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.
7:50 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's not my place to give my personal opinion.
Sorry.
7:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
That's not why the committee invited you. I think that was a smart decision.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Taylor, I'll start with you, if I can.
I asked the minister in the first round about the section where someone has to be informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including the appropriate counselling services, mental health and disability support services, and community services. This is all under paragraph 241.2(3.1)(g) for track two. I think we can rightly determine that for those who are suffering with a mental disorder and who are going through that profound, internal psychological suffering, their death is not going to be reasonably foreseeable. They have to come under the safeguards specified under track two.
My question to you is this. The Criminal Code uses verbs like “has been informed” and “has been offered”. Is that the limit of what criminal law in Canada can do?
What is the federal government's expectation on the provincial side of things for how their medical systems will step up to ensure...?
I can tell you, from my own personal experience as a member of Parliament, in my community—I represent a riding on Vancouver Island—we have a lot of people who are going through extreme mental health issues. There's a lot of underlying trauma. It is feeding a lot of the opioid crisis.
I understand there are additional safeguards. Someone's not going to be able to walk off the street and access MAID. I understand that very clearly, but I'm trying to figure out where the language of the Criminal Code—the necessity of being informed and offered—meets the provincial side of things.
I'd like it if you could walk us through that.
7:55 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can start on the federal criminal law side, and maybe my colleagues from Health Canada can add in terms of what they might know about how this provision is being operationalized.
I think you know, Mr. MacGregor, that as a general matter, words and statutes are meant to be interpreted in their ordinary meaning. The use of words like “informed” or “offered” are everyday words. There's no technical or legal meaning to those terms: “informed”, “made aware”, “provided the information”, “offered”, “have been given the information about”—
7:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
When they come under a section labelled “Safeguards”, they take on a little more importance, wouldn't you say?
7:55 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Certainly, in terms of the way they operate.... In the statute, they have a specific purpose. You're right; it is related to the safeguards, so these are important.
Maybe I will turn to Ms. Harper and see if she has any information in terms of how it's being implemented.
7:55 p.m.
Director General, Health Care Programs and Policy Directorate, Department of Health
One of the things we can look at is that PTs are looking at how to set these up so these complex cases can be dealt with appropriately. Some PTs have been exploring the creation of panels or committees to support assessments and case reviews.
Others are planning for teams to assist with undertaking complex assessments, facilitating consults with clinicians who have the necessary expertise, or making referrals to treatments and services.
They're trying to bring together the resources they have to the requirements of the Criminal Code—
7:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you. I'm sorry; I just want to make sure I have time for questions.
You mentioned treatments and therapies. I think those were the two terms. I met with some patients today, and we've heard testimony from the special joint committee about alternative therapies, such as guided psilocybin therapy, that are being used. There's some promise. I will acknowledge that with research, there's a lot more that's needed, so that's the caveat I'll put out there.
That being said, though, it has shown some promise in helping people in palliative care relieve the existential dread they feel, knowing their end of life is coming. There's also, perhaps, some promise in maybe effectively treating mental disorders.
I know from conversations with them that either through the section 56 exemption or the special access program, there's still a lot of trouble they have to go through to get approved. What is Health Canada doing with respect to these types of alternative therapies? You must be aware of them. Is there additional funding and research coming our way to fully explore this?
We're dealing with a pretty monumental shift to our Criminal Code here, and we just want to make sure all the alternative therapies, if they show promise, are available and being explored to their full potential.
7:55 p.m.
Director General, Health Care Programs and Policy Directorate, Department of Health
You are quite right. There are a number of burgeoning therapies out there and people who are saying that this has really helped them in a lot of ways.
Unfortunately, today I do not have the information with me, but we can commit to getting you some information about that.
7:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I would appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Chair, I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
We'll next go to our rounds of five minutes, beginning with Mr. Van Popta.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Mr. Taylor, I'll start with you.
After having heard Mr. Lametti give his earlier testimony, I just want to confirm a few things with you.
First of all, I want to confirm that no Canadian court has ruled that excluding mental disability from MAID is unconstitutional. No court is telling us that we must do it.
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
To my knowledge, no court has.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you.
This is strictly a political initiative started by the Senate and now being promoted by the government. It's not a legal initiative at this point.
February 14th, 2023 / 8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, it is a legal initiative insofar as there is a bill before Parliament. Parliament enacted former Bill C-7.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
That's fair enough. Thank you.
I also want to confirm that Bill C-7 was initiated after the Truchon decision, which was a lower court decision, and that the Attorney General decided not to, neglected to or did not appeal to the Court of Appeal of Quebec or, if necessary, to the Supreme Court of Canada.
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct. There was no appeal.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Okay, thank you.
There's one other thing I want to confirm. My colleague talked about this already. There is no charter assessment being done on the new and expanded Bill C-7.
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There is no charter statement tabled yet in Parliament with respect to Bill C-39.
If your question was whether there was a charter assessment done of Bill C-7 as amended by the Senate, as you likely know, charter statements are not evergreen documents. They're a reflection of the charter considerations of the bill as it is introduced.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
The charter statement was dated October 2020. Bill C-7 came back revised from the Senate and was passed about a year later. There was no intervening charter statement.
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct, because they're not evergreen documents.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
In response to a question from my colleague about when we will see the revised statement, Mr. Lametti said in due course. Due course would have been two years ago.
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, a charter statement is required under the Department of Justice Act for any legislation that's introduced in Parliament. As you know, Bill C-39 was recently introduced. A charter statement will be tabled.