43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée7 mai 2021432-00726432-00726 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB24 mars 20217 mai 20218 mars 2021Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée5 mai 2021432-00686432-00686 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB22 mars 20215 mai 202110 mars 2021Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée26 avril 2021432-00672432-00672 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB12 mars 202126 avril 202118 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée23 avril 2021432-00647432-00647 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB10 mars 202123 avril 20214 mars 2021Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée21 avril 2021432-00608432-00608 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB8 mars 202121 avril 202115 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée12 avril 2021432-00590432-00590 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB26 février 202112 avril 202128 janvier 2021Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée12 avril 2021432-00570432-00570 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB25 février 202112 avril 202128 janvier 2021Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée12 avril 2021432-00556432-00556 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB23 février 202112 avril 202115 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée12 avril 2021432-00517432-00517 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB17 février 202112 avril 20212 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée12 avril 2021432-00509432-00509 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB16 février 202112 avril 202113 septembre 2016PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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. 
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée12 avril 2021432-00503432-00503 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB16 février 202112 avril 20212 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée11 mars 2021e-2378e-2378 (Justice)JackHopkinsAnitaVandenbeldOttawa-Ouest—NepeanLibéralON28 janvier 2020 à 13 h 42 (HAE)27 février 2020 à 13 h 42 (HAE)26 janvier 202111 mars 20219 mars 2020Pétition au <Addressee type="5" affiliationId="252655" mp-riding-display="1"> ministre de la Justice</Addressee>Attendu que :Le gouvernement fédéral a lancé des consultations sur les critères d’admissibilité à l’aide médicale à mourir et sur le processus de demande dont la date limite est le 27 janvier 2020.Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, prions le ministre de la Justice de modifier la loi, plus précisément le projet de loi C-14, de manière à permettre aux personnes ayant déjà été évaluées et approuvées en vue de l’aide médicale à mourir de créer une demande à l’avance, par écrit ou par enregistrement vidéo, pouvant tenir lieu de consentement personnel au moment voulu à l’exécution de la procédure d’aide médicale à mourir, même si elles ont perdu l’aptitude de donner ce consentement personnel, comme l’exige actuellement la loi.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirConsentementTestaments biologiques
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00361432-00361 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB4 décembre 202025 janvier 202126 septembre 2017PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00316432-00316 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB30 novembre 202025 janvier 202126 septembre 2017PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00286432-00286 (Justice)RachaelThomasLethbridgeConservateurAB24 novembre 202025 janvier 202130 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00284432-00284 (Justice)JohnWilliamsonNouveau-Brunswick-Sud-OuestConservateurNB24 novembre 202025 janvier 202130 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00283432-00283 (Justice)CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservateurBC24 novembre 202025 janvier 202130 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00280432-00280 (Justice)KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservateurON24 novembre 202025 janvier 202130 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00277432-00277 (Justice)GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservateurAB24 novembre 202025 janvier 202130 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00274432-00274 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB24 novembre 202025 janvier 20212 juin 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00256432-00256 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB23 novembre 202025 janvier 202119 avril 2017PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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. 
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00234432-00234 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB18 novembre 202025 janvier 202119 avril 2017PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00428432-00428 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB10 décembre 202025 janvier 202129 septembre 2017PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00416432-00416 (Justice)CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservateurSK10 décembre 202025 janvier 20212 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00405432-00405 (Justice)BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservateurBC9 décembre 202025 janvier 20212 juin 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00400432-00400 (Justice)JohnWilliamsonNouveau-Brunswick-Sud-OuestConservateurNB9 décembre 202025 janvier 20212 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00397432-00397 (Justice)DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootConservateurAB9 décembre 202025 janvier 20212 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00391432-00391 (Justice)EricMelilloKenoraConservateurON9 décembre 202025 janvier 20212 décembre 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes Nous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que le projet de loi C-7 retire d’autres mesures de protection liées à l’actuel régime d’euthanasie, notamment la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, ce qui permet à la demande d’euthanasie d’une personne d’être acceptée et exécutée le même jour, sans la tenue d’une consultation approfondie;Attendu que le retrait du second témoin indépendant exigé réduit la surveillance exercée sur la procédure, ce qui expose les personnes vulnérables à des risques d’abus; Attendu que le gouvernement canadien est tenu de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui risquent d’être victimes d’abus ou d’exploitation; Par conséquent, nous soussignés prions la Chambre des communes de : 1) rétablir la période de réflexion de 10 jours pour les personnes dont la mort a été jugée « raisonnablement prévisible »; 2) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant qu’une personne doive consentir à la procédure d’interruption de vie immédiatement avant que cette dernière soit exécutée; 3) rétablir la disposition initiale exigeant la signature de deux témoins qui ne doivent pas fournir des soins personnels à la personne qui veut mettre fin à sa vie; 4) exiger que les professionnels de la santé fassent tout ce qui est possible pour que la personne obtienne des services de soutien à la vie pour soulager leurs souffrances au lieu de l’aide médicale à mourir; 5) préciser la notion « de refus ou de résistance » relativement à l’administration de l’aide à mourir pour tenir compte de la situation particulière des personnes ayant des troubles de la communication.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirAptitude à consentir aux soinsMécanisme de surveillancePersonnes ayant des limitations fonctionnellesProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00387432-00387 (Justice)BradRedekoppSaskatoon-OuestConservateurSK9 décembre 202025 janvier 20212 juin 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00381432-00381 (Justice)TamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservateurBC9 décembre 202025 janvier 202128 février 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes réunie en ParlementNous, soussignés, résidents du Canada, attirons l’attention de la Chambre des communes sur ce qui suit :Attendu que, dans sa décision récente dans l’arrêt Truchon, la Cour supérieure du Québec a conclu que le critère de mort raisonnablement prévisible comme condition pour obtenir l’euthanasie est inconstitutionnel;Attendu que, le gouvernement libéral a pris l’engagement électoral d’élargir l’accès à l’euthanasie conformément à l’arrêt Truchon;Attendu que, le gouvernement a récemment offert à la population canadienne une période de consultation de deux semaines afin de sonder l’opinion publique sur l’élargissement de l’accès à l’euthanasie;Attendu que, les mesures de protection actuellement en place sont nécessaires pour protéger les mineurs, les personnes souffrant d’une maladie mentale ou chronique, les personnes handicapées et les personnes qui ne peuvent consentir à ce que leur vie soit abrégée;Attendu que, le gouvernement canadien devrait investir dans les soins palliatifs et le soutien aux personnes ayant des incapacités physiques ou mentales et tenter de préserver la vie plutôt que d’y mettre un terme.Par conséquent, nous, soussignés, prions le Parlement du Canada de veiller à ce que les mesures de protection actuellement en vigueur pour l’euthanasie ne soient aucunement assouplies et que l’accès à l’euthanasie ne soit aucunement élargi.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirProcessus de demande
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00209432-00209 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB4 novembre 202025 janvier 20212 juin 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00197432-00197 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB2 novembre 202025 janvier 20212 juin 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00191432-00191 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB30 octobre 202025 janvier 202119 avril 2017PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée25 janvier 2021432-00181432-00181 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB29 octobre 202025 janvier 202119 avril 2017PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée10 décembre 2020432-00162432-00162 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB27 octobre 202010 décembre 202029 septembre 2017PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée9 décembre 2020432-00154432-00154 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB26 octobre 20209 décembre 202019 juin 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée23 novembre 2020432-00095432-00095 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB8 octobre 202023 novembre 202019 juin 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée23 novembre 2020432-00088432-00088 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB8 octobre 202023 novembre 202019 juin 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée18 novembre 2020432-00059432-00059 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB5 octobre 202018 novembre 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée16 novembre 2020432-00036432-00036 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB29 septembre 202016 novembre 202020 juin 2016PÉTITION À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES EN PARLEMENT ASSEMBLÉENOUS SOUSSIGNÉS, RÉSIDANTS DU CANADA, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes ce qui suit : QUE la coercition, l’intimidation ou les autres formes de pressions visant à obliger des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de santé à s’associer au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie sont une violation des libertés fondamentales de conscience;QUE, lors de leur comparution devant le Comité mixte spécial sur l’aide médicale à mourir, des témoins ont déclaré que le gouvernement devrait inclure la protection de la liberté de conscience dans sa réponse législative à l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général);QUE les responsables de l’Association médicale canadienne (AMC) ont confirmé que le fait de protéger la liberté de conscience des médecins n’aurait aucune incidence sur l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir ou à l’euthanasie, parce que 30 % des médecins (24 000) seraient prêts à les pratiquer;QU’en vertu de l’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la liberté de conscience et de religion est protégée;À CES CAUSES, les pétitionnaires prient le Parlement du Canada d’enchâsser dans le Code criminel la protection de la liberté de conscience des médecins et des responsables d’établissements de soins de santé contre toute coercition ou intimidation visant leur participation au suicide assisté ou à l’euthanasie ou l’aiguillage des patients à cette fin.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirHôpitauxLiberté de conscience et de religionMédecins
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée16 novembre 2020432-00003432-00003 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB24 septembre 202016 novembre 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée24 septembre 2020431-00240431-00240 (Justice)TamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservateurBC8 juin 202024 septembre 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée24 septembre 2020431-00243431-00243 (Justice)TamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservateurBC9 juin 202024 septembre 202028 février 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communes réunie en ParlementNous soussignés, résidents du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que l’Organisation mondiale de la santé définit les soins palliatifs et l’euthanasie comme étant des pratiques distinctes sur le plan juridique, clinique et philosophique;Attendu que le projet de loi C-14 précise que « la présente loi n’a pas pour effet de porter atteinte à la garantie dont fait l’objet cette liberté [de conscience et de religion] »;Attendu que, même si l’arrêt Carter de la Cour suprême invalide les dispositions du Code criminel interdisant l’euthanasie, il n’impose pas l’obligation de la pratiquer;Attendu que les autorités régionales de la santé contraignent les organismes de soins palliatifs au Canada de pratiquer l’euthanasie sur place, bien que cela soit expressément contraire aux convictions de ces organismes.Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions instamment le Parlement du Canada d’inscrire dans le droit canadien des garanties de la liberté de conscience des fournisseurs de soins palliatifs, des organismes de soins palliatifs et de tous les professionnels de la santé, selon lesquelles, si leurs convictions leur interdisent de pratiquer l’euthanasie, ou d’aiguiller un patient ailleurs, ils ne soient jamais contraints de le faire par une autorité de santé publique ou privée.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirLiberté de conscience et de religionSoignants et professionnels de la santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée24 septembre 2020431-00260431-00260 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB15 juin 202024 septembre 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée24 septembre 2020431-00265431-00265 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB16 juin 202024 septembre 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée24 septembre 2020431-00292431-00292 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB18 juin 202024 septembre 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée20 juillet 2020431-00226431-00226 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB2 juin 202020 juillet 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée20 juillet 2020431-00223431-00223 (Justice)ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockConservateurAB1 juin 202020 juillet 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée20 juillet 2020431-00219431-00219 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB28 mai 202020 juillet 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée20 juillet 2020431-00217431-00217 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB27 mai 202020 juillet 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée20 juillet 2020431-00201431-00201 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB20 mai 202020 juillet 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée20 juillet 2020431-00195431-00195 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB19 mai 202020 juillet 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée20 juillet 2020431-00175431-00175 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB7 mai 202020 juillet 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé
43e législature223Réponse du gouvernement déposée20 juillet 2020431-00165431-00165 (Justice)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservateurAB5 mai 202020 juillet 202030 avril 2020Pétition à la Chambre des communesNous soussignés, citoyens du Canada, désirons porter à l’attention de la Chambre des communes :Qu’attendu que le projet de loi C-7 supprime d’autres mesures de protection du régime d’euthanasie actuel, y compris la période de réflexion obligatoire de 10 jours et le nombre de témoins requis, de sorte que la demande d’euthanasie puisse être acceptée et la procédure exécutée le même jour, sans consultation rigoureuse; Attendu que la suppression de l’exigence d’avoir un deuxième témoin indépendant réduit la surveillance de la procédure, exposant ainsi des personnes vulnérables à un risque d’abus;Attendu que le gouvernement canadien a le devoir de protéger ses citoyens, en particulier ceux qui sont vulnérables aux abus et à l’exploitation;Par conséquent, nous soussignés, prions la Chambre des communes de cesser immédiatement de supprimer des dispositions conçues pour protéger les personnes qui demandent l’euthanasie et de mettre en place des mesures additionnelles de protection des personnes vulnérables.
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.
Aide médicale à mourirMécanisme de surveillanceProcessus de demandeSystème de soins de santé