Debates of March 11th, 2021

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, there will perhaps be no more serious a vote than the one dealing with medical assistance in dying, and as New Democrats, we are very rarely in favour of closure. We have heard there is a consensus in this country, but I am not clear what country the minister is living in.

The government has failed to deliver the kind of adequate consultations with people in disability communities that would allow for this egregious extension into mental health without reasonable foreseeability. The minister talks about care, compassion and taking care of Canadians, so why does he still continue to fail to listen to the voices of people with disabilities and fail to account for their compassionate care in living, while he rushes through this final decision in their deaths?

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

Madam Speaker, I assure the House and Canadians that nothing could be further from the truth. We consulted widely and deeply, beginning in January 2020, on this phase of the legislation, Bill C-7. We consulted over 300,000 Canadians online. We spread out across the country, from coast to coast to coast, to listen to Canadians who had experience with MAID and to listen to the disability community. Indeed, the very structure of Bill C-7 takes into account what we have heard from the disability community and builds in safeguards for the non-end-of-life scenario, representing the concerns we heard directly from them.

The leadership in the Senate from a senator who lives with a disability is, quite vigorously, evidence that we have indeed listened to and supported that community. With—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is time for another question. There are a lot of questions and comments, so I ask members to make sure they keep their questions and comments to one minute each.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is difficult because I sympathize with the minister. I recognize the March 26 deadline. I sympathize with the leader of the Bloc Québécois and his concerns as well. I completely agree that the Conservatives have used time to block the bill. I saw it.

However, I have to say to the Minister of Justice that this is very difficult, because the Senate amendments represent something entirely new. They are different from what we dealt with at report stage before.

I am asking the minister if he is really satisfied. I am trying to be as non-partisan as possible, but I do not feel it is time for closure.

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

Madam Speaker, I am satisfied that we are still respecting the process we put forward with Bill C-7 that had the general support of Canadians. We have always said that we would be dealing with the question of mental health in a profound way in the parliamentary review that was originally envisaged in 2016. We are still doing that.

We are now benefiting from the work the Senate has done. We will benefit from the work of the committee too. However, at the end of the day, I want to reassure the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that as parliamentarians, we will roll up our sleeves and work through the mental health criterion. That will bring us within the parameters of the Carter decision and will fulfill the right of all Canadians to have access to medical assistance in dying in a reasonable and safeguarded way.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, all members of Parliament have seen their email accounts absolutely blow up. We are receiving tons of emails and phone calls about this issue.

I am going to quickly share one that I received. I think our colleagues really need to take a look at it. They will have it in their emails. It is from Trudo Lemmens, a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Toronto. He said:

I have worked on many challenging health law and ethics issues for more than twenty years as a professor of law and bioethics. But never have I felt the weight of history more seriously as with the debate around the expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying to people with disabilities, including those with mental illness, who would have years or decades of life left, if we as a society provided needed support, rather than a fast-track to state funded and medical system provided end-of-life, and a facilitation of suicide.

Please take seriously your obligation as parliamentarians and ask yourself what a precautionary approach requires. Think what it will do in the long term to the social fabric of our society. Imagine also what you would tell in the future to one of your voters, a neighbour, a family member, if you voted in support of this law and they come to you after they lost a brother, sister, daughter, son, father, mother, or close friend who in a period of serious mental health hardship and without sufficient support of our health care system have indirectly been encouraged by—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has had a minute and a half. There is not enough time for everybody, so I want to ask the hon. minister to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, I received that email from my long-standing colleague, Professor Lemmens at the University of Toronto.

What I would say to him and to the hon. member is that we are trying to reduce people's suffering and it is a question of autonomy. No matter where one comes from in society, we do not have a right to tell other people that they have to live and suffer simply because we are uncomfortable with something.

The reverse is this. At every step of the way, I, personally, and my government, have tried to help the situation of the disabled to make this a truly autonomous and meaningful choice. There is, in the preamble of this legislation, a reference to that. We are working as a government to improve the situation of people living with disabilities, for example, and are investing in mental health, as we have done and as no government has ever done in Canadian history, simply to make this autonomous choice a meaningful one.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the more interesting aspects of the government's motion in response to the Senate amendments is the creation of an independent panel of experts to regulate the issue of expanding medical assistance in dying to mental illness as the sole underlying condition—something the Bloc Québécois is far from convinced it is a good idea—as well as the creation of a joint committee to discuss the safeguards. The Bloc Québécois supports advance requests, but we think that at this stage in our work, it is time to go to committee.

I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Given that there is a broad consensus in Quebec on permitting advance requests for medical assistance in dying and there are a lot of questions about mental illness, why did he expand medical assistance in dying to mental illness and then not permit advance requests in cases such as Alzheimer's? What are the legal reasons?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his question and his valuable work on this file.

We created a committee of experts to help us, but it is up to us, as parliamentarians working in the joint committee and in the House, to come to a decision in the next two years. We are delegating a study, but it is up to parliamentarians to determine the parameters of the question.

We need to keep working on advance requests. That is what we have always said, and we are ready to do that work. We have not had a chance to do it at this stage, and we are going to go ahead with the mental illness issue and the minors issue at the next stage.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I listened first-hand to so many hours of debate from members of the Conservative Party in particular and have drawn the conclusion that if it were up to a number of its members, this legislation would never see the light of day, that they would continue to talk it out indefinitely. I think the Bloc has recognized that, and it is one of the reasons it was so important to bring in time allocation to meet that deadline.

Could the minister provide his thoughts as to why it was so important for us to continue to move this legislation forward?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his collaboration.

We have given the House ample time to debate this bill and the Senate amendments, which members of the Conservative Party have refused to do on three occasions when we offered to extend debate until midnight.

There are 139 members in this place who have spoken on this bill for close to 45 hours. We have a deadline. The deadline carries with it serious consequences. It is clear we will not get another extension from the Superior Court and that we have to move forward on this piece of legislation, which I again assure members of this House has the large consensus of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a sad day that I have to stand up and contradict the minister. I have in my hand a letter from Vulnerable Persons Standard, which represents 129 organizations. These are organizations, not individuals.

The letter states:

As it stands, Bill C-7 is dangerous and discriminatory. Three United Nations experts have warned that Bill C-7 will violate international human rights conventions to which Canada is a signatory. Canadian legal experts warn that Bill C-7 will violate the Charter rights of persons with disabilities. People with disabilities, including in particular those who are marginalized, Black, Indigenous, racialized and poor, have warned that Bill C-7 will undermine their dignity and put their very lives at risk.

The minister is using closure. He is saying that there is consensus. That is simply not true. Will the minister please understand that this is a final deadline for many people to choose this. Could he please reconsider?

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

Madam Speaker, again, these are the kinds of arguments that we have been hearing in this House with respect to Bill C-7 generally, and the member's party has fixated on them. The fact of the matter is that we consulted widely with the leadership of disability groups.

Nobody is forced to get MAID. We, as a government, have invested in a dignified life, and we are going to continue to invest in resources for the disabled and for mental health.

We have disagreed with the opinions offered with respect to the bill's constitutionality. I believe it is constitutional and that it is in fundamental agreement with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, I believe that there are fundamental errors in the report from the United Nations in the way it has characterized the legislation. Nobody is forcing people with disabilities to get MAID.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the minister is debating the reasons he is supporting the bill, yet what we are talking about right now is whether parliamentarians have had the time to speak fully on it.

The allotted time that the minister is mentioning includes debate previous to the Senate amendments. We have not fully debated the Senate amendments and allowed members who wish to do so to represent their communities. My phones and email have been flooded over the last few days. This is likely one of the most important bills that this Parliament will be dealing with, so I implore the minister to allow us the time to properly debate it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that it was her party that on three occasions this past week refused the opportunity to debate the Senate amendments to this bill by refusing to extend hours and by refusing to leave their dilatory tactics aside on other pieces of legislation.

If the member has to explain to her constituents why she perhaps feels she did not have a chance, she will have to explain that her party leader failed to exercise the leadership necessary in order to use the very valuable time that we as parliamentarians have available to discuss this bill properly.

That said, I think there is a large consensus here, which we have seen across Canada and on committee, and we will continue to move forward in this next step.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have some concerns. This is a very important bill, as many other MPs have stated. This is a matter of life and death and very difficult decisions. I have some difficulty with the Senate amendments, and I would appreciate more time to discuss them. I wonder if the minister feels comfortable having an unelected body making amendments to such an important piece of legislation.

We have discussed the bill. We have had expert testimony from witnesses who have come before committee. Now we have these changes, and I think there is a lack of time to consider them carefully. I am wondering if the minister is comfortable with an unelected body making these changes in such a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I am indeed comfortable. For perhaps the first time since the beginning of Confederation, we have a Senate that is doing its job in a very robust, thoughtful and meaningful way. The Senate as well heard expert witnesses, studied the bill and did a prestudy of the bill. The Senate also discussed this bill in a relatively non-partisan way, and that even included Conservative members of the Senate, which, frankly, was heartwarming.

We thoughtfully reacted to the amendments proposed by the Senate and we believe we are moving forward with a reasonable package of amendments that have the large consensus of Canadians. We think this is the best step forward. The things that are left are things we can discuss as parliamentarians in the appropriate fashion over the next two years.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, some members seem to be forgetting that, in addition to the sensitive issues that will be sent to an expert panel and a committee in the next 30 days for review, Bill C-7 contains a number of other improvements.

The bill enables terminally ill patients to give final consent right away without waiting 10 days. It also makes it possible to respond to the situation of people like Ms. Carter, Ms. Parker, Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, who received medical assistance in dying. Patients who are terminally ill are suffering, and they are waiting for us to take action. Bill C-7 already makes that change. The court said that, if we did not give these people the opportunity to be heard, then we were violating their right to life. Bill C-7 resolves that issue.

Does the minister believe that the panel will be set up in the next 30 days? Will the panel continue to work on the issue regardless of whether an election is called? Members of the panel in question will be able to work with other stakeholders. At least that will enable us to make progress on this issue. In a year—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but time is running out and other members want to ask questions.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Montcalm.

I completely agree with his observations on Bill C-7 and the proposed benefits for Canadians across the country. During the consultations, there was a consensus in that regard to truly lessen people's suffering.

I have no doubt that the expert panel will do its job. It will be set up within 30 days, as called for in the motion. I am sure that the work will be done over the next year as planned.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we heard the minister use the word “consensus” over and over again in the last little while. The fact is that when he appeared before the justice committee on Bill C-7, he said there was no consensus to include mental illness. When he went to the Senate and spoke there, he said there was no consensus in the medical community or in Canada on the issue of mental illness.

He is now showing complete contempt for Parliament by having no debate and no study at committee and complete contempt for those in the mental illness community and those in the suicide prevention community. They include such groups as Inclusion Canada, the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship, the DisAbled Women's Network, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action.

Hundreds of organizations have signed a letter asking members of Parliament to please vote against the inclusion of mental illness in Bill C-7. Why is the minister putting the cart before the horse? We need to first study this legislation before moving forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulated the hon. member earlier today for his tone at committee. I wish I could do the same now.

I am not showing contempt for Parliament or the House of Commons. What I am doing is showing respect for a parliamentary committee process that will come to a reasonable conclusion and put in reasonable safeguards with respect to mental illness.

I have always admitted that this is a difficult issue and that I have heard, on both sides, experts saying that we either could or could not. After the intervention of the Senate and its report, its hearing of witnesses and its latent expertise, I am confident that we can move forward with confidence as parliamentarians maintaining the final ability to create the structures that we need to safeguard the process.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that this is a very difficult subject for many parliamentarians and Canadians. It also invokes many deep feelings of conscience. Personally, I am in favour of medical assistance in dying and support Canadians' rights and constitutional rights to access that, but I also know a flawed bill when I see one and I also know when the majority of the Canadian public is very concerned about a bill.

I was somewhat shocked to hear the minister use the word “consensus”. I think he said that there is a consensus among the Canadian public about this bill. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I am hearing from disability rights groups across this country that have not been consulted and are deeply concerned about this bill.

He also says this bill is constitutional. He said that about the other iterations of this bill, after the Carter decision in which Liberal adventurism resulted in another unconstitutional law.

Will the minister heed the call of Canadians and give parliamentarians the right to do a proper study of this bill and make sure this flawed legislation is corrected?