Speech - Government Motion 152
Colleagues, I rise to speak to government Motion No. 152. This motion amounts to the use of a Committee of the Whole as a pre-study of Bill C-62.
I want to be clear at the outset that what I am considering and will be discussing is the process of our study of Bill C-62. This is not about my views or, frankly, about yours or anyone’s views on the subject matter. It should be about the process we should be taking as an institution.
There is a very concerning trend that has emerged in the past years. Our chamber of sober second thought is increasingly a rubber stamp. We have allowed this because of a minority Parliament where brinksmanship is crucial to seeing anything accomplished.
While there have been many times when we may have thought that this was the right decision, I strongly believe, colleagues, that on this occasion, we must take the time to do a more thorough and considerable investigation on the study of this bill. A two-hour Committee of the Whole does not meet the standard.
Bill C-62 represents an evolution in one of the most challenging public policy discussions here in Canada in the last decade. Medical assistance in dying is a hotly contested issue that engages our democracy in extraordinarily challenging ways. As our country’s chamber of sober second thought, with a constitutional requirement to conduct rigorous debate before making decisions, 130 minutes is not enough. Hearing from the honourable ministers and no other Canadians is not enough.
Regardless of the final decision that we make on this bill, I would assert that a Committee of the Whole in the manner described in this motion would result in a failure — our failure — to fulfill our role here in the Senate. We must be mindful that Canadians are watching, but more important than that, we must keep ourselves accountable. We must look back on this week a few years down the road and be proud of our work, not embarrassed that we failed to meet the moment.
I want us to reflect on a recent experience we’ve had here in the Senate when, in another instance, we were forced to make a rash and speedy decision. I’m thinking about Bill C-28. This bill was adopted and received Royal Assent four sitting days after it was introduced in the other place in June 2022, following a Supreme Court ruling in May of that year. You will recall, colleagues, the collective unease that we felt. Our esteemed colleagues from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs were relegated to being reviewers, not legislators. We did not benefit from their sober second thought on this bill at that time, and there were negative consequences to our quick work on that bill.
In April of last year, after a thorough study, the committee noted that witnesses who were consulted on this bill felt that their consultations were insufficient. They had concerns about the harms that Bill C-28 would cause, including a disproportionate impact on marginalized women. The witnesses believed that Bill C-28 lacked clarity and precision, potentially resulting in the spread of misinformation and uncertainty about the law. Preventing such issues is the exact reason the Senate exists. We exist to bring clarity, to ensure equity and to meaningfully engage Canadians.
In light of this recent history, and facing a subject matter that is enormous in its social, legal and medical implications, I’m particularly concerned that we must do our due diligence on Bill C-62.
Medical assistance in dying, or MAID, is an issue that engages multiple dimensions of public policy. Much of our discussions within this chamber on MAID are focused on the legal and constitutional implications of the bill. As a result of the sunset clause in Bill C-7, more focus has been brought to the health systems’ implication of MAID. This is the centre of the government’s argument for Bill C-62.
I would propose there is a third dimension to consider: the dimension of public opinion. Now, as unelected senators, we relate to the public somewhat differently than our elected colleagues, and this, I believe, strengthens our democracy. One important way that we relate to the public is through amplifying their voice in our committee process.
I think we would be naive if we did not consider the role that politics and public opinion have had in bringing us here today. There is no doubt that we need to be mindful of these forces, but we must not be intimidated by these forces. We must not be rushed. We must not be relegated to becoming simple reviewers. We are legislators. We must do our job.
This is even more important because it seems that the other place will likely send the bill through with minimal scrutiny on this occasion as well.
Colleagues, I believe we must look deeper into the legal and health systems’ implications of this bill, as well as the assertions that are at its origin, including those in the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.
Some believe that, at a minimum, the time for the Committee of the Whole should be doubled. Twelve slots of 10 minutes, even if split, allows a fraction of us the opportunity to ask questions, and certainly does not allow for deep and thorough study.
But I think we should be going further. I believe a more thorough and detailed pre-study of the subject matter of Bill C-62 is a necessary step. I would argue that the Social Affairs Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee should consider the subject matter. The Social Affairs Committee should consider it, as it was put forward by the Minister of Health, and because a central question of the subject matter is the readiness of the health care system. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee should study the bill because of the important constitutional considerations.
I believe the committees should welcome both ministers and the chairs of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. But they should also bring in legal experts, health regulators, Canadians with lived experience and other concerned parties.
There is an important distinction to be made here between the mandate of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and our mandate in the Senate.
The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying had a mandate, in its most recent iteration, to verify the degree of preparedness attained for a safe and adequate application of MAID in situations where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.
As a result of the committee’s recommendation, new legislation has been developed, and now we have a mandate with new legislation that is coming our way. As with every other piece of new legislation that comes our way, as legislators, we have a mandate to review and scrutinize every bill, including those that emerge from prior work done by Parliament. This is all that I’m proposing must be done for Bill C-62.
A pre-study in committee provides us with an opportunity for scrutiny from a broader set of senators and fresh perspectives with a specific focus on the bill that is now before us.
Canadians are watching, colleagues, and they are ready to come and speak to us. And we must be ready to listen. Even if we can only organize a few meetings, that is better than nothing.
Colleagues, adding committee pre-studies to this Committee of the Whole pre-study would allow us to go deeper and make the best use of our time. I know this might be considered more labour-intensive than what is being proposed by the motion, but I also know that you are willing to do this work.
It is most important to note that this pre-study does not — cannot — slow down the process of Bill C-62 when it comes to us, and would allow the bill to proceed even before the committee reports, if that be the case.
This is about process, colleagues. It is about doing our job.
You all know, honourable senators, how important this is. You know because you have seen countless reports in the media. You have seen this issue become a political football. You have read emails from thousands of Canadians in the past years, and I believe we all feel a collective duty to make every reasonable effort to get this right. Regardless of how we feel about this topic, you know, dear colleagues, that anything short of our best effort is failing Canadians.
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by adding the following after the words “the Senate adjourn”:
“; and
That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be each authorized, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), to examine the subject matter of Bill C-62, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate, and that, for the purposes of these studies, each of these committees:
1.submit its final report to the Senate no later than February 27, 2024;
2.have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto;
3.hold its first meeting on the subject matter of the bill at the latest on Thursday, February 15, 2024, if this motion is adopted by then; and
4.be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting”.