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, 2021432-00509432-00509 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABFebruary 16, 2021April 12, 2021September 13, 2016PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On 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 MAID regime. Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 compels a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom. 
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
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 11, 2021e-2378e-2378 (Justice)JackHopkinsAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanLiberalONJanuary 28, 2020, at 1:42 p.m. (EDT)February 27, 2020, at 1:42 p.m. (EDT)January 26, 2021March 11, 2021March 9, 2020Petition to <Addressee type="5" affiliationId="252655" mp-riding-display="1"> the Minister of Justice</Addressee>Whereas:The Federal Government has called for consultations on medical assistance in dying (MAID) eligibility criteria and a request process to be submitted by January 27, 2020.We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Minister of Justice to make changes to the law, specifically Bill C-14, that would permit individuals, who have already been assessed and approved for MAID, to create an advance request, in writing or on video recording, to be used in lieu of giving personal consent at the appropriate time of their procedure, to complete the MAID process, even if they have lost cognizance and are no longer able to give that personal consent as is currently required by law.
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), to amend the provisions related to medical assistance in dying (MAID) in response to the Superior Court of Québec’s September 2019 Truchon decision.Bill C-7 proposes to remove “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” (RFND) as an eligibility criterion in the Criminal Code. RFND 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.Along with other amendments, consistent with the objectives of the petition, Bill C-7 would permit waiver of final consent for persons who are assessed and approved for MAID, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who risk losing decision-making capacity, to make arrangements with their practitioner to receive MAID on a chosen date even if they lose decision-making capacity before that date. This amendment is intended to prevent eligible Canadians from deciding to end their life prematurely if they fear becoming unable to provide consent on their chosen day to receive MAID. Due to the complexity of issues such as advanced requests, we will be studying them during the comprehensive parliamentary review to look at all aspects, including safeguards, and engage in further discussion.
ConsentLiving willsMedical assistance in dying
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00361432-00361 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABDecember 4, 2020January 25, 2021September 26, 2017PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom.
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00316432-00316 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABNovember 30, 2020January 25, 2021September 26, 2017PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom.
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
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, 2021432-00256432-00256 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABNovember 23, 2020January 25, 2021April 19, 2017PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom. 
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00234432-00234 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABNovember 18, 2020January 25, 2021April 19, 2017PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom.
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00428432-00428 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABDecember 10, 2020January 25, 2021September 29, 2017PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom.
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
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 tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00191432-00191 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABOctober 30, 2020January 25, 2021April 19, 2017PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom.
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledJanuary 25, 2021432-00181432-00181 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABOctober 29, 2020January 25, 2021April 19, 2017PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom.
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
43rd Parliament223Government response tabledDecember 10, 2020432-00162432-00162 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABOctober 27, 2020December 10, 2020September 29, 2017PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom.
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
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, 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, 2020432-00036432-00036 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservativeABSeptember 29, 2020November 16, 2020June 20, 2016PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLEDWE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:THAT coercion, intimidation or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedoms of conscience;THAT during testimony at the Special Joint Committee for Physician Assisted Dying, witnesses stated that the protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v Canada (AG);THAT the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) confirmed that conscience protection for physicians would not affect access assisted suicide or euthanasia because 30% of physicians (24,000) would be willing to do it;THAT s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiMedical assistance in dying (MAID) is a complex issue and many Canadians have deeply held views on the subject. On October 5, 2020, the Government re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to respond 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 MAID regime. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.Conscience rights of health care providers and institutions are not matters that fall under the federal criminal law power. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to respecting the personal convictions of health care providers. Nothing in the existing federal law or in Bill C-7 would compel a health care provider to provide or assist in the provision of MAID. This is expressly stated under the existing subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code.The delivery of health care and the regulation of medical professionals fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. No province or territory currently compels practitioners to provide MAID. However, provinces and territories could adopt policies requiring “effective referrals” which, in the MAID context, means referring the person, in good faith, to a practitioner who does not object to MAID.A provincial or territorial law or regulation that affects the conscience rights of providers can be challenged under the Charter, as was the effective referral policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2018-2019, which applies to MAID. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Ontario’s effective referral policy infringes on practitioners’ Charter-protected freedom of religion, but upheld the policy as a reasonable limit of religious freedom.
DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dying
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, 2020431-00243431-00243 (Justice)TamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservativeBCJune 9, 2020September 24, 2020February 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 World Health Organization defines palliative care and euthanasia as separate practices, distinct legally, clinically, and philosophically;Whereas Bill C-14 states that "nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion;"Whereas though the Carter Supreme Court decision invalidated the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting euthanasia, it did not mandate its delivery;Whereas Canadian palliative care organizations are being compelled by regional health authorities to provide on-site euthanasia, despite this being expressly contrary to the convictions of the organizations in question.Therefore, we, the undersigned, urge the Parliament of Canada to enshrine into Canadian Law protections for the conscience rights of palliative care providers, palliative care organizations, and all health care professionals, that if due to their convictions, religious or otherwise, they are unwilling or unable to provide euthanasia, or refer a patient to euthanasia, they never be compelled to do so by any public or private health authority.
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable David LamettiFormer Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), which came into force on June 17, 2016, amended the Criminal Code to permit medical assistance in dying for capable adults who are on an irreversible decline towards death, and are intolerably suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition. The Government believes that Canadians who choose and are eligible for medical assistance in dying should be able to access it without encountering unreasonable barriers relative to their personal circumstances.Nothing in the Criminal Code compels a medical or nurse practitioner to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying. In this regard, the preamble to former Bill C-14 expressly recognized that everyone has freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that nothing in the legislation affects these fundamental freedoms. In addition, and for greater certainty, subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code explicitly states that nothing in the medical assistance in dying provisions compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.Provinces and territories have jurisdiction over the delivery of health care services and the regulation of health care professionals. This allows them to determine how and where medical assistance in dying can be provided within the parameters of the federal legislation. Federal, provincial and territorial government action must comply with the protections for freedom of conscience and religion enshrined in section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subject only to reasonable limits that can be justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Caregivers and health care professionalsFreedom of conscience and religionMedical assistance in dying
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