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.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-22

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the recent premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Yesterday, the CBC posted online, at 8:47 a.m., an article that outlined details of Bill C-22. Bill C-22 was introduced in the House later that morning. The article outlined several measures contained in the bill, including amendments to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the elimination of several mandatory minimum penalties. The article also boasts a reliance on sources, not unlike in the case I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, on another matter of privilege almost one year ago.

On February 25, 2020, I was on my feet in the House defending the privileges of the House on the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). In that case, The Canadian Press posted an article that disclosed the details of the bill before it was introduced in the House and after the bill went on notice.

On March 10, 2020, Mr. Speaker, you came back to the House with your ruling. You said:

First, based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House.

The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one’s intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.

As everyone knows, the Department of Justice, unfortunately, has a history of leaking the contents of government bills. On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found that there was a prima facie case of privilege regarding Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). At the time, he said:

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

Another question of privilege was raised on March 19, 2001, regarding, once again, the Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill before members of Parliament. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken said this at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government’s discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. 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.

The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, once again involving the Department of Justice, which does not seem to learn, after it briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House.

We are being asked once again to deal with the contemptuous actions of the Minister of Justice and his justice team. We have had countless rulings from the Speaker. The House has expressed itself on numerous occasions. We have had three debates and extensive committee studies.

The message is crystal clear, yet the responsible minister continues to draft bills and then leak those bills to the media, ignoring the will of the House. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find a prima facie case of privilege, and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, my colleague wants to know what the legislative agenda will be for the next few days.

Tomorrow morning, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-14, which would implement certain provisions of the economic statement. In the afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then, Monday and Wednesday of next week, we will continue the debate on Bill C-19. On Tuesday, we will consider Senate amendments to Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying law. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, February 25, will be an allotted day. On Friday that same week, we will begin second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms act.

I thank my colleague for his question.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition raises concerns about some of the provisions in Bill C-7. In particular, it echoes the concerns of people in the disability community that Bill C-7 increases vulnerability and focuses on pushing people who are disabled toward death instead of providing them with the means and support to live their lives. The petition also raises concerns about same-day death: the possibility that someone could request and receive euthanasia on the same day as a result of the elimination of the 10-day reflection period. The petitioners want to see that reflection period left in place.

I commend all three of these petitions to the consideration of members.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the third petition is respecting Bill C-7, the government's bill that seeks to dramatically expand euthanasia, or medical assistance in dying, in Canada. Concerns have arisen, especially from the disabled community, about how some people are eligible for suicide prevention, whereas others, as a result of their physical disability, may be subject to suicide facilitation. All disability communities that have spoken about this issue have raised significant concerns about it. Petitioners call on the government to restore important safeguards, which it is proposing to eliminate as part of this bill.

I commend these three petitions to the consideration of the House.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, our day-to-day commitment and what we have achieved so far in this Parliament mean that we can honestly say that the Bloc Québécois caucus is reliable and proud.

This strong, heartfelt preamble to the main topic of my speech will help my colleagues better understand the scope of my comments and recognize the amount of time I spent poring over Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, which was tabled in the House on December 2 by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and came before the House this morning. To summarize, this bill outlines and gives details about some of the measures announced by the federal government in the speech that the minister gave when presenting her economic statement aimed at supporting Canadians and fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

Members will recall how long the government waited before bringing this bill before the House for an in-depth study. In fact, in December, the government did everything it could to fast-track the study of Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, which was being systematically blocked by the socially conservative fringe of the Conservative Party. Everyone has their own battles to fight. I will not say what I think of these petty delaying tactics that put the interests and fundamental rights of hundreds of our fellow citizens in peril. Unfortunately, these people must wait for the government to legalize a situation they have considered carefully and an important decision that they want to make calmly, rather than witness an interminable, agonizing debate dragged out for crass partisan reasons.

To return to my speech, this bill, short as it is, makes major changes to several existing laws. I hope that these changes will contribute significantly to effectively advancing the welfare of all of our constituents. The Bloc Québécois does not take this approach lightly. If the government introduces a bill that makes sense and that is in the interest of Quebeckers, we will support it. However, the government must demonstrate that the bill is neither partisan nor pandering to particular groups, which is what we have been seeing for far too long from the Liberals, even in a minority government.

As everyone knows full well, and as the Bloc Québécois reminds the House on a daily basis, the Liberal Party has in its DNA an outrageous obsession with centralization that undermines the spirit of the Constitution that it shoved down Quebec's throat in 1982. Our NDP colleagues have always blindly followed the Liberals' lead in this matter. They act like the Liberals' lackeys, always eager to gather the crumbs that their masters leave behind in exchange for an ideological promiscuity that changes with the political winds.

To get back to Bill C-14, the government intends to amend a wide range of existing laws, enhancing them in some cases, but in an unfair way, as the Quebec governments of the past six decades would agree.

Regarding the best interests of Quebec taxpayers, most of the legislative amendments proposed by the Liberal government to the tax laws will have little or no effect on the current situation in Quebec. In fact, by amending the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the government is merely confirming the soundness and relevance of Quebec's student financial assistance program, which was established by Daniel Johnson Sr.'s government in the late 1960s. Premier Johnson was only continuing the work of the Lesage government, whose most imposing and important figures were undoubtedly Paul Gérin-Lajoie and René Lévesque.

Quebec offers one of the best student loan and bursary programs in the western world. This extraordinarily progressive approach has made our researchers, engineers, thinkers and numerous creators famous the world over, all thanks to the excellence of our university network.

Take, for example, my alma mater. The Université du Québec à Rimouski is internationally recognized for its marine acoustic research and the number of world-renowned researchers it has doing cutting-edge research on ecosystems like the unique, majestic St. Lawrence River. The same goes for Université Laval, the Université de Sherbrooke, the Université de Montréal and McGill University for medical and pharmaceutical research. Quebec ingenuity continues to grow. It is because of the student funding program developed by the Quebec government that we can be proud of the major breakthroughs in the medical research that is so important to us today.

During this devastating pandemic, I know that my counterparts in other provinces understandably envy Quebec for the prominent place that our researchers, scientists and doctors have on Canada's team.

For decades, the Quebec government has stood up to the federal government and demanded that Ottawa respect Quebec's constitutional prerogatives. The pride of a people gives rise to the significant benefits and advantages that forge a true nation.

If the government wants to make up for the weaknesses in its legislation concerning financial assistance for students in the rest of Canada, it should consider fair compensation for young Quebeckers who are treated well by Quebec, but not so well by the federal government. It is a simple matter of fairness.

Speaking of fairness, I would be remiss if I failed to mention a fundamentally unfair aspect of the government's action during the pandemic. Despite the billions of dollars in financial support that were announced and given to the Prime Minister's friends and family, we know that those who have clearly been the most unfairly and personally affected by COVID-19 are seniors, that is, our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, if we are lucky.

It is unfortunate that the government has once again failed our seniors, when they are the ones whose financial situation has seriously deteriorated because of the many protective measures put in place for them by the various levels of government. I am very concerned about the fact that, apart from a single lump-sum payment last summer, the Liberal government failed these people who came before us and literally built a society of which we can be proud. To me, that is a slap in the face to an entire generation who, it seems to me—

COVID-19 Emergency Response

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

Mr. Speaker, today is Human Rights Day in the House, and we will soon be voting on the third reading of Bill C-7.

Whatever the outcome, the debate on that bill has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt the urgent need for Canada to respect the rights and dignity of people living with disabilities.

It is in that spirit that I hope, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that, in the opinion of the House, in the context of a medical assistance in dying regime that does not require a reasonably foreseeable death, it is more important than ever that the government provide the resources Canadians with disabilities need to live with dignity; and therefore the House call upon the government to properly fund services, like home care and palliative care for people across Canada; and ensure that people living with disabilities have an income that keeps them above the poverty line, including by transitioning people living with disabilities who currently qualify for federal, provincial or territorial disability income support or pension program to a federal benefit of $2,200 per month.

Justice

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7, which amends the Canadian framework for medical assistance in dying, is the result of a detailed consultation process involving over 300,000 Canadians, including health care professionals, people with disabilities and caregivers. The deadline set by the courts to pass Bill C-7 is quickly approaching.

Can the minister explain why it is so important to all Canadians for the government to meet the deadline set by the Quebec Superior Court?

Physician-Assisted Dying

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

The first is a petition from citizens who are concerned about Bill C-7's further removing safeguards from the current euthanasia regime. They are calling on the House of Commons to restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose death has been determined to be reasonably foreseeable, restore the original requirement that a person must give consent for the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed, restore the original requirements for the signature of two witnesses, require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable a person to access life-affirming services and accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying refusal or resistance to administration of physical-assisted death.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is with respect to Bill C-7.

Specifically the petitioners would like to restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be reasonably foreseeable and to require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to review their suffering, other than physician-assisted death.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is on Bill C-7.

The petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada return the safeguards it has removed specifically related to the 10-day reflection period and the number of witnesses, so someone is properly consoled and consulted.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is to ensure that safeguards are put into the deeply flawed Bill C-7.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the House of Commons to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable in our society when it pertains to Bill C-7, medical assistance in dying.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about Bill C-7, medical assistance in dying.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons. Some of the reflections are restoring the 10-day reflection period, restoring the original requirement that a person must give consent and restoring the original requirement for the signature of two witnesses, among other things.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions to the House today.

Many Canadians were shocked to see that in the middle of a pandemic, while the government takes months to fix bungled support programs and provide our hardest-hit industries with the support they need, their government was more focused on pursuing an ideological agenda than actually helping Canadians.

The first petition I am presenting addresses Bill C-7.

The petitioners recognize that the Canadian government should invest in palliative care and support for people with physical and mental disabilities and should seek to preserve life rather than end it. They also recognize that the current MAID safeguards in place are necessary to protect people with disabilities and those who cannot consent from having their lives prematurely terminated.

The petitioners are asking the House to preserve the necessary safeguards for euthanasia that are in place to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are protected.

Justice

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Superior Court ordered the government to fix the MAID legislation by December 18, but Bill C-7 has stalled.

The Liberals prorogued Parliament for six weeks. They have only themselves to blame if time is running out. Still, it is appalling that the religious right is holding our work hostage. Vulnerable people who are suffering are waiting.

Will the government ensure that Bill C-7 is passed in time, without a gag order, and does the government think the Conservative leader should call his fanatics to order?