Bill C-300 (Historical)

Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act

An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention

This enactment establishes a requirement for the Government of Canada to develop a federal framework for suicide prevention in consultation with relevant non-governmental organizations, the relevant entity in each province and territory, as well as with relevant federal departments.

Mental Health

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 11 years I have spent much of my time focusing on the issues of mental health and suicide prevention. Motion No. 388, targeting online predators, passed unanimously in November of 2009, and Bill C-300, calling for a federal framework for suicide prevention, received royal assent on December 14, 2012. These are two initiatives I am proud to have championed.

I was encouraged in February of this year to receive a letter from Noah Irvine, an exceptional young man from Guelph, who unfortunately knows this issue all too well. In his letter to all members of Parliament, he challenged us to champion the cause of mental health, and to stand up for Canadians suffering with mental illness. His story of personal loss and his ongoing courage in overcoming these trials are an example to every one of us.

Noah is visiting Ottawa today. It has been my privilege to meet him and sense his ongoing commitment to this important cause. I thank Noah for his message of hope. May he keep up the good work.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's Bill C-16.

In its current form, I cannot support this bill for a number of reasons. Let me assure all of my colleagues in this House and, indeed, all Canadians that I do not oppose this bill because of any hatred for, any fear of, nor any malice toward anyone who is dealing with questions of gender identity.

Before I outline my concerns about the potential negative outcomes of Bill C-16, allow me to say clearly that I am supportive of any initiatives that will protect persons from hate speech. I am supportive of the need to guarantee equal rights. I also agree that there can be no tolerance for bullying or violence of any kind, or for any reason.

Parliamentarians and all Canadians have a duty to prevent bullying, hate speech, violence, or any such behaviour, but I am wary of the demands of any government-imposed value systems that would change fundamental definitions and principles of society. The imposition of fundamental value system changes of this magnitude must be viewed with some degree of skepticism. Too much is at stake for us to proceed without caution, if we proceed at all.

I am supportive of equal rights for all, but in my opinion this bill goes far beyond equal rights into the territory of granting extra rights or special rights for some; and in the process of granting those extra rights for some, we automatically diminish and deny the legitimate time-honoured rights of many others.

Relating to Bill C-16, I have a number of concerns. Some of the concerns address immediate potential negative repercussions, while others relate to the potential for long-term effects and outcomes of the enactment of this bill.

My concerns lie in four areas. I am concerned that this bill would cause fear for many Canadians, fear that they would not be able to even discuss public policy issues, such as this one, on which they may disagree with the government-imposed agenda. I am concerned about the potential harm to innocent children and youth as a result of the possible invasion of their privacy. I am concerned that the terms gender identity and gender expression are very subjective terms, far too subjective to be used in the context of legal documents, particularly in the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code of Canada.

Finally, I am concerned that, when government adopts dramatic changes to public policy as it relates to gender identity and sexuality, with minimal research or support, the results could be harmful for all members of society, but especially for those we are actually trying to help; that is, transgendered children or youth.

Let me address these points in reverse order. Would this bill inadvertently harm those whom we are trying to help? There have been many eminent scholars, medical practitioners, psychologists, psychiatrists, and professional organizations that have raised legitimate concerns about the current treatment of the transgendered person and are especially concerned about long-term negative effects of hormone treatment and reassignment surgery.

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. They point out the biological medical dangers associated with the use of puberty-blocking hormones and the follow-up use of cross-sex hormonal medication—testosterone and estrogen—which are needed in late adolescence. These are known to be associated with dangerous health risks including, but not limited to, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, and cancer.

There is another sobering statistic, and that is the increased suicide rate. During my 10 years here in Parliament, possibly the one issue that has received most of my attention has been suicide prevention. Motion M-388, dealing with Internet predators, and Bill C-300, An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention were private members' business initiatives that I tabled and worked on diligently for many years.

The research is clear that the suicide rate for adults is 20 times higher for those who have used cross-sex hormones and undergone sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBTQ-affirming countries.

The American College of Pediatricians states that:

Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation...is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Research reported by the American Psychiatric Association in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, clearly shows that the large majority of boys and girls who experience gender dysphoria will not experience the persistence of these feelings following adolescence.

I also urge my colleagues to listen to Dr. Ken Zucker, professor in the department of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Toronto, and to Dr. Susan Bradley, psychiatrist in chief at the Hospital for Sick Children and head of the division of child psychiatry and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. They state:

It has been our experience that a sizable number of children and their families can achieve a great deal of change. In these cases, the gender identity disorder resolves fully, and nothing in the children's behavior or fantasy suggest that gender identity issues remain problematic.

In light of the input from these groups and experts in psychiatry and psychology, at the very least it is important that government does not legislate ideological conformity on this issue. We need to take a stand for good public policy as it relates to gender and sexuality, and to base our decisions on scientific research that will help protect against devastating lifelong negative consequences.

Another major concern for me in Bill C-16 is the issue that the terms gender identity and gender expression are very subjective terms, far too subjective to be used in the context of legal documents. Would policies protecting people on the grounds of gender identity and expression merely provide safety and protection—that is, provide a shield against abuse—or would they be used to drive a broader agenda? As legislators, are we simply trying to protect the sexual minority from verbal and physical abuse, or are we also intending to impose a cultural shift in our very understanding of human sexuality and gender expression? What would the impact be on immigrant groups and faith groups, the majority of which are at odds with gender fluidity concepts? Would they have the freedom to teach their children and practise their beliefs without being accused of hate speech or a human rights violation?

For me and the millions of other Canadians who acknowledge the supremacy of God, as the first words of our charter affirm, there is the reality that our faith journey is the foundation of our world view. If freedom of religion is to be embraced, then it is of paramount importance that Bill C-16 not infringe upon that fundamental freedom. It is important that government clarify the nature of the protection being afforded and how it expects terms such as gender identity and gender expression to be interpreted. The implications are too unpredictable. Far too much is left to interpretation that would result in unnecessary accusation of human rights violations as well as litigation and endless court cases to further tie up our court system.

Another concern is the potential harm to innocent children. As I stated earlier, I am in total support of equal rights. Therefore the question needs to be asked: Where are the equal rights? Is it equal rights of the boys or girls and of the young men or women who expect to find only those of their same gender in their change rooms? Is it fair to have their rights trampled upon by this imposition of extra rights for some? Common sense dictates that the potential for abuse of this new freedom to self-identify with a change room of one's own choice could very well lead to bullying, harassment, and even sexualized violence in these public spaces. One of the pitfalls of Bill C-16 is its failure to recognize the potential that heterosexual predators who, while not transgendered themselves, would take advantage of the protection of this bill to hide behind their predatory pursuits.

Yes, I am concerned for the safety and well-being of young children and youth, who deserve their right to privacy.

Finally, I am concerned about the fear this bill may cause for many Canadians. I fear they will not be able to even discuss public policy issues such as this one, on which they may disagree with the government agenda. Any law that limits legitimate discussion and debate of closely held beliefs presents a danger to freedom of expression, a fundamental value held dear by people across the political spectrum. The right to disagree must be viewed as sacred in our society. It is the lifeblood of both new ideas and age-old protections.

I am simply asking that those who support this bill respect my right and the rights of millions of Canadians not to be charged with human rights violations because we make our views known or because we disagree with others' views. We can and must respect each other even in spite of holding opposing views. It is my hope that we can openly disagree without labelling each other.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I have had the privilege of following, from a distance, the proceedings in the Senate over these last days. I am disappointed that a number of the options that were given to the Senate were not adopted.

Senator Plett's amendment to make it a criminal offence for anyone to compel an individual, organization, or medical practitioner to provide medical assistance in dying or to refer was rejected by the Senate.

I wish I could share the optimism of our Minister of Health when she assured me a few minutes ago that no one would be compelled to participate in this. I do not share that optimism. I am hopeful I am wrong on that. I am hopeful there will never be a case where a medical professional, a health care worker, a health care institution will be obligated to participate or to refer for this practice when they find it morally objectionable.

The other amendment Senator Plett put forward was adopted by the Senate, however, rejected by the government today in its response. That is the amendment relating to not allowing a beneficiary of a person who is seeking medical assistance in dying from assisting that person.

It seems quite clear to me that if we are to protect vulnerable people, this was one of the key points that needed to be adopted. By rejecting this amendment that was passed by Senate, we are actually increasing vulnerability. That is a sad result of rejecting this amendment.

It goes without saying that this is a very sad day, a disappointing day for me. This is a day when choices will be made that will affect generations to come, and it is without question the most important choice that I and most of my colleagues will make in our parliamentary careers.

It is disappointing on two points. First, it is disappointing to see the activism of the Supreme Court. I mentioned earlier in my comments on this topic that it was unfortunate the Supreme Court of Canada had taken it upon itself to force legislation to be written which would overturn hundreds of centuries of our understanding of the intrinsic value and dignity of every human life. The Supreme Court has done this, completely rejecting the fact that as elected members of the House, we have rejected initiatives to legalize physician-assisted suicide on at least 15 occasions since 1991, the most recent one in 2010 by a vote of 59 to 226.

The other reason this action is disappointing for me is because of the many years I have worked on the issue of suicide prevention. I have worked with people who have been left to suffer the aftermath of suicide, parents who have lost children, children who have lost parents, and more. To know there are groups across Canada today that are working very hard to prevent suicide, to save lives, and to see we are now, in a way, normalizing suicidal behaviour is disappointing.

Bill C-300 was an initiative that the House passed almost unanimously, calling on the federal government to initiate a federal framework for suicide prevention. Just a few weeks ago, the Minister of Health indicated that the bill was almost ready to be fully implemented by the Public Health of Canada.

On one hand, we are working as hard as we can to prevent suicide, which I applaud and will continue to give my efforts to. On the other hand, it appears that we have given up and we are allowing those who are losing hope to actually access assisted suicide.

Ten Canadians each day lose their life to suicide. In Canada, groups are working hard on the ground to prevent suicide. Mental health care workers, experts, are providing safeTALK training so front-line workers, such as teachers and our volunteers in our minor sports programs, can observe these first signs of suicidal ideation, and intervene with the intent of restoring hope to that person who has lost hope and is now in despair. Their motivation has always been to save lives.

Now, to turn 180 degrees and begin the path towards normalization of suicide, is a tragic course, a tragic course of action for all of Canada.

Again, I want to quote from an expert in this field. Aaron Kheriaty, an associate professor of psychiatry and director of the medical ethics program at the University of California, Irvine school of medicine, states:

The debate over doctor-assisted suicide is often framed as an issue of personal autonomy and privacy. Proponents argue that assisted suicide should be legalized because it affects only those individuals who — assuming they are of sound mind — are making a rational and deliberate choice to end their lives. But presenting the issue in this way ignores the wider social consequences.

What if it turns out that the individuals who make this choice in fact are influencing the actions of those who follow?

Professor Kheriaty goes on to report that in states where physician-assisted suicide has been legalized, there has been an increase in suicides of 16.3% overall, but among those over 65 an increase of 14.5%. He further states:

[These] results should not [be surprising to] anyone familiar with the literature on the social contagion effects of suicidal behavior. You don’t discourage suicide by assisting suicide....

...Aside from publicized cases, there is evidence that suicidal behavior tends to spread person to person through social networks, up to three “degrees of separation” away. So my decision to take my own life would affect not just my friends’ risk of doing the same, but even my friends’ friends’ friends. No person is an island.

Finally, it is widely acknowledged that the law is a teacher: Laws shape the ethos of a culture by affecting cultural attitudes toward certain behaviors and influencing moral norms. Laws permitting physician-assisted suicide send a message that, under especially difficult circumstances, some lives are not worth living — and that suicide is a reasonable or appropriate way out. This is a message that will be heard not just by those with a terminal illness but also by anyone tempted to think he or she cannot go on any longer.

Debates [around] physician-assisted suicide raise broad questions about our societal attitudes toward suicide. Recent research findings on suicide rates press the question: What sort of society do we want to become? Suicide is already a public health crisis. Do we want to legalize a practice that will worsen this crisis?

I believe life is to be chosen over what some would call “death with dignity”. There is nothing dignified about deciding someone's life is not worth living. If a patient has a need, let us address it. Our goal should be to eliminate the problem, not the patient.

It is my firm belief that the House and the current government should be invoking the notwithstanding clause in order to protect Canadians. For thousands of years, all caring societies have agreed that it is not okay to kill another human being. We can try to soften that language. We can call it physician-assisted death. We can call it medical assistance in dying. We can use any euphemism we want, but the reality does not change.

Today, we are intentionally throwing away the wisdom of our faith foundations and the wisdom of centuries of civilization. My fear is that in a few short years, we, our children, and our grandchildren will live to see the folly of allowing physician-assisted suicide.

Situation in Indigenous Communities

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

I want to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for opening up this opportunity to discuss this important issue tonight.

I rise in the House this evening to lend a voice to a topic which lies heavily on my heart and I know the hearts of all my colleagues on both sides of this chamber. This is not the time to debate what could have been done or what should have been done, but rather, we need to come together with a solution to the issue we are currently facing. There is no time to waste on partisanship when lives are at stake.

Canadians need us to lead by example by coming together and rallying around this hurting community to help them in every possible way. In that spirit, I use the word “discussion” rather than “debate” because I am convinced that the House is eager to take action on the national tragedy that suicide represents.

This is an epidemic that is larger than Attawapiskat and unfortunately, it is growing. It is not okay that the leading causes of death for first nations people under the age of 44 are suicide and self-inflicted injuries. It is not okay that first nations youth die by suicide five to six times more often than non-aboriginal youth. It is not okay that suicide rates for Inuit youth are among the highest in the whole world. This issue needs to light a fire inside all of us to do all that we can to not allow this epidemic to continue.

There are many views on how this is best done, and I share my view from some of the experiences I have accumulated over the past 10 years serving as a member of Parliament. There have been many good steps taken to address this tragic issue of suicide, but much more needs to be done.

As co-chair of the all-party Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, I, along with NDP and Liberal colleagues, conducted a study on the complex issue of suicide prevention and our findings are recorded in the report called “Not to be Forgotten”.

What became clear is that suicide is a complex phenomenon with multiple, often intertwining and overlapping causes. The complexity of suicide makes it obvious that solutions cannot be reduced to a mental health approach alone, but must take all aspects of the person into account, including physical, social, cultural, and spiritual factors.

One witness who appeared before our parliamentary committee was Dr. Antoon Leenaars, a psychologist and suicide researcher. He shared with the committee:

Suicide is multi-determined. The common psychological factors...are unbearable pain, cognitive constriction or tunnel vision, ambiguities about life and death, a mental health disorder, a weakened ego, a disturbance in a relationship or some other ideal like one's health or youth, rejection-aggression, and a desire to escape. This complexity calls for diverse suicide prevention strategies. This is necessary to not only solve what is sometimes assumed to be primarily a “medical problem”, but also to address the deep taboo and its stigma, and to address the problem with specific vulnerable groups, such as First Nations and Inuit people, armed services personnel, youth, and elderly (especially those facing end of life issues). The complexity of suicide dictates the necessity of a parallel complexity of solutions. There is never the solution. Therefore not only a mental health approach, but a public health approach, is urgently needed.

Research done by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, as recorded in our committee report, found that the culture of first nations peoples was thrown into turmoil by the policies of colonialism. In this report it was clear that the whole complex of relationships, knowledge, languages, social institutions, beliefs, values and ethical rules that bind people together and give a collection of people and its individual members a sense of who they are and where they belong plays a profound role in mental health and well-being.

Prior to the breakdown of their culture, suicide was rare among first nations people. However, as I previously stated, today, suicide among first nations youth is at epidemic proportions. The development of a sense of healthy identity is profoundly related to one's culture and its ability to reproduce itself in its members. Thus the anthropological and sociological dimensions can have a deep impact upon the psychological.

It is important to be reminded that suicide intervention really does work and many lives are saved every year. Despite this fact, Canadian response is mainly due to the efforts of individuals and private groups who strive against the tide with very few resources. We have many great examples of local groups across Canada that are doing heroic work in preventing suicide.

When I first heard the news of the 11 suicide attempts in Attawapiskat, my heart sank and I immediately remembered an incident from 2011 when I was contacted by Tana Nash of the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council. She informed me of the fact that three suicides had occurred in three different high schools in Waterloo region in one week. Help was urgently needed. At that moment, I knew that I wanted to do something to deal with issues; albeit, I knew my attempts would be less than adequate. I knew that something must be done to address the tragic loss of hope, especially among our young people. To that end, I embarked upon drafting Bill C-300, an act respecting a federal framework for suicide prevention.

As a nation, we have not done enough to implement a coherent program of suicide prevention. Some provinces have begun to make great strides, especially Quebec. Yet, in general, efforts to prevent suicide are still a patchwork, depending upon the generosity of individuals, many of whom have been personally impacted by suicide.

This is why it is so urgent that the government implement the federal framework on suicide prevention as soon as possible. With its immediate implementation, we would be able to give to the groups on the ground the much needed tools and resources they so desperately need.

When fully implemented, Bill C-300, through the Public Health Agency of Canada, would provide guidelines to improve public awareness and knowledge about suicide. It would disseminate information about suicide, including information concerning its prevention. It would make publicly available existing statistics about suicide and related risk factors. This is one of the weak points that many of the groups which came to our committee pointed out: the statistics relating to suicide are so old and so out of date that there is really no way to plan forward in going ahead. The bill would promote collaboration and knowledge exchange across domains, sectors, regions, and jurisdictions. It would define best practices for the prevention of suicide. It would promote the use of research and evidence-based practices for the prevention of suicide.

The principles embodied in Bill C-300 could be contextualized and individualized to communities, depending upon their unique circumstances. I want to underline that fact. This is not a bill that would tell communities how to do it. My colleague earlier pointed out that we need to give communities the ability to contextualize within their own communities.

Furthermore, safeTALK training for all front-line service workers and volunteers on reserve would be a major investment in proactive prevention of suicide. Community members, such as teachers, doctors, nurses, coaches, pastors, club leaders, and many more, are in a unique position to recognize the early warning signs and would be able to ask the right questions that could very well lead to saving a life.

I am certain that everyone in this chamber can tell us how they, their families, or a member in their community, has been negatively impacted by suicide. Each of us knows someone whose sense of hope was overcome by despair and who ended his or her life by suicide. However, we know that suicide does not end the pain. It simply transfers it to the family, to the friends, and to the community.

This particular community that we are discussing tonight is currently in extreme pain. Now is the time to do all that we can to deliver hope.

Evidence is accumulating that when aboriginal communities design their own interventions, typically based upon traditional cultural values and practices, the efficacy of these interventions is high. Therefore, there is hope, but much more needs to be done. We need to offer hope to those who are facing this unbearable pain and who subsequently descend into a state of hopelessness and despair.

Hope is dependent upon having a sense of connection to the future, even if that future is short term. Hope is the oxygen of the human spirit. Without it, the spirit dies.

I am a person of hope. The very fact that this important discussion is happening tonight in the House of Commons in Canada is a huge step forward in providing hope.

We stand with our brothers and sisters in Attawapiskat to provide immediate practical help. We want them to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers. I pray they will know that their lives have value and meaning, that they are loved by their families, their friends, their fellow Canadians, and their Creator.

Suicide Prevention

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the House for passing Bill C-300, my legislation on suicide prevention. The situation in Neskantaga only reinforces the need for a federal framework, the need to overcome the stigma that prevents conversation about suicide.

Over the past year, there have been 7 deaths by suicide and 20 attempts in this community of only 421. Our government has sent additional nursing and counselling assistance, but more needs to be done at Neskantaga and right across Canada. Suicide prevention programs must be delivered by more than just nurses and counsellors. It takes people who are able to recognize the warning signs, people brave enough to engage in conversations.

Teachers, coaches, paramedics, pastors and police officers, even members of Parliament, we all must do our part as members of a caring community. Do not be afraid to start the conversation. It will shine light and expose hidden fears that can finally be addressed. A simple conversation can bring hope, the oxygen of the human spirit.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills.

Bill C-50, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2013;

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse);

Bill C-300, An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention;

Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Suicide Prevention

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to suicide.

It gives me pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Thunder Bay and Ottawa on the topic of suicide in Canada. Suicide kills ten Canadians every single day. It is the second biggest killer of Canadian youth. Canada is the only industrialized country in the world without a national suicide prevention strategy, and therefore these petitioners urge Parliament to act on Bill C-297 and Bill C-300, dealing with suicide.

World Autism Awareness Day Act

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I have been blessed with many joys in the House. Seeing hon. members unanimously pass my motion targeting Internet predators, Motion No. 388, was an occasion where we rose above partisanship.

When an overwhelming majority of hon. members united to deliver a message of hope to vulnerable Canadians everywhere by voting to pass Bill C-300, my legislation on suicide prevention, I felt humbled to once again be part of an occasion where our normal partisan rancour was put aside.

Today, I stand as sponsor in the House of Bill S-206, a bill from the other place, calling for recognition of World Autism Awareness Day. Once again, I feel blessed because I sense unity on this issue.

Through the study at committee and through the debate at second reading, not a negative word was spoken about this effort. Instead, we have used our time to educate each other on the very real need to promote autism awareness and to share some very personal stories about how autism has touched our lives.

I mentioned the experience of my friend and colleague, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. I thank him for his very personal sharing of his life with parliamentarians. The way the member and his family care for Jaden and bring him to the House to allow us to interact with Jaden has been one of the joys that I have personally experienced as a member of Parliament, and I think all of my colleagues would agree.

Also the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier shared some experiences from her own family. Some hon. members want more to be done, but no one has disputed that every effort to promote autism awareness is a worthwhile effort.

During study of the bill at the Standing Committee on Health, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel asked Mr. Richard Burelle, the executive director of the Autism Society of Canada, if the passage of Bill S-206 would be helpful. Mr. Burelle's reply was:

Keeping autism in the forefront is always a good thing. As Senator Munson said, the fact that we're piggybacking on World Autism Awareness Day is great. Any kinds of forward steps we can take in order to keep autism in the forefront, to create that awareness, are steps in the right direction.

There is no controversy here. There is no federalist-sovereigntist division, no left-right divide. In truth, I do not believe there is any reason to continue debating the bill. Rather than spending our time agreeing with each other, I would ask hon. members to allow debate to collapse and to allow Bill S-206 to pass on a voice vote today.

This effort did not begin with this Parliament. Previous efforts enjoyed similar support, but never became law, due to election calls.

Families coping with autism spectrum disorders have waited long enough, since 2006, in fact, for the House to simply acknowledge an awareness day.

Given the broad level of support the bill enjoys from all quarters, I ask that we stop talking about recognizing World Autism Awareness Day and just get this done.

Suicide Prevention

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention met for its national conference and the theme was “Stepping Out of the Darkness: Awareness, Attention, Action”.

Over 600 volunteers, experts and advocates joined together to learn from new research, share experiences and best practices, including new approaches in suicide prevention, all with the end goal of providing hope and saving lives.

Many of the organizations that attended operate on shoestring budgets. Many are driven by the goodwill of volunteers and patrons. It is a sad truth that if a person is at risk of suicide and is seeking help, the quality of the help they receive will depend on that person's postal code.

Canada's youth suicide rate is the third highest in the world. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among our young people. Among aboriginal and Inuit youth, the rate is five to seven times higher.

I thank all CASP members for the work they do, particularly their support in developing Bill C-300. I ask all hon. members to join me in saluting these heroes.

Breast Density Awareness Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak, as I have done in the past, in support of the bill at report stage, but not with the same enthusiasm that I did earlier. As my hon. colleague for Vancouver East just mentioned, the bill went to committee, and it did not implement many of the changes that would have strengthened the bill and made it far more effective. I will speak to that a little later.

The bill's intent is to ensure that women and health care providers have the best information possible regarding screening, especially regarding new technology, and an understanding about dense breast tissue so that women know about it and health care providers and technologists understand what to look for. We know that tumours can be harder to identify in women with dense breast tissue. I would like to add, though, that it does not necessarily mean that a woman with dense breast tissue is more likely to have breast cancer. It is just that it is harder to identify if she does.

Twenty-three thousand women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in Canada this year. Sadly, nearly a quarter of those women will die from that disease, so in many ways this is an important bill, in that it speaks to the issue of identifying and finding a cancer as early as possible.

The federal government has a definitive role to play in facilitating best practices and funding research related to cancer prevention and early detection as part of the Canadian partnership against cancer, which is a federal initiative with the provinces, especially, as well, since the 2004 health accord strengthened the federal leadership role in ensuring access to health care services no matter where people live in Canada.

Where I find a problem, and I find it disappointing, is in relation to the health committee's recent study this bill. We heard from many witnesses. We heard from experts, health care professionals, patients and researchers. They all agreed that the intent of the bill is a very good one. They all agreed that awareness is important and that information sharing is important. However, they all felt that the bill would fall short of achieving any really important outcomes unless some pieces were added to it.

The member who moved the bill earlier on praised the co-operation and collaboration across parties on his bill. However, it stopped short in the House of Commons and at committee stage, where witnesses made some very compelling testimony. They talked about ways to improve the bill to improve its effectiveness. This was voted down, not only by the member for Barrie, who moved the bill, but also by members of the Conservative Party.

A couple of items that I moved as recommendations to strengthen the bill came from the witnesses. One of them is about sharing best practices. Subclause 2(c) of the bill talks about the ability of the Public Health Agency of Canada to look at information and data sharing, et cetera. I consulted so that it would not add cost at all. I heard from the legislative wing of the Library of Parliament that in fact there was a way to make sure this would incur no cost. It would use the already existing infrastructure of the Public Health Agency of Canada, where they have data and information sharing, to add best practices.

The reason for this, as we heard from witnesses, is that there are provinces, such as my province of British Columbia, where the outcomes of breast cancer are, by enormous percentage points, better than anywhere else in Canada. Therefore, why do we not take a page from their book? Why are we allowing people to continue to reinvent the wheel when we know what would work? Of course, as with anything to do with health, time is of the essence. Why wait six years for someone to discover a new wheel, when other people discovered it six years ago and we could be implementing it now for the benefit of patients?

Therefore, I was really very disappointed that the member himself did not accept that amendment. In fact, he said that his concern was with the word “ensuring”. He said that the work of the Canadian breast cancer screening initiative is not controlled by the Public Health Agency of Canada and that as such it should not be “ensuring” the collection, processing and distribution of information or “ensuring” the identifying, synthesizing and distribution of best practices. However, in subclause 2(c) he himself suggests sharing information through the Canadian breast cancer screening initiative.

It seemed as if this amendment, which would have enhanced the bill, was blocked purely because it was going to change the bill in some small way, even though to improve it.

Perhaps in his final remarks today, the member could clarify why such a no-cost, important thing that we heard from witnesses over and over was rejected.

I do not for one moment impugn the intentions of the member. He did a lot of hard work. I think it is an important bill and I think he brought forward a lot of things about it, but it had no teeth. There was nothing that would really change outcomes, other than increasing awareness.

This is an example of what concerns many of us, which is that the government is not listening to the expert testimony of witnesses appearing before committee, especially on bills and especially when these witnesses enhance the bill. It is a pattern.

I would like to say that we saw the same thing with Bill C-300. Witnesses appeared before the health committee and made several suggestions to establish a truly effective framework for suicide prevention. Twenty-one amendments were brought forward, including nine by the Liberal Party, and every single one of them, none of which incurred new costs, was voted down for no really logical reason that was given.

What we are left with are toothless bills that sound good and do small things, but do not really improve very much the lot of women with dense breast tissue or a suicide prevention strategy.

I hope this is not about ideology, because most of us have been supporting these bills because the intent is good. However, we would like to see them actually make a difference to the patients.

As I said before, I support the bill, but with a great deal of disappointment and reluctance.

Suicide Prevention

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

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, the suicide rate in this country was almost double that of the death rate from car crashes in 2007, the most recent year measured. Youth suicides are particularly disconcerting. That year, 421 youth between the ages of 15 and 24 took their own lives. That is 421 too many.

Thousands of family members and friends are impacted. The anguish they have felt is unthinkable to me as a parent. That is why I will be very pleased to stand in this House next month in support of Bill C-300 from the member for Kitchener—Conestoga to establish a federal framework on suicide prevention.

I am confident that the bill will encourage the many outstanding efforts taking place across this country, such as the Jack Project at Kids Help Phone. This project is a legacy of Jack Windeler, a Queen's University student who died by suicide in March 2010. The project's school-based outreach program is now being piloted for a full rollout next school year. We wish them much success.

Youth Suicide

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a petition signed by a number of Canadians primarily from Alberta who want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that suicide is a major issue affecting youth across our country.

The petitioners want to draw the attention of the chamber to Bill C-297 and Bill C-300 currently before Parliament.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-300, an act respecting a federal framework for suicide prevention. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Suicide Prevention

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank members of this House for their strong support of Bill C-300, an act respecting a federal framework for suicide prevention.

Bill C-300 enjoyed the unanimous support of my own Conservative Party, the NDP official opposition, the Liberal Party and the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands and Edmonton East. I thank each and every one of them.

One week ago the House debated this bill. In that short week there have likely been 350 hospitalizations due to suicidal behaviours, 1,500 visits to emergency rooms, 7,000 attempts at suicide and, unfortunately, 70 of those likely ending in death.

Before the vote, Tana Nash of the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council expressed her hope that Parliament would continue this vital conversation.

On behalf of Tana and the many others working on the front line to save lives, I extend my heartfelt thanks to this House for supporting Bill C-300.

Organ Donations

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to have the opportunity to speak tonight to this important issue of organ and tissue donation.

My comments tonight will no doubt come from a different perspective than most of those who have already spoken. I do not serve on the health committee, nor do I presume to be an expert on organ transplant issues. So I ask for the indulgence and the patience of my colleagues as I share some of my personal journey over the past seven months.

On May 2, election night, as my wife, Betty, and I were watching the early results of the election, along with a campaign volunteer, Betty suddenly experienced a headache. Within seconds she collapsed to the floor, and while she was breathing normally and had a strong pulse, there was no response. Minutes later, following a 911 call, local volunteer firefighters from the New Dundee detachment were on the scene to provide assistance, and they were followed very closely by EMS personnel. Betty was taken by ambulance to Grand River Hospital, placed on life support, and immediately transferred to a major health centre for more specialized care.

ICU personnel and surgical specialists cared for her and explained in some detail that Betty had experienced a spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage and that, in spite of surgical intervention attempting to stop the bleeding, their best efforts had been unsuccessful. The intense bleeding had applied extreme pressure to sensitive brain tissue and brain function had ceased. After consultation with neurosurgeons and ICU doctors regarding Betty's neurological death, we now were faced with the question of the possibility of organ and tissue donation.

We were then introduced to a team of very compassionate personnel representing the Trillium Gift of Life Network. They presented the options to us and provided the answers to all the questions that were raised by me or by my three adult children. There was no doubt in our mind as to what Betty would want to do. We knew that she would want to continue giving in the same spirit of generosity in her death as she had always done in her life.

Betty and I had also discussed this issue openly each time we renewed our driver's licence and had always both agreed that should anything happen to either of us, which would open the question of organ donation, we would want to help in that way.

As I reflect on the difficult journey of our grief over the past seven months, that journey has been made less difficult by two key factors: first, our personal faith journey as followers of Jesus Christ; and second, our decision to follow through on Betty's wish that upon her death, if possible, her organs be donated.

I will briefly expand on both of those factors. As it relates to the tragic, premature loss of life, there are no easy answers, but these past seven months have been possible because we possess a profound sense of hope.

As I said just a little over a month ago in the chamber in regard to suicide prevention and Bill C-300:

Hope is dependent on having a sense of connection to the future, even if that future is very short-term.

Hope is the oxygen of the human spirit; without it our spirit dies.

This is a quote from Margaret Somerville of McGill University.

Each of us can relate to the importance of having hope in our lives. That hope may be a very short-term hope, such as getting through grade 5, or graduating from high school, or getting a driver's licence for the first time, or the upcoming weekend trip. For people of faith, a longer term hope, in fact an eternal hope, is ours because of our belief in the reality of the resurrection.

A colleague in this chamber recently used the phrase “death shall have no dominion”, crediting the phrase correctly to Dylan Thomas. In fact, this phrase finds its origin in the scriptures in the Book of Romans, chapter 6, verse 9, in the context of Christ's victory over death, a victory offered to each of us. My ultimate hope is in this reality that I will again see my wife, Betty, who left this earth just seven months ago yesterday.

I will return for a moment to that hospital. It was clear that Betty's physical life was over. Brain activity had stopped completely. We knew instinctively that the Betty we had come to know and love was no longer there. Her spirit was still very much alive but her body was only breathing with mechanical help. What to do?

Again, our faith has its foundation in the Christian scriptures, which uses many different metaphors for the physical body. It is referred to as a tent, a house, a temple, or even as clothing for the spirit within. So if the person who lived in that temple or had occupied that house or camped in that tent was no longer here to need any of those things, why would we not share them with someone in need?

Why not help out one of those thousands of people who are currently on waiting lists for a specific organ? Many of those waiting are still in the prime of life. An organ donation can make the difference between life and death. Our decision, while not easy, was made lighter by knowing that someone else would possibly receive the gift of life even as we journeyed into our own grief and loss.

Was there a downside to agreeing to organ donation? Yes, there was. We had to prolong the inevitable by agreeing to multiple tests in order to determine if in fact the organs were healthy and suitable for transplant. There were detailed personal history questions in order to mitigate any risks to potential recipients.

Let me assure members of this House and Canadians that they can rely on the safety of organ transplants in this country. This is because of Canada's strong organ transplant community and Health Canada's work in establishing rigorous safety requirements through the implementation of the safety of human cells, tissue and organs for transplantation regulations.

Today in 2011 Canada is now seen as a leader in the area of transplantation safety. This is reflected in the fact that our standards are recognized by the World Health Organization.

The additional tests required the continued use of mechanical means to keep her breathing for another day or more in order to conduct those tests, and then to allow arrangements for transplant teams to be put in place.

All through this, however, while sitting at Betty's bedside, meeting with family and friends in the intensive care waiting room and having Trillium Gift of Life personnel work through our intense grief with all of us, we were carried by our faith and by the knowledge that some good would come out of this very difficult time.

Over the past seven months, the resources of Trillium Gift of Life Network have been incredible. The network followed up regularly with letters of support, offering access to resources, letting me know the health of the organ recipients. Five people have received the gift of life through organs that were transplanted: heart, liver, lungs and two separate kidney recipients. In addition, others have also benefited from the gift of her eyes, bone and vessel tissue which will aid in the transplant process.

Trillium Gift of Life has also sent lists of books and other resources written for people who have experienced the loss of a loved one. One of those books on the recommended reading list is entitled, A Grace Disguised, written by Jerry L. Sittser. I highly recommend this book for anyone grieving. I have purchased more than 20 copies of it and have shared it with family and friends.

We know the need. Four thousand Canadians are waiting for organ donations at any given point. In Ontario alone, over 1,500 people are waiting for a life-giving transplant. Over 1,000 of those people are waiting for a kidney transplant. It is easy to register one's intentions to donate. In Ontario, one simply goes to the website beadonor.ca. Elsewhere in Canada, one goes to www.transplant.ca.

Right now only 20% of Ontario residents have registered their intent to be an organ or tissue donor. Why not go online now and register? In addition to registering, it is important to discuss this matter with one's family members. I ask everyone to please discuss it with them, too. This decision could very well save a life and offer hope.

I know that because of our decision to donate there are now at least five people enjoying fuller, richer lives and even more who are benefiting from tissues transplanted. We are in a death-denying society. No one wants to think he or she will die before 80 or 90, and because of amazing medical advancements many people will live to that age or even beyond. However, we have no guarantee as my family discovered so quickly and with no warning of any kind.

Thousands of adults and children are counting on us and their fellow Canadians to give the gift of life. It is time we as a nation closed the gap between the need for lifesaving and life-enhancing organs and the supply of organs available. Why not take steps now to make a difference? It could be anyone, a son or daughter or granddaughter, who will be the recipient of someone else's good decision to donate their organs.

This past weekend I walked in a Christmas parade with a heart and double-lung transplant recipient. I met many other recipients who have been blessed with the gift of life through organ transplants.

I know that every one of the recipients is extremely grateful for the fact that someone else took the time to register to be a donor, and now they as recipients are enjoying the gift of life.

Opposition Motion--National Suicide Prevention Strategy

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last question first.

In terms of best practices, that is exactly what the motion today and Bill C-300 speak to, the fact that we do not know what all those best practices are. There are many groups doing excellent work. By having a central repository as well as the coordination of research and statistics we will do a better job of that.

I applaud the work of our government in funding the Mental Health Commission of Canada. In addition, it has provided the aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy with $75 million in funding over a five-year period I believe it is. There are 150 community-based projects that are being funded.

I must clarify that not all suicides are a result of mental health issues. People working in the field of suicide have underlined this fact. We must not miss this public health aspect and need to address that in our suicide prevention strategy with a desire to move forward on those issues.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to offer my heartfelt thanks to my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga not only for all the work he has done on this issue but also for Bill C-300 which he brought forward.

He opened his speech by saying that we must end the silence. We have had that opportunity today in the House. I commend all members who have contributed to this debate and discussion because it is something that affects all Canadians.

My question for my colleague regards the link between mental health and suicide. He is aware that the World Health Organization estimates that: 90% of all suicide victims have some kind of mental health condition, often depression or substance abuse; suicide is the most common cause of death for people with schizophrenia; both major depression and bipolar disorders account for 15% to 25% of all deaths by suicide in patients with severe mood disorders.

Would the member explain how important it is for the government to continue funding research through the Mental Health Commission of Canada?

He mentioned best practices. Does the member have any ideas as to how we could better work with the municipalities, communities and different service groups in order to bring these best practices together?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon for his insightful remarks. I also extend my thanks to the leader of the Liberal Party for bringing this motion forward today and to the member for Halifax for her work on suicide prevention and for tabling a private member's bill in regard to that.

It is important that we, as a Parliament, are the leaders in doing all that we can to end the silence around this very tragic epidemic. We need to do what we can to reduce the stigma of those families who have been the victims of suicide. On this side of the House, we are committed to doing all that we can.

Last Thursday, I had the honour of tabling in this chamber my private member's bill, which deals with this very issue, Bill C-300.

We have a lot of good work already being done by hundreds of community groups throughout Canada, and most of these, if not all, are volunteer groups. We have the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention. It has done amazing work over the years developing its blueprint. I congratulate the association on its efforts. It works with very little encouragement from other levels of government, but it has done amazing work for us.

We have the Ontario Association for Suicide Prevention. In my own area, we have the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council, which has done just amazing work in the Waterloo region. Just recently I had the honour being in my colleague's riding, the Minister of State for Science and Technology , for a golf tournament that was raising funds to raise awareness of suicide prevention issues. I thank them for that good work.

Another agency with which I have had the honour of working over the last two years is called Your Life Counts. This is a group of people who voluntarily do work on the Internet. They provide Internet resources to young people especially who are dealing with suicidal thoughts and struggling with issues in life that are difficult for them to handle, challenges that face all of our youth. They are doing good work in providing that Internet access but they do not end just simply with the Internet access. They then offer personal services to people who contact them.

I will highlight another story, which we have all heard numerous times today, for those who may not have been here earlier. The story is about my colleague, Dave Batters, who tragically ended his life a few years ago. I congratulate his family for the great work they are doing in bringing awareness to this issue. I have had contact with Denise Batters since we started this initiative. She draws our attention to the YouTube video that highlights some ways that we can raise awareness around this issue.

Those groups have worked hard on our behalf and all they are asking for is some federal coordination, some federal leadership, and that is exactly the motivation for my private member's bill.

I will not read the entire bill but I would like to highlight some of the actions that my bill would ask for.

The bill would formally define suicide as a public health issue and a health and safety priority. It would improve public awareness of suicide and its related issues. It would make statistics publicly accessible, promote collaboration and knowledge exchange. I think this is one of the things we have heard many times today. If we could exchange the best practices that are already being implemented across our country, we could do so much more.

The bill would define and share the best practices and get the research that is being done out of the classroom, so to speak, and into the hands of those who are actually doing the work on the ground.

Finally, there would be a responsibility on the part of the government agency to report back regularly to Canadians.

The number of suicides in Canada is a great tragedy. We have heard many personal stories today. We have heard the story of the Richardson family. Many of us will remember the story of the Kajouji family here in Ottawa who lost their daughter. This particular suicide was done at the hands of an Internet predator who used the Internet to actually encourage suicide.

My motion in the fall of 2009 was to encourage our government to implement within the Criminal Code clarity as to the penalties for those who would encourage suicide. We already know that encouraging someone to commit suicide is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. What was not clear is whether that included technologies such as Internet and computer system. That was my motivation for that motion.

It is estimated that there are 10 suicides a day in Canada. If we take that on a monthly basis, that is the equivalent of a large airliner going down every month and every person in that airliner dying. If that were happening, I think there would be a huge call for action. That is exactly what we are hearing today with this motion. That is the motivation for my private member's bill. It is my hope that, through these initiatives and others, we will actually see some action on these issues.

I just want to read the motion for those who may be watching because it is important to get the entire context of what is said here.

That the House agree that suicide is more than a personal tragedy, but is also a serious public health issue and public policy priority; and, further, that the House urge the government to work cooperatively with the provinces, territories, representative organizations from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people, and other stakeholders to establish and fund a National Suicide Prevention Strategy, which among other measures would promote a comprehensive and evidence-driven approach to deal with this terrible loss of life.

At this point I will stop for a moment and offer my heartfelt condolences and sympathies to those who have had to deal with this tragedy. It has been mentioned many times in this chamber today that there is not one person who has not in some way been touched this tragedy, some closer than others, some immediate family members and others close friends and colleagues.

The grief that people experience when they lose a loved one who is close to them can only be described by the people who going through that grief. My family and I have had our own share of grief over these past five months. In fact, it is five months ago today that Betty passed away. I can say that the grief is real but I cannot imagine how much more profound that grief must be for those who are left with the question and the additional emotional burden of wondering what they could have done, what they should have done or why they did not see the signs, all of those questions that I assume must come crashing in on them.

I think part of our overall approach to this issue needs to include, at some point, ways and means in which we can encourage communities with resources as to how they can walk alongside those who have experienced this tragedy.

I indicated earlier today that one of my favourite quotes as it relates to suicide prevention is the quote by Margaret Somerville, the famous ethicist from McGill University. She says:

Hope is the oxygen of the human spirit; without it our spirit dies....

I think that capsulizes what we are looking at here. We are trying to find ways to give hope, hope to people who are dealing with suicidal thoughts, for sure, needs to be our motivation, but also hope for those who are working on the ground and who have been struggling as volunteers without adequate resources, as they struggle with their efforts.

Any of the investments that we make in trying to move this ahead need to keep at the heart of it the hope that we are trying to give to people.

I will conclude with some of the statistics that I think will shock us into action in terms of the number of Canadians each year who are losing their lives to suicide. It is roughly 4,000 a year. Among our aboriginal population, t estimates show that it is five to seven times beyond that, and that is just counting the suicides. It does not counting those who may have tried to commit suicide and their emotional trauma.

At the heart of what we are trying to do here is to extend that hope to people who are dealing with suicidal thoughts and to provide the framework that will actually help those organizations on the ground that are trying to continue the good work they have started.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague the parliamentary secretary for outlining many of the positive initiatives that our government has initiated over the past five and a half years.

I also want to thank my colleague, the leader of the Liberal Party, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue today. Just the fact that this issue is being discussed is important because for far too long this has been shrouded in secrecy and silence. There is also a stigma attached to it.

Members will know that last week I tabled my private member's Bill C-300, which calls on the government to create a federal framework for suicide prevention.

As our colleagues have pointed out today, the numbers are truly appalling. Over 300 people every month end their lives by suicide, or the equivalent of the number of passengers in one large airliner. We have local stories here in Ottawa. Back in my region of Waterloo last year, in one week, three youths ended their lives by suicide.

We have good work going on across the country. Little chapters are doing excellent work. What we need is a federal leadership role, not just in terms of looking at risk factors and prevention but also in what we would term "postvention", in terms of caring for those who are left to deal with the aftermath of suicide.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on the importance of having some part of a framework or a strategy, or a government initiative that would deal with those families and communities that are left broken as a result of suicide.