Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Criminal Code

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise yet again to oppose this deeply flawed and dangerous legislation, Bill C-7. The Liberals have been complaining in the media that they think the Conservatives are holding up the legislation and that they are going to miss their court-imposed deadline of December 18, but they really have no one but themselves to blame. Conservatives are doing our constitutionally mandated job to hold the Liberal government accountable on its legislation.

Looking at the record over these past eight months, it is clear that my party has bent over backwards to give the Liberals the breathing room to implement emergency economic aid and other COVID-related measures. We have been very co-operative. We have also seen a great deal of government legislation move fairly quickly through the House just this fall, and in a minority Parliament at that.

Let us look at the Liberal record on moving the legislation forward. From the very beginning, the government really made its own bed on this one when it refused to defend its own legislation, Bill C-14, which was just passed in the last Parliament. Even some of its own members said on Twitter that the legislation was unconstitutional, admitting they felt it was unconstitutional even when they were voting for it, but they did not use the opportunity to appeal the legislation to the Supreme Court. That shows me that it was the government's intent to use the courts to circumvent Parliament.

Parliament was mandated, under Bill C-14, to conduct a thorough review of medical assistance in dying and that review was to occur next year. It is important to have these sorts of reviews built into legislation because when we talk about something as serious as medical assistance in dying, which is a novel legislation, a new innovation in our social fabric, Canadian people really have not had adequate time to digest how they feel about the legislation and to examine their lived experiences.

A five-year review was a very adequate provision to give Canadians a bit of time to assess the bill and then have Parliament make recommendations and possibly changes to the legislation so that we could fix the bill, whether that meant tightening up some things that were prone to abuse or maybe loosening up the legislation in cases where it was needed. However, with the Liberal government's desire to short-circuit the legislative process and the will of the previous Parliament, it chose to fast-track the legislation by not choosing to appeal it to the Supreme Court. I believe this was done very purposely to ensure the legislation would pass before a review took place.

If the review had gone forward, as we have seen from the Council of Canadian Academies, there are a lot of questions about the practice of the legislation and how it has been carried out over the past few years. Abuses have been raised in committee and in the House repeatedly, yet in the legislation the government has taken no efforts to take those experiences and make this a safer piece of legislation for vulnerable people.

Going to the next example of why the government's problem is one it made itself, with the COVID-19 pandemic, which I agree was not the government's fault, it was required to request several extensions of the bill. The courts were willing to approve those extensions and, in late summer, Liberals chose to prorogue Parliament. By proroguing Parliament, they made the choice to clear the decks of all of their legislation, start from the beginning and send us back to the drawing board. By doing that, they delayed the legislation further. For the Liberal government to claim that Conservatives are holding up the bill when what we are doing is our constitutionally mandated job, especially on an issue as important as life and death, it does not ring true.

Another example is that if the bill was so important for the government to get passed so quickly, why was it not the first justice bill it put forward? Bill C-3 was passed in a very expeditious manner with all parties' support in the House. It was passed, largely, with the support of committee and minimal amendments. Even in that expedited manner, that delayed the government's legislation by weeks. The Liberals are talking and complaining about how Conservatives are allegedly delaying the legislation, but it was their own choices that resulted in the delay of the legislation.

We are left today with the government complaining that the Conservatives are doing their job. We are doing our job by criticizing the Liberals' legislation. We are holding them to account. We are championing the rights of vulnerable people. We will never apologize for doing what our constituents have sent us here to do, which is to stand up for their deeply held beliefs, to stand up for their concerns and to stand up for vulnerable people.

Vulnerable Canadians made their desires known and their concerns known very loudly and clearly at the committee. I am pleased to see that the other place has had more time to hear from witnesses. I believe it has heard from over 80 witnesses, the vast majority of whom are opposed to the legislation. Frankly, in the House, we only had four committee meetings for this very important legislation, so I am pleased that the Senate is taking its responsibility seriously and thoroughly examining the bill and hearing from vulnerable people and others who are concerned about the legislation.

The members of these communities were afraid of Bill C-14. They were assured by the government that they would be protected and that there were protections for people with mental illnesses from accessing it. There were protections for children. There was the reasonably foreseeable death requirement, which was touted as a great protection for the disabled community. I can tell members that what they are saying is that they are terrified by what they see in this bill from the Liberal government.

I read today on CBC that the Minister of Justice appears to be in a showdown with disabled groups who are demanding a halt to the bill. The idea that the Minister of Justice, whose role is to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canadians, is fighting and ignoring the pleas of disabled and other vulnerable Canadians is just plain wrong.

Conservatives have been listening and we have been fighting for these vulnerable Canadians. It appears that nobody else is willing to fight for them. That is what we will do. We are fighting for these vulnerable Canadians. We are not being intransigent about this bill. Conservatives have a wide range of perspectives on this issue. We have put forward, as a party, some very common-sense amendments that do not undermine the legality of medical assistance in dying as a general practice but will do a lot to assuage the fears of vulnerable Canadians.

Some of these common-sense amendments proposed at committee included protecting patients from undue coercion. By coercion, people immediately draw up images of doctors in deeply immoral situations pushing medical assistance in dying on vulnerable people who are isolated from loved ones and family members. I am not trying to say that is happening. Frankly, I think what we have seen is that it is a lot more benign than that. It is not doctors aggressively pushing medical assistance in dying on people.

Someone may be in a situation where there is a power imbalance, and as a disabled person, other vulnerable person or a person who is older, they might not have family members or access to supports like social workers and psychologists. In this situation, they trust their doctors and that is a good thing because our doctors work very hard and they are very professional. However, if someone has that trust relationship with their doctor and the doctor comes and asks if they have considered medical assistance in dying, that could seem very benign for an average person. If I was in a situation like that and the doctor came to me, I would say no thanks, but we never know what someone else is going through and what challenges they are facing.

If they do not have someone to turn to, they can feel like the doctor is looking out for their best interests and the doctor is suggesting that they consider medical assistance in dying, so maybe the doctor is right and maybe that person should consider it. In this case, we recognize there is a power imbalance. At committee, we suggested putting forward some very strong protections to say that health care professionals should in no way be presenting medical assistance in dying as an option to patients. This is a basic protection.

This is something we talked about with the last bill. I was actually very disturbed, during debate at second reading, when a Liberal member stood up and talked about a couple they knew who had not ever considered medical assistance in dying. It was a very touching story. The member nonchalantly said that the doctor came in, passed them a brochure and asked if they had ever considered medical assistance in dying. The member, I think, thought that this was an innocuous and benign situation, but for me and for people in disabled and vulnerable communities, it was very scary that they could be put into this situation without adequate supports. They might feel like they were being coerced into a decision.

We also wanted to put in some stronger protections around a period of reflection. I think the period of reflection is key because, even in the government's own reports on medical assistance in dying, there were many cases in which people did not receive disability supports, and they received MAID while still not receiving disability supports. There were people waiting to get palliative care who had not received access to palliative care who also received medical assistance in dying.

It clearly illustrates that the government is not putting the resources in to help disabled Canadians, or to help Canadians who need palliative care. If we shorten the timeline or eliminate the timeline altogether, we are really losing an opportunity for people to access these wonderful services that can make the end of life much more peaceful.

One of the sad things about debating this bill today is that I feel like I am being forced to defend the status quo, implemented in the last Parliament under Bill C-14. I was not a big fan of Bill C-14, and as legislation it has proven time and again to fail to protect vulnerable people. It certainly did not protect the prisoners who underwent medical assistance in dying.

This issue was raised by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, and it has deep moral and ethical problems. Prisoners really have no power. He raised a case in which a prisoner was coming close to the end of life and wanted to die peacefully in the community with access to palliative care. They were denied the opportunity to do so, and then chose MAID instead. I think the correctional investigator was very astute in bringing that up. In situations where somebody does not have a right to determine their own manner of death or the manner that leads up to their death, how can they be given a choice to access medical assistance in dying? That raises some big issues.

In numerous cases, people were largely not sick with anything. In one case in the Globe and Mail a number of years ago, an elderly couple in their nineties wanted to die together. According to the article, they were not suffering from any pre-existing conditions, except arthritis, but it was ruled that because they were so old their deaths were reasonably foreseeable. That is really troubling. Medical professionals have raised the point that a reasonably foreseeable death is not actually defined in any medical journal. There is no definition of “reasonably foreseeable.” It is so subjective. One thing that I would have liked to see with this legislation was for the government to come forward with an actual medical definition of “reasonably foreseeable.” Instead, it has chosen to eliminate this language altogether, which waters down the protections.

Bill C-14 did not save people who were suffering from mental illness from receiving medical assistance in dying. There was a case in Chilliwack where somebody who had a history of depression was able to access medical assistance in dying in an expedited manner. Their family was not informed until very late into the process and they were not able to intervene and explain that this person, while they did have a reasonably foreseeable condition, also suffered from depression and other challenges and that maybe, with a social worker or a psychologist, those things could have been worked out and medical assistance in dying could have been avoided.

It is clear to me that we are removing even the barest of protections. We are removing this adequate reflection period and making this legislation, which is already prone to abuses, even more open with this new legislation.

The government claims this new bill is safe because it is explicitly denying people who are suffering exclusively from a mental illness from receiving MAID. When the previous legislation was brought in, even though I was not a member of the House at the time, I sat in on a lot of meetings. It is interesting that, in committee appearances and at the joint special committee, Dr. Sonu Gaind from the Canadian Psychiatric Association was very hesitant to endorse medical assistance in dying for people suffering from mental illnesses, especially exclusively mental illnesses. Their testimony said that they do not treat any mental illness as if it is untreatable. There is always a treatment. Sometimes it is a very difficult treatment or an ongoing treatment, but society must never accept that there is not a way to treat mental illness. The alternative is that we stop helping people and that they seek medical assistance in dying.

It is tricky when the government talks about excluding MAID for people with exclusively mental illness, but we are seeing that too many people who might qualify for medical assistance in dying because they have a physical condition and a reasonably foreseeable death also have a mental illness.

Where doctors are involved, they are very well educated but they are not necessarily educated in all aspects of health. Not every doctor is a psychologist or qualified to make mental illness determinations. How do we know that somebody who might have a reasonably foreseeable death, and who might have a previous condition, is not depressed and seeking medical assistance in dying for the purpose of their mental illness?

Under this legislation, there is no protection for those people seeking medical assistance in dying. While the government may say they qualify because they have a grievous and irremediable condition, we need to have more protections to ensure that people with mental illnesses are not seeking medical assistance in dying in the heat of the moment. Maybe they have had an incident that has led them to want it, and given more time to reflect maybe they could be dissuaded from seeking it.

There are no mechanisms, as I said. I am not going to just criticize, I am going to put forward actual, concrete ways I think we could make this legislation better. Unfortunately, it does not seem the government is in the mood to accept too many amendments from the Conservative side, but I will go ahead and say them anyway. We should require social workers and psychologists to be involved with decisions where underlying mental health issues, or issues related to access to income supports or to poverty, might be identified.

I was very disturbed to read in Maclean's magazine that some people are seeking medical assistance in dying because they are living in poverty. That was never written in the legislation. That was never intended as a purpose for medical assistance in dying. By including these important medical professionals, we could make it much more difficult for people to get medical assistance in dying who might not make that decision if it was between them and a doctor.

That leads me to one of my final points. The government is removing some of the witness requirements. Under the previous legislation, an independent witness who was apart from the medical process was required to be involved. That would provide accountability to ensure that doctors and health care professionals were crossing all their t's and dotting all their i's to make sure that this was a completely kosher procedure. By removing the independent witness requirement, it is leaving the decision up to a doctor and the patient.

I am going to be opposing this legislation. I look forward to the other place coming back with some very strong amendments. I look forward to debating those amendments again, and getting the best possible legislation that will protect vulnerable people in this country.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member to be a man of compassion and deep caring. He has now spoken at length, raising many compelling arguments that I have many points of agreement on. We share many points of common ground.

We have heard Conservative members talk about dignity and life, yet earlier in this debate, when it was proposed that we provide actual financial supports, a member of the Conservative caucus answered that it had to be in exchange for support for the extractive oil and gas sector, in a very flippant way.

I am going to give the hon. member the opportunity to clarify, on behalf of care and compassion, all the talk about supporting people and the dignity of life. Is the hon. member willing to support our proposition that we provide financial supports to people living with disabilities in a way that would lift them out of the poverty and despair that we are hearing them advocate for as it relates to Bill C-7?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to comment on the interaction. I am not aware of the context of the interaction that he alluded to. I will say that I am unreservedly in support of better economic supports for the disabled and those who are in poverty, but it is really about how we reach that place. We live in a confederation. We have provinces that have their own income support measures. I know the NDP members were talking about a national measure. It is all about finding the best politically workable solution to ensure that people can get access to the income supports they need.

Something that has been alluded to is that statistics are showing a lot of people who are accessing medical assistance in dying are in the upper class, but people who are impoverished are accessing this because they have concerns about their ability to make their payments or to live life the way they want to. We need to address those intersectional socio-economic factors with this legislation, and I do not think that has been given adequate coverage.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I sat in the House today for six hours, and I have not heard the name Robert Latimer.

Robert Latimer was a farmer from Biggar who killed his daughter, Tracy, who was 12 years old at the time. He was convicted of killing his 12-year-old daughter. She had several severe disabilities. At the time, I was in the newsroom at CTV Saskatoon, and we did several stories with the Latimer family, almost every week. The case of Robert Latimer killing his 12-year-old daughter, Tracy, is one of the most polarizing in Canadian legal history.

Tracy could not walk, talk or feed herself. Here we are, over 25 years later, in the House talking about a situation like this. I just want to know something. My colleague from Alberta has heard of the case. Everybody, I think, has heard of this case from over 25 years ago. Robert Latimer served time in Victoria, about 10 years.

I want to ask the member from Alberta his thoughts as we debate Bill C-7 today.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was a shocking case, and it laid bare some very difficult questions. In my perspective, when we are talking about this legislation, that it is one of the strong reasons there was so much all-party support to prevent minors from accessing medical assistance in dying. I think it is absolutely critical that we ensure that remains the policy in this country: that minors not be allowed to access medical assistance in dying.

I think it also raises questions about how we value human beings. My younger sister, who has passed, had Down syndrome. We live in a much more inclusive society today, and I think that is a wonderful thing, but we have seen how people can devalue the lives of people like my younger sister, and we need to ensure that we stand up for the value of those people's lives. I think that is what we, as a Conservative caucus, are trying to do when we are fighting for vulnerable people who we believe will be impacted, in some cases fatally, by this legislation.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sturgeon River—Parkland for his wonderful speech. It reflected compassion, but it also reflected a high respect for human life.

Unfortunately, a lot of us here in the House lament the fact that we can no longer critically debate. We cannot establish our views based on the merits of the arguments. Today, we saw that in question period, when those who oppose this legislation were referred to as religious fanatics.

I would ask my colleague this. Does he agree that the vilification and disparagement of those who do not support the Liberal government's efforts to expand assisted suicide is inappropriate?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his wisdom on this issue. As the member from the NDP who spoke previously said, it is very unhelpful to this debate to be casting aspersions and singling out certain groups of people to question their motivations. I know people who come from a faith background and a faith perspective on this issue, on both sides of the issue, and they are honourable people who want to do what they feel is right.

It is very demeaning to cast all opposition to this bill into a single bucket, when we have so many people from disability communities, indigenous communities and other vulnerable communities raising the alarm about this bill. It is a cheap shot that undermines the quality of this debate and our ability, as legislators, to come here and bring the views of our constituents. That is what democracy is all about, which is an opportunity to share our perspective and shape the way our country is going. That is incredibly important.

The member is right that that seems to be decaying. We must put a stop to it and reverse it as soon as possible. Our country will suffer when one side is being told it cannot participate in debate.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this debate. In light of what was just said, I point out the member across the way depicted the Attorney General as having ignored the pleas of the disability community. Does he honestly think that the Attorney General is ignoring the pleas of the disability community?

All of us on this side, and hopefully all on the opposite side, have the best interest of Canadians at heart. This is a difficult and complex issue. We understand that, and it is good we are having this debate.

Does the member actually think the Attorney General has ignored the pleas of the disability community?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The member does not have to take it from me believing the Attorney General is ignoring the pleas of disabled Canadians. He can take it from them. They have been saying it at committee. I just read it on CBC today that he is in a showdown with disabled and vulnerable communities, as they are calling for this legislation to be halted.

If the minister is indeed listening to the pleas of the disabled community, why has the committee majority rejected any of the recommendations put forward by the disabled and vulnerable communities? Why are they so intransigent in their fight against any effort from these communities to shape this legislation in a way that would protect their lives and protect their dignity?

It is really up to the government to show and demonstrate it is listening to the pleas, because I have seen absolutely no evidence that the Attorney General has done so.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

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 hon. member for Vancouver East, Housing; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Air Transportation; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House again this afternoon and speak to a bill that I believe deserves long and serious consideration. The ramifications of this bill will last a very long time, beyond any one Parliament or group of parliamentarians. Hence, it would be behoove this Parliament to make sure that we spend adequate time reflecting on this bill and making sure we get it right. As I have said before, and I believe it bears repeating, especially as we debate this bill, the character of a nation is reflected in how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.

There is an ancient writing from the Book of Psalms that many members would be familiar with. It has been utilized all over the world and has been heard for centuries and generations. Psalm 23 simply states, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for [you are] with me”.

In one of my previous roles, as a minister, I had the privilege of walking with individuals and families as they traversed that valley of the shadow of death. I have both witnessed and experienced personally what it means to be affected by the passing of a loved one, as I am sure many, if not all, in this chamber have as well.

This bill brings with it great responsibility. It literally deals with matters pertaining to life and death, and decisions of absolute and complete finality. I believe it would behoove this House to take adequate time to reflect upon the powerful testimonies we have heard at committee. Testimonies such as Mr. Roger Foley's, which shares his story of being denied the health services he requested and being pressured, instead, to pursue a medically assisted death. He is now fighting for others to not be put in the same situation he was, and he supports our amendments to the bill.

Krista Carr also gave testimony at committee. She is from Inclusion Canada and works with persons with disabilities. She stated at committee that the worst fears of those living with disabilities are being realized by BillC-7. The government's own Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has stated that MAID should not be brought up by doctors to the disabled.

Indigenous leaders, including the former attorney general and minister of justice for Canada, have also raised serious concerns over this bill and its inadequate safeguards. Medical practitioners have raised concerns pertaining to conscience rights as they pertain to medical assistance in dying.

In light of all these concerns that have been brought to the table, and all of these powerful testimonies that we have been able to hear, we can see that Canadians from across the country are raising the alarm bells and encouraging us parliamentarians to get this right because of the finality that this decision entails.

What would be wrong for us to pause and adequately reflect about such serious matters, and take the time to ensure that adequate safeguards are built in so that the concerns of the most vulnerable people among us are adequately addressed? No one could deny that those concerns have not been expressed with fervency and urgency. At this point, we as parliamentarians should take the time to reflect and ask, what steps are we taking to make sure those concerns are being addressed in this legislation?

In my time as a pastor, I got to know a lady who was suffering greatly with a disease that had caused her to become incapacitated, in many ways. She could not walk. She could not even lift her arms to feed herself as the disease progressed. Her health was deteriorating. Her emotional stability was already ravaged by having gone through the loss of her husband overseas.

I remember visiting her in the hospital and at that time watching as her mother had to feed her with a spoon. It was almost a pablum-based type of nourishment because she was slowly losing her ability to chew food. Her circumstances were overwhelming. While visiting and being in the hospital with her and her mom at this time, we could not leave without being affected by what we saw.

I must say that our local, faith and church communities responded and did everything they could to provide encouragement, visits and make sure adequate food and support was provided where possible. She had been through so much she even had a hard time expressing everything she was going through. I remember one day when it did not appear she had all that long to be with us, I went to visit her in the hospital and witnessed her taking the nourishment from her mom. I remember leaving the hospital room shaken and wishing there was a better way for this lady.

I am glad to report to members that she had an amazing turnaround. Her story did not end where we thought it was going to end. Though her pathway up to that point had been marked with a lot of suffering, discomfort and terrible loss, I am glad to say that over 12 years later this woman has fully recovered, is married again, enjoying life and doing well.

One would ask what that has to do with what we are talking about. It has a whole lot to do with it. I believe there are many other Canadians who have walked through that valley of the shadow of death who wondered if their life was still worth living and if they could make it to the other side. Because of the supports, care and love from the friends, family and community members who stood by them in that most difficult of circumstances, they were able to get through that valley and get to the other side.

How many other Canadians in terrible circumstances at the moment, who are feeling overwhelmed by what they are facing, would benefit from having people walk with them through that valley? It may be all they need to get to the other side. It may not be the case for everyone, but I know it was for that lady. I am so glad it was the case for her. It made all the difference in the world to know that others kept believing when she had lost the ability to believe herself. Now, after getting to the other side, she serves as an inspiration for many others.

I want to conclude with this. Though the valley of the shadow of death casts a very long and dark shadow for those going through it and for their families, as a member here who has lost a loved one, I can attest that we have an obligation as parliamentarians to pause and ensure that every safeguard is in place, so that when people are walking through that valley, they do not make a decision while still in the darkness, when they are near the end of that valley.

The last part of the writing I shared earlier is “for [you are] with me”. I think the questions every parliamentarian needs to ask themselves are these: Are we going to be there for all Canadians who are in the midst of the valley of the shadow of death? Are we going to be with them by ensuring every safeguard is in place and the supports necessary to carry on are amply supplied?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I like to think that I would be there. I went through a personal experience with my father, where his dying days were very difficult because of the amount of severe pain he was experiencing. I am ever so grateful I was with him at his time of passing. The medicine ultimately alleviated the pain, but some health care professionals indicated to me that it likely might have shortened his lifespan also.

I understand the importance of the difference between an assisted death and assisting someone with suicide. My father was a very proud man and I believe in my heart that he died with dignity, and in the way in which he wanted to pass.

I understand how important this legislation is and would remind members this is a debate that has been taking place for many years. Even after we deal with this legislation, the debate will continue, because we all recognize, no matter where we fall on the issue, the importance of making sure we get it right. I suspect we will continue to do so in the form of committees. However, we do have some deadlines that need to be and should be addressed. Could the member provide his thoughts on that, or on my comments, whichever he feels comfortable with?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member sharing his personal story of walking through the valley with his dad. I can relate, having had a 34-year-old brother who had cancer and suffered quite tremendously toward the end. I remember being there and seeing it. Yes, medication played a role in alleviating his pain and helping with his suffering, but ultimately we walked through that valley. With all of the treatments and all of the things that we went through, some of it was not easy at all to witness, but I will say I was very thankful to have every moment I had with my brother. I was extremely thankful for how others came through during that time and the people in the community who rose to the occasion, from all walks of life.

I think sometimes that in our rush to alleviate suffering, which we all want to do, naturally, perhaps we miss the lessons and virtues that only suffering can bring in life. The ancient saying is that there is more to be learned in the house of mourning than in any other house. The lessons we learn from people who have gone through tragedy, hardship or painful circumstances help all of us understand what matters most.

One of the greatest lessons I learned in that time was that every bit of life we have is to be cherished. I am so thankful for that. The things that are said in those moments—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will have to interrupt for one last question from the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member brought up the case of Roger Foley and as he concluded his speech, he talked about the need to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place. I was wondering, having regard for the case of Roger Foley, if the member could provide his thoughts on the removal of a key safeguard in this bill, which is to provide for two independent witnesses. This legislation would remove that and provide that persons attending to the care of someone requesting medical assistance in dying can constitute a witness.