By Joan Bryden
THE CANADIAN PRESS
The House of Commons will wait until Tuesday to debate whether to accept or reject Senate changes to a bill to expand access to medical assistance while dying.
That leaves just three days ahead of the court-set deadline for compliance with the law in a 2019 Quebec Supreme Court ruling finding it unconstitutional to allow assisted death only for people who already are approaching the natural end of their lives.
And there is a risk that this deadline, which has already been extended three times, will not be met.
As originally designed, Bill C-7 would extend access to euthanasia to excruciatingly suffering people who are not yet near death.
The Senators have approved five changes to the bill, including two that would widen access even further than proposed by the government.
One would allow advance inquiries from people who fear losing their mental capacity, and the other would limit the proposed ban on assisted death for people suffering solely from mental illness to 18 months.
Justice Secretary David Lametti thanked the Senators Thursday for their “thorough and thoughtful work” on Bill C-7, but said the government was still considering their amendments.
“I am aware of the upcoming deadlines and, as always, I will leave no stone unturned to get the final deal on (February 26),” said Lametti.
However, it is not entirely up to the Liberals, who hold a minority of seats in the House of Commons, to determine the fate of the amendments or the timing of their discussion. At least one opposition party must support whatever the government decides for the liberals.
Government House Chairman Pablo Rodriguez later announced that the Commons would debate the Senate’s changes on Tuesday.
This means that the government has to submit a motion by Monday evening stating whether it accepts, rejects or wants to change each of the five amendments. Opposition parties will be able to propose changes to the motion and the debate could go on at length, unless a closure is imposed, which at least one opposition party should also support.
Conservative leader Erin O’Toole signaled Thursday that his caucus, which was largely against the original bill, has no intention of being plunged into any decision on the changes.
“We have concerns about the inclusion of mental health in a government assisted death regime,” he said.
“There have been many concerns that the weakest in this legislation will not be heard. The Senate made several changes. We are ready to sit at night on the weekend and try to get this right for the Canadians. “
Quebecois bloc chairman Yves-Francois Blanchet said his MPs wanted to investigate the details but “believe the Senate has come up with something based on compassion” and that “the basic ideas (in the amendments) are good” albeit from an unelected institution that his party considers illegitimate.
Blanchet said his party was basically “comfortable” with the proposed 18-month sunset clause to exclude people who suffer solely from mental illness. However, he was more cautious about the pre-motions amendment, saying the issue required “finesse and sensitivity” and suggested that Parliament should not go into it.
He expressed confidence that Parliament can conclude deliberations on C-7 before the deadline next Friday. Even so, Blanchet admitted that he is concerned that the Conservatives will try to delay the debate on the amendments, as they did when the original bill was debated in the House of Commons.
NDP chairman Jagmeet Singh said his caucus would look closely at the amendments. However, he reiterated that his party, which has long been campaigning for the abolition of the Senate, is not interested in accepting the amendments it proposed.
“Basically, we believe that an unelected body like the Senate should not expand the legislation on an issue as complex as medical aid to death,” Singh said in a statement.
“Those who are accountable to Canadians are elected MPs. It’s about when decisions that directly affect the lives of Canadian families and their loved ones are made by an unelected and unaccountable Senate. “
If the House of Commons rejects some or all of the amendments, the Senators must decide whether to oppose the decision of the elected House or to be on their heels.
In theory, the calculation could repeatedly jump between the two chambers until they reach a solution.
Senator Stan Kutcher, a psychiatrist and member of the Independent Senators Group who proposed the 18-month deadline for mental illness ruling, said he expected the Senators to consider the reasons given by the government for rejecting the amendments, if any, to compromise must be entered into in order to win the support of at least one opposition party.
READ MORE: Senators are changing euthanasia law to limit mental illness exclusion to 18 months
READ MORE: Euthanasia Act creates heated debate among Canadians with disabilities
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Would you like to support local journalism? Donate here.
euthanasia
Get local stories you won’t find anywhere else straight to your inbox.
Sign in here
