Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Wallin, I have a few questions about witnesses, how they’re defined in your bill and how that’s characterized. How is the term “independent witness” defined in your bill? I know under your bill, the patient’s declaration must be:

. . . witnessed by two independent witnesses to confirm that it was made voluntarily and not as a result of external pressure and each witness signed and dated it . . .

I have a further question about that, but could you answer about “independent witnesses” first, please? Thank you.

Senator Batters: Is there a definition that already exists under Bill C-7 or Bill C-14 or something that it’s referring to or is this an extra definition? That’s what I’m wondering about. Maybe you can find that out and let me know if you’re not sure, because there could be a few different definitions. It might be that that person is not entitled to benefit under the estate, or it also might be someone who is not related to that person. I’m wondering about that because it’s an important definition.

I’m also wondering if it would be correct that under your bill it would be the “medical practitioner” who certifies that under subparagraph 3.22(e)(iii), “each witness is an independent witness as described in subsection (5).”

What I’m wondering there is: How would a medical practitioner be able to determine that? By the way, it’s important to recall that such a medical practitioner under the medical assistance in dying laws could be a doctor or a nurse practitioner. I’m wondering how a medical practitioner would have that level of knowledge. Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Dalphond, there was a reference made in your speech — and just a brief reference now — to Bill C-3, which was based on former Conservative Party leader Rona Ambrose’s bill. At the Legal Committee on April 1, 2021, Senator Boisvenu introduced an amendment that was similar to what the Keira’s Law part of the bill you’re talking about today does — it added domestic violence to the judicial training that would be received.

Senator Dalphond, you spoke against that amendment that day and said you believed that amendment did not meet the test of “necessity.” Incredible. You said this requirement to further educate judges on domestic violence wasn’t necessary. Senator Gold echoed your argument at Legal Committee that day and stated this important amendment was “. . . just not necessary” in his view and in the view of the Trudeau government.

I’m glad to see there’s been a change of thought because at the Legal Committee that day after those two interventions, I responded to say this:

I wanted to comment that we’ve heard two men here today, who are senators, tell us that an amendment regarding domestic violence is not necessary. Yet our witnesses, who were women and many of whom were Indigenous people who deal with vulnerable people every single day on these issues, told us that it is necessary.

Senator Dalphond, you then voted against that amendment and Senator Gold voted against that amendment. Only Conservative senators — Batters, Boisvenu, Carignan and Martin — and Senator Griffin voted for that important amendment. All other senators that day voted against it and it was defeated at Legal Committee.

This new bill we’re considering today was introduced by a Liberal MP in the House of Commons. Thankfully, it received unanimous consent in the House of Commons, as you indicated, and now you support it. In fact, you’re now the Senate sponsor of the bill.

Senator Dalphond, why didn’t you recognize the necessity of this domestic violence training for judges 18 months ago? We could have had this key provision in place helping Canadian women a long time ago.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much, Senator Batters, for this good question, which gives me the opportunity to say that I invite colleagues to read the transcript of the committee hearing. I opposed this amendment, but not because I was against the idea. I said that amendment at that stage would have jeopardized the adoption of that bill. We were in a minority position at the time. I said this is going forward, and said I was favourable to Keira’s Law. I’ve met with Dr. Kagan and her husband, Mr. Viater, to discuss that issue, and I explained to them that as much as I had sympathy for what they’re proposing, this amendment would mean the bill would have to go back to the House of Commons, who were done in May of 2021. As you may remember, there was an election called in the summer of 2021, and I know you and your party were of the view that it was an unnecessary election. If we had followed your proposed course of action, we would not have had that bill passed.

Second, I explained at the committee — and I think I also said it in the house; we can read the transcript. I remember well that debate because I was not against the principle, but I said the social context is used in that bill that we had before us and the Supreme Court has defined social context as including domestic violence. I said this is not explicitly covered, but it is incidentally covered. I thought it would be the right message to send to judges without jeopardizing the success of that bill.

I’m glad to say today I haven’t changed my mind. I still support Keira’s Law, and I’m pleased — if they are watching tonight — to thank them for their continuous efforts to have this adopted. I will gladly support it. I was never opposed to it. But time is of the essence and, unfortunately, on that matter, I think history has shown we are right to be more prudent than not.

[Translation]