Justice Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll now go to our second round of questions, beginning with Mr. Brock for five minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, Minister and department officials. Thank you for your attendance.

Minister, I want to go back to my colleague's question regarding the charter statement. I'm just taking a look at the requirements.

On December 13, 2019, amendments to the Department of Justice Act came into force, creating a new duty on [you] to ensure a Charter Statement is tabled in Parliament for every Government bill.

Charter Statements are a transparency measure intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a bill and help increase awareness and understanding of the Charter.

I listened to your evidence. You said it will be “deposited”— I think that was the word—or tabled.

You also noted, Minister, that yesterday was set aside for all parliamentarians to debate this issue, and largely we heard from Conservative MPs, with not much from the Liberal bench. Between yesterday and tomorrow, approximately 15 hours have been set aside for parliamentary debate, with no charter statement for any parliamentarian to review in advance in order to factor that type of analysis into their speech. You've denied parliamentarians the ability to really reflect on the legality of this bill.

My question to you is very specific. What does “depositing” mean and when can Canadians, but more importantly parliamentarians, expect to receive this and review it fully?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

You'll receive it very soon. It will be tabled in the normal course of business, but you will have it soon.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

When?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I can't give you a time.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

It's under your control. You can provide me with a timeline. Are we talking about next week, next month, next year? When can we receive it?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

You will receive it very soon.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

What does that mean?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Very soon is very soon. I think the words are clear.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You indicated that provinces need some time and that Canadians are adjusting to this reality. I'd like to get your thoughts, Minister, on the latest Angus Reid poll, indicating that 61% of Canadians polled were supportive of the MAID regime, yet only 31% agreed that a mental health issue as a sole criterion ought to be included.

Three out of 10 Canadians felt that was permissible. Over 70% of Canadians polled disagree.

Are you mindful of that, Minister?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I'm mindful of the cause of that.

First of all, we are moving ahead because we feel that we will be compelled by the courts to move ahead, so we're going to do this prudently.

I'm also mindful of the misinformation that is out there, which, frankly—I'll be honest—a number of people on your political side are peddling. They're saying that somebody, a young person, will—and I heard this in the House of Commons yesterday—be able to go to their doctor and say, “I'm having suicidal thoughts. I would like MAID.” That is clearly not the case.

What we are talking about here, Mr. Brock, is a fraction of a fraction. Already the number of people on track two for MAID, from the numbers we've seen, is 500 out of 10,000—that's half of 1% on track two. This will be a fraction of that.

This is a tiny fraction of people.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Minister, I have one minute left. Thank you very much.

Chair, I'm ceding my time to my colleague, Mr. Van Popta.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

You have one minute.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Lametti, in November 2020 you appeared before a Senate committee and said, “We want to exclude mental illness as a sole criterion....After conducting consultations across the country...I can tell you there is clearly no consensus.”

Today, sir, you're here promoting exactly the opposite, expanding MAID for mental disability. Canadians want to know why the Attorney General changed his mind and whether he's likely to change his mind again in the next 12 months, given enough resistance.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta, for the question. I appreciate the sincerity with which you're asking it. I commend you for that.

I want to say to Canadians and say to you that we have now done the work. What I said in 2020 and 2019, I meant: Our consultations had said there wasn't a consensus. I respected the parliamentary process and our dealings with the Senate. Instead of passing a law and then saying we'll move to mental illness as a criterion, we accepted the Senate's reversal of that to say we'll put a time limit on it; otherwise, it will happen inevitably.

It forced us to do the work, and we did the work. I think there is now a very strong consensus—amongst particularly clinicians and people who work with people with mental disorders. These are people who have tried multiple ways to help those suffering from mental disorders and who in a number of cases say there's nothing left that they can do; the person would like to seek MAID.

The timing of this and the work that has to be done have not changed. The order in terms of legislative technique has changed, but the substance of what I had to say hasn't changed. We are in a much better place now, and I think we're ready to move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta and Mr. Lametti.

Now we will go to Ms. Diab for five minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.

I want to start off by saying a couple of things. I wasn't here two years ago, nor am I on the committee that was struck. I will say that MAID is a deeply personal and complex choice that really does touch every person and every family. These are usually very difficult, painful situations in a person's life as well as in the lives of their loved ones. I can appreciate that the Government of Canada needs to get this right as best it can. I don't believe there's any such thing as perfect. We all know that laws change. That's why we're here. That's why we have parliamentarians and courts.

Having said all that, I'm wondering if you could clear up a couple of things. I want to give you enough time on the record.

What are the current eligibility criteria for MAID? What happens if we don't pass and give this extension? Can you tell me what the law of the land is and where we are today?

After that, where are the provinces in this?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Let me start with this: If we don't pass this extension, then next month mental illness as a sole criterion for seeking MAID will be possible. People will have to deal with that. Medical practitioners, many of whom feel they are ready, and many provinces that feel they are ready, will move.

In terms of the current eligibility for MAID generally, one has to be 18 years of age or older. The special committee is looking at the question of mature minors, but for now it is 18 years or older. Secondly, you would have to be eligible for publicly funded health care services. You have to make a voluntary request that's not the result of external pressure from anybody, including family or others. You have to be able to give informed consent to receive MAID after having received all the information to make the decision. You have to have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. You have to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability and be enduring intolerable suffering.

If you're on track two, you need to make the request in writing, signed by an independent witness. You need two independent practitioners to provide an assessment. One of those two people has to have an expertise in the area. You need to be told that you can withdraw your request in any case. That assessment period in track two has to be at least 90 days.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

As a previous legal practitioner, it sounds to me like obviously there are a number of criteria to go through. It's not something whereby you can say, “I want this”, and you're going to get it tomorrow.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

That's, in particular, in track two, when it's not an end-of-life scenario. That's a pretty stringent set of criteria.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Can you comment on the procedural safeguards—I think you did—to protect people who might be more vulnerable than others when requesting MAID?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

It's precisely the track two that did that. We did that after careful consultation with a number of different communities, including representatives of people living with disabilities.

The 90-day assessment period was meant to be a sufficiently long period, so that in the case of a catastrophic accident someone would have time, after that initial period, to reflect on what happened and what might be possible.

As I've mentioned, there is a criterion that the person must be made aware of what the possible supports are, have meaningfully thought about that, and have discussed those thoughts and alternatives for support with a practitioner.

Again, there is the criterion that there must be assessments from two people. One of those people has to have an expertise in the field. On Mr. Thériault's previous question, we kept that flexible. In some places—such as the north—they felt that having two experts in a particular medical field, for example, might be an impediment. We made that flexible. Obviously, it can be up to provinces to make that more stringent if they have the resources to do so.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

What are the provinces...?

Do I have any more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Unfortunately, Ms. Diab, we are out of time. Thank you.

Now, for two and a half minutes in the last round, it's Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Bill C‑14 was a terrible bill, a bad copy of the Quebec bill and because of it, people like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon were forced for a time to plead their case before the courts. These are people who had lived full lives, even if they were in a wheelchair, and who refused to be infantilized and considered as vulnerable people. They had put up with enough discrimination during the lives. They went all the way to the Supreme Court, whereas other people were obliged to stop eating and drinking in order to meet the criteria of a predictable natural death. That is horrible. A state cannot allow that.

That said, Bill C‑7 did rectify the problem and in order to get that bill passed, a compromise was made to include mental disorders. Senators said that the bill, which didn't include people suffering from mental disorders, contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The prudent approach consisted of asking people who know what they are talking about, that is to say professionals and experts in the field of mental health and mental illness. Actually, the experts asked us to stop talking about “mental illness” and use the term “mental disorders”. Moreover, they presented us with 19 recommendations for providing access. I encourage you to read them.

Two years ago, I was one of those people who were sceptical about the inclusion. I read the report 20 times. I asked questions and I think that indeed, the prudent approach would be to pass Bill C‑39. That way, for example, a person who has been suffering from schizophrenia for 30 years and who, at certain times, has become a shell of a human being due to his or her medication, could have access to MAID upon request. However, we're not saying that this would apply to a young person, a minor even, who had tried to commit suicide. The report indicates that it would take decades before such a person would have access to MAID. The person's condition would have to be irreversible and all therapies would have to have been tried.

At some point, we will have to put things into perspective. I will be watching you, Minister, and I will be watching people who are telling us that we are ready. We are not ready right now. You stated that we will be ready to go forward in March. I don't think that will be the case. I don't know who was saying that it will be possible, but it was certainly not the members of the Canadian Association of MAiD, Assessors and Providers, CAMAP, who are putting together seven training modules.

That requires trainers, not assessors. People have to be ready on the ground so as not to make any mistakes. To avoid mistakes, we will have to implement two key recommendations of the report, recommendations 10 and 16. They will become safeguarding measures that go beyond what is being done currently in terms of MAID.

I do not have any more questions, but I am sick of hearing nonsense.