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.

Justice

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are frustrated that my colleagues and I have been so diligent in vocalizing the concerns of disabled Canadians and medical professionals in regard to Bill C-7. However, the Liberal government ignored its own legislation to review Bill C-14; held the House hostage in May and June; prorogued Parliament in August; limited the justice committee to four hearings, blocking written submissions; and chose not to appeal the deadline imposed by the Quebec superior court.

Why does the Prime Minister not want to create legislation that shows compassion for all Canadians?

Government Programs

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that Bill C-7 strives to ensure we have a regime that protects vulnerable persons with adequate safeguards, and all the time respects individual autonomy and competence.

With respect to supports for persons with disabilities, this is something that the minister and the entire governmental team has been working on diligently. We will continue to hear those voices and those calls for support, and we will continue to work to deliver that important support.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Truchon decision has caused a lot of real worry for people living with disabilities in Canada.

In the wake of that decision and the changes to medical assistance in dying, we have to ensure that all Canadians with disabilities have enough resources to avoid the terrible choice between a life of poverty and suffering or premature death.

Yesterday we called on the government to establish a bold new income support program that would lift all Canadians living with disabilities out of poverty.

Will the government work with us to deliver that support to people with the same urgency it gave Bill C-7 instead of repeating the unacceptable delay we saw with the emergency one-time payment earlier this year?

Business of the House

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we applaud the government House leader's acknowledgement that you will soon be celebrating the first anniversary of your election as Speaker, and I echo his sentiments.

However, I vehemently disagree with what he said about our parliamentary work. With respect to Bill C-7, we have followed parliamentary rules. Our work has been rigorous and thorough. Parliamentarians never filibustered in any way, unlike Liberal MPs who filibustered systematically in every committee where they faced ethical questions related to WE Charity.

With respect to Bill C-7, if the government had not prorogued Parliament this summer, we could have immediately continued our work, since it was at second reading. If that had been done instead, we would have had at least 25 more sitting days than we have now.

If we are rushing to meet a court deadline, the Liberal government has no one but itself to blame.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, if the Conservatives stop filibustering and allow a stand-up vote on Bill C-7, then next week the government expects to call the following bills: Bill C-8 on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94; Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation; and Bill C-13 on single-event sport betting.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you because December 5, two days from now, marks one year since the House elected you and placed its trust in you. You oversee House proceedings fairly, impartially and with dignity. Thank you on behalf of all members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Monday will be the last supply day for the financial cycle ending on December 10. At the end of that opposition day, we will proceed with the consideration of and votes on the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (B).

I would also like to mention that, on Monday, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development will give a ministerial statement to mark the 50th anniversary of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

With regard to legislation, tomorrow we will resume debate on Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. We are in this position because our Conservative friends continue to filibuster the passage of this important bill. I get the impression that they do not really care about the deadline imposed by the Quebec Superior Court, which I think is unfortunate.

If the Conservatives stop filibustering and allow a stand-up vote on Bill C-7—

International Trade

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

Pursuant to an order made earlier today the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will resume consideration of Bill C-7 at report stage under government business.

Persons with Disabilities

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I remain confident Bill C-7 is the right approach for Canada now. It would advance the interests of individual choice and autonomy in medical decision-making. If an individual determines for themselves that they are suffering intolerably and make a voluntary request for MAID as well as receive all the information they need to make an informed decision, including being offered alternative treatments and services, I believe we owe it to them to respect their decision.

At the same time, it would ensure requests from the newly eligible, whose death is not foreseeable, would be handled with great care and attention, with the input of experts and time to identify and explore other treatment options. We trust practitioners will do more than the minimum standards set out in the safeguards in all appropriate cases.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, as members of the House well know, there are few issues as complex and as personal as medical assistance in dying. Medical assistance in dying forces us to reconcile many fundamental values: equality, respect for life and individual autonomy. We accept that reasonable people can disagree on the best way to achieve balance in respect of all the implicated interests and values.

As a government, we must make choices on behalf of Canadians that we believe are the right ones for each individual and for all of us collectively. Bill C-7 reflects our best assessment of sound policy that is constitutionally valid. We believe it is consistent with the views of most Canadians who participated in our consultation processes. We further believe it is responsive to many of the concerns and recommendations of numerous and varied experts whose opinions were shared in round tables, expert panel reports, academic articles and other sources.

We certainly know some members of the House believe the safeguards in the existing law reflect a more appropriate balance. We respect these differences of opinion. That is what we are here to do. We are all here to reflect the diversity of views of the Canadians we represent. However, we believe our chosen course of action is the correct one. It is the product of deep reflection and significant consultation, and puts the interests of each individual at the centre of their own medical choices.

We remain committed to the removal of the 10-day reflection period for persons whose death is reasonably foreseeable. We heard over and over again that this safeguard does not provide the protection it was intended to and that instead it aggravates these already difficult situations.

We are also committed to the proposal that would enable those whose death is reasonably foreseeable to make arrangements with their MAID provider for a waiver of final consent in the unfortunate eventuality that they lose their capacity to consent to MAID before the scheduled day. Without this change, some who are found eligible will choose to die sooner than they want, depriving themselves of precious remaining time with their families, rather than risk losing the option to die by their preferred manner of death.

While we understand the ethical and philosophical concerns with the idea of administering MAID to persons who are no longer able to consent, the practical reality of those who wish to spend a little more time with their families is of prime importance. Any expression of resistance would put a stop to the administration of MAID. This is clear in the bill. All that would be permitted is for the practitioner to carry out the person's own clear and precise wishes as to the date and manner of their death.

I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage my colleague to help us limit the unnecessary suffering of Canadians and help us ensure this important legislation receives royal assent prior to the December 18 court deadline.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity tonight to address the government's very irresponsible and dangerous legislation, Bill C-7. This is the government's effort to expand euthanasia and to remove many safeguards that people in the disability community, as well as experts, have said are vital.

The government prorogued Parliament limiting debate and now is rushing through this legislation. We are hearing many concerns from people across Canada and even from people in the government's own caucus. The member for Richmond Hill said he supports leaving in place the 10-day reflection period, but it is not just members. There are actually ministers who have concerns about the impact that the legislation will have on people with disabilities.

I want to read a quote from the minister whose responsibilities include disability inclusion. The minister said, “I absolutely acknowledge and am quite preoccupied by the power imbalance between practitioners and patients, particularly patients who have been in systems that have discriminated against them and ignored their voices their entire lives. I have grave concerns with the particular circumstances of the individual that you spoke of. Quite frankly, I can tell you, he is not alone.” The minister further said, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child, in and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.”

We are hearing concerns from people in the disability community, reflected by the minister, that already people with disabilities, when they are having interactions with the health care system, are getting proactively proposed and encouraged toward euthanasia. They are even told if they reject those pushes, they are being selfish. This is very concerning.

We have heard from the disability community how this bill would enshrine in law discrimination against people with disabilities. It would create a situation where a person without a disability who is experiencing suicidal ideation might be offered suicide prevention, but a person with a disability who presents with the same challenges and sense of existential angst would be offered suicide facilitation, and in fact, encouraged in the direction of euthanasia even if they have not asked for it.

Conservatives proposed reasonable, common-sense amendments to try to leave in safeguards. They are safeguards we know members of the government caucus would actually support if they were given the freedom to vote their real convictions on this.

We proposed amendments to leave in place a 10-day reflection period. That reflection period can already be waived, but as a default, we think a reflection period makes sense so that we do not have same-day death and we do not have people who make the request and die the same day. That is why a reflection period, which can be waived in certain circumstances but is provided as a default, is important.

We have proposed that people be asked on the day they receive euthanasia whether or not they want to go through with it. Right now with the mechanism for advance requests that the government has put in place, there is no requirement that patients would be consulted on the day they receive euthanasia.

We propose specifically an amendment that the Minister of Disability Inclusion seems to support, even if the Minister of Justice does not. It is an amendment that requires that it be the patient who brings it up, not the physician, so that someone does not go into the hospital, a person with a disability, and get told they should think about taking their life. If that conversation is going to happen, it has to be the patient who starts it.

These are reasonable, common-sense amendments and the government rejected 100% of the common-sense Conservative amendments. They were not just Conservative amendments. They were amendments put forward by experts, by people in the disability community and by people who have been ignored in the government's rush to move this forward after it prorogued Parliament.

This is an issue of life and death and of how we respect people living with disabilities, how we recognize and ought to affirm the value and dignity of all human life, and the fact that people living with disabilities ought not be pushed in one direction, which people who are able-bodied are not.

That is what is in front of us and I implore all members of Parliament to look at the details, consult their own conscience, consult their own constituents, maybe even talk to members of their own caucus who have concerns, and support common-sense—

Health

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 does not strike the right balance, and in fact, those diverse voices the Prime Minister has been talking about have said that: disability groups, indigenous advocates, physicians.

In fact, the Prime Minister can just ask his Minister of Employment. Last week, she told the Senate she agreed with the concerns being advocated by disability advocates, Conservative MPs and many other Canadians for weeks.

I want to thank the government for providing more time for us to speak on this issue, but I want the Prime Minister to heed the advice of so many Canadians. Let us make the changes that protect the most vulnerable in medical assistance in dying.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to hear the voices of Canadians with disabilities and ignores the input of physicians. A growing list of doctors from every province provided a strong statement, with over 1,000 signatures, for the study of Bill C-7, so I was shocked when I learned the following. Medical assistance in dying has been deemed an essential service under the Canada Health Act, yet palliative care has not.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that this is a big problem?

Justice

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus that the government's latest MAID bill lacks safeguards and puts persons with disabilities at risk. Witness after witness said this at justice committee. We heard from disability advocates who say this bill is unfair to persons with disabilities. Krista Carr, of Inclusion Canada, described it as “our worst nightmare.” I am sure many Liberal members are also concerned about the gaps in Bill C-7.

Will the government allow a free vote among Liberal MPs so they may vote against this flawed bill?

Persons with Disabilities

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, this week at the justice committee, Liberal MPs, incredibly, rejected all amendments to Bill C-7 to protect the vulnerable.

In its reckless rush to ram through this shoddy bill, why is the government ignoring the pleas of virtually every national disability rights organization, more than 1,000 physicians and other important voices for vulnerable and marginalized Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, during the justice committee hearings on Bill C-7, Minister Qualtrough admitted that it is easier to get—