Bill C-14 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assist­ance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.
This enactment also makes related amendments to other Acts to ensure that recourse to medical assistance in dying does not result in the loss of a pension under the Pension Act or benefits under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. It amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that no investigation need be conducted under section 19 of that Act in the case of an inmate who receives medical assistance in dying.
This enactment provides for one or more independent reviews relating to requests by mature minors for medical assistance in dying, to advance requests and to requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.
Lastly, this enactment provides for a parliamentary review of its provisions and of the state of palliative care in Canada to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry; I meant Bill C-14.

With that, we have given people the option to choose physician assistance in dying. At the same time, however, we have not given them the option to choose access to palliative care should they choose to die without medical assistance and simply want to be pain-free in an environment of comfort when they do die.

In my estimation, then, I would say that our present legislation and of course our lack of palliative care are creating a problem in Canada, and that problem is a lack of choice. I wonder if you can comment on that further.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It was Bill C-14.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Gladu, for this excellent bill, which focuses on the patient and not the administrative aspects. It is important, however, for me to properly understand the definitions. You were talking about that earlier with Mr. Davies. In the case of a number of definitions, they pull in opposite directions and ultimately cast a very wide net.

In terms of palliative care, it involves addressing something. For example, there could be a patient who does not require care or daily monitoring for their quality of life. The term “palliative care” often refers to end-of-life care. Its purpose is to improve a patient's quality of life at the end of their life when they are suffering from a serious illness that is difficult to control or whose outcome is known.

That is why this is naturally, although not systematically, related to Bill C-14, which pertains to medically-assisted dying. I would like to hear your understanding of the term. Care for the elderly is one thing, but palliative care is something else, and end-of-life care is something else again.

What is your understanding of it?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Well, certainly the special committee that studied the Carter decision did recommend that you needed to have palliative care in order to have a choice. I can't speculate, but Bill C-14 was a criminal bill, so it may be that the government preferred not to muddy the waters and put health things into the criminal bill. That's why this bill is such a great idea for the government. It will be able to do palliative care, which was clearly a recommended outcome from the special committee.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I have one more question. You and all members around the table will remember all the work that was done on Bill C-14. We had a lot of concerns from people around the country. There were concerns about lack of palliative care and end-of-life options. There was a lot of deliberation on the fact that if you have an efficient palliative care program, many people don't choose to go into assisted suicide or take options along that line.

Do you think the government should have made an investment into palliative care and home care in conjunction with or prior to Bill C-14? Do you think we're being tardy here?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

That's an excellent question. Actually, when we first started discussing this, it was during the time Bill C-14 came forward. I was made aware of the 2011 committee, the all-parliamentary committee that studied it. I was able to consult with them on the work they had done and their recommendations, and then they put me in touch with people across the country who are working in palliative care, working in a similar way to try to get a consistent service across the country.

I had the opportunity to sit with members of various hospices and talk to palliative care specialists, nurses, people who receive the palliative care, and home care workers to understand what they saw as the biggest need and how—if the federal government was going to act—they'd prefer to see that.

Then when I drafted the bill, I was able to review it with all the various stakeholders so they could see the language in the bill and be able to support it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

That's excellent.

Thank you and good morning.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today and for the unanimous support the bill received at second reading.

I think this bill is timely. Our population is aging and only 30% of Canadians currently have access to any type of palliative care service. The special committee that studied the Carter decision on assisted dying stated that without quality palliative care, a true choice was not possible.

I was surprised to find out that not every location in Canada has the benefits of the integrated palliative care that is offered in my home riding of Sarnia—Lambton, where we have more than five palliative care specialists, palliative beds in hospital and in hospice, and an excellent network of home care, counselling, and crisis response services.

I began to ask about this. I found that an all-parliamentary committee in the 2011 session had studied palliative care and brought forward a report with recommendations. Although a motion was made, not much further action occurred.

With an aging population, the implementation of Bill C-14, and the desire to innovate and to get more out of the health care dollars that we invest in our system, we can see that the time is right for this bill,

Bill C-277 proposes a framework for palliative care in Canada, including a definition of the services to be covered, a definition of the training required at the different levels of service provision, care for those giving palliative care services, collection of appropriate data, and the development of a plan to get consistent access to palliative care for all Canadians.

During debate, amendments were suggested to add first nations to those covered by this framework and to ensure that the language of the bill reflects the proper balance of provincial and federal jurisdictions. I'm very happy to work with the committee should they choose to adopt these or any other changes.

My theme today will be to explain the sections of the bill and recommend to the committee how I see the framework proceeding.

I'll start with services to be covered.

Palliative care can begin more than a year before end-of-life care, and end-of-life care is defined as the last two weeks of life. Pain control, including the cost of the drugs, along with spiritual and emotional counselling, home care, hospice care, and home crisis intervention are the basic services that I would like to see covered. Today some of these are covered in part, and only in some provinces. Others are not covered at all. It's important to note that the costs associated with palliative care in hospital can be $1,200 a day, versus $400 a day in hospice and $200 a day, on average, in home care.

As compared to intensive care, palliative care in a hospital could save our health system between $7,000 and $8,000 per patient. Recent data suggests that, in Ontario, transferring just 10% of end-of-life patients from intensive care to home care could yield $9 million in savings annually. That is a better use of health care dollars in order to get better results for Canadians.

The second part is with regard to training. Different levels of training are required for the various types of care providers. There is currently a shortage of palliative care specialists in Canada. We have 200, versus a need for at least 600.

General practitioners receive two months of palliative care training as part of their medical degree. Registered nurses may not receive any palliative care training at all, but they should take training as offered today by organizations like Pallium Canada or equivalent.

Home care providers and personal support workers, when trained, would provide a cost-savings delivery model that would be effective, especially in remote regions where innovative solutions to delivering service will be needed. More registered nurses, RPNs, and personal support workers will be needed with our aging demographic. As the provinces are introducing training, it would be wise to set a standard terminology, set the training requirements, and have interprovincial recognition of those standards.

We also need measures to support those who are giving palliative care services. As you can appreciate, watching people die and seeing the emotional and physical agony they are in can bring symptoms similar to PTSD, and there is some need to provide support in the care system for those people, as well as for care providers who may be needing respite and rest. It's important to consider them.

Moreover, the lack of data on the need for palliative care, the total average cost, and the breakdown of services should be addressed by collecting data in order to standardize and monitor the provision of palliative care services.

I encourage you to consult the Minister of Health, who already has some ideas on what she would like to see in this regard.

With respect to research data, there's not really even a baseline of how many people are in need of palliative care or how much palliative care can be expected to cost per person. These are the kinds of numbers we would like to benchmark and monitor.

We also need a plan to develop consistent access for all Canadians. This is one of the most important parts of this framework.

The plan should have several pillars. We've already talked about the trained resources that will be needed. Second, infrastructure will be needed to achieve consistent access for all. There's an opportunity for the government to put money into building hospices and palliative care centres. Canada has about 30 hospices compared to the United States, which has 1,300. Building this infrastructure will create jobs and will address a need.

Finally, in order to service rural and remote communities in Canada, use of innovative ideas will be needed. One such idea is the virtual palliative care centre in Winnipeg, where home care nurses or doctors can call in on a 24-7 basis and get access to palliative care specialists who can guide remote treatment. Web and Skype consults will rely on the government's current infrastructure plan to address Internet in the rural and remote north. Training paramedics, nurses, and home care workers in palliative care and combining this with the fly-in crisis response teams has been shown to work effectively in other parts of Canada, and doing so should be levered as part of the overall plan.

Choosing the mechanism to implement this framework is also important. There are various options. One of them is to add palliative care to the services covered by the Canada Health Act. Another option would be to include palliative care in the new health accord. A final possibility would be to create a government palliative care program to fund the infrastructure, establish training standards, and work with the provinces to implement best practices.

I think any one of these options could work. There are probably other mechanisms I have not thought of, but it is up to the government to provide direction on implementation through the budget.

The $3 billion that is currently promised in the 2016 budget is a good start and I hope to see more in the 2017 budget.

The government should leverage the many national organizations that have supported this bill, each of which has solutions to help deliver the services. These organizations include the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, Pallium Canada, ARPA, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, and many other member hospices, such as Bruyère Continuing Care, St. Joseph's Hospice, West Island Palliative Care Residence, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Kidney Foundation, the ALS Society, and the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, as well as the more than 50 member organizations of the Quality End-of-Life Care Coalition of Canada and the many faith organizations across the country, including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In addition, coming up with a standard definition of services to be covered and of the training requirements will be a priority, as provinces are already progressing in their offerings in different ways. Now is the time to act to address this important issue so that Canadians can choose to live as well as they can for as long as they can.

I appreciate your time. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions, and I look forward to our discussion.

Thank you.

Preclearance Act, 2016

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-23 and to argue in support of the reasoned amendment by my colleague, the member for Beloeil—Chambly. His amendment instructs the House to decline to give second reading to the bill because of several important reasons, which I will be happy to explore later in my speech.

I also want to note that it is very unfortunate we are conducting this debate today under a time allocation passed by the Liberal government earlier today.

The tone of this debate on the legislation has heated up considerably over the past few days during which it has been debated. In particular, there have been some misleading and grossly exaggerated statements from Liberal members of Parliament. There has been a general mischaracterization of the NDP's concerns, combined with over-the-top and fiercely partisan attacks, which have at times sunk this debate to a new low.

I hope to raise the tone of this debate with reasoned arguments against letting Bill C-23 pass at second reading.

Let me make one point perfectly clear. The New Democrats are in favour of measures that will facilitate fluid movement across the U.S. border, but not at the expense of human rights, respect for privacy of Canadians, and Canada's sovereignty.

I support pre-clearance as it currently operates. In fact, I have used the service several times in my life at the Vancouver International Airport when travelling to the United States, and it certainly works well as it currently exists.

I understand that pre-clearance is an important part of the Canada-U.S. relationship and to the free flow of trade and travellers between our two countries, but the provisions contained in Bill C-23 are too problematic for me to give my support.

Bill C-23 neglects to take into account the climate of uncertainty at the border following the discriminatory policies and executive orders of the Trump administration. Canada and the United States signed the agreement on land, rail, marine, and air transport preclearance on March 16, 2015, under the previous Harper government.

Bill C-23 was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on June 17, 2016. There was little fanfare at the time, as Parliament was more consumed by Bill C-14's progress through the Senate, and we were certainly all looking forward to the upcoming visit of then President Obama and his address to the House of Commons, which I think we can all agree was a tremendous speech.

The times have changed dramatically since that time, and they provide an even starker contrast to the reasons why this bill is so problematic. The Liberals are moving ahead with the agreement signed under Obama's presidency as if everything was simply business as usual. However, we must take into account the change in U.S. leadership.

The legislation was problematic before the inauguration of President Trump, but recent discriminatory orders and invasions of privacy now leave no doubt about the potential dangers and abuses that will result from the agreement. This is a president who excels at making statements with no empirical evidence to back them up. The most recent example is his shocking allegation that former President Obama ordered wiretaps on his phone during the election.

This man has little understanding of what a warrant is, of the checks and balances of the United States system, the constitution, and he has undermined the judiciary of the United States on repeated occurrences.

The U.S. customs and border protection agency is the largest federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security. It is an extremely powerful arm of the executive branch of government, but it is now headed by someone who I do not think is fit for that office.

Agencies take their cue from the people at the top. This is a fact. Bill C-23 is proposing to give more power to foreign agents that are led by an administration that routinely uses fear, lies, and personal attacks on its political opponents to advance its agenda. I cannot, in good conscience, support such a bill.

The third point I wish to address are the increased powers that Bill C-23 would provide for U.S. officers on Canadian soil, provisions regarding carrying of firearms, the power to conduct strip searches, detention, and interrogation.

In particular, I feel strongly that it is unacceptable to see officers of a foreign country who are in a position of authority bear and ultimately use firearms in the performance of their duties on Canadian soil. As is provided for in the summary of the bill, part 3 of the enactment makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to provide the United States pre-clearance officers with an exemption from criminal liability under the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act with respect to carriage of firearms and other regulated items. Bill C-23 would violate our precious Canadian sovereignty by increasing the powers of American pre-clearance officers on Canadian soil with respect to carrying firearms and by not properly defining a criminal liability framework.

There are those within the Liberal and Conservative ranks who dismiss this concern or see it as simply irrelevant. In fact, repeated speakers from the Liberal Party have used rather poor reasoning, in that U.S. agents would only be granted firearms if their Canadian counterparts were similarly armed in the same area. This sidesteps the issue and avoids the question as to why this measure is necessary.

I fully realize that with the combined Liberal and Conservative support for the bill, it is most definitely going to pass second reading. The troubling thing for me is that not one Liberal or Conservative MP has bothered to raise any concerns about this erosion of Canadian sovereignty.

The Liberals like to call themselves the party of the charter, but not one of them has addressed Canadians' concerns about being interrogated, detained, or turned back at the border based on race, religion, travel history, or birth place, as a result of policies that may contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Liberals have also failed to speak up about the lack of provisions protecting the rights and freedoms of transgendered persons during strip searches, in spite of the government's support for Bill C-16.

The Conservatives like to wrap themselves in the flag, and they talk a good game when it comes to protecting our border and our sovereignty, but not one of them has stood to address the fact that we would be giving more powers to agents of a foreign government on Canadian soil.

The final point I want to make is that Canada Border Services agents and the RCMP are filled with great men and women, who do their job in a most capable way every day. They are required to take the oath of allegiance before they can assume their duties as uniformed officers. Allegiance is given to the crown and other institutions that the sovereign represents within the federal and provincial spheres, including the state, its constitution, and traditions. On the other hand, U.S. customs and border patrol agents give their oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution and promise to faithfully discharge their duties in the office that they are about to enter, which is fully an institution of the United States government. This is the crux of the problem. United States officials operating on Canadian soil owe their allegiance to a foreign government, and yet we are prepared to give them powerful new measures, such as carrying firearms on our sovereign soil.

I think that borders matter and that they certainly need to be treated with respect. Also, sovereignty matters and precedents matter. Therefore, I think this is a slippery slope. If we pass Bill C-23, if we allow agents of a foreign government to operate on our soil in this matter, what more demands will be presented at a future instance from the United States government?

All I ask hon. members to do is pause and think about the wishes of their constituents. Did their constituents send them to this place to pass legislation to give agents of a foreign government the power to carry firearms on Canadian soil? This is a real sticking point for me, and I know from the correspondence that I and many of my colleagues have received that this is a major concern. We will certainly be raising it at every opportunity that we can.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada Act

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It was a slip of the tongue.

Among other things, the motion called for the government to work with the provinces and territories on a flexible integrated model of palliative care by establishing a universal right to palliative care and by implementing a pan-Canadian palliative and end-of-life care strategy that would be tied to dedicated funding.

As I said, we expected this funding to be in the government's first budget but it was not. Here we are in the House debating a private member's bill from a member of the Conservative caucus, which indicates to me that we are at a momentous point in time. There is broad agreement across party lines on this issue and so it is time to face our responsibility to governance that makes progress on human rights and end-of-life care. That we are ready to be progressive on palliative care is momentous and I applaud my hon. colleague for utilizing her private member's bill for this noble initiative.

I was disconcerted when the previous Conservative government eliminated the federally funded national secretariat on palliative end-of-life care. Had it left the support funding intact, maybe we would not be discussing this matter today but would have a resolution and the member for Sarnia—Lambton would not have had to table this bill. I am sure she has other noble causes she could turn her attention to.

As for the current government, the Liberals have had ample opportunity to enshrine quality palliative care as a right for all Canadians, no matter where they live. They could have developed a national strategy that would have eased the burden on both the dying and their families on one end and health care providers on the other, but it was not a priority. I am still flabbergasted when I think of the callousness demonstrated as debate on Bill C-14 was introduced with absolutely no indication that anyone in the government understood the responsibility to secure end-of-life care standards for human beings.

The most significant reason I asked to speak to the bill today was I wanted to lament the unnecessary suffering in the reality of our systemic inadequacies. A national strategy would address these sufferings. I want to hear in person the government's rationale for choosing not to act on this issue.

The New Democrats were surprised to find that the 2016 federal budget contained zero federal funds earmarked for palliative care, especially after we fought for the joint committee on physician-assisted dying to incorporate palliative care.

Given the lack of health care spending in the federal budget, it is no surprise that palliative care was missing. Hopefully by now all of us understand this, that home care is very relevant to this issue. The fact that the Liberal promise of $3 billion for home care turned out to be fiction is also very disconcerting as we take stock of our health care system, its mandate and purpose and know that to move forward we have to include palliative care options that patients and their families deserve to expect.

The Canadian Cancer Society has stated that improvements to the palliative care system in Canada are desperately needed. Without clear national standards and accountabilities, individual jurisdictions are left to develop their own policies, programs, and guidelines, resulting in inconsistent or inadequate access across the country.

In Ontario, for instance, 40% of cancer patients do not receive a palliative assessment in their last year of life. In some regions of Atlantic and Western Canada, administrative data showed that less than half of people who died in a hospital received palliative care. Remarkably, there are many jurisdictions in the country where we do not even know how many Canadians receive quality palliative care. We lack consistent and ongoing data collection at a systematic level, which leaves us unable to more effectively hold our health care systems accountable to make positive changes.

Also, it is not just an issue of data collection. It is vital that any national palliative care strategy takes into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada. It must respect our diverse cultural, spiritual, and familial needs, including Canada's first nations, Inuit, and Métis people.

According to Dr. Mary Lou Kelley, research chair in palliative care at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, the federal health care dollars that would help indigenous people receive end-of-life care at home have not kept up with the increasing demand. Health care for first nations is the responsibility of the federal government, and it does provide some home care services, but the system was never designed to provide complex health care to people with chronic or advanced terminal diseases.

Members might imagine my disappointment that the words “indigenous”, “first nations”, “Inuit”, or “Métis” do not appear anywhere in the text of Bill C-227. However, that is not a deal breaker because it is something that can be addressed meaningfully as we move forward on a national strategy.

New Democrats believe strongly that any legislation that deals with the matter of palliative care must take into account the geographical, regional, and cultural diversity of our urban and rural Canada, and Canada's first nations, Inuit, and Métis people.

As our population ages, palliative care will become an ever-increasing function of the health care system. The federal government needs to support health care workers with the training and resources necessary to deliver it all across Canada. All Canadians deserve to live their final days in dignity and comfort. That is why there is an urgent need to address the significant disparities that remain across Canada with respect to end-of-life care, quality of care, and out-of-pocket costs.

For years now, New Democrats have worked to improve palliative care services for patients and their families. As the party that founded public health care in Canada—

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has watched a loved one suffer through the ordeal of a terminal illness understands the profound importance of palliative and hospice care on behalf of the patient and for the families and loved ones.

I join my caucus in stressing, over the course of this debate, the fundamental right we also stressed in debate on Bill C-14. The New Democrats believe that every Canadian has a right to high quality end-of-life care.

According to the government's own mortality projections, the mortality rate will increase by 33% by 2020, making the need for palliative care as a thoughtfully laid out national strategy an increasingly urgent one, even more imperative within the context of medical-assisted dying.

Current, nearly 25% of the total cost of palliative care is borne by families, and significant disparities remain across Canada with respect to access to end-of-life care, quality of care and those out of pocket expenses. At least 50% of hospice palliative care services are funded by charitable donations, which continues to restrict the size, scope and access Canadians have to palliative programs.

Very few Canadian provinces have designated hospice palliative care as a core service under their provincial health plan. In the remaining provinces, hospice palliative care may be included in provincial home care budgets or other health service budgets, leaving the funding vulnerable to redistribution and cuts. That is why the New Democrats believe we must have a national strategy that can protect the palliative care of Canadians who have access to it, expand access to care for Canadians who do not have it, and improve the quality and affordability of care for all.

I am happy today to speak in support of the bill.

The New Democrats were surprised to find this year's federal budget contained zero federal funds earmarked for palliative care, especially after we fought to incorporate palliative care into the Liberal majority joint committee report on physician assisted dying.

Earlier this year, New Democrat Charlie Angus tabled Motion No. 46, which would accomplish much of what this bill would.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support my colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, and her Bill C-277, an act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada.

Before continuing, I must first congratulate my colleague for her hard work since she was elected in 2015, and for earning the title of most collegial MP. She was awarded that title by her colleagues in the House, from all parties, when the prize was given by Maclean's and L'Actualité last fall. It speaks to the unstinting work done by my colleague, particularly on her present bill.

We are therefore very happy to have an engineer in our Conservative caucus as opposition science critic. That is why I am happy to speak today in support of her Bill C-277, a bill that has attracted attention from key health care stakeholders in my riding, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Like a number of rural ridings in Canada, we find that we have an aging population, and we can already anticipate that the demand for palliative care will rise considerably over the coming years. It has already started. It is therefore important to talk about it and give ourselves time to be well prepared.

Following a Supreme Court decision in Carter, last year, this Parliament passed Bill C-14, which provided a legislative framework for physician-assisted dying. Although the bill was well received by some people who wanted to avail themselves of this right, others had some concerns, because they wanted to make sure that this was not the only option available. In my riding, just like elsewhere in Canada, this is a real question: will we provide only a bill like that, or will we provide other types of care? The other types of care are much needed.

As my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton noted, in the final report of the external committee on options for a legislative response to Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court stated that a request for physician-assisted death cannot be truly voluntary if the proper palliative care is not available to alleviate the suffering of patients.

This is where we are today. The bill proposed by my colleague seeks to improve the options available to Canadians at the end of their lives. It truly seeks to encourage consultations and dialogue with the provinces to develop a national framework so that palliative care is a real option. In fact, the plan highlights the importance of having access to palliative care of higher quality than what is currently available.

It is important that our seniors and other people with terminal illnesses are protected with healthy, safe, and comfortable options in the last stages of their lives if they do not wish to avail themselves of medical assistance in dying. This is an extremely important point. People must have access to high-quality care to be able to live as long as possible in palliative care facilities. This will prevent many people from even thinking about requesting that their lives be terminated. The dignity of people depends on it.

I would like to highlight the incredible work done in my riding by the Maison Desjardins de soins palliatifs in Rivière-du-Loup, which has provided an enormous amount of care since it opened in 2009. I should also mention the mission of the Fondation Hélène-Caron, which will soon be serving the region of Montmagny and l'Islet through the Maison d'Hélène. Passing Bill C-277 will send a message to organizations like those, all across Canada, that their work is recognized and greatly appreciated.

Last month, Dr. Louise La Fontaine, vice-president of the Société québécoise des médecins en soins palliatifs and a resident of Notre-Dame-du-Portage in my riding, wrote to me to say that Canadians across the country have joined together to draw attention to the importance of palliative care.

She recommends that a national policy be developed in order to considerably improve the quality and consistency of palliative care and access to it. She recommends examining and assessing new models of integrated care, broadening accreditation standards throughout the entire health network, and focusing on areas such as symptom management and advance care planning. Practitioners must also be trained so that they can work in accordance with the various models for integrating palliative care into the management of severe chronic illness.

That is convenient because many of the things she mentioned would be part of the legislative framework if my colleague's Bill C-277 passes.

By asking the Minister of Health to consult with her provincial counterparts, we can ensure that every region of Canada is included in the discussion and that best practices and innovative ideas in the palliative care field are shared. I want to emphasize that because it is an extremely important aspect of the bill. My colleague who just spoke mentioned first nations. Canadian regions differ from one another, of course. One feature of this bill is that it takes all those differences into account and creates a framework for sharing the good practices that some regions are using and looking at which ones would work elsewhere.

I encourage all of my parliamentary colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-277 so that we can help people across our great nation. If passed, this legislative framework will meet their medical needs and give us a plan that reflects the looming new demographic reality.

I will close by saying that the Lower St. Lawrence region, where my hometown of La Pocatière is located, is the oldest in Canada. What my colleague wants to put in place to facilitate the aging of the population affects us in particular. The bill proposes to provide quality care and enable people to make a fully informed and conscious decision, and to live out their days in an environment where their dignity will be respected.

My brother-in-law died last year after having cancer for seven years. He was treated at a hospice in the Eastern Townships. I had the opportunity to visit him twice. My sister stayed with him for three months.

The Eastern Townships, where Magog and Sherbrooke are located, is well developed. The care offered in the region is already excellent. The experience that these people have developed over the years can most certainly be shared with Canada's other regions.

From what I could see, the quality of care that my brother-in-law received was incredible. I think it is important to mention that.

My colleague came to my riding last week. Our plan was to have her come to my riding to visit palliative care homes, but unfortunately, the weather did not co-operate. I want to thank her for making the effort to meet with my constituents, who have spent a great deal of energy and time fundraising. Palliative care homes are often autonomous thanks to the donations they receive. Donations keep these homes open and operating, as is the case in Rivière-du-Loup.

In Montmagny, Hélène Caron, who is in charge of the project, has cancer. She gives a lot of her time to ensuring that this home exists. It is not a self-serving gesture. She devotes her time to the people and the good of her community.

The bill is unifying. I think that all parties should support it and see it through. Then we could have a national framework for all palliative care homes and the necessary funding to ensure that they are operational.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

It's good to see you again, Dr. Forbes. I think you appeared numerous times on Bill C-14.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today and speak in favour of Bill C-277, An Act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada.

Over the past 10 years I have served in this place, palliative care has been one of the issues that I have spent a lot of time on, and so I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, for introducing this bill and taking up this great cause at this crucial time in Canadian history.

This legislation is essential for two fundamental reasons. First, it addresses a major gap in our Canadian health care system. The vast majority of Canadians do not have access to an essential health care service, palliative care. Second, in a post-Carter decision Canada, we need to understand the realities and questions Canadians now face when nearing the end of their lives.

My roles and experiences as co-founder of the parliamentary committee on palliative and compassionate care, as a member of the joint committee on assisted suicide and euthanasia, and as an advocate for suicide prevention throughout the last decade, inside the chamber and outside, have all ultimately shaped how I approach this subject, my deep conviction that we need to do better, and that we need to see this legislation passed and implemented as soon as possible.

I would also like to add that as a Christian, the value of life from conception until natural death, and the recognition that life is a sacred gift from God also shape how I approach the topic of sustaining comfortable living for those suffering in their last days.

I would like to begin with a quote from Jean Vanier, founder of L'Arche Canada, as recorded in the final report of the parliamentary committee on palliative and compassionate care entitled, “Not to be Forgotten”:

Each of us is fragile, with deep needs for both love and a sense of belonging. We begin and end our lives vulnerable and dependent, requiring others to care for us.... In our states of dependence, our need cries out for attention and care. If this need is well received, it calls forth the powers of love in others, and creates unity around us, the gifts of the vulnerable to our world. If our cry and our need are unmet, we remain alone and in anguish.... The danger in our culture of productivity and achievement is that we easily dismiss and ignore as unproductive the gifts and the beauty of our most vulnerable members, and we do so at our own peril, dehumanizing ourselves.

The question that we all need to ask ourselves is this: Will we now withhold from our society the love, the care, the attention for our most vulnerable, and in the process dehumanize not only those who need our care, but also ourselves, we, who should be providing that care?

As our committee report, “Not to be Forgotten”, states:

Adequate palliative and end-of-life care becomes more essential as the numbers of Canadians requiring these services grows. Canada is not providing adequate palliative and end-of-life care for all who need it.

In Canada, only 16% to 30% of those who need it, receive palliative care. If that is a failing grade in any ordinary exam, how much more so is it in the context of our dying fellow citizens, friends, and relatives? This is not merely a failing grade, this is a disastrous failing grade. Our report went on to say:

Despite efforts made by palliative care providers, Canadians have a long way to go to meet our goal of quality end-of-life care. Canadians in all parts of our country should be able to get effective palliation of their pain and symptoms, and have their psycho-social and spiritual needs addressed.

So the question is this. What quality of life do we want to provide for Canadians? The provision of proper palliative care is absolutely essential if we are truly serious about maximizing the quality of life of all Canadians, who find themselves in need of these additional supports at a time when they are most vulnerable.

As our report states:

We recommend that the federal government in collaboration with the provinces and territories implement a right to home care, long term care and palliative care, for all residents of Canada, equal to the current rights in the Canada Health Act, to those services defined as “insured health services”, including hospital services, physician services and surgical dental services.

Bill C-277 follows up that same expectation in stating:

The Minister of Health must, in consultation with the representatives of the provincial and territorial governments responsible for health, as well as with palliative care providers, develop and implement a framework designed to give Canadians access to palliative care—provided through hospitals, home care, long-term care facilities and residential hospices—that, among other things,

(f) evaluates the advisability of amending the Canada Health Act to include palliative care services provided through home care, long term care facilities and residential hospices.

In a post-Carter Canada, we need to realize that the environment in which people approach the end of life has changed drastically. According to researchers Tang and Crane, “The risk of suicide doubles for people with chronic pain”.

Now that people have access to medically-assisted suicide, I would argue that there is a high probability that this number may drastically increase as the Canadian population ages and experiences higher rates of chronic pain as outlined above. However, we know that good palliative care can eliminate 99% of all pain.

The heart of the issue, outlined well by the expert panel appointed by our previous Conservative government, is that a request for physician-assisted suicide cannot truly be voluntary if the option of proper palliative care is not readily available to alleviate a person's suffering. While palliative care is not exclusively for the terminally ill, terminally ill Canadians must be given the choice to live as well as they can for as long as they can.

The government has failed to address this gap in our medical system, either through Bill C-14 or budget 2016. Current provincial and territorial approaches to the delivery of palliative care are fragmented. Federal leadership is needed to ensure that all Canadians have access to the same services and quality of care.

There are almost always problems in gaining access to palliative, and a good part of the reason is the lack of medical practitioners who feel qualified to provide state-of-the-art palliative care. There are not enough opportunities to access proper training. Recently, a large medical school in Ontario had 169 applicants for elective time, specifically devoted to study palliative care, yet there was only room for 35 of those applicants to be placed in the program. This problem needs to be corrected.

Again, from the report Not to be Forgotten:

Dr. Valerie Schulz of the Schulich School of Medicine in London Ontario has developed a simple and effective way to get medical students interested in palliative care. Each year 12 students from the undergraduate program become hospice volunteers. Undergoing 30 hours of training, each being mentored by an experienced hospice volunteer; they visit clients in their homes. The experience is priceless for the future doctors, as it gives them a chance to meet and converse with people outside the clinical environment, and without the need to bring a clinical perspective to the relationship. They relate to the hospice clients as persons, learning how they feel and react to the prospect of dying. Friendships are formed, and lessons learned, which will be of lifelong value to the future doctors in terms of person centred care. The clients also are transformed, touched that a future doctor would care enough to spend time with them in a companion role. This program is worth emulation, and broader application.

If larger numbers of medical and other health care students across Canada were able to experience one-on-one relationships as hospice volunteers, the positive effects on our medical culture would be immense. However, we need our medical schools to increase available training options for those students who want access to the specialized training.

Bill C-277 is a step in the right direction in protecting vulnerable Canadians. It builds on the non-partisan unanimously supported work of previous parliamentarians, and I hope all parties will be supporting this historic legislation.

Finally, let me quote from an anonymous author as it relates to palliative care, “To cure sometimes, to relieve often, and to comfort always. This is our work”.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to discuss Bill C-277, an act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada. With the introduction of this bill, the member for Sarnia—Lambton has taken a significant step forward in our national dialogue on palliative and end of life care, and I want to thank the member for bringing this forward. I appreciate the opportunity to provide some reflections on this extremely important initiative.

Palliative care is an issue that is gaining increasing attention across our country. This was further magnified by discussions on end-of-life care options that occurred earlier this year when medical assistance in dying became a legal option. Views on this matter differ, but we can all agree that patients should have access to a full range of care options to treat pain and other symptoms at the end of their life.

Palliative care is an approach to health care that focuses on the needs of patients who live with life-threatening conditions as well as on their families. Research shows that it can have a significant impact on improving quality of life for patients, while reducing the stress and burden on their families. As demographics in Canada shift, the need for end-of-life care is increasing. Canadians have been loud and clear in calling for access to high-quality care for those who are approaching the end of their life.

Before being elected as a member of Parliament, I had the privilege of being an oncology nurse at St. Joseph's Health Centre. I have actively provided palliative care to many patients and I have seen first-hand the impact that good-quality palliative care has on patients at the end of their lives and their families.

While palliative care has been improving in Canada, we know there is still much work to be done. Some studies have reported that as few as 16% to 30% of dying Canadians have access to palliative care, depending on where they live in the country.

More recently, a study by Health Quality Ontario found that 40% of Ontarians who died in 2014-15 had not received a palliative care service. Access often depends on physician referrals, the availability of services, and the awareness of care options among patients and their families. The Ontario study found that most patients did not start receiving palliative care until the last months of their lives. This is a concern because early access can be critical, if not the most important, for maintaining the best possible quality of life for a patient. The study also found that fewer than half of the patients who received palliative care received it at home. Most of us want to stay in our homes and communities for as long as possible. When asked, the majority of Canadians said that they would prefer to spend their last days at home. In spite of this, close to two-thirds of deaths in our country are still happening in hospitals.

The Canadian Cancer Society issued a report this year called “Right to Care: Palliative care for all Canadians”. It highlighted a number of gaps, and barriers to palliative care in Canada, such as a lack of standards, limited data, insufficient training for providers, and inadequate support for caregivers.

This study and others like it show that now is the time to work together on addressing these gaps. As was said many times during the debate on Bill C-14, improving palliative care is a priority for our government. In fact, the preamble of this bill clearly signals our intent to support improvements to a range of end of life care services in Canada.

Canadians need real options that respect their plans and preferences for care in what is often a very difficult stage of life. It is obvious that Canadians are looking to their governments to make this happen. Stakeholders, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, the Quality End of Life Care Coalition of Canada, the Canadian Nurses Association, and the Canadian Cancer Society, have all called for national leadership in the area of palliative care, and we have been listening.

Our government believes that Bill C-277 would provide us with a timely opportunity to take a leadership role on this issue. We support the creation of a framework for palliative care.

I would like to recognize the efforts of the member for Sarnia—Lambton in putting forward such a thoughtful proposal for what this framework could look like. However, in considering this bill, I would urge each member to also consider the need to respect jurisdictional roles and responsibilities in this area. As we know, health is a shared responsibility in our country, with most of the responsibility for delivering care falling under the purview of the provinces and territories. Most provincial and territorial governments already have some form of a palliative care strategy, plan, or framework, or have policies or programs in place to support palliative care. Several provinces recently dedicated funding to improve palliative care services in their respective jurisdictions.

The bill needs to be better aligned with the scope of federal roles and responsibilities in relation to palliative care, and we will be introducing amendments to that effect. The government is well positioned to complement, bolster, and spread the important work under way across the country by provincial and territorial governments, as well as stakeholders across the health care sector.

I believe that amendments could be made that would achieve this objective while respecting the spirit of the bill. As we all know, the government provides provincial and territorial governments with long-term funding for health care. Our government made a platform commitment to provide $3 billion to provinces and territories to deliver more and better home care services for Canadians, including those who need palliative care. This commitment is being pursued in the context of the health accord. Negotiations with provinces and territories are ongoing, and I am optimistic that, in the future, there may be synergies with a proposed framework.

The division of responsibilities for health between the government and provinces and territories presents us with both challenges and opportunities. If we move forward with implementing this bill, it will be important to talk to provincial and territorial governments and key stakeholders on the appropriate scope of a palliative care framework.

It will also be important for us to learn from the significant body of work on palliative care that has been published in recent years. This includes reports from Parliament, provincial and territorial advisory bodies, and stakeholders, such as the Canadian Medical Association.

One key example is the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association's 2015 report, “The Way Forward,” which seeks to integrate a palliative approach to care throughout the health care system.

I would like to close by thanking the House for the opportunity to reflect on the importance of this bill, and to offer some considerations as we move forward, reviewing it in greater detail. I believe that a framework for palliative care is the right approach for Canada. I look forward to further discussion on what that framework should look like, so that we can all have better access to palliative care for all Canadians. Once again, I thank the member for bringing this extremely important piece of legislation to this House.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I am bringing a fresh perspective to this place. All of the members of the Conservative Party will be supporting this bill, because we recognize that all Canadians need this.

When we studied Bill C-14 this year, we heard all of the witnesses and the people who were providing input say that we need to have good palliative care if we are going to have a true choice. To find out that 70% of Canadians have no access to any kind of palliative care was astounding to me. Therefore, I am happy to say that we will support this, and that is a change.