This bill is from the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in August 2021.
David Lametti Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-7s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-7 amends the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying (MAID) by broadening eligibility to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It adjusts safeguards and allows waiving final consent in certain cases.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Green
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, I certainly was not a member of the justice committee, but I do believe the rationale for including the advance consent in this particular case was because of the Audrey Parker case in Nova Scotia.
I can also say that the Canadian Medical Association, I believe, is supporting this particular legislation in accordance with what we are presenting today.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, as I know from his frequent interventions at the agriculture committee, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell proudly represents a rural riding. My question is centred on that very fact.
As the member knows, the new second track for accessing medical assistance in dying requires that one of the two medical practitioners assessing the person has expertise in the condition from which the person is suffering.
How is this going to play out for Canadians who live in rural or remote areas, and who may not have access to that kind of expertise? How can we ensure that the provisions of this bill make sure that Canadians, regardless of where they live, have access to that kind of expertise?
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, the previous bill required two witnesses and this bill only requires one witness. This was actually raised with the Minister of Justice. I believe this will correct the issues that arose from the previous bill, Bill C-14. The current bill strikes the right balance to make sure there is access to a doctor or nurse who has knowledge of the particular patients in question.
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the possibility of granting the right to waive final consent when natural death is not foreseeable.
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I have no opinion on the matter and will therefore rely on the experts.
I know the Bloc Québécois and the NDP support the bill. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will have an opportunity to examine this more thoroughly in the coming weeks.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. member has to do with the cool-off period, the 10-day provision that was previously there. It was to address, as I recall, when people are seriously ill and suffering. They can be depressed. One day they feel great and the next day they do not. That is why the 10-day period was put in. I am not sure what the rationale was for taking this out. Perhaps the member could comment on that.
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, I believe it was taken out because, in terms of practicality, it served no purpose. The Minister of Justice and many of our colleagues heard from families, now that we have been living with Bill C-14 for over three years, about the 10-day period. Patients who have already made the decision that they need medical assistance consulted with their doctors, nurses and families about that extra 10-day period. Why is not 15 days? Why is it not five days instead of 10? They said it served no purpose.
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
It is my pleasure as shadow minister for justice for the official opposition to use this opportunity to speak to the proposed legislation before us. It is important legislation. We have been hearing points from both sides of the House on Bill C-7, which impacts many Canadians. In fact, it impacts us all. This is a piece of legislation that deals with life and death, and there is probably nothing more important that we could be talking about today.
Any time we, as legislators, are asked to review and analyze legislation like this, it is critical that we take the time to get it right, and this is part of the problem. As we have heard many times over the course of the last year, we should not be dealing with this legislation today because the Minister of Justice and this government should have appealed that decision.
This is what was being called for by those in the medical community, those in the disability community and individuals across the country after that decision came out in Quebec. The right thing to do, which is what our party, the Conservative Party, called on the government to do, would have been to appeal that decision.
What we have been left with is a patchwork across our country. We have been left with confusion. We should have had the certainty of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on something this important. Instead, the government took the Superior Court of Quebec decision, responded to it and, in my view, went far beyond what was required to respond to that decision. I will discuss some of those things.
The bill was introduced as a response to a Superior Court of Quebec decision made on September 11, 2019. That decision found that the law was too restrictive in the requirement for death to be reasonably foreseeable in order to access medical assistance in dying. At the time, we called upon the government to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
As we debate the bill before us, we still do not have the clarity that we could have had if the government had appealed that decision. Rather than defend its own legislation, this government has used this as an opportunity to broaden assistance in dying legislation in this country without doing the fundamental consultation and homework necessary to get an important decision like this right. Even in the previous legislation, Bill C-14, there was to be a mandatory review of assistance in dying legislation and what flowed from it, which was to take place this past summer. This government circumvented all of that with this new legislation.
When the government passed Bill C-14 in the 42nd Parliament, it required this review to be conducted this year. The review was to analyze the state of assistance in dying in Canada in a comprehensive way, and instead of waiting for that, we see with this legislation the government going far beyond what had to be done to respond to the Quebec court decision.
This topic is a very sensitive issue for many in the House who have personal experience with it and, indeed, it is a sensitive issue for many Canadians. We ask that all members on each side of the House be aware of this. While there may be disagreements, we are each here to represent our constituents and arrive at legislation that best protects Canadians.
I have heard directly from many Canadians who are concerned about the lack of protection for conscience rights for health care professionals in both the bill before us and the original MAID legislation. As the government looks to broaden the legislation further, it becomes even more important that the conscience rights of health care professionals are protected. By further expanding medical assistance in dying, the government risks reducing the number of medical professionals willing to take part in this process. It is also important to note that this expanded access could result in a heavy emotional burden on those health care providers, as we head into uncharted territory with the bill.
We, as members of Parliament, cannot appreciate the burden that this has put on health care providers who are working in this system and providing medical assistance in dying.
Further, there are very few protections in place for medical professionals who do not want to participate in the process and may be penalized, as a result, by an employer. This is a point that I raised when Bill C-7 was introduced earlier this year, and it is disappointing to see that it was not corrected in this version of the bill.
This brings me to my next point about standing up for Canadians with disabilities. The 10-day waiting period, which could already be waived in the legislation for extenuating circumstances, has been removed. I heard the chief justice say today that removing the 10-day waiting period was universally accepted in his consultations across the country. I wonder who he has been talking to.
Yesterday I spoke with a group that represents those with disabilities across the country at Inclusion Canada. Those in that group said that they are in favour of maintaining the 10-day waiting period, and their role is to stand up for individuals with disabilities. It is interesting to note that they called on the minister of justice at the time to appeal the decision of the Quebec court. They said that medical assistance in dying must have limits. Individual rights must be balanced with protections, not only for our most vulnerable citizens, but also for society as well.
One of the most important foundations of our Canadian society and identity is that we are a caring, compassionate country. For those with disabilities, their experience now is that they are told, often bluntly, that they would be better off dead. The Foley case in London, Ontario, is one example of this. This decision, if it remains unquestioned, will simply erode provincial health responsibilities for expert clinical care and social support for people who are fragile.
The Minister of Justice would also be familiar with a letter written to him on October 4, 2019, which was signed by over 70 organizations that stand up for Canadians with disabilities from coast to coast to coast. They wrote that they found the decision by the Superior Court of Quebec to be very concerning. One of the reasons for this concern was that the decision failed to respect Parliament's authority to balance the interests of the individuals with the interests of society, effectively limiting Parliament's capacity to pursue social targets, such as substantive equality and inclusion.
They describe the decision as a dangerous precedent, writing, “The Supreme Court must weigh in on this flawed analysis. The decision will entrench stereotypes and exacerbate stigma further for Canadians with disabilities.” The letter continues, and I agree, “[We] must avoid sending a message that having a disability is a fate worse than death.... Canada must appeal the decision to prevent additional stereotyping”. The letter concluded by urging the government to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Again, the letter was signed by over 70 organizations, including the Council for Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Association for Community Living, Disability Law Centre, People First of Canada and the Canadian Mental Health Association. I mention this because it underscores how we need to get this legislation right.
Last November, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians issued a call to action due to ongoing confusion in the general public regarding hospice, palliative care and MAID. Quite frankly, palliative care focuses on improving the quality of life and symptoms through a person-centred approach for those living with life-threatening conditions.
The federal government should be looking for ways to improve further palliative care across Canada, as was committed to many times by the government. In their call to action, the groups I mentioned state, “Less than 30% of Canadians have access to high quality hospice palliative care, yet more than 90% of all deaths in Canada would benefit from it.”
I want to stress my previous point that this is an important issue for many Canadians. On matters of literal life or death, we need to take our responsibilities as legislators—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite, the official opposition critic, for his work at the committee and his work today in the chamber.
As an observation, it seems some parties opposite feel we are either taking this too far, as expressed by the official opposition, or not taking it far enough, for example, by entertaining advance directives. Clearly the proposal before the House is one that is a middle approach, a prudent approach and one that is constitutionally compliant.
The points raised about the disability community are well taken. Those are important points, and the minister addressed these points about the importance of equality and supports for those with disabilities. That is exactly what the consultations revealed.
The member opposite used the phrase “without doing consultations”. The evidence shows, and this is available on the Department of Justice website, that we heard from 300,000 Canadians, had 125 experts and ten meetings around the country. Is that kind of consultative exercise exactly the type the member has asked us to undertake?
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Speaker, I thank hon. parliamentary secretary for his work on the justice committee and on this file.
It is one thing to consult, but it is another thing to listen and hear what people are saying. We are hearing, loud and clear, from those in the disabilities community that this legislation, and these are their words, not mine, leads us to a society that says their disabilities are a fate worse than death. They want to see more protections in the legislation.
The hon. parliamentary secretary or the minister could pick up the phone and speak with Inclusion Canada or any one of the 70 signatories to that letter to hear about what they would like to see included in legislation safeguards to protect the most vulnerable in our society.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I heard him mention that the government should have appealed the ruling and that, practically speaking, parliamentarians are somewhat muzzled by the courts.
He makes it sound like medical assistance in dying is going to be imposed on people with disabilities, whereas, in my view, this is more about a patient-centred approach. This is about giving patients options, not imposing anything.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what I just said. Did I misunderstand him? Does he not think it is more coercive to deny patients this right? Does he really think anyone wants to impose medical assistance in dying on people who could ultimately have a choice?
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Speaker, normally with a case like this, which comes from one province's courts, a case of national importance, the responsible thing to do for certainty, because we are a federation, would be to appeal the decision to a higher court and, indeed, on a decision this important that impacts our criminal law would be to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We are listening to organizations that represent those with disabilities. They say that the failure to appeal the decision, the failure to pre-empt the study that was to take place this summer on assistance in dying legislation and the desire of the government to push something out right after there was one decision on it, pushing new legislation that goes beyond what the decision called for, is an affront to those persons with disabilities.
We are listening to them, and those are their words on this bill.
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Madam Speaker, this being Mental Health Week, could the member comment on the challenges people are facing in our nation right now? This year one in five are suffering from mental health issues.
What are the implications of this new legislation for people with mental health issues?
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the reminder to all of us that it is Mental Health Week.
We are hearing from those who suffer from mental health issues, from those in the disability community and from a broad range of people. This legislation literally deals with life or death. As the member rightly pointed out, as we have seen over the last several months with the COVID-19 crisis, mental health issues have been brought to the forefront. We need to ensure that even—