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.

Criminal Code

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste my hon. colleagues' time, but I would like to say that we can work in the House in a constructive manner to advance bills that can save lives.

I would like to recognize the work of the new MP who introduced a bill in a constructive manner. This bill should be studied and debated at second reading.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, those from both the western provinces and Ontario, who also supported the bill that I introduced and that was intended to save human lives too.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to add some thoughts in regard to the private member's bill. In essence, and I put it in the form of a question earlier, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has put together a bill on what I believe is a very important constituency issue.

As a number of members might be aware, I have been around as a parliamentarian for a number of years. Both I and my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, were first elected back in 1988. I can recall shortly thereafter trying to canvass the residents I represented at that time on what issues were important to them. One of the issues that came up back then was drinking and driving.

The member has been with us now for just over eight months, a number of sitting days, and he has already hit on what I think is an important constituency issue. I applaud him in recognizing an issue that really does matter. He has brought forward this legislation which we anticipate will ultimately come to a vote in the House. Hopefully, we will see it pass to committee stage. I know the member is open to receiving amendments and I suspect there is a very good chance we will see something coming down.

I want to add some of my thoughts with respect to the legislation itself.

The member who spoke earlier, the former chief of police, I believe for the Toronto area, talked about societal attitudes and the degree to which society has really changed in this regard. I thought it was interesting when he made reference to the fact that it was back in 1979, I think, when we started to see these roadside awareness campaigns take place.

Before 1979, back in 1975 and 1976, I can recall pumping gas at the age of 12 or 13 years at a car lot and in the background there were mechanics and others deeply engaged in drinking alcoholic beverages and who thought nothing of getting behind the wheel and driving away. It was something that was not frowned upon whatsoever. In fact, when I was in high school, they even had names for individuals who got caught drinking and driving, and it was in reference to a dollar amount of a particular fine.

How things have changed. I go to graduation ceremonies, as we all do, and I find it is the young people of Canada, in recent years in particular, who are leading the charge in terms of changing the attitudes with respect to drinking and driving. We will see safe grads taking place at the local high schools throughout our communities. Individual guests are allowed to participate in the graduation activities but they have to sign something, or if the young people know they are going to be drinking, they have to have a designated driver. I have seen safe grads booklets, literally booklets in terms of responsibilities. Whether it is at Sisler High School, Maples Collegiate, R.B. Russell Vocational School, St. John's High School, and others, just in the north end of Winnipeg alone, they have recognized how important it is to have a change in attitude. That change started, I believe, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when we started to see police forces across our country following, in part, but also leading in terms of the need to change societal attitudes. For all of those who have done that, I applaud their efforts.

As has been pointed out far too often, every day there are hundreds of individuals who lose their lives as a direct result of drinking and driving. What a terrible way to lose a life, because someone made the stupid decision to get behind the wheel of a car and drive while intoxicated.

We need to look at ways to change that situation. That is also not to mention the thousands of Canadians who are affected every year through loss of limbs and other types of injuries that are sustained. When we talk about those victims, it does not include the victims who are family members who have to endure the loss of a loved one, or those individuals who are going to have to provide the care that is necessary. That could include everything from a broken limb to someone being paralyzed.

The costs to society are huge, both socially and economically. That is the reason that when we look at good government policy, we should be looking at the initiatives that could really make a difference.

My understanding of the passive alcohol detection device that the member is making reference to is that it would assist police in ensuring a higher level of detection. That is something we need to pursue because, for whatever reasons, there are some who are very slow at understanding the importance of not drinking and driving. Here we have a suggestion, through legislation, that could have a profound and positive impact in dealing with the issue of drinking and driving and prevent others from doing that. As legislators, where we can take action on issues of this nature, I believe we should.

In my question to the member, I made reference to the fact that our police agencies of all sorts do a phenomenally good job in keeping our streets and communities a safe place. In doing that, they have a number of tools that they can use. What is being suggested in the legislation is yet another tool.

If we need to look at ways to change the law that would enhance a police officer's ability to make our streets safer, we should be exploring that. That is the reason, without hesitation, why I stand in my place today to applaud the member's efforts.

The member has said that he is open to amendments. I look forward to the bill hitting committee stage in anticipation that at the end of the day we will have a safer community because the member took the initiative to make a difference and bring forward a piece of legislation that could ultimately save lives and contribute to making our communities safer.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Should he wish it, the hon. parliamentary secretary will have two minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next resumes business on this particular motion.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to congratulate my colleagues who sat on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. When legislation like this comes before us, we always sit long hours. I certainly want to thank the members of the Conservative party for the dissenting report. It was great to see that at least some of those ideas were worked upon in the legislation.

This House finds itself in a position where we must pass an effective regulatory framework to make way for medically assisted suicide. I am rising today to help ensure that this new framework respects the charter rights of physicians and patients alike.

It is my fear that the proposals put forward by the government in an attempt to bring our laws in line with the charter may in fact do the opposite. I believe there is a potential to break with the charter by not effectively protecting the rights of physicians to practise according to their freedom of religion and conscience.

Additionally, I fear that the government's promise to revisit this legislation in a few years simply gives it an opportunity to further expand it.

As a member of the opposition party, I feel compelled to warn the House of what I fear might happen if the bill is passed in its current form. I believe that decisions such as this can inevitably lead down a slippery slope.

While the government has chosen to forego many of the more contentious recommendations made by the joint special committee, Liberal and NDP members of that committee clearly felt confident in the recommendations. This leads me to believe that, in time, this law will be expanded even further to include those measures.

The Supreme Court was quite clear in its ruling. Access to assisted suicide was to be limited to a “competent adult” person who “clearly consents to the termination of life” and has “a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”

I am happy to see that the government has listened to some of the recommendations made by my hon. colleagues in their dissenting report. In that report, they referenced a system currently used in Quebec, where only patients aged 18 and older with severe incurable physical illnesses, and whose medical condition is characterized by an advanced and irreversible decline, can request medical help to die.

Furthermore, in Quebec, the attending physician must ensure that his or her patient has clearly consented to physician-assisted suicide, ensuring, among other things, that it was not the result of external pressure, while also providing the patient with a full prognosis on the condition and possible treatment options along with the likely consequences.

Quebec physicians are free to act according to their conscience. If they do not want to proceed, they must refer the patient to an independent body which will contact another physician. Two independent physicians must confirm that the patient meets all of the criteria prescribed by the legislation.

Keeping in mind the Quebec system and considering the irreversibility of assisted suicide, we must acknowledge that the realities of this practice as a form of treatment permanently ends a human life. As such, we must exercise great caution to ensure that there are effective safeguards against any abuse of the system.

I understand that the Minister of Health has said that physicians cannot be prosecuted under the bill for failing to comply with a patient's desire to end their life. The absence of any specific mention of this in the legislation that was brought forward is troubling. Without a specific reference to the rights of physicians to act according to their conscience, I believe it will not be long before doctors are facing lawsuits for failure to comply with a patient who wishes to die.

Again, while I am glad to see the government has decided not to include certain recommendations that the committee made, I feel it is necessary that I voice my objections to them before the government decides to add them at a future date.

I am doing this because my constituents are very concerned about this issue. I have received dozens of letters and calls from people in my riding, and they all want me to warn of the consequences that opening this door may bring.

I will touch on some of the most at-risk parts of society as far as assisted suicide is concerned, namely the young, the elderly, and those who suffer from mental illness.

In the preamble to the bill, the government said that it would leave the door open for non-legislative measures involving requests for assisted suicide from “mature minors, advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition”. This is where I take the most issue with this bill.

What the Liberals call “mature minors” are people who are not allowed to buy alcohol or vote, and people who are subject to a different set of criminal standards than adults.

The Government of Canada, for many decades, has been of the opinion that while all citizens are entitled to their constitutional rights, there are what we call reasonable limits on certain rights. What I mean by this is that the rights of an individual stop when they directly conflict with the rights of another individual. Therefore, there is no primacy of one constitutional right over another.

Now that the right to assisted suicide has been added to that list, I believe it should not now or in the future be made available to minors. When setting the voting age or creating the Youth Criminal Justice Act, governments create a different system for people who are not yet adults. The rationale for these differences comes from the medically accepted fact that the human brain is not fully developed until around the age of 18.

With respect to the possibility of providing assisted suicide to requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition, I have two points. First, the Supreme Court did not mention mental illness in its ruling. Second, the court said that individuals seeking assisted suicide must be fully competent.

To that point, I would ask the government this. When a predisposition toward suicide is often a side effect of mental illness, how are doctors supposed to decide when the decision to die is the true wish of the patient or merely the effect of their condition? Is this a decision that we really want to force upon our doctors?

Another group of individuals that I fear may be exploited as part of this system are the elderly. Elder abuse is already a well-known problem in Canada and, no matter what actions the government takes, it is difficult to stop it entirely. The inevitable consequences of access to assisted suicide is that the elderly are put at risk of being exploited.

In jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal, there have been cases of elderly people seeking the service because they feel they have become a burden to their family or to society. There have been even worse examples, such as situations where the elderly person's own family has pressured him or her into seeking assisted suicide. We cannot allow this to become a feature of the system.

What we do need to do is to help our elderly folks, providing them with a better system of palliative care.

During last year's election, the Liberals promised to invest $3 billion on new palliative care. However, when the budget was released, there was nothing. I know that a number of my colleagues have raised this in other speeches, so I will not get it into in any greater detail. However, this is part of a broad theme of the Liberals breaking campaign promises during their high-spending agenda in many other areas.

Earlier, I spoke of my fears that the rights of doctors to operate according to their own conscience and religious convictions may be supplanted with this new right that the Supreme Court has granted.

I have seen arguments from people who say that doctors should have no right to deny such treatment, especially if they are working in isolated areas. To those people, I would say that we all have constitutionally protected rights, and one of those rights is that of the individual to practise their religion unhindered by the government. Each major religion in Canada disapproves of suicide in one way or another. Many of our doctors subscribe to and conduct themselves according to these religious beliefs. We cannot allow the rights of assisted suicide to replace the rights to practise one's religion or to follow one's conscience.

I want to add that I have had a number of religious nursing homes in my riding, Grimsby, Vineland, United Mennonite, saying “What happens if the doctors refuse? Does it now fall on us, as an institution, to try to carry out their wills?”

These are some of the things that I think need further discussion.

We, as parliamentarians, must ensure that the proper safeguards are in place to prevent exploitation of the system. That is why I join with my colleagues on this side of the aisle in cautioning against moving too fast and too far on this issue.

Our goal, first and foremost, should not be to extend assisted suicide to patients, but to protect patients from it. By this, I mean a strong regulatory regime is required, one that would ensure that only those with incurable diseases and unconscionable suffering are granted access to this treatment.

We cannot make this a common form of treatment. It must be the absolute last resort.

This is by far the number one reason that my constituents have written to my office in recent days. I tell them what I am saying right now.

We cannot allow this system to become the norm. We must ensure that the first priority of this legislation is to protect human life. We cannot allow minors, whether mature or not, access to a system that ensures they have no future. We need to partner with the provinces and tackle mental illness rather than making suicide a more valid alternative. We also need to further the partnership to support palliative care.

I know that I am very fortunate. In Grimsby, we have the McNally House Hospice, which is well sponsored and well looked after in the community. I know in the greater region of Niagara that we have a number of facilities that people support in a big way. They give access to late-in-life care to more elderly members of society, therefore reducing the risk of elder abuse. I believe that is very important, and I realize that is not what every community has in this country.

We must, above all else, treat this issue with the same care that we would expect our doctors to provide to us.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this process did not start well. The work was done in Quebec for many months and years in advancing this conversation forward. There seems to be some reluctance in the country to talk about end of life. It is not a comfortable conversation for many Canadians. It is not one that often happens even within families to a proper level before that time comes. We all wrestle and grapple with these issues.

Once the Supreme Court decision came down, we joined with the then Liberals in opposition to suggest that a special committee be struck. The then government voted against that and wasted many precious months in hearing from an even broader spectrum of Canadians than we were able to since the last federal election. However, that all happened and now we are here.

The member mentioned something about the conscientious objectors. This is my question. We note that it is in the preamble of the bill, but not in the structure of the bill itself. There are those in the medical profession who, for whatever reasons, be they religious or personal beliefs, do not wish to practice physician-assisted death. Yet it does not appear in the text of the bill itself. For those who have been around Parliament a bit, they know there is a difference between those two things in terms of its strength.

Having read both the committee's report and the dissenting report, could my friend comment as to why the government did not include such an important measure within the very heart of this legislation that would affect so many?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the concerns I heard the most in my office. I mentioned earlier in my speech that caregivers approached me in my office from various religious nursing homes and nursing facilities, which obviously have a very conscientious view of life and how important it is to them. One concern they had was that in smaller communities, there may not be many doctors or people may not have as many options, maybe not even palliative care, for that matter. If a doctor did not want to perform that service, what would happen? Would it mean that the responsibility would go back to the nursing home or care facility? That is a concern.

To maybe echo the question back to the member, that is one of the things we need to strengthen. We need to ensure it is not just in the preamble but in the actual legislation, so there can be protection for those with conscience and want to act according to their faiths.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good work on this and also for his partnership with institutions in his riding that provide excellent care for many vulnerable Canadians, especially those facing end-of-life situations in hospices and nursing homes.

My question is related to the protection of the vulnerable groups among us, for example, those people who may have some underlying psychological issues and may not have the capacity to make decisions. The legislation has in it the need for two independent witnesses and two independent doctors. That is a big improvement over what we thought might come from the committee report. Yet there is no regime in place to ensure that those two supposed independent witnesses and doctors are actually independent.

Would my colleague support an amendment that would include some type of prior review, which would mandate either a judicial or a tribunal review to ensure that the assertions being made were actually factual?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his excellent work on the committee.

I would certainly support that. One thing that concerns me is how far the report actually went. While I appreciate where the government legislation landed and that it is not perfect, my concern is what will happen in the future as we look to review these kinds of things. What happens then? Do we push it further?

We have seen before that if we do not clearly articulate the legislation, it becomes very easy to push the limit, to move around the edges, and then say we thought it meant something else or maybe we could go in a direction that was not originally intended by the people who were there at the time.

I, by all means, would support a notion like that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I often say it is a pleasure for me to rise, because it is such an incredible honour to even stand in the House of Commons and attempt, in our ways, to try to represent the great group of Canadians from our territories. Yet, as I approached Parliament this evening, thinking about this particular debate, I found myself struggling to use the word “pleasure”. It is simply because this debate strikes at the very heart of some of the most difficult questions we face as legislators, that we face as Canadians, that we face as friends and family of those who have faced the incredible difficulty of end of life.

There has been a certain amount of trepidation and perhaps fear from many of us in this place to talk about end of life, end-of-life care, the palliative care question, and to talk about end of life and the issue of medical assistance and dying, physician-assisted suicide.

I suppose there are some things required of us all in this debate. One is to fully appreciate and understand that great sense of responsibility and to bring to this conversation as much humility as we can muster. For some of us in elected office, humility is not always at the ready and available. It is also perhaps to bring the best wisdom we can from those who know a great deal more about this subject than we might.

Oftentimes we say we have to separate the personal from the political, that we as legislators have to act purely in the best means and understanding that we have about the law and how we wish to craft the it in a way that is defensible at the Supreme Court, and is representative of our constituents. Yet, this debate brings those two things together for many of us.

This is incredibly personal for any who have stood in the House and spoken to this bill, or who will, if one reflects back on any experiences we have had with family members facing those challenges at end of life.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously and gave Parliament a timeline to work toward creating legislation. It struck down the laws in Canada as it saw them. Many of those judges were appointed by the previous Conservative government.

What concerns me in what we see before us today is the government, as we often hear, has attempted to strike a balance. It has attempted to seek a perfect middle ground on such a contentious issue. While I admit that is a very difficult thing to do on legislation on an issue like this, we raised a number of concerns at the special committee.

We continue to raise those concerns, even though the New Democrats support getting this bill to the committee stage so we can hear from those witnesses who now have seen the final legislation. We need to understand whether it is constitutional, whether it is helpful, and whether it will actually achieve what the Supreme Court and Canadians have asked us to do.

I mentioned in the past that it was with regret that after the Supreme Court came down with a very clear directive to Parliament to form a new law, to create new rules for our country, the previous government was unwilling or unable, for whatever reasons, to begin that work at all. We sought to pass a motion in the House of Commons to start the committee process, to bring the witnesses in so we could hear from them, but we were also six to seven months out from an election. The government seemed to not want to really talk about it.

The government struck some process that has since not borne any fruit, and now we are under the proverbial legislative gun. We are sitting late. The committee has worked incredibly hard. I want to thank all members, Conservative, Liberal, and New Democrats alike, who worked tirelessly to bring us incredibly important recommendations, some which made it into this bill, some which did not.

I know the Liberal co-chair of the committee has expressed his disappointment on some of these important issues. Yet, we face this time crunch, somewhat of Parliament's own manufacturing, unfortunately. While the process has been hard worked at, it perhaps will need some revising as the bill moves forward.

Let me take some specific moments and some concerns that we raised. The protection of medical practitioners, while it appears in what is called the preamble of the bill, in the aspirations of the bill, it does not appear in the actual heart of the legislation, it does not appear in the law. For those in the medical services community who have sincere religious, heartfelt beliefs that prevent them from assisting someone with end-of-life procedures, we need to have the most complete protection for those health care professionals.

I come from northern British Columbia. This is an absolutely contentious issue. Faith leaders from a broad set of denominations and those working within the medical profession, who are incredibly dedicated and gifted medical service providers, have come forward with serious concerns. I am not able to allay their concerns with what I see in this legislation.

We helped unanimously pass a motion from the member for Timmins—James Bay to finally have a national palliative care strategy. It is the other side of this coin. While there is the incredibly important issue of what happens at that moment of end of life, for all the moments leading up to that, what kind of care do we offer those who are passing from this life? What kind of honour, respect and love do we offer them through our medical system, through this great Canadian public medical system?

For so many years, governments have spoken the words. They have said that palliative care is important. They have said that they care for our seniors, for our elders, and for our sick, yet we see nothing for this in budget after budget. We do not see the ability to lift up that burden together and provide that palliative care. In some senses, Bill C-14 would be an opportunity to enshrine at least into law the requirement for the country to finally have a national palliative care strategy. It is disappointing that it is only referenced as opposed to being brought in with full weight and structure.

I was also disappointed because the committee worked so hard. As a New Democrat, it is difficult for me to credit a joint Senate House of Commons committee. However, I know those good senators came to this process with an open mind. They worked very diligently and came up with a series of recommendations for the government over a number of the issues, and they were simply ignored.

That brings me to another concern. Legal and medical experts told us that even Ms. Carter would not actually qualify for assistance under this bill. She brought this case to the Supreme Court. She suffered so much. Her family went through hell trying to achieve the services they desired and had to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It finally won that arduous process.

Rather than get that perfect place where the government has sought to balance the competing interests over such a sensitive topic, my concern is that the government has muddled it entirely and invited future challenges in court. We have also heard from some of the lawyers who presented in front of the court. They said that this legislation would be challenged almost immediately. Therefore, what have we just gone through?

The committee met many hours and heard from dozens of witnesses. We looked at the very clear ruling from the Supreme Court. Then we came out the other end with something in the middle that offered neither side any great solace, if there are just two sides in this debate. We have heard from a number of the groups that have worked tirelessly on this issue, for decades in some cases, of their disappointment and dissatisfaction. Happily, the way the process works in our Parliament, the bill can go and be remedied.

This is the true test for the new government. This is its first constitutional legislation. This is the first time it must meet the challenge of the charter in legislation. Will it meet that challenge with the humility, courage, and intelligence that is required to do the right thing, not just the right thing by the courts, but the right thing by Canadians who are desperately seeking the ability to end their life on their terms when they are suffering so greatly? For us, to stand in judgment of them and their families, for us to say we will decree, under more and more narrow definitions, who can actually access this service seems dangerous to me. It seems hubris and unintelligent. This is simply because we invite years more of litigation in the courts and years more of uncertainty and suffering by those very families that are already suffering with a family member whose life is coming to an end in such terrible conditions.

I want to congratulate again the members who served, particularly the member for Victoria, who brought his legal wisdom and his compassion to this conversation, as well as the member for Timmins—James Bay, who first and most importantly raised this issue of palliative care and the need for that strategy. To all members of the House, we must find our convictions, find our courage, do the right thing, and do what is necessary both legally and morally.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech.

In it, he referred to palliative care. If hospitals and health care facilities offered quality palliative care, that would also affect the quality of life of people who are dying. What does he think about that? Would palliative care not also be an appropriate way to ensure that everyone can die with dignity? How important is palliative care in the health care system?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague for his question.

When it comes to palliative care, studies all show the same thing. Quebec is setting an example for the entire country, not only with regard to the end-of-life issue, but also with regard to palliative care.

We asked the Liberal government what its plan was and where the money was. It is difficult to provide high-quality care without money.

The questions refer to a void that exists. They look at only one side, not both sides. What are we going to do for Canadians? What is the government going to do for people who want palliative care for themselves or a family member?

I find that sad, but it is also an opportunity to build something that is strong, direct, and clear, to develop a national strategy that will give us a strong and ethical palliative care system.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague bringing forward a number of the issues he outlined. I am wondering if he feels that had there been more time given by the courts, some of these issues could have been addressed and the legislation could have been more robust.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while my friend was not here in the previous Parliament, it is a difficult question simply because the previous government made some decisions which many of us thought were unfortunate in terms of the question of time. While I appreciate and understand how difficult this conversation is, how politically charged it can be, emotions run high on all sides of this issue, the previous government delayed the efforts of Parliament to the point where we had to seek an extension by the court, which is not something the Supreme Court loves to do. Fair enough, it gave us a full year and we had to go back and seek more time.

I am of two minds. Yes, of course, we could have used more time, yet very little happens in life without a deadline. We need that impetus and urgency in order to get something done. I appreciate that we are having long sittings so that all members get an opportunity to speak here, and that the committee is sitting very long meetings right now. We heard from the health minister and the justice minister yesterday. It is what it is now.

What I fear, and I do not think this will happen but it is a legitimate fear, is that if we push anything further past the deadline that we have right now, then we will have nothing. We will simply have no law on the books. Whatever side of the issue people sit on, I do not think that would be an acceptable conclusion, simply because Parliament would recess into the summer and we would have two or three months in which the laws have been struck down by the courts and we have nothing in their place. Then what do we say to the medical professionals? What do we say to the families who have someone at end-of-life stages as to what the rules are? We have no rules.

There have been previous difficult debates in the legislature. This legislature poorly dealt with the issue of abortion and never really resolved it completely. We cannot do that again around this question. We have to find the courage of our convictions and be resolved to bring forward our best thoughts and our best heart toward this question.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an important and sobering issue that I rise to address, which is on the minds of many Canadian families.

Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada found the current Criminal Code prohibition on physician-assisted dying to be constitutionally invalid. This decision required the government to revisit Canada's long-standing prohibition against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Bill C-14 came about as a response to the Supreme Court ruling on the Carter case. The Carter case determined that persons who satisfy the following criterion of being a competent adult, suffering intolerably from a grievous and irremediable condition, and able to give their clear consent, have a right under section 7 of the charter to physician-assisted dying, or PAD.

Since that decision, the government appointed a Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying to make recommendations on a legislative response. Liberal and NDP members in the main report for the special joint committee recommended a very permissive physician-assisted death regime beyond the parameters set aside by the Carter case. Their original report included provisions that suggested that physician-assisted death be available to persons with terminal and non-terminal illnesses, and to persons with physical and psychological conditions. What was most concerning, however, was the suggestion that the government would, in the future, study issues related to physician-assisted death for minors.

The recommendations and provisions suggested by the original report would set Canada on a very treacherous path. In response to these concerns, my Conservative colleagues released a dissenting report, which reined in some of the worrying suggestions and put forward a framework that more closely reflects the Carter decision.

In the dissenting report, my colleagues raised key issues that the legislation could tackle, which included limiting physician-assisted death to competent adults 18 or over; safeguards for vulnerable persons, including a provision for a psychiatric assessment; no advance directives; and conscience protections for physicians. Bill C-14 has adopted some of these key provisions from my colleagues' dissenting report.

The main safeguards in Bill C-14 include limiting euthanasia and assisted suicide to physical illnesses only, and putting in place an age restriction for such procedures. For those individuals who fall under the criteria for PAD, there is no specific referral to a psychiatrist in order to determine whether there are underlying mental illness issues that would compromise their capacity to give an informed consent.

Letters have been pouring in from communities in my riding. I did promise my constituents that I would listen and study all of the important points that have been raised.

This situation has pit the gravely ill against their own family's moral positions, and I too have been touched by the many stories that I have heard. Departed friends and family members had spoken to me in the past about allowing for a merciful end to their suffering, a position that many of us may find ourselves in when our time has come.

However, I am concerned that amendments may be introduced in committee to make the current legislative framework more permissive, or that an opening is presented for regulation to allow for the same permissiveness later on. This concern does not come from thin air, but rather from the very study penned by the special joint committee. Perhaps there could be amendments that would spell out a more restrictive legal framework so that we could effectively ensure that the safeguards are there to always protect the most vulnerable.

Canadian families on all sides of this debate are left anxious as to what lies ahead when the bill moves forward. The Carter case has forced Canadians to come to terms with this difficult decision.

I want to reiterate what my Conservative colleagues have been saying in the weeks leading up to this debate: our priority as parliamentarians should be to ensure that any new legislation developed conforms strictly to the Supreme Court decision, nothing more and nothing less.

Most Canadians want to see the government focus on improving palliative care, as it is an integral part of end-of-life care. There was unanimous agreement from the special joint committee and stakeholders, including the CMA, on the need for a pan-Canadian strategy on palliative care with dedicated funding. If it were up to Canadians, a national strategy on palliative care would be priority number one.

The conscience rights of health care professionals should also be taken into consideration. For some, physician-assisted death is against their moral code. It would be unjust to force a medical professional to act against their convictions. The oath to do no harm is founded in our commitment to look after one another and to care for our most vulnerable through viable medical interventions that honour the sanctity of life. There are many physicians and other health care providers that have raised this issue both with their members of Parliament and at committee. We parliamentarians need to address this for their sake.

There are harsh lessons to be learned from past experiences of jurisdictions such as Belgium. After legalizing euthanasia, deaths from such interventions increased every year. Safeguards were allowed to be removed and euthanasia is now available to individuals who are experiencing mental distress.

One of the most troubling instances of this slippery slope was when the Belgian parliament approved a bill that removed the age restriction from physician-assisted death, a provision actually recommended by our special joint committee report. This PAD extension to minors was not included in the original legislation passed by Belgium years before either.

The slippery slope is a real social phenomenon. We cannot allow Canada to go down that path. We cannot allow any legislation on physician-assisted death to be permissive. Provisions must be restrictive as the Carter case dictates it to be. Canadians expect us to be steadfast in delivering a fair and clear legislation, but we have to avoid expediting any circumstances that would lead to fewer safeguards.

I urge my colleagues to learn from these harsh realities and lessons. While it has become imperative that the House pass legislation before June 6, it is equally important to make sure that we have an effective piece of legislation.

It is also true that not having a legislative framework to address physician-assisted death is equally irresponsible. Without a comprehensive legislative framework, Canada would consist of a patchwork of provincial protocols that would create other serious concerns.

We must also remember to be realistic. Even with safeguards, consent can be coerced and vulnerable individuals will never be without risk. In Belgium, there are cases where physician-assisted death was administered without explicit consent; it could very well happen here. Life and death decisions should never come easily, nor should it come from anyone other than oneself .

Life is truly a gift and we must treat it as such. Providing care should always be the priority, and I hope that a pan-Canadian strategy on end-of-life care is also unveiled. This legislation as it is does not carry sufficient provisions and safeguards. We can do better. We owe it to our constituents to do better.

I hope that if the bill is sent to committee, parliamentarians will have the chance to amend it further to include improved safeguards.

In closing, I would like to pay tribute to friends and family I have lost along the way. My mother and father, Verna and Herman Dreeshen, in life taught me and others so much about compassion and kindness. My parents also showed so much during their final days about strength of character, faith, and the realities of life. Of course, they are both dearly missed. The care they received was exceptional and there were opportunities for us to talk.

I remember specifically when my father passed away I had been in the House for two weeks. The first week we had elected a Speaker, so I had the chance to go home that weekend and talk to him about the individuals I had spoken to, such as Ken Dryden whom I did not agree with politically but I certainly did on hockey. We had a chance to talk.

I also had a chance, during the next break, to speak with the prime minister and talk about different issues and things that were going on. To be able to relay that information to him the week before he died was very important.

I say to all Canadians, as we face this sobering reality for ourselves and our loved ones, that they should know they are always in our hearts and prayers.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

How would he suggest that we balance protecting a doctor's right to choose whether or not to provide end-of-life services with making this service available to Canadians from coast to coast?

How does the member suggest that we balance these two rights? How can we ensure that this service will remain accessible all across Canada, even if doctors or health care professionals do not want to provide this care? As we have often heard throughout this debate, we need to ensure that this bill respects doctors' right to choose whether to offer this care, according to their conscience.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I caught all of the question, and I apologize if I go off in a different direction.

For a number of years, I was the chairman of a hospital board, and one thing that was very important when speaking with provincial counterparts was the study of ethics as far as physicians and health care providers were concerned. That became a discussion that the board had with many different physicians. The rationalization of resources was a discussion point as well.

I think we have to make sure we respect their rights. Simply saying that, if one physician does not want to deal with this, we will provide another one to carry it out, I do not think is the way for us to go. We have to make sure that the safeguards exist, the psychiatric assessments have been taken into account, and we respect the rights of the health care providers.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about advance review. There are a few interacting problems that create sort of a perfect storm in this legislation.

There are relatively ambiguous criteria, and yet there is no requirement for legal review beforehand. There are also opportunities for individuals or family members, who want someone to be euthanized or to take part in assisted suicide, to go from doctor to doctor until they get the kind of review they want. It may be that most doctors do not think a person meets the criteria, but the person finds one who thinks he or she does.

Would the member agree with me that, given these interacting problems, we need some solutions in terms of amendments that would actually protect vulnerable people, whether that is a system of advance legal review or some kind of other measure that would prevent this process of doctor shopping? Would the member agree that amendments are essential for protecting people who may actually not consent and may be pushed into euthanasia or assisted suicide because of some of these problems in the way the bill is structured?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, truly, one of the issues that is so important for us to study and look at is an issue like elder abuse, the kinds of pressures that are applied, and we end up with the elderly or sick, when they get near the end of life, feeling that they have become a burden. We have to make sure pressure is not applied on them, hastening the decisions they may be making. Of course, if pressure is applied and we find that is the case, there is going to be an issue as far as the courts are concerned, as well.

There are laws on elder abuse, and this would have to be looked at as well to make sure counselling is not provided to end people's lives through physicians.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I approached this speech tonight, I have said to many in my community and my family that this would be the most important speech I ever deliver as a member of the House. I have been here eight years and hope to represent my constituents into the future.

I am going to speak about the most vulnerable, about meaningful safeguards, and about addressing the slippery slope that is Bill C-14.

First, here is full disclosure. I am the parent of a 29-year-old intellectually disabled son. I held the hand of my mother as she exited this world in pain. I watched a very close friend pass away over two years, in pain from a horrible disease.

Earlier in this debate, the member for Durham used words that resonated with me, that we all seek “compassion on both sides of this issue”, and that is essential.

I am going to refer to some messages that have been written and sent. I should also disclose that I, too, have held public meetings. In fact, this issue was brought up during the election campaign, and I stated my position very clearly and concisely to the voters on this particular issue.

I would like to start with a quote from the member for Calgary Nose Hill who said in her opening statement that this is about “the sanctity of human life”, “defining the morality of our country”.

I would like to read the words of someone who is greatly respected. His name is Jean Vanier, and he wrote an article, along with Hollee Card, in The Globe and Mail on March 1. He heads up an organization called L’Arche, and he said:

We in L’Arche have had the privilege of accompanying many on life’s journey, not only in times of health and strength, but in times of fragility and weakness as well. Through this experience we have learned many things.

Most importantly, we have learned that it is the most fragile among us who are the closest to their humanity, to their suffering, and to their need to be loved. It is they who show the rest of us the way to live in truth and in love.

He goes on to say:

This is why we have a special obligation to ensure that the care available to each of us throughout our lives, but especially in our final stages of life, affirms both our dignity and humanity. Otherwise, we diminish our range of experience to include only our independence. We diminish the love we can share, and the vulnerability we can show to one another.

Such a spartan culture ultimately devalues life. In its place we must recommit to honouring and accepting ourselves and others by finding ways to accept our frailties, and the full course of life.

Members can see that Bill C-14 undermines the precarious position of people with disabilities in Canada.

Other interesting comments that were shared with all parliamentarians came from an individual named Hugh Scher, a solicitor and lawyer, who for 25 years has advocated on these issues. By the way, he points out at the very front end of his letter to us that he was not invited to talk at the committee, yet he has advised every party in the House on these issues.

Let us talk about the safeguards he points out.

Judicial or Tribunal oversight to ensure compliance with legislated requirements and to identify vulnerability before the fact is an essential requirement for effective oversight in respect of any regime of assisted suicide;

He goes on to say:

The requirement of judicial or tribunal oversight and of vulnerability assessment and identification before the fact by way of prior review are an essential requirement of any regime of assisted suicide and must be implemented by Parliament in the event that there is to be any prospect of safe implementation of an assisted suicide regime. Failure to implement such measures will leave vulnerable Canadians at significant risk without any means of enforcement or protection from abuse;

By the way, Bill C-14 does not have those protective measures of judicial oversight in it.

Some say the bill does not go far enough. Let us take the example of Belgium and how it has evolved over the years. Thirty-two per cent of cases carried out in Belgium are without any request or prior consent of the individual. Even though the law requires it, it is ignored and it is not prosecuted. The numbers since that bill was introduced until today are staggering. What happens is that society changes. Society changes and this becomes the norm. People start accepting the fact that this is the way it is.

One of the issues with Bill C-14 is the fact that, in the preamble, there is a statement to allow for further study for mature minors and persons with mental illness. To me, I interpret that as code. That code is saying that those who want wide-open, available euthanasia, death on request, are not to worry, that it is coming. That is the code. If we look at the report of this particular special committee and what it brought back to Parliament, stating what these people would love to have, we see the code that it will be coming. It is written right in the preamble of the bill.

Some have said that it is the incremental expansion over the course of time in ways not yet contemplated. Over time, citizens become more used to it. Over time, the law would encourage and encompass people with more ailments and younger patients. There is a dangerously contagious effect of assisted-suicide laws that has been observed in the Benelux countries and in the jurisdictions that have had this law on the books for a long time. This is about the sanctity of human life, defining the morality of our country, as the member for Calgary Nose Hill so accurately said.

Let us talk just a minute about the conscience rights of health professionals in institutions. These are not in the bill. We would have to amend this bill to have these rights in there. At my public meetings, we had many doctors who expressed their view that this was absolutely essential for them to carry on in practice really and they would look to alternative jurisdictions to not have to abide by this. That is also for health care professionals in general.

Moving on to palliative care, I and the people of my riding are very fortunate to have the finest palliative care in the country. One of the individuals who spoke at the public meeting said she has watched many people at end of life resolve issues among their friends and family, who would never have had the chance. These are people who have passed along in the best possible environment.

My comment is that the Supreme Court has forced us to this position. If we are to have a law, we must have a law that is as airtight as possible. We must protect the most vulnerable. If one person dies because of a badly scripted law in this country, it will all be on us.

I appreciate the time to speak tonight.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, maybe this is a good time to reflect on the many members who have stood in their place to address this bill, many of them referring to personal stories which have provided a great deal of insight into what we are debating here. It is very much appreciated.

The member made reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. We do need to recognize that all nine Supreme Court judges made the decision, and we do have to come up with the legislation. We have known that now for well over a year. There has been some fairly extensive work done.

We now have the bill at second reading. There has been an open door in terms of government and opposition members being able to share thoughts and ideas with the ministers responsible, or to at least bring their thoughts and ideas to the committee.

I am wondering if the member recognizes, first and foremost, the fact that we have to come up with legislation, that there is a deadline of June 6, that the bill has to go through the committee stage, that it still has to go through the Senate, that there is an obligation on all parliamentarians to address the void that has been created by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is really what the Government of Canada is responding to.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course, we are all aware of the reality we are faced with today by the Supreme Court putting a deadline on it. It is totally unacceptable in my view, yet here we are.

If members take anything from my comments tonight, they should take that the government needs, and we as parliamentarians need, to craft this law to be as protective as it can be for all Canadians right across the board. That is what the Supreme Court actually said, that it should protect Canadians, the most vulnerable especially.

I am here advocating tonight that my fellow parliamentarians take that seriously, and to put in place amendments to this bill, if that is what it takes, and to take the time to get it right, so there is not one life, one disabled individual, one person who falls between the cracks.

That is why we eliminated capital punishment in this country, for the sake of one person being wrongly executed. I am asking for the same courtesy from my fellow parliamentarians.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Many of his colleagues have implied that doing nothing and using the notwithstanding clause are options in this case, so can the member at least acknowledge that doing nothing leaves us in a legal vacuum, which is not an option?

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to address this issue. We must not imply that it would be responsible to simply leave things as they are. We must ensure that people have access to what is now a charter right. Not acting is not an option. Parliamentarians must respond and take action. In this case, we must take action before the Supreme Court's deadline.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will more or less underscore what I just said. I realize we are in this position, where many of us would rather not be.

However, we do have options. There is the notwithstanding clause. That is an option. Whether this Parliament wants to go that route or not will be determined. There are other options, such as to not pass the bill, and in the meantime work on something else. Those are options. I am not personally advocating that.

I am personally advocating the reality that we are here, and we must address the issue, so let us address it in the most restrictive fashion we can so that it is an exception in our society when someone is able to have doctor-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Let us protect society as we have always done. This is about the sanctity of everyone's life.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this issue, as many of my colleagues have done throughout the day.

It is most certainly a difficult issue that is faced by many individuals and society at large. Like many of my colleagues, I have had many conversations with my constituents and medical health professionals, with doctors who are in support and doctors who are not. The issues and concerns vary with each and every sector. I have heard concerns around protecting the rights of doctors who do not want to participate. I have heard from constituents who adamantly oppose any type of legislation for moral reasons. I have also heard from constituents who have gone through very difficult times and have had family members who suffered greatly. They support legislation being in place.

However, the significantly short amount of time that has been allocated by the court has indeed posed a challenge on many fronts. While some consultations have been undertaken in some communities in some ridings, there has just not been enough time to engage Canadians across the country in a fulsome debate. In fact, in Quebec, it took six years to go through the process. As one of the options, we should request from the court additional time to really address these complex issues, to engage Canadians far and wide, and to get input from many different sides that were not able to come to the committee or appear as witnesses.

I have a great amount of respect for the members in the House who have worked on the committee. I know it was not an easy task for them. I also respect all the members who have really struggled with this issue on many fronts. However, to rush to develop legislation is really of great concern to me.

I am pleased to see the recommendations from our dissenting report that spoke to the issues of mature minors, persons with mental health issues, and advance directives. Some were implemented and some were not. However, there are still issues around conscience protection for physicians and health care professionals.

The protection of the vulnerable really must be a core foundational aspect of the legislation and framework, as eloquently put by my colleague, the previous speaker. Protection for doctors and health care professionals who do not want to participate must be imbedded within the legislation and not within the preamble.

I want to share a story that really speaks to the issue. I know of a young nurse who just graduated and who recently applied for a nursing position. The interviewer asked her if she would be able to inject a patient who requested to die. The young nurse, who had just graduated, said no, that was something she could not do. Needless to say, the young nurse was not hired. I share this story because within the legislation we need to protect individuals who do not want to participate.

We have failed Canadians as it relates to end-of-life care and providing a robust palliative care system and hospice support. We must institute high-quality palliative care in every community in every province across the country.

I received a handwritten letter from one of my constituents. I was not in this place at the time.

She wrote:

Did you know in June 1995 the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide advised the government make palliative care programs a priority in the restructuring of the Health Care System;

That was Bill C-545, an act respecting the provision of continuing care to Canadians, a private member's bill. She also noted that only 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care.

She went on to say:

Can you assure that Palliative Care will be available to all citizens of Canada before these same citizens are offered medical assistance in dying?

This is very poignant because, given the legislation that we are discussing and where we are going with it, we need to have a national strategy on palliative care. We need to look at the end-of-life care as a process toward death. This is part of the overall continuum of care. We do not do that now. I think it would be prudent for us to have those measures and plans in place because it is about dealing with people who are coming to the end of their life.

As I said earlier, I believe that a robust palliative care system should be implemented. I also believe that a psychiatrist or social worker needs to be part of the assessment process, and that a palliative care consultation should be undertaken prior to moving to doctor-assisted suicide.

The health minister stated in the House yesterday that $3 billion would be dedicated to palliative care over four years. I was pleased to hear those comments. However, it was clearly an afterthought because that amount was not included in the budget, nor was there any mention of palliative care or hospice care. This is a fundamental flaw that should be rectified immediately.

In light of this legislation, we need to move very quickly to implement a national strategy on palliative care. This is a very complex issue. I certainly have many concerns on a number of fronts with this legislation. We need strict protections embedded in the legislation regarding the protection of conscience and the right to have access to palliative care. I stress that these amendments must be embedded within the legislation.

Of most concern is the possibility in the preamble of including mature minors and those with mental health illness at a future date. While the courts have mandated the development of legislation, it has most certainly not allowed the appropriate time to have a thorough discussion with Canadians across the country. This issue is not one that should be rushed. It deserves thoughtful, respectful consultation and debate with everyone.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made a very thoughtful speech, and I agree with her in many areas. I know there are a lot of friends in Parliament who keep saying that if we do not pass the bill, there will be no law with respect to assisted suicide.

I know that I am not alone in stating that the time frame set out by the Supreme Court is not sufficient, and that 16 months is not nearly enough time to adequately examine evidence, consult with Canadians, and prepare well-drafted, carefully examined legislation.

What is our responsibility as lawmakers?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, fundamentally, our responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable. There are measures within the legislation that do not allow for that. We have been mandated by the court to provide legislation, and it should be the very best legislation that can possibly be put forward. I do not think that we have had adequate consultation with and input from many sectors across the country. I believe it is premature to be at the place where we are right now.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I heard many members say that they did not have enough time, even though the Supreme Court rendered its decision on February 6, 2015.

Several months went by between the time when the Supreme Court rendered its decision and the time when the new government took office following the October 19 election. We finally have a bill because of the new government's agenda and an extension until June.

If parliamentarians had worked on this issue from the start, it might have been resolved in time to meet the Supreme Court's deadline. Does my colleague not agree?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the time frame was handed down by the Supreme Court I believe there were preliminary consultations that had begun at that point. I also know that there was an election. During the election, I believe a lot of the work ceased because of the election. Then it was incumbent on the new government to continue developing the legislation.

I go back to the Quebec example that was six years in the making. I go back to other countries that have dealt with this issue, and it was 10 years in the making. Even if there were a continuation of that work for 16 months, it would still not be adequate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference, in answering a question, to seeing her primary job as protecting the most vulnerable.

Does the member not recognize that if the legislation were not to pass, the most vulnerable she wants to protect are going to be that much more vulnerable because there is no law? Would the member not agree that it is better to have this brought forward before June 6 in order to protect the vulnerable?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have good legislation and bad legislation, so depending on the legislation and the amendments to the legislation, we will look at how it protects or does not protect the vulnerable.

There is still a lot of work to do and there are amendments that have to be put in place.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, as others have said before me, we are debating this evening one of the most important issues of our time. It is not just an important issue but a difficult issue. In fact, it is a real constellation of difficult issues and difficult decisions. It is an issue that has been a concern in Canada for decades, including the case of Sue Rodriguez more than 20 years ago. We are talking of it again because of the landmark Carter decision that has instructed Parliament to create legislation to legalize and regulate medically assisted dying.

Like all members of the House, I have received many letters, emails, phone calls, and personal representations from all sides of the issue. Some people are concerned that because of the restrictions in the legislation they would not be eligible for the procedure should they need it in the future; while others are worried that medical practitioners who have ethical concerns would not be able to opt out if they wish.

Obviously we need good legislation that clearly spells out the eligibility criteria for this procedure as well as the regulations around the actual procedure itself. Because of these needs, I am generally in favour of this legislation, but I feel that it is deficient in several regards.

We have to ensure that this bill properly addresses the Supreme Court decision. The last thing we need is to prolong the suffering of grievously ill people through more litigation.

As I mentioned, we also need to ensure that the practitioners who are undertaking these procedures are protected regarding their roles and moral beliefs. Last week in the House, I tabled a petition from many of my constituents on this issue.

We need to ensure that people with progressive illnesses have access to suitable palliative care, as many people have mentioned here this evening. They need access to palliative care, pain management, and home care so that medically assisted dying is not set out simply because other more appropriate actions are not available.

Finally, we need to ensure that this procedure is equally available across the country.

The need for this procedure is clear as was laid out in the Supreme Court decision. One of my constituents has already requested legal access to the procedure, several months ago, without waiting for our action here as his suffering was so great. He waited through the foot-dragging of the previous government, but could wait no longer. Clearly, other Canadians who are suffering through intolerable pain and discomfort will continue to access this service through more complicated legal channels if we do not pass legislation here.

Just last Friday, I met with another constituent who is suffering with advanced progressive multiple sclerosis. He wanted to talk first about federal funding for research into experimental treatments for MS. Because of the advanced nature of his disease he was not able to access the present experimental treatments, but he desperately wanted others to have greater access in the future. However, now that he cannot dress himself, bathe himself, or even shave his face, he feels that life with any dignity is fast slipping away. He is deeply concerned that he would not be eligible for medically assisted dying because his natural death may be years away and not “reasonably foreseeable” as this bill now states. Many experts feel that even Kay Carter, who brought the case before the Supreme Court, would not be eligible for medically assisted dying under the criteria now set out in Bill C-14.

The same constituent also recounted how difficult life is for his wife as he faces his progressive illness. He would like better access to home care services and later palliative care, so that his wife can have respite from his daily care. However, these services are not available equally across Canada. We desperately need a national palliative care strategy and the funding that goes with it to ensure that patients who need this care have access to it. Bill C-14 refers to palliative care in its preamble, but it is silent after that. The government was silent on palliative care in the budget, despite a promise for $3 billion for home care in the election campaign.

Hospice care is also needed across this country, but it is even less available than hospital palliative care. In my riding, there is only one hospice centre and it is five hours by road from the east side of the riding. I have met with an active hospice society on the eastern edge of the riding, but it is struggling to find funding for a hospice, despite a clear need for it and a strong case that it will save a considerable amount of money in the local health care system. This disparate amount of care is a concern to me, since we do not want people choosing medically assisted dying simply because they do not have access to proper pain management, palliative care, home care, or hospice treatment.

Finally, I would like to talk about advance directives. Many people with progressive diseases would like to provide their loved ones and physicians clear instructions regarding their fate if they become incapable of giving those instructions at a later date because of their deteriorating physical condition. The special joint committee that studied this issue made a recommendation to allow advance directives regarding medically assisted dying under certain conditions, but this recommendation is not included in Bill C-14. Certainly advance directives must be crystal clear if they are to be used, but it is an issue that we must face.

To conclude, I feel that the eligibility criteria put forth in this bill may not reflect the Supreme Court ruling that brought us to this point. While we have to be careful to protect the most vulnerable in our society, many Canadians, including the constituent I mentioned at the start, will suffer even more than they are now if we get this wrong.

I know that this debate will continue at committee and I hope some of the concerns I and others have raised will be addressed in the few weeks remaining before the June 6 deadline.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for his thoughts on the timeline. A number of comments have been made about the issue of the timeline and the fact that we did not have to be this rushed. The previous government put in place an expert panel to study the issue and that panel was supposed to report back with specific legislative recommendations.

However, the new government took away that panel's power to report on legislative recommendations, despite the vast consultation that was already happening. It then started a new panel process with a special committee, but even after the special committee reported, the government waited for months. It has put us in the situation of a time crunch.

I would say that we do not have to play the Liberals' game. If they bring forward a piece of legislation or amended piece of legislation that could gain substantial consensus in the House, which addresses things like advance review and conscience protection, then we will be a lot better off and can allow the bill to move forward quickly. Instead, the government has created an artificial time crunch unnecessarily and is even moving to bring forward closure.

Would the member agree that the government should be working more collaboratively, rather than using things like closure and creating an artificial timeline to push this through?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was not here in the last Parliament, but it is my understanding that the special expert review panel that was set up was not really judged by many to be completely unbiased and perhaps was not really the best way to move forward. It took many months to even establish that panel. If the government had acted right away, as this Parliament did after the election in October, we might be further ahead.

People brought up the example of Quebec taking six years. Canada did not have the courage to face this question 20 years ago. I mentioned Sue Rodriguez in my speech. If we had taken this action—

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

We were not ready for that 20 years ago.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask members to rise to ask questions and to respect those who have the floor to make a speech or answer questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, to reflect back, when the Supreme Court decision was made, I believe both opposition parties, the Liberals and New Democrats, called on the government to take action. In fact, a motion was put to the House to try to convince the government of the day to act.

I wonder if the member would comment on the fact that, yes, we have lost the opportunity, but what is really important for us to recognize is that we need to get this thing done in a timely fashion.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague across the floor. Given the situation we are in now, the best course forward is to bring this legislation through and make it as good as we possibly can through amendments at committee.

If we do not do that and we miss the deadline, as others have mentioned, we will be without legislation. As I mentioned, a constituent of mine decided last February that he would seek other legal actions to access this service without the benefit of this legislation. That is where we will be if we do not do this.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member brings up something that many of us are struggling with, and that is we feel the bill has not gone far enough. Others feel it has gone too far.

Some people feel that where it has not gone far enough are the advance directives you brought up. We know the all-party special committee sought to resolve this and it is our hope that will be done in the committee process.

I wonder if you could speak further to the issue of advance directive?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that the questions are to be addressed to the Chair.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a very brief answer, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, while advance directives are clearly wanted by many people in progressive illness conditions, the legislation must make these directives crystal clear. We have to ensure these people really want this, the same safeguards that are there for the present directives. It is something that we must face.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I arrived here a very fortunate man 12 years ago, elected by the electors of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. I really believe that since that time this is probably the most complex and sensitive issue I have ever witnessed come before Parliament, for me personally anyhow.

As far as disclosure goes, I am a practising Catholic. As a result of that, I will definitely be voting against Bill C-14. For me, this is a moral issue. I strongly believe in the sanctity of life. In fact, ever since I can remember, I have taught that life is precious, especially a human life, but also an animal or an insect's life. All through my life I have been taught that life is a gift from God and we should respect it as such.

That is not the only reason I will be voting against Bill C-14. Because this is such an important issue, I thought I should get input from my constituents. I took the trouble of sending a survey to 45,000 homes in my riding. The results were: 65% of the constituents of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry were against Bill C-14, and 35% were in favour of the bill, with conditions. I read many of the comments of the 35% and those conditions were rather strict. They called for very limited assisted dying.

I want to thank the joint committee. I wish I had been on the committee, but in other respects I am glad I was not. It must have been a very emotional committee on which to serve. I want to thank all the members for the hard work they put into it, especially the members of the Conservative Party, because they issued a dissenting report. Thank God for that dissenting report.

I must give the government credit for accepting some of the issues included in the dissenting report. They were things like limiting it to competent adults 18 or over. That is so important. If we are to have this legislation, at least we should have that as one of the criteria. The other one was safeguards for vulnerable persons. My colleague, the member for Brantford—Brant, spoke about that. He has a son who is in that category. There was also protection for physicians who disagreed. I have had so many physicians in my riding say that they cannot support this and believe they will be in trouble if they do not support it.

As many of my colleagues said, we have to do this. The Supreme Court of Canada has told us we must. However, if we must do it, let us minimize the damage. There is a way to do that. It is called palliative care.

During the campaign, the Liberal Party promised $3 billion for long-term care, including palliative care. However, in the budget, as my colleagues have stated, there was no hint of any money for long-term care and certainly no money for palliative care. It is nowhere to be found in the budget.

The special joint committee and most of the stakeholders who appeared before it, including the Canadian Medical Association, spoke of the need for a pan-Canadian strategy on palliative care, with dedicated funding. They suggested that there be dedicated funding for palliative care if we were to enact Bill C-14.

My Liberal colleagues are in the House. They are going to have a caucus meeting tomorrow, as will we. Money for palliative care should be brought up at that meeting.

I spoke with the manager of the Cornwall hospice today. Cornwall hospice is in my riding. About eight to ten years ago the community came together. We thought we needed a hospice so we raised funds. Now we have a wonderful 10-bed facility that deals with 100 to 150 patients per year.

I had heard through the grapevine, and through reading, that sometimes people left palliative care. I called the manager of this hospice directly and asked if this had ever happened. He said, “most definitely”.

On average, three to four people leave palliative care in a year. Sometimes they are gone for 6 month to 24 months. Imagine if some of those people had chosen the route of Bill C-14.

I was doing some reading on this issue, and it really struck a chord in my heart. I would like to quote something that I read, which is from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. It says:

Yet of the millions of mis-diagnoses every year, many are terminal mis-diagnoses. We know this because of the thousands of people who “graduate” from hospice each year.

People leave hospices not only in Cornwall, but right across North America and the world. There are so many examples of people outliving terminal prognosis, from Ted Kennedy living a year longer than predicted, to John Norton from Florence, Massachusetts, who testified before the state legislature. When he was diagnosed with ALS, he would have definitely used assisted suicide were it available. Luckily for John, his family, and everyone who has come to know him, assisted suicide was not state policy. He went into remission, and 60 years later he is urging people to reject assisted suicide. I rest my case.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we consistently hear the opposition benches talk about a commitment toward palliative care. In fact, there is a commitment, which is in the budget document. The Minister of Health clearly indicated that we would be going into a new health care accord.

In order to accomplish the type of palliative care that Canadians want and deserve, we need to work with the provinces. This is the only way we can ensure that we have good, quality palliative care in every region of the country.

There has also been a commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars by this government toward improving palliative care. We recognize the value and the expectations of Canadians. Would the member at the very least acknowledge that?

We have to agree to disagree. I understand where the member is coming from in regard to this bill. However, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to pass this legislation. It would be inappropriate for us to do nothing and let June 6 go by, which will leave a lot more people a whole lot more vulnerable.

However, would the member not at least agree that there is a genuine investment in the future of palliative care, especially if we compare this government's nine months to the ten years of the previous government?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the member across the way, I would like him to show me the cash.

There was a $3 billion commitment in the Liberals' platform, and all of a sudden it is not in the budget. The member is asking us to trust them, that they are going to have an agreement with the provinces and it is going to be there.

Quite frankly, we should not be passing Bill C-14 until we have palliative care in place. We heard about the gentleman lived 60 years. Imagine if he would have taken advantage of Bill C-14, assisted suicide. However, we have to talk about Bill C-14, which is a different case.

With all due respect, as I said, I would like to see the cash.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for talking about palliative care. In my opinion, that is an important issue that has not been brought up and talked about enough.

It does not make any sense to say that people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness have two choices. One of those choices is not a very good one, so we are going to offer people medical assistance in dying. Meanwhile, the palliative care that is available may be less than optimal, or there may be none available at all.

Many palliative care facilities are non-profit organizations. We can therefore provide them with direct assistance. These facilities need to raise thousands of dollars every year to provide their services. They would like to have bigger rooms to make more space for family members.

Does my colleague agree with me that the choices that are being offered to patients do not make sense? One of those choices is not a very good one, so rather than choosing the best option, people have to choose what seems like the least of the bad options in their circumstances.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

–Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Her question is very relevant.

I am going to do a little self-disclosure here. My first wife passed away from cancer. Cancer is not a pleasant disease to die from. When she was dying, the specialist called us in and said that they were not going to give her any more treatment. My wife said that she did not want to die. The doctor said that the truth of the matter was that nobody ever wants to die.

My wife and I had talked about this. I spoke up and said that Carol was not afraid of dying. She was a very spiritual lady and she knew where she was going in the next life, but she was afraid of the pain, as I was afraid of watching her go through the pain. I expressed that to the specialist.

He took my wife's hands in his hands and said, “Carol, I promise that you will not feel any pain. There is no need to have pain if the medication is proper. I promise you, and I promise your husband that there will be no pain in this death.”

That put her at ease.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start this evening by acknowledging the difficulty of this task. Certainly the Minister of Justice faces a very daunting one. It is clear that Canadians have varied beliefs and deeply held convictions when it comes to the issue that is before the House today. I appreciate that the justice minister has attempted to find a law that balances the autonomy of individuals and the rights and responsibilities of the Canadian community as a whole, while simultaneously protecting the vulnerable among us.

It has been said that a society can be judged by how it treats its weakest members. I believe that is true.

I have to confess that I have wrestled with this legislation and continue to do so today. It seems as though the Supreme Court of Canada, with the Carter decision, has forced us into an unending abyss of grey. I prefer clear lines. I like black and white wherever possible.

I believe that doctors exist to save lives, not take them, and I believe that we as a society should always contend for life and not against it. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled otherwise, and thereby robbed Canadians of clarity when it comes to this issue.

Assisted dying is now permitted in Canada, and we as parliamentarians have been tasked with the responsibility of putting legislation in place.

To that end, I would like to take a few minutes to share with the House and with the Canadian public my reflections on the proposed legislation. In particular, I would like to explore whether or not the rules and regulations within this legislation are adequate to protect the most vulnerable Canadians among us from being encouraged or pressured into pursuing assisted dying.

To be clear, this legislation is far better than what was recommended by the special joint committee, but there are still a number of things that cause me concern.

The first is a lack of access to quality palliative care within the nation of Canada. Right now, only 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care. Without access to all end-of-life options, a person cannot make a fully informed decision with regard to how they will face their death. Palliative care affirms that fighting to preserve life is our natural instinct and that dying is a part of our natural human experience.

Palliative care empowers a person to come to the end of his or her life with dignity intact and in a state of comfort. It deeply concerns me that we as a society are willing to invest significant dollars into assisted death before allocating adequate funds for palliative care. Why are we shifting to placing greater emphasis on death than on life?

Furthermore, I am concerned about those who acquire a disability during their life. In my role as the critic for persons with disabilities, I was able to consult with many organizations from across the country as well as organizations within my local constituency, and with a broad number of individuals who currently suffer from a disability. These personal stories helped to shape the concerns that I hold and will deliver today.

Without exception, every person who acquired a disability in their life told me that they experienced a period of intense depression as they adjusted to their new reality. For some, this period lasted days, and for others it lasted years. However, the hope they shared with me was that despite how different their life looked after they adjusted to their disability, they did regain purpose, joy, and dignity.

All of these individuals continue to face significant daily challenges. Quite a few of them rely on others for basic needs, such as eating or personal hygiene, and many even live with chronic pain. However, all of them have come to value the life that they lead and live with dignity, honour, and respect.

The message that these individuals brought forward to me was that in their previous lives they did not have a clue with regard to how it was possible to live with purpose and dignity while having a disability. This attitude took a while to discover, and they did so within the circumstances of their condition.

This is why I was pleased to see that the justice minister held her ground and did not allow for advance consent.

The Supreme Court, in many previous decisions, has defined the concept of continuous consent. We often hear about this in relation to sexual assault trials, but the principle is active in this case as well. Both the trial judge and the Supreme Court specifically limited assisted dying to a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life. This consent needs to be given throughout the entire procedure. A previous declaration cannot fully appreciate how a person's understanding of his or her own condition changes as he or she learns to adapt to the new reality. Simply trusting someone's preconceived concept of what they will be like in the future is not a reliable mechanism for determining how they will actually be with their future condition.

I appreciated the reference from the minister to the need to protect vulnerable persons. The Supreme Court rightly found that the intent of the previous Criminal Code provisions was to protect vulnerable people from being induced to suicide. The Supreme Court validated this intent with its Carter decision. The unfortunate reality of people with disabilities and those with degenerative conditions is all too often one of poverty. In this circumstance, these individuals are entirely reliant on community access initiatives in order to live lives of dignity.

I have heard tragic stories of individuals who, with minimal community supports, such as adequate home care or assistance in transportation, could easily live a dignified existence. However, because these individuals were left in isolation and vulnerability, they wanted to access assisted suicide. They wanted to end the suffering that had nothing to do with their condition and everything to do with their social vulnerabilities. This is the harsh reality. Without strong safeguards in place, vulnerable people could be influenced to accept assisted dying because of non-medical social circumstances.

For this reason, all of the major organizations I have talked with from across Canada that work with persons with disabilities have called for a prior review by an expert to assess non-medical social vulnerabilities. This is not currently part of the legislation that is proposed. Something that I believe is absolutely essential to any legislative framework as we go forward is to have a prior review by someone with the expertise to determine if isolation, depression, burden, or poverty are impairing the ability of someone to make a competent decision with regard to assisted dying.

I commend the Liberal government for reintroducing into this debate the concept that physician-assisted dying must be connected with a condition that would lead to death. I appreciate this provision. As an alternate member of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, I saw a number of members of that committee from both the House of Commons and the other place argue that assisted dying should be offered to any individual who felt he or she was experiencing “enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”

The emphasis was on the perceived experience of the individual rather than a physical condition. There is no science to this approach, and no external diagnosis. If followed to its logical conclusion, this so-called criteria would allow anyone to access assisted dying without any accountability whatsoever. However, by tying assisted dying to an external medical diagnosis, it would move this process to something beyond the relative experience of the individual. This is critical to lessening the slippery slope that would inevitably exist with this legislation in place.

Every student who has taken an introductory class in politics would be familiar with the concept that laws are a social contract within Canada. When a law is struck down, it means that by extension every Canadian is in part affirming a previously banned behaviour that is now legal. It may not seem like a big distinction to limit assisted dying to conditions that reasonably could be expected to cause death, but it will in fact make a significant difference in the society we build going forward.

If we are a compassionate society that believes in protecting the vulnerable, it means that we believe society has the ability to overrule the impulses of the individual when we determine that those impulses would cause harm to the individual or harm to another person. This motive to save others is one of our redeeming characteristics as human beings. To allow this procedure to be accessed based on the subjective experience of individuals who feel they are in pain from a non-terminal condition would fundamentally alter the social fabric of our society. We are a society that contends for life. We must remain as that.

We as a Canadian society need to ensure that we do not tell those living with a disability, those who have to rely on others for the necessities of life, and those who face chronic pain with courage and determination, that their lives are not worth living. It is easy to lose sight of the broader implications to society when one focuses only on the post-modern concept of relative truth. Such an approach makes it impossible to argue with a suicidal person that his or her life is worth living. However, when we affirm objective truth, that is truth that remains true. Whether an individual believes it or not, it is so because we as a society have chosen to believe it.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I get the impression that she may have lost sight of the essence of the Carter decision, which specifically referred to the right protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the right to life, and the right to life also includes the right to choose what to do with one's life. That was the essence of the Carter decision.

Does my colleague think that the bill we are studying will at least honour the essence of this decision? Is it an appropriate response, or do we need to go further? Some experts have said that with this bill, Ms. Carter might not even have been eligible for medical assistance in dying.

Does my colleague think that this bill is an appropriate response to the Carter decision? Does it go far enough, or could it have included Ms. Carter in the services offered in accordance with the charter?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation has to do with the right to life. That is what the Carter decision was going after. Therefore, I find it somewhat ironic that we are introducing assisted dying when dealing with the right to life. We, as a Canadian society, have always contended for life. Doctors exist to preserve life. They take an oath to fight for someone's life. Therefore, at the end of the day I must ask this question. How does the Carter decision contend for life?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address something that my colleague did not address. That is the ability for a doctor to be compensated in the issuing of euthanasia. I feel that this act should only be done out of an altruistic desire. Therefore, there should be no compensation or benefit to the doctor whatsoever in order for this to proceed. I was wondering if she has any comments on that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the right of a physician to be compensated for this procedure, it certainly poses some concerns for me. A physician takes an oath that he or she will do all that is possible to contend for life, to protect life. To suddenly be compensated for assisting someone in having that life taken seems contrary to the oath that a doctor takes. To consider compensating a doctor for taking a life could perhaps contribute to abuse of this, going forward, and a lack of accountability for doctors, which means that we could have lives that are prematurely ended without that individual giving direct consent to have it done or being forced to do so.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent remarks and for her great work in general on behalf of the disability community.

I want to further probe this issue of palliative care. Some members in other parties have said that palliative care is great but that we do not have to deal with it right now because this is the issue of euthanasia or assisted suicide and that we can deal with palliative care at another time. However, what we have learned from the expert panel is that there is a necessary connection between these two things. If we do not provide palliative care, people will be pushed toward euthanasia or assisted suicide even if that is not something they want. Therefore, we have to offer a robust palliative care option in order for people to genuinely express their autonomy.

What I would like to see is the actual discussion of palliative care in this legislation. I would like to see this legislation protect a right to palliative care to ensure that option is available as well. I want to know if my colleague would agree with me on this.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Carter decision was made to protect the autonomy of individuals to preserve their choice at the end of life. Therefore, it would seem to me that, if we are to protect someone's choice, we should make all end-of-life options available to them. Palliative care is certainly an essential one.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts.

Assisted suicide is a grave matter and has serious implications for all society, in the short term and in the long term. Based on the experiences of countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, which have legalized assisted suicide, we can know with great certainty that vulnerable populations, such as seniors, youth, and those who struggle with mental illness, will inevitably be put at risk.

Legalization of assisted suicide has also greatly undermined the public trust in the medical system in these countries. That is why I am opposed to legalizing assisted suicide.

Bill C-14, in its current form, leaves segments of society vulnerable and provides no protection for professionals or institutions, and undermines the credibility of our health care system and the important work that health care providers do to help people live.

I urge members to take great care with this legislation and to weigh every word to ensure that our most vulnerable people are never placed at risk.

In the past, this House has debated capital punishment, another means in which to take a person's life. Capital punishment was rejected, in part because the risk of ending one innocent life was one life too many. Should that same principle not guide us in our debate today?

Ray Pennings, co-founder of Cardus, recently expressed the importance of this in an editorial, writing:

While every word in a legal definition matters, the language of this debate matters in a broader setting. How do we as a society understand personal autonomy and the taking of one's life? How do we distinguish between a group of teenagers on an aboriginal reserve entering into a suicide pact, after deciding that life is not worth living, from citizens with a terminal diagnosis, fearing they've become a burden to their families and society, who similarly decide that death is preferable to life?

The debate is hardly new, but there are distinctions that can be made which require care and a precision of language. It is concerning that the utilization of language is heading in the opposite direction.

Mr. Pennings goes on to demonstrate this shift in the two Supreme Court of Canada cases. In the 1991 Rodriguez decision, which upheld the prohibition against assisted suicide, the term “assisted suicide” was used 92 times. However, in the 2015 Carter decision, in which the Court came to an opposite conclusion, the term “assisted suicide” was used only 23 times, while the term “assisted death” was used 24 times.

When we look at the current legislation before us, we see that the term “assisted suicide” does not appear at all, the term “suicide” appears only seven times, and the phrase “medical assistance in dying” is used 72 times.

In 20 years, we have progressed from recognizing the value and dignity of life and making every effort to discourage people from suicide, to now offering assisted suicide as a form of health care and calling it “medical assistance in dying.”

While I find many parts of Bill C-14 alarming, I want to start with this shift in the language. It is misleading to use “medical assistance in dying” in the context in which this bill does. Medical assistance in dying is not helping people choose to end their lives. Medical assistance in dying is what the medical community calls palliative care or hospice care.

As Canadians, we are blessed to live in a country that has a great health care system, with many physicians who care deeply about helping their patients live fulfilling and healthy lives. When circumstances change and patients are facing an incurable deadly disease, these same doctors use their medical knowledge to relieve pain and suffering through end-of-life care. This is real medical assistance in death.

That is why I believe amendments are necessary to correct the hijacking of real health care. First, Bill C-14 should be amended to replace “medical assistance in dying” with simply “assistance in dying”. This would separate assisted suicide from health care.

Second, to complement the removal of medical terms from Bill C-14, I recommend amendments that allow for licences to be given to individuals through the Department of Justice that allow them to assist others in ending their life. This would eliminate the requirement of the medical community to be involved, as well as any concerns around the conscience rights of doctors. Licensed individuals, including doctors who wish to participate, could assist in the assisted suicide process and allow our health system to remain focused on its primary objective of providing health care to all Canadians.

Third, I believe the eligibility for assisted suicide in Bill C-14 must require that individuals seeking assisted suicide first be provided with counselling or psychological services and a legal judicial review.

There are a number of amendments that I believe are also critical for the bill, but many of them have already been raised by my colleagues. I want to return to what is truly at the heart of this debate; that is, protecting vulnerable members of our society and reducing the suffering of those who are dying.

This has been raised by many members from all sides of the House. Helping people die with dignity is not, and never will be, achieved through legislation of assisted suicide. Rather, helping die well can only be achieved through improving our focus upon palliative care. Every Canadian has the right to quality health care, and this includes high-quality palliative care.

That is why I have seconded a motion on palliative care tabled by my NDP colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay. This member has pointed out often that there has been no real commitment by the government to palliative care.

I was recently moved by a comment from my colleague in the other House, Senator Betty Unger, a registered nurse, who wrote:

Access to palliative care is as much a Charter right as access to physician-assisted dying. ...most people will acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong when a government does more to guarantee that the living can die, than to ensure that the dying can live.

I would call upon the government to demonstrate that it views palliative care as much as a charter right as assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia is one of the issues that influenced my decision to run as a member of Parliament. It is an issue that also concerns many of my constituents.

Earlier this year, I sent out a survey to my constituents on assisted suicide and euthanasia. Over 92% of my constituents responded that they were opposed to assisted suicide being available to children. The vast majority also took the time to express they opposed assisted suicide for all people, not just children.

My constituents also expressed concern that doctors must be given conscience protection, including Michelle, who wrote, “Doctors take an oath to save lives, they should not be asked to end them by patients or families' choice”.

Opposition to assisted suicide in my riding also crossed party lines. Amy wrote me, “As a Liberal supporter, I feel torn on these issues. I can understand both sides. However...this issue seems almost equivalent to legal murdering”.

On the issue of pain and suffering, Maggie wrote to me, “Having seen friends and family make decisions in the midst of pain and weariness, and having been through deep depression and weariness of emotional pain; I know that clear good decisions are never made in the valleys of life. I've come through wanting to end my life and experienced more joy than I [ever] thought...possible...”.

My constituents also include 14 first nation communities in northern Alberta. During the special joint committee hearings earlier this year, Dr. Alika Lafontaine, who is the president of the Indigenous Physicians Association of Canada and who also works throughout northern Alberta, said:

What we are pleading for in indigenous communities is not medically assisted dying. That already exists in more ways that can be counted. What we are pleading for is medically assisted life.

Indigenous physicians want to help indigenous people live, not die.

Dr. Lafontaine also expressed that there have not been “meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples” and that “the effects of creating a literal program where patients intentionally die within the medical system will further disengage and disenfranchise indigenous patients and families”.

Earlier this year, I asked the Minister of Health about the consultations, and she admitted that the Liberal government did not consult directly with indigenous organizations on assisted suicide legislation.

Indigenous leaders tell me, “Nothing about us without us”.

I am deeply concerned about the impacts that legalizing assisted suicide would have on the indigenous communities.

Finally, the topic of suffering is often raised when discussing suicide. The argument is made that assisted suicide should be made available to all who suffer, even children. Proponents will argue that life with pain and suffering is undignified life and, therefore, assisted suicide should be available to anyone suffering pain.

I could not disagree more. People's dignity is not tied to their circumstances, but comes from the very fact that they are human.

More important, our health care providers are incredibly talented at helping patients manage pain. Even when it comes to children in palliative care, doctors are not—I repeat, not—seeking assisted suicide as a solution.

Dr. Stephen Liben, director of the Montreal Children's Hospital's pediatric palliative care program, said:

There aren’t these children that are asking to please die now. It never happens.... The last thing I need as a palliative care physician for children is a euthanasia law—the last thing....

This would not be an extra tool for relieving suffering at all, it would only muddy the waters and make things more confusing.

I cannot support Bill C-14 at this time, but should significant amendments be made in the protection of conscience rights of health care workers and the removal of health care references, I would consider support.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member highlighted some language earlier, such as the use of the word “suicide”. In the outline of the legislation provided by the government, there is a definition of “medical assistance in dying”. I believe that using this particular term is important. It is important for Canadians, when it comes time to make this choice, that the word “suicide” is not attached to it, because it is a choice they are making at a time in their lives when they are in great distress and pain.

I do want to highlight for the member that there are two definitions. The first one is the administration of a substance by a medical practitioner or authorized nurse practitioner that causes a person's death and the second is the one he has been referring to, which is the prescription or provision of the substance that the person then self-administers. There are two separate pieces and that is why “medical assistance in dying” has come forward.

He also mentioned the medical community. The Canadian Medical Association strongly welcomes the federal legislative and non-legislative responses that we put forward. Taken together, the proposed legislation and federal commitments to work with the provinces and territories go a long way to ensuring we reach a consistent framework in medical assistance in dying across all jurisdictions in Canada.

We find ourselves at the current juncture and it is not simply about whether we in the House feel that this legislation should be implemented. It is the rules that we are going to be putting around it.

I would appreciate it if the member would speak to the amendments that he would like to see put forward in committee.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member failed to recognize that the point I was trying to make is that language matters and the specific terms we use matter. She suggested that there are two different aspects to this law that we are addressing, and I will admit, I only went after the one, assisted suicide. The other term that is referenced in the law is euthanasia. I did not bring that up nearly as often. Those are the two terms she referenced. Even in the definition within the law, neither of those terms come up. It was either self-administered or a dosage administered by a health care professional.

The point of my speech was to ask, in 20 years, where has the discussion gone? We have moved along and the language has changed.

I address schools in my riding. I have been participating in a group called CIVIX. They set up something that they call meet your local elected official. When I address schools, I say that in the past when a person got up on a bridge, we told the person to come down because the individual's life had value, and now we are saying we can give them a push.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have heard Liberals talk about some of the money that they may put into palliative care and that it is a commitment. When I spoke earlier, that was a concern I had. When one looks at the budget, one recognizes the fact that beyond the 6% escalator established by the Conservative government, the increases under the 3% for 2016-17 is 2.8%.

Therefore, when it comes to a commitment of dollars going to the provinces in order to ensure our health care system can handle things, what kind of faith does the member have in the government being able to put together a palliative care regime that would benefit Canadians?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has asked me what my confidence is in the government addressing palliative care. I can look at the bill and see the lack of confidence that I have, because it has not been addressed in the budget and this bill was also an opportunity to perhaps showcase that one balances out the other. Palliative care has not been addressed in this bill or in the budget.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in tonight's debate, and I would like to thank everyone for participating. The debate we are having today and will continue to have in the coming days and weeks is an important one. We need to find a solution before the deadline that the Supreme Court of Canada gave us. We got an extension so that we could get the job done in a limited period of time.

I would like to review the reasons why we are debating this issue. I think it is important to put the debate in context. We are having this debate tonight because of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that directed Parliament to consider the matter and propose a legislative solution.

In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly struck down two Criminal Code provisions. Now it is up to us, as responsible parliamentarians, to fill the legal void that will take effect on June 6, 2016. This discussion predates the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. Rulings by lower courts led to the Supreme Court of Canada's final ruling. That is why we are here to talk about this.

It started when Ms. Carter, who is familiar to us all, and a number of other people went to the B.C. Supreme Court because they wanted the Criminal Code provisions that, until now, prevented people from aiding someone to take their own life struck down. That is what started the debate, and it ended with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

I would like to read a few excerpts from the ruling that indicate what our mandate as parliamentarians is. The Carter decision is historic. The first aspect that makes this decision historic is that the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the B.C. court had the right to rule against the jurisprudence from the Rodriguez case. The trial judge decided to change the jurisprudence, because her ruling contradicted the ruling from a previous case. The trial judge's ruling also contradicted a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Frankly, that was one of the important topics of discussion that came from this court case. Did the judge have the right to reverse the jurisprudence that had been valid until that point? It is a contentious issue. The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada validated the interpretation of the trial judge was historic. The changes that have taken place in the social context, in our society, are what allowed her to change the jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision. It was also historic because it recognized that the right to life also includes the right to end one's life. It was the first time we had such an interpretation.

I will now quote an excerpt from the Supreme Court of Canada decision:

Here, the prohibition deprives some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable.

Later it states:

The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

When I read these excerpts from the summary, I was surprised by the interpretation. I agreed with this interpretation, but I have to admit that, reading it for the first time, it was a surprise. That is why my colleague spoke about irony. Nevertheless, it is quite true that the right to life also includes the right to dispose of it.

I remember very well the moment when the decision was handed down on February 6, 2015. It was a Friday afternoon and I was in my riding office. The first thing I did was read the document. I was very interested in constitutional law, but also in this timely topic and the societal debate.

Quebec had a similar debate over the course of several years. I was curious to see what the Supreme Court would say. I was especially intrigued by the mandate given to us in its decision, namely to draft new legislation so that the right recognized by the Supreme Court would be granted to Canadians.

However, I was disappointed that the discussion did not get underway in the ensuing days. I was expecting it to happen quickly, but there were delays. I do not understand why, because it was a historic and unanimous Supreme Court decision. This decision directly involved parliamentarians, but it took a long time before things were put in place. We spoke out against that.

True, some work was done by experts. However, once again, it took too long. It is important to point out this foot-dragging. As a parliamentarian, I was disappointed that it was not the first item on the government's agenda when we returned to this place. The government quite simply did not want to talk about it. Yes, it did appoint a panel, but it quite simply refused to talk about the issue. I found that deplorable.

Now we are faced with a fait accompli, if I can put it that way. The Supreme Court decision requires us to make this service accessible because it is a constitutional right. As responsible parliamentarians, we cannot stand idly by. The Supreme Court gave us the mandate to ensure that this new constitutional right is accessible and given to Canadians.

As parliamentarians, we cannot just say that this is a constitutional right that every Canadian is entitled to and then turn around and restrict access to this service as much as possible. We should do the opposite.

It is important to understand the essence of the Supreme Court decision, that the right to medical assistance in dying is a constitutional right protected under the charter. As parliamentarians, we have no reason not to make this service accessible to everyone. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill in order to send it to committee and possibly improve it, so as to ensure that it respects the Supreme Court decision.

The last thing we want is to have more legal cases or more delays for those who might want to access this service quickly.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke absolutely got it right. Over a year ago the Supreme Court rendered a decision and our Conservative government felt it was necessary that we took the time to get it right for Canadians. The gravity of the bill is such that we need to make sure we get it right.

The Liberal government has vacillated since October 20. The Liberals said that they want to get it right. They put great emphasis on this, yet this has only come to the House in the last two days. They have limited discussion. They have limited the witnesses.

This bill will be going to committee. Does the member believe there will be fair and open consultations when we have already seen, with the government's closure motion earlier today, that they are limiting debate and muzzling witnesses? Does he think we will get that fair and honest consultation at committee?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I agree that we have to do this right. One thing we can do is invite witnesses and experts to come talk to us about this bill. Preliminary work was done by an all-party committee that discussed the issue in general and the possible avenues we might consider.

Now we are talking about very different committee work because we have a bill and its clauses. It is tangible. This is extremely important work and experts should have a say on it. In committee we have already started hearing from experts who raised significant concerns about the bill. They fear that it is not consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

This is dangerous, because if we want to craft this bill properly, as I mentioned earlier, the last thing we want is to be tangled in legal challenges for years. If we want to do things properly, we need to listen to the experts, the people who are testifying in committee, and invite as many experts as possible to testify. If we do our job properly, people will be satisfied and there will not be any legal challenges in the coming years.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his participation in this discussion. I know that he reads bills clause by clause, in great detail.

My question has to do with the eligibility criteria. The wording in the first three criteria of the bill seems to address all of the elements set out in the Carter decision.

However, the Liberal Party felt that it was necessary, for unknown reasons, to add a fourth criterion regarding a reasonably foreseeable natural death. I must admit that I find this very nebulous. I wonder if my colleague has managed to understand the meaning of this fourth criterion.

No one will have access to medical assistance in dying if they do not meet the four criteria. The first three are relatively objective and easy to understand. However, the fourth criterion is a monumental disaster.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who is absolutely right in saying that we have to wonder about the definition used in the bill.

I have a hard time understanding why the people at the Department of Justice who drafted this bill decided on this and where they got their definition of “enduring and intolerable suffering because of a grievous and irremediable medical condition”. That was in the Supreme Court ruling, but the bill uses a different definition. It talks about reasonably foreseeable natural death.

I have a hard time understanding how the Minister of Justice can defend her bill and say that she will have no problem testing it against the Supreme Court and the Carter decision when she is not using the same terms.

At the very least, she should have used terms similar to those in Carter. That would have prevented yet more cases seeking to overturn the law.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying I have had occasion to listen to much of the debate that has been going on and I want to note that for the most part it has been very civil and the tenor of the debate has been very good. It has lent itself to thoughtful consideration of what is a very challenging bill because it is a challenging issue. I have found listening to the debate helpful in terms of coming to some conclusions about this bill and about the wider issue.

We have heard a number of members refer to their personal experience, which is natural to do with issues like this. My own is somewhat inconclusive. I have had several people whom I have been close to go through longer dying processes where it was clear for a while that they were in decline and were not going to get better and were suffering severely. I would say that for me, the lessons coming out of some of those different experiences mitigate in different directions on this.

In some cases, I have seen situations that really exposed the value of making medical assistance in dying possible because of the great suffering of people who know that death is coming and would rather die with dignity and choose the circumstances of their death and be able to die surrounded by their family, and having said their good-byes. I have also seen situations that really emphasize the vulnerability of people who are in hospital and unable to advocate for themselves, and how important it is in those situations to have family members who can do that for them. As well, I have seen how important it is to have rules, especially in the case where medical assistance in dying is available, to ensure that people are not taken advantage of in that vulnerable state.

I have also seen in those cases, and in one in particular, the fact that even prior to the Supreme Court decision, decisions about death and dying were already being made in Canadian hospitals and there were conversations already being had by families. Right now or prior to the Supreme Court decision, those conversations were about when to stop providing treatment or when to begin starving someone, frankly, who is in hospital. It is important to note that the conversation was already happening prior to the decision. Now that the decision has been made, this conversation is going to happen in new ways regardless of the decision that is taken here, because the Supreme Court has said that medical assistance in dying is something that is going to be available to Canadians. What we are here to decide is the framework under which that is provided and the rules according to which that is provided. We really cannot stress that enough.

There are two distinct sets of considerations, as far as I am concerned, that would lend themselves to making a decision on this bill.

One set is what we could call the substantive considerations about what exactly those rules should be. When we try to set those, it is helpful to have an expression of the ultimate values that we want to see manifest in the legislation. I was searching for the words and, as it turns out, quite fittingly, in a submission to the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying by the moderator of the United Church, which is my church, I found that language. The submission incidentally was not a position statement by the United Church. There was at that time and, as far as I know, there is still no official position by the United Church. However, the moderator made the submission and quoted a former moderator of the United Church who said:

For Christians, life is a sacred gift from God and needs to be valued and protected. But we also know that both life and death are part of the whole created order. Life itself isn’t absolute. Nor certainly is death. To speak of the sanctity of life is to affirm God’s desire for abundance of life for all of creation. God is love, and the Christian affirmation is that God’s love is the only absolute. “In life, in death, in life beyond death, God is with us,” says our creed.

So the United Church’s theological tradition is not to suggest that believing in the sanctity of life means that any attempt to end life must be prevented. Instead, what we are called to do is first listen to the struggles of those who are facing hard decisions and to make sure that they are not alone in those decisions, and second, to trust people with difficult choices about their own lives.

I cannot help but agree that the best decision we can make and the best policy we can implement is one that empowers people to make those decisions in their own lives and to ensure they are not alone in doing that, that it is not something they cannot consult their family or their medical professionals about and have a conversation about the right way to go about making the kind of decision that they may well be inclined to make anyway. We have heard some of the stories of terrible suffering and incidents that occur when people are denied the right to do what they intend to do with their own life.

It should not be a policy that causes people to make those decisions because other services were inadequately available or because they were under undue pressure from family or medical professionals. The safeguards in the bill actually do a fairly good job of ensuring that people will not be subject to that kind of coercion.

I worry that the lack of provision for any kind of advance directive may put people in difficult situations where they are not able to have that conversation and where it may possibly lead either to premature death because they choose to do it while they still can or to prolong a needless suffering. I would support a cautious movement toward a limited form of advance directive, because I recognize that it is a thorny issue, and it is not obvious the best way to do that, and I think it opens up a can of worms.

I agree with the cautious spirit of the bill with respect to extending this decision to minors.

I share the concern expressed by others in this House that there is no protection for the right of conscientious objection for health professionals who do not want to engage in this practice. I would hope to see amendments to this bill at committee to bring that in.

The second set of considerations that I think are very important for us in this place as legislators is to recognize that no matter what Parliament does here, medical assistance in dying will be available. That is not a decision we are making here. That is a decision that has been made in the Supreme Court. We are here to talk about the conditions under which that service will be provided. It is crucial that the rules be the same across the country, that we have a federal framework that applies across the board, and that it does not become a hodgepodge of various regulations from province to province to province.

It is important that we give certainty to medical professionals who will inevitably be called upon to assist in certain deaths, that they know that their career will not be on the line or they will not be risking going to jail if they go ahead and engage in this. That is why it is important to make amendments to the Criminal Code to give them that certainty, and this is the place to do that.

It is important as legislators that we also strive to honour the spirit of the Supreme Court decision, and that we head off needless legal challenges. We heard in this place that whatever happens, there will be challenges. However, I think there are some obvious ones. Adding language that was not in the Supreme Court decision, like the language of a “natural foreseeable death”, would preclude one of the very same women who pursued the right to medical assistance in dying in the Supreme Court. I think it is an obvious basis for challenge. It would be a mistake to send this bill out of this place if the service could not be provided to the person who the Supreme Court determined had a right to it.

In the last few moments that I have for debate, I want to say that those are the considerations that bear on this bill. However, this is happening in Canada no matter what, and we need to make sure that palliative care and other long-term care solutions are available to Canadians so that this is not a first option, a second option, or a third option, but it really is an option that comes after all other reasonable options have been explored, and that people have the support and the resources to access all of those options.

With that said, I will put on the record that I will be voting for this bill at second reading, and those are my reasons why.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Elmwood—Transcona recognizes the value of what the Supreme Court of Canada has said. The nine judges came in with a unanimous decision, indicating that we needed to come up with legislation. We look forward to it heading to the committee stage.

I want to provide a brief comment, because we hear a lot about palliative care. This government, the Prime Minister, is deeply committed to this.

For those who come from the province of Manitoba, as I do, we talk about Riverview and some of the fabulous work that many of those health care professionals provide for us in palliative care.

We recognize the importance of Ottawa working with the provinces, demonstrating leadership, and taking the initiative in ensuring that we have palliative care going forward. However, we need to get the provinces and territories engaged in the discussion. I know the member's father both as a federal MP and as a Manitoba MLA. I am sure he would agree that we need to get a higher sense of co-operation between the different levels of government in order to provide the type of palliative care that Canadians want and deserve.

Would the member not agree that Ottawa does need to continue to develop those relationships to provide quality palliative care into the future?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it is the case that if we are to deliver better palliative care in Canada, it will have to done in collaboration with the provincial governments and the federal government. However, what I would say matters greatly, what matters in this place is if we are going to do that, we need to see federal leadership. That has been the problem with health care in Canada for decades now. There has been a total absence of leadership from the federal government.

We have heard members talk about introducing palliative care into the Canada Health Act. That is fine, except we cannot enforce the Canada Health Act unless we have a federal government that is actually funding health care in Canada.

We have seen the contribution of the federal government over the decades go from 50¢ on the dollar down to 17¢ in health care. It was projected to go lower under the Conservative plan. We have yet to see in the Liberal budget anything that would stop that reduction in the federal share of health care funding.

It is great for us to talk about the need for that, and I am proud to do that as a New Democrat who believes in federal leadership on the health file by putting money on the table. However, until we have a government that does that, we will not get the kinds of improvements I think we would all like to see on palliative care. As a New Democrat, I would like to see that in all aspects of the public health care system.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I do not know if we will agree quite as much on this issue as we did on the Air Canada Participation Act, but I always appreciate his contribution.

The member talked about the issue of autonomy. I would like to raise the issue in the context of the social architecture of choice, the factors that are around individuals that may shape a choice such that the choices they end up making are not the ones they would want to make under ideal circumstances.

Specifically, if we are going to genuinely protect autonomy in this case, I believe we need to have a strong system of palliative care. We need to have an advanced legal review to ensure the criteria are actually met, that a person is not being pushed into this, and someone is checking that the criteria are met. We also need some clarity that prevents people from shopping doctor to doctor with ambiguous criteria where there are vastly different interpretations.

Would the member agree with me that these proposals are not things that limit individual choice, but rather they are things that protect an individual's choice to get what they want and not be forced into something that is not really what they are seeking at the end of the day?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that people who do not have adequate resources can end up making choices they would not otherwise make. That is not a true expression of autonomy, and it is important to provide that. Providing more and better palliative care and other health care options, whether it is home care or long-term care, to people is part of ensuring they are making an actual choice and not feeling forced into that choice.

I would agree that improvements can be made to the bill. For instance, the fact that data collection on assisted deaths is left to regulation is problematic. It is important to try to get a proper reporting of this so we can have a meaningful review of the legislation after some time. There are definitely details in the bill, and I named one, that could be improved at committee.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to talk to this issue. In my 10 years here, this has likely been one of the most sensitive, most compassionate and emotional discussions I have had with my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Let me start with a little background. Bill C-14 is act to amend the Criminal Code to allow assisted dying, so we can allow someone under the law to kill someone else. It sort of catches me in the pit of my stomach, quite honestly. Section 241 of the Criminal Code talks about counselling or aiding suicide. It says:

Everyone who

a. counsels a person to commit suicide, or

b. aids or abets a person to commit suicide,

whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

That is what Canada has been built upon in terms of the desire to not have people help people kill themselves.

In February of last year, the Supreme Court of Canada gave all the exemptions to this Criminal Code. The Criminal Code now gives an exemption for medical assistance in dying, so no medical practitioner or nurse practitioner can be charged. There is an exemption for people aiding the practitioner. If the doctor is doing it, and a nurse practitioner is helping, they are exempt from any charges.

The pharmacist who provides the cocktail, whether injected by the doctor or prepared so the patient injects it on his or her own, is exempt from any criminal charge.

There is an exemption now for a person aiding a patient. No person commits an offence if he or she does anything at another person's explicit request.

The coverall is that if there is a mistake made, no charges can come forward.

I find it quite extraordinary that with the stroke of a pen, nine judges made a decision to take a criminal law in the country and turn it 180 degrees, now make something that was criminal a health remedy. We now have to encourage people to take someone else's life.

I find it quite hypocritical that we are talking about assisted suicide, assisted death at this time. We like to use comforting words so it does not really mean we are actually giving someone the authority to kill someone else, but that is what we are doing. That is what the Supreme Court told us we have to do. At the same time, we have a national strategy on suicide prevention.

I am not sure where the government is on that discussion at this time, but I find the two of them are running in opposite directions. When my colleagues talked about first nations, we have all read about the issues. We are all up in arms and disturbed when we see not only individuals but groups coming together to commit suicide.

One of the key things in any the long term care is palliative care. We have heard this from just about everyone. Many of us have talked about our experiences or someone we know. I can also speak of that.

My parents died of cancer. Anyone who knows someone who has had bone cancer knows of the pain that comes with it. Maybe back then though, when my parents were suffering and succumbed to cancer, there was true palliative care. In their cases it never crossed their minds to ask for some sort of assistance to terminate their lives, let alone ask to have their doctor either provide or give them the solution to take their lives.

We talk a lot about palliative care, where it is and how it will be funded. We have the governing party saying that it is in the budget. The member from Winnipeg said it was in the budget. It has not been produced. We know it is not in the budget. If we read the preamble, we might read between the lines, if one has a visionary mind that there might be money for it. There just is not. It is not in the legislation. It is not in the budget. I am afraid it is a lone wolf out in the desert saying it.

We need to take some lessons from other countries, like Belgium and the Netherlands. Belgium started this 15 years ago. It was very secure so patients did not get on a slippery slope. However, now it is estimated that 32% of those patients never gave their consent for their euthanasia. We are told it now increases by about 47% per year.

As palliative care dollars drop, the desire to have something to take the pain away, which palliative care could look after, goes to assisted suicide.

I have some serious concerns about this. I talked about palliative care. I also do not see where there is any protection for doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners. Nor is there protection for institutions that have a moral conscience, an ethical bar that will not allow them. I have talked to doctors and nurses. A nurse had asked me if this was true. I said we would have to wait for the legislation. She said that if it were true. she would be out of it. She could not kill someone or be part of the euthanization of someone. A doctor who took an oath to protect lives said that he never took any oath to take away life.

Does the government have a vision in the future? This raises a huge issue, because on page 2 of the bill, it says:

...the Government of Canada has committed to develop non-legislative measures that would support the improvement of a full range of options for end-of-life care—

...giving rise to requests by mature minors, advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the sincerity and candour of his remarks in this honourable House.

I would like my colleague to explain, as concisely as possible, what steps he would have taken after reading the Supreme Court ruling to comply with the decision and take action on it.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I apologize that I did not get your question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Perhaps the hon. member would like to repeat the question briefly, and through the Speaker if possible.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and the candour and sincerity with which he has expressed his views. I am simply asking him, upon reading, analyzing, studying, and reflecting on the decision of the Supreme Court, would the member share his views as to what he would have done to comply with that decision and within what time frame?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I did not catch the question the first time.

Clearly the objective in this country should be to encourage life, not to encourage taking life. My point would have been to make a direct commitment to make sure that we have true palliative care in this country.

Second, because of the Supreme Court decision, it needs to be clear that there will never be what is said in this document about returning to discussions on minors and those with mental illness. We need to be as tight and protective of the vulnerable, seniors, and our youth as we can, and to make explicitly sure that those who have a moral and ethical bar are not made in any way to perform a duty in which their oath as a medical practitioner was never allowed to take them until this judgment came down.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. While I do not agree with what he said, I found his presentation to be interesting. We can learn from our differences.

Two things stood out to me in his presentation. First, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court is changing the picture in a way, while that stroke of the pen is the consequence of a changing society, in my opinion. The second thing is this type of dichotomy that he is presenting between palliative care and assisted suicide.

I wonder if we are burying our heads in the sand a bit when we talk about palliative care. I am thinking about my father, who was deeply religious. The day he consciously agreed that my mother would receive morphine to alleviate her suffering, he knew full well that he was shortening her life. That too is medical assistance in dying. In my opinion, it is the very spirit of this bill: to ensure that any suffering that can be alleviated is, even if that has an impact on the length of a person's life.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of times that this debate, or close to this debate, has been on this floor. As recently as 2010, this issue around assisted suicide or assisted dying was turned down, not unanimously, but almost unanimously, in this House.

When I said “by the stroke of a pen”, I actually meant that. It was never a desire of the people in the past Parliament to endeavour to move our medical people to committing suicide acts with patients. It was the stroke of a pen that would change Canada forever, because once someone is euthanized, it is irreversible.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all parliamentarians for having the courage to participate in this sensitive debate.

According to the Supreme Court decision, it is up to the House to debate Bill C-14, which has to do with medical assistance in dying. The Supreme Court has given us the daunting task and the responsibility of establishing a framework for this. We are also having to do some soul searching about the finite nature of our lives and the lives of the people we represent.

It will be difficult and heartbreaking for me to make this decision for others, and it would also be difficult to make this decision for myself or one of my loved ones. I think that, ultimately, the law as a whole will not be perfect. It will only be acceptable, in light of all the changes it will make to the way we see life, for generations to come.

I do not want to dwell on the particularities of this bill, but I simply want to share the thoughts, feelings, and, especially, concerns that I have shared with many of my constituents in Lévis—Lotbinière.

All of us, as Canadian MPs, have the opportunity to have a close relationship with our constituents thanks to the many means of communication available. It is always a great privilege and a sign of undeniable trust to listen to heartfelt confidences.

I observed great resiliency but, at the same time, great concern about the bill. I use the term “resiliency” because, in Quebec, the debate was held over a long period of time and my constituents accepted the voice of the majority of the Quebec National Assembly, even though the decision was not unanimous.

The concern was caused by the version of the bill, which provides a broader interpretation than what Quebeckers had said they wanted. I hope that the final version of the bill will allay these concerns, if not completely eliminate them.

What was surprising was that the discussions I had with my constituents all led to another very important issue, palliative care. Unfortunately, not all Canadians have access to palliative care and that is the problem. Why not focus on life and on living with dignity, as was suggested by Sauveur Champagne, one of my constituents, and on the quality of our lives in our last days? Appropriate care could have prevented this debate.

There is medical comfort care and ethically provided adequate support that, unfortunately, not everyone can access for different reasons. Some people who are optimistic by nature shared with me that the issue of medical assistance in dying made them realize the importance of life and of fully enjoying it with their loved ones and friends. It is human nature to enjoy the best that life has to offer.

I believe that Canadians are aware that life is very fragile and that we all have the opportunity to share love and friendship, to strengthen bonds and to help one another while we can.

We all have to be aware of the need to strike a balance between our personal family time and the time we can generously give to others.

Other people have also talked to me about the collateral damage associated with learning that someone chose to end their life this way. This will leave scars on our society if it is not properly regulated and accepted, given that part of our population does not support this bill, since it goes against their fundamental, cultural, and religious beliefs.

With all due respect, we must consider the views of that segment of the population, which is just as important, because they are also entitled to have a say in this Parliament. Others, on a more personal level, are going through the process of losing of a child or parent right now, and they could, to various degrees, change their views on the act of choosing to end one's life.

That being said, ultimately, the decision to end one's life is up to the individual, based on his or her convictions, beliefs, and physical condition. I hope it remains a personal choice that is respected by all family, friends, and loved ones, a choice that is not influenced by any external pressures.

The question we need to ask is this: how can we be sure that this will not get out of control? It will be difficult to include safeguards in the law that will cover all of the very different individual cases. That is why many of us already feel as though this law will not be perfect; it will merely be acceptable. As medical advances allow people to live longer, what will be the appropriate degree of dignity, for those who have to decide?

For those who want to enjoy more precious moments, this may represent a tremendous opportunity to prolong their lives. For the others, the door will now be open to allow them to make a new choice, which also seems to bring hope to those who no longer want to count the days.

Personally, I have would have liked to wait and do what Quebec did, to take five years to assess the impact of this type of end-of-life option. Taking that amount of time to conduct a comprehensive study would help us, as legislators, make a more informed decision. I think that would be the wise thing to do in order to make the right choices for the safety of Canadians and future generations. However, that is not going to happen, since we are obligated to make such a quick decision. In my opinion, there will always be some doubt since the law will be merely acceptable. Time will tell whether this change in direction was a good one. May God help us.

Every parliamentarian here in the House and in the Senate will make a significant contribution to this debate. We must all bring a rational and moral tenor to this debate as we align it with Canadian values and thinking in a way that respects all of our Canadian communities.

After this debate, we will all be aware that, for better or worse, the Canada we knew will no longer be the same. We will live with this new law. We have to ensure that it will be interpreted in accordance with our guidelines.

In closing, the best way for people to figure out where they stand on this issue is for all Canadians to experience the end of life alongside someone who is dying. That is the only way to understand the full import and humanity of imminent death.

That would also provide an opportunity to appreciate and cherish the dying person and every second of the gift of life, to learn from that person's wisdom and the rich experiences that deeply moved and changed him or her throughout life, because it is human nature to seek constant improvement and to leave a legacy to our children, our loved ones, our closest friends. Personally, that experience—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his heartfelt comments. The common thread was individual autonomy. I deeply appreciate his comments.

More than 25 years ago, I had the honour of working with a justice of the Supreme Court.

His predecessor suggested that the decision to change Canada's position based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the stroke of a pen was not legitimate.

Does the member share his hon. colleague's opinion?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I will talk about my experience and my speech. I will take this opportunity to finish the last 20 seconds of my speech.

This experience completely changed my perception, and I can say that letting go of one of my loved ones took love and understanding. Faced with the inevitable, we find the strength we need to accept it, to make our peace with it, and to find the right words to say goodbye in our own way with the respect and love that every one of us deserves. May God be with us.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He mentioned that he would have preferred to wait five years, in order to watch and see what happens in Quebec. It is true that in Quebec, we have paved the way on this issue. I am very proud of that, as I myself am part of the Jonquière riding in Quebec City.

Although it is late, perhaps there are people watching us this evening who are suffering and family members who are helping them. Those people cannot wait five years. Those people are suffering.

What are my colleague's thoughts on leaving those people to suffer unbearably, without making any rules with a bill like the one before us here this evening?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In our country, Canada, if the entire population had access to quality palliative care, we might not need to have this kind of debate here this evening. Quebec has already begun the process. Our country could have taken the time to assess Quebec's experience after five years. We, as legislators, could have drawn more informed conclusions after looking at the Quebec experience within Canada. Personally, I would have liked the opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, this debate is being rushed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about palliative care. I will have a chance to address the House in a few moments, and I will really be emphasizing that option.

How does my colleague think that government investments or support might be provided to improve palliative care facilities and put more of these facilities in place all over Canada?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I lost my father, who did not have the opportunity to have palliative care. Watching a loved one leave his family in small room at the end of a hallway with a badly painted chair that had probably been there for 45 years without any comfort for the family was sad beyond words.

It would be fair and equitable for all Canadians and their families to have the right to proper support and a certain degree of dignity in the final days and hours of their lives.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just before I begin my speech, I would like to say to the people of Fort McMurray tonight that my heart and thoughts go to them. They are fleeing their community tonight. Eighty thousand people have to evacuate. They are fighting for their lives tonight. We are thinking of them.

I rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). The issue of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been debated in Canada for a number of years. However, a resolution for this sensitive issue became critical since the decision of Carter v. Canada, which unanimously struck down the Criminal Code ban on assisted dying, and gave Parliament a year to come up with new legislation.

This legislation must apply to competent adults with grievous and irreversible medical conditions that cause enduring suffering and who clearly consent to ending their lives. Bill C-14 seeks to fulfill section 7 of the charter, namely the right to life, liberty, and security. The bill proposes a wide and detailed range of legislated objectives, legal notions, patient eligibility criteria, exemptions from the criminal liability, and safeguards. However, as experience shows, the question of life and death is very vague. An absolute prohibition of assisted dying forces Canadians who have grievous and irreversible medical conditions to suffer and look for medical assistance abroad to end their lives.

There have been two cases in Canada: Rodriguez, and Carter v. Canada. As well, there have been approximately six private member's bills between 1991 and 2010 that sought to decriminalize assisted suicide. None of these were successful. In Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court stated:

While opponents to legalization emphasized the inadequacy of safeguards and the potential to devalue human life, a vocal minority spoke in favour of reform, highlighting the importance of dignity and autonomy and the limits of palliative care in addressing suffering. The Senate considered the matter as well, issuing a report on assisted suicide and euthanasia in 1995. The majority expressed concerns about the risk of abuse under a permissive regime and the need for respect for life. A minority supported an exemption to the prohibition in some circumstances.

It is evident by the quote that physician-assisted dying is highly divisive; people are separated across this country. Bill C-14 is a very difficult bill for me personally to wrap my mind around. I feel, like many Canadians, that we are put here on earth for a reason. The reason could be debated for days, but like all living things we strive to live by adapting to our environment. From bugs to humans, we adapt to survive, to live. All creatures eventually die—some as prey to others, some to the environment, some to the weather, some to sickness, and some to age. Most will fight for life if threatened. As humans, it is our nature to fight to live.

Our nation has experienced two world wars where our veterans fought to give us freedom and better lives. How many of them would have laid down their lives if they had known that later people would be able to take their own lives as outlined in this Bill C-14. A number of World War II veterans have told me that this is wrong. Is it wrong? This is where I personally have difficulty in finding an answer to this extremely moral question. I am honestly confused and my emotions are mixed. Allow me to explain.

Both of my parents died of cancer, as did both of my in-laws. I watched my father's weight decline from 190 pounds to 75 pounds when he passed. He suffered immensely, as did my mother and my in-laws, but they fought for life until the bitter end. It hurt me to watch them go that way, but they made me realize the need to fight for life. That is what I first thought: never give up the fight until the end.

Fifteen years ago, I lost my life partner of 30 years to cancer. I hate the word “cancer“. My wife, like myself, believed in fighting to the bitter end. I watched my wife battle cancer for two years. If any treatment, from radiation to chemotherapy, could go wrong, it did with her, compounding the pain and agony she suffered. I watched and assisted her as her body weakened and she lost control over its functions.

I was with her when she took her last breath. I am a strong person emotionally, but by the end, I was emotionally broken as I watched her suffer so much. I wanted to end her suffering. She was hanging on to life day after day after day, and I asked, why the suffering?

We had agreed to fight as a couple only filling out a do-not-resuscitate order. At the end, I would have done anything to put her out of her suffering and pain. Morphine finally did the same. Now I ask myself if Bill C-14 is wrong or right. During my wife's last week of living, I would have welcomed the bill to stop her pain and suffering. That was 15 years ago. I still hurt when I think of my wife suffering, yet I am so proud of her fight to live. That fight gave us an extra year together, which I am so grateful for. Do I vote yes for Bill C-14, or do I vote no? I am so personally torn on this issue.

I respect the rights of individuals and the rights that Bill C-14 may give them, but my heart says we have to fight for life. I am glad that this is a free vote. I have weighed the pros and cons and it is a difficult decision, but I cannot support this bill. There are too many grey areas. Betty Unger, an Alberta senator, said, “There is something terribly wrong when a government does more to guarantee that the living can die, than to ensure that the dying can live”.

That being said, I believe the government must emphasize palliative care over physician-assisted dying. I praise those who have chosen to work in the environment and I understand that we have much to do to make palliative care better. Because of lack of staff, families often provide the primary care.

Physician-assisted dying is a difficult issue for me and it is for many sitting in the House. If Bill C-14 is passed, I ask that it include stringent safeguards to protect vulnerable populations and protect the conscience rights of workers in institutions in the health care sector. Members on all sides of the House have a variety of positions on physician-assisted dying. I appreciate our party's recognition that this is a moral issue and allowing members a free vote on this very difficult matter of conscience.

I thank all the presenters on Bill C-14 for helping me decide to say no.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a passionate and very personal and deeply touching speech.

The member referenced respect for individual rights and mentioned the importance of fighting for life until the very end. Why can we not respect the individual rights of those who want to fight to the very end, but also respect the individual rights of those who wish to end their lives in a dignified fashion?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question comes right back to where one takes the stand. I take the stand that we fight for life. As I said earlier, I respect individuals' decisions, but I believe that we were put on this earth as creatures to fight for life and to live. That is my stand.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very heartfelt speech.

He pointed out to me and reinforced something that I learned as well as I watched my parents and my brother die, that in that process of dying, some shorter than others, those deaths, that process taught me so much about what it is to be human, not only in watching them fight for life, as my colleague said, but in helping me have a better understanding of suffering.

My colleague mentioned palliative care. Earlier today we talked about the fact that the previous government did nothing on the aspect of moving ahead to deal with the Supreme Court decision, but I want to point out again to all parliamentarians and Canadians that indeed, the external panel did an excellent job of their report. Unfortunately, the Liberal government chose not to allow any recommendations from the panel.

One of the factors that is highlighted in the report is the extreme lack of palliative care options in Canada. The report pointed out that only 51 palliative care specialists currently exist in Canada out of a total of 77,000 physicians.

I want to ask my colleague for his position on the need for better palliative care options, not only in terms of more physicians and palliative care workers being trained, but also in terms of actually constructing some hospices across Canada that would provide a dignified place for people to be cared for in a loving way.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very sad when we look at that report. Besides the 77,000 physicians he talked about, I believe there are only about 123 other general practitioners across Canada who specialize in palliative care. That is less than 200 across the country out of 77,000 doctors. That is unacceptable.

That is why we need a national palliative care strategy. We need specialized funding to deal with palliative care, to help train more physicians, more medical professionals to deal with people in a palliative situation.

We need to look at hospices. We need to spend money. We talk about infrastructure. Let us take that money and build facilities that house the dying. Let us look after the dying and let them die with dignity and respect.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his sincerity.

I would like to know whether, after reading the Supreme Court decision, my colleague would have recommended invoking the notwithstanding clause and overriding the Supreme Court's decision.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that did not come through on my earpiece. I did not hear what the hon. member said.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I am simply asking my learned colleague if he would have raised the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian charter in response to the decision of the Supreme Court.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in this particular case I would have. No.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in this House to speak to Bill C-14 and to the issue of medically assisted dying.

This is a complex issue for which there are strong opinions on both sides. Some of my comments may be new to this debate and some will echo those of others before me. However, they are all the voice of my constituents in Calgary Confederation.

As my constituent Brenda Robinson said to me in a letter, “There is no doubt that we are in a defining moment for our nation on this important issue. So many lives hang in the balance of how our leaders craft this legislation.”

As I said, there are many sides to this complex issue. The people watching this debate the last couple of days, those people in the galleries, or those watching CPAC on their computers are able to pick and choose the parts of this legislation that they do and do not like, but I and all of us in the House only have the option of a yea or a nay when it comes to a vote. We know that the legislation will pass. It has to pass because the court has said so.

Members may or may not know that I am a big proponent of palliative care. My constituency assistant Lou Winthers in Calgary was the founder and executive director of Hospice Calgary. My late father-in-law was the executive chef at the Rosedale Hospice in Calgary. He spent much of his long life career as an executive chef in many hotels throughout the country. He spent his final years cooking for the dying in the hospice in Calgary.

For many years, my family has volunteered with Hospice Calgary. Never would I have ever thought that I would be fighting for a bed for my wife one day. I saw then first-hand how critical it is that we have a good palliative care system here in Canada.

Through my experience with Hospice Calgary, I also saw first-hand how horribly underfunded this specialized care is within our current health care system. We need to improve palliative care both for the patients and their families. I cannot thank the staff enough at Agapé Hospice for the support they gave me and my family only a few years ago. I only wish that all Canadians had the access and support they need to get palliative care during one of the toughest times in one's life. We need to do better, and we can do better, but we have a long way to go.

I have received more correspondence on this issue than any other issue since being elected or during my 10 years as an MLA in Alberta. Normally, we see letters either urging an MP to support or oppose legislation. However, the inevitability of this legislation has resulted in a different kind of response. My constituents are writing to suggest how things can be improved and to express concerns with respect to very specific parts. This has made for some very emotional and thoughtful reading.

Ken, a constituent in my riding, wrote to me saying, “Even though I am personally against all euthanasia on personal, moral, and faith grounds, I concede we will probably have to have a law that allows it in extreme circumstances. But many of the current recommendations go far beyond, and in effect could allow this to become an “on-demand service” that leaves many of the most vulnerable unprotected.” Ken's letter is one of many that raise concern for our most vulnerable.

Connie C., another constituent who wrote to me, is passionately against any form of suicide. She said, “My father's death was a gradual decline that spanned a four month period, it was a difficult time for him and for the family. However, we shared some very meaningful time together during those four months and I have a new appreciation for the death process. It was painful and difficult for him, unfortunately struggle is part of the human experience.... Suicide cuts short the human experience and no physician should be asked to end a human life.” That is what Connie had to say.

On the other side of the issue, there are those who wish to have access to these medically assisted options.

Valerie wrote to me and said, “My father and others in my family have had dementia and I saw how they forgot to bathe and brush their teeth and refused to let others take care of them. My father lived his last 6 months in a nursing bed doing nothing but lay in bed. If I get dementia I know I do not want to live like that. If I do not have the option of physician assisted dying then I will opt to find a way to end my life while I am still able to make this decision. I beg you to please allow me a better option should I get dementia.”

Debra Lee wrote to me, and she wrote to the Minister of Justice as well, with a perspective that few have. She worked for over 40 years as a registered nurse. She said, “I saw my share of people die, many of them with good management of their symptoms but some who did suffer a great deal–from physical as well as emotional pain. Some people received intrusive treatments which had no hope of curing them or even easing their suffering. But for too long in my career, I observed a death denying culture–everyone from health providers, family members and individuals themselves having difficulty accepting death.”

As I stated earlier, this issue is complex.

Another constituent, Catherine G., focused on some of the specific parts of the proposed legislation that she felt needs to be improved. She expressed concerns that there is not enough protection for the vulnerable. She said, “I believe that physician assisted death will leave many elderly people open to the worse form of abuse. They may feel pressured to accept it since they feel themselves to be a burden to their loved ones. We must care for the sick and elderly; doctors must never kill.”

Many expressed concern for the most vulnerable in society, but some also wrote about their own vulnerability.

Tracey wrote, “Today my mother is slowly starving to death in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's. Since my grandmother also had it, there is a good chance I will as well. Without assisted suicide I will be forced to commit suicide as soon as I am diagnosed because I won't allow my children to go through what I have, nor do I wish to suffer as my mother has.”

Doug James, another constituent of mine, echoed my sentiments exactly when he said, “I suggest that we are better off having what some will call incomplete legislation, rather than no legislation at all, and trust that future legislation can be passed to address any deficiencies.”

It is for this reason alone that I will be supporting the bill. It is not about a vote of approval for the bill or the circumstances that brought it about. Rather, it is a vote that recognizes that when it comes to something as personal and sensitive as death, it is better to have options available, even if we do not like them, even if we do not believe in them. It is better to have some legal framework than none at all.

My decision will undoubtedly be welcomed by some and loathed by others, but I am confident that my constituents will look at my past, my experiences, and respect that in the absence of an overwhelming and clear direction from my constituents, I am voting for choice.

In closing, I want to also echo a deep concern expressed by David MacPhail, who wrote to me and said, “There should be clear conscience protections for health care workers and facilities in the legislation.... It is not right that people should be forced to participate against their deeply held convictions, either through referral or by doing the procedure. ... It is not necessary to make dedicated physicians and healthcare workers put their careers on the line and open themselves to professional disciplinary action simply because they wish to follow their conscience.”

Finally, I want to reiterate my main concern with the dying process, and that is palliative care. I challenge all in this House to approach this issue with as much energy, urgency, and focus as we have seen on this bill.

I believe that when we all focus on a shared goal, we can achieve remarkable improvements in a very timely fashion. Let us hope that we see the same prioritization when it comes to addressing palliative care.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to this speech.

I hope that, once this debate is over, we will remember how much we have in common in our humanity, something that we all too often forget in the political arena.

The member who just spoke will find that my support for palliative care is unconditional. I have a question for him. I am asking myself that question at the same time because in many of the speeches that we heard today, including my own, members have been talking about their own personal experiences with death.

I think that the bill before us today requires us to look at things from a different perspective and to put ourselves in the shoes of the person who is dying.

Just before my mother died, she was taking such high doses of morphine that she was almost completely unaware of what was happening around her, but those drugs prevented her from suffering. I am trying to put myself in her shoes and think about whether she would have liked to leave when she was conscious, surrounded by her loved ones, knowing that medical assistance in dying was available to her.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, through my experience and through my family's experience, it was very much a relief when my wife finally passed, because of the pain and suffering she went through. I cannot talk much about my experience because I will end up in tears here, and I said to myself that I would not do that.

We have all sat back over these last months and thought about the loved ones we have lost. I know all of us have a very difficult decision here, and I respect everyone's decision. This just happens to be where I stand on it, and that is how I am going to vote.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is more of a comment than anything else.

I want to thank our hon. colleague from Calgary Confederation for stepping forward today and sharing with us in this discussion. The emotions are obviously very raw, and I want to thank our hon. colleague for his comments tonight.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his kind comments.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks, and I want to ask the hon. member about the issue of advance review.

There are some attempts at safeguards in this legislation, but without any kind of legal process, any kind of review involving anyone with legal authority beforehand, there is no clear way of ensuring that the criteria will be followed. This is a big concern of mine.

I wonder if the member would agree that a simple change to this legislation that would institute some system of advance legal review, maybe replacing the role of one of the witnesses with someone with competent legal authority to make that assessment, maybe requiring a judicial hearing, would be an important substantive improvement to this legislation and go a long way to protecting vulnerable people.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that there is a lot of work with this legislation. It is just a matter of time before it ends up in the courts again, with particular people demanding certain changes to this legislation. It is going to take time. There is no doubt in my mind that the Supreme Court will have future decisions to make in this area.

Right now we have been told by the Supreme Court, by the Carter decision, that we must move ahead with this legislation. That is what we are doing.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it might be safe to say that this is the most important issue that will be debated in this 42nd Parliament. We are proposing a change in how we provide end-of-life care for Canadians, but it goes beyond that.

If the bill passes, we will give new authority to agents of state to take someone's life away. That is a sobering responsibility, one that I hope none of us is taking lightly. What is proposed is a fundamental shift in Canadian society and how we see ourselves as humans. After only a few hours of debate, we will be asked to change the viewpoint of centuries. We will be asking doctors, who have sworn an oath to not play God, to instead do just that and be the agents of death for some patients.

We are doing this without consultation, without asking doctors, nurses, and pharmacists if they want that responsibility. This is not what they were trained to do. This may not be what they want to do, but Parliament is planning on telling them to do it.

The haste with which we are being asked to overturn centuries of thought and practice is unseemly. I understand the Supreme Court, in setting this deadline, is only doing what it perceives as being proper. I am sure the justices of the courts are well-meaning men and women, generally concerned with the plight of those who are terminally ill, in pain, and who wish to end their lives but are physically unable to do so.

I am sure that I am not alone in receiving calls, letters, emails, and submissions from people opposed to this legislation. Many have come from those who take a religious approach to this issue. From what I can see, people of faith, Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, are united in their belief in the sacredness of life, and feel that in endorsing so-called assisted dying, the state is intruding into areas that should be beyond its jurisdiction.

It seems to me that we, as a nation, should be having a full and lengthy debate on how we approach life and quality of life, a debate perhaps done under more objective circumstances than when a loved one is suffering from an incurable illness. We are being asked to make profoundly disturbing choices and ordered to do it now. It does not take much talent to predict that in the aftermath of this legislation there will be confusion.

However, if killing patients becomes an option, for whatever supposedly good reason, how long will it be before that reason becomes more flexible than rigid? What about those with no family who are a drain on hospital resources? Would it not be in the financial best interests of society to end their lives?

How are we going to prevent families from pressuring their aged ones, urging them to request death so that the next generation of the family will be financially better off? There are so many issues that are still unresolved. We are acting in haste, and it seems to be almost guaranteed that we will get it wrong.

This brings me to this hastily drafted piece of legislation that we are considering tonight. Apparently the government has decided that the idea of assisted suicide is not itself worthy of debate. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that despite the objections of people of faith and many other Canadians, medically assisted dying is a done deal. Laying aside any debate on the merits or lack thereof on the concept of assisted dying, we need to examine this bill and deal with its flaws.

I am extremely concerned about the safeguards, or perhaps I should say the lack of safeguards, that this legislation provides for those who, in good conscience, do not wish to take part in aiding someone's death. Simply put, the bill does not go far enough in protecting those people.

What happens when a physician, in good conscience, declines to end someone's life? We do not know. We are told that there will be protection of conscience rights, but that is not spelled out in the legislation. Apparently, that will be left for the provinces to figure out, or for someone else to make the rules, and who, we are not told.

If I were a physician, I would be feeling very uneasy right now. The legislation spells out how doctors would not be subject to prosecution for ending someone's life if they requested aid in dying. What would happen to health care professionals who decline to end a life? What penalties would the state impose on them if they wish to abide by their conscience, or would the state not allow them to follow the dictates of conscience and insist they become killers?

Supporters of the legislation, I am sure, will tell us that, of course, no one would be forced to perform actions they consider to be unethical. If so, where is that in the legislation? Health care professionals cannot be faulted for being uneasy when they are told, “Trust us”.

We might not be discussing this issue if we were doing a better job as a nation in assisting those approaching the end of their natural life. Where is the commitment of the government to increase funding for palliative care, which was an election promise unfulfilled in budget 2016?

Three billion dollars was promised for long-term and palliative care, but nothing was delivered. Should we not, as a nation, be considering how to improve the quality of life for those facing serious illness, or is it just cheaper to encourage them to end their own lives to save money for the health care system? Access to proper palliative care would be an essential part of end-of-life decision-making and, in many cases, would encourage people not to take their own lives.

When we are talking about conscience in these matters, the concept goes beyond the rights of individuals. It also strikes deep at the nature of our health care system. Has the government given any consideration to the fact that many of the hospitals in our country were founded by religious organizations and are still run by them, groups whose members would not look favourably on the idea of being ordered by government to assist in providing services to which they are philosophically opposed? Is that something, again, to be left for the provinces to work out?

Is it the government's intention to require hospitals run by Roman Catholics or the Salvation Army to administer procedures that run counter to their deeply held beliefs? What right is more important, and how does the government choose? What sort of coercion would be applied to force individuals and organizations to abandon deeply held beliefs?

The legislation before us is deeply flawed. It should not be supported unless it is greatly improved, especially in providing protection for freedom of conscience for both individuals and institutions in the health care system.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I will be brief. In his speech, my colleague mentioned that there was not enough time to make a decision and that we do not have enough time to study the bill. I would like to remind him that when they were in power, the Conservatives did nothing for months after the Supreme Court decision was handed down. As a result of their inaction, we did not have time to hold consultations, carry out studies or just simply debate the issue in the House.

I believe that now is the time to do this because there are only so many days left. I keep thinking about the people who are suffering and who do not have the means to alleviate their suffering, and I am also thinking about the families.

Therefore, I believe that it is important to pass this bill at second reading so we can amend it and create a good, well-structured bill, that will protect both the people who are suffering and those who are most vulnerable.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, basically, what we have seen here is that the previous government did not have enough time. That is why it was left for more time, for more consultation, for getting better opinions, for getting Canadians on board, for getting professionals on board, so we could get the best legislation.

This is something that comes once in a century, and we must be very careful in providing the best law, that if we are going to have a law in place not to have a six-month window. We are confident that, if the government wanted to ask the court for an extension of time, it could get it. Why force it? What is the rush? We should study it well, and we should come up with the best legislation we can.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for an excellent speech and for his excellent work. He is my neighbour in the Edmonton area, and I sometimes feel he knows more people in my riding than I do.

I want to ask about a specific case that builds on some of the comments he made. Dr. Nancy Naylor is a case I have mentioned before. She is a family and palliative care physician in Ontario who has said that she is leaving the profession because of the absence of conscience protection in the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons' policy and in this legislation.

This is a huge issue of access for her patients, for the people in her community. Why would we push people out of this profession who are currently providing compassionate, loving, and necessary palliative care when we already have a shortage? Why would we push people out of it who want to provide care? Let those who want to provide euthanasia provide it, but let us protect those who want to provide palliative care and allow them to remain in the profession so they do not have their conscience infringed and they are not forced to leave.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks my mind basically, because really, I do care and worry about the professionals out there, the physicians who spend their lives studying and going to school, who will be forced to do something they do not want to do. It is as if someone is giving them a gun and saying “shoot me”. Then they have to commit a crime just because they were told to do so. That is not what we want here. We want legislation next to perfect. Hopefully we can get that if we have more consultation and give it more time.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my colleague. First, he said if he were a doctor he would be worried because they are going to be forced to do something. I would ask him to point to the passage in the legislation that forces doctors to do anything. There is absolutely nothing there in that regard.

I would also refer him to the position of the Canadian Medical Association, which has been strongly supportive of the legislation.

However, I want to come back to the issue of not enough debate. The decision was on February 6, 2015. We brought forward a motion on February 24. The government defeated it. That motion would have had the committee's work done by July. Between the day of the decision on February 6 and the election, the previous Conservative government did nothing. How can Conservatives now say we do not have enough time?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, the bill is not clear. There are a lot of vagaries. I am not going to represent myself as a member of Parliament and say someone told me so, or the Medical Association told us so. This is not the way we legislate. This is not the way we think.

We need more time. We need to absorb. We need to understand because our conscience has to play in making this decision, and we must do that carefully and thoughtfully.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me start tonight by thanking my constituents who have written to me on this issue. It is approaching 12 years that I have been a member of Parliament in this place and, unlike some other members, there are issues on which I have received more correspondence. However, I have received a fair bit of input from my constituents and, not surprisingly, it varies. I want to express my appreciation because the democratic process only works when everyone is engaged, when citizens speak what they feel are the fundamental principles involved.

I also want to give a special shout to one of the high school classes at Bishop James Mahoney High School, which I was at last week. We discussed these very profound issues. The young people in a grade 11 class had thought about it deeply. They had read the legislation. They had gone through it, unfortunately I might say, more thoroughly than some of the parliamentarians who may be voting on this in the future. The students had come to some very clear conclusions and understandings about what this is, because however a member will vote on what we are speaking on tonight, this is a moral issue for however we deal it. Not that most, if not all, issues do not have a moral component, but this one in particular is fairly clear.

As has been said by other members, this is also a fairly personal thing. Each and every one of us will have to deal with death at one time in our lives.

I was on the phone earlier today with my mother, and she reminded me that it was exactly a year ago today when she called me and said to go down to the nursing home because my grandma was passing away. She did not pass away that day, but she knew she was dying. I held her. It was one of those times when we begin to think about the consequences.

There had been the previous court ruling. One has responsibilities to family, to country, to everything. As a member of Parliament, I feel that all members of Parliament, even those who cannot speak to this debate, have a duty to tell their constituents how they stand.

The first point I wish to make tonight is one that people need to understand. The law is a blunt instrument. The law is not something that can easily distinguish fine and distinguishable cases. The law is something that is very difficult to implement in very specific situations. In a situation like this where we are dealing with a law that involves the protection of life, we must give the absolute greatest caution and protections to life.

Pollsters ask questions. They ask people how they would vote in this situation or that situation. However, to be perfectly blunt, no pollster can encapsulate the complexity of even one unique situation. Yet we as legislators are asked to make a decision, to come to some sort of conclusion. That is part of our job.

Because the law is such a blunt instrument, because the law cannot distinguish in the most subtle cases, and because human beings are valuable, we must give whatever protections we can to life. It is for that reason that, whatever the restrictions that have been suggested by other members tonight, I will be supporting that. I suspect that I will be in the minority in this House in that I will not be supporting the legislation, because I do not support the underlying principle of the legislation. I suspect that I will be in an even smaller minority in that I would be prepared to support the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court's decision.

However, it comes down to that basic and fundamental understanding that the purpose of civil society and the purpose of government is to protect life—life, liberty, and the protection of property. Those are the things that we are to do.

Yesterday, I was at an event where we had a speaker talking about freedom and about the issues involved. He noted that throughout history there have been different forms of government, but mostly they have come down to three basic styles: familial, clan-style government like there are in many African tribal societies and like the clan system of northern Scotland; a hierarchical system, such as dictatorships and the system in the Middle Ages when they had the emperor, the king, the surfs, etc.; or a covenantal system where each and every member of society agrees, sometimes to some degree compelled by law but often through their own decision, to their own actions and their commitment to morality, to be covenanted to be part of and supportive of their neighbour.

That is one thing we need to understand. The basis of constitutional government is a system where we covenant to each other, to support each other, and not because we are forced to through a hierarchical power structure. Yes, there are police, laws, and ways of dealing with wrongdoers. However, each and every one of us has a particular commitment to our fellow citizens throughout our lives, even until the end of our lives. That needs to be thought about in each and every situation as we debate this legislation. That commitment to each other, at the bare minimum, is a commitment to defend the lives of our fellow citizens and fellow human beings.

Earlier last month, in the popular press, there were stories about some doctors in Quebec. I hope this is a mistaken story as these things are often exaggerated, but the story was told that some doctors had refused to treat people who had attempted suicide, even though they were very treatable. The college of physicians and surgeons in Quebec had to set a guideline to say that if people go into the hospital, doctors must treat them and not just assume that because they have attempted suicide, they have given an indication that they want to die. If the people are not covered under either the Quebec law or the Supreme Court ruling, they must be treated. Doctors have a responsibility, a covenant, to protect the life of a human being and that is the job of a doctor in an emergency ward.

When I read that article, I thought to myself that we need to understand that this is one of the consequences of passing this legislation. There are people, regardless of how many protections there are, whose lives will be taken because of this legislation. Again, I hope the story in Quebec was incorrect, but if it was true, there were people who attempted suicide, cried out for help, and unfortunately, were successful, but whose lives could have been saved.

Because of this debate politically, because of the ruling of the Supreme Court, and because of previous legislation by one of the provinces, there is a very real possibility some doctors did not interfere. When we hear about and discuss the suffering that people are concerned about—and in many cases, it is the fear as much as the suffering that people want to end as they come to the end of their lives—we need to understand that each and every one of us, even as we approach the end of our lives, still has that covenant with our fellow man. The question of how much suffering for one human life is one that we are very practically applying today in this legislation.

We need to understand that and ask ourselves how much suffering and fear we want to deal with and how much we want people to take in exchange for a human life. We make those decisions. We have to in society. It is not a morbid question; it is a realistic question. We set speed limits. We do these things. We know there are consequences to actions. We cannot live in a perpetual bubble.

The point I am making is this. Even at the end of life, if one has fear or pain—and I do not doubt the sincerity, the depth, and the agony of people who go through this—the decisions people make as they approach the end of their lives will impact others. There will be others who, because of the changes in this law and the reasons that are given for the law, will be pressured and will lose their protections such as in the cases I referred to in the province of Quebec. That is something we cannot forget. The ultimate duty of civil society and of government is to protect life. We must do it at all costs.

I again want to thank my constituents and my fellow members of Parliament, but to have a clear conscience, I must vote against this legislation. I can do no other.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very thoughtful speech. Obviously we have come down on different sides of this issue, but certainly what he put into that speech is something that was clearly thought out and very well delivered and expressed.

The member talked so passionately about the sanctity of life. If others in this chamber come down on this issue at this time in the same manner as the hon. member, we will be left on June 6 without any criminal law with respect to medical assistance in dying, and the safeguards that are built into Bill C-14 will not become the law of the land. There will not be a requirement for two doctors to pass opinion on a patient. There will not be a requirement for two independent witnesses. There will not be a requirement for a signed request.

We are in a situation in this Parliament where the question before us is not whether, it is how, and the how that has been put forward is one that contains these safeguards that will be lost if this legislation is not advanced to committee.

Given the member's deep-felt thoughts on the sanctity of life, could he respond to the ramifications that arise out of a defeat of this legislation on June 6?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. I understand very much where he is coming from, and I suspect that is one of the reasons why he will carry the majority opinion of the House.

As I stated earlier, and again I have no doubt that I am in the minority, my underlying preference would have been an absolute rejection and use of the notwithstanding clause, either as a temporary measure to give this House two or three years, whatever time the House deemed appropriate, to deal with this issue, or as a permanent matter.

I would say to the hon. member, there are applications for extension. I realize the Supreme Court would not look all that favourably on it, but it would be necessary. A temporary piece of legislation to say for one or two years the notwithstanding clause would be put in and then other legislation put through later in this Parliament would be another option. Those are various options that I think the House could look at.

Again, I am realistic enough to understand and suspect my opinion is in the minority.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the timeline we have is to a substantial extent manufactured by the government. The Liberals removed the direction to the expert panel to provide legislative recommendations, which would have sped up the process. They had an opportunity, as soon as the special joint committee reported, to bring forward legislation. They delayed and delayed, and now they want us to be concerned about the timeline.

They should propose a better piece of legislation. They should fix the problem and then we can work together to get it passed quickly, but there are no clear criteria. It uses phrases like “reasonably foreseeable”, which are neither medical nor legal terminology. This legislation provides no clear criteria. If it does not do the job that the court asks us to do, which is to create a system of robust safeguards, then what is the point of passing the bill? What is the value of passing a bill that does not actually, in any substantial way, improve on the absence of the bill.

Let us reject the bill and give the government a chance to try again.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, and since it was really more of a comment than a question, I will say I very much understand where he comes from and we have very similar views on this issue. Since this is my last time to raise a comment, I just want to make one last comment before debate resumes.

I did not mention my support for conscience rights, and I want to add one small thing to that. We often speak about conscience rights as if they are conscience rights based upon religion. Conscience rights should be for everyone. It does not matter what our background or what our basis is, atheist, religious, irreligious, whatever it is and for whatever reason.

For the trauma that a person could feel if he or she helped to assist someone else to die, for just that personal reason, even if one supports the principle of the legislation, there should be no restriction on this conscience legislation, whatever we put with the bill.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that rather than giving my rationale and telling people how I will vote at the end, I would do the opposite.

I want to say, first of all, that I will be voting yes at second reading to this bill, so that it can be sent to committee where it can be discussed in principle, and perhaps be amended to make it better than it currently is.

At third reading, I will be guided in my voting by the instructions of my constituents. I am mailing out what I call a constituency referendum. It is effectively a survey designed to ask them in as impartial a way as possible how they would have their member of Parliament vote. The reason I am doing this is that I believe, when it comes to a profound issue of conscience like this, the consciences of my constituents are every bit as good as my own conscience, that of the other members of Parliament, or the people on the Supreme Court of Canada. They will guide me at third reading.

My comments today are, therefore, about the underlying issue that I think is at stake here as we, meaning Parliament, the courts, the policy-makers here in Canada and frankly in every country in the world, must face as we deal with the realities of life and death at this particular moment in time.

Right now, and this is not something that has always been true in our history, life is expensive, maintaining life is expensive, and death is cheap. This is something that has not been true throughout our history.

Anybody who reads the novels of the Brontë sisters is aware of the fact that in the mid-19th century, and in every century before that, life was relatively inexpensive to maintain, in part because the ability of medical technology to keep people alive was so limited. The doctor would arrive, perhaps bleed someone if they had a simple fever, and then, at least this is how it happens in the novels, advise the relatives to prepare themselves. The financial difference between life and death was very limited.

That is no longer true. I want to make this point in the context of a health issue that has nothing to do with euthanasia or the assisted suicide or assisted dying debate, but it really illustrates just how expensive life is in a world of improved technology and pharmaceuticals.

This month, May is cystic fibrosis month. I know somebody who has cystic fibrosis, and I have become very passionately involved in this. Every year, I encourage members of Parliament to wear a rose, and we will all be doing this next Wednesday, in honour of those who have cystic fibrosis. I wear the cystic fibrosis pin today.

Now there was a drug introduced in 2012, called ivacaftor, trade name Kalydeco, which, for the 4% to 5% of cystic fibrosis patients who have the delta-F508 mutation of the gene with the CFTR protein, for that small segment of cystic fibrosis sufferers, this drug effectively turns what would otherwise be a terminal disease into a manageable illness that is problematic but not fatal.

It is available at a very high cost to them, their families, or the public health care system, depending on where the patient lives. The cost to get access to Kalydeco is approximately $300,000 American per year. The patents on drugs are typically about 20 years long. Presumably at the end of that 20-year period, the cost will drop dramatically, but right now it is $300,000 per year. Members can do the math, $300,000 times 20 means that it is $6 million to keep one individual alive.

It is well worthwhile, but the fact is that life is expensive, whereas denying them this care, and some provinces do not give public funding for the drug, is cheap. That costs very little. I do not mean to suggest that the drug company is charging unreasonably, or any of these other subsidiary questions. It cost $458 million for Vertex, the company that developed this drug, to bring it to market. My observation is simply that life is very expensive and maintaining life is expensive. Death is cheap.

Now, turning to palliative care, of course it costs a great deal less than this to keep people alive on palliative care at the end of their lives. However, the fact is that denying care is less expensive. This is exclusive of the Supreme Court ruling. It is exclusive of whatever is in Bill C-14 or should, or should not, be in Bill C-14. This creates a dynamic in which there is a strong financial incentive for policy-makers to promote the less expensive option, as there is in everything.

In this case, it means that the incentive to do what is necessary to allow the life option as opposed to the death option is reversed or weakened. This means the incentive to not provide palliative care is going to be very strong.

In this situation, the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Carter v. Canada is likely to have tilted the dynamic in favour of death as a solution to the high-cost problem of maintaining lives that are deemed to be not worth living.

To make the point about how this is relevant, I want to quote from what the health minister said on the Friday before the break, in her speech on the issue. I had the good fortune to be able to question her afterwards about this. She said:

Today, Canadians are aware, and have a general understanding, of palliative care. However, some studies have [shown] that the overwhelming majority, perhaps 70% or more of us, do not have access to it, particularly in rural and remote areas. Many providers are not well trained to provide palliative care services.

I think she was just presenting what she regards correctly, as a fact. However, read this a different way and a more sinister meaning becomes evident. We lack the funds, or the provinces lack the funds, for palliative care, but death is the less expensive way to ensure that no one lives an unbearable life.

Again, I do not think she meant this in a sinister way. The implication was simply there to be found, and taking her words and reading them a little differently, we see that implication.

Faced with this problem, the problem brought upon us by the fact that we can extend life in a way that never could before but with limited funds and, inevitably, there are not enough funds to deal with all the life needs that are out there, the wrong move taken for a reason that seems noble but is poorly thought through could have disastrous consequences.

To make this point, I want to turn to one of the best books on public policy I have ever read, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century, by the great Albert Venn Dicey.

Writing about Lord Shaftesbury, the well-meaningful philanthropist and statesman, he writes something that I think could well be applied to the Supreme Court's ruling in Carter v. Canada:

...the natural desire of an ardent philanthropist to save from immediate suffering any class of persons who are unable completely to protect themselves against oppression, and to do this by the means which lie nearest to hand, without deeply considering whether action which gives immediate relief to [these] sufferers ...may not possibly in the end produce evils of untold magnitude.

In response to this, the danger is that we will do what Dicey warned about Parliament reacting. He was talking about the British Parliament. He was writing of a different century, but this is a warning that is well taken by any Parliament dealing with this kind of situation.

He said:

...laws passed to meet a particular emergency, or to satisfy a particular demand...produce, in the long run, more effect on legislative opinion than a law which openly embodies a wide principle. Laws of emergency often surreptitiously introduce or reintroduce into legislation, ideas which would not be accepted if brought before the attention of Parliament or of the nation.

This legislation is being introduced in haste in response to an artificial deadline, and it is an artificial deadline, set up by a Supreme Court which has a noble goal in mind but which has not, in my view, looked at all the implications of what it is trying to do. In dealing with a highly atypical set of cases, all of our jurisprudence in Canada at the Supreme Court level is based upon suffers of ALS who, on that bell curve of different ways in which people can die, either fully in charge as ALS sufferers are of their wills and their minds but not of their bodies or, at the other extreme, like Alzheimer's sufferers perhaps in reasonable physical health but not in possession of their faculties, and everybody in between. We have used that set of cases that have come before us because that is the way the court system works. Only the mentally capable can get their cases to the court and the court has generalized in a way that leads, potentially, into a hasty reaction that could lead to a principle being introduced into our law which may have, as Dicey says, unfathomable consequences.

I ask us all to move very cautiously and to seriously consider the possibility of amendments to this legislation in the coming weeks, as we go into committee.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about what he describes as an “artificial” deadline.

The Supreme Court has imposed a deadline of June 6. This is a deadline that was imposed after we asked for a later deadline. On June 6, there will be serious ramifications if a law is not passed. I am at a bit of a loss to understand what is artificial about what the Supreme Court has said.

Surely this is not a reflection of disrespect for the court, but it must mean something. However, I am very unclear as to what it means, because I think the court was pretty clear.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could have used the word “arbitrary”, and perhaps I should have said that instead of “artificial”.

It is arbitrary. There is nothing special about June 6 other than the fact that the Supreme Court said that was the day on which this part of the Criminal Code would simply cease to be in force or have effect.

The court could have acted as the American court would have done and simply said that this law had no force or effect right now, period. It could have done that, which would have produced a different legislative reaction. We would not have reacted in the haste to get legislation rammed through by a certain date if it were not for the fact that the law was not being struck down until a future specific and relative approximate date. Therefore, in that sense, it is highly arbitrary and artificial.

Throughout my comments, I have tried to indicate that I am not trying to be disrespectful either of the court or of the drafters of the current legislation. I am simply observing that we are potentially, as a system, responding in a very much sub-optimal way to the great health care issue of our time, which is the fact that we can save many lives, but we do not have the financial means to save all lives in the way we might choose to do. That is an issue that is going to confront us over and over again.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of references throughout the day to some very vague promises, whether it is relating to palliative care or conscience protection for doctors, which is referred to somewhat vaguely in the preamble.

I would like to ask my colleague if he feels that these are adequate promises for Canadians to hang their hat on in expecting a palliative care program when there has been nothing in the throne speech, nothing in the budget, that would actually show any type of follow through.

I believe some amendments should be made to the bill to make that a requirement, at least a consultation, and then consultation could be followed up by actual accessible and affordable palliative care. Also, there should be some clear language that would give health care workers and health care institutions a guarantee that they would not be required to participate in any way in physician-assisted suicide.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I discussed with my hon. colleague for Kitchener—Conestoga his suggestion that a mandatory palliative care consultation ought to be required prior to the process that is contemplated in the law to physicians or nurse practitioners signing-off on an assisted death request. That is an excellent proposal.

We do have a shortage of these practitioners in Canada. The fact is that I can get a prescription right now electronically from someone who is not in the same room as me. Some kind of provision could be made for this. A budget could be provided for it. Right now, zero dollars have been provided for it, and I do not think the palliative care initiative that the government has talked about deals with this kind of consultation, which would be preferable.

In many cases, it might be a conclusion that it is not available in one's area, but at least no one would die uninformed. Also, I think it would create pressure from relatives to start making better or more widely accessible palliative care. It is an excellent idea. If it is not incorporated into the legislation, then it should be incorporated in a later bill, which would amend the act.

With regard to the issue of conscience rights, here is the problem. The right to request that one's death be caused, the right to end one's own life as a part of the right to life in section 7 of the charter, now that the courts have interpreted that right this way, imposes an obligation on others who are in a position of being state actors or semi-state actors. This would require them to assist a person. They cannot withhold this right from a person. Seeing as doctors are people who have a monopoly over health care because of their position, which is created by the state, they may be forced, unless there is a specific provision in the law, to provide that care. That is the danger, and I hope it will be corrected in amendments to the bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to thank my friend from Yellowhead for his kind words on Fort McMurray. The devastation there is overwhelming. I would like the people there to know they have my prayers, and I am sure the thoughts and prayers of everyone in the House today.

I used to work in Fort McMurray. In fact, the very first hotel I managed just burned down. I know the people there will be counting on our support, and the people there know everyone in the House will be supporting them.

I rise today to discuss Bill C-14. This is obviously a very difficult issue for many people in the House, and I appreciate the views expressed here today and in yesterday's debate. Members oppose the bill on faith-based grounds, legal grounds, ethical grounds, and for other reasons. Others praise and support the bill.

I truly respect each member's personal contribution to the parliamentary debate. I would like to express my gratitude to the members of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. It is probably one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, issues we are going to face in this Parliament.

We all know someone who has died in pain, a loved one, a child, a colleague. We have all seen the ravages of disease on the body of people we once saw only as the embodiment of life and hope. I have lost two of my most beloved uncles to cancer. One of these uncles was a lifer in the Royal Canadian Navy, who finished his career in service to Canada as base commander at CFB Esquimalt.

Commander Larry Dzioba, as any commander would be, was ready for his battle that would come. He fought cancer to the end and was still living independently, in relatively good health, up until the final two days before he passed away. I credit his strong Ukrainian stock for his strength and always think that he viewed pain as something to be tolerated.

Another uncle of mine, Michael McCauley, passed away after years of chemotherapy and radiation. In the end, he passed away at home in his bed surrounded by his family. He maintained his dignity until the very end.

Another very close friend of mine, my dear friend Peter, died of lung cancer a few years back. Peter and I worked together at the famed Deerhurst Resort in Muskoka, pre-gazebo days, and later together in Edmonton. Peter went from diagnosis to death in just three months, but his family and friends will forever be grateful to the wonderful staff at the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton, who ensured that Peter lived his final days as comfortably as possible and with dignity.

Unfortunately, however, far too many Canadians suffer due to inadequate palliative care. A 2015 study shows that anywhere from 15% to 30% of Canadians have access to adequate palliative care, and even at the highest levels of the spectrum, it is nowhere near enough.

This is where my concerns with Bill C-14 begin. From the bill's preamble, I quote the following:

Whereas it is desirable to have a consistent approach to medical assistance in dying across Canada

The government wishes to have a universal approach to assisted suicide in Canada, but does not state the need for universal access to palliative care across Canada. Members of the House have repeatedly commented on access to broadband Internet as a human right, yet there is nothing about a human right to palliative care. The government commits to broadband expansion in its 2016 budget, but if we search “palliative” in budget 2016, we get the message ''no matches were found''. It is disgraceful and shameful.

The health minister has said that $3 billion will be committed over four years for palliative care across the country, but there are no details on this. It is not listed once in the budget. There is no information on how it will be rolled out or how it will be paid for.

In fact, the $3 billion is probably the same $3 billion that the Liberals promised in their election campaign for increased home care services. It is not specifically for palliative care, which they are stating now, but for home care services.

Alarmingly, the health minister said in January, just before meeting with provincial health ministers, that "more money isn't necessarily the only solution”. The $3 billion is promised, yet it does not seem to exist anywhere in the budget and, according to the government, may not be necessary. I would argue that virtually every doctor who treats terminally ill patients would disagree.

It is paramount that the government states immediately how it will ensure equal access to proper palliative care across this country. It is unfathomable that the government would introduce assisted dying legislation without announcing a detailed strategy to prevent terminally ill Canadians from believing doctor-assisted suicide is their only option.

The government has a moral obligation to outline such a strategy and provide adequate funding immediately. It is not enough to simply spout off a few talking points, get in a few good sound bites, and then hope it is later forgotten.

The government has not done nearly enough to think through this bill in its haste to meet the Supreme Court's deadline. It has not begun to consult with the provinces on many of the responsibilities that will be downloaded onto them. For example, Alberta has been working on this for five months with no apparent consultation with the government.

I believe assisted suicide is not the answer to the complex problem of human suffering, whether it be physical, emotional, or even spiritual suffering. Medical advances specifically in pain management drugs have gone a long way in helping the suffering bear pain and keep their dignity. What is really needed above and beyond the medical advances and improvements in palliative care is a willingness to be involved in the lives of those who suffer. The reasonable answer to suffering is love, companionship, and hope for the better, hope for tomorrow, for hope allows us to continue on.

In addition to the philosophical objections that I have to this bill, there are many practical concerns. One is the lack of education on the matter of alternative methods for care of the terminally ill. For example, a survey of pre-licensure pain curricula in the health science faculties of 10 different Canadian universities showed that many would-be doctors receive less training in pain management than their counterparts in veterinary medicine. Meanwhile, a survey of over 1,100 doctors and nurses showed that those who treat fewer terminally ill patients, therefore knowing the least about symptom management, are most likely the ones in favour of assisted suicide, whereas those with the most experience with symptom management and end-of-life care tend to oppose it.

Dr. Max Chochinov, a noted specialist on palliative care, explains, “the will to live is directly inverse to the amount of pain. Loss of dignity drives wanting to die and treatment of pain can improve sense of dignity.”

I realize that we will have doctor-assisted suicide in Canada. The courts have decreed it, and society appears to demand it, but we in this House must ensure that we are doing everything to ensure we protect the vulnerable and enshrine the belief that all life is precious before we introduce a new law.

There are holes that must be addressed before Bill C-14 becomes law. Like many others in the House, I am disappointed that there are no provisions to protect the rights of doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners who object to participating in assisted dying or referring on conscience grounds. We must protect their rights regarding referrals as well.

My own doctor stated on the issue, “not selling you a drug but sending you to a street corner for drugs where you are murdered makes me just as complicit in your death.” I enjoy the bluntness of my doctor.

It is not enough to simply leave it to the provinces or to say that there is no problem because so far no health professional has been forced against his or her conscience to perform certain acts. The rights of health care professionals must be respected and must be enshrined in federal law. It has always been our society's custom to assist the suffering, to be by their side, and not to kill them. This practice must be reaffirmed, and a respectful approach to human life must be upheld, one that recognizes that the intrinsic worth with which every human being is endowed is not eradicated by suffering.

Life is precious and I believe that our nation's laws must reflect this fact. In the Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II wrote very eloquently about the issue of assisted suicide. He stated that assisted suicide is a crime which no human law can claim to legitimize. However, he further stated that elected officials “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

Doctor-assisted suicide is already a reality in Canada. While I acknowledge that Bill C-14 reflects many of the safeguards of the dissenting report put forward by my Conservative colleagues on the special committee, it is still a flawed piece of legislation. It does not include an obligation to provide all possible palliative and pain management options to terminally ill patients. It does not mandate that funding be given and then maintained for end-of-life care. It does not guard the conscience rights of medical professionals. Beyond this, Bill C-14 does not offer a legitimate and proper attempt to limit the evil aspects of suicide. It is for these reasons that I will not be supporting this bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, discussions on this topic are always interesting, even this late at night.

Once again, my colleague caught my attention with his comments about medications that exist to alleviate suffering during the palliative care stage. We cannot ignore the fact that these medications precipitate death and that quite often, they make the patients disconnected from reality. The drugs may alleviate the patients' physical suffering, but they also affect their consciousness.

I think this bill is an opportunity for us to take a different perspective. Instead of taking the perspective of a caregiver supporting someone at the end of their life, let us look at this from the perspective of someone who is dying and who could, with this legislation, make an informed decision to die, fully conscious, surrounded by loved ones. I would venture to say that this dying person would truly be able to enjoy the love of his or her dear ones in those last moments of life. I think that is the objective, or one of the objectives, of this bill. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not find a lot to disagree with in my colleague's comments. The issue is we do not have proper palliative care. He is talking about a situation where in a utopia proper palliative care is offered and all other options are offered and available, as opposed to what we have right now in Canada where only a very tiny percentage of people have that option available: “I can die now peacefully with my full conscience, my full mind, because I have no choice because I don't have the proper care waiting for me in a month”.

I do not disagree with my colleague on that. Where I believe we have to go is to full proper palliative care for all Canadians.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I am concerned about the possibility that a health care institution as a whole could refuse to provide medical assistance in dying, which is now a charter-protected right. What is the danger in an entire institution taking that stance? Patients at that institution would be denied their charter right.

Is my colleague concerned about this too?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear in my speech. My concern is that the bill does not address conscience rights for health care providers. It has to be paramount in the bill before it goes forward. Doctors, nurses, and medical practitioners should not be forced against their conscience and beliefs to perform assisted suicide.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question on the whole issue of protecting the vulnerable. Certainly there are some elements in the bill that give the impression of protection for vulnerable people, but there is no system of prior review to ensure that the independence of the doctor or the witnesses is actually supported. I wonder if my colleague would comment on the need for a prior review to ensure the protection of the vulnerable from coercion and to ensure the independence of the witnesses.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, believe that we need a much better oversight written into the law, both for conscience rights and for independence of people making this decision. I implore the government to work hard. We recognize that this assisted dying or suicide bill will eventually go through. I implore colleagues across the way to ensure that these rights for patients and an independent overview are put into the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may, before beginning, I would like to join my colleagues in sending my thoughts and prayers out to the people of Fort McMurray, Alberta, and all Albertans. We know that a number of Quebeckers are working in Alberta. The media are reporting an incredible tragedy that is taking place as we sit here in the House. I want everyone there to know that we are thinking of them.

I thought long and hard before speaking to this important issue tonight, not because I did not want to talk about it or because the subject was not important to me, but because this is a hugely complicated issue. It took Quebec more than six years of work, thought, and study to reach a consensus, and even after all that work, it was not unanimous.

The proof is that most of the palliative care facilities in Quebec have not begun offering this option to their clients within their facility. I am going to focus on that in my remarks.

The joint committee recommended making more resources available for palliative care to improve access across Canada. I agree with that recommendation.

I had the opportunity to tour a palliative care centre last year when I visited my brother-in-law, who was dying. This evening, before speaking to the House, I also called an acquaintance who sits on the board of directors of a foundation that helps fund these types of homes in my riding. This person confirmed what I had noted last year. The mission of these homes is to take care of the dying and not to take their life. These homes support patients in their final weeks, days, and hours of life. The services and support that the individuals themselves and their families receive at these homes are essential so that they can live their final moments in dignity.

I believe it is important, as we prepare to pass such a law, to have the time to study it and put it in place. I do not believe that it is appropriate to move so quickly on such important issues as life and death.

My acquaintance also told me that she had lost a colleague a few weeks earlier. Her colleague knew that he was sick and that she was connected to the administration of the home. He told her that he wanted the opportunity to make use of the new Quebec law on end-of-life care and that he very much wanted to have access to such care. The weeks passed, and it came time for him to enter the home, where he could end his days in peace, with the idea of making use of the new Quebec law.

My acquaintance had the opportunity to visit him before he passed, and this man told her that he no longer wanted that option because he appreciated the care and attention he received from the staff and volunteers in the home so much that he wanted to live until his last breath. He probably talked about that option because he was afraid of suffering, of losing control, of making his family suffer. All of his fears were legitimate.

This example shows that it is possible for someone to live with dignity, surrounded by family members, in settings tailored to their needs, with attentive and, above all, competent people around for this extremely important stage in any human being's life.

I am giving these examples, not because they are something I experienced, but because they illustrate some of all the different possibilities and situations that could arise.

My colleagues who sat on the joint committee worked very hard to ensure that certain provisions would be included in the bill, and I would like to talk about those provisions now. They are all equally important and they represent an essential minimum in the bill before us today.

We identified five important points and we insisted that they be included in the bill. The first is that medical assistance in dying should be available only to adults. It should not be made available to minors. Medically assisted dying should not be made available to people who are mentally ill. The conscience rights of doctors must be protected and consent to the termination of life may be given only at the end of a person's life. Finally, palliative care needs to be improved.

In my opinion, that last point is an important aspect of the bill. Services like those offered by Maison Desjardins in Rivière-du-Loup, which is in my riding, should be available all across Canada, given how important these facilities are to those who work there and those who use them. The government should therefore invest in these types of services and facilities across the country. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the government has no plans to do that at the moment.

Another person I know in Montmagny has been receiving cancer treatment for many years. She decided to start up a palliative care facility in the Montmagny and L’Islet region, where she has been working tirelessly for many years. An army of volunteers are helping her and supporting her in her illness and in setting up the facility. My hope is that when her time comes she will be able to benefit from all of the effort she put into that facility. In order to ensure that these types of facilities are available, the government needs to create the proper conditions to help communities take matters into their own hands and offer places across Canada where people can live out their final days with dignity.

What we are really talking about in the House tonight is human dignity. It is crucial that all future decisions be made in a way that ensures that end-of-life care is available all across Canada. That is crucial.

In closing, in my riding next Friday, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and I are organizing an evening of discussion to promote a better understanding of this very serious issue. Knowing that we were elected on October 19 and given how quickly everything is happening right now, I feel as though we are caught in a trap and working against the clock, which means we cannot make informed decisions. In spite of everything, I will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading, so that the bill can go to committee and we can examine the committee's recommendations.

This does not mean that I will vote in favour of the final bill. I am committing to making a decision after listening to my constituents. I think this is a fundamental decision. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind: as the representatives of our constituents, we must listen to them and allow them to share their views. We do not have much time to respond to this bill. I was listening to my colleagues earlier and it occurred to me that June 6 is an arbitrary date. There will be a June 6 in 2017, a June 6 in 2018, and so on. I think we should be taking the time to really think about this legislation and make it as complete as possible.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague.

I know what he means about confronting death. Many people, who are well supported in palliative care homes decide to see things through to the end. Both the Quebec legislation and the Canadian legislation we are currently studying provide for the right to withdraw a request up to the last minute.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the following. There is a major difference between the Quebec legislation and the proposed Canadian legislation. Under the Quebec legislation, a health care professional must be present until the very end. However, under the Canadian legislation, a health care professional could give the patient the lethal drug and then leave the patient alone. That seems unthinkable to me. We cannot talk with so much compassion for hours and then imagine that under this bill, someone could be given the drug he needs to end his life without anyone by his side throughout the process.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague.

The Quebec law was thought out over a period of six years. During those six years, there were studies and discussions between the parliamentarians and with the public, and working groups were set up. We have roughly six months to do as much here in Canada.

The legislation as presented has some extremely dangerous grey areas. We must review this legislation properly to ensure that we have it right. Our responsibility as legislators is to take every precaution to ensure that the legislation is the best it can be.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made the comment that he would be happier if we could take six years to create this legislation. I wonder if he would like to comment on what would happen in the interim. I have already had one of my constituents choose to end his life through legal means, before we had this discussion here, because that is what he has available to him through the Supreme Court decision. I wonder if the member would like to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to time, let us go back to the moment when Quebec legislators decided to introduce a bill. If they had decided to work faster because people could not have access to end-of-life care, I do not think that would have been the right approach.

The right approach is to take the time to get this bill as close to perfect as possible. That is not the case right now. In answer to my colleague's question, I think we should take as much time as we need. Time is a space. We need the opportunity to discuss this with each other and with Canadians because we know that people's opinions about this bill vary widely across Canada.

Quebec was very innovative in its approach to this kind of legislation, and it is important for us to enable openness around this law and understanding across Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, because of the procedural direction now being taken by the government, I think this will probably be one of the last speeches in this debate.

I want to recognize the tone of the debate that has taken place. I know members have spoken politely, softly, and respectfully. This has been the tone on all sides. However, I wonder if I may stretch that tone a little bit.

This is the most important issue that Parliament will deal with, I suspect, in a very long time. Without resorting to personal attacks, this is an issue to get angry about, if there ever was one.

The mistakes that we stand to make in this legislation mean that men and women may die who would not have otherwise, who will be missed because of the absence of advance review, who will be pressured forward because of the lack of palliative care, and who will be matched with willing physicians because of allowances for doctor shopping, even if they have been identified as not meeting the criteria by their own and other physicians.

Tonight, we should be angry. Canadians should be angry. While speaking softly and politely about the need to talk about death and the need to listen, the government is proceeding to shut down debate after only two days. The invocation of closure in this case will not in any way affect the timeline of this bill. We know that.

It is already being studied at the justice committee, and even days of additional debate would not prevent the justice committee from proceeding on the timeline it has already set. A vote would not change that. It would not affect the timeline at all, and yet the government is proceeding to shut down debate with its notice of closure motion coming forward tomorrow.

Canadians who care about this issue from all sides, Canadians who care about the important role we have as legislators to examine and debate legislation in this House, these Canadians should be angry about what is happening on this legislation.

The absence of meaningful debate increases the significant chances of error when it comes to shaping legislation that is, in my view, already riddled with problems. An error on an issue this important will mean unnecessary loss of life.

I have already spoken about my substantive concerns on this bill, but by way of quick review, this legislation contains no meaningful safeguards because even the exceptions in it are riddled with holes. The written consent provision excludes those who cannot sign. The waiting period can be routinely waived. Mental illness is not at all clearly excluded.

The requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable is too ambiguous to effectively exclude anyone. The requirement that two doctors sign off merely encourages doctor shopping. Even if the already-ambiguous criteria are not followed, people who kill an unwilling patient can be let off the hook if they claim a reasonable but mistaken belief that the criteria applied.

I have said that we have here a perfect storm: ambiguous criteria and a reasonable but mistaken belief clause, which means that it would be nearly impossible to prosecute anyone who kills a patient, even without consent. We have heard the data from countries with similar systems and the impact they have on patients who do not consent.

All of these problems could be fixed through amendments. A requirement for advance review by competent legal authority would ensure that those who do not consent are not pushed forward against their will. Provisions on palliative care and conscience protection would better protect the autonomy of patients and would also protect the autonomy of physicians.

We could discuss these changes. We could make these changes. We ought to.

Tonight, I want to also do what other members in this House have done, and that is to share stories about life and stories about death.

My story starts around the turn of the last century in Germany, with a Jewish doctor named Rudolf Kuppenheim, the first person in his family who was able to get a university education. One day in the course of his practice, a young child named Gertrud was brought to him for treatment for diphtheria. At the time, the usual treatment was to make a small slit in the throat that would allow the afflicted child to breath. The child's mother, however, resisted this treatment. Her mother refused to allow Dr. Rudolf Kuppenheim to make the necessary incision, because it would leave a scar. The mother believed that the scar would prevent her daughter from getting married.

Rudolf became angry, very angry, and justly so. He berated the woman for putting her daughter's life at risk. Notwithstanding the social pressures and the challenges that a young woman might face in that culture and time, this girl's life, her value, her dignity, were not dependent on whether or not she could find a husband.

As it happened, that girl not only got married, but she later married that doctor's son. That couple had a daughter who was born Ursula Lilly Kuppenheim, and Ursula Lilly Kuppenheim was my grandmother.

She grew up in a society that denied her dignity as well. As a half-Jewish child, she lived through the horrors of the Holocaust, only able to leave Germany after the war. Her mother had her dignity denied because she might have been hard to marry off. She had her dignity denied because of her Jewish heritage, but the shifting vagaries of social attitudes never changed who these women were: human beings.

Rudolf Kuppenheim and his wife tragically took their own lives when the Gestapo came to their home. Suicide is always a tragedy, but I understand that they were in a position where they felt that they had no other choice: suicide or tortured death in a concentration camp. No just society forces people to make that choice, but at the time my grandmother lived.

In 2006, my grandmother, or Oma as we called her, died of cancer. Everyone dies, but not everyone truly lives. Across continents, from persecution to extensive contribution, my grandmother truly lived.

She always told us that she wanted to die like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did. They did not suffer or get sick, at least at the time of their death. They just realized that they were about to die, called their families together, and said goodbye. That is what she wanted, but it did not happen that way. She did suffer very much.

Suffering is a part of the human condition. It is just and right that we seek to minimize it. It is also just and right that we understand that a human who suffers does not cease to be human, to have value, to have dignity. She had dignity from the moment she was born to the moment she died, whether her dignity was denied because of her Jewishness or because of her illness.

Members here have to understand that the so-called dying with dignity movement is shaped by a very dangerous view of humanity. It views human beings as instrumental or experiential creatures, valued for what they do or for the quality of their experiences, but that is not what we are. We are in fact creatures with intrinsic value.

We value the dignity of human beings, not principally because they are useful, because they are having a good time, or because they want to be valued. We value human beings because of what they are. We understand intrinsically the difference between human rights and animal rights, rights for creatures which have feelings and experiences only, and rights for creatures that have value intrinsically. This movement, this presumption that the ill or disabled lack dignity could not be more wrong.

I want to conclude with a final appeal to all members. If they have grave concerns about this legislation, stand up and vote against it at second reading. I know some members are worried about the possibility of a legal vacuum, but this legislation replaces ambiguous criteria with other ambiguous criteria. It does not create any kind of review mechanism. Fundamentally, it replaces one vacuum with another.

There is a better way. If members vote down this legislation or even ensure that the vote is closer, the government can, will, and indeed must come back with a more serious bill, and if it does a better job of incorporating certain specific proposals we have made, then we can all work together to ensure a quick passage of a better bill.

Alternatively, if we go along just because we want to proceed, we will have entrenched a piece of legislation that will cause real problems, life and death problems, problems that will be very hard to fix.

It is disgusting, but we have a proposal to invoke closure on an issue so vital, on an issue of life and death, after only two days of debate. We must stand up to this. We must make our stand. I have made mine and I ask members in the House to make theirs.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend spoke of intrinsic and instrumental value, and I want to get at that muddled philosophy of intrinsic value. If we respect the intrinsic value of an individual, we respect the individual's choice. That individual's choice matters if we respect that individual as having intrinsic value.

I wonder what the member thinks of autonomy, of the individual, and of liberty if he thinks intrinsic value of the individual is so fundamentally important.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me say two things.

First, the idea of autonomy is built on a foundation of intrinsic human value. If one believes that humans have value, that has consequences, obviously, for one's desire to give them choices. Also, however, a belief in intrinsic human value with dignity can limit choices if individuals wish to, in a dramatic way, harm themselves in a way that denies their intrinsic value. The basis of autonomy is this respect for intrinsic human dignity in all cases, in all circumstances, which must be preserved.

The amendments that I have proposed are not ones that in any way derogate from autonomy with respect to euthanasia or assisted suicide. There are things like advance review, a guaranteed offer of palliative care, conscience protection for physicians, and more robust criteria, which will actually ensure that people who have suicidal ideations for short periods of time do not access this so-called service when, in fact, their longer-term desires are to live. These are things that protect a more robust notion of autonomy in all cases.

Clearly, whatever one thinks of the underlying question, let us marshal our energies in the direction of fixing these problems in the bill to protect both human dignity and values of autonomy.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is proposing to improve the bill, but he just asked all members to oppose it at second reading. I do not understand how he can reconcile those two statements.

On the one hand, he wants to improve the bill, and on the other hand, he is asking us to vote against it at second reading, in order to scrap it and allow the government to come back with a new bill. That is exactly what he said at the end of his speech.

Does my colleague think it is possible to improve the bill and thus prevent the legal vacuum that would exist on June 6, the one that he referred to?

In order to prevent that vacuum, we need to at least pass the bill at second reading to try to improve it. Then, at third reading, we can assess it again, and if my colleague wants to vote against it, he will be free to do so. However, at second reading, we need to be responsible and examine it more thoroughly, in order to make changes like the ones he just suggested.

If the majority of members reject the bill at second reading, the government will have to start from scratch and come back with a new bill. It will be even more difficult to meet the June 6 deadline.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It is an issue of timeline. If this bill passes overwhelmingly at second reading, it goes to committee, it comes back with virtually no time left. If the government chooses not to make necessary amendments, it will leave members of Parliament with a much narrower set of options.

I suggest we take a stand against the government, with its bullying effort of closure. Let us take a stand against the big problems in this bill and reject it at this reading stage. There is plenty of time for the government to bring back a new bill if it works to achieve substantial consensus among members of Parliament. However, if we support the legislation at second reading and the bill passes at this stage, we will lose necessary time to do a more fundamental review.

Of course the bill can be amended at committee, but the various things I have advocated are substantial enough that we are better off rejecting it and asking the government to come back with something that is substantially better. It is the only way to send a clear message that the absence of protections for the vulnerable are necessary to ensure that people do not die who should not die. The absence of those protections in this bill is so fundamental that we must vote this bill down until we can be sure they will be included.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many extremely poignant statements over the past few days in this chamber. Here are a few of them, not necessarily word for word, but the essence is there: This is by far the most crucial question we have faced in this chamber in the past 10 years. We are experiencing a fundamental shift in society. Centuries of thought are being overturned. Thousands of years of the understanding of the sacred gift of human life are being discarded.

The Liberal member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre stated:

Perhaps this is just another step on the road of moral relativism that we are in nowadays, but even our judiciary cannot serve as a balance between the different societies making up Canada. We are in a sorry state. We have truly entered a new age, one of the throwaway culture where all boundaries are starting to crumble.

He goes on to say:

From an indigenous perspective, I look at this bill and I cannot support it, because it leads to a place where I do not believe we are looking out for the interests of all people within our society. It is not allowing us to fully comprehend the needs of everyone who makes up Canadian societies, but really, it is taking us down a path that is very dangerous, and we do not know where it ends.

This comment is true not only for our indigenous communities, but also for the overwhelming majority of all Canadians who are informed by their faith, whether that be Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian.

I want to read from a very insightful blog that I came across today.

...from its very first sentence the bill sounds the final death-knell, for all public purposes, of Abrahamic faith. The Carter/C-14 doctrine of autonomy is a clear repudiation of that kind of faith and the establishment of a new faith in man as utterly independent of God. One does not need to be Abrahamic to understand this. If the Parliament of Canada recognizes personal autonomy as extending a moral right to determine the manner and timing of one’s own death, and to take one’s own life or another’s life, it necessarily recognizes the person—and [Parliament] itself as a deliberative body of persons—as lying outside of all putative divine authority in such matters. In short, the C-14 preamble is the final repudiation of the Charter preamble. “The principles of fundamental justice”...now operate independently of any reference whatsoever to the supremacy of God. The link between “the supremacy of God and the rule of law” is decisively severed.

He then goes on to quote Nietzsche:

What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

Over the past few days in the House, we have heard from many members with a wide variety of positions. Let me first say that I am very thankful that the government decided not to follow through with all of the recommendations made in the Liberal-dominated special joint committee report and decided rather to incorporate many of the comments of the dissenting report created by me and other members of the Conservative Party.

While Bill C-14 is a huge improvement from the very permissive, wide-open regime recommended by the joint committee, the legislation falls far short in protecting some of our most vulnerable Canadians, and as a result, I cannot support it.

First, there is no firm commitment to conscience protection for doctors and other health care workers who for a variety of reasons may not want to participate in any fashion in physician-assisted suicide. This includes the need to make a referral to a participating doctor.

While the preamble states boldly that that it is “desirable to have a consistent approach to medical assistance in dying across Canada”, and later refers to “respect the personal convictions of health care providers”, there is no section in the actual clauses of Bill C-14, no clear, unequivocal statement that no doctor or health care worker would be under any obligation to participate.

Just as important, what about health care institutions and hospices which, because of the core values they embrace, may not want to have physician-assisted suicide available in their institutions? What about a hospice which raises upward of 50% of its own revenue from private donations and which relies largely on armies of volunteers and donors who believe in the inherent and intrinsic dignity of human life? My fear is that if any of these institutions are forced into situations in which they are obligated to engage in physician-assisted suicide, the community may face the very real possibility of losing those volunteers and donors, and ultimately, may in fact lose the very institution itself. This would be a tragic unintended consequence of not guaranteeing conscience rights to doctors, health care workers, and institutions.

These changes must be included in Bill C-14 if we are to respect the professionals and institutions that provide excellent quality of health care every day.

There also needs to be a clear commitment to providing palliative care as a real and viable option. To offer physician-assisted suicide without a meaningful offer of available and palliative care is to provide no option.

Let me quote Dr. David Baker:

Without a right to palliative care, Canadians will soon be receiving publicly funded physician assistance to die because it [palliative care] is not available. This will infringe their s. 7 Charter right to life, liberty and the security of their persons and their section 15 equality rights as Canadians with disabilities and seniors.

Another important amendment that is needed is to have a system of prior review. There needs to be a legal system in place to ensure that no coercion occurs and to ensure that the two independent witnesses are in fact independent and that the two independent doctors are in fact independent.

Dr. Trudo Lemmens, the chair on health law and policy at the faculty of law at the University of Toronto stated:

...some eligibility criteria are inevitably quite open to interpretation, which makes it all the more problematic that an assessment of competency and informed consent by two physicians is seen as sufficient to ensure compliance. I continue to support a prior review system as reflected in the Vulnerable Person Standard, which is supported by a wide and inclusive coalition of patient and disability advocacy groups, health professional organizations, health care institutions and individuals with a wide variety of ideological and religious affiliations.

While I am fundamentally opposed to the taking of human life at any point, if we are to adopt legislation as a House of Commons, if we are going to go down this road, we need to be sure that we have far more stringent safeguards included in the bill.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his long-standing work on this issue.

I was wondering if he could acknowledge this evening that a hypothetical new law would provide freedom of choice. People who are dying or whose health is very fragile will always have the option of accessing medical assistance in dying, which is now protected under the charter. These people will always be able to choose that option or continue to live out their days as they do at this time.

Does he acknowledge that, even with a new legislative regime, this does not change the fact that every patient who is dying will always be able to choose whether or not to access this service? Therefore, this respects the conscience of the individuals and their families, but also the freedom of choice and the rights of patients who might want to use this service. Does he acknowledge that under a new legislative regime, patients will always have choice and people will not be forced to use these services?

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out by a number of my colleagues that while freedom of human choice is a freedom we personally have, when we implement a regime like we are considering here, we are not just choosing for ourselves but we are choosing to have a person, a medical practitioner of some sort, obligated in some fashion to participate in our choice. It is on those points that the House has struggled over these past few days.

The one clear commonality among the concerns that we have expressed is the concern that we need to protect the conscience rights of those medical practitioners who for one reason or another may not wish to participate at all, either directly in implementing a physician-assisted suicide act or in referring to a person who would in fact carry out the patient's wishes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that we were going down a path that we may not be able to turn around. He spoke about eligibility as open to interpretation. I wonder about some of the definitions in the bill. What really bothers me is the lack of definitions and the lack of clarity. I would like to know if the member would like to comment on this.

At what point does the suffering become too much? Is it at a point when no one else is suffering worse? By removing or aiding in the assistance of the death of those people who are suffering, does that level of suffering and intolerance become a speeding train which we cannot stop, to where it will be ever increasingly different and we will not be able to control it?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the Liberal Party, possibly the member for Winnipeg Centre but I am not sure, made a comment the other day, that in the first nations tradition, they always take into consideration how the decision they make today will impact seven generations from now. I thought there was a lot of wisdom in that perspective. Often we look at a decision and we make it lightly without thinking about the long-term consequences. Each of us in this room have made the mistake of making a short-term decision without adequately considering the long-term consequences.

I am very concerned about where we are going with this bill. Many of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, have given illustrations from other jurisdictions that have implemented a regime similar to the one we are considering, in fact in some cases more restrictive than the one we are considering. Yet over time, those jurisdictions have seen an incredible widening of the door, while thinking at first they had adequate safeguards, and in a very short time moving from a smaller number of people accessing physician-assisted suicide to an increase within a period of 15 years, for example, in Belgium I believe, it went from 330 to over 2,200 last year.

If we are to extrapolate those numbers to Canada with a population of three times that of Belgium, we are looking at potentially over 6,000 Canadians dying by physician-assisted suicide in one year. In my opinion, that would be a national tragedy.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have one concern for the member. I just noticed the member for Kitchener—Conestoga and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan have now spoken repeatedly on this. I am concerned that the members on the other side have begun to run out of steam and are repeating themselves. Maybe the Conservatives do not have enough speakers to continue this debate any further. I wanted to bring it the attention of the House that perhaps the members could talk about the problem of getting new speakers on this subject.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am not sure that is a legitimate question in relation to the debate we are having, but I am going to turn to the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga, who seems to wish to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to address that question because I know many members in our party still want to speak to the bill. It just so happens that because of the procedural games that were put in today, there was a question of whether anyone would be able to speak tonight. However, now that we have that opportunity, we have had to do some changing around, but there are still more people who want to speak to the bill.

If members look at the comments I made tonight and the comments of my colleague, they will see that we are not repeating ourselves. We are simply telling members about the concerns we have had, and we certainly would not have had time in the 10 minutes that were available to us earlier.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak again tonight to this very crucial issue. There is no issue that this Parliament will be seized with that is more fundamental, not only to this generation but to future generations of Canadians that will follow. I for one want to be able to stand, look my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren in the eye and tell them that with the information I had available to me I made the decision that was right for Canada.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the debate is deemed adjourned and the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pre-emptively address what I anticipate might be coming from the government side about the use of this procedural tactic, and I hope we can get down to the actual substance of the bill, debate on which is now being shut down.

What ever merit there may be for a government at some point or another to try to allocate time, this bill is of such an important nature. It is such a monumental shift for Canadian society. Many members wanted to speak to the bill. We had tried to find ways that we could accommodate that, while at the same time not unduly delaying a response to a court decision.

I know there are many different views on all sides of the House on this. I would like to ask the minister why she felt it was necessary, after only two complete days of debate, that we would now find ourselves shutting down debate, preventing members of Parliament to express the views of their constituents or their own conscience on this very important bill.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak about this. We recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada has put in place a deadline of June 6. We respect the Supreme Court of Canada in terms of responding to the Carter decision and have put forward Bill C-14 to do just that.

There has been substantive debate in the House. We have had over 21 hours of debate. Eighty-four members of Parliament, from every party in the House, have had the opportunity to speak.

We need to ensure we meet the court's deadline. We need to get this into committee so if amendments are proposed, they can be proposed at the committee stage.

I would further respectfully submit that yesterday we tried to extend the sitting hours as late as necessary to ensure that all MPs who wanted to speak had the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, the opposition decided to limit the hours of debate.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolute rubbish, and it is shameful. The opposition parties were very clear that we wanted to debate the issue throughout the week. That was the initial government offer. Now we are seeing a shameful backtracking from the government.

The Liberals promised sunny ways. They promised that they would respect opposition parties in the House. I remember them promising as well that they would respect parliamentary debate in this place. They had no better opportunity to prove they would actually walk the talk than on Bill C-14, which is a non-partisan issue to which I think all members of Parliament want to give voice.

However, now we are seeing, shamefully, the use of closure to shut down what should have been a non-partisan debate through the course of this week.

What is even more appalling is that in the previous government, it would allow five days of debate. The Liberals are shutting this down after two-and-a-half days of debate, only. Why are sunny ways turning to dark ways, and why are Liberals shutting down debate on the bill after only two-and-a-half days?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the aisle about the sensitive nature, the deeply emotional, and complex realities in our consideration of Bill C-14. Putting in place a medical assistance in dying regime in our country is transformative. It is a paradigm shift.

There has been substantive debate. There have been submissions made by 84 members in the House. There was ample opportunity to debate this.

Ten members from the member opposite's party had the opportunity to speak, and members from his party stopped speaking last night at 11:00 o'clock.

We need to fundamentally ensure that we meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline of June 6. We are endeavouring to do so to ensure we can get this substantive piece of legislation through the parliamentary process to comply with the Supreme Court's deadline.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the application of the guillotine motion is outrageous. The government is behaving as though it is a prankster in a model parliament.

Almost two-thirds of the official opposition caucus have been denied the opportunity to debate this important moral issue. An even greater percentage of Liberal members have been denied the opportunity.

On one of the most important moral issues to be debated in the House for years, why is the government not extending evening sittings?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of this piece of legislation. Knowing and ensuring that we need to comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on June 6, parliamentarians have an obligation to do so.

The hon. member's party stood in the way of having unlimited debate on this matter in this House on a substantive piece of legislation. We need to ensure that we provide the ability to get this into committee to have further discussion.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am completely astounded. A similar process in Quebec lasted no less than six years and they want me to believe that, after 21 hours of debate, we will achieve the same thing. The House is probably where there is the broadest representation of all the opinions that can be expressed across Canada. Does the minister really believe that by cutting short the debate she will be able to establish a consensus?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this is an incredibly difficult and sensitive issue. It is imperative that we meet our responsibilities as parliamentarians and put in this complex regulatory regime by the Supreme Court's deadline of June 6. It would be irresponsible if we did not put those measures in place.

We are working incredibly hard, as have parliamentarians from all sides of this House, to contribute toward a special joint committee report that provided recommendations. It is our government that has provided the forum to engage parliamentarians in this substantive discussion.

We need to ensure that the discussion continues at committee. We need to ensure that the discussion continues in and around the kitchen tables of this country. This is a paradigm shift. This is an important subject that we need to ensure continues to be at the height of our political debate. That is the undertaking we are making.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by this decision. This is one of the most important issues facing this Parliament.

Last week, I opened myself up and said I would have round tables day and night until every person in my riding has had the opportunity to come to a round table and talk to me about it. I may or may not get to speak to the input that they gave me except for some suggestions that I have.

Again, I know the committee. I was there two days ago. The committee is reflecting on this legislation as we speak. There is no excuse for the government to cut debate early this week.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had substantive discussion in this House. About 84 members of Parliament have spoken to this. Some Conservative members have actually spoken more than once with respect to this important discussion.

I look forward to ensuring that this substantive piece of legislation is put through the parliamentary process to get it to committee, so we can continue to have those discussions, and where there are well-considered amendments to be proposed, we can have those considerations.

The bill needs to receive third reading and then go to the other chamber. This is a commitment. This is a direction of the Supreme Court of Canada. We have the utmost respect for that institution and we will meet that deadline of June 6.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

I have heard the official opposition suggest that the deadline of June 6 imposed by the Supreme Court is an arbitrary one and is wondering why the government has not gone back to seek a further extension.

Of course, the government originally sought a six month extension of the suspension of the offending sections of the Criminal Code but was only granted a four month extension.

Does the minister believe that there is actually any substantive merit to the new legal issues that would actually allow the Supreme Court to revisit this particular issue?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible pleasure to have the member back in the chamber, and I thank him for the question.

As he quite rightly pointed out, when we formed government, we recognized that there had not been substantive discussions on this really important issue.

The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision on February 6, 2015. When we came into government, we sought to put in place substantive measures and steps to ensure that we engaged Canadians and parliamentarians on this particular issue.

We asked for an extension of the Supreme Court deadline. We asked for six months and we received four months. The Supreme Court of Canada, in issuing its decision, said that this was an extraordinary step to extend the deadline, and certainly they referenced the reality of a federal election.

We would not, in my view, be successful if we went back to the Supreme Court once again to seek an extension.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult debate because it is not about Bill C-14. It is about democracy in this place. The reason it is not democracy is that for the last four years under the majority Conservative government, we saw the illegitimate use of closure more than 100 times in this place. We looked to the new government and we believed in the mandate that there would be greater respect for opposition parties.

My faith in that was crushed by the decision of the hon. House leader to insist that Liberals at committee pass a motion that deprived me of my rights at report stage. Now we have closure on this matter.

I have the utmost respect for the Minister of Justice. I hold her in high esteem, so I ask her this question. In balancing the harms, the harm to democracy in this place versus the risk that taking the time to do Bill C-14 right might take us beyond June 6, would there be harm done? That is my key point as a lawyer. The Supreme Court of Canada decision could take effect. We could be late having royal assent and there could be a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge my colleague across the way for her questions and concerns. Certainly, we are speaking about time allocation. I would share my colleague's discussion and prominence in terms of putting democracy and participatory democracy at the front of everything that we do. We have provided substantive discussion on this really important issue. Many members have been able to stand and speak to this issue.

Looking at the Supreme Court of Canada deadline of June 6, we need to put a federal framework in place. If we were to eclipse that deadline, there would be no procedural safeguards. There would be no safeguards to protect the vulnerable. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to do the job that the Supreme Court of Canada asked us to do and put in place a federal framework by June 6.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply outraged by the government's attitude, but I am not surprised by it.

This is yet another demonstration of the ugliness of Liberal hypocrisy, as if we needed another. Those people brag about their lofty principles, but when the time comes to act, they do exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.

At the beginning of this debate, which should not be coloured by partisanship, the Prime Minister said they would draw inspiration from what happened in Quebec. That is great, because I know all about that. I was in Quebec when it happened. There was no motion to shut down debate. On the contrary, all members who needed or wanted to express themselves in the assembly could do so. That is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing here.

The fact is that one-third of Conservative members and, I gather, about the same fraction of NDP members have had a chance to speak. However, barely one-sixth of the Liberal members have spoken. During the debate yesterday, at around 1 p.m., a Liberal Party member rose to shut down debate. Three Liberal members who rose afterward would not have had the chance to do so had her motion been successful.

Why are we seeing so much Liberal hypocrisy yet again?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in this matter. We must respond to the Supreme Court's decision. The deadline is June 6. I recognize and respect the incredible amount of work that has taken place in the province of Quebec with respect to bringing into force its legislation on end of life. There was no deadline with respect to that. We must comply with our deadline.

Not to necessarily respond to hypocrisy, but the Supreme Court decision was made on February 6, 2015. Our Prime Minister introduced a motion on February 24 to put in place a special committee that would start to have this discussion among parliamentarians. The deadline for reporting back of that special committee, had that motion passed, would have been the end of July. It is the members on the other side of the House who voted against that motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly disappointing to rise on what is surely a dark day for parliamentary democracy and a dark day for Canada. It is incredible that members on that side of the House are laughing about shutting down debate on one of the most important issues that this Parliament will confront, an issue that impacts thousands of Canadians not just for today but for decades to come. They are laughing as they shut down debate after two-and-a-half days.

[Some hon. members]

They're still laughing.

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

And they're still laughing, Mr. Speaker. It's shameful.

I was particularly astounded that the Minister of Justice would stand and justify shutting down parliamentary debate on this most important issue on the basis that it was necessary to meet the June 6 deadline. She stood in the House minutes ago—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did, in fact, stand in the House and say that we needed to comply with the Supreme Court's June 6 deadline. Some 84 members spoke during 21 hours of debate on this legislation. We need to ensure that everybody who wants to speak has that opportunity provided to them.

We need to ensure that we get this legislation to committee and recognize that there is going to be back and forth. We need to hear from Canadians and from experts at committee. The bill needs to come back here for third reading, then it needs to go to the other Chamber, and go through a similar process.

Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure that we acknowledge and meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline and put in place a medical assistance in dying regime in this country. That is our responsibility.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way for this government to hit a wall, and this may be what they want, is to try to divert attention away from the substance of the debate by focusing on the form. The best way to get us to overlook the minister's intentions is to do exactly what she is doing.

I remind members that the committee is presently sitting, even before the House has voted on passing the bill in principle at second reading. There cannot be a third House that sits at the same time.

Even though in response to my questions she told me that she wants a debate, her actions today are intended to draw our attention to the form. Finally, she presumes that hearing from 80 or so members is sufficient for us to gain an understanding of such a sensitive issue. That is unfortunate.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that my friend across the way had the opportunity to speak twice with respect to this debate.

I am in no way diminishing the substance of this fundamentally important issue. This is a transformative discussion that we are engaged in and one that Canadians will continue to be engaged in with respect to medical assistance in dying. This conversation is not going to go away.

As parliamentarians we need to ensure that we meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline of June 6. The only way that a committee can go to clause-by-clause and introduce amendments is if the bill is there.

We look forward to a substantive discussion with all members of the justice and human rights committee and look forward to the discussion and results of the study in the other chamber as well.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place for 19 years. I have been a student of parliamentary history much of my life. I cannot recall, and I stand to be corrected, a single instance where a government imposed the guillotine on a debate on a matter of grave moral conscience, on a matter of life and death ethics, on a matter such as euthanasia, capital punishment, or abortion.

The ancient convention in this and other Westminster parliaments on such matters has been to allow every interested member to speak. We do not regard such speeches as constituting opposition filibusters. I understand that from time to time governments must control the legislative calendar on emergency back-to-work legislation or to shut down opposition filibusters, but allowing members to speak on a free vote, on a matter of grave moral conscience, is the ancient convention of this place.

Can the Minister of Justice offer a single counter example of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from every member in the House who wanted to speak. I would ask the member across the way why his party stopped debate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I want to remind hon. members that one person speaks at a time. That is the convention in this House.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the other point that was raised, this is an incredibly difficult and complex piece of legislation. We on this side of the House have the utmost respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. It has ruled in the Carter case. It is not a question of if legislation, or a federal framework, but a question of how.

The court has imposed a deadline of June 6. We must take our responsibility seriously and meet that deadline. It would be irresponsible if we did not meet that deadline.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that the minister made reference to 84 members who have spoken. What she did not make reference to is the other 160-plus speaking spots that were made available.

What also needs to be highlighted is that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons yesterday attempted to get the House to agree to a motion that would have seen the House sit well past midnight. Every member in this House who wanted to have the experience of expressing himself or herself on this legislation was in fact afforded the opportunity to do just that. It was the opposition.

In all likelihood, I have spoken on more time allocation motions than any other member inside this House. I can say that members of this place were afforded the opportunity to speak, if in fact their parties wanted them to speak.

Would the minister reaffirm how important it is that we meet our legal obligation from the Supreme Court of Canada? The bill still has to go to committee and to the Senate. What we are doing is the responsible way to govern this country.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important that we meet the June 6 deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The object of this piece of legislation is to ensure that we balance personal autonomy and provide protection to the vulnerable. If we do not have legislation in place as of June 6, there will be no safeguards in place, and the medical practitioners will have uncertainty with respect to the eligibility criteria around somebody who wants to access medical assistance in dying.

The Supreme Court of Canada said two things. It said that an absolute prohibition on medical assistance in dying is unconstitutional, and it put it to Parliament to do our job, to put in place a substantive piece of legislation that reflects the diversity of views that exist in this country. That is what Bill C-14 does.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to mirror what my colleague said, this is a matter of life and death for debate in this place. I do believe that the hon. minister should actually check herself when she said that everyone who wanted to have a chance to speak to this issue has had a chance to speak, because that is absolutely incorrect. The minister should apologize for those remarks because it is simply not true.

If the minister is going to base her arguments by spewing lies in this House of Commons, then she should absolutely be very careful in ensuring she has the facts before she makes assertions that are untrue.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I look to your direction, but my colleague from Milton just accused an hon. member of this House of spewing lies in the House. If somebody should apologize, it is that member, for such an untrue statement.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is inappropriate language to use the word “lies” or to accuse anyone of lies in the House. There are differences of opinions. I believe there is an inappropriate word that was said. I will leave the hon. member with it.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize for using that language, but as members can see, it is an emotional topic and that is exactly why the Liberals should not be shutting down this debate whatsoever.

The reality is that Canadians who want to partake in a committee process by being witnesses need to understand the points of view that are expressed by their parliamentarians. This is a free vote for our party. This is an incredibly important vote. An opportunity must be had in order for people to understand the way in which people are going to vote. Why is the minister not giving us that opportunity?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again I would agree with my hon. colleague across the way about the substantive nature of this discussion. That is why we offered unlimited debate, and the members opposite stood in their place to limit the debate.

We need to ensure that we have substantive discussions on this. We have had 84 members stand up in this House to debate this issue. We need to ensure that we continue on this piece of legislation by having it go to committee to have that discussion, to hear from experts and to hear from Canadians, so that we can continue to debate this so we meet the deadline of June 6 and ensure that we are compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada's direction.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quote both the member for Winnipeg North and of course theParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, because they revealed what their actual feelings are about what the government is in the process of doing.

Just last year, the member for Winnipeg North said:

The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians. It continues to try to prevent members of Parliament from being engaged and representing their constituents on the floor of the House of Commons.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said this:

Mr. Speaker, the government should be ashamed of itself. How dare it rule the country with such an iron fist?

He went on to say:

The government just invoked time allocation which would seriously restrict debate. It does not care to listen to the concerns of Canadians—

They are both right, and the government is wrong to shut down debate on such an important issue, to refuse to have the debates this evening that the opposition members of Parliament have asked for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague across the way would agree with me that we need to respect the institution of the Supreme Court of Canada, which delivered a decision in Carter on February 6, 2015. It initially had a 12-month period before invalidity came in. When we formed government, we sought to put in place a series of steps to ensure that we actually engage with Canadians in debate. We sought a six-month extension, and we were granted a four-month extension.

We ensured that we put in place a special joint committee that would continue to have this debate and discussion. It put forward its recommendations. We are continuing to have this discussion. Discussion will continue at committee, and discussion will continue through debate and dialogue in the other chamber.

We need to respond by the June 6 deadline. I am sure everybody in this House can appreciate that.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of my Conservative colleagues falsely claim that the Supreme Court is taking the decision out of the hands of elected representatives.

The fact of the matter is that we as a nation, we as elected representatives, we as citizens embraced the Charter of Rights of Freedoms decades ago. We treat it as part of our core values. The Supreme Court interprets that charter and applies it to the rule of law. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter.

I find this perplexing. I agree with my colleagues about how important this matter is, but if they really felt it was that important, why did they not start that study over a year ago, when they were in government? Why did they not do that over a year ago?

I wish I could ask my colleagues that question. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Justice could help answer that question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. Before I go to the hon. minister, I just want to remind all the members that this is a very emotional topic, and I realize emotions run high. Let us just take a deep breath, everybody together. Take a deep breath, and we will calm down.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Maybe the member misspoke, but he did say that no study began under the previous government, which I believe he knows is not true. There was an expert panel that began. It is a point of fact. The member may want to make a clarification.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will just go to the hon. Minister of Justice, and she can answer.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Supreme Court decision in Carter came out on February 6, 2015. Several weeks later, the now Prime Minister introduced in this House a motion to form a special committee, on February 24, that would do specifically what we have done over the last months since we formed government, to study this issue, to enable parliamentarians to engage in debate and dialogue.

It is the members opposite who were in government at that time who did not vote in favour of the special committee. It is quite rich, quite surprising that they are now wanting to engage in substantive debate. We have put in place considered steps to ensure that this discussion continues on this incredibly sensitive issue.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely outraged by this. I am going to lose my opportunity to speak to this bill on behalf of my constituents, many of whom have very impassioned views that they wanted me to rise in this House and express on their behalf.

It is very rich, coming from these folks on the other side of the House. One of the first things they did, rather than striking up a committee, was to announce that they are going to lengthen the process for discussion on something as innocuous as a pipeline, which is going to put gasoline in people's cars, by two years so that everybody in Canada who wants to talk about it can, and yet they are only going to let one in four MPs, at second reading on this bill, talk about something as important as the sanctity of human life.

This is something that the Minister of Justice is going to have to reconcile with. This is an abomination. It violates my privileges as a member of Parliament.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to see the colleague across the way at the debates yesterday, and have him provided the opportunity to speak in those debates. Rather than standing in the way of unlimited debates, perhaps the Conservatives could have allowed that unlimited debate to take place.

I am fundamentally seized with this issue of medical assistance in dying, as are all Canadians. We are having a national conversation on this issue. Not only are we having a national conversation on this issue, but we also need to respond to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, and the deadline is June 6.

I take that incredibly seriously, and we all should take that incredibly seriously, to ensure we fulfill our responsibility as parliamentarians and put in place that framework to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. If not, we are being irresponsible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #47

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Trois-Rivières, Employment Insurance; the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Veterans Affairs; and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Status of Women.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Second Reading

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to join many other colleagues in addressing the significant national debate surrounding Bill C-14, and our government's prompt and appropriate response to the Supreme Court's Carter decision. I believe this was a duty the previous government neglected, and I am proud of our government's response to this complex issue.

Bill C-14 represents a mandated response to the Supreme Court's Carter decision by providing a national framework to ensure, subject to necessary safeguards, access to a fundamental and inviolable right enshrined under section 7 of the Canadian charter. After all, the Carter decision transformed the question before the government from one focused on whether the government should legislate and legalized medical assistance in dying to the very different question of how fast to legislate and legalize medical assistance in dying.

Despite the clear contours delineated by the Supreme Court, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of all members of the House over the course of the past several months to contribute to this important national debate by recognizing the crucial role of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, and acknowledging the leadership demonstrated by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health for introducing this transformative legislation.

I would also like to thank all Canadians who have, in one way or another, participated in nation-wide consultations with their provincial and federal governments. I am very proud that many constituents in my riding of Willowdale took the time to approach me regarding various aspects of this bill, and having listened to them, I realize full well that this is a deeply important issue for many Canadians.

At the centre of the profound and solemn debate that has ensued in the House and elsewhere, have been discussions focused on such foundational principles, such as the need to respect individual rights, equity, consent and capacity, clarity, dignity, and accountability. Yet, given the extensive debate that has occurred in the House, I would like to specifically focus my remarks on two specific aspects of this bill which I believe need to be further highlighted and emphasized.

The first issue I will focus on is that Bill C-14 represents a significant first step that now requires further co-operation with our provincial and territorial partners. Second, it is important to recognize the significant safeguards embedded in Bill C-14.

One of the primary characteristics of charter rights, of course, is equal access. If charter rights are by definition universal, they must, within reason, be equally accessible to all Canadians. This is where I believe Bill C-14 comes into play by establishing a national framework for medical assistance in dying that can ensure equitable access across provinces and territories. I feel that Bill C-14 fulfills an expressed desire by our provincial and territorial governments for a national framework to address this timely issue.

I strongly believe that this legislation provides an opportunity for the federal government to facilitate a collaborative approach, which includes provincial and territorial consultation. Specifically, the bill's own preamble clearly states that the law must apply consistently across all of Canada. As such, this bill advocates for a national framework in order to avoid variations from province to province.

As we all know, the Quebec government has in many ways laid the groundwork for medical assistance in dying with their own provincial legislation. However, while provinces will continue to act as key legislative and administrative partners in medical assistance in dying, I think we can all agree that establishing a pan-Canadian, national approach was crucial.

We should continue to work with the provinces and territories to explore mechanisms to coordinate end-of-life care for patients who want access to medical assistance in dying, thus avoiding crucial gaps in access and delivery.

Furthermore, in keeping with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision making, we will engage with the provinces and territories to support the development of a pan-Canadian monitoring system to collect and analyze data, monitor trends, and publicly report on medical assistance in dying.

This two-way relationship is important. In other words, Bill C-14 represents the beginning of a partnership on medical assistance in dying. Our provincial colleagues, informed by the framework we have provided, can now begin the process of implementing their own medical assistance in dying regimes. Quebec, of course, has already done so, while Ontario and most other provinces have begun the process through the creation of a PT advisory groups on physician-assisted dying.

Allow me now to shift to the second element I would like to address today, the topic of the safeguards included within Bill C-14.

Bill C-14 makes Canada the ninth jurisdiction in the world to legalize medical assistance in dying, not including Quebec. Fortunately, we have been able to learn from their experiences to implement safeguards that will protect the most vulnerable while also allowing suffering Canadians access to their charter rights. Bill C-14 is, therefore, a carefully and deliberately crafted piece of legislation, which learns from the best practices of other governments to legalize medical assistance in dying.

As the Supreme Court made clear in paragraph 117 of the Carter decision, the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards. Our government is committed to addressing the task put forth by the Supreme Court. We understand that this is a complex and emotional issue for many Canadians. As a result, we want to ensure that protecting the charter rights of some Canadians does not infringe upon the charter rights of others.

Bill C-14 provides strict criteria outlining precisely who is eligible for medical assistance in dying. Relatively strict guidelines are required when dealing with such a significant issue and eligibility is limited to three prescribed sets of conditions contained in Bill C-14.

Bill C-14 also includes safeguards protecting the personal convictions of health care providers. This is a fact that bears repeating as there seems to be some misunderstanding and confusion surrounding this issue. There is nothing in Bill C-14 that compels any medical practitioner to perform medical assistance in dying against their will.

As the Minister of Justice recently confirmed in her appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on May 2, 2016, she said:

There is nothing in our legislation that would compel a medical practitioner to perform medical assistance in dying as you point out. The jurisdiction in terms of regulations falls to the provinces and territories.

The Minister of Health also addressed this issue in her remarks before the same committee and apart from reiterating that the issue of the conscience rights of health providers falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces, she confirmed that the federal government is already working with the provinces to develop a care coordination system for end-of-life care.

Finally, I believe the inclusion in Bill C-14 of a five-year review clause is another important safeguard. While I have the utmost confidence that the bill would address the issues presented to the government via the Carter decision, this mechanism would allow for future improvements and modifications, if need be.

Before concluding, allow me to also emphasize that Bill C-14 is part of a larger discussion around end-of-life health care. In that spirit, I am proud of the commitments our government has made toward palliative care, through a much-needed $3-billion investment over four years for home and palliative care.

I am confident that the vast majority of my constituents support medical assistance in dying and support Bill C-14. I urge my colleagues in the House to support the bill as well. By boldly, yet responsibility, reacting to the Carter decision, our government has created a workable and pragmatic national framework that would allow us to closely collaborate with the provinces and territories.

Bill C-14 marks the beginning of a new era. By addressing the expanded charter rights laid out by the Carter decision, this legislation would provide Canadians access to a long-overdue right.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that he was very confident that the majority of his constituents would support his position on Bill C-14. I actually sent a survey to every one of the 45,000 homes in my riding and got the opposite result. As a matter of fact, 65% of the respondents are opposed to Bill C-14 and 35% are in favour of it.

I wonder if he would be willing to do that in his riding just to confirm what he is stating in the House of Commons.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the reason I said that is that I have had plenty of opportunities to speak to various constituents. What I can say is that after having spoken to many constituents, they understood the context within which the bill has been adopted. They appreciate full well that the Supreme Court considered this issue. They also understand full well that many consultations went on and that what resulted from those consultations was Bill C-14.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling, in both official languages, the government's response to Questions Nos. 80 and 81.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued not so much just with what was in the member for Willowdale's speech, but with what was not in his speech. The fact is that this Parliament is now operating under time allocation on what he called a complex and sensitive issue, which I agree with.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government would take away the goodwill, the working together approach that we have taken from the start of this issue. We had a multi-partisan approach, an all-party committee to design the legislation and to move it through the House and proceed with it in a sensible way, which is deserving of something so important. This government came in and used time allocation to shut down debate and discussion in this place, and over this issue in particular.

The previous government abused this tactic, which his party decried. His friend from Winnipeg made many speeches on it. Now the Liberals come in as a new government, in these sunny ways, and on a charter rights issue the first tendency of the government is to take away that goodwill of the parties working together for what Canadians want, which is a bill that balances the rights.

The bill has some serious flaws in it. The member's own chair of the committee has recognized the problems with the bill. The Senate has recognized problems with it. The constitutional lawyers that moved the Carter decision forward to the Supreme Court have pointed out to the government that Ms. Carter herself would not have access to the service under this bill. These are legitimate concerns.

Rather than have the fulsome debate, the Liberal Party has chosen to go back to tendencies that were abused by the Conservative Party and that Canadians rejected in the last election. For the life of me, I cannot understand why.

Why not allow Parliament to discuss this? Why just ignore the fact that his government just now brought in a time allocation measure to shut down Parliament's ability to do what it is here to do, and that is to speak on behalf of the people we represent?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the member that this a very complex issue. What we do see in the legislation is a very balanced approach. Of course, every single individual in the House understands that certain issues that may have been of concern to them were not fully addressed. However, that is what a national legislation is all about.

On the issue of having a sensible approach to debating this very complex and important issue in the House, I have heard for several days that every single member who would like to speak has been afforded that opportunity. In fact, it would appear to me, since I was watching this debate very closely, that there were numerous members who had more than one occasion to address issues that were of concern to them.

Lastly, allow me to inform you that of course this will now be the subject of input as it goes before committee, and it will be returning to the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member did not mean me, in talking to the House.

I just want to remind all members that when they are speaking that they speak through the Speaker, as is protocol, not directly across the floor.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to this important bill on behalf of my constituents.

As a member of the House for 19 years, I have had many opportunities to consult my constituents about this, and they are deeply concerned about what we are doing here today.

Let me begin by amplifying comments we just heard about the unfortunate application of the guillotine of time allocation and shutting down debate at second reading of this hugely consequential bill.

As I said in this place an hour ago, I understand that from time to time governments must use time allocation in Parliament to address critical urgent issues, such as back-to-work legislation and national emergencies, and to prevent opposition filibusters from unreasonably stalling the government's legislative agenda. I understand that, but this is a different kind of issue. This issue is different in kind but not in degree from those normal prudential matters with which this House normally deals.

Let us be clear, the bill authorizes the taking of human life. I would argue, there is no greater power that could be exercised by this legislature than the authorization of the taking of human life.

That is why there is an ancient convention in this and other Westminster-style parliaments, other democratic legislatures, that on such matters of the most profound moral conscience two conventions apply: first, that all members should vote freely; and second, that all members should be able to speak freely.

Here we have a government that, based on media reports, was very close to violating the first one of those conventions in seeking to whip its own members to vote on this matter of moral conscience, and now we have a government that is violating the second ancient Westminster democratic convention, empowering members to speak their conscience, to reflect the convictions of their constituents, on a matter that could not be more grave.

We will hear lots of political noise about different governments that have used time allocation, but I hearken back to 1969 in this place when the father of the current Prime Minister brought forward the omnibus justice legislation that touched on very profound moral questions, including abortion, and there was no application of time allocation.

I hearken back to 1976. In the free vote and debate in this place on capital punishment, there was no limitation of debate. I reflect back to the difficult debates in this place in 1988 and 1989 about unborn human life, and again, no application of time allocation. Indeed, I believe when the former Liberal government brought forward the Civil Marriage Act in 2005, a matter of profound moral conscience, although perhaps not as grave in terms of human life, it was also unrestricted in terms of debate.

I want to put down that marker that we are crossing two Rubicons here today: first, in violating these ancient parliamentary conventions; and second, in authorizing the taking of human life.

On the substance of the matter, let me first reflect. We throw around a lot of terms here euphemistically, and whenever one hears the application of euphemistic language to matters as grave as the taking of human life, one should be concerned.

We need only reflect on the history of the 20th century, what Saint John Paul II referred to as the century of tears, the century when the taking of human life became industrialized. In fact, we mark today Yom HaShoah when we recall the sacred memory of the six million European Jews lost in the Holocaust, following the euphemistic application of language to dehumanize the Jewish people.

Aldous Huxley, the great British novelist in his novel Brave New World, in 1932, gave us a perfect depiction of what the euphemistic application of language to life and death questions can result in: the normalization, the banalization of the taking of human life.

I believe we see that in the very title of this bill. What was commonly known in the English language for centuries as euthanasia is referred to in this bill with the euphemistic phrase, “physician-assisted dying”.

First let me challenge that, so we understand the nature of this debate. Dying is a passive exercise and killing is an active exercise. When we use the word killing, it is bracing and disturbing. It should be so, because the administration of a drug or other medical means purposely to end human life is an act of volition. In the language of formal ethics, it is the teleological of that; the end purpose of the administration of that poison, that life-ending medical intervention, is to end life. In literal terms, it is a decision to kill.

However, that is radically different from assisting people in dying, which palliative care practitioners do with great dignity every single day. Let us not begin this debate in confusing these two radically different moral concepts.

When I was in university in San Francisco nearly 30 years ago, I volunteered occasionally at a hospice established by Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, primarily to assist men dying from complications as a result of HIV and AIDS. I saw the incredible, authentic compassion demonstrated by those women and palliative care practitioners in assisting in the death of those individuals. They were not seeking to hasten death. They were not seeking to end the lives of those in their care. They were seeking to comfort them.

To address another euphemistic abuse of language, we often hear the term compassion thrown about here. We all want to be compassionate. We all want to empathize with those who are facing pain at the end of their lives. However, that same Mother Teresa who established that hospice, and dozens of others around the world, reminded us that the etymological root of the word compassion comes from the Latin words com and passio, meaning to suffer with.

I would argue that presenting people with the idea of ending their lives is not to suffer with them, as palliative care practitioners and compassionate family members do every day. We must stand by them in legislation and programs, and provinces must, through their health care programs. If one good can come from this debate, I hope it will be a radical improvement in the entire field of palliative care.

However, we have heard from palliative care practitioners and from physicians who are so concerned by the implications of this bill that they are prepared to withdraw from the field of palliative care. I would ask us to proceed with great caution, which indeed reflects the ancient moral consensus of western civilization, dating all the way back to the 5th century BC. In the Hippocratic oath, Hippocrates said:

I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.

There is great wisdom in that oath, which has been taken by physicians for millennia in the western tradition. I submit that we should not lightly disregard that great received wisdom, and I am profoundly concerned that the exceptions to the exceptions found in this legislation are radically inadequate to ensure a proper protection of the vulnerable, to ensure authentic compassion, and to ensure that we really do aid people in dying rather than presenting them with the slippery slope of killing.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his remarks. I appreciate the fact that he goes as far back as Aldous Huxley, and perhaps even Mortimer Adler, in terms of Adler's distinction between differences of kind and of degree. Like him, as someone who spent five years studying the classics and liberal arts and philosophy, I share some of his profound concerns. I have a couple of questions for him in response.

First of all, I would like him to explain to the House how moving the bill to committee, where it can be properly dealt with in terms of specific amendments from the opposition, government members, and the third party, is in any way prejudicial to improving it.

Second, could he explain to us how specifically our government has, according to his language, “not proceeded with caution”. He went on to say that we have been lightly disregarding the profound wisdom of apparently a millennia. I would like him to explain to the House how a general practitioner medical doctor as minister of health, a distinguished attorney and attorney general, who is a practising lawyer and crown prosecutor, two of whom have been seized with this issue for months, agonizing over the difficult choices to be made, trying to reflect Canadians' needs and desires, have lent short shrift to the importance of this issue in any form, any shape, in the bill?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the bill passing at second reading appears to be a foregone conclusion, so the committee will be engaged. I must express some concern with the imposition of what I think are quite unreasonable timelines on this sovereign democratic Parliament by the Supreme Court justices down the way, who initially imposed a timeline without apparently being conscious that we had an election that would take this place out of business for several months.

On the member's second point, I did not make an ad hominem attack against the integrity of those who have drafted the bill. I simply disagree with their analysis and their conclusions. Two cases in point regarding the alleged requirements in the bill are first, that two physicians must authorize the act of euthanasia. That seems to be wholly inadequate in a country of over 70,000 physicians. We could easily end up with a handful of Jack Kevorkian-style enthusiasts for euthanasia, using their physician's licence to imprudently authorize acts of euthanasia even when they ought not to do so.

Second, another requirement is that death be reasonably foreseeable, as it is for all of us. I believe that the restrictions in the bill are wholly inadequate to prevent the kinds of abuses about which we are all gravely concerned.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy, if not always agree with my friend from Calgary. I find he represents the point of view of socially conservative Canadians very well, and with great articulation. On two points, I have a question for him.

One is on the process that we are now in. Parliament is now under time allocation. That means that debate has been cut off by the government unilaterally, despite there being many and very good efforts to work across party lines on what is a complex and sensitive issue for all of us. This is the intervention of our own personal experiences as members of Parliament, our faith, our own personal morality, and the attempts we make to represent Canadians with our best courage and intelligence.

Only in the preamble of the bill is there any mention of palliative care whatsoever. In the budget, there are scant resources to bring in any sort of effort to help Canadians with palliative care issues. It is talked about, but never actually addressed and acted upon. I am wondering why it does not exist as some sort of more forceful, meaningful component of this conversation we are having today about a sensitive and important discussion about end of life for all Canadians.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are kind words from my honourable friend. However, let me first challenge the hon. member's characterization of my position as being the socially conservative position. In fact, I think it is the Canadian position.

It was the position of the Canadian judiciary until a year ago. It was the position of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Rodriguez decision. It was the position of the majority of members in this place in at least three votes that have occurred in my 19 years here, including the vast majority of members of the Liberal Party and many New Democrats, like the former member of Parliament Bill Blaikie.

I would submit that this is not an ideological or political issue. It is an issue on which people have honestly held, different convictions. However, let us not pigeonhole them in that.

In terms of time allocation, I agree with the member and I have already addressed that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).

Let me first thank the members who were part of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying for this bill and for their hard work. Their work showcased Parliament at its best, what it is capable of when parties put aside politics and the best interests of Canadians are at heart, and in particular when vulnerable Canadians are put at the forefront. I would also like to recognize the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who are working diligently and endlessly on this issue.

Since the debate began, we have heard many moving and deeply personal stories. These are heartfelt sentiments, some that are so moving, as I listened to their stories it brought a lump to my throat. I thought about how wonderful it is that we have Canadian democracy in this very House, where every single member was supposed to have the opportunity to voice their opinion on this very important issue.

In my view, it is a shame that the government brought forward closure. I do think it is a shame. It was not necessary. I think we could have afforded every single member the opportunity to be heard and to offer their point of view on this important bill.

This bill before us today is one of great importance and significance to Canadians from all walks of life, from coast to coast to coast. Its subject is something that has touched countless Canadians, at least to a degree. Whether caring for an ill member of their family, providing support to a friend or colleague, caring for a loved one, or just contemplating their own wishes should they be in a situation where they are forced to deal with enduring and intolerable suffering, this is an issue that truly impacts all of us.

As this legislation is quite literally dealing with life and death, it is of the utmost importance that Parliament put the best legislation forward. The rights and self-determination of individuals must be supported while simultaneously ensuring that the most vulnerable people in society are protected from harm.

This balance must, and I believe can, be struck. There is no question that end-of-life decisions can be incredibly hard on families, whether the family member is dealing with a serious condition, or the surrounding families and loved ones are witnessing the pain and suffering of their loved one. For those doing the support work, it is deeply emotional and deeply personal.

Should a person ultimately determine that they would prefer to, as many call it, “die with dignity” on their own terms, the gravity of that decision itself is enough for a family and the individual to grapple with. Over the years, we have seen the struggles of families of individuals who are fighting for their right to die with dignity go through time-consuming and difficult court battles, from Sue Rodriguez to Ms. Kay Carter.

These individuals went through the court battle, not just for themselves, I believe, but for all Canadians who wish to have the right to choose to die with dignity. For that, I thank them and their families for their courage, and the courage they have shown to have their voices heard in perhaps the most trying and critical time in their lives.

While I have not been in a situation where one of my loved ones has had to endure this kind of pain, I have known people who have. At such a difficult time, one would think that the last thing these families would want to deal with is the additional stress and hardship imposed on them because Parliament did not have the courage to act.

Parliament has been given the task by the Supreme Court of Canada, based on the ruling known as the Carter decision. The court unanimously decided that Canadians who are suffering intolerably as a result of a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” have a charter-protected right to access medical assistance in dying. On June 6 of this year, a new law adhering to this decision needs to be in place or a legal vacuum will result.

The Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying spent considerable time listening to expert testimony and brought forward 21 recommendations in a legislative response to the Carter decision.

The very first question that needs to be answered on Bill C-14 is this: Does this legislation comply with the Carter decision? The special joint committee heard from some advocates and experts who stated that the bill would fall short. This could result in more lengthy court challenges, and more importantly, individuals, families, and medical professionals left navigating incredibly difficult decisions while operating in a legal gray area. In my view, to allow this situation to occur would mean nothing less than a failure of Parliament.

Kay Carter, one of the two women involved in the Supreme Court of Canada case, suffered excruciating and debilitating pain which left her wheelchair bound and unable to feed herself. Fully mentally and legally competent, and possessing a fierce independence, she sought the right to choose medical assistance in dying if her suffering became unbearable. However, her condition was not considered fatal, and because the final criteria in Bill C-14 for undergoing physician-assisted death is “natural death has become reasonably foreseeable”, many experts have noted that Kay Carter would have been denied access under Bill C-14.

Surely we must question how it could be if Bill C-14 was meant to address the Carter decision, that Kay Carter and others like her, who are legally competent and suffering from serious and incurable but non-fatal conditions, would not be granted that very right under this new law.

My question for the government is quite simple: What is behind the decision to use such different terminology than was used in the court ruling?

Bill C-14 is also silent on a practitioner's right to conscientious objection. Presumably this means the government is leaving it up to the provinces to work that out. Respectfully, the Supreme Court of Canada has tasked the federal government with crafting these laws. Leaving out something as important as practitioners having the right to conscientious objection and failing to meet the test of the Carter ruling, in my view, is a failure of Parliament to live up to its responsibility.

The special joint committee recommended that the government consider the topic of advance directives. While the court was silent on this as cognitive decline and therefore legal competence was not going to become an issue for the plaintiffs in the case, the Canadian public has been vocal about this. Experts appearing at committee stated that people dealing with these sorts of illnesses, such as Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, will be left with no legal options.

My constituents of Vancouver East have brought this issue to my attention. A Vancouver East resident wrote, “Without the option to make advance requests for assisted dying, Canadians with dementia, or other degenerative illnesses that rob victims of their competence, will be effectively excluded from access.”

It is my belief that this completely goes against the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted dying.

In going forward, I hope there will be changes to this legislation to bring it to the place where it is both Carter compliant and charter compliant.

I have no doubt that my colleague the member for Victoria will continue to work diligently and consult on this very matter with experts and people affected.

I would like to point out that while the bill in its preamble cites the importance of palliative care, I hope that the government will actually deliver on palliative care as well.

It should be all of our obligation to make sure that these choices are afforded to Canadians and that in their choices, they are supported with every effort to make that choice a reality.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to address a number of the points the member has raised, first and foremost, the member acknowledges that the reason this bill is before us is that nine Supreme Court judges unanimously indicated that we need to change the law. That is the reason we have the legislation before us today.

It is interesting that in listening to members speak, sometimes a member will say that we have gone too far and other members will say that we have not gone far enough. We can compare the last two speeches as an example. That tells me there is a good balance, but we are always open to improvements as we see this bill go to committee. This government is open to improving legislation if the need can be demonstrated at the committee stage in particular.

The member made reference to the importance of palliative care. The Prime Minister and this government truly care about palliative care. Over the last number of months there has been a tangible commitment made by this government in the budget of substantial financial contributions in and around $3 billion, not to mention the commitment to the health care accord.

My last point is the issue of affording members an opportunity to speak. It is important for us to note that last night opposition members were afforded the opportunity to speak endlessly past midnight if need be, but it was the opposition that said no to that. Why does the member believe the official opposition and the NDP did not want to sit past midnight in order to allow members to address this very important issue?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government was elected on the notion that it would do things differently. The Liberals said that during the campaign and post campaign. We are in this House debating a bill with respect to a charter rights issue. The member himself acknowledged the significant importance for this bill to be debated properly in the House, yet the government brought in closure after two and a half days of debate. Why did the government have to do that? Is saying no to a debate past midnight somehow a justification to say, “Gee, we should bring in closure, then”? Does it make sense for a civilized society to be debating past midnight to continue on this work? Why would the government bring in closure after two and a half days?

My understanding is that the government House leader made an agreement with the opposition House leaders on when the government would end the debate on this, yet the government reneged on that. Why did the government do that?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sat through all of the debate into the wee hours of the morning waiting for my chance to speak. We are talking about life and death. This could be the single most important decision we make as a Parliament perhaps in decades preceding us and decades moving forward. Every one of us bears the burden of the decision we make moving forward. It was the hon. member for Don Valley West, the chair of the very committee that was tasked with investigating this, who said that he guessed it was a good enough bill. However, I am not sure “good enough” is enough when we are talking about life and death.

When we are talking about debate, not one member from the Liberal government stood up beyond 4:00 p.m. When I sat through the discussion earlier on, there were members on the other side who were either for or against it, and I welcome their conversation. However, not one member was able or allowed to stand up.

Now the bill will go to committee, and the debate will be finished. Is the member confident enough that we will see a bill that is not just good enough but the right bill for this serious issue?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, all of that rests on the committee and the membership of that committee and whether or not they will bring the spirit of co-operation and collaboration to the table and be open to hearing from experts and open to bringing forward amendments to fix this bill. I am hopeful of that. I have no doubt that the NDP member for Victoria will work tirelessly to ensure that takes place. However, that is yet to be seen. He is only one member, but it rests with the other members of that committee as well.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that after two and a half days of debate, I will be one of the last few speakers of the one-quarter parliamentarians who were actually allotted the opportunity to speak at second reading of Bill C-14. However, I do not want to waste my time raging against that particular issue, because we have an important debate in front of us.

I have watched with envy when some of my colleagues have been able to articulate a really clear position on the legislation, both for and against. Truly, it is going to be with no ease that I will make my vote tonight. It is a very difficult decision for many.

I want to start with a quick reflection on some of the facts about this case and really the two cases that were with the Supreme Court of Canada which ultimately ended up in very different results.

I have heard again and again that the public sees Sue Rodriguez and Gloria Taylor as remarkably similar in terms of the struggle they were having with ALS, which of course is a horrific degenerating neurological disease. Notwithstanding those very similar fact patterns, the 2015 Carter decision did not follow the 1993 precedent and, indeed, was really a completely contradictory position which struck down a 21-year-old law which declared physician-assisted suicide as an indictable offence.

It is an age-old argument that the court should interpret laws and not make them. I actually do acknowledge that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires interpretation by our courts, but I would also like to argue that once an interpretation is given, the offering of consistent rulings makes sense to the general public.

As societal views change on any particular issue, it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to adapt to changing public values.

I do want to reject the statements that many have made that Parliament was not willing to consider the issue. In 2010, there was a vote. I remember that my colleague Steven Fletcher spoke very eloquently. He had a private member's bill. I have no doubt we would have dealt with this issue again in this Parliament.

I also want to note that Quebec and many countries took a long time, six years, 10 years, to craft a piece of legislation to talk to their communities.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision affects every Canadian, and every member of Parliament, I believe, had a responsibility to talk to their constituents in detail.

I did send a letter to every household in my riding right after the Supreme Court of Canada decision. This was consultation before the last election. Of the over 1,000 responses I received, approximately 70% recognized there were some cases where they believed that physician-assisted suicide might be important.

Then we had the actual legislation. I made a commitment and said that if anyone wanted to join me in a round table, I would give them every minute of the last constituency week.

As members can imagine, we had round table after round table, including round tables with physicians and seniors groups. They were powerful discussions. They were divisive discussions. People had very different perspectives, but I think there are three areas that they did agree upon.

Palliative care has to be improved. There is no question about that. I did some quick calculations. That $30 billion over four years, in terms of a home care budget in the health authority I represent, is actually a pittance in terms of their being able to change a palliative care system.

Again, everyone agreed that there is a slippery slope and that there is no confidence that we are not going to head down that slippery slope. As a result, two recommendations were made.

One recommendation was that two physicians may make a decision but a social worker and a psychologist should inform the physicians' decision, or alternatively, there should be a judicial review process. I think those were important considerations. They absolutely 100% believe that the protection of health conscience rights of our providers must be in federal legislation.

I will reflect on a few comments from those opposed and from those who were supportive, and then I will conclude.

People opposed to the legislation were not opposed to any technical pieces of the legislation but because they believed we were talking about murder, a profound diminishment of respect for life, and that vulnerable individuals would choose to end their life if they felt they were a burden.

I would like to quote a physician who sent me an email. He said, “I certainly have some concerns with the proposed legislation and would not feel comfortable in bringing about a patient's death. That is not why I went into medicine. I am actively involved in palliative care and believe this is a compassionate and crucial service to people near the end of their lives. Sometimes it's messy and life spills all over the floor. It seems to me that sometimes families want to avoid the challenge of lovingly caring for these individuals. Our society likes tidy, convenient outcomes. It seems to me that this is frequently the motive underlying assisted death. I would take great exception to legislation that would force me to refer someone on for assisted suicide against my conscience. I would certainly explain to the patient that there may be other physicians that would be willing to assist them and taking their life”.

That was from one of the very reputable physicians in the community that I represent. Again, in these round tables there were community members both in support and against the legislation.

We had an 80-year-old woman come to a session who wanted that option available to her. She did not have to worry about family and said that it was strictly something that she wanted for herself.

Another constituent, who joined us, talked about being with her stepdad and dad when they died. She talked about the very awful, tragic end that both of them had in spite of the best palliative care that was available. She expressed how awful it was.

I think she would have rejected the physician's characterization that she would choose that end because it was tidy or because she did not have the compassion. She was clearly willing to do whatever she needed to do to help her stepdad and dad, but felt that they needed better options.

Probably one of the most emotional conversations was when someone said, “I respect your opinion on this issue, and I know that you believe it is wrong, but can you please respect mine?” Again, that dialogue was happening where there was a request of respecting one's opinion.

The legislation needs some work and certainly the commitment around palliative care is very minimal. We must have protection for the conscience rights of our health providers in the legislation. As well, we really need to reflect on providing protection for the vulnerable who feel they are a burden.

I will support the legislation at second reading for three reasons. First, I believe that ultimately it will serve Canadians better than having a legal void. Second, indications are that a significant number, a majority, in my riding do support assisted suicide and euthanasia. Finally, everyone reflects personally, and if I ever had family members with ALS or another devastating disease who said that they wanted to lie on their bed, listen to their music, look at the mountains, rather than palliative sedation at the end of their time, and that's what they choose, how could I not support them in their request to escape intolerable pain and suffering?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her passionate speech, her experience on this file, being a medical professional, and the work that she did with her constituents to come up with the decision to support this important bill at second reading, and taking it to committee stage.

With her professional medical experience and passion, would she be able to convince members on the other side to support this bill, so that we have something concrete in place to help the many individuals who she and other members have compassion for?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect that every member of the House has been dealing with this very difficult issue in their own way. They will vote tonight based on a whole number of factors. Again, the votes at report stage and third reading stage will reflect what comes out of committee.

We are all talking about this important issue and reflecting on the grave responsibility that has been given to us.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that is distressing me as we move toward closure on this debate is the assertion that June 6 is a deadline that the House cannot exceed. It is very true that June 6 is the deadline and it cannot be moved. I accept that we cannot go back to the Supreme Court and ask for more time. We must have a full debate and avoid a trap set by opposition parties to get the new government to start repeating the anti-democratic mistakes in the House of using closure frequently. We are now getting into a situation where we must move under closure.

Does she agree with me that it might be possible to allow this debate to have gone properly and fully even if there was a lacuna between when the current Criminal Code provisions were no longer legal and removed from the Criminal Code and when the new framework comes into place?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer like many in the House, but I originally understood debate was going until midnight tonight, which would have allowed for a lot more debate on this particular issue.

I also know, because I was there just a few days ago, that although the committee cannot look at amendments yet, it is hearing from many witnesses. The government has rushed into closure today, when I had understood there was goodwill on the part of all House leaders. I was looking forward to standing in the House at perhaps 10 o'clock this evening and talking about this particular issue.

I feel privileged and honoured that at least I had the opportunity as one of the last to stand and debate at second reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to the leader of the Green Party's concern with regard to June 6. At the end of the day, there will be a whole lot more vulnerability within the communities that we serve if we did nothing. The Supreme Court, nine judges, unanimously said that we need to fill a void. The government, along with the support of members of all political parties, has recognized the need for this legislation.

My question to the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In order for the hon. member to answer, we must give her some time.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of my rationales for supporting the bill at second reading is the statement that I thought it might be better to have no void in terms of legislation, but I will certainly defer my final decision until third reading and report stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we resume debate, I want to remind the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap that he will only have a few minutes because we will have to end debate as the time will have expired. I will give the member a signal.

Resuming debate, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I feel very fortunate to rise to speak to this issue today. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, I will not have the full time. I was hoping to speak fully on the issue, especially on behalf of the constituents who have continuously contacted me in my office with their concerns over the issue. I feel unfortunate for those members who have no ability to speak to the bill because of the closure that was forced upon us by the Liberal government.

An issue of this importance should not be forced through closure, as has been done today. This needs to be fully debated to the fullest extent. I am appalled at the other side for what it has done to us here. We need to fully consider all the implications of what is being presented in the bill. There are so many details missing in the definitions and in the possibilities down the road.

I want to relate a personal story here that expresses why I am so concerned about what is missing and why I want to ensure all the safeguards possible are put in place in the bill.

A few years ago, I had the honour and the burden of being the authorized representative for my mother in the final years of her life. Her health was gradually degrading through dementia and diabetes, to the point where it was getting difficult to have just a regular conversation with her. In fact, in the final few months it got to the point where she knew what a telephone was, but she did not know to answer it when it rang, or how to dial it anymore. Having done that for decades, she could no longer associate what to do with the telephone.

After three or four months of that, just before Christmas she became quite ill with the flu. We were not sure if she was going to be able to pull through or not. Whatever that illness did to her in her state of dementia, we are not sure. However, we were fortunate enough to visit with her on Boxing Day. We went in to see her. She had fully fluent and cohesive conversations with us. Not only that, earlier in the day she had picked up the telephone and phoned every one of my five siblings, dialing their phone numbers from memory. That was something she had not been able to do for months.

Right now, many people will look at dementia and some of these degenerative diseases as being incurable, but that day, that very short period of time proved to me that it is not always the case.

Therefore, when we are considering Bill C-14, every last one of us as members of Parliament really need to consider this because we are making a decision that is going to impact not just us in the House but the physicians and caregivers out there dealing with these patients, and with possibly many lives down the road.

I am appalled that we have closure on this today. I certainly hope that what goes to committee and what comes back does not open the floodgates to all the dangerous slippery slopes we see down the road.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize for not giving you enough time, but it being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House, and of the motion that this question be now put.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #48

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The next question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #49

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

I remind hon. members that the Standing Orders provide that members are not to make noise during a vote.

It being 6:37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.