Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for your speech. I listened quite attentively, and it sounded pretty dire when we’re talking about essentially giving aid to 11 million Canadians because of rising costs. It is indeed a dire situation, despite what the government leader said earlier in an answer to a question about how the economy is so wonderful and how the government has done an outstanding job.

The reality is that we are in a country where we have the second-largest land mass in the world — yet rents are off the charts. Housing affordability is off the charts. We have agricultural capacity that is among the best in the world, yet our food costs — milk, bread — are exponentially growing. We have a need for energy, of course, to produce food at a decent cost, and energy prices are off the charts because we’re keeping our energy in the ground thanks to legislation like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48.

My question to you is the following: Nobody discredits the fact that we need to act urgently to help Canadians who are suffering. But what happens in six months if Royal Bank of Canada, or RBC, for example, is right in their prediction of a recession being around the corner? What happens if the Governor of the Bank of Canada finally wakes up and says inflation is the biggest challenge facing Canadians? What is going to happen six months from now when we face these dire realities? Are we going to come back with more aid or will we turn to quantitative economics, which clearly this government needs a lesson in? I know you understand it well.

How do we address the problem at its core? Six months from now, would you be willing to go back to the well to give maybe 15 million Canadians more help?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for your question, Senator Housakos. It’s always interesting to hear your perspective.

I’ve said from the beginning that agility is so important. This is agile, targeted and necessary at this point in time. What we’ve seen so far during this pandemic is that it’s very hard to forecast and predict what’s going to happen in six months or what’s going to happen in a year. We have a war in Ukraine. We have so many issues going on. You discussed inflation, and I think it’s a debate that needs to be had. Inflation is always caused by excess liquidity, scarce resources and expectations.

I want to say “kudos” to Loblaws, who announced today that they are freezing prices on No Name products until January. I say that because you’re asking what happens in six months if this is still the situation. If more Canadian companies were to take action like Loblaws and freeze prices and lower expectations for increasing prices, I think we would come to easier solutions to this crisis, and it would be quicker to resolve inflation.

I’m looking at a great paper here from Professor Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary, who attended one of our committee meetings. He appeared at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy on September 29, 2022, and he confirmed that 75% of rising inflation is supply driven, 15% is demand driven and the rest is miscellaneous. He confirmed in his paper, which I read thoroughly a few times:

We find that a clear majority of Canada’s high inflation is due to a small handful of items: energy, food, and home-ownership costs.

The home ownership affordability crisis is a major issue, and we’re seeing that increasing interest rates will help with home affordability. If you look at the numbers lately, that will help. We hope more companies will do like Loblaws and freeze prices. Kudos to Loblaws; I think they deserve a hand. Hopefully, within six months, we’ll have a better economy.

Yes, RBC was the first to predict a recession. But I’ll tell you one thing — I said then and I’ll say it again — economists are always right: There will be a recession. I’ve had economists tell me that there’s going to be a recession. Two years later, they call me and say, “I told you so.” And I say, “Yeah, but you told me that two years ago.” So there will be a recession. When will it be? Your guess is as good as mine.

With the situation we’re in now, with the pandemic behind us but the war in Ukraine, the scarce supply and the scarce resources, I think we need to find solutions. Again, kudos to Loblaws, who own Maxi and Provigo in my cherished province of Quebec. More businesses should do like Loblaws. Let’s cut the expectations for inflation. Let’s create policies. Let’s find solutions for scarce resources. If we do all that within six months, we won’t need additional aid. I hope it will be the case that we, in this chamber, look for solutions. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Another question for Senator Loffreda. Thank you very much for acknowledging the significant number of Canadians who don’t file tax returns. My concern is about the 28.5% of Nunavut residents who — research has shown — don’t file tax returns and therefore will miss out on this important benefit, as well as the child tax credit.

It’s quite clear to me that one of the barriers to tax filing in Nunavut is the fact that the 85% Inuit population’s first language is neither French nor English, and tax forms are therefore unreadable and inaccessible. In the past, CRA — and you spoke of them today — has set up a capability within their department of Inuktitut-speaking personnel who not only did community outreach but were available for consultation in Inuktitut for residents who had tax filing questions. I’m wondering if you would use your good offices as sponsor of the bill to encourage CRA to once again address this issue. Thank you.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the question. I think it’s such an important issue, and this is why I quoted it in my speech and I thank you for raising that issue with the minister. Yes, I will gladly do so and will put pressure that it is done on a timely basis. It’s such an important issue, very important. As I said, 10% is way too high. If we look at Nunavut and those who don’t file taxes, it’s even higher.

It’s of concern to all of us, and I will use my office to put pressure on the minister and CRA to ascertain that problem is resolved on a timely basis. Thank you for the question.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you for this initiative and your explanation, Senator Loffreda. I would like to go into a little more detail, building on the question from Senator Patterson.

I think we all very much appreciate and believe your concern on the timeliness, but we saw with the series of payments during COVID that it was indeed the most vulnerable people who often waited the longest, and some never received what was supposed to be coming to them at all because of logistical challenges, shall we say.

It’s one thing for us to express concern. It’s another thing for a piece of legislation to demonstrate that there’s been learning from the problems in the very recent past. I haven’t heard any assurances to that regard. Can you speak to that, please?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the question. It’s a very important question. I raised the question in the Committee of the Whole and I raised it in the committee, and as a matter of fact, I don’t know of any progress that’s been made lately. CRA, like Minister Freeland, did express on numerous occasions that it was a question of timeliness, of simplicity — that vehicle was used because the data was there — to use CRA and to use the tax returns and filing. But I think it’s an issue that has to be tackled. If we have the problem today, it’s because the work — I always say, manage activities, you’ll get activities; manage results, you’ll get results. I was never strong on managing activities. I was always strong and wanted to manage results. The result today is that 10% of Canadians will not benefit from this tax credit. These are the Canadians who need it the most. Let’s manage the results going forward.

I also suggested in our National Finance Committee, in our Banking Committee that maybe it’s a study that has to be undertaken in the future as to what we could do better to ascertain that all Canadians can be identified. What has to be done? It’s not an answer I can give you in 30 seconds, but what I do promise is that I will put the necessary pressure that this situation be resolved in the future and a study hopefully be undertaken by one of our committees to see what else can be done to ascertain and identify that all Canadians in the future will benefit, and not as was the case, like you expressed, in the past. Thank you for your question.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Loffreda agree to answer a clarifying question?

Senator Loffreda: Yes.

Hon. Clément Gignac: Would Senator Loffreda take a question? Thank you for your insight on this issue. It’s always interesting to hear what you have to say.

There’s no doubt that we’re not all equal when it comes to inflation. It hits the poorest people the most, relatively speaking, compared to wealthier people. I agree with the comments made by the two senators who spoke before me. I’m a little surprised, despite the lessons we’ve learned from this pandemic, that the government was agile enough to respond in such a timely and effective way when it came time to bring in CERB. One could criticize the government, given that some people may have received it who perhaps shouldn’t have, but at least we were able to reach those who needed it the most, I think.

Statistics say, and you are right to mention it, that 11% of people don’t file tax returns, and our colleague, Senator Patterson, says it is about 28% in Nunavut. That troubles me. Yes, I will support this bill. I commend you for sponsoring it, but I just want to encourage you to pressure the government to find a solution.

When CERB was being delivered and time was of the essence, the government was certainly capable of doing things quickly. We are here on a Monday evening because time is of the essence and we need to move fast. We are taking a different route, and we may reach only a portion of the population in need. Thank you for your involvement, but I encourage you to use the necessary pressure.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Senator Gignac. It is always a pleasure to hear your perspective and answer your questions. As I have said several times, it is a very important aspect. One of our committees should carry out this study to determine how to identify the 11% who currently do not file tax returns.

I can say that tax returns are the best vehicle at present for reaching most of the Canadians who need this support. We must see what more we could do in future, and a study would be very much appreciated by everyone. I am looking at the chair of our Finance Committee, who says he agrees. It is a study that we should undertake with great seriousness in the future. Thank you for your question.

[English]

Hon. Jane Cordy: Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for an excellent detailed speech on Bill C-30 and the comments that you made. Your background as a banker certainly shone through during your speech, and that’s a positive thing. I’m also very pleased that you answered all the questions, so I’m sure there are no questions left to be asked.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit).

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to double the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax, or GST/HST, credit for six months, effectively increasing the maximum annual GST/HST credit amounts by 50% for the 2022-23 benefit year.

The GST credit is targeted to Canadians who need it the most, and that came through in a lot of the questions that were asked earlier of Senator Loffreda. Those with family incomes of $39,821 or less in 2021 receive the full credit, and the GST credit is lowered as incomes rise. As we heard from the minister last week, single Canadians with no children would receive $234 more, and families with two children almost $500 more. As well, seniors will receive an additional $225. This would help almost 11 million Canadian households, in answer to your question, Senator Dupuis.

The world we are living in today is rife with uncertainty — uncertainty about how people will be able to afford their groceries, their rent, and things like transportation to get back and forth to work, whether that is travelling by public transportation or buying gas for their car.

The worldwide pandemic presented many challenges to the supply system for goods and services. Coming out of the pandemic meant the need for goods and services started to climb, which increased costs. The resulting inflationary pressures on Canada worsened — indeed, as it did right across the globe.

The continuing war in Ukraine has also taken its toll on world prices. This unprovoked action by Vladimir Putin has been devastating to the people of Ukraine and to their families around the world. We continue to stand with the people of Ukraine who are fighting for their country against the dictatorial actions of a despot.

Honourable senators, according to the Bank of Canada, inflation in Canada peaked at 8.1% in June 2022, and it has declined for both July and August. However, it is still expected to remain high, which will make life difficult for many Canadians. This bill is one way that the federal government is trying to help Canadians and their families weather the economic storm we are living in today.

According to the Department of Finance, the Affordability Plan is a suite of measures totalling $12.1 billion in new support in 2022 to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. They include such things as enhancing the Canada workers benefit, a 10% increase to Old Age Security, helping Canadians afford their rent and dental care for Canadian children under the age of 12. It also includes this bill, Bill C-30, which will double the GST tax credit for six months. Together, these measures will help a great many people in Canada by providing financial relief.

As the Governor of the Bank of Canada said last week in Halifax, “Plain and simple, high inflation feeds frustration and creates a sense of helplessness.”

Through the help provided in this bill and the other measures the government has taken and will take, we will get through this time of economic uncertainty and allay those feelings that so many Canadians are experiencing.

Inflation is painful. As the famed businessman Warren Buffett once said, inflation “swindles almost everybody.” But, honourable senators, we know that inflation hurts the vulnerable the most.

We have been through inflationary periods before. We have weathered this type of economic storm in the past. But, honourable senators, we must remember that inflation, as I said earlier, affects our most vulnerable the most. Therefore, bills like Bill C-30 are important.

Bill C-30 and other measures are part of the government’s affordability package that is designed to help the most vulnerable through this economic crisis.

We will get through this again. The strength of Canadians is boundless. I am hopeful that you will support this legislation. I am also looking forward to receiving more legislation that will provide additional support to low-income Canadians.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-30, which proposes to double the GST tax credit for six months to support those most affected by inflation.

The objective of the Bank of Canada, according to the Bank of Canada Act, is “to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada.” Last year, the Bank of Canada and the Government of Canada renewed their agreement on Canada’s monetary policy framework. The cornerstone of their agreement remains an inflation target of 2% inside a control range of 1% to 3%.

Inflation in Canada has been well above the 2% inflation target since April 2021. Inflation was 8.1% in June, 7.6% in July and 7% in August. The Bank of Canada has been raising its policy interest rate in an effort to bring inflation within the control range of 1% to 3%. It has raised interest rates five times this year to 3.25%.

Last month, in Halifax, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that more interest rate hikes are necessary to bring inflation down. A sixth rate hike is due on October 26.

For those of us who renewed our mortgages at 22% in the 1980s, interest rates really aren’t that high yet. Having said that, high inflation is having a devastating effect on the majority of Canadians. One only has to speak with one’s neighbours to realize that many people are concerned, especially about the increasing cost of food, the heating of one’s home and the price of gasoline. The cost of groceries alone has increased over 10% in the past year, and the average family of four is spending over $1,200 more each year to put food on the table.

More Canadians are using food banks to help them feed their families, and there has been a significant increase in the number of people looking for meals at soup kitchens. There’s also concern that many people who are food insecure will not access food banks or soup kitchens, but will rather reduce the amount or quality of the food which they, their families and their children eat.

Given the increase in inflation, Bill C-30 attempts to provide some financial assistance to, as the minister said, “those who need it the most.”

I will support the bill, although I am disappointed that the bill was not referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for study. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did provide a legislative costing note on the proposed bill.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the estimated cost of this initiative is $2.6 billion, and 11.6 million beneficiaries will receive financial help under this initiative. Specifically, those with a family net income of less than $39,826 in 2021 will receive the maximum amount allowed, which is $467. Those with family net income above $39,826 in 2021 will see the amount of the benefit reduced as income increases. The full phasing out depends on family type. For example, it is fully phased out at $49,200 for a single person without children and at about $58,500 for a couple with two children.

It is important to note that the 11.6 million beneficiaries represent the number of families or households and not individuals, since the GST credit is a measure calculated at the nuclear family level.

Since there are 22,150,000 nuclear families in Canada, and 11.6 million of these will receive benefits under this program, approximately 53% of families in Canada will benefit from this program.

As discussed at the National Finance Committee two weeks ago, and as raised by several of my colleagues during Committee of the Whole with the minister, about 10% of Canadians do not file income tax returns and therefore may not receive the GST credit, although they would probably qualify. If this is correct, then more than 53% of households in Canada would benefit from this program.

I was surprised by the number of households benefiting from this program, as I thought it would be more around the 35% rate. In my opinion, our Finance Committee would have benefited from a study of this bill, especially me.

Once this bill is passed, inflation will continue into the future, raising the possibility of further financial assistance targeted to a specific group or groups. However, even the Minister of Finance said during Committee of the Whole that the government cannot compensate every single Canadian for increasing costs due to inflation.

While the government was able to help Canadians and businesses cope during the pandemic and are now helping some Canadians cope with high inflation, our next challenge is waiting around the corner. Many economists are now predicting a recession in Canada next year. In addition, last week, the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, said it expects a substantial further cooling of the Canadian economy, and advises the federal and provincial governments to refrain from spending windfall revenues as our country teeters on the edge of recession. Those are the IMF’s words, not mine.

In fact, government spending remains high and we have not reverted to pre-pandemic levels of spending.

The IMF is predicting that the Canadian economy will grow 1.5% in 2023, which is substantially lower than the 3.3% they predicted earlier this year. The IMF also said that the economic outlook for Canada could be substantially worse if inflation remains high and the Bank of Canada is forced to keep raising interest rates or if the country’s key trading partners, especially the U.S., fall into a deeper slump than anticipated.

There are already signs that inflation is now becoming embedded in the economy, and it is starting to show up in discussions in labour negotiations.

Of particular concern are rising interest rates intended to cool inflation. Canadians are the most highly indebted people in the world. If interest rates rise, so will the cost of their mortgages and other debts. Although the government intends to financially assist renters, it raises the question of financial assistance for homeowners whose homes are still mortgaged.

Homeowners who recently purchased their homes are likely to see the value of their homes decrease. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation expects national average housing prices to fall 15% by the second quarter of 2023 from the peak level of $770,000 earlier this year as the economy enters a recession by the end of the year. The 15% is a much bigger reduction than the 5% reduction they forecasted in July.

The cost of the government’s debt — now about $1.6 trillion — will also increase. While the Minister of Finance did say we have maintained our AAA credit rating, our high debt and rising interest rates elevate the uncertainty over our economy. In any event, we should be prepared for a shock-prone world.

In responding to the affordability of this initiative, the minister said that Canada has the lowest deficit and lowest net debt‑to‑GDP ratio in the G7. However, in the budget earlier this year, the government did announce some cost-saving or cost‑cutting measures which would help pay for this initiative.

There was a commitment to save $9 billion through a review of government programs, and the implementation — by next year — of a publicly available beneficial ownership registry intended to help the government track money laundering and tax evasion. Both of these initiatives would help fund the GST enhancement. An update on these initiatives would be appreciated.

In addition, many people are convinced that the government is not targeting tax evasion and offshore accounts as aggressively as it should, and that the tax gap is in the multi-billions of dollars. If the government were to focus more diligently on the tax gap and collect the revenues it is entitled to, the government’s bottom line would improve.

I hope that the government has the firepower to cope with the recession that awaits us around the corner.

My last comment is on the national child care strategy and how I see it relating to Bill C-30. The majority of people want to earn their own living and not be dependent on government handouts. In his legislative costing note, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identifies two groups with children that will benefit from Bill C-30 — one adult with children and two adults with children.

The lack of child care spaces, along with the shortage of child care workers, is affecting workers, especially women, who cannot find child care for their children. The national child care strategy is supposed to reduce fees, create 250,000 new child care spaces and recruit additional child care workers.

In speaking with parents of preschool children across the country — and I have spoken with parents in four different provinces — they have told me that some costs have been reduced, but the availability of spaces has actually deteriorated over the past year. There are simply not enough child care spaces or child care workers to meet the demand, and parents are unable to commit to full-time work. This problem deserves attention now as the successful implementation of the $30 billion child care strategy is at risk.

Honourable senators, these conclude my comments on Bill C-30.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you very much, Your Honour, for this opportunity to conclude my thoughts on Bill S-248.

Throughout our lives, we deal with death in many forms — the death of a relationship or a career, the death of a loved one, even a beloved pet and, of course, we will face our own death as well. Death and dying are a part of life. We are — for better or worse — the only species actually aware of the inevitability of death. That motivates us, helps us find purpose and may also frighten us; either way, it makes moments meaningful and precious.

We live in a time where we can reasonably foresee death. We can diagnose terminal illness or spot signs of physical and cognitive decline scientifically and with great accuracy. While more people may be living longer, what becomes more important is: Are we actually living a good life? In the pursuit of longevity, we must always consider quality of life.

I have come to my views watching both of my parents die in two very different but equally tragic ways — my father to painful cancers, my mother to Alzheimer’s. Their suffering was unnecessary and preventable. These encounters with death can help ready us for an end to our own life. We all want to be spared pain and indignity, but we need choices.

I believe it is our right, and perhaps even our responsibility, to make our own end-of-life decisions. Every single day, Canadians with an incurable or irreversible medical condition suffer needlessly in hospital beds and care homes. They suffer, sometimes with loved ones close at hand, but too often alone or in fear or — the worst of all fates — without knowing who they are or once were.

For many Canadians, the right to choose medical assistance in dying has been a blessing. I have seen it first-hand. The ability to choose is empowering. MAID affords a person not just relief from pain and suffering, but a sense of control and predictability, a chance to plan and a chance to say goodbye.

For those recently diagnosed with an incurable illness, death is a ruthless dictator. Research shows that over 20% have prolonged and intense feelings of fear of dying a painful death. We are able, so why would we not offer some certainty at the end when so much of life has become uncertain? That’s what this bill is about: peace of mind and a dignified departure.

Bill S-248 gives Canadians, once they have been diagnosed with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition,” the ability to make an advance request for MAID, before they lose the capacity to give final consent. It’s a common sense answer to a gap in the current law, and it’s something an overwhelming majority of Canadians want. It will allow those diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer’s the freedom from this possible Catch-22: You can’t ask in advance of a diagnosis, and once diagnosed it’s too late to ask for some time in the future.

This bill will allow a person to apply long before they actually wish to die and long before they have lost capacity to ask for MAID. This offers peace of mind and a better quality of life for the time they have left with much less stress and anxiety as they live out their final days.

In 2019, a survey by The Canadian Press found that over 86% of Canadians agree that people with a serious, degenerative and incurable disease should be able to request and obtain medical assistance in dying, and 74% said MAID should be accessible to all people with incurable diseases, even if their death is not imminent. Just last year an Ipsos poll conducted by Dying with Dignity found that Canadians feel the same way about advance requests: 83% of Canadians support them for those with a grievous and irremediable condition.

This is a powerful insight into the minds of Canadians, their values, their empathy and concern for their fellow citizens, not just their loved ones. It is all clear. Even with so much public support, we still, sadly, have that unfair gap in our current MAID laws, and it is our responsibility as lawmakers to right this inequity.

I won’t review the entire history of MAID, but, as you will remember, in 2016 the government introduced Bill C-14, in response to the Supreme Court Carter decision, which afforded individuals the right to make their own end-of-life decisions. In the bill, a series of safeguards were put in place to guard against fears of a slippery slope of access. But the government decided that access for mature minors or those with mental disorders as an underlying sole condition and the right to an advance request were all to be excluded from the final draft of the bill. The government said it wanted more time to figure out how the public and the medical world would deal with the ethical complexity.

Of course, all agreed that an assisted death ought not replace essential support and services for the under-represented, the unwilling or those who could have been treated or cared for but were failed by an unjust or overburdened system. This applies to anyone, for that matter. MAID is always a matter of choice. MAID is not an alternative to poverty or treatment or support or family. It should and must always be a choice. And I believe, as it stands, our MAID regime is moving toward the right balance between access and safeguards. We know a little more with MAID having now been available for more than six years.

The third annual report on MAID, which was released in July, indicated that in 2021, 80% of all MAID recipients first had access to and received palliative care, a number that has remained constant since 2019.

Of the MAID recipients who did not receive palliative care, 88% had access to those services but chose not to avail themselves of that option.

So the typical MAID recipient, then, is a cancer patient in their seventies who died in their home after receiving palliative care in advance of MAID. We must continue to work to ensure equal access as well, so those in rural or underserviced areas are not denied access.

There have been some suggestions — undocumented — of people being offered MAID as a first resort rather than a last. Any evidence of any such cases should be investigated, of course, but it does not mean the entire system should be replaced.

There are safeguards in MAID law to make sure that those requesting MAID must state, literally in the moment before their medically assisted death, that they are certain. It ensures the patient, their doctor, family and loved ones would all be absolutely certain that a MAID recipient had made the choice. It also ensures that medical practitioners administering MAID are legally protected.

But colleagues, instead of making things easier, some safeguards have actually created more ambiguity. In a case where people have been deemed eligible for a medically assisted death — say, they had an advanced form of cancer that might physically prevent them from uttering that final verbal consent, or they feared that they might fall unconscious from their illness — then their only option would be to end their life prematurely — sooner than necessary — because they would have to end their lives while fully competent and verbal. It was a legal trap that needlessly creates more suffering.

That is exactly what happened to Audrey Parker, a 57-year-old Nova Scotia woman with stage 4 breast cancer, who had to end her life two months before Christmas, due only to a poorly conceived “safeguard” in the law.

Countless others likely had to make a similar decision — we have heard many of those stories — before the law was finally changed in March of 2021 thanks to the tireless advocacy of Audrey’s family and friends.

It was an important change and it has paved the way for this bill. Because, as I noted, some people who are eligible for MAID are at risk of losing capacity before their chosen date. And now, thanks to “Audrey’s Amendment,” in a way we now have a very limited version of advance requests in the current law. Limited because it is only for those who have already been assessed and approved for MAID, and only when you’re right at the end, and when a doctor agrees that you might be robbed of that ability to say “yes” or nod your head as final consent in your last moments.

Colleagues, this was the context in which I introduced an amendment last year to Bill C-7 to fully allow for advance requests. My hope was to extend the right to an advance request to those whose death was not imminent but who would inevitably lose their right to consent. This is, of course, the case for those with dementia or Alzheimer’s, which is why the right to make their views known in advance is so key.

I wish to thank so many of you for helping me pass that amendment here in this chamber. It was a powerful moment. Sadly, though, it was later rejected by the government of the day. I genuinely do not understand why the government said “no” to the wishes of this chamber and to the stated wishes of so many Canadians. Instead, the issue was handed over to a special joint parliamentary committee for more study.

As we see so often, the people — Canadians — are more compassionate and open-minded than the government, as was the Supreme Court of Canada, who led the way.

We also see provinces moving forward on this. The Quebec National Assembly Select Committee on Dying with Dignity recommended an advance directive for medical aid in dying in 2012. The Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying: Final Report sought clarity from the government to include advance requests in any upcoming legislation.

Even the Council of Canadian Academies’ reports on advance requests, mature minors and mental disorders — though prohibited from making any actual recommendations — proposed possible levels of accessibility for legislators to consider when amending future legislation.

And remember that our first Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, leading up to Bill C-14, stated, in its seventh recommendation:

That the permission to use advance requests for medical assistance in dying be allowed any time after one is diagnosed with a condition that is reasonably likely to cause loss of competence or after a diagnosis of a grievous or irremediable condition but before the suffering becomes intolerable.

All those hearings, expert testimonies and recommendations — a decade of work. Colleagues, that is why I introduced my amendment to Bill C-7 and why I believe it passed here in this chamber.

Not everyone will choose this option for themselves, but they believe others should have the choice. Yet, somehow it still wasn’t enough, and still the people of Canada continue to seek the right to advance requests in 2022.

So that is exactly what this bill now aims to do. There are signs that the political climate is changing. Earlier this year, in Quebec, an all-party committee put forward 11 recommendations, 10 of which propose a workable model for advance requests. That provided significant direction on the scope of this bill and was also the inspiration for the Quebec government’s Bill 38, in limbo at this moment due to the recent election.

It was a reasoned bill and set out what I believe to be an appropriate level of safeguards. I urge colleagues to look at the bill to see what a provincial framework for advance requests would look like.

But there are concerns that, if passed, any provincial advance request regime will still be vulnerable — as would the medical practitioners — if the federal law does not change. So even if Bill 38 is passed, Quebec doctors could go to jail for honouring an advance request, even if it’s legally permitted in their province but not by Ottawa.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already given the federal government all the room it needs to allow the right to an advance request, so these delays are unjust.

I believe this bill is a remedy. It amends the federal Criminal Code to allow for advance requests. It is not overly prescriptive in its approach, as that is actually the purview of the provinces.

You see, our MAID laws exist as an amendment to the Criminal Code, essentially as an exclusion, and all health-related issues are regulated by the provinces per the Constitution. So this bill merely excludes an advance request — or the use of an advance request — from being considered a criminal act.

The legislation is quite simple. It amends subsection 241.2(3.1), (3.2) and (3.4) of the Criminal Code relating to a medically assisted death. This section is the final consent waiver safeguard, which can now be waived thanks to subsection (3.21) or, as I described earlier, “Audrey’s Amendment.”

The bill also adds another section — (3.22) — which allows a person and their doctor to prepare a written set of specified conditions and state that when these medically assessed behaviours or conditions are present, that would help define the time when the person would want MAID to be performed. It is the crux of this bill.

Of course, they would have to have been diagnosed with a serious or incurable illness, disease or disability to be eligible for MAID in the future. Spelling out the conditions would exist on paper, even before they are assessed and approved for MAID.

Section (3.22)(a) states that a person may be able to make a declaration in writing that a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner can perform MAID without final consent as long as the conditions of suffering are clearly identified in the advance request, and that those conditions can be easily observed by the medical or nurse practitioner.

This is an important distinction from what we currently have in the law. Subsection 3.21, the so-called “Audrey’s Amendment,” allows final consent to be waived if there was agreement between a MAID recipient and their doctor to have MAID performed on a specific day, and if that person’s suffering and physical state have prevented them from being able to make that final verbal confirmation.

Subsection 3.22 affords the same right to Canadians diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability, and who don’t yet have a date set for a medically assisted death but have established a clear set of criteria for when they want their suffering to end.

Paragraph 3.22(b) of the bill requires an advance request to be no more than five years old. This means it would need to be updated regularly to make sure it remains a person’s wish and intent and that is what they really want when they have lost control of their circumstances.

That timeline was decided after consultations with various stakeholders and groups such as the Alzheimer Society of Canada and the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers, known as CAMAP.

But if the Social Affairs Committee of this place were to advise that a three-year update is appropriate, I would absolutely concur. Whatever gives the most people the most peace of mind is what we should do.

Paragraph 3.22(c) in the bill requires an advance request to include the consent to have MAID performed by the person requesting it, and paragraph (d) requires two independent witnesses to be present during the signing of the advance request.

We should all be discussing end-of-life choices with family, friends, doctors and even lawyers long before the end is nigh. We should all have advance care planning documents and directives, and they are readily available online. They should be updated regularly so that your records and your intentions, over time, are clear. Clarity and understanding are key to having your wishes honoured.

I believe the scope of this bill finds the right balance. It requires an advance request to be regularly updated. It also requires someone seeking an advance request to discuss that request with their doctor and others — many others — in detail, to ensure they understand what they are doing and agree on what criteria they and their doctor believe to be appropriate.

And you would have to be approved for MAID. It will not circumvent the parameters already established in our current laws, or the scope recommended by any of our federal reports. It will not compel anyone to choose MAID, nor can it be used as a coercive tactic. It simply gives Canadians the assurance that, in the event their disease, illness or disability worsens to the point where they can no longer consent to MAID, their wishes will be respected.

Of course, the bill will benefit from study by our Social Affairs Committee. Health Canada and the provinces need to create regulatory frameworks to allow for advance requests, and no doubt they would benefit from our advice here.

There is also the issue of how an advance request would be stored. Will an online registry be needed or be created? What happens if someone travels between provinces? What if they wish to change the set of specified conditions or opt out of the advance request entirely?

I personally believe that anyone should have the right to an advance request in a living will. No one who loses capacity unexpectedly — through accident or stroke, for example — should be forced to live the rest of their life incapacitated until their death. That is why we have “do not resuscitate” laws. I see an advance request as exercising that same right. Our well-stated, well-documented decisions on our own lives should be respected even after losing our conscious ability to confirm that decision in the moment.

But these are all important and very complicated issues that I know our committee would study and consider. Again, if our MAID laws were not tied to the Criminal Code, then we could simply address many of these issues and concerns legislatively. But, sadly, that is not the case.

Finally, colleagues, allow me one last comment on why this bill is before the Senate now rather than after the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying has finished its final report.

As I noted earlier, the committee is spending valuable time relitigating the concept of MAID. We have, indeed, heard from many witnesses representing the full spectrum of views on this issue, and I do hope this eventually leads to the crafting of actual recommendations that would be specific and useful for future legislation. But I think Senate committees are better able to report on matters in a timely way, and time is of the essence.

The government’s action or inaction is often frustrating for the thousands of Canadians awaiting decisions. Their lives and their deaths are too often trapped in our legislative limbo.

In The Meditations, Marcus Aurelius wrote:

. . . every day more of our life is used up and less and less of it is left, but this too: if we live longer, can we be sure our mind will still be up to understanding the world . . . .

So we need to hurry.

Not just because we move daily closer to death but also because our understanding—our grasp of the world—may be gone before we get there.

Colleagues, we do need to hurry. This bill will help those whose grasp of the world is fading. This bill is needed and wanted by so many.

Thank you for listening and know that I am grateful for your support if you can offer it. Thank you.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Will Senator Wallin take a question?

Senator Wallin: Yes.

Senator Wallin: You’ve raised a series of questions there because, of course, the Criminal Code is the federal purview and all matters health are the provincial purview.

This is why groups have been working on this issue for more than 10 years to try to find frameworks that reflect the needs and desires of a particular province or territory — because views will be different across this country — and that we find a federal framework that will accept that and has enough flexibility in it so that if one province is different from another, it can be in the embrace of the MAID laws — a new, revised set of MAID laws.

Advanced medical directives or care directives — when you go into a hospital and you’re about to have surgery, they may ask you if you want to sign a do not resuscitate order. That’s the individual that’s there. But I think it all starts to form part of your views and your history. If you have that — if you have engaged in this process of preparing for end-of-life decisions — then that is going to be further reassurance to people that your views have been similar, not just in the short-term but over the long-term.

I would see it as part of a larger piece where your beliefs and feelings have been monitored over time. If they are the same, if there’s a consistency or if there’s a change, all that can be assessed by the medical professionals at the end of the day.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will Senator Wallin take another question?

Senator Wallin: I will.

Senator Wallin: From most of the things that I have studied in other countries, my understanding is they have a very different view of it. It’s a decision that you make, and that’s it.

In countries like Switzerland, they’ve even allowed for — I hate to use the phrase — medical tourism, where people can go and seek an end to their life if they’re suffering and, for some reason, do not qualify in this country.

Ours is complicated. There’s no question. But I think that’s a good thing. What we are doing is really dealing with the nitty‑gritty of this. This is not a decision that anybody takes lightly. It’s not anything that a medical practitioner wants to take lightly.

Because ours is still in the Criminal Code, it makes it doubly more complicated because we’re asking people to engage as individuals or as medical practitioners in something that we’re still saying might be against the law. It’s really important that we narrow this down.

This comes home with the benefit, as I mentioned several times, of “Audrey’s Amendment” because it moved us in that direction, which is that this woman knew that she would lose her ability to give that final consent in the final moments because of the nature of her illness and so she took her own life early.

Honestly, I get calls from people every week documenting cases of friends who have made that choice because they didn’t quite qualify. They were afraid that if they waited for the moment when they would qualify, they wouldn’t be able to consent. We have that Catch-22 there for a lot of people.

We owe it to everybody to find clarity. Because we’ve come this far and because we are doing this in such a deliberate way, we don’t have a lot of international precedent. Our own provinces are wrestling with it. Quebec is doing some of the heavy lifting on this. It seems we always wait until there’s a court decision. We’re forced in one direction and then we run around and try to figure it out.

What I think we need to be doing — and this is what the committee and other groups are involved in — is to be proactive. We need to try to lay out the parameters, to give people assurance, peace of mind and confidence that we’re not doing this without serious understanding and study and putting the rules, protections and safeguards in place. That’s really what we have to do. We need to do that here, in the other place and in the courts. The medical providers have to engage in that, and they are, but we need to find some way to bring it all together. I’m hoping this will be a starting point for that discussion.

Senator Wallin: The safeguards are the same as for any Canadian — they exist in law. We are trying to put safeguards on this specific issue of advance requests that are more relevant to that particular issue. We already have the waivers of final consent and the right to do this. The laws apply to everybody.

I mentioned this in my remarks, but I think it’s important to say this: We don’t have documented cases of people who have been forced to undergo MAID. It’s almost inconceivable that a medical practitioner would engage in that without being challenged by the family and by their own medical establishment. They have very strict rules surrounding what doctors can’t do, and medical malpractice is something they’re most aware of.

If there were any such cases, they should, of course, be taken to the authorities. They should be examined. There should be action taken, if need be. But, as we’ve been hearing through witnesses and testimony, there is no evidence on that one. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Seidman, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Thank you very much for your speech on Bill C-233, Senator Dalphond. I am very pleased to learn that the plan is to include training for judges on domestic violence.

I think that attitudes have changed here and in committee, because when we examined Bill C-3, I proposed an amendment to include training on domestic violence in the training for judges on sexual exploitation.

Will the bill before us ensure that this control mechanism is applied only to abusers who are awaiting trial?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you for the question, Senator Boisvenu. I knew you’d be pleased with this bill since it deals with a topic that is very important to you. At the time, you proposed at third reading stage that we amend the bill to add this element and the chamber thought it best to adopt Bill C-3 instead of sending it back to the other place because of the time at which it was adopted. You will recall that an election was called a few months later. That was perhaps the right decision in that context.

That being said, you were right to say that it would have been better to add these elements to the training. I’d be pleased to add that to the bill, as the other place suggests.

It’s true that the bill proposes only to amend the Criminal Code with respect to release orders during the trial, also known as bail orders.

Bill S-205 also includes other provisions and amendments to the Criminal Code that would apply in other contexts, including amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, that would apply when the person has served their sentence and are part of the transition and conditional release.

Senator Boisvenu: I think it’s really inefficient to have two bills with the same objective, to protect women, making their way through the Senate at the same time. The government is going to end up in a situation where it has to choose between the two.

In 85% of femicide cases, the aggressor wasn’t brought to trial. Rather than a trial, the aggressor is ordered not to approach his victim, and 85% of victims are murdered in that context. Why not immediately combine these two bills to ensure that we’re protecting the women who are truly in danger? I’m not talking about those whose aggressor will be brought to trial, but those whose aggressor will never be formally charged because he signed an order. Those are the cases where women get murdered, not when the individual is brought to trial.

Senator Dalphond: I know that politics is the art of the possible and that sometimes we must be pragmatic.

This bill comes to us from the House of Commons, where it received the unanimous support of members. We’ve been asked to consider it carefully and, if we support it, to pass it. As I stated in my speech, this doesn’t at all prevent the Senate from going further and passing your bill, which contains other measures, which will then be retained at third reading stage and sent to the House of Commons, where it could be adopted in future.

The bill we received is along the lines of what you’re proposing, but consists of two important steps. I will repeat that it’s not the end of the process, but represents two small steps that won’t put an end to domestic violence or intimate partner violence. They are two small, useful steps in a vehicle arriving from the House of Commons with unanimous support. I believe that we should seize this vehicle and deal with this bill as quickly as possible to ensure that these two small steps are taken. We must continue to study your bill and hope that the House of Commons will adopt it as well.

[English]

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]