QUESTION PERIOD — Justice
Canada Health Act
December 2, 2020
Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Jean Truchon sought and was granted medical assistance in dying by a Quebec court when he was institutionalized because adequate care and support could no longer be provided to him in his apartment. Contrary to the quality of life and independence that he wanted, he faced a lifetime in the type of setting where, as COVID-19 has reminded us, lack of funding, resources and supports mean that too many have been abandoned to neglect and indignity.
Constitutional law experts remind us that the Supreme Court of Canada’s Fraser decision has clarified that the Charter right to substantive equality requires a contextual analysis of choice. The voluntariness of a choice cannot be used to shield a law like Bill C-7 from constitutional challenge if choices are themselves shaped by systemic inequality.
People are seeking death as a result of suffering that is not inevitable but rather is the result of systemic policy failures to equally fund, support and ensure dignity and adequate access to such resources as long-term care, palliative care, home care, mental health care, housing and income supports.
Will the government commit to: one, seeking an extension of the suspension of invalidity of the Truchon decision; two, referring this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to allow for further consideration of Bill C-7 in light of Fraser, with fulsome consultation with disability groups about building the factual record for the court; and three, in order to ensure Bill C-7 does not create the right to die without first creating the right to live, amending the Canada Health Act to include national standards to require the provision of equitable access to such services?
Senator Pate, thank you for your question and your commentary. You raise important issues about the subject matter that our committee here is seized with and, indeed, about issues of great concern.
I’m going to answer your questions specifically and directly, but I would like to preface it by saying that the issues you raise — from the point of view of this government and the government I’m proud to represent — are the proper subject of debate in this chamber. That’s what we are here for, what each and every one of us was summoned here for, to apply our best, critical reason to legislation and important public policy issues that are brought before us. I look forward to the debate when we get the bill, which is still being debated in the House of Commons. The government looks forward to the contribution the Senate can make to improving this legislation and making sure it works for the benefit of all Canadians.
To your specific questions. With regard to seeking an extension, as you would well know, the decision whether or not to seek an extension lies with the Minister of Justice in his or her capacity as Attorney General. As I said, that is a matter that is within his purview. It is not the intention of the government to refer the question to the Supreme Court of Canada. The position of this government is that Bill C-7 — the response, as you correctly point out, to the Truchon decision— is a bill that is the product of significant consultation with stakeholders, including those who represent persons with disabilities and others.
It is the position of this government that not only is this a good bill, a reasonable bill, a fair bill, but it is a constitutional bill. I look forward to engaging with colleagues in the Senate when we do have the opportunity to debate this bill.
If I may further say with regard to your third question, it is precisely because we have not yet received this bill, we have not yet debated this bill, we have not yet considered amendments that senators may wish to bring to improve the bill that I cannot, and the government is not, committing to amending the Canada Health Act along the lines you suggest. We are here in the Senate for the purpose of debating and improving legislation. The Government of Canada is looking forward to this debate and the suggestions that each and every senator may bring to improve the bill. It will consider seriously any amendments that will improve this bill.
Not to proceed would be to abdicate our constitutional responsibility on an issue we have not yet even received. And not to proceed with Bill C-7 is to condemn Canadians, not only in Quebec but elsewhere, to continue to suffer and be denied their constitutional rights because we in the Senate are not discharging our constitutional obligation to consider this bill and try to make it as good as it can be.
