choice, or in some cases the lack of choice, a person might face. Some argue we are seeking their best interests by expanding access to MAID, not only for the relief of suffering but also purely for the sake of free choice.
On the idea of choice, we have to remember this is not an ordinary decision. Someone's death, premature or otherwise, is literally a point of no return. The decision is final. With all the circumstances leading someone to consider the end of their life, it gets complicated very quickly.
To explain it from someone's lived experience, I will quote journalist Ben Mattlin, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. He wrote the following in the New York Times:
I’ve lived so close to death for so long that I know how thin and porous the border between coercion and free choice is, how easy it is for someone to inadvertently influence you to feel devalued and hopeless—to pressure you ever so slightly but decidedly into being “reasonable,” to unburdening others, to “letting go.”
Perhaps, as advocates contend, you can’t understand why anyone would push for assisted-suicide legislation until you’ve seen a loved one suffer. But you also can’t truly conceive of the many subtle forces—invariably well meaning, kindhearted, even gentle, yet as persuasive as a tsunami—that emerge when your physical autonomy is hopelessly compromised.
Despite Mattlin's significant physical disability, he is a father, a husband, an author and a journalist. He has a successful life and he knows what he wants. He is less vulnerable than others who lack the confidence and spark he has, who could easily be persuaded that assisted suicide was their best option.
The idea of this happening voluntarily is, in many subtle ways, the start of a slippery slope that leads to it happening less voluntarily, or involuntarily. The choice is not always so free, especially if real alternatives are lacking. One of the greatest fears a lot of people face in their lifetime is their own mortality, and in a lot of breadth that is what we are discussing here today.
When I talk about Bill C-7, when I talk about facing our own mortality, I often reflect on the experiences my wife and I have had, when grandparents and other loved ones within our family have passed away. We have spent countless hours at their sides, either in the hospital or in their care home. The time spent with one's family is so precious and valuable.
Within the last year, the health of my wife's grandma deteriorated. Her husband had passed away a few years prior, and she had been living in, I think, level 1 care for most of COVID. We were not allowed to go into the facility and had to stand outside the building. She had a nice corner unit with lots of windows, so we were able to observe her condition and speak to her through the window.
Over the course of time, we watched her state of mind and physical state deteriorate steadily and progressively. Her state degraded to the point that she could not lift her head when we came to the window to talk to her. She could not see who was there.
When the restrictions were lifted and one or two people were allowed into the unit, my wife was able to sit beside her grandma, hold her hand and tell her that she loved her. To see her state improve, and to be able to lift her spirits, was so powerful.
I think that as we are having this discussion on Bill C-7, we especially need to ensure that we value life and that we are giving people every option to live their lives. We should also have the opportunity to have our loved ones at our sides as we go through the final moments and face the ultimate end of our mortality, the end of our life.
We need to make sure that people have full supports as well. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I note that one of the biggest parts of Bill C-7 is the need for palliative care. I have talked at length previously about the need for it to make sure we are providing real choice and real options to people so they have all the options they need and, quite frankly, deserve.
The vast majority of people who are being considered under Bill C-7, or who will consider MAID, are in our senior population. When we look at the contributions they have made to our society, these are the people who built our country. These are the people who have provided us with the freedoms and opportunities we have. However, here we are discussing a bill, which we will be voting on in the near future, that basically signals to them that we do not value their lives and do not value the contributions they have made to this country. That is what the bill signals.
I know people will argue that this is not what the bill is doing, but sometimes it is not about what the bill directly does, but what it is going to do indirectly. The moment we signify to our country, to our citizens, that we inherently do not value and defend life to its fullest extent, we are sending the wrong message to people.
I realize that people who advocate for Bill C-7 and medical assistance in dying are doing it from a position of compassion. I will never question somebody who says that is the reason they are advocating for it. However, we also need to realize that part of a compassionate response to people who are at that point in their life—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I apologize, but the member will have two and a half minutes to finish his speech after Oral Questions and five minutes of questions and answers.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the third time and passed.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I will try to pick up where I left off. I believe I was talking about compassion and how that is being shown to Canadians, in particular as it pertains to how we look after our senior and aging population.
Particularly in Saskatchewan, this is becoming an increasing problem. In 2015, StatsCan did a survey, and what it found out was that as we go forward, and I think it is in eight-year increments, our population is going to age about 4% to 5%, over and over, in that time frame. Again, our population is continuing to age.
We can look at our palliative care strategy and the infrastructure that exists, and see that we are at a deficit going forward. We are spending all this time in Parliament going over Bill C-7, as the government has decided to make its priority figuring out how it can reduce the criteria so that people could have expanded access to medical assistance in dying. This is basically why advocacy groups are saying that this legislation more or less amounts to assisted suicide. That is a message that we do not want to be portraying to Canadians, particularly as we look at many areas of the country that are under a suicide pandemic in its own right.
We need to be sure we are sending a clear and concise message to Canadians that we are focused on providing life-affirming care and life-affirming support. We do not want to give Canadians the impression that we have just kind of given up, and that instead of providing life, we are going to provide the option for death. I find that a very dark path for the government to be going down.
Again, we need to make sure we are sending the right message to Canadians, that we cherish all life, and our focus will solely be on the life and well-being of Canadians.
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
Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of palliative care and long-term care, and of ensuring, by making the statement every so often, as I do, that all life is of equal value. That is something I truly believe.
The legislation that we have before us today is a reflection of many hours of discussions and debates. Tens of thousands of Canadians provided input. The Superior Court of Quebec made a decision. It is reflective of other decisions that were made previously.
This legislation seems to have the support of the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party, the NDP and, obviously, the Liberal Party.
Could my friend just provide his thoughts in terms of the amount of dialogue that has taken place and the amount of support, at least from political entities in the House? Could he provide his thoughts on why he believes we should be moving forward with this legislation?
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of support for maintaining some kind of a framework around Bill C-7. In particular, we want to see the framework for ensuring we save the protections in the legislation. Some of those protections have been removed.
The member also talked about how tens of thousands of people were consulted on this, but there is one group in particular that received zero consultation: disabled persons in Canada.
One of the primary objections that myself and numerous other people have is what it has to do for people with disabilities and what it is signalling to them.