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.

Sitting Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I have to admit I am not totally familiar with the political situation in Saskatchewan. I am a bit prejudiced, because the last time I was there the Hamilton Tiger-Cats were soundly defeated by the Saskatchewan Roughriders. The odd time I went through Saskatoon was through the airport, so I admit I am not familiar with everything there.

However, I did hear my hon. colleague say that most of his constituents were against this and then later suggested that out of 400 messages he received, two-thirds were against the bill we are discussing. There are over 50,000 electors, so I am wondering whether my friend would want to take some more polling as to where his constituents really stand on this issue. I think there may be many more who are in favour of the approach the government is taking than what he has suggested.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, certainly more polling would be an option, but I can tell the member this. Person after person I have spoken with bring up issues they have with this legislation. Admittedly, not everybody is opposed to it in principle, but they are opposed to the legislation on one ground or another. All we have to do is look at the people who testified at the committee hearings on this, both in the House and the Senate. Person after person had issues with the way the legislation is written. I think it is safe to say I feel comfortable with what the people I have spoken to have said and what I have seen.

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

Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing from the Green Party tonight. I believe there is a speaking spot available for its members if they so choose. I know the Green Party put forward an amazing amendment to ensure that the options of assisted suicide would never be brought forward or introduced into a situation by a doctor or physician. I wonder if the member would support that amendment the Green Party brought forward.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that physicians do not suggest MAID to patients. I believe it is critical that MAID be something that is requested by the patient and not suggested by the physician. That was exactly my point in the story I raised, that physicians have the ability to see this as a tool. I am not saying all physicians would do that, but it opens up that possibility, and we have to be very careful this request and decision come solely from the patients themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, the member across the way asked whether the member intends to poll more of his constituents. I take the point from my colleague from Peace River—Westlock that public opinion polls are not the arbiter of truth.

I want to refer the member who just spoke, and the member who asked the question, to a public opinion polling that was done by Angus Reid specifically on this issue. Angus Reid found that a majority of Canadians support legal euthanasia. A majority of those identify as cautious supporters, that is, they are very concerned around issues around safeguards and protections for the vulnerable, and expressed grave concern about the specific provisions in Bill C-7. At least according to Angus Reid, the government's approach on this and its lack of willingness to incorporate important safeguards is offside with the public and certainly offside with the majority of people who supported its initial legislation.

I do not hold that up to suggest that polls are always authoritative of what constitutes justice and injustice, but it reveals that the government has really lost the plot with respect to people who might have supported its initial steps, but are now very concerned it is going way too far and removing safeguards it said were necessary only four short years ago and its former justice minister said is going too far.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that information. I would simply say that is consistent with what I have heard from the people I have talked to in my riding. The things he mentioned are exactly what I have been hearing.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7 this evening from British Columbia.

Before I begin with my formal speech, I want to thank the member for Delta, the Minister of Employment. I was in the House of Commons when she gave her heartfelt speech during earlier periods of this debate. What became very clear is that the minister has grave concerns about the issues facing people with disabilities in respect to Bill C-7.

What struck me about this legislation was that the Liberal government is rushing ahead to put forward these changes without any corresponding framework or financial commitments to support palliative care. In many cases, this is going to leave Canadians without an option to continue their lives under palliative care, which is very concerning for me.

Conservatives are committed to ensuring that this legislation, first and foremost, includes safeguards to protect Canada's most vulnerable. The end of a person's life is a vulnerable time for anyone. As parliamentarians we have a responsibility to not only speak for those who do not have a voice, but first of all, to listen to the many important voices in our community that have something to say about this.

The government has been rushing this legislation and failing to consult with physicians, caregivers, disability rights advocates and the indigenous communities. Dr. Thomas Fung, the lead physician for Siksika Nation, where he has been a family physician for the past 13 years, recently spoke about the lack of access to services and care faced by many first nations in remote communities. He told a story about a patient who suffers from a lung disease that causes him to become easily short of breath, even when doing simple household tasks. This patient uses a walker, but cannot walk for more than a couple of minutes without gasping for breath.

Dr. Fung says that his patient would improve greatly with home oxygen, but regretfully, his lab values on testing fall just short of qualifying for funding through non-insured health benefits for first nations. Dr. Fung is telling us that his patient does not have the finances to afford home oxygen. While the man's condition is incurable, he could certainly have an improved quality of life if he had access to funding to support his home oxygen. Dr. Fung says, under Bill C-7, his patient would qualify for assisted death, when it should be clear to all that there are other ways to relieve this man's suffering to improve his quality of life.

Patients like Dr. Fung's deserve better. In a country as developed and resourceful as Canada, we cannot allow ourselves to abandon people like this. Our health care system is the pride of many Canadians, but that is because of the universality of access to life-saving treatments, not the universal admissibility to a physician-administered death.

Because the Liberal government is not listening, I want to give voice in the House to the concerns expressed by Mr. Tyler White, who is a member of the Blackfoot Confederacy and Treaty 7 in Alberta. He is also the CEO of Siksika's health services.

He said this of Bill C-7, “Let us be clear. MAID with its administration of a lethal substance with the intent to end a person's life is countercultural to our indigenous culture and practices. Our concept of health and wellness does not include the intentional ending of one's life. We recognize the dignity [of life] from its beginning to natural death, and efforts to suggest to our people that MAID is an appropriate end to life is a form of neo-colonialism. Extraordinary efforts have been made in suicide prevention in our communities and the expansion of MAID sends a contradictory message to our peoples that some individuals should receive suicide prevention, while others suicide assistance. Our consistent message to our youth has been that suicide is not the answer to the difficulties and challenges we face as people. Bill C-7 sends a conflicting message in direct opposition to ours.”

“Another grave concern for Bill C-7 in its current form is the absence of protection for individuals working in our communities who do not wish to participate in MAID. We believe that our people should not be coerced to participate in non-indigenous practices against our conscience and will. And it is the kind of oppression that has been the source of much trauma in our history. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada calls upon those who can effect change within the Canadian health care system to recognize the value of aboriginal healing practices and for respecting indigenous people's right to self-determination in spiritual matters, including the right to practise our own traditions and customs. Bill C-7 should be amended such that those who opt to abstain from participating in MAID directly and indirectly will be protected to do so without discrimination in their employment in the health care system.”

Bill C-7 is a matter of life or death, and the Liberals are racing to remove safeguards that just a few years ago were deemed essential.

Conservatives are committed to defending conscience rights for professionals. We are seeking reasonable amendments that will protect the vulnerable, like preserving the reflection period and making sure that MAID is exclusive and patient-requested, and never a matter of coercion or pressure.

More than 1,000 physicians have spoken out, addressing the problems with Bill C-7. Countless disability rights advocates and first nations communities have testified to the issues this legislation will have on them. We owe it to those Canadians to listen, to act and to fix this legislation so that they can live with dignity.

Finally, over the summer I conducted a survey and heard back from hundreds of constituents in my riding regarding this bill. Two things were very clear. First, that there is disagreement over this legislation. Some people are okay with what the government is doing, but many, and in my riding the majority, are not. Second, everyone agrees that in conjunction with legislation such as this, there should be expanded supports for palliative care, for giving people all of the options to make the best choice and in many cases to preserve their life.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, again, we are hearing the same trope from the Conservative Party that physicians will not be protected and that patients will be coerced. This trope is dangerous. It is misleading to Canadians.

I have asked many members, both now and in 2016, and no one has been able to answer it yet, but I have faith in the hon. member from British Columbia. Could the hon. member name one instance in the entire history of this country where a physician was required to perform any medical—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

The hon. member for—

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

The member is asking a question. Please.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is eager to interrupt, because he knows I am right on this.

However, I would like to ask the hon. member if he could name one instance in the history of this country where a physician has been required to perform any medical procedure against their will?

I was wondering if the member could also point out the amendments to the original legislation that protected conscience rights for physicians.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, all I can say is that the physicians in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon who have contacted me about this bill have outlined very serious and grave concerns about their ability to protect life and continue to serve as doctors.

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

Madam Speaker, there is accidental ignorance which is forgivable, and there is wilful ignorance which is less so.

The parliamentary secretary was corrected earlier in the evening on his ignorance of the policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. I encouraged him to use Google and read the policy where it says that physicians are required to provide effective referrals in most cases and to directly provide services in emergency situations, even if those services go against their conscience.

I referred him to the case of Nancy Naylor, a physician who had to close her practice early as a result of that policy, in combination with the medical assistance in dying law. I referred him to those cases. I have referenced them in the previous debate in 2016, and yet he repeats his demand for an example after it has already been provided.

I would encourage the member to take the opportunity to educate himself, an opportunity perhaps he has not chosen to take in the past.

I want to thank the member for his excellent speech and would just refer him as well to the testimony we heard in the previous Parliament from Dr. Alika Lafontaine, past president of the Indigenous Physicians Association of Canada, who made many points very similar to the points he raised, specifically highlighting how indigenous people already often have negative interactions with the health care system, similar to the challenges people with disabilities face, maybe, where they are not always treated with respect in those contexts. Dr. Lafontaine said what they were looking for was not medically assisted death, it was medically assisted and supported life.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, just yesterday, a constituent came up to me and shared a personal experience about MAID and how family members were not able to have enough time to prepare for someone's death. The option to go forward with medically assisted death was very quick. The family members did not have enough opportunities to speak with the individual in question.

I think that right now we are rushing the legislation. We need to do more. We need to reflect more as a society to make sure that we do the most to protect those who need protecting. The legislation would entrench stereotypes and exasperate stigma for Canadians with disabilities, contributing to the adversity and oppression experienced by this vulnerable group.