43rd Parliament229Not certifiedJune 2, 2021e-3111e-3111 (Employment and labour)VéroniqueMartineauDanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaNDPMBFebruary 1, 2021, at 5:24 p.m. (EDT)June 1, 2021, at 5:24 p.m. (EDT)June 2, 2021Petition to the <Addressee type="3" affiliationId="" mp-riding-display="1">Government of Canada</Addressee>Whereas:In 2015, the government signalled its intention to “[undertake] a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing [the] system of income support for unemployed workers, [as the current system] leaves too many workers with no unemployment insurance safety net”;The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the limitations of the current EI system, which barely provides any protection when unemployment strikes, forcing the federal government to put in place temporary emergency measures to ensure the financial security of millions of unemployed workers who would otherwise fall through the cracks; andThe pandemic has also highlighted the need for major — and especially permanent — changes to the EI system.We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to: 1) Put in place, as soon as possible, a broad consultation process with the goal of fundamentally reforming the system to make it simpler and fairer;2) Establish a single eligibility threshold of 350 hours or 13 weeks of work;3) Increase the benefit rate to 70% of earnings based on the 12 best weeks of earnings;4) Introduce a minimum threshold of 35 weeks of benefits; and5) Immediately bring in certain improvements, including the return of an independent tripartite tribunal and access to regular EI benefits for women who have been absent from work for pregnancy, maternity and parental responsibilities.Application processEmployment insuranceWomen43rd Parliament223Government response tabledMay 10, 2021e-2996e-2996 (Citizenship and immigration)EhsanShariati VarnosfaderaniJennyKwanVancouver EastNDPBCNovember 24, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. (EDT)March 24, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. (EDT)March 26, 2021May 10, 2021March 25, 2021Petition to the <Addressee type="4" affiliationId="253396" mp-riding-display="1">Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship</Addressee>Whereas:Family reunification has a positive effect on attracting talented immigrants and a positive impact on family prosperity and the economy;By previously scrapping the lottery system for parent and grandparent reunification, the government recognized that the luck-based system is deeply flawed;The recent reintroduction of the lottery system was made with no transparency about the reasoning, studies and consultations that lead to the decision;In addition, the lack of advanced notice means even more are left out with no time to properly plan ahead; andTime and time again, arbitrary application caps result in an unfair system.We, the undersigned, Canadians and permanent residents of Canada, call upon the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to: 1. Explain the decision to return to the previously scrapped system for Parents and Grandparents (PGP) Program;2. Release documents relating to the consultations that lead to this change;3. Immediately undertake an open and publicly available study to create a better and just application process;4. Recognize the positive benefits for family reunification and create a compassionate system without arbitrary caps.
Response by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipSigned by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable Marco MendicinoThe Government of Canada recognizes the importance of family reunification and the economic and social advantages of having families together. The Parents and Grandparents Program is a dedicated pathway to reuniting more families in Canada. Year after year, the number of people interested in sponsoring their parents and grandparents exceeds the admissions targets in the annual Immigration Levels Plan, the tool by which the Government of Canada, in consultation with Provincial and Territorial governments, sets the number of permanent residents to be admitted within each immigration category each year, which in turn determines how many applications can be processed. Family class admissions must be balanced with other immigration categories in order to meet Canada’s broader immigration objectives, including under the economic and refugee streams. Because of this, a random selection model has been implemented.  This ensures that all interested persons have an equal opportunity to be invited to submit an application to sponsor their parents and grandparents.In 2020, the Government of Canada used a random selection intake process that was conducted electronically and under the supervision of auditors to ensure that this process was fair, secure, and transparent. Other intake models used in the past, such as the 2019 online first-in system, posed technical challenges for some prospective sponsors and may have disadvantaged those with certain cognitive or physical disabilities. To address accessibility and fairness concerns, IRCC engaged with disability stakeholder organizations.  Their insight helped inform the 2020 intake model and process, especially in regards to accessibility.  For the first time, interest to sponsor forms in alternative formats (i.e., paper form, large print, or braille) were made available in advance of the online interest to sponsor form submission period. The 2021-2023 Immigration Levels Plan sets the target at 23,500 parent and grandparent admissions per year.  However, in 2020, more than 200,000 individuals filled out the interest to sponsor form to express interest in sponsoring their parent(s) or grandparent(s). Given that demand to sponsor parents and grandparents significantly exceeds the number of spaces allocated to the program, a limit on applications received is needed to avoid lengthy processing times and delays. In 2011, prior to the introduction of an annual limit on the number of applications, the inventory of parent and grandparent sponsorship applications had grown to nearly 80,000 cases, equalling more than 160,000 parents and grandparents awaiting decision. As a result of this large inventory, processing times had grown to over 6 years. Therefore, the application limit prevents the buildup of an unmanageable backlog of applications that leads to lengthy processing times, better supporting faster family reunification.In addition, prospective sponsors who are not selected, but are interested in bringing their parents or grandparents to Canada, can also consider the parent and grandparent Super Visa. Recognizing the importance of bringing families together, this unique visa, available only to parents and grandparents, allows them to visit family in Canada for up to two years at a time without the need to renew their status. It provides multiple entries for a period up to 10 years.The Department always considers ways to improve the Parents and Grandparents Program in order to continue to ensure the Program is accessible and fair to all those who are interested in sponsoring their parents and grandparents, while recognizing that this immigration pathway exists within the larger context of Canada’s immigration strategy where all immigration programs operate under a limit, based on the admissions targets under the Immigration Levels Plan.   
Application processFamily reunificationImmigrant sponsorshipParent and Grandparent Program
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledMay 7, 2021432-00726432-00726 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMarch 24, 2021May 7, 2021March 8, 2021Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.  Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular MAID request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent to be given immediately before MAID is provided is also possible following the Bill C-7 amendments. This change ensures that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledMay 5, 2021432-00686432-00686 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMarch 22, 2021May 5, 2021March 10, 2021Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.  Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular MAID request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent to be given immediately before MAID is provided is also possible following the Bill C-7 amendments. This change ensures that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledApril 26, 2021432-00672432-00672 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMarch 12, 2021April 26, 2021December 18, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.  Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular MAID request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent to be given immediately before MAID is provided is also possible following the Bill C-7 amendments. This change ensures that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledApril 23, 2021432-00647432-00647 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMarch 10, 2021April 23, 2021March 4, 2021Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that an expert be consulted if neither of the two practitioners assessing eligibility has the required expertise, and clarifications related to informed consent.The Bill C-7 amendments were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. They support greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledApril 21, 2021432-00608432-00608 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMarch 8, 2021April 21, 2021December 15, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.  Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular MAID request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent to be given immediately before MAID is provided is also possible following the Bill C-7 amendments. This change ensures that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledApril 12, 2021432-00590432-00590 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABFebruary 26, 2021April 12, 2021January 28, 2021Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.  Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular MAID request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent to be given immediately before MAID is provided is also possible following the Bill C-7 amendments. This change ensures that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledApril 12, 2021432-00570432-00570 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABFebruary 25, 2021April 12, 2021January 28, 2021Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that an expert be consulted if neither of the two practitioners assessing eligibility has the required expertise, and clarifications related to informed consent.The Bill C-7 amendments were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. They support greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledApril 12, 2021432-00556432-00556 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABFebruary 23, 2021April 12, 2021December 15, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.  Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular MAID request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent to be given immediately before MAID is provided is also possible following the Bill C-7 amendments. This change ensures that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledApril 12, 2021432-00517432-00517 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABFebruary 17, 2021April 12, 2021December 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.  Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular MAID request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent to be given immediately before MAID is provided is also possible following the Bill C-7 amendments. This change ensures that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledApril 12, 2021432-00503432-00503 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABFebruary 16, 2021April 12, 2021December 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn March 17, 2021, Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), received Royal Assent. Bill C-7 responds to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.  Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 amended the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion no longer applies as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, but is instead used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards applies to a particular MAID request.The first set of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period responds to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent to be given immediately before MAID is provided is also possible following the Bill C-7 amendments. This change ensures that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledMarch 12, 2021e-3066e-3066 (Social affairs and equality)SabrinaZimmermannPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen PartyBCDecember 24, 2020, at 10:56 a.m. (EDT)January 23, 2021, at 10:56 a.m. (EDT)January 27, 2021March 12, 2021January 26, 2021Petition to the <Addressee type="1" affiliationId="" mp-riding-display="1">House of Commons</Addressee>Whereas:The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) was created to provide financial support to employed and self-employed Canadians who were directly affected by COVID-19;After the CERB’s end date of September 26, 2020, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) sent out letters to 441,000 Canadians who had received the CERB, warning that they may need to repay up to $14,000 due to ineligibility;When the CERB was open for applications, the government did not appropriately specify whether Canadians should determine their eligibility using their gross or net self-employment income;Some CRA agents provided incorrect information about whether eligibility was based on gross or net self-employment income; andCanadians who applied for the CERB in good faith should not be penalized for eligibility errors or misguidance that occurred on the part of the government.We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to retroactively allow self-employed Canadians to use their gross pre-tax income before business expenses when determining their CERB eligibility.
Response by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability InclusionSigned by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): IREK KUSMIERCZYKThe Government of Canada thanks the petitioners for sharing their views on the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). The Government acknowledges the challenges self-employed Canadians have faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) provided temporary income support to workers who stopped working for reasons related to COVID-19. The CERB provided $500 per week for a maximum of 28 weeks. It was available from March 15, 2020, to October 3, 2020.On February 9, 2021, the Government of Canada announced that self-employed individuals who applied for the CERB and would have qualified based on their gross income will not be required to repay the benefit, provided they also met all other eligibility requirements. The same approach will apply whether the individual applied through the Canada Revenue Agency or Service Canada.This means that self-employed individuals whose net self-employment income was less than $5,000 and who applied for the CERB will not be required to repay the CERB, as long as their gross self-employment income was at least $5,000 and they met all other eligibility criteria.Some self-employed individuals whose net self-employment income was less than $5,000 may have already voluntarily repaid the CERB. Additional details will be available in the coming weeks.Once again, the Government of Canada wishes to thank the petitioners. Their views have helped inform the Government’s ongoing efforts to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Application processCanada Emergency Response BenefitCOVID-19Income and wagesPandemicSelf-employed workers
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00286432-00286 (Justice)RachaelThomasLethbridgeConservativeABNovember 24, 2020January 25, 2021April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00284432-00284 (Justice)JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservativeNBNovember 24, 2020January 25, 2021April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00283432-00283 (Justice)CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservativeBCNovember 24, 2020January 25, 2021April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00280432-00280 (Justice)KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservativeONNovember 24, 2020January 25, 2021April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00277432-00277 (Justice)GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservativeABNovember 24, 2020January 25, 2021April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00274432-00274 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABNovember 24, 2020January 25, 2021June 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00416432-00416 (Justice)CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservativeSKDecember 10, 2020January 25, 2021December 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn February 24, 2020, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), to amend the provisions related to medical assistance in dying (MAID) in response to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, and to address issues on which there is emerging societal consensus. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced the Bill.Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards to apply to a particular MAID request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent, to be given immediately before MAID is provided, would also be possible under Bill C-7. This change would ensure that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00405432-00405 (Justice)BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservativeBCDecember 9, 2020January 25, 2021June 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00400432-00400 (Justice)JohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservativeNBDecember 9, 2020January 25, 2021December 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn February 24, 2020, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), to amend the provisions related to medical assistance in dying (MAID) in response to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, and to address issues on which there is emerging societal consensus. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced the Bill.Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards to apply to a particular MAID request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent, to be given immediately before MAID is provided, would also be possible under Bill C-7. This change would ensure that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00397432-00397 (Justice)DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootConservativeABDecember 9, 2020January 25, 2021December 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00391432-00391 (Justice)EricMelilloKenoraConservativeONDecember 9, 2020January 25, 2021December 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and; Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and; Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation; Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to: 1) Restore the 10-day reflection period for people whose deaths have been determined to be "reasonably foreseeable"; 2) Restore the original requirement that a person must give consent to the life-ending procedure immediately before it is performed; 3) Restore the original requirements for the signatures of two witnesses, who cannot provide personal care to the person seeking to end their life; 4) Require medical professionals to do everything possible to enable the person to access life-affirming services to relieve their suffering other than physician-assisted death; and, 5) Accommodate persons with communication disabilities by clarifying "refusal or resistance to administration" of physician-assisted death.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn February 24, 2020, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), to amend the provisions related to medical assistance in dying (MAID) in response to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, and to address issues on which there is emerging societal consensus. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced the Bill.Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards to apply to a particular MAID request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.For this group of persons, a waiver of the requirement for consent, to be given immediately before MAID is provided, would also be possible under Bill C-7. This change would ensure that persons do not choose to have MAID earlier than they would like out of fear of losing their capacity to consent on their preferred day. If a person retains decision-making capacity on their preferred day, they must give consent in whatever manner of communication they are able. If they do not have decision-making capacity, the legislation clarifies that the procedure must not go forward if the person demonstrates refusal or resistance to the administration of MAID by words, gestures or sounds.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with new and enhanced safeguards, to ensure that a request by a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable is fully informed and considered, and that patients have been informed about and have seriously considered all reasonable and available treatment options and social services.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.
Application processCapacity of consent for careHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanismPersons with disabilities
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00387432-00387 (Justice)BradRedekoppSaskatoon WestConservativeSKDecember 9, 2020January 25, 2021June 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00381432-00381 (Justice)TamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservativeBCDecember 9, 2020January 25, 2021February 28, 2020Petition to the House of Commons in Parliament AssembledWe, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas the Superior Court of Quebec's recent Truchon decision stated that the condition for euthanasia that death be reasonably foreseeable is unconstitutional;Whereas the Liberal government made an election commitment to expand access to euthanasia to align with Truchon;Whereas the government recently offered Canadians a two-week consultation period to gauge the public perspective on expanding access to euthanasia;Whereas the current safeguards in place are necessary to protect minors, the mentally and chronically ill, people with disabilities, and those who cannot consent from having their lives prematurely terminated;Whereas the Canadian government should invest in palliative care and support for people with physical and mental disabilities, seeking to preserve life rather than end it.Therefore, we, the undersigned, urge the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the current safeguards in place for euthanasia are in no way loosened and that access to euthanasia is in no way expanded.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn February 24, 2020, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), to amend the provisions related to medical assistance in dying (MAID) in response to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision, and to address issues on which there is emerging societal consensus. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced the Bill.Our Government believes that those who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering from their medical condition – including those who are not approaching the end of life – should be allowed to decide for themselves when they wish to end their life, and that medical and nurse practitioners who are willing to help them have a peaceful and painless death should not be criminally culpable for doing so.As the Truchon decision applies only in Québec, Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the MAID law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining MAID, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards to apply to a particular MAID request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to apply to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by patients and their families, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders that these safeguards pose an access barrier to MAID, do not provide protection to vulnerable persons, and unnecessarily prolong patient suffering.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request MAID and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request MAID. The new safeguards for this group include all of the safeguards that apply to the first group, along with a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement for input from a practitioner with expertise in the condition that is causing the person’s suffering, and a requirement to identify, offer and discuss alternative treatments and services with the person.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations held at the beginning of 2020 with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill protects vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while supporting the autonomy of eligible persons to seek MAID.The current MAID legislation also requires a Parliamentary Review, as well as a review of the state of palliative care in Canada, which was expected to begin in the summer of 2020 but has been delayed as a result of COVID-19’s impact on parliamentary operations.
Application processMedical assistance in dying
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00209432-00209 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABNovember 4, 2020January 25, 2021June 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00197432-00197 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABNovember 2, 2020January 25, 2021June 2, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledDecember 9, 2020432-00154432-00154 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABOctober 26, 2020December 9, 2020June 19, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledNovember 23, 2020e-2821e-2821 (Social affairs and equality)JayWoodruffMatthewGreenHamilton CentreNDPONSeptember 1, 2020, at 2:59 p.m. (EDT)October 1, 2020, at 2:59 p.m. (EDT)October 9, 2020November 23, 2020October 1, 2020Petition to the <Addressee type="2" affiliationId="" mp-riding-display="1">Government of Canada</Addressee>Whereas:Disabled Canadians and Canadians living in poverty are disproportionately provided with emergency financial support since the launch of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) mandated $2,000 a month as the minimum required to live;The United Nations has expressed concern over the unequal support and protections for disabled people and people living in poverty;There is no nationwide support equal to CERB for disabled Canadians or Canadians living in poverty;The Government of Canada has not provided equal support since the launch of CERB to protect the human rights of disabled Canadians and Canadians living in poverty;The Government of Canada has not raised federal supports for disabled Canadians and Canadians living in poverty to be equal to the amount mandated as the minimum of $2,000 a month to survive; andThe Government of Canada has not kept federal support programs equal to inflation.We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to: 1. Immediately expand the eligibility for the CERB to include those who were previously deemed ineligible due to poverty, disability, or other circumstances that have prevented them from meeting the minimum earnings required to qualify for CERB, and that payments be backdated to March 15, 2020; and2. Continue to provide equal support for Canadians as outlined above for the duration of CERB, as well as continuing to provide this support indefinitely through a guaranteed basic income, with the monthly rate increased annually to reflect any increases in of the cost of living.
Response by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability InclusionSigned by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): IREK KUSMIERCZYKThe Government of Canada thanks the petitioners for sharing their views on the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and recognizes their request to amend the program criteria. The Government acknowledges concerns that some workers may have been unable to meet the minimum earnings required to qualify for CERB due to their individual circumstances, including some persons with disabilities.This is a challenging time for all Canadians, and the Government of Canada is taking significant actions to help people facing hardship because of the COVID-19 outbreak.It is important to acknowledge that income security is a shared responsibility across different levels of government. As such, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of working with provinces and territories to find solutions to common challenges.A human rights-based approach to disability issues is reflected in all Government of Canada policies, programs and initiatives. The Government fully supports the equality rights guarantees provided to Canadians with disabilities by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Government has acted to strengthen this commitment through the development and passage of the Accessible Canada Act.The Government also provided a one-time, tax-free, non-reportable payment of up to $600 to assist with additional expenses incurred in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lower-income persons, including Canadians with disabilities, also received a doubled GST/HST credit in April 2020.  The average additional benefit from this measure is close to $400 for single individuals and close to $600 for couples.As announced on September 23, 2020 in the Speech from the Throne, the Government will bring forward a Disability Inclusion Plan that will introduce a new Canadian Disability Benefit. The Plan will also include a robust employment strategy for persons with disabilities, and a better process to determine eligibility for Government disability programs and benefits.From the onset, the Government has taken steps to ensure that the interests and needs of persons with disabilities are being taken into consideration in the decisions and measures adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in the spirit of “Nothing About Us Without Us ” from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Government established a COVID-19 Disability Advisory Group (CDAG), comprised of experts in disability inclusion, to provide advice on the real-time lived experiences of persons with disabilities during this crisis, the issues, challenges and systemic gaps that exist as well as the best strategies and measures to be taken.Notable among the Advisory Group’s contributions and achievements was advising on broadening the reach of the one-time payment of $600 for persons with disabilities.  The Government expanded the payment to include recipients of Canada Pension Plan Disability, Quebec Pension Plan Disability Pension and Disability supports provided by Veterans Affairs CanadaThe Advisory Group and the disability community have raised accessible communications and the need for engagement with persons with disabilities as a key issue. That is why, as part of National AccessAbility Week, the Government announced an additional $1.1 million in funding to support national disability organizations through the Disability component of the Social Development Partnership Program. This funding will enhance their communications and engagement activities to better address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on persons with disabilities.We are making strides on accessibility of public announcements and Government of Canada communications. Sign language interpretation is being provided at Government of Canada press conferences and the COVID-19 Disability Advisory Group provided advice on public service policies related to accessible communications.With respect to the CERB, it is important to note that the program has now ended.  Of note, the CERB was not intended as a universal income support program, but was introduced on a temporary basis to replace income from employment or self-employment workers who had stopped working for reasons related to COVID-19.As of September 27, 2020, the Government implemented plans that transition people who have been receiving the CERB to a more flexible and accessible EI program. As a result of these temporary measures, EI will now be available to more Canadians, including those who would not have qualified for EI in the past.Additionally, the Government introduced three new temporary recovery benefits to support Canadians who are not eligible for EI and who are unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. The Canada Recovery Benefit supports workers who are not employed or self-employed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or are working and have had a reduction of at least 50 per cent in their employment/self-employment income for reasons related to COVID-19, and who are not eligible for EI. The Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit supports public health measures by providing income support to workers who are unable to work because they are sick or must self-isolate due to COVID-19, or have underlying conditions that would make them more susceptible to COVID-19. Finally, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit responds to situations in which workers are unable to work because they must care for a child under the age of 12 or a family member who requires supervision because schools, day-cares or care facilities are closed due to COVID-19 or because the child or family member is sick and/or required to quarantine or is at high risk of serious health implications because of COVID-19.As part of the Government of Canada’s COVID response measures, the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB) provided financial support from May to August, 2020 to post-secondary students and recent graduates who could not find summer employment due to COVID-19. Students with dependants or a disability received an additional $750 in support for a total of $2,000 for each four-week period. For the purposes of the CESB, students with disabilities was defined as someone having an impairment, such as a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment, or a functional limitation—whether permanent or episodic in nature, or evident or not—that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society.This investment builds upon an extensive suite of disability-related supports currently available for post-secondary students with permanent disabilities. These targeted supports include the Canada Student Grant for Students with Permanent Disabilities, which provides $2,000 per academic year (doubled to $4,000 in 2021-22 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic) and the Canada Student Grant for Services and Equipment for Students with Permanent Disabilities, which provides up to $20,000 per academic year to help offset exceptional, education-related costs associated with permanent disabilities. Moreover, students with permanent disabilities have additional special provisions, such as flexible eligibility criteria, increased lifetime loan assistance, and more generous repayment assistance measures. Most recently, as of October 1, 2020, eligible students with disabilities can also take a break from studies for medical or mental health reasons.The Government of Canada will continue to monitor research and analysis on potential basic income policies and programs that could positively impact Canada’s economy and society, as part of its efforts to ensure that all Canadians have a real and fair opportunity to succeed. As we move towards economic recovery, the Government is continuing to explore a variety of potential shorter and longer-term policy responses that could address the needs of Canadians, including persons with disabilities.The Government also recognizes the challenges that many Canadians face with finding and keeping good jobs. These challenges have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Strong employment outcomes for persons with disabilities requires specialized programming that ensures they have the training, skills, and other supports to navigate these challenges. Consequently, the Government of Canada invests in a number of skills training and employment support programs for persons with disabilities, including the Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities (Opportunities Fund), a $40-million-per-year program that supports employment-focused interventions to assist persons with disabilities increase their access to the labour market. Through this program, the Government of Canada provides funding to organizations to assist persons with disabilities prepare for, obtain and maintain employment or self-employment. Projects funded under the program offer a wide range of services, including pre-employability training, self-employment interventions, job placements, wage subsidies and other wrap-around supports.On June 5, 2020, the Prime Minister of Canada announced several new federal supports for Canadians with disabilities to help address the challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. They include a $15 million investment in a new National Workplace Accessibility Stream under the Opportunities Fund program in 2020-2021. This new stream helps support workplace accessibility and access to jobs for Canadians with disabilities, with a focus on the following activities:
  • Helping employers set up accessible and effective work-from-home measures;
  • Expanding online training opportunities;
  • Creating inclusive workplaces, whether virtual or physical;
  • Connecting people with disabilities, including those who work from home, with employers;
  • Training for in-demand jobs; and
  • Establishing wage subsidies to encourage the hiring of Canadians living with disabilities or expanding existing grants.
 
Application processCanada Emergency Response BenefitCOVID-19Guaranteed annual incomePandemic
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledNovember 23, 2020432-00095432-00095 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABOctober 8, 2020November 23, 2020June 19, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledNovember 23, 2020432-00088432-00088 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABOctober 8, 2020November 23, 2020June 19, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledNovember 18, 2020432-00059432-00059 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABOctober 5, 2020November 18, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledNovember 16, 2020432-00003432-00003 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABSeptember 24, 2020November 16, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiOn October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020. Bill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime.Bill C-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request.The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflects the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledSeptember 24, 2020431-00240431-00240 (Justice)TamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservativeBCJune 8, 2020September 24, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second   independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledSeptember 24, 2020431-00260431-00260 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABJune 15, 2020September 24, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period, would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledSeptember 24, 2020431-00265431-00265 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABJune 16, 2020September 24, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period, would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledSeptember 24, 2020431-00292431-00292 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABJune 18, 2020September 24, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period, would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJuly 20, 2020431-00226431-00226 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABJune 2, 2020July 20, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJuly 20, 2020431-00223431-00223 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABJune 1, 2020July 20, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJuly 20, 2020431-00219431-00219 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMay 28, 2020July 20, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJuly 20, 2020431-00217431-00217 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMay 27, 2020July 20, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJuly 20, 2020431-00201431-00201 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMay 20, 2020July 20, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second   independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJuly 20, 2020431-00195431-00195 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMay 19, 2020July 20, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second   independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJuly 20, 2020431-00175431-00175 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMay 7, 2020July 20, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second   independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJuly 20, 2020431-00165431-00165 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservativeABMay 5, 2020July 20, 2020April 30, 2020Petition to the House of CommonsWe, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:Whereas Bill C-7 further removes safeguards from the current euthanasia regime, including the mandatory 10-day reflection period and the number of required witnesses, thereby allowing a person's euthanasia request to be accepted and carried out within the same day and without robust consultation; and;Whereas the removal of the second required independent witness reduces oversight of the procedure, thereby leaving vulnerable persons at risk of abuse; and;Whereas the Canadian Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation;Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the House of Commons to immediately discontinue the removal of safeguards for people requesting euthanasia, and put in place additional measures to protect vulnerable persons.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiBill C-7 responds to the September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling in Truchon,which struck down the eligibility criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying regime. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2020, and is at Second Reading in the House of Commons.The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to ensure consistency of the medical assistance in dying law across the country. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion would no longer apply as an eligibility criterion that could exclude persons from obtaining medical assistance in dying, and would instead be used to determine which of two different sets of safeguards apply to a particular medical assistance in dying request. The Bill’s first set of safeguards would continue to be tailored to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, where risks are reduced given the overall proximity of death and the fact that their suffering is most likely linked to the dying process itself. The removal of the requirement of a second independent witness and the repeal of the 10-day reflection period would respond to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to the effect that: finding two independent witnesses is a challenge for many patients and poses an access barrier to medical assistance in dying; and, the 10-day reflection period is unnecessary and prolongs patient suffering unduly, as persons who request medical assistance in dying often do so after careful consideration.The Bill’s second set of safeguards reflect the more serious consequences of error for persons who request medical assistance in dying and whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. It recognizes the diverse sources of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not dying to request medical assistance in dying. The new safeguards for this group include a minimum 90-day assessment period, a requirement that one of the two eligibility assessments must be conducted by an expert, and clarifications related to informed consent.The amendments proposed in Bill C-7 were informed by consultations with Canadians, the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, key stakeholders, experts, and practitioners. The Bill supports greater autonomy and freedom of choice for eligible persons, and provides appropriate safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable.
Application processHealth care systemMedical assistance in dyingOversight mechanism