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.

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.

Criminal Code

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, the seniors that the hon. member just spoke of are not trash. They are treasures.

I would like to state from the outset that I do not support Bill C-384 which proposes the legalization of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia under specific conditions.

The bill raises a number of serious concerns and I propose to outline the ones that I consider the most troubling.

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

Therefore, under the 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.

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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I came to this place, I spent five years on the ethics committee of the board of directors of the Mississauga hospital. I learned a great deal about self-determination, competency, the whole idea of informed consent, the realities of coercion by family members, friends and other people who have conflicts of interest, and the risk that the patient may be competent but not understand the risk of incorrect diagnosis or prognosis and the possibility that circumstances can change after he or she has given consent but then lapse into incompetence. These are all very minor, simple ethical questions. There are many more complex ones. These are just a sample.

Euthanasia involves a physician directly injecting a lethal substance into another person with the person's consent. Physician assisted suicide involves a physician who provides the individual with information, guidance and the means, such as a prescription for a lethal drug, with the intent that the person himself or herself will take his or her own life. That is the difference.

Bill C-384 seeks to legalize both euthanasia and assisted suicide. It purports to provide the right to die with dignity when in fact what it does is it gives the medical practitioner the right to terminate or assist in the termination of life before natural death.

It would change section 14 of the Criminal Code such that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide if he or she aids a person to die with dignity who has given his or her free or informed consent, who has a terminal illness, and who continues, after expressly refusing the appropriate treatments available, to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief.

There are some flaws in the bill. I looked at it carefully. My immediate reaction is that it does not restrict this availability to Canadian residents. Anyone could walk into Canada and request euthanasia, which is silly.

The bill does not define terminal illness. It does not define lucidity. It does not define a whole bunch of things. In fact, it requires the patient to be free from duress or coercion, but it does not give any indication of how that might be addressed.

This bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code. It is two paragraphs long.

I have before me the bill of one jurisdiction and it is 10 pages long. Let me highlight some of it. It includes 20 definitions that are necessary to be there so it is operable. Also, under “Written Request for Medication”, it has section 2, who may initiate a written request; section 3, the form for written requests; section 4, the attendant physician responsibilities; section 5, consulting physician confirmation; section 6, counselling referral; section 7, informed decision; section 8, family written notification. It goes on. It includes written and oral requests; the right to rescind; waiting periods; medical record; documentation requirements; residential requirements; disposal of unused medication; effect on construction of wills, contracts and statutes; insurance and annuity policies; construction of the act. Under “Immunities and Liabilities” it covers the sanctions of prohibiting a health care provider from participating; liabilities and claims from government authorities; and forms to request. I could go on.

This is a comprehensive bill on a very serious subject. The bill before us for debate is not. Based on my review of the bill and the legislation in other jurisdictions, I have concluded that this bill is seriously flawed, inoperable and irreparable in its current form.

We have to look at the experience of other jurisdictions. It is instructive.

Oregon has had the law for 12 years. In 2009, 93 people obtained prescriptions for the lethal drug, but only 53 actually took their lives. In Washington state in the first 10 months, which is how long it has had the law, 63 people got the lethal drug, but only 36 took their lives. Does it paint a little picture? There are some numbers here.

In all of these jurisdictions people were asked why they were seeking euthanasia or assisted suicide. Ninety-one per cent of them said that it was losing the ability to participate in the activities that make life enjoyable. Eighty-two per cent said they were worried about losing their dignity. Only 23% said they were worried about the pain and suffering. We cannot ask people who are not the patient how they feel about this. We have to ask people who are facing this situation.

It is clear to me the concern about pain and suffering, which is really the only major justification the member has given on this bill, in fact is not the compelling reason that some people request termination of life.

Our health care system is there to meet the needs of all, including the disabled, the terminally ill, the aged and the most vulnerable in our society. We meet those needs through continuing care, palliative care, stroke and geriatric rehabilitation, long-term care, hospices, home care and family medicine. We need to continue to improve that care, not terminate it.

Palliative care workers are very concerned about this bill. Organizations and hospices are doing their very best to give the best possible care in difficult situations. The disabled in our society are obviously very concerned about whether their lives are at risk because someone decides they are not living in dignity.

As well, the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide would reduce funding for palliative care, reduce the number of palliative care service centres and reduce the number of palliative care physicians.

There are some slippery slope considerations. I would simply point out that people are not valueless because they are chronically dependent or dying. They continue to be human beings and should be respected and supported in their time of need and, as a result of the loss of a patient's autonomy because the final decision will belong to a physician, not to the individual. I mentioned personal autonomy.

Our experience shows that there is an absolute certainty that errors will occur and that lives of people will be wrongly terminated.

Our social, moral and ethical values, as expressed in our laws, practices and customs, define who we are as a people and as a country. The thought of deliberately taking a human life for any reason is simply incompatible with Canadian reality. The decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide depends entirely on the participation of the medical profession, and it should be noted that the majority of the medical profession is opposed. As I mentioned in my question earlier, it will pit doctor against doctor, depending on whether they support it.

What we really need is a national strategy for comprehensive palliative care to address any gaps in compassionate care services. This also involves an increase in education for doctors and medical students who normally receive little training in the benefits or advancements in palliative care.

For all of those reasons, I am strongly opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide and I will be voting against Bill C-384. In my view, it is simply wrong to deliberately kill another human being. The miracle of life is inherently dignified and each day is a gift to be cherished.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is more commonly known for the issue it tackles: euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. There is no question that the circumstances, pain and emotion surrounding one's desire to even consider euthanasia and assisted suicide are difficult and complex, made all the more poignant by the personal experiences that frame our diverse perspectives.

I must say from the outset that while I fundamentally disagree with this bill, I respect every member of the House and every Canadian who advocates for or against the bill. That is because the circumstances that would bring anyone to contemplate medically assisted suicide, whether it be for himself or herself or a loved one, are very deep, very emotional and very difficult personal decisions.

Throughout this debate we have heard many stories and I am certain that we will hear many more. Each is different and relevant. I do not know if we can ever truly appreciate these until we walk in that particular person's shoes, but please allow me to add my own as well. My mother passed away from a debilitating autoimmune disease called scleroderma. Unfortunately, even today, not a lot is known about this disease.

When death occurs, as was the case with my mother, it is from organ complications after many years of suffering and pain. It is dying from the inside out. My mother's internal vital organs became like stones. Her skin became as fragile as parchment. There were days at the end of her life, I would suspect, although she never spoke to me about it, that she would rather not have lived. They were days that we as her family would rather have not seen her suffer.

However, as heart-wrenching as it was, she found a modicum of serenity and acceptance and we comforted her as best as we possibly could right until the end. My family was blessed by discovering two great champions: my younger sister, Connie Hayes, and my older sister, Suzanne Bryant, who were there day in and day out to care for my mother and bring the family even closer together through this tragic, painful ordeal.

I think we can all agree with the overall objective of ensuring that people with terminal or severe illness suffer less. However, I do not believe that Bill C-384 is the answer. In fact, I have stated before in this place that, in my opinion, Bill C-384 is irresponsible. Frankly, I am convinced that it is diametrically opposed to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees individual Canadians the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

I am deeply concerned that Bill C-384 would allow anyone to request medical assistance with suicide or euthanasia without sufficient oversight or regulation. Clearly, no one is going to make that kind of decision lightly, but nor should it be so readily accessible that an irreversible decision could be made too hastily, out of pain or emotion, or out of guilt that someone would be a burden to others.

The flaws with this bill are not with its call to compassion or its appeal for dignity near life's natural end, but with the unintended and, I believe, unmanageable consequences. Moreover, I believe we as parliamentarians have a duty and moral obligation to uphold the value of life. What kind of precedence does this set? At what point on this slippery slope do we stop? Is that really for us to decide?

I would like to quote an article from yesterday's Globe and Mail, written by Margaret Somerville, the founding director of the Centre of Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University:

Indeed, one of the people responsible for shepherding through the legislation legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands recently admitted publicly that doing so had been a serious mistake, because, he said, once legalized, euthanasia cannot be controlled. In other words, justifications for it expand greatly, even to the extent that simply a personal preference “to be dead” will suffice.

I am also worried that Bill C-384 signals a devaluing of life and I believe that is heading in a vastly wrong direction. These are my personal and emotional views and reasons, but they are also the reasons for many hundreds of constituents who have called, written and emailed my office.

I would like to supplement this by referring to some of the work done by committees and commissions over the years related to this specific topic. I hope they help illustrate and amplify my point that we are treading down a very slippery slope.

We should consider this paragraph from the 1982 report by the Law Reform Commission of Canada on this topic that my colleague referred to earlier. It reads, ”There is, first of all, a real danger that the procedure developed to allow the death of those who are a burden to themselves may be gradually diverted from its original purpose and eventually used to eliminate those who are a burden to others, or to society. There is also the constant danger that the subject's consent to euthanasia may not really be a perfectly free and voluntary act”.

Therefore, in addition to the lack of oversight in this bill, what is also troubling is the lack of precise language. I have a copy of the bill in front of me and the actual text is only three pages long, in both official languages. It is hardly anything that would tackle something as serious as bringing about medically assisted death.

The bill before us would allow for physician assisted suicide and euthanasia if the subject appears to be lucid and is in severe physical or mental pain and yet there is no definition of what constitutes severe pain or mental pain. I would hate to see an elderly, ill or disabled Canadian, feeling that he or she is a burden to his or her caregivers or to society, request assisted suicide using severe mental pain as a reason.

In tandem with our duty to uphold the value of life, I also believe we must support quality palliative care and end-of-life care for Canadians so that they will never need to think that euthanasia or assisted suicide is the only relief for their suffering or feel that they would be relieving a burden on their family by taking that path. Our ultimate goal ought to be to help ensure Canadians can live life well to its natural end. With the ageing of the baby boomers, this is an increasingly important issue.

A study of palliative care conducted by a Senate subcommittee in 2000, tabled a thoughtful report called “Quality End-of-Life Care: The Right of Every Canadian”. The report recommended collaborative development of a strategy to improve palliative and end-of-life care with attention to issues such as support to family caregivers, access to home care, training and education, research and surveillance.

Since then, Health Canada has been working to develop a pan-Canadian strategy for palliative and end-of-life care. While much remains to be done, I believe this can help deal with the very real physical, psychological, spiritual and practical needs of a person who is dying and the person's loved ones.

As we discuss, debate and consider Bill C-384, we must not forget what we can do in these areas of health care to help Canadian families from coast to coast. We need to recognize the work being done in hospice care by so many dedicated doctors and nurses, as well as what is being done by great Canadians in the communities in which we live.

It was such a concern for ordinary Canadians in Hamilton to give quality care, end-of-life care to the people of Hamilton that they raised $3 million and built the Dr. Bob Kemp Hospice to ensure hospice care was available to people in need.

We are faced today with a problem that continues to challenge our society. The pitfalls are many and the answers are far from clear. In view of this, I would urge members to reject Bill C-384 and signal to all Canadians that we hold life as sacred and do not find the intentional taking of life acceptable whatsoever.

[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 will not have enough time to list everything that has happened and that has been written regarding the right to die with dignity since the debate on BillC-384 began.

It is a sign, if a sign were needed, that shows the need to decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide or physician-assisted dying under certain conditions. My bill has a specific objective. It deals only with people capable of making decisions for themselves who are living in conditions of suffering that cannot be alleviated. But it has the merit of forcing a debate on decriminalization that, in Canada, unlike in the United States, is a federal jurisdiction. I think that studying my bill in committee and passing it after consideration and amendments would at last rid us of the criminal nature of physician-assisted dying by euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The Collège des médecins du Québec could then, freely and without fear, continue the admirable work it has begun on appropriate end-of-life care, including terminal sedation and euthanasia. The Quebec National Assembly could, in all good conscience, refer the study of the right to die with dignity to its Commission de la santé et des services sociaux. Not only is it necessary, but it is urgent to remind ourselves of the degree to which the Criminal Code of Canada hinders a genuine debate on vital life questions that so many people are faced with daily. A number of people who have appeared before the Commission de la santé et des services sociaux have done so. Here are some examples.

Jean-Pierre Béland, professor of philosophy and ethics at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, wonders what the problem is when it is accepted that a physician must answer to his code of ethics that requires him to make it possible for a patient to die with dignity.

He goes on to say that it is part of the code of ethics and that we all know that the problem lies with the current Criminal Code. This Criminal Code, which falls under federal jurisdiction, recognizes that any act of euthanasia must currently be interpreted as a criminal act within the meaning of the Criminal Code. In practice, is the patient not thrust into an impasse because the law forces doctors and caregivers to live in the ambivalence of palliative care language, which preaches independent choice when, in reality, the patient has no choice because he is denied assisted suicide and euthanasia?

There are tonnes of quotes. I have one from a very remarkable document from the Collège des médecins du Québec on doctors, appropriate care and the debate on euthanasia. The following is an important excerpt from that document:

The status quo makes this research difficult if not impossible. For all sorts of reasons, our society—and doctors are no exception—is in denial not just about euthanasia, but also about death. The current state of the law in Canada certainly has a lot to do with that. In a context where any act aimed at shortening life is considered murder punishable by criminal sanctions, it is rather difficult to have an open and frank discussion on all the care that would be appropriate at the end of life.

My dear colleagues will agree that the Quebec and Canadian context has completely changed since the motion was unanimously passed by the National Assembly of Quebec.

Those are not my words. We did not see it, but representatives in the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion to establish an ad hoc commission “for the purpose of examining the issue of the right to die with dignity and, if need arises, of the procedural requirements”.

The National Assembly commission has already heard from dozens of specialists, be they doctors, ethicists or people who work in palliative care. The quality of their testimony is incredible.

It has brought a question to my mind. Quebec's parliament came together and undertook a joint consultation with specialists. Then, in August, they travelled throughout Quebec. Quebec's National Assembly commission will come forward with a motion. Given the commission's title, it seems that they will want to determine the conditions for dying with dignity. What will the Parliament of Canada do? It will say that it is in charge of the Criminal Code. On what side of the issue will we be? Personally, I hope we will not be against it.

I hope that the Parliament of Canada will take the time to consult and get informed. Of course, I hope that this will be the case when my private members' bill comes before the House. My bill is specific and limited, but it raises the question of criminalization or rather decriminilization. That is the biggest problem. That is the problem.

Who can repeatedly say with confidence that helping someone in unbearable pain, particularly someone in palliative care—that is definitely unbearable pain—is a crime? Many witnesses speak about helping someone die peacefully, so that they do not suffer. Is that really murder? Is that really a crime? Many of them say it is not. That is exactly my point. Within the three physicians' associations in Quebec, approximately 75% say that the option should exist to perform euthanasia in order to help people die under specific conditions. They want to be able to establish these conditions themselves.

I would like to read excerpts from the brief from the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec:

From a medical standpoint, the right to die with dignity and quality end of life care are notions that implicitly refer to euthanasia. It was in that context that a working group on clinical ethics, mandated by the Collège des médecins du Québec, or CMQ, in 2006, decided to address the issue. Based on the reflections of that group and particularly because of the CMQ's position, the federation decided to conduct a survey on euthanasia—

I will talk about that in a moment, but first I would like to read another interesting excerpt:

More and more people no longer have any moral or ethical objection to the idea of allowing a doctor to administer terminal sedation under extraordinary circumstances. Euthanasia is starting to be viewed as an act of support, the final step in quality end of life care. However, from a strictly legal standpoint, the debate continues. The Canadian legal framework, the Criminal Code, stipulates that any action to end another person's life constitutes murder and is therefore subject to criminal sanctions.

But doctors work with people who no longer have any hope and who are no longer treatable.

Regardless of the legislative model eventually passed by the National Assembly regarding civil rights, the Criminal Code of Canada should be amended. This is by no means supported by everyone, considering the firm opposition expressed by certain radical groups that strongly support recriminalizing abortion in Canada.

The reflection paper of the Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec is also clear and precise. It is even philosophical, to some extent.

Due to improvements in health care, people now live longer and it is possible to delay death, sometimes significantly. However, the ability to live longer has a downside because an increasing number of people suffer from degenerative or incurable illnesses, such as Alzheimer's or cancer, which decrease considerably their quality of life. As a result of the evolution in medical technologies and a better understanding of them, people wish to control end-of-life decisions in order to die with dignity. This evolution in medicine inevitably leads to the debate on end-of-life care and euthanasia.

These are not physicians who teach at universities, although they might say the same thing. These are physicians who deal with patients and look after them in their final days.

These texts both contain the results of surveys on euthanasia. This is what the Fédération des médecins spécialistes discovered.

The survey indicated that medical specialists are prepared to hold a debate on euthanasia (84%) and believe that Quebec society is also ready to discuss this matter (76%). In addition, 75% of medical specialists would certainly or probably be favourable to euthanasia within a clearly defined legislative framework, and believe that Quebec society also supports legalized euthanasia, although to a lesser extent (54%).

Passage of a bill legalizing euthanasia by the House of Commons would receive the support of 76% of specialists.

However, our survey tends to confirm that euthanasia is a factor that medical specialists have to deal with in their practice. According to 81% of respondents, euthanasia is often/sometimes (52%) or rarely practised in Quebec.

The FMOQ survey gave similar results. I would add that more than half of all general practitioners believe that euthanasia is carried out indirectly in Quebec at present. 74% of physicians surveyed believe that euthanasia should be a tool available to doctors in order to fulfill the ethical requirement of helping their patients die with dignity.

74% of the respondents believe that new regulatory and legislative frameworks should be adopted to permit euthanasia.

These are but a few of the many accounts I read or heard. I believe there is no longer any hesitation. I know that, increasingly, the position of those opposed is the fear of the slippery slope.

But we cannot, based on this irrational fear—a number of studies have shown that when legislation exists, there is no slippery slope—and based on the slippery slope refuse assisted suicide to people who are dying in pain. That makes no sense, and that is what we are faced with.

Assisted Suicide

[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.