Evidence of meeting #50 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was illness.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
I totally agree with you, and we will obviously take your opinion on the recommendations into account. I agree that more time was needed, and that's why I'm here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you.
The last round goes to Mr. MacGregor, for two and a half minutes.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, when I was on the special joint committee, we heard from a lot of witnesses on far-ranging topics. I remember, when it came to the specific subject matter we're dealing with here, with Bill C-39, that some of our witnesses said that there aren't really any specific criteria for knowing that a mental illness is irremediable, and that there is not a lot of evidence out there that anyone can reliably determine if an individual suffering from a mental illness will not improve. That's how it's different from a physical illness. That's what's given us a lot of pause. We just want to make sure we are, in fact, getting this right. I think that's why you're seeing a lot of this trepidation.
I agree that Bill C-39 needs to be passed. We do need this extension, but, given the testimony that we received in terms of the irremediability of mental disorders and the unknowns that still exist, when we are approaching March 2024, how are you going to ensure that everything is, in fact, in place? Are you going to put in place plans for Parliament to have another say or another review of this before that deadline comes into effect in 2024?
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
My understanding, with respect to the question of whether there's irremediability, is that if that criterion can't be met, then a person is not eligible for MAID.
Let me flip that around. It is only in cases where it has been determined—and experts tell us this can be determined—that there is no remedy and that they are certain of it, that a person would be eligible for MAID.
As Mr. Thériault has just said, this is for long-standing mental disorders treated by a psychiatrist where everything has been tried, where the person is an adult capable of making up their own mind and there is no remedy. If that criterion can't be met, then my understanding of the way this works is that the person would not be eligible for MAID.
There will not be many cases, but they will be important to those people who have been long suffering in those cases. Frankly, that's why we're here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
I want thank the honourable Minister Lametti for joining us today. We thank you for that.
We'll just suspend for a minute or so, while he leaves. I think the officials will be staying to answer the rest of your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I call the meeting back to order.
There won't be any statements, because the minister has already made it, so we'll go straight to a round of questions.
We'll begin with Mr. Caputo for the first round of six minutes.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you all for being here.
I believe most of my questions will be for you, Mr. Taylor, although Ms. Klineberg and Ms. Wills may jump in.
Mr. Taylor, you're familiar with the charter statement of October 21, 2020. Is that correct?
Matthew Taylor General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
You stood by that statement as of the date it was published. Is that correct?
February 14th, 2023 / 7:35 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't know what you mean by “stood by”, but certainly that is the charter statement that explains the impacts and the charter considerations relevant to the bill as it was when it was introduced.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
When I said “stood by”, I was saying you agree that this is an appropriate statement. Is that correct?
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that is the statement.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
It accurately reflected the law. Is that correct?
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Okay.
October 21, 2020 isn't very long ago. You'd agree that the law, as it was reflected and discussed in this charter statement, has changed substantially in a little over two years. Would you agree with that?
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The law has changed since...?
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Pardon me. The proposed legislation has changed.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Certainly, the legislation before you today is different from the legislation that was the basis of the charter statement for Bill C-7. Certainly, the charter statement for Bill C-7 doesn't speak to the mental illness exclusion that was enacted by the Senate.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I'm going to stop you there, sir, because I think it does speak to that. I'm going to quote it to you, in fact.
It states, “Rather, it is based on the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present for individuals who suffer solely from mental illness.”
I could go on. It talks about being “subject to a high degree of error”.
That is right in the charter statement. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Would you therefore agree that this does discuss the very thing that we're contemplating here—that Senate amendment?
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It discusses what was in the bill as the bill was introduced. It discusses the effects of that legislation vis-à-vis the charter rights of individuals in Canada under section 7 and section 15, I think, specifically. It's speaking to the absence of eligibility for mental illness in that case.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
The reality is this: In two short years, we went from a charter statement saying there are inherent risks with MAID for people with mental illness to the minister's sitting here less than two and a half years later saying, no, there are no inherent risks because the government can move forward.
You acknowledge that change. Is that correct?
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think the minister said that he appreciates that there are risks. I think the charter statement in Bill C-7 reflects that.
I think he also said that a period of time was needed to work through those risks. He spoke to the work that's being done with the provinces and territories to address some of those risks. He spoke to the need to spend more time addressing those risks.