The Senate
Motion to Resolve into Committee of the Whole to Consider Subject Matter of Bill C-62--Debate
February 12, 2024
Pursuant to notice of February 7, 2024, moved:
That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, on Wednesday, February 14, 2024:
1.the sitting be suspended at the time the Senate would normally adjourn or once the Senate has completed the consideration of items on the Order Paper and Notice Paper for the day, whichever comes earlier;
2.at 6 p.m., the sitting resume, and the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the subject matter of Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2;
3.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-62 receive the Honourable Mark Holland, P.C., M.P., Minister of Health, and the Honourable Arif Virani, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, each accompanied by two officials;
4.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-62 rise no later than 130 minutes after it begins;
5.the witnesses’ introductory remarks each last a maximum total of five minutes;
6.if a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-31(3)(d), including the responses of the witnesses, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator;
7.rule 3-3(1) be suspended and no motion to adjourn the sitting be received before the Committee of the Whole has reported; and
8.once the Committee of the Whole has reported, the Senate adjourn.
He said: Honourable senators, I would just like to make a few brief remarks about Government Motion No. 152, which would authorize a Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-62.
This motion will allow for the appearance of the Ministers of Health and Justice in this chamber, and their respective officials, for a total of 130 minutes. This was a process agreed to by the Senate’s leadership following open, collaborative and transparent consultations, and was ultimately deemed as the appropriate course of action to properly consider this legislation given the time sensitive nature of it.
This process is in addition to the comprehensive work already done by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which was tasked by both chambers to calmly examine Canada’s readiness in light of the timeline provided for in the sunset provisions. Indeed, the joint committee process itself came as a result of a Senate amendment to the former Bill C-7. As we know, ultimately, the joint committee determined that a further extension was warranted, and this has been supported by provincial and territorial governments. Both ministers will be here to engage with senators in this chamber as well as to answer any and all questions we may have as part of our deliberations.
Honourable senators, as you know, the Senate is meeting this evening precisely because our colleagues who were unable to be in this chamber on Thursday could be accommodated and wanted to be included in the debate on this motion. I strongly believe that those who wish to weigh in should have the ability to do so, and that is why we accommodated the request that we received from two Senators last Wednesday evening.
But as the Government Representative, I would like to stress the importance of the Committee of the Whole process that was agreed to by the leadership in this place. Therefore, colleagues, I would respectfully ask that we support Government Motion No. 152 as presented, and that we will all have the opportunity to debate the substance of this bill once we receive it in this chamber. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I am not against having a Committee of the Whole on this bill to hear from two ministers, but I am opposed to the motion if the Senate decides to use the Committee of the Whole to deny additional pre-study of this bill. This cannot be the only pre-study that we conduct on this life and death issue affecting Canadians. If we do that, I think that we will have failed to meet our constitutional obligations. We will have failed Canadians. We will have failed the people whom this bill most directly impacts by denying them a chance to let us hear their voices.
Before going further, I would like to thank all my colleagues who sent me their messages of solidarity while I was in the emergency room of the Ottawa Civic Hospital all of Wednesday evening, all night and into Thursday. I particularly thank my friend Senator Ravalia, whose advice forced me to seek the urgent care I needed. I also want to thank all of you who allowed this debate to take place this evening and those who took the time and effort to get to Ottawa tonight. We have shown by our actions that whatever the outcome of this bill will be, that we take seriously the work of this chamber. We have shown this country one small example of why this chamber matters.
The possibility of this Committee of the Whole being used as the only pre-study of Bill C-62 for the purpose of avoiding fulsome study of this bill is what concerns me. Many of you here, as individuals and groups, have previously voiced your valid objections to this kind of use of the Committee of the Whole. It must not be used to circumvent our duty of due diligence, and it must not be used to ram through government legislation.
We need to be sure that our Senate process hears the voices of the people most affected by this bill. We must not put political expediency in front of critical review. Our process must not replicate the flawed way that the joint committee majority report denied the voices of the limited few with long and horrible suffering to be heard. We must also hear directly from the health care providers who are responsible for this important work, not just from politicians who may have different reasons for the opinions they have shared publicly.
I would like to remind us what the Supreme Court wrote in its 2014 Senate Reform Reference SCC 32:
. . . “[i]n creating the Senate in the manner provided in the Act, it is clear that the intention was to make the Senate a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons” . . . . The framers sought to endow the Senate with independence from the electoral process to which members of the House of Commons were subject, in order to remove Senators from a partisan political arena that required unremitting consideration of short-term political objectives.
Or as Nora Sheppard, my 96-year-old mother-in-law who has been following this issue closely, said to me this past weekend, “When health care gets mixed up with politics, then it’s not health care anymore.”
Honourable senators, it is essential that we don’t let ourselves get swept up in the tussles of short-term political objectives. As with many others in this chamber, I am concerned that Bill C-62 is clearly motivated by short-term political objectives.
I am speaking to this motion to ask that we ensure that when we come to vote on this bill, that we have been properly informed and that we have specifically heard from the people most affected and most knowledgeable. I am speaking in support of our chamber to do our due diligence and provide due process in our work on this bill.
We must listen to the people who have been waiting for three years to apply for medical assistance in dying, or MAID, consideration, those who have understood what the government’s own readiness criteria were, who have now had those goalposts moved and who have now been abandoned by this government. We must hear from them, and not only from the psychiatrists, lawyers, bioethicists and organizations that have self-appointed themselves to speak on behalf of this small group of suffering people. Let me assure you that I spoke directly with many people who will be impacted by this bill. All were clear: None of the groups and individuals arguing against MAID MD-SUMC, that is MAID where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, have ever reached out to the very few Canadians who were suffering to ask what they needed.
“Nothing about us without us.”
When I spoke with those who are suffering and who have been waiting for three years for the Criminal Code repeal so they could apply to consider end-of-life-options, they all told me, “The anti-MAID MD-SUMC voices do not speak for me.”
We must also hear from the clinicians and regulators in the provinces and territories who actually know if they’re prepared or not, and not only from politicians who may want to take this issue out of electoral play.
Addressing this legislation only through a Committee of the Whole pre-study is a massive disservice to Canadians, who expect our chamber to give careful, sober second thought to every piece of legislation that we study. A Committee of the Whole cannot substitute a solid and necessary Senate study. I speak to this motion to urge you that we must make sure that the necessary work of appropriate Senate pre-study by our standing committees is not circumvented. We must support due process.
There are a number of points I suggest we should consider, through the Social Affairs Committee and the Legal Committee, in addition to the Committee of the Whole, which has only asked two ministers to appear. First, this legislation deals with a deeply personal issue that directly impacts Canadians’ ability to make end-of-life health care decisions equally. Colleagues, to date, parliamentarians have not provided a forum for those who are directly impacted to be heard. We have not heard from these people. This legislation has a profound impact on a small number of people, estimated to be about 250, who have suffered intolerably for decades, with no relief, despite trying everything available to them. It’s not a lack of mental health care they’re experiencing.
Yes, colleagues, they have experienced decades of unrelievable suffering, yet they’ve not had an opportunity to speak and share their perspectives. They must speak here because they were ignored by the joint committee and by those who created this legislation.
I’ve had opportunities to speak with several of those who will be directly impacted. These are people who have suffered intolerably for decades. They’ve tried scores of treatments with no success. Some are so unwell that they can’t leave their homes; they’re tormented day and night. These are not the people the anti-MAID proponents want you to hear from. When we hear from those whom this bill impacts, you will see that the myth that has been publicly propagated regarding who might be eligible will be shattered.
Let us take John Scully, for example. He’s 82 and suffers from a severe, incurable, intolerable mental illness. He has been a patient in seven psychiatric wards. He has been treated by a dozen psychiatrists. He has had 19 shock therapies. He says he has tried every single psychiatric drug known to science. He has suffered for over 40 years, and nothing has eased his pain. He’s not having trouble accessing mental health care.
Contrary to what we hear from the media hype, this is the type of person that MAID MD-SUMC should be considered for.
I’ll read directly from his brief submitted to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying but which was, interestingly, not considered by the committee:
I have the capacity to make decisions about my life and death. I want MAID for the mentally ill to be passed without any further cruel delays. It hasn’t stopped. It will never stop and there is no cure.
He simply asks for the same right to health care that every other person in this country has.
I also spoke to Cathy Van Buskirk, a 56-year-old woman from Manitoba suffering for decades with a severe and intolerable mental illness. She is housebound. She has tried, as she said, every medication, 12 shock therapies, 12 ketamine infusions and multiple kinds of therapies. Nothing has worked. She said:
I wake up in the morning and immediately start crying and literally shaking with anxiety not knowing how I am going to make it through another day. . . .
. . . My illness is just as difficult and debilitating as a physical one. I should be given the same choice to end my suffering. I want to die peacefully with my family by my side. Please, no more delays.
Yet, colleagues, those who have never spoken with John, Cathy or others like them argue that she should be denied this right. Cathy and others like her want to be able to speak for themselves before us. They want us to listen to them.
I’ve spoken and corresponded with Jane Hunter, who has asked for an opportunity to speak to us directly. She’s 75, and for decades, she has suffered from a severe, intolerable mental disorder and tried scores of treatments to no avail. She states:
How many parliamentarians spoke to someone with lived experience like me before making this decision? I don’t know of one.
Colleagues, not hearing from those who have been suffering and waiting for three years is an injustice. This chamber must remedy the injustice.
The second reason I disagree with the possibility of only a Committee of the Whole pre-study with two ministers is because those physicians and nurse practitioners who are actually doing the work on the ground to ensure readiness have clearly indicated that many are actually ready. The joint committee received numerous timely briefs from aid providers across Canada, some of which were tabled into committee, that clearly state, “We are ready.” The committee did not allow them into evidence, and a majority report does not even mention them. I will read directly from some of these suppressed briefs.
Dr. Hayden Rubensohn in Alberta stated:
I strongly believe that Alberta and other Canadian jurisdictions are ready. We are ready to face this challenge and rise to the task.
Dr. Mark Lachmann from Ontario stated, “We are, however, ready to move ahead with MAID MD-SUMC in Ontario as of March 17, 2024.”
Health care professionals, including psychiatrists, in Nova Scotia wrote, “. . . we feel well prepared in Nova Scotia.”
Dr. Lillian Thorpe from Saskatchewan wrote:
I believe that we can make the expansion to include MAID MD-SUMC safe and appropriate. I believe we are ready.
Colleagues, these are confirmations of readiness coming from many clinicians working on the ground. Honourable senators, they know if they’re ready.
Interestingly, this is 180 degrees different from what some provincial and federal politicians are telling us. Why the discrepancy? We need to know why there is a discrepancy.
Third, we need to hear from the clinicians who know if their readiness tasks established by this government and demanded to be in place in 2022 have been completed. These were, after all, the goalposts that were set to support the sunset clause expiration. It’s not difficult to determine if these tasks have been completed; it is “yes” or “no.” We need to hear from these people and not rely upon inputs from those who may not like one or other parts of these criteria or who want to substitute their own criteria to move the goalposts that the federal government had previously set. These readiness criteria were laid out in Minister Duclos’ letter of October 2022. These are the criteria for readiness that those who have waited for three years have been assured would be the goalposts.
Colleagues, with regard to readiness, we need to hear from these three key stakeholder groups, not via an undated letter from some provincial or territorial ministers who might never have spoken to a person who has waited for three years to apply for MAID — ministers who might have “short-term political considerations,” encouraging them to ignore the fact that many MAID providers in their own jurisdictions say they’re ready. What a contradiction.
Colleagues, today, we all received a letter signed by 127 MAID providers who say they’re ready for MAID MD‑SUMC and that the health system in which they work is ready. This is more evidence that many MAID providers are ready. That’s 127 for 250 potential cases.
Let me address a canard I’ve heard — that being practice-ready and clinically ready are not the same thing, and that providers might be practice-ready but not clinically ready. Colleagues, speaking as a physician with the physicians in this chamber, this is nonsense. Both the recent letters we’ve received state that the many providers are ready, and that means ready — period. This letter as well as the briefs that were not considered by the joint committee are in direct opposition to what the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice have told Canadians. How can we expect that simply talking to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice is going to get at what we need to? Who is correct?
We have a huge discrepancy here that we must resolve. That will require Senate committee pre-study in addition to the Committee of the Whole. A Committee of the Whole listening to only two ministers who may not have been properly briefed will not allow us to do the work we need to, and I would like to point out that all this can be done without changing the timeline that the government has given us.
I will close with a quote from Jane Hunter, a person who is known to Senator Ravalia, who wrote to us, saying:
I want the opportunity to calmly answer to the objections of those who have not, so far, been able or willing to look beyond their own ideological paradigms and lived experiences and consider mine . . . we are out here, depending on your powers of reason and rational thinking.
Honourable senators, before we vote on the motion, we must ensure the government is not trying to use the Committee of the Whole to block us from hearing those we must hear from. We must do our job, follow due process and hear from those who must be heard. After all, honourable colleagues, this is why we have been called to this place.
Thank you, wela’lioq.
Honourable senators, I wish I could say that I am surprised by where we are on this issue, facing a motion that will have the effect of silencing the voices of those who are experts in this area and denying a voice to those who are suffering from mental illness. They’ve been disappointed and misled, and now they’re being denied the same right their fellow Canadians have to make their own end-of-life choices.
As one of the senators in this chamber who has been a long‑standing member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, I witnessed first-hand the deliberate mishandling of this issue. I am in many ways sorry to have been part of a process that brings us here and robs so many of hope. Here in the Senate, we are used to a committee process that is fair and rigorous, but unfortunately, that is not always the case in the House of Commons. Committees are routinely hijacked there by the majority, and debate is short-circuited. We in the Senate are the ones left to clean up the mess.
I want to remind everybody that when the Senate sent amendments to this government based on what we had studied and debated, calling for advanced requests and consideration of access to medical assistance in dying, or MAID, for those with severe mental illness, it was the government itself that rejected advanced requests and said that access for those with mental illness would be their priority, their choice and their call.
We studied it. Outside groups and expert panels studied it, and then the government sought a year of delay. Now, just weeks before this delay was to be lifted, they have proposed yet another delay — in their words — until after the next election. This is despite the fact that the majority of witnesses stated clearly that the standards, testing and practitioners are in place and ready. The government has rejected this evidence and offered no new definition of what would constitute readiness. Therefore, once again, politics trumps the lives of those who are suffering and waiting.
Just to be clear, our mandate — what we were asked to do — was to assess in a very specific and narrow way whether the system was ready. Do we have the assessors and providers? Have they been trained? Are there standards so there is fair and equal access across Canada? The answer from 15 of the 15 professionals who were directly involved in readying the system was, “Yes.”
What I find so troubling is that this government says it is a powerful supporter of choice — choice when it comes to gender, a woman’s body and abortion and for many lifestyle issues — but it gives no choice for those who want a say in their end-of-life decision if mental illness is their malady.
MAID is about choice. Nobody mandates it, and nobody can force you, but if you are at stage 4 cancer, you can seek MAID. But if you have suffered from bipolar disorder your whole life and treatment with medication doesn’t work, or you have a dementia or an Alzheimer’s diagnosis, you don’t have a choice. Why? That is choice for some but not for all.
The government has built high fences to ensure safety, to offer reassurance for families and for the protection of the individuals. That matter is settled. We are not here to relitigate access to MAID. This delay, however — the denial of rights for some and the deliberate misrepresentation by government ministers of our mandate and of the evidence and testimony presented — is truly unacceptable. That is why I stand here today — to urge you to vote against this motion for a Committee of the Whole, because job one in the Senate is the proper review of legislation. We study, hear from witnesses, come to conclusions and offer the government of the day our best advice. This is not a forum for ministers to hold another press conference where we have limited questioning, no proper follow-ups and no time for sober second thought. They hijacked the joint committee but should not be allowed to undermine this chamber.
Stan Kutcher, Dr. Mégie and I, supported by Drs. Osler and Ravalia, all attended the hearings and agree that the committee report falsely represented the actual witness testimony — and other testimony that was submitted was simply ignored. Senator Dalphond, in his report, says the whole thing should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada because there’s such an obvious denial of Charter rights. Our Bloc Québécois colleague, in case you think it was only senators objecting to what took place at committee, said this:
We deplore the fact that, since the Carter decision, the federal government has been dragging its feet when it comes to MA, forcing parliamentarians to work in a hurry to meet often unrealistic deadlines in conditions that are far from optimal from both a methodological and work organization standpoint. . . .
The experts who gave their time and testimony are also angry that their words are being misrepresented by government. I know this is true because I sat through the testimony. They were questioned directly and repeatedly. These witnesses were people like Dr. Mona Gupta — from whom you’ve all received a letter — Chair of the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness who, among others, has been directly involved in the process of developing the regulations and guidelines for MAID assessors and providers. I suggest you take a look at her letter if you haven’t already.
As the others have mentioned, this is the sad fact: Not one individual suffering from a mental disorder who has been waiting to exercise their right to simply apply for MAID was consulted during this process — not one. The government ignores those whose lives hang in the balance. It ignores the testimony of its own chosen experts and then tries to argue that there was a lack of consensus on the issue. In the first place, there will never be consensus on any issue that is so personal and moral — but again, no consensus was sought. We were not looking for consensus. We were asked and instructed to look for the state of readiness and preparedness, and we were told by the providers that the system was ready. The curriculum developed by the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers has, in fact, already been approved by Canada’s formal medical accreditation bodies.
The government seeks to distract with talk about the state of health care and the fact that some provincial ministers say they are not ready. Well, they don’t have to be ready. It’s not about the sorry state of health care in Canada or the politics or preferences of provincial ministers. It’s about whether the system for assessment and provision of MAID is ready to deal with those with mental health issues, and the expert testimony indicated that it is, regardless of how you might feel about this issue. It must be a matter of choice.
For weeks in advance, we witnessed ministers of the Crown seeding the field, publicly sowing seeds of doubt prior to the report being released, even though they had heard the testimony. That’s not misinformation; it’s disinformation.
I urge everyone in this chamber to reject this motion for a Committee of the Whole for Bill C-62 on the grounds that the special joint committee failed in its deliberations to weigh evidence fairly and to present it fairly and failed in respect to its own mandate, which was limited to the preparedness to deliver MAID.
What this motion means is that government is asking us once again to pass a bill without proper study. This is not us delaying a bill. This is the government’s decision to put it off, as they say in their own words, until after the next election.
The government is creating a false panic over timing. We have time to study this properly. The government itself anticipated that time might be needed for that study, because they have added the coordinating amendments in Bill C-62 that are essentially a fail‑safe, that should this bill come into force after the March 17, 2024, date has passed, the proper clauses are repealed and come into effect as though the bill had been passed before the deadline and mental disorders would not be considered a condition eligible to apply for MAID. It’s in the Criminal Code, and it will remain in the Criminal Code. If we were still to be studying this bill on March 18, no one with mental illness as a sole underlying cause would be eligible. So there’s no urgency to do this in one day, just a political imperative.
I repeat, the Committee of the Whole is not a rigorous process. We see it here all the time, being asked to confirm five- or seven‑year appointments in an hour or two.
We must do our job, shine a light on what has gone wrong and let the informed and the impacted voices be heard — in other words, to get at the truth.
It is in the interest of everyone here in this chamber and all Canadians that this institution preserves the integrity of our sworn duty by insisting that Bill C-62 face standard scrutiny and that we ask our committees to do what they do best.
The time is now to be brave, to embrace those who have done so much for each of us. They might be our parents or our grandparents, our husbands or wives, our sisters or brothers, our children or our neighbours — anyone who suffers needlessly. We must do what is right and give them, if they so choose, the right to leave us with dignity, please.
Senator Wallin, will you take a question?
Certainly.
Thank you, Senator Wallin, for sharing your perspectives with us. You and I have worked on the issue of advance directives. That’s not what we’re talking about tonight, and it’s not in Bill C-62, but I am with you all the way on that.
I’m struggling a bit with the arguments you put forward about not having a Committee of the Whole. Maybe I have a misunderstanding, but you made it sound as if the government was forcing this situation on us. My understanding is that it was this chamber and the groups in this chamber that asked for a Committee of the Whole and that incredible effort was put in to try and convince the government to make available two ministers, not just one, and one who was away and had to rearrange everything to come back and with an extended period of time. I’ve been in a lot of debates here where that’s what we see, for we have the opportunity for all of us to participate and to ask.
Do you have information that suggests that the government is forcing this on us or information that it wasn’t agreed to at a leaders’ meeting and then the Government Representative went and sought a response? I’m confused by your remarks — by a lot of them, actually.
The motion has come forward from the government leader for a Committee of the Whole. Our standard procedure in here is when we get a piece of legislation — which we understand might come later this week — it is generally referred to Senate committees. We study it. We look at it. We give our advice back to the government, and they either accept it or reject it.
The Committee of the Whole — I’ve been here for a few years now — process is not, as I said in my remarks, in my own mind, rigorous. We’re allowed to ask a question and then a follow-up might come 10 minutes or 15 minutes later, after we’ve gone through the speaking cycle, because we approach this very differently.
You might want to share the questions amongst your own group or however it works, but this is not the kind of work that goes on in Senate committees — even the new senators will now be familiar with it — where we do in-depth questioning of expert witnesses and people with vested interests. That’s what the committee process is about.
We know it doesn’t work that way in the House of Commons. That’s a completely partisan body. They’re there to fight their political battles. This is why we have a Senate in Canada, where there’s sober second thought. Bills come here, and if they have not been handled thoroughly or procedurally in the other place, we can shine that light, as I said, on the issues at hand.
The Committee of the Whole, with two ministers for two hours, is just not my view of what the Senate of Canada is obliged to do. Our first and foremost job is to review government legislation.
Thank you.
May I ask a supplementary question, with leave?
The time for debate has expired, so is leave granted?
I hear a “no.” Leave is not granted.
Colleagues, I rise to speak to government Motion No. 152. This motion amounts to the use of a Committee of the Whole as a pre-study of Bill C-62.
I want to be clear at the outset that what I am considering and will be discussing is the process of our study of Bill C-62. This is not about my views or, frankly, about yours or anyone’s views on the subject matter. It should be about the process we should be taking as an institution.
There is a very concerning trend that has emerged in the past years. Our chamber of sober second thought is increasingly a rubber stamp. We have allowed this because of a minority Parliament where brinksmanship is crucial to seeing anything accomplished.
While there have been many times when we may have thought that this was the right decision, I strongly believe, colleagues, that on this occasion, we must take the time to do a more thorough and considerable investigation on the study of this bill. A two-hour Committee of the Whole does not meet the standard.
Bill C-62 represents an evolution in one of the most challenging public policy discussions here in Canada in the last decade. Medical assistance in dying is a hotly contested issue that engages our democracy in extraordinarily challenging ways. As our country’s chamber of sober second thought, with a constitutional requirement to conduct rigorous debate before making decisions, 130 minutes is not enough. Hearing from the honourable ministers and no other Canadians is not enough.
Regardless of the final decision that we make on this bill, I would assert that a Committee of the Whole in the manner described in this motion would result in a failure — our failure — to fulfill our role here in the Senate. We must be mindful that Canadians are watching, but more important than that, we must keep ourselves accountable. We must look back on this week a few years down the road and be proud of our work, not embarrassed that we failed to meet the moment.
I want us to reflect on a recent experience we’ve had here in the Senate when, in another instance, we were forced to make a rash and speedy decision. I’m thinking about Bill C-28. This bill was adopted and received Royal Assent four sitting days after it was introduced in the other place in June 2022, following a Supreme Court ruling in May of that year. You will recall, colleagues, the collective unease that we felt. Our esteemed colleagues from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs were relegated to being reviewers, not legislators. We did not benefit from their sober second thought on this bill at that time, and there were negative consequences to our quick work on that bill.
In April of last year, after a thorough study, the committee noted that witnesses who were consulted on this bill felt that their consultations were insufficient. They had concerns about the harms that Bill C-28 would cause, including a disproportionate impact on marginalized women. The witnesses believed that Bill C-28 lacked clarity and precision, potentially resulting in the spread of misinformation and uncertainty about the law. Preventing such issues is the exact reason the Senate exists. We exist to bring clarity, to ensure equity and to meaningfully engage Canadians.
In light of this recent history, and facing a subject matter that is enormous in its social, legal and medical implications, I’m particularly concerned that we must do our due diligence on Bill C-62.
Medical assistance in dying, or MAID, is an issue that engages multiple dimensions of public policy. Much of our discussions within this chamber on MAID are focused on the legal and constitutional implications of the bill. As a result of the sunset clause in Bill C-7, more focus has been brought to the health systems’ implication of MAID. This is the centre of the government’s argument for Bill C-62.
I would propose there is a third dimension to consider: the dimension of public opinion. Now, as unelected senators, we relate to the public somewhat differently than our elected colleagues, and this, I believe, strengthens our democracy. One important way that we relate to the public is through amplifying their voice in our committee process.
I think we would be naive if we did not consider the role that politics and public opinion have had in bringing us here today. There is no doubt that we need to be mindful of these forces, but we must not be intimidated by these forces. We must not be rushed. We must not be relegated to becoming simple reviewers. We are legislators. We must do our job.
This is even more important because it seems that the other place will likely send the bill through with minimal scrutiny on this occasion as well.
Colleagues, I believe we must look deeper into the legal and health systems’ implications of this bill, as well as the assertions that are at its origin, including those in the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.
Some believe that, at a minimum, the time for the Committee of the Whole should be doubled. Twelve slots of 10 minutes, even if split, allows a fraction of us the opportunity to ask questions, and certainly does not allow for deep and thorough study.
But I think we should be going further. I believe a more thorough and detailed pre-study of the subject matter of Bill C-62 is a necessary step. I would argue that the Social Affairs Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee should consider the subject matter. The Social Affairs Committee should consider it, as it was put forward by the Minister of Health, and because a central question of the subject matter is the readiness of the health care system. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee should study the bill because of the important constitutional considerations.
I believe the committees should welcome both ministers and the chairs of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. But they should also bring in legal experts, health regulators, Canadians with lived experience and other concerned parties.
There is an important distinction to be made here between the mandate of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and our mandate in the Senate.
The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying had a mandate, in its most recent iteration, to verify the degree of preparedness attained for a safe and adequate application of MAID in situations where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.
As a result of the committee’s recommendation, new legislation has been developed, and now we have a mandate with new legislation that is coming our way. As with every other piece of new legislation that comes our way, as legislators, we have a mandate to review and scrutinize every bill, including those that emerge from prior work done by Parliament. This is all that I’m proposing must be done for Bill C-62.
A pre-study in committee provides us with an opportunity for scrutiny from a broader set of senators and fresh perspectives with a specific focus on the bill that is now before us.
Canadians are watching, colleagues, and they are ready to come and speak to us. And we must be ready to listen. Even if we can only organize a few meetings, that is better than nothing.
Colleagues, adding committee pre-studies to this Committee of the Whole pre-study would allow us to go deeper and make the best use of our time. I know this might be considered more labour-intensive than what is being proposed by the motion, but I also know that you are willing to do this work.
It is most important to note that this pre-study does not — cannot — slow down the process of Bill C-62 when it comes to us, and would allow the bill to proceed even before the committee reports, if that be the case.
This is about process, colleagues. It is about doing our job.
You all know, honourable senators, how important this is. You know because you have seen countless reports in the media. You have seen this issue become a political football. You have read emails from thousands of Canadians in the past years, and I believe we all feel a collective duty to make every reasonable effort to get this right. Regardless of how we feel about this topic, you know, dear colleagues, that anything short of our best effort is failing Canadians.
