Bill C-230

Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (intimidation of health care professionals)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to intimidate a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the purpose of compelling them to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.
It also makes it an offence to dismiss from employment or to refuse to employ a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.

The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (intimidation of health care professionals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-230, the protection of freedom of conscience act. I appreciate the contributions of the member for Carlton Trail-Eagle Creek to medical assistance in dying, or MAID, which is a complex and deeply personal issue to many Canadians.

First, I want to acknowledge that the aim of the bill, which is to support the conscience rights of health care professionals, is indeed laudable. The government has always supported conscience rights, which is why, since the very beginning of Canada's MAID framework in a former bill, Bill C-14, these rights have been specifically recognized and acknowledged. However, at the same time, the criminal law is a blunt instrument that should be reserved for the most serious situations.

In my remarks today, I want to raise some questions about whether new offences are an appropriate solution to the legitimate concerns raised by the bill's sponsor. In this regard, it bears recalling the primary reason the criminal law is concerned with MAID in the first place, which is to provide the necessary exemptions to ensure that persons who choose to provide or assist in providing MAID do not face criminal consequences for doing so. The MAID provisions found in the Criminal Code were carefully crafted to respect the autonomy of Canadians, respond to the evolving issues and protect vulnerable persons. In other words, the involvement of criminal law is necessary to permit MAID while ensuring it is carried out in a safe, responsible manner.

However, Bill C-230 seeks to involve the criminal law in two very different ways: first, to create a new MAID-specific intimidation offence, and second, to create an employment sanctions offence. With respect to the former, the intimidation offence, it is worth reiterating that the Criminal Code already provides provisions for several offences that would be available to respond to situations where a health care professional is a victim of coercive or threatening behaviour, including the intimidation offence in section 423 and the extortion offence in section 346.

To me, it is not evident that an additional specific offence is required to protect conscience rights. I should also say that I am not aware of any evidence of health care professionals facing threatening circumstances in the context of refusing to provide MAID or that there is a specific gap that needs to be filled in our law.

I have taken note of the fact that the proposed intimidation offence in Bill C-230 would be a summary conviction offence, which, if enacted, would stand out from other intimidation offences in the Criminal Code. The existing offences are either straight indictable or hybrid offences. In addition to being duplicative of existing offences, the fact that the proposed intimidation offence would only be prosecutable by summary conviction may suggest that intimidating conduct is less serious in a MAID context, which seems counterintuitive.

To further highlight why I have concerns about creating a specific intimidation offence as proposed by Bill C-230, I would like to draw members' attention to a recent example that offers a clear contrast. Last year, as members will recall, unfortunately in some parts of our country there was a threatening atmosphere of intimidation present for many health care professionals who were simply trying to go to work and care for members of their communities during the pandemic. That is why the government responded with Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, which provided new criminal law tools to protect all health care workers and all Canadians who are seeking their care.

I believe Bill C-3 was an appropriate criminal law response to the credible threats to the safety and security of health care professionals and Canadians, but I am not convinced that a similar response is necessary when it comes to the situation of conscience rights and the provision of MAID. It seems to me that the charter and existing criminal law offences already provide the necessary protections for those rights, alongside the specific provision in the current MAID framework that expressly states that nothing in the federal law compels an individual to provide or assist in providing MAID. There is simply no obvious need to supplement what already exists.

Turning to the employment sanctions offence, I am struggling with Bill C-230's proposal to create a new offence that would exclusively target employers who dismiss or refuse to employ health care professionals who choose not to provide MAID. Moreover, in my view, Bill C-230's employment sanctions offence would not address the concerns described in the bill's preamble regarding conscience rights and certain requirements for professionals to make effective referrals for MAID.

As members are aware, in some jurisdictions, the professional orders that regulate health care professions have established requirements that their members provide effective referrals for MAID. While there have been cases where these requirements were challenged, the courts, including the Court of Appeal for Ontario, have upheld them, noting that this is a difficult issue that involves taking into consideration the conscience rights of professionals and the needs of their patients.

I do not believe it would be constructive for Parliament to intervene by creating a new criminal offence such as the one proposed by the bill. Rather, a more productive approach is for the government to continue its efforts to work closely with the provinces and territories on the implementation of MAID in a manner that supports persons who may be considering it and the health care professionals who provide exceptional care to their patients.

For the reasons I have mentioned, I have significant concerns with Bill C-230. While I agree wholeheartedly with protecting the conscience rights of all health care professionals, including those who choose to participate or refuse to participate in MAID, I am not persuaded that the two offences proposed in the bill are necessary or desirable.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here to discuss Bill C-230, which would amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to intimidate health care personnel—a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or anyone who could provide medical assistance in dying. It seeks to create a Criminal Code offence to “protect” health care personnel. These health care professionals, now and in the future, may take part in the provision of medical assistance in dying.

Excuse me, Madam Speaker, but there is a lot of commotion. I would like to give my speech in peace.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I ask the hon. members who wish to carry on a conversation to go to the lobby, please, so the hon. member can give a speech we can all hear.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now I feel I can deliver a speech.

I want to make one thing clear to the House of Commons. I think this is the appropriate time to point it out, and I think everyone here will agree with me. No one is condoning bullying, be it of health care workers or here in the House. We all know people who have bullied others. Bullies are mean-spirited people whose actions betray their insecurity and fear. We all agree on that.

That being said, we are well aware that this bill has nothing to do with bullying or protecting health care workers from bullying. What this bill would actually do is interfere with people's ability to obtain medical assistance in dying. As I said this morning, the Conservative Party is once again exploiting a serious problem to put forward a misleading solution. The party claims this bill will protect health care workers from bullying, but it is hiding the real objective, which is to interfere with medical assistance in dying. As I said this morning, this is populism.

This morning, a member corrected me, saying that being populist was not necessarily a bad thing. Fine. I should have used the term “demagoguery”. It is demagoguery.

We know full well that this bill does not seek to eliminate the bullying of health care professionals. Its objective is simply once again to obstruct existing legislation in Quebec. What is more, it seeks to allow a medical practitioner or a health care professional to not refer a case to a colleague. That goes against what we have in Quebec.

Obviously, the Bloc opposes this bill, just as we opposed Bill C‑268 in the last Parliament, and just as we opposed the proposed amendment to Bill C-7 when it was studied in committee. We have always been opposed to this. I do not know why it has come up a third time. Apparently, they have run out of topics, when there are so many to work on. If the Conservatives are looking for topics, we can help them with that.

Again, the Conservative Party is presenting us with a bill that has a certain objective, but which is worded differently in order to hide its real objective.

We oppose this bill for two reasons.

First of all, it contravenes the Quebec charter of values, rights and freedoms. There are already laws in place to protect health care workers in such situations involving intimidation. Let me give some examples of legislation that allows health care workers to refuse to provide medical assistance in dying.

Quebec's Act respecting end-of-life care states the following:

A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses a request for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29.

Subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code states:

For greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.

Health care workers are already protected by the Criminal Code.

Finally, section 24 of the Code of ethics of physicians of Quebec recognizes conscientious objection for medical practitioners, which is the right not to resort to a medical act that goes against their values. It is also recognized in Quebec's Act respecting end-of-life care. The physician is nevertheless required to find another physician.

A physician must, where his personal convictions prevent him from prescribing or providing professional services that may be appropriate, acquaint his patient with such convictions; he must also advise him of the possible consequences of not receiving such professional services. The physician must then offer to help the patient find another physician.

Ontario has a similar provision. Therefore, physicians and health care workers in that province do not need this bill.

Second, we are opposed to this bill because it allows physicians not to refer a case. Let us recall certain statistics. It is all too clear: There is a growing demand for medical assistance in dying, in Quebec as well as in Canada, since these laws were passed.

End-of-life care meets a need and helps ease the suffering of patients who are dying. Since the act came into force, the number of cases of MAID in Quebec has increased year over year. In 2016-17 there were 599 cases and in 2020-21 there were 2,426, which represents a 405% increase.

According to the annual report of the commission on end-of-life care, three-quarters of patients who requested MAID had cancer.

We can all agree that individuals who request MAID do not do so lightly. These people have a right to dignity and that is what is most important in all of this.

A certain balance must be struck and a decision made. That is the issue: striking a balance between an individual's dignity and freedom of conscience and religion. This has already been studied. Quebec has been discussing these issues for 10 years. That was the objective of the bill sponsored by Ms. Hivon, who I would like to congratulate today, and which was adopted on June 5, 2014. A lot of work went into this. Years were spent studying and evaluating these issues. Why not trust the work that has already been done by Quebec in this area?

This seems to be a recurring theme in the House. The federal government starts from scratch without building on what has already been done. It does not have to look far; Quebec is just across the Ottawa River.

The Quebec National Assembly is working on the issue; among other things, the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity was created on December 4, 2009. There is a consensus in Quebec that access to medical assistance in dying should not be restricted. The Quebec National Assembly spent 10 years examining both sides of the issue I just spoke about.

I will conclude here. I repeat: Medical assistance in dying is not designed to go against the values, religions or religious practices of certain Conservative Party members. Medical assistance in dying is an essential measure that allows people to die with honour and dignity. That is in line with Quebec's charter of values and its charter of rights and freedoms.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, this private member's bill, in my view, is an attempt to override the patient's right to access information about, and to have access to, a legally provided medical service based on the personal beliefs of the service provider.

It is not about intimidation of health care professionals. Health care professionals already have that protection. No one who objects for conscience reasons is required to participate in any medical service to which they object, but professional organizations do require service providers to provide referrals for those seeking assistance if they are unable or unwilling to provide it.

Let me be very clear. Currently, medical professionals are permitted to opt out of providing a service if they object on moral or religious grounds. With that right, they also have an obligation to the patient and, as such, they are required to provide the patient with a referral for that service.

The Conservatives should know that the right for patients to access information and referrals for service has been tested in the courts. In fact, in January of 2018, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's policy on effective referrals and the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that decision in May of 2019. Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel wrote in the unanimous ruling, “the evidence in the record establishes a real risk of a deprivation of equitable access to health care, particularly on the part of the more vulnerable members of our society, in the absence of the effective referral requirements of the Policies.”

What we are debating here today is another attempt by the Conservatives to limit the patient's right to access medical assistance in dying. They are simply trying to create fear and division in the community and trying to find a back door to deny patients access to services. If patients cannot access services, what would that mean?

A constituent in Vancouver East wrote to me about the implication of a loved one not being able to access medically assisted dying. He was clear to say that it would just mean more pain and excruciating suffering, to the point where he said he was certain the loved one would take their own life no matter how dangerous or the means.

Is this what the Conservatives really want to do? Do they want to drive people to this point of desperation? I should hope not, yet here we are debating this bill. The effect of this bill, if passed, would mean exactly that. The impact of this bill would be particularly devastating in rural and remote communities where there are already fewer health care providers and services.

Aside from medically assisted dying, I fully expect this bill, if passed, would have other implications in other health services. It is entirely plausible that others will seek a similar exemption from providing abortion services. The potential implications for women's rights are very real as it could be used as a precedent to restrict access to family planning and abortion services. Already women in the LGBTQ2+ community are faced with barriers to access abortion and family planning services.

In Canada, there remain huge barriers to timely access to abortion services. The problem is especially acute in many of the rural, northern and remote communities. LGBTQ2+, non-binary people and migrant workers also face far too many barriers to access reproductive health care.

New Democrats are in full support of the community's calls to ensure access to abortion and other reproductive health care services in rural and remote regions. There must be free and universal access to contraception. The government must eliminate barriers to access for reproductive health care for marginalized groups, including undocumented people and two-spirit, transgender and non-binary people. Access to health care services is enshrined in the Canada Health Act. Instead of finding ways to limit access, all parliamentarians should be working on finding ways to ensure access.

I would note that the special committee has actually started looking further into the issues around MAID, although that committee's work began late and with much delay. Nonetheless, that work has started, and some of the key questions that it is addressing would add to the issues around assisted dying, which has already been debated in the House. However, the bill before us, in my view, would not add to that issue. In fact, the bill is clearly trying to create division and a divide in the community. It is trying to stoke up fear where fear should not exist. Health care workers and professionals are protected. They have the opportunity to opt out. They have the right to opt out, so the bill is entirely unnecessary.

I would be remiss if I did not note the fact that the bill is back again for the second time, even though the first time it was tabled it went nowhere. I have to wonder about that, because all 338 of us in the House of Commons hold our breath after each election to see if, in the lottery draw, we would get the opportunity to table a private member's bill or motion to be debated and voted on the House. However, this member has chosen to bring back a bill that has already gone through the process and went nowhere. There are so many other urgent issues to debate, and I could rattle off a number of them.

As the immigration critic, I could talk about bringing forward policy changes by way of a bill or a motion to address the immigration situation, the immigration processing delays and the backlog that exists in our system right now. There are over two million people waiting to find out what is going to happen to their lives and unable to move forward because of immigration processing delays.

We could actually bring forward a bill to talk about the blocking of family reunification. For so many families, spousal sponsorships are being blocked because they are unable to see timely processing of their spousal sponsorship. They cannot even bring their loved ones here to Canada with a visitor permit because of section 179(b) of IRPA regulations. In fact, I have, sitting on the Order Paper that I could table any time, a bill on striking section 179(b) so that we could ensure family reunification takes place for loved ones and stop creating barriers for them to even come and visit their loved ones on a travel visa.

We could be talking about the Afghan crisis. So many Afghan interpreters and their families are in danger right now and unable to get to safety because the government has put a cap on the special immigration measure numbers for Afghans who served this country. We could also be talking about the drug poisoning crisis or the housing crisis and putting an end to the financialization of housing.

Any number of these issues are worthy of debate, but the Conservatives chose this one all because they want to stoke up fear. That is shameful.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-230, the protection of freedom of conscience act. My colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek has worked hard to bring this legislation forward, and I applaud her for doing so. Right off the bat, though, I do want to say that my hon. colleague and I come at these issues from opposite ends, but I thank her for encouraging me to share a different perspective on the matter.

I support a woman's right to seek an abortion, and I always will. I support Canadians having access to medical assistance in dying, and I always will. In fact, I proudly supported the legislation that made access to medical assistance in dying possible several years ago. However, I also respect that a medically assisted death is not acceptable for a large number of Canadians, especially those who hold strong religious convictions where their teachings prohibit such acts. Today I find myself standing strongly to defend those who disagree with my fundamental beliefs. If we want others to defend our rights and freedoms, we have to be willing to defend theirs.

Rights and freedoms are a two-way street. As I said in 2016, while debating MAID, this is a complex issue for which there are strong opinions on both sides. Trying to solve and encapsulate such complex emotional issues into legislation is always a challenge and it will never be perfect. As such, I strongly supported the original legislation's requirement that there be a review at the five-year mark to re-evaluate the legislation. I feel that this thorough re-evaluation has never taken place and breaks faith with the spirit of the original legislation, so I would strongly urge the Liberal government to undertake a deep review of the MAID legislation and address its shortcomings. The trust of Canadians is being put to the test and it does not have to be this way.

I have also been a very strong advocate for palliative care and will continue to be. My dear friend, Lou Winthers, who worked for me in my constituency office for many, many years, was the executive director of Rosedale Hospice in Calgary. My family and I volunteered there and saw directly the importance of palliative care. Also, my late father-in-law, David Macdonald, was the executive chef at the Rosedale Hospice in Calgary. He spent much of his long career as an executive chef in many of the prime hotels throughout the country. He spent his final years cooking for the dying in the hospice.

As many members know, I was widowed when my wife passed away from breast cancer. That journey, more than any other, showed me that palliative care is necessary and timely access to it is critical. In fact, one of the conditions on which I supported MAID was that we simultaneously and strongly support palliative care. One cannot replace the other. They are both needed. The fact is that palliative care remains grossly underfunded and access is hit-or-miss depending on where one lives and when one needs it.

Both MAID and palliative care rely on medical professionals. These professionals are people, real people, with personal beliefs, personal convictions and personal experiences. I can understand that not all medical professionals support abortion or MAID, and I support their belief that they should not be forced to perform certain procedures that put them at odds with their conscience, their beliefs and their community. Quite frankly, I would not want to have a procedure performed on me by anyone who did not believe in what they were doing. Would it not be better to know if one's doctor or nurse was willing to put 100% effort into their work before the procedure started?

Protecting conscience rights ensures that both the patient and the medical staff are fully informed and aware of issues when giving consent. I do not need to go into detail to explain the importance of informed consent in the medical process, but I believe protections of conscience rights are an important aspect of the whole informed consent process.

The whole process of dying is deeply personal and individually unique. Sometimes, a person will have experiences with the dying that leave lasting impressions, and I feel compelled to share one here tonight.

On a Thursday in August 2020, a constituent, Sophia Lang, wrote to me to tell me she had been approved for MAID. She said:

You have no idea how much peace of mind that gives me: that there is a merciful way out of needless pain and suffering. I thank the Lord each day that I have that option for when life is no longer worth living.

She went on to say:

However there is a problem. One needs to have mental faculties to be able to consent at the very end. That is a reason that many people—and I may be one of them—choose to activate MAID early: for fear of being unable to consent at the end. I wish you, as my representative in parliament, to help improve the law so that advance directives are made legal. Many people would be able to live longer and at peace.

Imagine my shock when I later learned that we were having these exchanges in her last days. She died just four days after our last exchange, as I learned through the Calgary Herald obituaries. She never mentioned how close she was to leaving this world in any of our emails. I found it so powerful that when she had so little time left on this earth, she spent precious moments advocating for those who would follow in her footsteps.

Sophia has been gone for two years now, but her voice is not silent. I will continue to support access to MAID, advocate for proper advance directives and strongly call for a better palliative care system in Canada. At the same time, I will defend and speak for those who have conscience objections to these procedures.

I truly believe that as a society we must find a way to give Canadians something without taking something away from others. Protection of conscience rights does just this by ensuring lawmakers can, in good conscience, give access to certain medical procedures without unjustly compromising the existing freedoms exercised by others.

As Democrat politician and American lawyer Joe Andrew famously said, the hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. I believe we can find a common ground on these issues, and we must. We need to find a way to make rights compatible and find a way to give something to some without taking away from others.

I call on all members of the House to support getting the bill to committee. I think this is an important conversation we need to have as a Parliament. Again, I understand that my colleague and I have fundamental disagreements on issues like MAID and abortion, but I hope we have demonstrated to our colleagues that when members do share common ground on an issue, like conscience rights, we owe it to Canadians to work together.

I would also like to say that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is an opportunity to make Canada better. It is a moment to reflect on our failures of the past, the impact they continue to have today and how we can bring about the healing that is required. We are a nation of nations, a people of peoples, and we have an opportunity to use this occasion to better ourselves and our country.

I hope all Canadians reflect on their individual and our collective responsibilities to bring about changes that are needed. True truth and reconciliation is our shared path to a better Canada.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-230, presented in this House by my friend and my colleague, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. The bill we are debating today is worth more than a casual dismissal, as I have heard done in this debate by so many.

The bill, if supported, would provide the protections for charter rights of medical professionals who object to providing or participating in medical assistance in dying, which is something that many Canadians are concerned are not there. This is not a debate about medically assisted dying, on which my own convictions are based on a deeply held personal experience and one I would not wish on anyone in this House.

It is also insulting to hear that some members in this House think that it is exercise in politics. This is a debate that is often used in the simplification of applying a litmus test to carelessly sift people into buckets based on how they see a very complex societal issue, to which some so easily assign a check mark or an X. I also support a woman's right to choose. I always have. I always will. I support the LGBT community and its rights, and not as a check mark but as someone who is a proud member of it.

Canadians have varied opinions on MAID based on deeply held personal circumstances, beliefs and experience. One member in this House said, before opposing these important provisions in the bill, which aims to codify them in law, that he did not see the need for them.

However, I do want to reiterate and emphasize some points that are important to this conversation and should be important to members of this House and Canadians alike. Medical assistance in dying is a deeply held moral and conscientious issue that has legal and ethical questions beyond a simple difference of opinion. We know that from the debates in this House. The medical professionals have a duty to do what is in the best interests of their patients and provide them with the best advice on how to move forward with their care. I will say that this is personal and I will say that I went through it. In this case of medical assistance in dying, there are professional and ethical considerations that should be weighed with the highest degree of importance and a caution that touches on the deep moral convictions that I do not believe have been adequately addressed in the current context of our laws.

That said, this bill aims to add two new offences to the Criminal Code. It does not pronounce on whether conscience-rights protections are somehow up for debate. They are not, despite some members' suggesting that this bill would aim to do things that it would not do.

I do believe that it is important to state, for my colleague and those before her who brought this to the House in a piece of legislation, what it actually says and not fall into an issue that we are not debating today. One, the bill would make it an offence to intimidate a medical practitioner for the purpose of compelling them to take part directly or indirectly in the provision of medical assistance in dying. Two, it also would make it an offence to dismiss or refuse to employ the medical practitioner on that same basis. The debate suggests that the provisions in the Criminal Code already do this, and that is simply not the case.

While the Criminal Code does not compel a medical professional to provide MAID, there is nothing in the Criminal Code that specifically protects medical professionals when they are pressured or coerced into participating in or advising on medical assistance in dying.

Not wanting to discuss this does not make the conversation go away. The bill is a direct response to disability rights groups and groups who are calling for these provisions and who understand first-hand that it is a problem. This bill is a direct response to the first nations groups who have called for this and understand that it is a problem. This bill is a direct response to legal experts. It is a response to mental health professionals who understand that this is a problem. Therefore, saying that it is not a problem does not make it not a problem.

This bill would make certain that medical professionals who choose not to take part in or to refer a patient for assisted suicide or medical assistance in dying would never be forced or coerced to violate their charter rights.

The Ontario Medical Association specifically called for an amendment like this in the bill passed by the government, to provide greater conscience protections for medical professionals, acknowledging that although the current clause in the government's bill, “for greater certainty”, exists, it does not actually do the thing it is supposed to do, which is protect freedom. It cannot be enforced. That is the problem that this bill, which was brought to this floor for debate by my colleague, would correct.

This bill addresses the gap and would close it by establishing two spelled-out and very targeted offences. Stakeholders are calling on those additional safeguards, and any discussion of answering this call should not be callously dismissed. It should be thoughtfully considered on behalf of all Canadians, and certainly those who have asked for provisions like this.

Members opposite have stated throughout the debate a jurisdictional argument, and that it somehow infringes on provincial jurisdiction. It is hard to see it as anything but political when one argues that conscience rights legislation somehow interferes with jurisdiction while simultaneously believing that the legalization of medical assistance in dying does not do the same thing.

To go back to the code for a second and the notion that existing provisions in the Criminal Code already produce satisfactory protections, if that were the case, this bill would not be necessary. However, I believe that notion ought to be challenged, because it is simply not the case. The evidence from those affected should trump the dismissal of evidence from politicians claiming it to be trivial, or worse, not even acknowledged.

This bill would do just as much to protect patients as it does medical professionals, which is something that has not been talked about, by protecting the fundamentally important relationship between a physician and a patient. It would do so by ensuring the advice their physician is providing is free and clear of coercion. That should be a priority, not a land mine we cannot discuss. We should have these discussions here, because they are important and the provisions do not exist as they currently talk about in the code.

There have been laws that created unintended consequences of doctors being forced to participate in providing a patient's death, regardless of whether they believed it was in the patient's best interest or not. The current provisions cannot possibly claim that the Criminal Code already protects the conscience rights of medical professionals, not if one reads the code. The clause I mention confirms only that the Criminal Code is not the source of obligation to participate. It does not state it as an offence. It must actually articulate it as an offence in order for people to effectively deal with it as an offence and in order to enforce it. That is what we are talking about.

Without conscience rights, doctors are constrained to provide medical assistance in dying, regardless of whether it is their professional opinion or is in the best interest of the patient, regardless of their moral, ethical and personal convictions and regardless of their own beliefs. Without the necessary protections, they may be coerced and they may be intimidated, and those rights would have no value as a result.

Many of us today might be or might have been in a situation where a loved one has a difficult choice to make about their health. Why would we not want our loved ones to receive the best possible care, the most options and the best options from good doctors, based on advice that has not been coloured by possible intimidation?

Over the past years, we have seen just how much Canadians depend on our health care system and how crucial doctors and medical professionals who work in that system have been. Every Canadian has, or at least a number of Canadians have experienced or are experiencing now how important the system is, and making sure that system works is even more important.

We need to create a work environment for medical professionals that protects them, supports them, encourages them and attracts the most qualified people possible to the profession. I encourage members in this House to support the passage of this protection of freedom of conscience act. I hope those with deeply held conviction will understand what my hon. colleague is trying to achieve for patients, doctors and those wanting to see them protected.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to close the debate on my bill, the protection of freedom of conscience act.

I believe this is a straightforward piece of legislation. It would make it an offence to intimidate a medical professional to participate in medically assisted suicide, directly or indirectly, or to dismiss from employment or refuse to hire a medical professional simply because they refuse to take part in medically assisted dying.

With the removal of safeguards, the slippery slope that many predicted when medically assisted suicide was decriminalized has come to fruition. Additionally, the courts and government legislation have expanded medically assisted suicide far beyond what was conceived in the Carter decision of 2015. Now, those who promote euthanasia support medically assisted suicide for the mentally ill, with some even believing that children should be eligible. This is creating turbulent and stressful times for many in the medical field.

Given this expansion of medical assistance in dying, there is the growing concern or objection among many medical professionals, whether they support MAID or disagree with it, that they may be forced to participate, even if they do not believe that it is in a particular patient's best interest based on their expertise and knowledge of the patient's history. More and more are becoming aware of the erosion of respect for their professional judgment and the precious relationship between the health care provider and their patient.

Unlike what some are trying to portray, this bill does not relitigate the legality of MAID, nor does it seek to impede a patient's access to MAID. Rather, it seeks to protect a medical professional's charter right not to participate in medically assisted suicide when they cannot in good conscience do so.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically says:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

During the first hour of debate, my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, reminded us that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Carter decision was predicated on two things: “a willing patient and, as importantly, a willing physician.” He went on to note that in the decision, the Supreme Court stated the following: “we note...that a physician’s decision to participate in assisted dying is a matter of conscience and, in some cases, of religious belief”.

Protecting individuals from coercion of this nature is not foreign to the Criminal Code of Canada, as found in section 425. If Parliament can enshrine criminal penalties for employers for coercing employees not to form a union, then surely we can provide similar protection for medical professionals when dealing with conscience protections.

Throughout the pandemic, we saw just how important every doctor, nurse and medical support worker is to our system. I do not want even one of these amazing men and women to leave Canada or leave the profession because they are faced with a situation of having one of their most precious rights violated.

With Bill C-230, I have put forward comprehensive yet simple legislation that is important to medical professionals from coast to coast. I would welcome a committee's examination of it, as well as any recommendations to improve it.

In closing, it is an honour to have introduced a private member's bill of substance and consequence in this place and to have members debate it. I humbly ask all members to vote in favour of it at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for further study.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be carried on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to an order made Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.