Bill C-384 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to allow a medical practitioner, subject to certain conditions, to aid a person who is experiencing severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or is suffering from a terminal illness to die with dignity once the person has expressed his or her free and informed consent to die.

Criminal Code

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must say at the outset that the prayer we began our session with this morning, that we would be mindful of making good laws and serving Canadians, has never meant so much to me, and I think many of my colleagues here today, anytime it has ever been said from the Speaker's chair.

I would like to thank my colleagues and members opposite for their thoughts and words on this deep, ethical, moral, legal, and religious question. While I may not agree with all the points that have been made thus far, I do not doubt for one second that the comments of all members are truly heartfelt, genuine, reflective, and respectful.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to address all the concerns of the bill, such as, but not limited to—as my colleague the member for Lethbridge has so eloquently articulated—the poisonous change in our cultural mindset the bill will likely encourage, reducing the value of life to a measure of ability or function rather than its inherent worth and dignity, and causing Canadians who would never have considered taking their own life before to do so.

As the member for Scarborough—Guildwood mentioned, the bill would be under expansionary pressure from the day it comes into effect, and where we could end up is troubling.

The peril that I do not think has been fully addressed is that in which those in vulnerable communities could find themselves.

As I said, because time is limited, I am going to focus upon two issues, but again, my serious concerns are not limited to these alone. First is the regrettable absence of more discussion and action on palliative and hospice care as a precursor to this legislation. Second is the need and the duty of all members here to respect and protect those physicians and health care professionals who object on conscience.

Before I get into these two points, I want to offer my reflections on where we have come from on this issue.

It was only six years ago that we debated the same issue and voted down the private member's bill, Bill C-384, of a former member of this House. It should be noted that this was the second attempt at the same private member's bill by the former member, who had previously introduced Bill C-407.

I will say that I voted against and spoke out against the bills, not only because of my own personal convictions, but also because of my steadfast belief that those bills did not uphold the moral obligation we have as parliamentarians to protect the vulnerable and the inherent dignity of all life.

Bill C-384 and Bill C-407 were seriously flawed because they sent us down a path of unintended consequences. They were that slippery slope that has so often been spoken of here in this chamber, regarding the debate of ethical dilemmas that our families, doctors, and health care workers would face.

My reservation then is sustained today. Why is there not more emphasis on palliative care?

Is it not better to support quality palliative and end-of-life care for Canadians, so they will never need to think that euthanasia or assisted suicide is the only option, or better option, for their suffering?

Is it not our duty to uphold the value and dignity of life in this manner?

In my own home community of Hamilton, we have outstanding organizations like Emmanuel House and the Dr. Bob Kemp Hospice, which work on a daily basis to make end of life better for people. I know hospices are doing outstanding work in all the communities across this country.

I recognize that, in the view of the Supreme Court's Carter decision, we are faced with a new reality, one where we need to respect its decision vis-à-vis the charter rights of those in dire circumstances while still ensuring the dignity of life is upheld. However, I am very concerned that there was no further investigation, no rigorous effort to enhance palliative care and invest in hospice construction, in advance of this legislation or in conjunction with it.

While the federal government's response to the Supreme Court's Carter decision makes reference to the need to support improvements of a full range of end-of-life care options, it does little about it, other than acknowledging it as a non-legislative response.

I do not think that is good enough, and I believe all Canadians do not think that is good enough either.

Instead of a vague reference to a multi-year health accord that would include home care and palliative care as one option, where was the commitment in the throne speech? Where was the commitment in the budget?

If the commitment is serious, why is it not backed up with funding?

This is the missing piece. If we are going to go down the legislative path of physician-assisted dying because of charter rights, then we in this place have a duty, and the Government of Canada has a duty, to have first acted upon palliative and hospice care.

That was the viewpoint of two Senate studies, which I cited back in 2010 when I spoke out against Bill C-384. First, in 1995, there was the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide that in its report, “Of Life and Death”, made a number of recommendations to improve access to palliative care services, standards of care, and training of health care professionals.

In 2000, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology tabled another report, titled “Quality End-of-Life Care: The Right of Every Canadian”, which again recommended a strategy and vast improvements to palliative and end-of-life care, as well as support for family caregivers, home care, research, and surveillance.

It breaks my heart, and I know the hearts of all members in the House, that people are suffering. Just this past summer, in the middle of the election campaign, I watched my own younger brother succumb to the ravages of lymphatic cancer, and I was grateful for the care, understanding, and compassion of everyone at Emmanuel House, the hospice where he stayed in his final days.

I know that this bill attempts to address those individuals who have given up hope; yet I believe there are, most often, better ways to address their suffering. It is our obligation to do everything possible with palliative and hospice care, to give a modicum of hope, comfort, and peace to those suffering at the end of their lives and to their families who are also suffering. Once again, I believe this discussion should have preceded this bill.

The final point I want to touch on today is one that I know other members have already raised, but please allow me to amplify their concerns. That is the protection of physicians' conscience rights and, quite frankly, those of the other health care professionals and caregivers on a doctor's team who might be placed in the circumstances that this bill would allow.

First, I do not think there is a shred of doubt that we must offer clear and indisputable protections to those who object on ethical, moral, or religious grounds. In these matters of life and death, that is more than the right thing to do; it is the only thing to do.

Second, I believe that, to send this important signal to the medical community, families, individuals who are suffering, and all Canadians, these conscience protections for physicians must be included in the bill itself, and not just in the preamble. The bill needs to include a punitive measure for those who would seek to pressure, force, or coerce anyone to assist someone in taking his or her life.

I am thankful for the opportunity to offer these reflections. I know every member of the House will be doing a lot of thinking, soul searching, and prayerful consideration as we grapple with this legislation. I sincerely hope and pray that we continue to do so with extreme caution and care. God bless Canada.

Assisted Suicide

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition from almost 100 constituents of mine requesting that we defeat Bill C-384, which was done. I was glad to vote against that bill.

The petitioners are saying that euthanasia and assisted suicide should not be considered as part of our society. We need to look more into helping those people live in a respectful way, to ensure that they are not suffering needlessly, and that we help them deal with their suffering.

I am proud to present this petition on behalf of my constituents.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a petition respecting legalizing euthanasia in Canada.

The petitioners, residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to reject Bill C-384, which relates to the issue of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I would like to table from people in my riding. It includes over 160 signatures from such places as Maxville, Alexandria, Dunvegan, Vankleek Hill, Alfred, et cetera. The people who have signed this petition value human life, particularly at its most vulnerable stages. I am speaking of the elderly and the sick. The petitioners are asking parliamentarians to vote against Bill C-384, which is the bill that seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition here on Bill C-384 calling upon the House of Commons to reject this bill that deals with euthanasia. Many people in my riding do not want to support this bill and I feel the same way.

Assisted Suicide

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today.

The first petition is in regard to Bill C-384, which is referred to as the assisted suicide and euthanasia bill. I continue to receive many petitions in the mail on this issue.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to vote against Bill C-384.

Assisted suicide

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to present a petition containing well over 100 names.

The petitioners, members of the St. Alexander Church in Azilda and Chelmsford, Ontario, call upon the Minister of Justice and the House of Commons to oppose Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity).

Criminal Code

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present thousands of petitions that have been signed by my constituents in regard to Bill C-384.

They state that assisted suicide and euthanasia pose a threat to society's most vulnerable and that the bill would allow any medical practitioner to assist in death. It also would require only the appearance of lucidity for consent of death and does not call for a concrete determination of actual lucidity.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to vote against Bill C-384.

I am very pleased to table this petition along with my full support.

Assisted Suicide

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and present part of the thousands of petitions that I am receiving from Canadians and in particular from the residents of York West who are opposed to Bill C-384 that would allow any medical practitioner to assist in death.

Clearly, my constituents, as many others, have very serious concerns and issues with this and have asked that I table these many petitions, which I will continue to do at every opportunity as they are coming into my office.

Assisted suicide

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the people in my riding, essentially the municipality of Richmond, I am presenting a petition. The people are against Bill C-384.

Assisted Suicide

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition today. I will be requesting that the committee on justice and human rights look at it. It is a petition from approximately 40 of my constituents who are opposed to Bill C-384.

This bill would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. My constituents are saying they oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide as it directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable people in our society. They believe also that we should be promoting measures that increase the quality of life for people who experience difficult life conditions and not introduce measures that threaten their very existence.

The petitioners are respectfully requesting that I oppose this bill. I can assure them that I will be vigorously opposing this bill on their behalf.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions again, following yesterday. I will be presenting thousands of names in opposition to Bill C-384, the bill that deals with euthanasia. I have been asked to present these petitions to the House of Commons, calling on all members of Parliament to vote against Bill C-384.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin to table a few of the many petitions I have received in regard to Bill C-384 concerning assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The petitioners are clearly asking the House of Commons to vote against Bill C-384.

National Holocaust Monument Act

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.

The Holocaust was one of the worst crimes of the 20th century. The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the bill to commemorate both the survivors and the victims. We believe that we must commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, but we also believe that we must continue the fight against anti-Semitism and all other forms of hate speech and discrimination. We have done so in the past, and we intend to continue that fight.

Anti-Semitism and all other forms of hate speech are contrary to the values of Quebec and Canada. They must be denounced publicly, without hesitation.

The Bloc Québécois has always acted to secure social peace and a public space without hatred, discrimination or violence. That fight is crucial for any society that claims to be democratic.

The purpose of the bill is to create a national monument in Ottawa to honour the victims and Canadian survivors of the Holocaust. To that end, Bill C-442 creates the National Holocaust Monument Development Council, whose five members will be selected by the federal government from a list of volunteer candidates. Candidates will have to show that they have a strong interest in and familiarity with the Holocaust. The council members will not be entitled to any remuneration.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who is responsible for the National Capital Act, and the monument development council would supervise the monument's design and planning. They would also select an appropriate parcel of public land in Canada's national capital region, where the monument would be erected.

While the minister is tasked with designating the public land, the council would be responsible for a fundraising campaign to pay for the monument's construction. It must be completed within three years of Bill C-442 receiving royal assent.

When we think of the Holocaust, the first images that come to mind are images of horror. All of us have seen pictures of the concentration camps that shocked the entire world.

In the wake of the political and economic crisis that hit Germany after World War I, the National Socialist German Workers' Party singled out the Jews and blamed them for all Germany's troubles. They became scapegoats and the worst lies were fabricated about them.

It is estimated that about three quarters of Europe's Jews were massacred by the Nazis, representing approximately 40% of the world's Jewish diaspora. Six million Jews died under the Nazi regime.

This mass murder was implemented by the Hitler regime, as well as by a number of bureaucrats of the Third Reich and many collaborators, both individuals and states. In addition to Jews, the Nazis also massacred gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and Slavs from Poland or Soviet countries.

After the war, faced with the horror of the crime that had been committed by Germany, governments the world over agreed to incorporate into international law the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These crimes have no equivalent in terms of their gravity.

The purpose of Bill C-442 is to establish a monument to serve as a reminder of this crime.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of establishing a monument to commemorate the Holocaust. Such a monument would serve as a constant reminder of the violence inherent in intolerance.

In order to preserve a public space of freedom and democracy, we have to fight against intolerance here at home. We cannot remain silent before words or actions that are anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist or racist and that aim at discriminating against fellow citizens.

We cannot help but be concerned when people are targeted and become victims of discrimination because of their religion, and more generally, their ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or language.

Canada is not immune. According to Statistics Canada, Canada's police forces have indicated that 785 crimes in 2007 were hate crimes. That was a decline over 2006 when 892 such offences were reported. Of those crimes committed in 2007, 185 were religious hate crimes. Again, that was a decline over the 220 cases reported in 2006.

This data shows a slight decrease in the number of hate crimes, which is good news. Nonetheless, the fact remains that such acts still take place, even though they are unacceptable in democratic societies like Quebec and Canada.

One religious hate crime is one too many. There must be zero tolerance. We must work on putting an end to such crimes. We cannot remain silent, on the sidelines or attempt to downplay the situation.

We must oppose anti-Semitism and racism. Anti-Semitism stems from profound ignorance. Thus, education is the most effective way to oppose it.

We believe that we must raise awareness and foster dialogue to build a Quebec that is even more inclusive and respectful of all its citizens. Priority must be given to education and prevention in order to eradicate beliefs and activities based on hatred.

Funds from anti-racism programs must be first allocated to groups that are victims of racism and hate crimes. All too often, acts of hatred target children in schools. These children very regrettably learn about violence or hatred motivated by race or religion.

In an effort to effectively combat anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism, the Bloc Québécois member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant presented a concrete proposal in April 2008: she introduced Bill C-384, which was passed at second reading. This bill amended the Criminal Code and created a new offence to prohibit hate-motivated acts of mischief that target specific identifiable groups at institutions such as schools, daycare centres, colleges, universities, community centres, playgrounds, skating rinks and sports centres or any administrative, social, cultural, educational or sports establishment used exclusively or mainly by such groups.

The creation of this offence sends a clear message and reaffirms that society does not tolerate acts of violence against places attended or used by identifiable groups.

This bill—now law—sends the message that violence motivated by hate of a group or community is not tolerated. The specific offence allows us to denounce not only the material damage to a building, for example, but also, and above all, the fact that hatred of an identifiable group, which is the cause of the act, is morally wrong.

Such crimes fly in the face of the values of Quebeckers and the society we wish to create for ourselves. These crimes only increase tensions between members of our society. That is why we must do everything we can, still in line with our own values, in order to prevent such acts from ever happening again.

The bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, is already receiving support from minority groups in Quebec and Canada. For instance, the Canadian Jewish Congress sees this bill as an appropriate response to the concerns of the Jewish community.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the importance of the fight against discrimination and hate crimes. Such acts go completely against the core values that drive Quebec and our party, which always represents the interests of Quebeckers here in the House.

The Bloc Québécois has always opposed anti-Semitism and all other hate crimes, which fly in the face of the values of the Quebec nation.

What kind of shared values are we talking about? It is becoming increasingly necessary to remind people of the shared values on which the Quebec identity is based. The most important values, those that form the foundation of our nation, would, we think, include the following: gender equality—and it is no accident that that is at the top of the list; French as the official language and common public language; democracy; basic human rights; secularism; pluralism; and so on.

In closing, all citizens of Quebec have the same rights. Quebec citizenship is inclusive and unifying. It transcends differences by promoting a collective identity that focuses on civic identity.

In that regard, the monument in question, to be built outside of Quebec, in no way contradicts the values of Quebeckers, and the Bloc Québécois will be pleased to vote in favour of this bill.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I would like to present. The first petition is from many of my constituents in the Yorkton and Esterhazy areas. The petitioners call upon members of the House of Commons to respectfully reject private member's Bill C-384, which seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The petitioners say that legalized euthanasia speaks of a culture of death, of giving someone else the right to kill another and is not about compassion, dignity, love or care, but is deliberate killing. As Canadians we stand behind palliative care where intention is crucial, where pain is managed responsibly, and people are embraced and cared for with dignity.

The petitioners need to be assured that we will oppose and prohibit euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. They are asking that we reject Bill C-384.

Assisted Suicide

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table three petitions, signed by the residents from across my riding, places such as Maxville, Alexandria, Dalkeith, Glen Robertson, Treadwell and Plantagenet. They are opposed to Bill C-384, which proposes to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The petition states that Bill C-384 contradicts fundamental human values and threatens all Canadians by undermining the inherent and inviolable value of each human life and its dignity. It is a real and growing threat to the sick, depressed, seniors and handicapped.

The petition urges us to vote against Bill C-384. I would also like to mention that this call for positive measures to protect life was highlighted by the presence of over 12,000 people who participated in the March for Life here on the Hill this past spring.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on behalf of numerous constituents who are asking that the House vote against and reject Bill C-384 presented here in Parliament to legalize euthanasia. They consider this a deliberate killing so they are totally against this. I am representing them today against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Assisted Suicide

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to table two petitions consisting of over 15 pages of signatures signed by the residents of the communities of Cumberland, Rockland, Russell, Embrun and surrounding areas of my riding who are opposed to Bill C-384 which proposes to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. The petition states that Bill C-384 contradicts fundamental Canadian values and threatens all Canadians by undermining the inherent and inviolable value of each human life and its dignity. It is a real and growing threat to the sick, the depressed, seniors and the handicapped.

The petition urges us to vote against Bill C-384. I would also like to mention that this call for positive measures to protect life was highlighted by the presence of over 12,000 people here on the Hill who participated in the March for Life earlier this spring.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present two petitions on behalf of some of my constituents from Alexandria, L'Orignal and the surrounding area.

These people are completely against Bill C-384, and the legislation on euthanasia and assisted suicide. They respect human life and expect our Parliament to defend the intrinsic value of human life. They are calling on us to protect and defend our most vulnerable citizens.

They have asked me to formally declare their opposition to the euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation here in the House of Commons. I am pleased to do so on their behalf, and I would like to point out that I will vote against any attempts to legislate euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Bill C-384

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is there anything more valuable and more sacred than life itself?

Right from birth, our bodies and minds are designed by instinct to protect ourselves from what we sense is harm and to preserve life.

Mindful of this, I find it troubling that the Bloc has introduced a bill that would allow a medical practitioner to take the very life that he or she was sworn to protect. At best, the bill can be called irresponsible.

Would we not be better off as a society discussing how to comfort those in pain, to support the families who are struggling with caring for a terminally ill member or how we could better support the valiant efforts of nurses and doctors who are providing hospice care across the country?

Surely, we would never consider the intentional taking of a life by medical practitioners would ever be acceptable in our nation. I will be voting against Bill C-384 and I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to do the same.

Criminal Code

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of a large number of people in my own constituency, many of them parishioners at Saint Vincent de Paul Parish, who are very concerned about and opposed to Bill C-384 for a number of reasons, one of which is that it does not define terminal illness.

The undersigned are very concerned that this bill, if passed, would endanger Canadians and that it would open the door to deadly abuse. They feel that there are better ways to deal with those who are ill, even terminally ill, and they urge this House to vote against Bill C-384.

I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf. I want to thank, in particular, Kitty Wiley for the work that she did in putting this together.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents opposing Bill C-384, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

I would also like to thank the Catholic Women's League of Sherwood Park for its hard work on this.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, please remind me when I have two minutes left.

I would like to announce to my colleagues in the House of Commons that the Liberal critic will not be voting in favour of this private member's bill by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I would like to thank her for raising this important issue. I personally think it is such an important and complex matter that a private member's bill is not the right vehicle to engage the public debate that this issue deserves. I would like to read a letter that the Canadian Medical Association addressed to my colleague, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. A copy of this letter was sent to all hon. members. It sums up my concerns about this issue. The letter reads,

Madame,

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has been very interested in and concerned about the progress of Bill C-384 in the House of Commons. The House is at third reading of a bill that would, in some circumstances, allow a physician to aid a person to die with dignity if that person has provided free and informed consent. The CMA's policy is clear. “Canadian physicians should not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide.”

As the attached policy notes, euthanasia and assisted suicide must be distinguished from the withholding or withdrawal of inappropriate, futile or unwanted medical treatment or the provision of compassionate palliative care, even when these practices shorten life. The CMA does not support euthanasia or assisted suicide and urges its members to uphold the principles of palliative care. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are opposed by almost every national medical association and prohibited by the law codes of almost all countries.

Our policies also clearly state that “the CMA recognizes that it is the prerogative of society to decide whether the laws dealing with euthanasia and assisted suicide should be changed”, but that there are some concerns that must be addressed before any changes are made. These include:

1. Adequate palliative-care services must be made available to all Canadians. In 1994, our members approved a motion that Canadian physicians should uphold the principles of palliative care. The public has clearly demonstrated its concern with our care of the dying. The provision of palliative care for all who are in need is a mandatory precondition to the contemplation of permissive legislative change. Efforts to broaden the availability of palliative care in Canada should be intensified.

2. Suicide-prevention programs should be maintained and strengthened where necessary. Although attempted suicide is not illegal, it is often the result of temporary depression or unhappiness. Society rightly supports efforts to prevent suicide, and physicians are expected to provide life-support measures to people who have attempted suicide. In any debate about providing assistance in suicide to relieve the suffering of persons with incurable diseases, the interests of those at risk of attempting suicide for other reasons must be safeguarded.

3. A Canadian study of medical decision-making during dying should be undertaken. We know relatively little about the frequency of various medical decisions made near the end of life, how these decisions are made and the satisfaction of patients, families, physicians and other caregivers with the decision-making process and outcomes.

Hence, a study of medical decision making during dying is needed to evaluate the current state of Canadian practice. This evaluation would help determine the possible need for change and identify what those changes should be. If physicians participating in such a study were offered immunity from prosecution based on information collected, as was done during the Remmelink commission in the Netherlands, the study could substantiate or refute the repeated allegations that euthanasia and assisted suicide take place.

4. Consideration should be given to whether any proposed legislation can restrict euthanasia and assisted suicide to the indications intended. Research from the Netherlands and Oregon demonstrate that a large percentage of patients who request aid in dying do so in order to maintain their dignity and autonomy.

If euthanasia or assisted suicide or both are permitted for competent, suffering, terminally ill patients, there may be legal challenges, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to extend these practices to others who are not competent, suffering or terminally ill. Such extension is the “slippery slope” that many fear.

This statement has been developed to help physicians, the public and politicians participate in any re-examination of the current legal prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide and arrive at a solution in the best interests of Canadians. The CMA is in favour of improving access to palliative care and suicide prevention programs, undertaking a study on how medical decisions are made near the end of life and having a comprehensive public debate on the matter, but we cannot support Bill C-384.

Sincerely,

Anne Doig, MD, CCFP, FCFP,

President

As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, I understand and deeply respect the desire of the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île to bring this matter forth in the House of Commons, and I sympathize with her. I think this is a debate that we should have, but it should be initiated by the government.

I am critical, however, of this government and previous governments of my political stripe for not having had the moral fortitude to take the necessary steps to allow such a debate to take place and not undertaking such a study, as suggested and recommended by the Canadian Medical Association.

I truly believe that it is an issue that many Canadians, many families are grappling with and an idea that they are finding very painful to think about. Government has a responsibility to help Canadians deal with this issue, to see what the actual state is and whether or not this issue can be dealt with in a way that provides dignity and serenity, and also to provide a sense of security that there will not be mistakes made if legislative measures are in fact taken.

As I have said, I blame the government but I also blame my own political party, which formed government for several terms, for not having had the moral courage to deal with this.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Therefore, when I articulated earlier that Bill C-384 is too broad in its scope, this concern applies to both the fact that it would permit physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and to the fact that it would allow a vast array of persons to make a request to a doctor for assisted death.

The second important concern I wish to raise with respect to this bill is how it does not encompass sufficient safeguards.

The subject of safeguards, like the subject of the scope, also has two aspects in the context of this bill.

The first deals with ensuring that the eligibility requirements and the terms used are properly circumscribed. In this respect, Bill C-384 contains a number of vague and undefined terms that could lead to interpretation problems and, therefore, potentially to misunderstandings or abuses.

For example, terms such as “while appearing to be lucid”, “appropriate treatment”, “severe physical or mental pain”, “without any prospect of relief” have the potential to be interpreted very subjectively.

Also, the 10-day “cooling off” period, if you will, is too short to ensure that a person’s wish to die was settled.

The other element of ensuring appropriate safeguards deals with putting in place an effective oversight mechanism. In this respect, it is my view that Bill C-384 contains a woefully insufficient oversight mechanism.

Under Bill C-384, the doctor who would assist in a suicide or terminate someone’s life would only have to provide a copy of the diagnosis to the coroner after the fact. This bill would give a doctor the authority to terminate life on the apparent consent of the patient.

Under the terms of C-384, people as young as 18, diagnosed with depression and not wanting treatment, could ask to have their life terminated by a doctor.

Parliament should not consider such profound changes to the law without prior input from Canadians. Many different stakeholder groups should be consulted in advance of specific reforms being considered. These amendments would have serious implications for the medical profession in particular.

Surely, the medical profession should be consulted in advance of such significant changes being made to current medical ethics and practice.

I know that other countries have struggled with this difficult issue over the years, both in their legislatures and in the courts. While some countries have amended their laws to permit physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, others have not supported such changes. In any event, regardless of what other countries have done, we have to consider what is right for our society. It is not clear to me that the legal regime proposed in this bill is right for Canada.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that I do not support this bill. Bill C-384 would represent a substantial change to the current policy on the criminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. It raises a number of significant legal and policy concerns and, in my view, would not adequately protect human life. Bill C-384 would also have a major impact on current medical ethics and practice. Such substantial changes to the law should not be considered without extensive advance consultations.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to BillC-384 that was introduced on May 13, 2009, by the member from La Pointe-de-l'Île. Two previous bills on this subject were introduced by the same member in past sessions of Parliament. One of them was debated in 2005, but did not come to a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state at the outset that I do not support Bill C-384 which proposes the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia under specified conditions. This bill raises a number of serious concerns and I propose to outline the ones I consider to be most important.

First, Bill C-384 is too broad in terms of its scope. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-384 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to provide an exemption not only to the offence of assisted suicide, but also to the offence of murder. These amendments would represent a substantial change to the current state of the law on a matter that touches on life and death.

The proposed legalization of medical euthanasia and assisted suicide would not only apply to terminally-ill patients, but also to persons who suffer from severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief. Therefore, under this bill, persons who suffer from depression could request that a doctor help them to commit suicide. They could also request that the doctor carry out the act itself that would cause their death.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

moved that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I first introduced a private member's bill on the right to die with dignity in June 2005, because I felt confident that Quebeckers and Canadians needed Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to recognize that every person, subject to certain specific conditions, had the right to an end of life that is consistent with the values of dignity and freedom they have always espoused and so that an individual's wish regarding his or her death would be respected. In fact, I introduced this bill so that people would have a choice, the same right to choose that people in other countries have.

My conviction has grown stronger, and that is why I am introducing an amended bill on the right to die with dignity, Bill C-384. Briefly, it amends the Criminal code so that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide just by helping a person to die with dignity if—I am coming to the conditions—the person is at least 18 years of age, continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or suffers from a terminal illness. The person must have provided a medical practitioner with two written requests more than 10 days apart expressly stating the person's free and informed consent to opt to die.

The medical practitioner must have requested and received written confirmation of the diagnosis from another medical practitioner. The other practitioner must be independent and have no personal interest in the death of the person. The medical practitioner must have no reasonable grounds—this is important—to believe that the person's written requests were made under duress or while the person was not lucid. The practitioner must have informed the person of the consequences of his or her requests and of the alternatives available to him or her and must act in the manner indicated by the person, it being understood that the person may, at any time, revoke the requests made under subparagraph (a)(iii) of clause 2 of the bill.

The patient is free to change his mind. The doctor must constantly remind him of that. If he does not change his mind, the doctor must submit a copy of the confirmation referred to in subparagraph (i) to the coroner.

Mr. Speaker, would you please let me know when I have two minutes left?

As we all know, the right to receive medical assistance to die exists in other countries. The Netherlands was the first to make it a right. In that country, before the law existed, doctors who helped patients die were tolerated by the legal system, as long as they complied with medical directives from the country's equivalent of a college of physicians and surgeons. Then the law was changed to reflect what people had been thinking about and doing for all that time.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is when a doctor, acting on behalf of a patient and in accordance with the patient's strict instructions, deliberately puts an end to the patient's life. I want to emphasize that, in the Netherlands, palliative care is excellent and euthanasia is one of the care options.

Belgium also passed a law after senators from different parties worked together to hold nationwide consultations and agree on a piece of legislation in which euthanasia is defined as an action by a party intentionally ending the life of a person at that person's request. The law has been in place for six years, and there is oversight in place as well. This year, there was a report on the application of the law. For those who fear that permitting people at the end of their lives to choose how they wish to die might result in a huge number of people seeking help to die, the incidence over the past six years in Belgium has been 4 per 1,000. I repeat: 4 per 1,000 deaths.

In Quebec, the debate is ongoing. The Collège des médecins has asked its ethics committee to consider the matter of euthanasia. After three years of study, the committee should soon be making recommendations. As Dr. Yves Robert, the college's secretary, told L'Actualité médicale,

Doctors do not want to abdicate their responsibilities when it comes to euthanasia, but we must determine the scope of those responsibilities and how they are to be carried out.

At its annual meeting on April 16 and 17, 2009, the Association des soins palliatifs broached the topic with a presentation by Dr. Yvon Beauchamp, who began his introduction with the following:

I have found that over the years in Canada, palliative care has been championed as the anti-euthanasia and the universal alternative to an act punishable under the laws of God, the laws of man and the laws of the college of physicians.

He added:

There are people who believe that “increased development of palliative care means there is no longer a need for suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.”

I could go on. On August 11, 2009, an Angus Reid survey of 804 adults in Quebec was published with the title, Strong Support in Quebec for Legalizing Euthanasia. The subtitle read, “Most Quebecers believe that laws governing euthanasia should be provincial responsibility.” The survey showed the following figures: 77% of Quebeckers believe euthanasia should be allowed, and 75% think it is a good idea to re-open the debate on euthanasia. On August 22, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'affaires sociales, the AFEAS, well-known in all ridings of Quebec, voted in favour of euthanasia at its convention. Members of the AFEAS took the position that Quebeckers should be allowed to die with dignity.

Palliative care and assisted suicide are not mutually exclusive; they complement each other. I am saying this right off the bat, because I know that I will hear that argument. How many times have I heard, “As long as some people do not have access to palliative care, we cannot consider medical assistance in dying”? Why? That has nothing to do with the issue. Everyone needs access to quality palliative care.

It should also be known that palliative care does not relieve all pain and especially not all the suffering that comes with the end of life, aging and the difficulty of a lengthy hospital stay.

I will read from a text by Dr. Boisvert, a long-time palliative care doctor at the Royal Victoria Hospital:

Caregivers, whose own health is relative, are not equipped to experience the throes of progressive decline (a teaspoon at a time, wrote one patient); the indignity of urinary or fecal (rectal, or worse, vaginal) incontinence—we do not often hear that in Parliament; of constant breathlessness; the throbbing acute pain caused by a collapsing cancerous vertebra, causing the patient to cry out at the slightest movement; the gauntness and extreme weakness that result in total dependence, even for the simplest things such as turning over in bed just slightly or lifting half a glass of water to one's parched lips.

Dr. Boisvert continued:

That is why I do not subscribe to the idea that people should find the strength to suffer to the end or the idea that people should be so compassionate as to suffer with their loved one, when it is the loved one that is truly suffering.

I would add that I do not understand why people prefer to wash their hands of this suffering that cannot be relieved, that can only be relieved by death, because the time that passes is a kind of torture. Do we here have the right not to hear or think about it? Again, palliative care cannot end all pain and suffering.

My colleagues may have received the document from five doctors who oppose my bill. They may have the support of a hundred or so others. What do they have to say? I read this document carefully and it acknowledges that palliative care cannot relieve all pain and suffering and certainly not the suffering described by Dr. Boisvert. Then why are they against my bill?

They say, “These people have to be heard and helped as much as possible, but their request remains absolutely unacceptable to us”.

Why? To me there is a disconnect here. Their position is unacceptable, especially when they admit:

The line between palliation and euthanasia may seem tenuous to some, since the distinction between them lies in the intention of the act and not in what it involves.

They wrote that because palliative care also uses what is known as terminal sedation, which plunges patients into a coma when their suffering cannot otherwise be eased. In such a coma, they cannot eat or drink, but they are still alive and, in the end, they die of lethal complications. This can take a short while or a very long time, and this terminal sedation basically amounts to an act of euthanasia. They claim it is not the same thing. Even the Catholic church says that when any action is taken that has a double effect, such as the positive effect of easing the suffering, and the negative effect, which leads to death, one is not responsible for the negative effect, because it was the positive effect that was sought. This was one of the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

When we consider that, not as followers of any religion, but as people who are responsible for the well being of our citizens, do we have the right to refuse to look at all the possibilities?

I would like to see the broadest possible committee hear from as many citizens as possible in order to be able to provide end of life medical assistance to people who are suffering greatly, who can no longer endure the suffering and want to end their lives. We should help them die with dignity.

I await your comments and hope to have your support, not for me, but for the people we may one day become. The lottery of death offers no guarantees.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a 20-page petition signed by the residents of my riding who are opposed to Bill C-384, which proposes to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The petition states that Bill C-384 contradicts fundamental Canadian values and threatens all Canadians by undermining the inherent and inviolable value of each human life and its dignity. It is a real and growing threat to the sick, the depressed, seniors and the handicapped.

The petition urges us to vote against Bill C-384. I would also like to mention that this call for positive measures was highlighted by the presence of 2,000 people who participated in the March for Life this past spring.

Criminal Code

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity).

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for this Parliament to find a way to decriminalize medical assistance in dying, which is of such vital importance to those whose suffering can no longer be relieved except by this ultimate compassion.

In recent years, the parliaments of three countries in the European Union, as well as two states in the U.S., have enacted legislation which allows physicians under certain circumstances—the express request of terminally ill patients being one of them—to help certain persons die.

Serious research into the application of this legislation and their very specific criteria clearly shows that the greatest fear expressed in this Parliament some years ago, abuses and the hypothetical slippery slope, has not in any way become reality. A remarkable progression has taken place in public opinion concerning the need for such a law. Increasingly, people believe that they should have the right to choose, when the time comes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)