Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

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.

Criminal Code

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very troubled by what the government says and what it does. It puts preambles up on websites, but does not include them in its bills.

I put something on my Facebook that said, “If it's not in the bill, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, there is cause for concern.” We have heard that concern on this side of the floor, as the official opposition, from groups across the country. If the Liberals truly mean what they say, they need to ensure those safeguards are in the bill. They should go the extra mile to say that they truly care about the vulnerable and make it their priority. Right now, no way are Canadians hearing that from the government.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, a member stated earlier in question period that it was members of the faith communities who were holding up the bill, that they had an agenda. In my observations, throughout the committees and hearing the witnesses, although faith-based communities have been involved, primarily the disabled and indigenous communities have been sounding the alarm on the legislation.

I was hoping the member could comment on how incredibly inappropriate it is to try to cast aspersions on the motivations of vulnerable people who are just trying to stand up for their right to live.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is very disconcerting when it drops to that level. I guess that shows desperation.

That being said, the reality is this. We all have faith. My faith may be very different from someone else's, but whatever we do in this place is motivated by who we are and what we have entrenched in our lives through the relationships, exposure and perspectives we bring to this place. I am honoured to be here for who I am. We are in the House of Commons. We represent the sense of Canada across the nation, all our different regions and perspectives. It is an honour for me to stand here and represent the people who came to us for help on this issue, people with disabilities—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, I have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-7. I want to recognize the very real and legitimate challenge here and the difficult questions that were raised by the Truchon decision, which declared that the reasonably foreseeable death criterion for accessing medical assistance in dying goes against the charter and is null and void. When we talk about the deadline in December that we are working toward, we are talking about the moment when the court decision will take effect and the criterion, regardless of whether Bill C-7 passes, will take effect. At that point, reasonable foreseeability of death will no longer be a condition for accessing medical assistance in dying.

That raises a lot of difficult questions. It raises a lot of questions about the nature of human dignity. Of course, one thing to consider in the long-standing debate on medical assistance in dying is the dignity provided to people who are experiencing severe suffering and know that it is not going to get better. There is a sense of autonomy that comes from being able to choose their own time to go and the conditions under which they go.

There is another really important side to human dignity, and we have heard some other members speak to it already today. It is the dignity of those who choose life and want to choose life. They have to know that in so doing they have the resources and the respect for their human rights to make that affirmation of life and to choose to go on.

I want to take some time to recognize that, for people in the disability community in Canada, this debate comes in a very difficult context. It comes in the context of decades of neglect and inadequate resourcing and support, and a recognition of the barriers they face in trying to live a full life and realize their potential. It comes in the context of the pandemic, during which there have been conversations about how to allocate scarce resources and a real worry, on the part of people living with disabilities, that decision-makers might not value their lives in the way they value the lives of others, which has to be scary.

When they looked for reassurance that the government had their backs and understood these concerns, what they saw over the first number of months of the pandemic, about six or seven months, was a lot of heel-dragging on a commitment to make a simple one-time payment to support people with disabilities regarding the added costs and difficulties of the pandemic. I can understand why that does not engender a lot of confidence that the government has their backs and understands their real concerns.

In light of the Truchon decision, the long-standing neglect of people living with disabilities and the heightened sense of urgency given the pandemic, I can definitely understand how this has become such a charged issue and understand the very strong feelings that people, especially in the disability community, are facing. They do not want to be faced with the terrible dilemma of having to choose between a life of poverty and suffering on the one hand and a premature death on the other hand.

There are certainly members in the House speaking today to one side of that dilemma, which is wanting to ensure that people are not forced into a premature death. However, I put it to the House that we cannot do that if we are not willing to address the other side of the dilemma, which is to recognize the overwhelming number of people in Canada living with disabilities who are forced into a life of poverty. There are a number of people living with disabilities who have managed to overcome a whole bunch of barriers to get gainful employment and support themselves and their families, and that is a wonderful thing. That is what I wish for all people living with disabilities for whom that is a possibility.

However, we also have to recognize that many people with disabilities are not going to have a full-time job just like everybody else. There are barriers that simply will not permit that. That is why we see such a high number of people living with disabilities on various kinds of social assistance plans and other kinds of income support programs.

Those programs have been totally inadequate for allowing the people who depend on them for their income to live with dignity. When we talk about dignity, it is really important that we talk about this, human rights and the importance of recognizing that people living with disabilities have rights and deserve to live in dignity. It takes resources to do that.

I really want to take the time to put the emphasis on that side, because the court has made a decision about whether a reasonably foreseeable death can be part of the criteria for medical assistance in dying. The government chose not to appeal it. I cannot change the government's decision on that. The NDP cannot change the government's decision on that. However, what we can do is try to add to and take on the sense of urgency the government has had in getting this legislation through the House when the House has been sitting.

I take the point. There is some real legitimacy to the point that, as we all know, we could have had more time in the House to consider these questions. When members talk about the effect of prorogation on House time, they are quite right about it. We have seen some urgency from the government regarding the legislation, but we need to see that same urgency for putting the supports in place for people living with disabilities so that the overwhelming majority of people living with disabilities are not forced, by virtue of being on some kind of income support plan, to live a life of poverty.

That is why I was proud, as the NDP's disability inclusion critic, to write, alongside the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, the government last week, calling for it to institute one national disability income support program that would cover people who are already receiving income support under the auspices of a disability program, whether it is through the provinces, the territories or the federal government. We want to set that at a rate of $2,200 a month to recognize that $2,000 a month is a reasonable standard, which many in the country recognized during the pandemic. It is not easy for everyone, for sure, but it is a reasonable standard of income. We have seen a larger consensus than ever on that.

We also need to recognize, as we did when the Canada emergency student benefit was established, that people living with disabilities do face additional costs. There was a differential for students living with disabilities. They were paid a little more in recognition of those additional costs. I think that $2,200 a month would accomplish that and would make sure that no matter where people in Canada, they have some kind of basic income that would allow them to put a roof over their head and get the basic necessities of life. Valuing life cannot just mean “not death”. It has to mean providing the resources for people to really live a life they value and that they feel allows them to meet their full potential.

That is not just a question of income. It is also a question of getting very deliberate and focused about an employment strategy to change the attitude of many employers who do not have experience with people living with disabilities. We can educate them about what they can do in the workplace to make it more friendly to people living with disabilities. It will help overcome some of those barriers and change attitudes in society generally.

It is also about supports, like investments in good public housing where rent is geared to income, so those who are not high-income people can still afford to be in good housing. It is about investing in good transportation options so that people living with disabilities who are not able to own or operate their own vehicle still have good options to get around the city. This helps with employment, but it also helps with socializing in times when we are able to do that.

If we want to talk about the value of life, these are things we not only have to talk about, but have to do. We have to do them with the same sense of urgency that the government has put on passing this legislation. I am very much looking forward to doing things in that urgent way, and the NDP will continue to push for this.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had the honour of listening to the member's father, a very long-standing and esteemed member of the House, when he spoke at my university about the intersection between faith, social gospel and the founding of the NDP.

In the context of this debate, it was raised by a member in question period that those of a faith-based perspective who might be opposed to this legislation are so-called religious fanatics. I would like the member to talk about this and affirm that people who have a faith-based perspective on legislation such as MAID have a legitimate point of view.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the comments made earlier in question period are helpful for the debate. This is a difficult issue, and it is rightly a difficult issue. It is one of the most important issues, and it is a fundamental existential issue.

People bring their faith to the debate. That does not mean everyone is going to agree. We know that not everyone in the Christian community, for example, agrees on this point. There are people of faith who are proponents of medical assistance in dying, just as there are people of faith who are opponents of medical assistance in dying, and there is just about every position in between.

The important thing is to stay focused on the issue at hand and not to get into ad hominem arguments. I know there is often a temptation for that in politics, but particularly for issues like this, it is important to avoid that temptation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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, there is one concern that I believe has a lot of legitimacy, and it would be nice to see some further dialogue on it. It is with regard to palliative care. Depending on where one might live in the country, whether it is urban or rural, there is a great deal of difference in obtaining palliative care.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona is very much aware of provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction, so I am interested in hearing his thoughts about what he believes the national role should be on the issue of palliative care. If he could go beyond the idea of providing money, I would very much value his opinion.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for raising the issue of palliative care. I want to take a moment to recognize the very good work of the member for Timmins—James Bay over the years on that very point. There was a motion he helped the House pass that called for a national palliative care strategy. When I talk about according to other issues the urgency the government accorded to Bill C-7, this is one of those issues. That motion passed a long time ago now, and we have not seen that kind of action happen.

We need to get moving on these things. It is the lack of action on those things that people in the disability community and other vulnerable communities look at, and it is part of why they worry. The government and people in politics have words about these things, but we need to show that we can pass to action.

We need to do that when it comes to palliative care. We also need to do it when it comes to things like pharmacare and dental care. We must ensure that everyone, regardless of their employment status or their income, has access to those things as part and parcel of valuing life. We need to create supports for people living with disabilities that will allow those who want to choose life to have a life in which they can flourish and live with dignity. I believe that is most people.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for working with me on the proposal we sent last week to the government for a national income support program for people with disabilities that would replace the patchwork of programs across the country managed by the provinces.

I wonder if the member could comment on what he thinks the premiers' reactions or provincial governments' reactions would be to a federal national income support program for people with disabilities.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think most members of the House are aware of the fact that provincial governments have been struggling a lot as a result of the pandemic. They have asked in many cases for additional transfers of funding that do not have any conditions attached.

The federal government is the government with the most financial wherewithal, and this moment, when the medical assistance in dying regime is changing, gives an even stronger added sense of urgency to the need to support people living with disabilities. This means freeing up some room in the budgets of provincial governments that currently have income support programs for people with disabilities so they can spend on other priorities.

I would hasten to add this should not be a replacement for the non-income supports that are provided for housing and transportation. This would be a quick way to put some money back into the pockets of provincial governments while raising up the level of support for people living with disabilities, no matter where they live in the country. That is one of the virtues of this proposal.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was just wondering if the hon. member is not concerned about the two classes of citizens the bill would create. The first is if they are able-bodied Canadians, then suicide prevention measures would be given to them at their first request. The second is if they are disabled Canadians on their worst day and they are attempting suicide, then they would be provided with MAID.

Is the member not concerned about the two streams and the two classes of citizens that we would be creating with the bill?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I see the member's question as an opportunity to highlight a provision of the bill that I do not think has really been talked about in the context of the debate in this way.

I have heard Conservatives say that they are worried that the 90-day period is not enough for people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. However, that waiting period is the waiting period that would apply to people living with disabilities whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, Bill C-7 would add something that will not be there if we do not add it by passing the bill by the deadline. We could have a case where a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, but who meets the other criteria, could get access to MAID a lot more quickly than if we pass Bill C-7 before the deadline.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's comments are always very thoughtful and well considered, so I really appreciate that.

The issue around dignity of life centres very much on people's ability to support themselves and the issue around income. To that end, with regard to the proposal for a new program from the government to support people with disabilities, what sort of response has the member received from the government on this proposal?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, to date, we have not received a response. We sent the letter in about the middle of last week.

What we do know from the government is that it had a vague commitment in the Speech from the Throne to a bold new disability income support program. We are trying to fill in the blanks. Oftentimes, we see the current government, on other issues, make promises without a lot of details. Characteristically, New Democrats are interested in the details and how we would get it done.

That is why we proposed a number, we proposed a way to do it and we proposed what the advantages of doing that would be in terms of making sure that it does not depend on what part of the country people live in or what their level of income support is as a person living with disabilities. It is a way to put money back in the hands of provinces at a time when they desperately need it, and it is a way now to make sure that if they do need income support as a person living with disabilities, they are not forced below the poverty line. If we look at the rates that are paid across the provinces and by the federal government, it is not enough to make it. It is just not enough and that has to change.

When we talk about valuing life, about people choosing life and about not forcing them into a dilemma between premature death on the one hand and poverty and suffering on the other, it has to mean an income that does not keep them below the poverty line. That absolutely has to change and that is the real crux of that proposal.

We are hoping that the government will see that proposal as a good way to implement its own promise. If the Liberals have another idea, they had better hurry up and share it because this needs to be addressed with the same sense of urgency as this bill has been pushed through the House.