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

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. It is fair to acknowledge that we are living in very difficult times. COVID-19 has left an impact on not only Canadians but across the world. That is the reason we had to take a pause and really reflect on what we had learned since March or early February, when we became aware of this pandemic. We did that and we did it effectively.

We came back with a very strong Speech from the Throne that talked about mental health. We also now have the opportunity to reintroduce bills such as Bill C-6 and Bill C-7.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as the first speaker at second reading from our caucus on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy, formerly Bill C-8 before COVID-19 changed our model here and we lost a few months on this legislation.

I am honoured to stand in the House of Commons today to provide some comments and feedback on the bill and at times a personal perspective, as we all share a common goal to eliminate the harmful practice of conversion therapy across Canada.

I want to start on a personal note about the debate in this chamber. In the last few weeks many colleagues have stood to ask questions and offer commentaries in the debate around Bill C-7, on medical assistance in dying. As I mostly watched that from my office on television, I want to commend members on the tone and the civility of the debate. The questions and the debate going back and forth have been very civil, constructive and very worthy of the House and the debates that we hope to have similarly on a piece of legislation such as this.

I want to acknowledge the work of the provincial partners, as the minister mentioned in his comments, that did work in provincial jurisdictions before we were dealing with this piece of legislation in Ottawa. In Ontario in 2015, a law was passed, and in Manitoba in 2015 and Nova Scotia in 2018.

I may be a bit biased, being from Ontario, but I want to acknowledge the work that was done at Queen's Park in the provincial legislature. It is my understanding that it was the first in Canada, but also that all the parties worked together to get unanimous support for that bill, which proceeded to ban conversion therapy in the province of Ontario.

It shows how legislatures and parliamentarians from different parties can work together on issues of common concern. I believe we can achieve the same goal here in Ottawa. We all agree with the common goal, calling out conversion therapy for what it is: a terrible, inhumane, dangerous practice against the LGBTQ community that needs to be eliminated in Canada.

As I start my comments here today, I want to acknowledge the many organizations that have worked for years to raise awareness of this issue. As we debate and discuss the details of the legislation, we need to always remember the stories and the scars of those who have suffered through some form of conversion therapy.

There are many who have come forward to share their stories, to help educate us and to bring light to this issue. Unfortunately, there are some who have not been able to share their stories with us, because they are not with us anymore. The torture, the pain that they faced was too much to handle. Many suffered in silence. Too many have taken their lives because of the harms that conversion therapy caused them.

We often talk in the House about making our Parliament more diverse and reflective of Canada, by gender, by race, by profession, by sexual orientation and by lived experiences. As we debate this legislation, this is exactly why we aspire to that goal: to bring perspective from across the country, and to share stories and experiences that could help guide us all. I want to do that today for a few moments.

I have said a few times over the last year that I have talked more about my sexual orientation this past year than I have in my entire 33 years. I am a proud gay man who lives in rural eastern Ontario, and I have come to realize that my story matters. If I could get personal here for a moment, I want to talk about my story and my coming out.

It was back in 2017, in my hometown of Winchester, Ontario, a small town with lots of churches and a mix of bedroom community people working in Ottawa and people who have called the rural community home for their entire lives. People coming out maybe was not as common as it would be in downtown Ottawa or downtown Toronto or other places. I served as the mayor of my community at that time. I was out to my family and friends, and I had decided that it was important for me to let my community know that I am a proud gay man so that I could live my life openly, happily and freely.

I wrote a letter on a Sunday morning at about nine o'clock, posted it on Facebook and it went viral. I was not expecting the reaction. It was the lead story on the news channel the next day, and it went viral on Facebook.

What I was hoping from that was indifference, that people would just move on and not care, in a good way, showing how far we had come. However, what I got was the absolute opposite. The love, compassion and support I got from people was overwhelming, people from all different backgrounds and different life experiences. I find that as more people share their stories, it becomes a degree of separation.

I went to bed that night very happy and on a high. Unfortunately, it did not last too long. A couple of days later, in a community just south of my hometown, a young gay man only a couple of years younger than I was took his life. The high I had felt a few nights previous was equally emotional a couple of days later in the struggles he had faced, a variety of struggles. If that were not enough, there was a further degree of separation that broke my heart.

A friend of mine had let me know that a friend of his was a closeted gay man who had married a woman but was actually gay and struggling with his sexual orientation. He was nervous about coming out to his family, friends and community, and he hid it. He suffered and suffered in silence until he could not take it anymore.

I share these stories not because I know that any of the individuals were subject to conversion therapy, but it shows the struggles that people still face. Even with the positive experience I had with my family, friends and community, we need to acknowledge that it is not the same for everybody. We need to show compassion and care and understanding, whether someone is coming to terms with their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

Adding on something like conversion therapy to a child, any sort of therapy in that regard to change somebody, would be devastating for them to go through. What they would have to go through and what they are subjected to is so fundamentally wrong and dangerous. Subjecting a child to it to change them to be who they are not is wrong. It is dangerous and it must end.

I want to talk about the first speech our new leader gave here in the House when there was an opportunity to speak to this legislation when it was tabled by the minister. I have to say I am really proud of his response, his compassion and his understanding of the issue. He spoke of his military service. He spoke about how a fundamental part of his job, of that service, was to defend the rights of all Canadians wherever his service took him. He did that proudly in our military and he has done that as a member of Parliament here in this chamber when legislation has come forward. The NDP legislation a few years ago on gender identity was a key example of that.

I want to reflect on and put back on the record a quote from what our leader said that day, which really stuck with me. He said:

I stood and was counted for rights that day. As a parliamentarian, I am here to secure the rights of every Canadian, including those in the LGBTQ community, and to build an inclusive and prosperous country for all. Now, as leader of the Conservative Party, I pledge to continue this work.

Conservatives agree that conversion therapy is wrong and should be banned. No Canadian should be forced to change who they are, whether it be their sexual orientation or their gender identity. We know that too many Canadians have been harmed by this practice and, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That includes members of the LGBTQ community, who have been the target of degrading and dehumanizing practices in an effort to change their sexual orientation against their will. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

The bill states:

This [legislation] amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, create the following offences:

(a) causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person’s will;

(b) causing a child to undergo conversion therapy;

(c) doing anything for the purpose of removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada;

(d) advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and

(e) receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.

I want to talk briefly about the details of the legislation and something that I have been able to speak about with many colleagues on different sides of the House, and even my constituents back home in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, as they have questions and comments about the legislation. I will use a specific quote. The bill says, “repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour” as part of the definition of conversion therapy.

I want to talk about the difficulty sometimes, in my opinion and my own life experiences, of trying to come up with a definition of conversion therapy that acknowledges how conversion therapy has changed in what it is over the years. Many people think of it as electroshock therapy, a terrible, horrible practice that I hope and believe is mostly eradicated in our country. I am not saying it is completely gone, but there has been an evolution over the years of what conversion therapy is, from that visual of electroshock therapy to what is more of a repression. It is some sort of therapy session to suppress feelings: It is okay to be gay but just do not act on it, or it is okay to have a different gender identity but just do not act on it. The suppression of that thought is equally as damaging as anything else.

When we talk about that, I want to acknowledge that the latest unfortunate trends and those who promote or offer conversation therapy are not so much the vision of something we saw decades ago, but something that is treated more as a therapy, when in fact it is anything but that.

As we move forward in the debate on this legislation and when the bill hopefully gets to second reading and into committee where the bill can be studied and discussed further, my Conservative team has noted that we will be proposing a reasonable amendment that will bring even more support to this legislation. I believe it to be fair, reasonable and bipartisan. I believe it should have the support of the government. That is because I believe we can simply add the words of its own news release earlier this year to confirm what the minister has said before.

As I am not a legal expert, the words the minister acknowledged in his comments could be put into the legislation for greater certainty, saying that private conversations are not subject to criminal prosecution. I will read the quote because I believe it. It is the intent of the legislation and I believe the legislation would be better off if the minister's words in the news release were put into the legislation. He stated:

These new offences would not criminalise private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide affirming support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.

I believe that to be the intent of this legislation, in my own personal view. It would be reasonable and appropriate if we could work, as the minister said, in good faith, which he has from myself and members of my party, to bring that forward and get it included.

I am happy to see that Parliament is tackling the issue of banning conversion therapy. The sooner that we put a stop to it, the more lives we will save and the better quality of life and promising future we can give young members of the LGBTQ community.

I mentioned earlier that I talk a bit more often about my sexual orientation and being a proud gay man, but something I have talked less about is my faith. I know for many Canadians in every part of this country their faith guides them in the decisions they make and values they have.

As I reflect on my own personal faith, I will say this. My faith and the values my church taught me have not guided me away from this legislation, but the opposite. They have taught me to support it, to stand up for vulnerable neighbours and friends, to show empathy and compassion, to be there and stand up for those who cannot do it on their own. That is what my faith has taught me and where it has guided me. It is guiding me to be behind this legislation and seeing it enacted as we work together through committee, third reading and eventually on to the Senate.

I will end my comments today not with debate on the specific legislation, but with a message to young gay or trans children. It is okay to be gay. It is okay to be trans. It is right for them to live their lives as who they are and be who they are. Canadians know that subjecting anyone to conversion therapy is wrong and we must protect those who are vulnerable.

I am grateful for the time today to offer my support for ending conversion therapy, for working together here in second reading, in committee and in the Senate to make this happen and get the job done together. We need to do this for the young children I mentioned and for those who are tragically not with us anymore. We must act on their stories and struggles to do better. Let us continue this work and get it done for them.

Act to Amend the Criminal Code Regarding Medical Assistance in Dying

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the charter statement on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying, and a legislative summary of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the clarification. Indeed, we will be in our ridings, not on vacation.

This afternoon, we shall continue debate on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying.

When we return after our constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-7. We hope we can begin the debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation. This bill has to do with Orange Shirt Day.

Lastly, I wish to inform the House that Tuesday, October 20 and Thursday, October 22 will be allotted days.

I wish all members a pleasant week in their ridings. I hope members will take care of themselves and their loved ones and come back in good health.

Physician-Assisted Dying

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

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

The petitioners are concerned that the government is removing vital safeguards that only a few short years ago the government said were very much essential.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to reconsider its decision to remove the mandatory 10-day reflection period, and to also reconsider its proposal in Bill C-7 to remove the requirements for independent witnesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be presenting five petitions in the House today.

The first petition is with respect to Bill C-7. It is timely, as it is the same bill number that the justice minister just tabled, although maybe we see some differences in the text.

This petition refers to some changes that were in the last version of the bill, which removed vital safeguards associated with the euthanasia regime. The petitioners are concerned that the bill sought to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and eliminate requirements regarding witnesses. They believe those safeguards should remain in place.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, in the coming days, our government will reintroduce what was formally Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. We consulted extensively on this legislation and believe that it ensures personal autonomy and choice, while protecting the most vulnerable. It affirms the inherent and equal value of every life.

As we move forward, we will work to ensure the parliamentary process is inclusive and accessible. I want to assure my hon. colleague and all Canadians that even in a pandemic, all voices will be heard on this deeply personal and important issue.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in February, our government tabled Bill C-7 to comply with a Quebec Superior Court ruling, which ordered changes to Canada's medical assistance in dying law. However, due to the pandemic, our government was granted an extension until December 2020 to comply with this order.

Could the Minister of Justice please update the House on our government's plan to comply with the Truchon decision and to respect the court-imposed deadline?

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-7—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 25 by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent requesting that a question of privilege found to be prima facie in the previous session be considered once again in the current session. At the time, the matter involved the premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying, while it was on notice awaiting introduction and first reading.

In this intervention, the member reminded the House that the question was raised earlier this year, on February 25, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on March 10, when the Speaker gave leave to move the appropriate motion. I want to thank the member for the clarity of his remarks and for the precedents he cited to bolster his case. Both helped me to understand the issues in play. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader also intervened, focusing his remarks on the timelines for raising the questions of privilege.

As members are well aware, when questions of privilege are raised, the role of the Chair is to determine if the claim relates to the breach of privilege or a contempt that deserves priority of consideration over all other business before the House. It is not the responsibility of the Chair to decide whether there is an actual offence or its seriousness. Such a matter is determined by the House itself. This is one of the two criteria that the Speaker has to consider in assessing an alleged breach of privilege. The second criterion is whether the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity. In considering the revival of a question of privilege in this new session, the Chair is bound by the same criteria and has to take into account current circumstances.

In reviewing the precedents raised by the member, the character of the complaint in each case is important in determining if and to what extent it is relevant to the case at hand. For example, in his ruling of February 6, 2004, Speaker Milliken was considering the extent of privilege afforded to a member when called before the courts as a witness, more specifically the immunity from testifying in court during a parliamentary session. The other case related to the evident gap in the law and the practices of the House relating to members found to be in contravention of the Canada Elections Act. Both cases had far reaching implications that were not bound by the limits of the session.

The circumstances involved in the issue before the House are now substantially different. Bill C-7 is no longer before the House, nor is the infraction of its premature disclosure. Eight months have elapsed and as a result of prorogation, all proceedings including any outstanding legislation as well as any order of reference have been terminated.

With regard to the notice requirement, the Chair has observed that the issue was not raised at the earliest opportunity. While we might understand why there would be reluctance to raise a question of privilege on the opening day of a new Parliament or session, notices should be submitted early. This seems particularly pertinent in a case that seeks to revive a question of privilege from the previous session.

Given these circumstances, the Chair does not find that the matter should take precedence over all other business of the House. Grounds are not sufficiently compelling in this case. I therefore rule that the question of privilege has not been made out.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-7

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised on Friday, September 25, respecting the premature disclosure of Bill C-7, on medical assistance in dying, from the previous session. As members well know, the bill in question died with prorogation, as did the reference of the question of privilege to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2017, states at page 145:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

I would also refer members to the footnote that is attached to the text that I just quoted. Footnote 369 states:

Any matter found to be prima facie and referred to committee in one session but not reported on would not survive a prorogation. However, if a Member wished to raise the question of privilege again in the following session, the Speaker could reconsider the matter provided that the rules of timeliness were respected.

The facts are clear. The former Bill C-7 died on the Order Paper with prorogation. The procedure and House affairs committee did not report to the House on the question of privilege. The member who raised the question of privilege on September 25 did not do so at the earliest opportunity.

I would draw to the attention of the House that the earliest opportunity to raise a question of privilege stemming from the previous session was Thursday, September 24. I would note that on Thursday, September 24, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes raised two questions of privilege. That is a clear demonstration that this matter should have been raised on Thursday given that the House had adopted a motion on Wednesday, September 23, to allow all members to participate in the proceedings of the House whether in person or virtually. There is no excuse for not having raised this matter on Thursday.

I would conclude that since the matter was not raised at the first opportunity, the former Bill C-7 was discharged from the Order Paper with prorogation and there was no report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on this matter. This does not meet the well-established rule for raising a question of privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the disclosure of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying, which was introduced in the previous session.

In the interest of time, my hon. colleague, the member for Fundy Royal, raised this question of privilege on February 25. I would direct you to the arguments presented at pages 1518 and 1519 of the Debates.

Mr. Speaker, on March 10, you concluded that there was a prima facie breach of privilege, and the House adopted the member's motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

On March 12, the committee agreed to suggest dates for inviting the Clerk and the law clerk to appear so that it could begin studying the matter. The next day, the House adjourned because of the pandemic. This meant that the committee never had a chance to get back to its order of reference because of the various Liberal motions prohibiting virtual meetings on this subject. The Prime Minister then decided to shut down Parliament, ending the study before it had even started.

I am asking you to find another prima facie breach of privilege so that the House can once again examine the issue and, if it so desires, send it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. There are previous rulings in which a prima facie breach of privilege was found when prorogation put an end to an order of reference on a question of privilege before a committee was able to report to the House on it. More specifically, I would refer you to the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Milliken on February 6, 2004, at page 243 of the Debates of the House of Commons, when he said that, for the same reasons that he gave in a ruling he made in the previous session, the question remained a prima facie breach of privilege. He then gave the member leave to move his motion.

Another of your predecessors, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who we know well, also made a similar ruling on October 17, 2013, at page 66 of the Debates of the House of Commons. The same circumstances exist as in previous cases and it is appropriate to raise a prima facie question of privilege.

If you agree, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Physician-Assisted Dying

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition speaks to the government's priorities with respect to health care in January and February when it could have been focusing on improving seniors care and preparing for a response to the pandemic. The government's focus was instead on removing vital safeguards associated with the government's euthanasia regime. The petitioners raise concern about the government's plans previously in Bill C-7 to eliminate a 10-day reflection period and also reduce the number of witnesses required. The petitioners believe that these were important safeguards that need to be in place and question the government's priorities with respect to removing safeguards when there are so many other vital health care issues that we should be focused on.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the NDP motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-4 on the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States. We hope to conclude the debate that afternoon.

When hon. colleagues return from the constituency week, we will follow up with Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, Bill C-8 on conversion therapy and Bill C-3 on CBSA oversight.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that Monday, March 23, and Thursday, March 26, shall be allotted days.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

moved:

That the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your finding that a breach of our privileges did exist in this case in the leaking of the contents of Bill C-7 to the media before members of the House could see the bill.

There is a reason we have rules in this place to protect the rights and the privileges of members of Parliament in this place on all sides of the House, so that we are able to do the job that we were elected to do, which is to represent our constituents, to pass legislation and to debate. Those are the things that we have been given the ability to do by our constituents. When we have government departments, government members that do not abide by the rules of the House, it undermines not just those members in the opposition; it undermines all of us.

It is well-established practice in the House that when a bill is on notice for introduction, the House has the first right to the contents of the bill. Everyone in the House knows this. We know that the House is paramount when it comes to the introduction of the legislation, but if there is any one department in the whole of government that we would expect would know the rules around the laws and procedures in the House, that department would be the justice department, the department tasked with making laws that impact the lives of all Canadians. That department knows better. That is a department filled with hundreds if not thousands of lawyers and legal minds that know better.

Let us say they did not know better. Just like with any one of our children, sometimes if they make a mistake, we correct them. Maybe if they make a second mistake, we will correct them again. By the third time around, we expect that they know the rules.

This is the fourth time there has been found a breach of our privileges in the House that was made by the Department of Justice. In fact, the last ruling on this matter was also on the previous legislation around medical assistance in dying. It was even the same legislation.

The article that was put forward within The Canadian Press had very detailed and specific information contained in the bill. That is why this breach of privilege has been found.

The reporters and those who were leaking know that contempt has occurred by revealing later in the article that, "The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details of the bill prior to its tabling in the House of Commons this afternoon."

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that those who were leaking this information from the Department of Justice or some other arm of government knew exactly what they were doing when they did it. What they thought about this place is not much, because we have rules, and they thumbed their nose at the rules that we have.

After the sources indicated to the reporter that they were aware of their guilty actions, they boldly and defiantly continued their affront to Parliament by providing even more detail of the bill. Quoting again from that article, “Sources say today's bill will not deal with broader issues that were excluded in the new law and that must be considered as part of a parliamentary review of the law that is to begin this summer.” Again, bang on with what was in the bill.

We saw the news articles and we thought we knew what had happened, another leak from the Department of Justice, another affront to this Parliament, another breach of all of our collective privileges, but again we had to read the bill to find out whether in fact that was the case.

We carefully reviewed the contents of Bill C-7 following its introduction in the House. When I and other members of Parliament got to see the bill for the first time, others in the media had seen the bill in its entirety for hours before.

The details reported by The Canadian Press hours earlier were indeed contained in Bill C-7. Ironically, over and over, the first precedent that I had quoted earlier was from the last Parliament, brought to the Speaker's attention on April 14, 2016, and in regard to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying).

The department in question is being absolutely recidivist. It is not taking seriously the consequences and the rulings of Speakers. The Speaker in 2016 found that there was, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege regarding Bill C-14 and 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.

The Speaker's concluding remarks in 2016 were as follows:

In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.

On October 4, 2010, on page 4711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken noted:

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.

This all goes back to my point about the Department of Justice not taking seriously the rules of this House. The one department that ought to know best about the rules of this House is now a four-time offender, with breaches of privileges found by successive Speakers over the last several years, sometimes over the same bill subject matters. The House, and the rules of the House, are being completely ignored.

The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, after, and members are not going to believe this, the Department of Justice briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House.

Maybe, in this minority House, members can finally take this department and this Minister of Justice's office to account and to task for their continuous disrespect of the privileges and the rights of this place, and the rights of all Canadians who send us as members of Parliament to do good work on their behalf.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Two Bills—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on February 25 by the member for Fundy Royal and on February 27 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the premature disclosure of two bills.

Allow me first to recapitulate the arguments presented by the two members.

On February 25, 2020, the member for Fundy Royal raised a question of privilege regarding a Canadian Press article published online on February 24 that detailed specific information contained in Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying, even before it was introduced in the House by the Minister of Justice. The member quoted from the article in question, which mentioned that anonymous sources allegedly discussed the contents of the bill with the journalist while knowing full well that doing so contravened the practices of the House. The member for Fundy Royal feels that this premature disclosure of the bill constitutes a breach of his privileges and contempt of the House.

On February 27, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a question of privilege also concerning the premature disclosure of a bill.

During this intervention, the parliamentary secretary said that a bill entitled “an act to amend the Criminal Code (unlawfully imported firearms)”, put on notice on February 21 by the member for Markham—Unionville, was also the subject of an article published on February 24 in iPolitics before it was introduced in the House. On February 25, the member put another bill on notice, one with a slightly different title, “an act to amend the Criminal Code (possession of unlawfully imported firearms)”. The bill became Bill C-238 after it was introduced on February 27.

The parliamentary secretary feels that the provisions of Bill C-238 correspond to what was described in the iPolitics article, and he presumed, therefore, that the two bills are in large measure the same. The parliamentary secretary suggested that this disclosure contravenes the principle that members are the first to know the contents of a bill. Since a breach of privilege was apparently committed, he suggested referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

On February 28, the member for Markham—Unionville apologized and admitted that he had indeed discussed the contents of the first bill with fellow members and journalists. He said that he had acted in ignorance of the rule prohibiting discussion of bills on notice before they are introduced in the House. He also explained the reasons for the change in title between the two bills.

The same day, the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House presented his most sincere apologies for the premature disclosure of Bill C-7, saying in passing that no one within the government had been authorized to discuss the bill before its introduction in the House.

I believe that the whole matter can be summarized as follows.

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.

Second, in his apology, the member for Markham—Unionville made it clear that his two bills on firearms were substantially the same, apart from the slightly different titles. It seems clear to the Chair, therefore, that the member also discussed a bill before its introduction. It matters little that the bill in question was subsequently withdrawn and never 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.

In this case, it is clear that the content of the bills, both the private member's bill and the government bill, were revealed to the media before their introduction and first reading. The question now is to determine whether the disclosure of these bills was a breach of the House’s privilege and whether mitigating circumstances should be considered.

In this instance, I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the member for Markham—Unionville when he says that he was unaware of the rules regarding the confidentiality of bills on notice. I believe that his remarks were sincere and that he believed he was advancing his cause in a legitimate fashion.

My analysis is different for the question of privilege raised by the member for Fundy Royal concerning government Bill C-7. Permit me to quote a part of the article at the heart of this matter:

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details of the bill prior to its tabling in the House of Commons this afternoon.

Everything indicates that the act was deliberate. It is difficult to posit a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules in this case.

On April 19, 2016, my predecessor, faced with a similar situation regarding the premature disclosure of Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying, found a prima facie case of privilege in a decision that can be located on pages 2442 and 2443 of the Debates.

In light of the information provided by the member for Fundy Royal, the precedents and the current practice in this matter, the Chair notes the existence of sufficient grounds to conclude that there was a prima facie breach of the privilege of the House and the members and their right to be the first to know the contents of Bill C-7.

Consequently, I now invite the member for Fundy Royal to move the appropriate motion.