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:
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, the second petition raises serious concerns about Bill C-7, including the government's plan to eliminate the 10-day reflection period. The petitioners are also concerned about the government's plan to allow suicide facilitation for those struggling with mental health challenges.
Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth
Madam Speaker, I unfortunately need to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-22—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
The Speaker Anthony Rota
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 19 by the member for Fundy Royal concerning the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
During his intervention, the member said that a CBC article posted online at 8:47 a.m. on February 18 described the details of Bill C-22 although it had not yet been submitted to the House. The member referred to the contents of the article, which he said discussed a number of the measures contained in the bill and boasted about the reliability of its sources. The Chair notes that the article had already been updated by the time the issue was raised. To be clear, with regard to this ruling, the Speaker considered the initial version of the article, which was published at the time of introduction and first reading of the bill.
After reviewing a series of precedents on the issue, the member said he also believed that the Minister of Justice's actions were contemptuous and that he had ignored the will of the House.
In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands informed the House that the office of the Minister of Justice had not shared the contents of the bill with the CBC journalist before its introduction. The member explained that he believed that the ministers' mandate letters sometimes allowed journalists to deduce the contents of bills on notice. After reviewing the contents of the article in question and comparing it with Bill C-22, the member argued that the article was sometimes inaccurate and even incomplete. In his opinion, the article was written by using a government source who was not familiar with the contents of the bill or by making conjectures based on previous policy statements. Finally, the member for Kingston and the Islands, basing himself on a ruling made on June 8, 2017, said that it is a prima facie case of privilege in such cases when the government admits that the leak occurred, but not when the government does not acknowledge a leak. In this case, the member stated that if the contents of the bill were disclosed prematurely, the government was not responsible.
As the member for Fundy Royal pointed out during his intervention, it is a recognized principle that the House must be the first to learn the details of new legislative measures. That is why both government bills and private members' bills are confidential from the moment they are put on notice until they are tabled in the House. Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 19, 2001, which the member for Fundy Royal mentioned, provides a good summary of the importance of respecting this rule:
The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.
That being said, when the Chair is called on to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, it must take into consideration the extent to which a member was hampered in performing their parliamentary functions and whether the alleged facts are an offence against the dignity of Parliament.
In the case before us, an exhaustive review of the intervention by the member for Fundy Royal does not reveal exactly which aspects of Bill C-22 were supposedly shared with CBC for the article in question, nor did the member point out any similarities in language between the article and the bill to demonstrate that precise details of the bill were apparently disclosed to the media in a deliberate and premature fashion. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out inaccuracies in the article and differences from the bill.
When it is determined that there is a prima facie case of privilege, the usual work of the House is immediately set aside in order to debate the question of privilege and decide on the response. Given the serious consequences for proceedings, it is not enough to say that the breach of privilege or contempt may have occurred, nor to cite precedence in the matter while implying that the government is presumably in the habit of acting in this way. The allegations must be clear and convincing for the Chair.
As well, I believe it is important to mention that the distinction that the member for Kingston and the Islands wishes to make between questions of privilege that are a prima facie case of privilege and those that are not—simply because the government admits or does not admit that a leak has occurred—is not that clear. While there is indeed a well-established practice that a member must be taken at their word, the fact remains that the government's stating that it is not responsible for the premature disclosure of a bill is not in itself sufficient to convince the Chair. I would add that the source of the information is one factor among others and that it is important first and foremost to determine whether precise details were provided before the House was made aware of them. The Chair must thus take into consideration all the information before it and reach a conclusion based on the facts presented by the members.
The two precedents most like the current situation to which the two members referred are those that my immediate predecessor and I rendered with respect to Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. In these two cases, in light of the facts presented, it was clear that the information had been shared with the media before the bills were tabled in the House. In the case of Bill C-14, the Government offered no competing explanation. In the case of Bill C-7, it was clear that the anonymous source had spoken with the media despite the fact they were well acquainted with our customs and practices in the matter. That is not the case this time with Bill C-22.
Thus, in this case, in light of what has been presented, the Chair is not convinced that the question of privilege raised by the member for Fundy Royal is a prima facie case of privilege.
I thank the members for their attention.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, my fifth and final petition raises significant concerns about Bill C-7. It objects to how the bill would remove a 10-day reflection period. The petitioners are also deeply concerned about the fact that the government is now trying, through a Senate amendment, to legalize suicide facilitation and euthanasia for those facing mental health challenges. I am sure they would want to highlight to the House that our focus should be on helping people with mental health challenges find recovery, not facilitate their death. I commend all five of these petitions to the consideration of all members.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, citizens across Canada, including constituents in my riding, have been writing me to express their horror at the Senate amendments to Bill C-7. Canadians affected with mental illness want hope, not death. Why is the government opening the door for their untimely death rather than providing legal protection and hope?
Medical Assistance in DyingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
February 26th, 2021 / 12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, the third petition is in opposition to many of the provisions in Bill C-7. The government has piled many things into that bill that are completely unrelated to the Truchon decision. Those things include, for instance, removing the 10-day waiting period, which would create a mechanism by which there could be same-day death in Canada.
The government is now also trying to allow euthanasia for those with a mental health challenge. Petitioners recognize that mental health associations have said that mental health conditions are neither terminal nor permanent, and euthanasia for people in that situation goes against the advice and opinion of experts.
Medical Assistance in DyingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
February 25th, 2021 / 10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the final petition expresses grave concern about Bill C-7, the government's decision to try to remove safeguards, to open the door to euthanasia for those who are facing mental health challenges and to do so in all these policy areas in ways that are completely unrelated to the Truchon decision.
The petitioners call on the government to amend or stop this bill and, in particular, to remove those aspects of the bill which are completely unrelated to the Truchon decision, which, frankly, is most of them.
I commend these four petitions to the consideration of the House.
Medical Assistance in DyingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
February 25th, 2021 / 10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am presenting today regarding Bill C-7 is of prime importance, especially given the bill's amendments concerning mental illness and protecting the disabled in Canada. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support measures to protect human life, as all human life should be regarded with a great deal of respect, from inception to natural death.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you ask, you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, this evening, after Private Members' Business, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), and when no member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the debate be deemed adjourned and the House deemed adjourned until the next sitting day; and during the debate tonight, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, the material change here is that we are now 24 hours closer to a deadline induced by the Superior Court. There is a material change, and given that change, consideration should be given by all members to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, this evening, after Private Members' Business, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)—
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I would like to ask for unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, this evening, after Private Members' Business, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), and when no member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the debate be deemed adjourned and the House deemed adjourned until the next sitting day; and during the debate tonight, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
I was—
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I would like to ask unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Orders, special order or usual practice of the House that (a) after the deferred recorded divisions scheduled later today and the completion of introduction of government bills during Routine Proceedings, the House shall proceed to Government Orders and continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying); (b) when no member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the debate will be deemed adjourned and the House deemed adjourned until the next sitting day; (c) during the debate tonight no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair; (d) Private Members' Business hour shall be suspended later today; and (e) the Private Members' Business item currently number one in the order of precedence shall remain for the next sitting day and not be rescheduled.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, this evening after Private Members' Business, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), and when no member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the debate be deemed adjourned and the House deemed adjourned until the next sitting day; and during the debate tonight, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Speaker, I want recognize the contributions by the member for Montcalm to the debate and to the justice committee during the study of Bill C-7 as well as Bill C-14.
With respect to the Conservative position, it is one of a free vote both on Bill C-14 and Bill C-7.
I did oppose Bill C-14, because I had some significant concerns at the time that it did not go far enough to protect Canadians who are at risk, and we have seen evidence of that. We heard from witnesses to that effect, including Roger Foley, who was pressured into undertaking medical assistance in dying, because his health care workers determined that he was too much of a burden. I think that case illustrates the fact that Bill C-14 did not provide sufficient safeguards to protect the vulnerable, and the legislation before us does away with them almost entirely.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, I have heard my colleague make many interventions on this issue. He took part in the clause-by-clause review of the bill and he is very eloquent.
However, the Conservatives voted against the former Bill C-14. According to my colleague, this bill contained an unbelievable safeguard, but Justice Baudoin declared it unconstitutional. The Conservatives also voted against the current Bill C-7.
Am I wrong to say that the Conservatives' position is that palliative care is the only acceptable option for end-of-life?